Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trumpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    600

    SB95a (new) vs. 95c? Help me decide!

    So I have pretty much settled on the SB95 as my next bike. I've test ridden the 95a a few different times through my local mechanic/Yeti dealer and enjoyed it. I told the wife that this next one would be a "dreambike" purchase and had been waiting patiently and saving for the carbon version, and with a few setbacks in finances, am getting close to making the purchase.

    That said, with the announcement of the upgrades to the aluminum frame/carbon rear triangle, bringing the weight closer to the carbon version (one of the main reasons I was going that route) I am rethinking my options. I had planned on upgrading the wheels on the carbon version, but because of the steep price tag, this was likely going to have to wait a long while to let me recoup funds. By going the aluminum route, I would likely be able to upgrade wheels sooner, maybe even at the time of purchase.

    I could use some advice - any thoughts on a 95a with new wheels NOW vs. a 95c with new wheels WAY later? I've heard the ride qualities of the carbon version are better than the aluminum and the fact that it is lighter is a plus, but not having actually tested the carbon, and liked the aluminum, I don't know if it's worth it to spend the extra cash and further delay my purchase.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by trumpus View Post
    That said, with the announcement of the upgrades to the aluminum frame/carbon rear triangle, bringing the weight closer to the carbon version (one of the main reasons I was going that route) I am rethinking my options.
    I have/had both, and I don't blame you for re-thinking. I love the 95c, but I also love the ENVE's and I think as far as performance, the carbon wheelset will give you more for your money. Remember, one of the disadvantages of 29 is the slower "spin-up", and a carbon wheelset helps that issue. The carbon rear triangle is probably the kicker here, and given the same predicament, I'd probably go that route (95a w/C rear).

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trumpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    600
    Thanks for the input. Not sure if I'd be able to swing a set of Enves, probably more like I9 Torches or the new Roval hookless carbon wheels. Perhaps waiting until the Stan's carbon rims are available is another option.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by trumpus View Post
    Thanks for the input. Not sure if I'd be able to swing a set of Enves, probably more like I9 Torches or the new Roval hookless carbon wheels. Perhaps waiting until the Stan's carbon rims are available is another option.
    I have the Torch hubs and like them. I think the Torch wheelset would be awesome, but would want to compare stiffness to the Rovals before final decision.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    812
    look into Light Bike carbon rims as well...there is a long thread

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    77

    SB95a (new) vs. 95c? Help me decide!

    I purchased the 95a when it came out and absolutely loved it. When the carbon version was announced I simply couldn't resist and built my dream bike. I built up with Enve wheels and have no regrets. In my view, when one is spending 6k on a bike an extra 1k isn't going sink your retirement plans. That said, if I had to choose I would definitely go with carbon wheels and compromise on the aluminum version.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    172
    Approx. a 1# diff between the SB95C and SB95A w/C...I would also choose SB95A w/C for the better wheel set. Aside from the weight factor, there have been a lot of riders who bought SB95 completes who have not been entirely happy with the DT Swiss 350s...although I see Yeti SB95 completes are offering better options now. I bought a SB95A complete and had the LBS spec me a different set of wheels and I am completely happy.

    BTW, even with the weight of my SB95 all aluminum and Stans ARCH wheel set, the bike does not ride like a heavy rig. The bike is quite responsive, playful and rides lighter than one would think. It's a great bike and I am not looking to upgrade and that is even riding frequently at elevations 9k - 12k feet.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trumpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    600
    ...any other thoughts? What about rear wheel clearance? There is more on the carbon, right? Is this a real issue?

  9. #9
    Spring! Spring! Spring!
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,301
    FWIW, the DT 350 hubs are fine, it's the rims on the spec that fail. I rebuilt mine with Stan's Flow rims and they're fine...but did eventually replace the 350's with Kings because I got a deal I couldn't refuse.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trumpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    FWIW, the DT 350 hubs are fine, it's the rims on the spec that fail. I rebuilt mine with Stan's Flow rims and they're fine...but did eventually replace the 350's with Kings because I got a deal I couldn't refuse.
    I should also note that I have no issues with the 350 hubs - I've got 'em on another bike and they have been bombproof for me. My issue was with the previously spec'd rims being a bit whimpy. Regardless, I want a nicer set of wheels, though it looks like the newer spec'd rims are a bit beefier and more appropriate for the bike's intended use?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    172
    I didn't provide enough details as bear pointed out. It wasn't the hub per se, my comments were more in reference to the wheelset...specifically the rims used as pointed out above. That is the main reason I had the LBS spec a different wheelset on my complete as there weren't as many options as now.

    I can't comment on clearance but it is well known that 2.25 should be max for the A rear. I have been very content with the Ikon 2.2 and will buy the same for a replacement. YMMV.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,135
    The biggest problem with my stock 95a build (and 29ers in general) was the flexy wheels. I could literally get the tire to rub the seatstay due to flex in hard cornering. Carbon wheels fix that problem, totally. I would for sure go the 95a w/ C rear end and carbon wheels over the 95c. I am now on the 95c with Enves and love it, but if I had that choice it's no question - wheels make the bigger difference than the frame, especially now that the 95 is a pound lighter frame.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trumpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    600

    SB95a (new) vs. 95c? Help me decide!

    Is it safe to assume that the carbon rear triangle on the 95a will be the same one used on the 95c? If so, I'd assume rear tire clearance will be increased,

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by trumpus View Post
    Is it safe to assume ?
    Nope!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trumpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by White Bear View Post
    Nope!
    So it is NOT, FWIW (per Yeti's CS). This was his reply to my questions...

    We are shipping the 95A with a 140mm fork and continuing to use a 120mm
    fork on the 95C. The new 95A rear is wider and will accommodate a little
    bigger tire, similar to the 95C, but the two swingarms are not
    interchangeable...
    The 2014 wheel for the race kit is a wader and stiffer rim. It is the rim
    form the Spline-1 wheel if you are looking to find it on DT's site. It is
    tubeless ready, more sturdy and lighter.
    So...still up in the air. I've been polling the audience of buddies and have gotten some good feedback/recommendations for going both ways. On the one hand, I've been told, "get the carbon or you'll always regret it!," and on the other, "I would never feel comfortable throwing a carbon bike around as hard as I do an aluminum - for a trailbike go AL."

    I wish I could demo the carbon - I'm sure that would seal the deal. That said, I rode another bike with Torches and was thoroughly impressed - made me want to do whatever I could to have these wheels on the next bike ASAP.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gobstopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    85
    I'm running a 95c with e13 trs+ wheels. These wheels are extremely stiff and are in the weight range of carbon. I've ran nice wheels before (hopes, wtb, dt rims, etc) and these are leaps and bounds stiffer. For the price version over carbon, this is a really good option with the 95c. At 230lbs, I can't get the wheel to flex to the stay even racing the Moab enduro.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    33
    I've got the 95c with Stans rims and it's a hard bike to spin up to speed especially when you point it up hill. Might not be as big a deal to a bigger guy but it's a hard bike to ride on the east coast. That being said it's the best bike I've ridden downhill or through anything technical you just can't let the spin drop too low or you'll pay dearly to get her back up to speed.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Deaf_Guy View Post
    I've got the 95c with Stans rims and it's a hard bike to spin up to speed especially when you point it up hill. Might not be as big a deal to a bigger guy but it's a hard bike to ride on the east coast. That being said it's the best bike I've ridden downhill or through anything technical you just can't let the spin drop too low or you'll pay dearly to get her back up to speed.
    I have noticed this with any 29er or actually even 27.5 will have this affect also.
    If you have spent many years on a 26er .....which I did .....I found I could cheat on the 26er when climbing , I could just track stand and wait acoupple seconds and then just continue and rest alittle and clean the nasty climb without blowing up dabbing or unclipping.

    When I started really testing all the bike 3 years ago , 27.5 and 29er , the first thing I noticed was the larger radius of the wheel you are trying to lever from a stop was way harder to , it was very noticeable .

    But I did understand it was just physics of turning a slightly larger circle with the same lever .

    The other law in physics says that once you get it moving its all the same , ......so the key is you gota keep the 27.5 or the 29er moving .

    The SB95C with light stiff wheels really does move when you step on it .

    It has not taking me long to where I do not really even notice it any more .

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by kelstr View Post

    When I started really testing all the bike 3 years ago , 27.5 and 29er , the first thing I noticed was the larger radius of the wheel you are trying to lever from a stop was way harder to , it was very noticeable .

    But I did understand it was just physics of turning a slightly larger circle with the same lever .

    The other law in physics says that once you get it moving its all the same , ......so the key is you gota keep the 27.5 or the 29er moving .

    The SB95C with light stiff wheels really does move when you step on it .

    It has not taking me long to where I do not really even notice it any more .
    Good post kelstr! While I agree with your comments re getting the rotation going, the physics play a roll in stopping as well. Once you get the larger wheel rolling, the centrifugal force will also keep them rolling a bit longer, hence the common phrase "my 29er just rolls over everything". Also playing a roll is the angle of attack of the larger wheel over objects. It does smooth out the ride over terrain.
    I find I have to plan my line a bit earlier to then take advantage of the "tractor like" qualities of the 29er, but it's just a matter of getting used to the type of ride, and then it's all good.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,963
    Quote Originally Posted by White Bear View Post
    Good post kelstr! While I agree with your comments re getting the rotation going, the physics play a roll in stopping as well. Once you get the larger wheel rolling, the centrifugal force will also keep them rolling a bit longer, hence the common phrase "my 29er just rolls over everything". Also playing a roll is the angle of attack of the larger wheel over objects. It does smooth out the ride over terrain.
    I find I have to plan my line a bit earlier to then take advantage of the "tractor like" qualities of the 29er, but it's just a matter of getting used to the type of ride, and then it's all good.
    Boy that is the truth , I too must set up early to deal with the extra speed the dam thing carries .
    Its amazing how well the bike keeps its momentum , on the 26er I would stop pedaling and the thing would loose speed like crazy, the 29er you actually have to use the brakes correctly because the dam thing will not stop making speed , Im still getting used to it , it can catch me off guard because its so much smoother than a 26er

    I am going to have to put bigger knobby tires on the dam thing ( the ft for sure) because the thing wants to get away from me when ripping down the steeps with loose shale and rock , the 2.2 saguaro TNT tires just are not cutting it

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    324
    Is there a real difference between the way the SB95a and SB95c ride? I don't really care about the weight issue. I know some manufactures have a great difference between how the carbon bike rides vs the alloy. Anyone that ons or ridden both?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shepherd Wong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    292
    I rode the a all summer and then switched to the c. Exact same build. My take is they ride almost the same except for the weight. The weight is very noticeable though. Also the lighter rear swing arm makes the rear suspension feel slightly more active over the rough. Didn't notice any change in stiffness, but more clearance in the rear triangle was welcomed.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-14-2013, 07:07 AM
  2. Do you own a SB95a with carbon wheels ?
    By ridetheridge in forum Yeti
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-29-2013, 12:46 PM
  3. Trying to decide
    By Eyetattoo in forum Trek
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-31-2012, 11:04 AM
  4. How do you decide?
    By DavidR1 in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 07:18 PM
  5. Help me decide...
    By TimberSky in forum Rocky Mountain
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-12-2011, 06:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •