Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 357

Thread: Yeti SB 75

  1. #1
    vto
    vto is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    29

    Yeti SB 75

    I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet. It's real and it's here.
    Check out pink bike

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    69
    They lost my interest at 130mm travel and no carbon option to start. The yellow looks nice though.

  3. #3
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,259
    Boom...

    http://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/featu...79/bturman,109

    I must say was hoping 6" travel...

    Santa Cruz Hightower LT
    EVIL Following


  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    This is what I've been waiting for but will wait longer for C version.

  5. #5
    One Cog Short
    Reputation: PricklyPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    86

    Yeti SB 75

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Fingers View Post
    This is what I've been waiting for but will wait longer for C version.
    Will definitely wait for demo and carbon... But definitely looks promising.

  6. #6
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    The best part about these announcements to me is that when (not if) I need a replacement rear triangle for my 95a I'll be able to get a carbon one with better tire clearance.

    I am marginally bemused why they made the 75 have the same travel as the 95, unless it's like "the '75 is for smaller riders than fit the '95" kind of thing ... like their take with the new ARC.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ecwashere7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    The best part about these announcements to me is that when (not if) I need a replacement rear triangle for my 95a I'll be able to get a carbon one with better tire clearance.
    I really liked that too, except for the fact that I just crash-replaced my rear triangle 6 weeks ago. :-/
    That creep can roll, man.

  8. #8
    650b me
    Reputation: golden boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,421
    I guess I'm weird, because I don't care that the frame is not carbon and I'm stoked about a 130mm travel 27.5 bike. I think this combination will make for some of the best all-around trail bikes. This could be my next frame.

  9. #9
    Awesomist™
    Reputation: Full Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,752
    I'm personally on board with the slightly shorter travel/bigger wheels combo vs. my current SB-66c, I'm very interested to see how this thing rides. I don't know that it'll be my next bike, but it could be. And having owned an AS-R, two different generations of 575, an AS-R 5, and now the 66c I'm not super picky about the amount of travel my trailbike has... pretty much anything from 130-160mm is gonna work just fine for me so long as I can work with the geometry and fit. And I dig how Yeti builds bikes: long, low, and slack. In my world, it goes like this:

    Geometry > Suspension Travel > Wheel Size

    I'd love to take the alloy for a spin, but if I decide to pull the trigger I'd wait for the carbon version as well. My girlfriend is wicked stoked on the SB-75, and hoping it comes in a small enough size to fit her. Currently she rides an XS AS-R5c and is basically sold on carbon. Her last bike was a 5 alloy, but she loves the carbon version so much more. She actually just sent this to me via email:

    Yea, tube socks and superglue is pretty much a mandatory in my bikes now me thinks.
    The older I get, the faster I was.





    Punch it, Chewie.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beerrun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    139
    I had the chance to demo a different company's 650b bike last week. Super flowy, highly stable at speed ripping down Sandy Ridge trails east of Portland. My friend and I had the same bike, his was only large while I rode the medium.
    Something we agreed on was that the head angle needed to be steeper than 68, and that the chainstays were too long. Also, the gear ratio was off for steep hill climbing - larger bikes are heavier and need the proper climbing gear.
    So - I noted something looking at the sb75 yesterday. Without riding it I don't want to jump to conclusions but those chainstays look mighty long. Is that a necessary part of the design? Not an engineer, but the stays on the sb66 are much shorter?
    Hope the demo fleet will include one soon...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    379
    I wouldn't want to ride a bike with head tube angle steeper than 68. At 68 it may as well be a hard tail.

    I'm guessing the chainstays on the 75 are less than 18 inches.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cryde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    340
    Anyone seen the full geometry specs yet?
    You gotta Get Up to Get Down!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,948
    Since the SB95's are 17.5, I would think they would be under 17.5.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cryde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    340
    You gotta Get Up to Get Down!

  15. #15
    EDR
    Reputation: eatdrinkride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,084

    Re: Yeti SB 75

    7 .5 pound 5 inch trail bike?

    I have no problem with 130 millimeters of travel. Its funny how all of the sudden everyone thinks a 5-inch trail bike is passé. I'd like to see the bike a little lighter at that travel range however. My first 575 way back in 2005 was only a six pound frame. That was all aluminum and nearly 6 inches of travel. Anyway just thinking out loud. Looks like one sweet ass bike though.

    The knolly warden is a 150 millimeter 650 B bike with a claimed weight of six and three quarter pounds with shock... for reference

    I guess the lighter version will come in carbon fiber soon enough. I just love the looks of the aluminum SB frames personally. They are so much sharper looking than the carbon fiber frames...imo
    .

  16. #16
    Chairman of the Beard
    Reputation: hirschmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    736
    Regarding the 5" vs 6" argument - I'm pretty sure it's the SB-75 and not the SB-76 because that's what Jared Graves wants to race Enduro on.

    Weight seems excessive, but I'm sure it's stiff as hell and plenty of these will still be shredding gnar 20 years from now. Carbon almost certainly worth the wait/weight.
    The correct number of bikes one should own is N+1, where N is the number of bikes currently owned.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2dopler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    72
    My 95 doesn't ride like it's weight so I expect the same from from the 75. Can't wait to demo one.

    Needs to come in Turq
    Not on the rug...man!

  18. #18
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,259
    The weight doesn't bother me. My 575 is built up burly and what's how I like it as I can use it for trail riding and some gravity riding.

    But the 130mm travel really bugs me. I'd want 150-160. As it stands, the SB75 is merely an equivalent to the SC Solo, and I was hoping for a Bronson competitor/slayer.

    Santa Cruz Hightower LT
    EVIL Following


  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    why do Yeti need a new 150-160mm travel bike when they have a great one already?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by 2dopler View Post
    My 95 doesn't ride like it's weight so I expect the same from from the 75.
    Completely agree. To add...I've also found my 95 to be a very playful/fun bike and would expect the same with the 75.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2dopler View Post
    Needs to come in Turq
    I think one article stated it would come in Y turq.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by LCW View Post
    The weight doesn't bother me. My 575 is built up burly and what's how I like it as I can use it for trail riding and some gravity riding.

    But the 130mm travel really bugs me. I'd want 150-160. As it stands, the SB75 is merely an equivalent to the SC Solo, and I was hoping for a Bronson competitor/slayer.
    The SB75 is slacker than the 26"575 and the switch suspension is more efficient, so much so that you won't notice the 3/4 inch less travel. It will actually feel like more travel than you're used to with the 575. The geometry and stiffness of the SB75 makes it a better descender as well.

    Yeti isn't just going to warm over the SB66 for 27.5. I would count on seeing a new 6 inch 27.5 at Sea Otter, which is where Yeti has recently unveiled new models.

  22. #22
    EDR
    Reputation: eatdrinkride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,084

    Re: Yeti SB 75

    Quote Originally Posted by LCW View Post
    The weight doesn't bother me. My 575 is built up burly and what's how I like it as .
    Me too. With a lyrik coil fork, heavy dropper post, and +900 gram tires or so my 575 easily weighs over 30 pounds. If I had to guess I would say 31 pounds. If I built a lesser travel sb75 up to the same spec its going to weigh a pound or two more. That's where the problem lies....for me. Not an absolute deal killer it's just that if I was buying right this second, I really find knolly Warden to be more appealing to me. Its three quarters of a pound lighter and it's one hundred fifty millimeters of travel.

  23. #23
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,259
    Quote Originally Posted by smellurfingers View Post
    The SB75 is slacker than the 26"575 and the switch suspension is more efficient, so much so that you won't notice the 3/4 inch less travel. It will actually feel like more travel than you're used to with the 575. The geometry and stiffness of the SB75 makes it a better descender as well.

    Yeti isn't just going to warm over the SB66 for 27.5. I would count on seeing a new 6 inch 27.5 at Sea Otter, which is where Yeti has recently unveiled new models.

    Not quite. With a 160mm 36 Fox up front (and 2.5 Minion in front and 2.35 HR in rear), my 575 is slacked out to 66 deg (actually measured 65.9). I've got more travel both front and rear (160/146), vs an SB75. And even with a 150 fork, the SB75 will have more mismatched travel (150/130) than what I ride now. SB's might be a bit more efficient pedalers, but that doesn't bother me, and while SB's feel "livelier" they don't feel any plusher than the 575, if not less so. I'm happy with what I have, but as anyone else, I'm always open and eager for the next best thing. No doubt, 27.5 rolling ability over rocky techy terrain would be nice, as I like that riding that type of terrain.

    The 27.5 575 is interesting, but not enough of a change besides wheel size as to what I have today. Now if it was a 160mm rear travel 27.5 575 (at which point, it would be 630 ), I'd be more keen to entertain that. But as it stands, I'll be impatiently waiting to see where Yeti goes with 27.5.

    We'll see what Sea Otter brings, but I won't be holding my breath. I'll just keep ripping on my 575 and wait it out to see what Yeti brings to the longer travel 27.5 table.



    Santa Cruz Hightower LT
    EVIL Following


  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    270
    I feel this is yeti's quick answer to the 650b demand.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by LCW View Post
    Not quite. With a 160mm 36 Fox up front (and 2.5 Minion in front and 2.35 HR in rear), my 575 is slacked out to 66 deg (actually measured 65.9). I've got more travel both front and rear (160/146), vs an SB75. And even with a 150 fork, the SB75 will have more mismatched travel (150/130) than what I ride now. SB's might be a bit more efficient pedalers, but that doesn't bother me, and while SB's feel "livelier" they don't feel any plusher than the 575, if not less so. I'm happy with what I have, but as anyone else, I'm always open and eager for the next best thing. No doubt, 27.5 rolling ability over rocky techy terrain would be nice, as I like that riding that type of terrain.

    The 27.5 575 is interesting, but not enough of a change besides wheel size as to what I have today. Now if it was a 160mm rear travel 27.5 575 (at which point, it would be 630 ), I'd be more keen to entertain that. But as it stands, I'll be impatiently waiting to see where Yeti goes with 27.5.

    We'll see what Sea Otter brings, but I won't be holding my breath. I'll just keep ripping on my 575 and wait it out to see what Yeti brings to the longer travel 27.5 table.

    Set up the exact same way, the SB75 will outperform the 575. While it's already slacker than the 575, add a 1 degree offset headset and I can't think of much I wouldn't bomb with it.

    For me though, I'll stay on my 66C for now. I'm confident in my opinion that Yeti had an 27.5 enduro monster on the horizon.

  26. #26
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,259
    Quote Originally Posted by smellurfingers View Post
    I'm confident in my opinion that Yeti had an 27.5 enduro monster on the horizon.
    I'm hoping for this as well... SB765 (6.5")

    Santa Cruz Hightower LT
    EVIL Following


  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    32
    Will wait for the carbon version, but very much looking forward to it!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    653
    You guys think the carbon version will be available next spring? The SB75 is the exact bike I have been hoping for. Just want to wait for a carbon version but hoping I'll be able to get one for next summer.

  29. #29
    650b me
    Reputation: golden boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,421
    Why so much carbon love? Is it the weight savings, durability, more sexy, or a combination thereof? I've never had a problem with AL FS bikes, but I will say that 7.5 lbs. is a bit porky for a 5" travel frame.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by golden boy View Post
    Why so much carbon love? Is it the weight savings, durability, more sexy, or a combination thereof? I've never had a problem with AL FS bikes, but I will say that 7.5 lbs. is a bit porky for a 5" travel frame.
    Well in my case I already own a FS Aluminum 4" travel Ventana El Bastardo that weighs in at 26lbs. Really love the bike but have always wanted a carbon frame bike. I also think that the Yeti Carbon bikes look way cooler than the same bike in the aluminum version. I however am not sure it is worth the extra $1000 to pay up for carbon to lose 1.75 lbs.

  31. #31
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    Quote Originally Posted by golden boy View Post
    Why so much carbon love? Is it the weight savings, durability, more sexy, or a combination thereof? I've never had a problem with AL FS bikes, but I will say that 7.5 lbs. is a bit porky for a 5" travel frame.
    I think for some customers it's the look, for some it's the bling, for some it's functionality based.

    For the vendors I think it's partially the sales-drive but I think that at this point there are also technical advantages to CF fabrication that when done right can out-class alloy frames in pretty much any tangible way ... at significantly increased cost.

    Done right, the CF stuff is both more-durable in every way AND lighter AND stiffer AND more forgiving, all depending upon how it is engineered and how good the fabrication quality is.

    One of the cost drivers I think for CF is the higher rejection rate of finished product, builds that have voids or inconsistent depth or inconsistent wrap, there's just a bunch of reasons why a part should be rejected ... and the complex shapes required by frames make these more likely to happen.

    Another big cost driver I can speculate is R&D ... there's been a ton of R&D on the alloy front over the decades but for many builders they're not even at one decade of experience with CF so they haven't begun to pay-pack the R&D ... assuming they're at a commensurate level of knowledge with the alloy based engineering, which I doubt.

    But we can't have it all. If you have a CF build that is equal in cost to the alloy build, then that CF build is probably not worth riding (to me) as it must have sacrificed one or more important factors in some significant ways. A current CF build equivalent in quality to the alloy will always be more costly.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ecwashere7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    If you have a CF build that is equal in cost to the alloy build, then that CF build is probably not worth riding (to me) as it must have sacrificed one or more important factors in some significant ways. A current CF build equivalent in quality to the alloy will always be more costly.
    What does that say about the new triangles for the AL 95s and 66s?
    That creep can roll, man.

  33. #33
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    Quote Originally Posted by ecwashere7 View Post
    What does that say about the new triangles for the AL 95s and 66s?
    I don't know. Ask Yeti.

    I'd assume that they would cost more than the alloy only but it's not like the alloy ones were simple to fabricate either.

    The '13 bikes were a couple hundred bones more expensive MSRP than the '12.

    I'd assume that the '14 would end up a bit more yet.

    Who knows how much is what element of the bike increased the cost.

    The only way I could think of would be if there was some way of comparing the cost of a crash-rep rear triangle as I'd expect that to be a lot closer to minim non-loss or even possibly zero-profit sold through.

    Still, that'd be a WAG.

    What do you think?

  34. #34
    Awesomist™
    Reputation: Full Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by golden boy View Post
    Why so much carbon love? Is it the weight savings, durability, more sexy, or a combination thereof? I've never had a problem with AL FS bikes, but I will say that 7.5 lbs. is a bit porky for a 5" travel frame.
    Pure function for me—having personally ridden the alloy and carbon versions the differences in responsiveness, stiffness, acceleration, and overall performance are noticeable. My girlfriend can also tell a difference: she went from an alloy AS-R 5 that she liked but didn't love to an AS-R 5c that she absolutely loves. At least the way Yeti seems to build 'em, they're more responsive than their alloy counterparts. Also they're dead sexy, quiet like a ninja, weigh less, and have higher bling factor.



    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    What do you think?
    I think that if Yeti can order twice as many carbon rear ends they get a better per unit cost, have less inventory control to worry about, and can stock up potential crash replacements for two different models with one part. And they can do this without increasing MSRP that much. But you know, that's just a wild-ass guess.
    The older I get, the faster I was.





    Punch it, Chewie.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,667
    The R&D on the rear end is already a sunk cost as is the tooling. That makes the decision financially much more paletable.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    177
    After spending two years telling us that the Switch suspension setup is the best thing ever, why do they bother re-introducing the 575?

    Even if it's a great bike, it makes no sense. If the Switch suspension is the best, then why continue with something else?

    I think Yeti is late to the dance. They're arriving with the SB75 which is a smaller version of the SB95, instead of a bigger version of the SB66.

    I've been waiting for Yeti's entre to the 27.5 arena, but disappointed with what they've tossed into the ring..

  37. #37
    EDR
    Reputation: eatdrinkride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,084

    Re: Yeti SB 75

    Quote Originally Posted by uberstein View Post
    After spending two years telling us that the Switch suspension setup is the best thing ever, why do they bother re-introducing the 575?..

    First of all, there is no best. Only options with pros and cons.

    Plenty of companies offer more than one suspension type within their lineup. Plus probably the biggest determining factor is that the 575 is their best selling bike of all time. Its end will come someday, just not today.

    Don't underestimate the allegiance of the ASR design. We are a dying breed but a faithfull bunch , haha. The ASR design is really what put yeti back on the map in the 2000's. Time to move on? Probably getting close if for no other reason than the newer generation of mountain bikers will not accept a suspension design that is not somewhat complicated. They see the single pivot or modified single pivot as old school.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yeti575inCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,851
    Quote Originally Posted by uberstein View Post
    After spending two years telling us that the Switch suspension setup is the best thing ever, why do they bother re-introducing the 575?

    Even if it's a great bike, it makes no sense. If the Switch suspension is the best, then why continue with something else?

    I think Yeti is late to the dance. They're arriving with the SB75 which is a smaller version of the SB95, instead of a bigger version of the SB66.

    I've been waiting for Yeti's entre to the 27.5 arena, but disappointed with what they've tossed into the ring..
    imho - i believe the 575 is still marketable for its price and simplicity, which I think will appeal to many. I think price and what you get performance wise in return, its a good buy.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by uberstein View Post
    After spending two years telling us that the Switch suspension setup is the best thing ever, why do they bother re-introducing the 575?

    Even if it's a great bike, it makes no sense. If the Switch suspension is the best, then why continue with something else?

    I think Yeti is late to the dance. They're arriving with the SB75 which is a smaller version of the SB95, instead of a bigger version of the SB66.

    I've been waiting for Yeti's entre to the 27.5 arena, but disappointed with what they've tossed into the ring..
    Which current 27.5 frame is better than the SB66C?

    I would much rather have Yeti take their time and release the next flagship model when it's ready, than do something like what Ibis did with the HDR.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    15
    The fact is there is nothing wrong with the 575 platform. Did I crush trails on my 575. Absolutely. Do i crush them even faster on my Sb95. Absolutely. Looking at the photo of the 575 set up as a downhill rig is a perfect example. There are plenty of applications (both from a cost and trail condition perspective) that allows the 575 to still have market share for the time being.

    As for the SB75, I would suggest people test ride one before they speculate on the travel and weight decisions Yeti made. My Sb95 is 30lbs+ and does everything better and faster than my 26lb 575. Yeti's argument for the 5" of travel is that it performed better than the 6" travel prototype. Now, certainly this is a easily defensible position to take, but given the amazing R+D Yeti has been putting out for the past few years (many one might argue) I would reserve judgement until the bike is ridden. Call me a fanboy if you want, but just my opinion.

    Finally a question. Do you all think the rear triangle for the Sb95 will be backwards compatible with older years? What do you think it will cost for a straight purchase?

    Paul - who needs to change his screen name.

  41. #41
    Chairman of the Beard
    Reputation: hirschmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Yeti575er View Post
    Finally a question. Do you all think the rear triangle for the Sb95 will be backwards compatible with older years? What do you think it will cost for a straight purchase?
    I can't say for sure, obviously, but I don't see why they wouldn't be backwards compatible, they haven't changed the frame since it was released.

    Crash replacement's something like 5 bills, I think. Just hit your old one with a hammer a few times and send yeti warranty an email.
    The correct number of bikes one should own is N+1, where N is the number of bikes currently owned.

  42. #42
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Yeti575er View Post
    Finally a question. Do you all think the rear triangle for the Sb95 will be backwards compatible with older years? What do you think it will cost for a straight purchase?
    I'm not one to early-age a component just because I want a shinier bit, but the fact that it appears that the carbon and alloy '95 has the same eccentric and yoke and shock implies to me that they're bolt-on compatible. If I had a damaged frame part that was going in for warranty I'd be asking Yeti about how much $ I'd need to send to up to carbon. Particularly for the rear-triangle. More tire clearance would be welcome.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    15
    Thanks for the reply. I hear you. I doubt very much i would shell out the $ just because i want the upgrade, but currently my only complaint with the 95 is weight and rear tire clearance. Although neither are show stoppers, seems like the new rear tri addresses both nicely.

  44. #44
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    True that.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Raymo853's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    720
    I gained interest when I saw it was just 130 and did not contain any carbon. Seen too many Yeti carbon frames break to consider running carbon on real trails.

    I am also hoping it allows running a triple.

  46. #46
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymo853 View Post
    I am also hoping it allows running a triple.
    Why wouldn't it? double/triple front-d's all use the same mounts.

  47. #47
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,259
    Looks like the SB75 demos will be starting very soon... Reports back from anyone lucky enough to try one out??...


    Santa Cruz Hightower LT
    EVIL Following


  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2dopler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    72

    "BIKE" Review SB-75

    [QUOTE=LCW;10684517]Looks like the SB75 demos will be starting very soon... Reports back from anyone lucky enough to try one out??...

    First one I've seen

    Video: First Impressions of New Yeti SB75
    Not on the rug...man!

  49. #49
    EDR
    Reputation: eatdrinkride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,084
    First Ride Review: Yeti's 2014 SB75 27.5 Mountain Bike | Bicycling Magazine

    Funny how one review likens the bike to the 66 while the other finds it much more like the 95. Just goes to show how much of a bikes feel is "feel". Sounds like a perfect bike for me either way.

  50. #50
    Ka-coo-ka-cha!
    Reputation: snigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    542
    Makes sense, since the wheel size is in between 26 and 29, a blend of the 66's and 95's characteristics would result.

    IMHO, I think that will actually result in being a strength for this bike, and the direction I had hoped the first 650b ride from Yeti would take. Was hoping for 140 mm of travel to be a "true" tweener, though....
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live. ~Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"

  51. #51
    EDR
    Reputation: eatdrinkride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,084
    Quote Originally Posted by snigs View Post
    Was hoping for 140 mm of travel to be a "true" tweener, though....
    Ya, 10mm more wouldn't hurt its curb appeal any. Funny how just few short years ago bikes like the 5 Spot were the AM/Do-It-All bikes and were all the rage. It's just that the paradigm has been shifted a bit (like has been happening since 3'' bikes were the norm) to longer travel without considerable weight penalties. I wonder if over the next 2 years or so the paradigm shifts a little backwards? If so then Yeti is ahead of the curve, lol.

  52. #52
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,259
    Quote Originally Posted by 2dopler View Post
    Seeing that vid makes me want an SB75 even less. Seeing the bikemag guy go down that relatively smooth and non steep slope yet the SB75 manages to make it look sketchy as hell and you can see him bottoming out almost - it's a joke!!

    6" 26er >>> 5" 650er

    Yeti will screw themselves with this choice.

    If I ever do switch to 650b - which right now I'll be sticking with my 26er a bit longer - will likely be a Bronson - but only if/when Fox releases a 650b Float 36 fork.

    Santa Cruz Hightower LT
    EVIL Following


  53. #53
    Ka-coo-ka-cha!
    Reputation: snigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    542
    I'd take all demo rides, and their vids, with a grain of salt. Many riders take time to get their setup right, and doubtlessly I'd say a 1 hr spin at an industry day is not that.

    And, that canyon trail is just loose rock...that there is control should be attributed to the bike and rider.

    Having rode the carbon Bronson (yikes! sacrilege!) with Enve wheels and the Sb-95 c & a, both with a Fox 34, I am convinced that there is plenty of stiffness there for 650b. That being said, the new RS Pike is looking like a great option, considering the fact that I do like the feel of RS damping, more, these days. If you haven't rode a 34, don't knock it...it'll do the trick. That being said, I rock a Float converted, PUSH'd 09 36 TALAS at 140 on my 66a and love it. But, if I had the dough I'd be riding a 2014 TALAS V 34, for sure.

    Also, the Enves offer incredible handling and will forever change what you think about carbon wheels, meaning you will start saving for some and ignore the price.

    As far as 26 v 650b...I may attribute some of the Bronson's performance to the Enve wheels, but the larger diameter did help get up over square edges and kept me floating over rocky descents. Very much a 26er feel, too, in the switches. Did not care for the High Rolller II as a rear tire, though.

    Sorry about the tangents...

    Looking forward to a ride on the 75!!

    Quote Originally Posted by LCW View Post
    Seeing that vid makes me want an SB75 even less. Seeing the bikemag guy go down that relatively smooth and non steep slope yet the SB75 manages to make it look sketchy as hell and you can see him bottoming out almost - it's a joke!!

    6" 26er >>> 5" 650er

    Yeti will screw themselves with this choice.

    If I ever do switch to 650b - which right now I'll be sticking with my 26er a bit longer - will likely be a Bronson - but only if/when Fox releases a 650b Float 36 fork.
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live. ~Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jon123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    878
    Yikes, frame is nearly 8 lbs!

    Yeti Cycles / Home

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,492
    Looks like some changes are afoot too looking at the website

  56. #56
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    Looks like some changes are afoot too looking at the website
    You note the SB95 variant with the 160mm fork?

    I think it's a bad cut-n-paste from the SB66 comp pages but it's entertaining to see.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jon123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    878
    No ASR 5. Carbon now gone too.

  58. #58
    Long live the ASR-7
    Reputation: Doba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    270
    Boo, no XL. Looks like I won't be getting one after all.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,492
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    You note the SB95 variant with the 160mm fork?

    I think it's a bad cut-n-paste from the SB66 comp pages but it's entertaining to see.
    Next years Worlds bike maybe?!...

  60. #60
    650b me
    Reputation: golden boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,421
    Quote Originally Posted by jon123 View Post
    Yikes, frame is nearly 8 lbs!

    Yeti Cycles / Home
    I just lost interest.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jon123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by golden boy View Post
    I just lost interest.
    Funny, so did I

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    197
    So, later in the MY14 or into MY15 there will most likely be a SB75c and also a SB75a with carbon rear triangle where the SB75a will drop about 1lb to be in line, weight wise, with the SB95a with carbon rear triangle?

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ecwashere7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sloth View Post
    So, later in the MY14 or into MY15 there will most likely be a SB75c and also a SB75a with carbon rear triangle where the SB75a will drop about 1lb to be in line, weight wise, with the SB95a with carbon rear triangle?
    That makes sense. I would assume that they'd also put out a Comp model down the road too if that proves to be a successful move for the 66 and 95. Seems to be a great option for the money.
    That creep can roll, man.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Doba View Post
    Boo, no XL. Looks like I won't be getting one after all.
    This. I just double checked w/ Yeti.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yeti
    As for the XL, unfortunately we will not have that size in this model.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by stoney98 View Post
    This. I just double checked w/ Yeti.


    Why would that be, out of curiosity? Does it imply that XL-riders should be on the 95? That is the only reason I can come up with.

  66. #66
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    Quote Originally Posted by addATX View Post
    Why would that be, out of curiosity? Does it imply that XL-riders should be on the 95? That is the only reason I can come up with.
    I wouldn't be surprised if they went that way, that's how the new ARC rolls, right?

  67. #67
    Long live the ASR-7
    Reputation: Doba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    270
    I've been waiting for Yeti to enter this market and now I won't be buying from them. If XL is reserved for 29er, than 26" bikes should be XS only. Make one SB bike and let the size determine your wheel size. Doesn't make sense to make a XL in the 66 and 95, but not the 75.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,492
    Let's try to look at this through the eyes of Yeti (yup 8-10 feet in the air if you like?!) they probably want to see how the 75 sells before committing to XL, in the exact same way Santa Cruz did with the Tallboy LTc etc. I personally think they hit the nail on the head with the Arc in that the smaller sizes get the smaller wheels and the larger get the big hoops, makes a lot of sense to me.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Doba View Post
    Boo, no XL. Looks like I won't be getting one after all.
    If I am reading the specs on the bikes correctly , the 75 in running "XS - L" and the 95 is running "S - XL " The XL 95 is a 21" chassis with a 46.8 wheelbase and the L 75 is a 21" chassis with a 46.8 wheelbase , so it looks to me that they are very similar except wheels of course .

    I will say that the XL 95 is defiantly on the small side , it is the most compact shortest TT and wheelbase of any of my XL chassis , ........but with the short ft chassis and the 17.5 chain stay with the 51mm offset fork the thing is very similar in feel to my 26" 6.3 AM bikes ..only better
    ( any shorter on the chain stay and this chassis would be way twitchy )
    So if a guy was wanting smaller wheels , this could be the bike .

    Personally for me ( my opinion just for me ), the 26 and or 27" wheels just seems like I am riding a 20" BMX bike , ........but the 29" wheel with Yetis geo actually works like a 27" wheel for me only better

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sloth View Post
    So, later in the MY14 or into MY15 there will most likely be a SB75c and also a SB75a with carbon rear triangle where the SB75a will drop about 1lb to be in line, weight wise, with the SB95a with carbon rear triangle?
    Not to mention the new 27.5 long travel Enduro bike, whose absence is causing a lot hand wringing right now. I'm betting on a big Sea otter event for Yeti.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Full Trucker View Post
    I'm personally on board with the slightly shorter travel/bigger wheels combo vs. my current SB-66c, I'm very interested to see how this thing rides. I don't know that it'll be my next bike, but it could be. And having owned an AS-R, two different generations of 575, an AS-R 5, and now the 66c I'm not super picky about the amount of travel my trailbike has... pretty much anything from 130-160mm is gonna work just fine for me so long as I can work with the geometry and fit. And I dig how Yeti builds bikes: long, low, and slack. In my world, it goes like this:

    Geometry > Suspension Travel > Wheel Size

    I'd love to take the alloy for a spin, but if I decide to pull the trigger I'd wait for the carbon version as well. My girlfriend is wicked stoked on the SB-75, and hoping it comes in a small enough size to fit her. Currently she rides an XS AS-R5c and is basically sold on carbon. Her last bike was a 5 alloy, but she loves the carbon version so much more. She actually just sent this to me via email:
    What about the new 575, same travel as the 26" with the 650b wheelset.

    I'd like to hear what you guys think, I'm researching bikes now and have test rode an alloy SB66 & hated how it climbed LOVED how it descended (was a medium frame & I need a small as I'm short). I'm strongly considering either of these and I'm looking at the Norco Sight Carbon 7 1.5 as an option too.

    Thanks!

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the geometry. I'm 5'10 with a 32 inseam and ride a medium SB95. All the numbers for a medium match up pretty closely between a medium SB75 and SB95 except the seat tube. What's with the 19.5" seat tube on a medium?!?!

    After looking at the numbers I'm thinking of throwing a pair of 27.5 wheels on my 95 and seeing if it works. If the numbers are right I'd only lower the BB .25". But I don't think I can trust the numbers since Yeti says the SB75 has a 21" head tube and takes a fork with a 1.7" A-C.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  73. #73
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,832
    I don't trust the numbers for the 75 on the site yet. Most seem reasonable but some are crazy.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dblvanos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    327
    Im surprised by all the non-love (ie:h8ting) for the 75 being based off specs.

    I've ridden the 75 the 575 27.5, along with the rest of the line. The bikes are different, and intended for a particular rider.

    I do not consider myself a weight weenie, but I generally run the borderline weight weenie components. So I consider myself sensitive to weight lets say. The 75 does not ride heavy at all, bike climbs very well, handles extremely well, and seriously will give you big smiles.

    Now... it’s not nearly as plush as a 575, not nearly as big hit as the 66, but sits right between those two bikes. It gives really good feedback while still letting you rip, it’s not a plush super smooth ride, and doesn't really make you feel like your super man that can leap off buildings like a 66.

    The bike hits it’s mark as a everyday do it all ride nearly anything kinda bike. Like I said, really good handling, strong climbing, big wheels but not a monster truck, and like all Yeti’s very purpose driven.

    I agree, a carbon version that is lighter would be great, and we all know it is in the works. The great thing about aluminum bikes (obvious) is that you can tell your friends “hold my bear and watch this” without fear of creating a first name relationship with a carbon repair company.

    I have heard a ton of grumbles about the travel (even beyond this board) and I can assure you that those mm’s of travel everyone says it needs is not founded.

    Hold reservation till you ride it, you may disagree with me then and that’s fine.

  75. #75
    EDR
    Reputation: eatdrinkride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,084

    Re: Yeti SB 75

    Quote Originally Posted by dblvanos View Post
    . The great thing about aluminum bikes (obvious) is that you can tell your friends “hold my bear and watch this” .
    I'm not falling for that again.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    I couldn't wait for the SB75, so I made my own.



    I bought a cheap set of wheels and tires that came off a Bronson R AM for cheap, mounted them up tubeless and headed out to Santa Cruz with my buddy today. Hands down this was the most fun I've had on my SB95. I've never been truly happy on this bike, which I blamed on the fork and shock (fork was originally part of the problem), and I was really regretting selling my Mojo HD. I loved my rigid 29er so much that I thought it was only natural to switch to a FS 29er too.

    Wrong.

    Then I remembered why I didn't like my Tallboy C from years ago. It wasn't nimble or playful like a 26" bike and was slow to transition from side to side through fast, winding singletrack. And the switchbacks...oh, the switchbacks. The SB95 just wasn't for me. So I figured I'd throw on a set of 650b wheels and see what happened.

    What happened was freakin magic. I was loving the bike. I was carving singletrack faster and with more confidence than ever. I was hitting the hard lines again, popping off every feature and laying off the brakes. Riding was fun again. The lower BB and stickier tires probably helped the most, but the smaller wheels are definitely a better fit for me.

    Downsides? Only one: BB height. It's low. Exactly 3/4" lower. I went from 13 3/8" to 12 5/8". The bike rails turns, but it takes careful line choice and pedal placement to clear technical climbs now and there's probably more than a few that I can no longer clear. Will I keep the SB95 like this? For now, hells yes. Will I switch to the real SB75 when it comes out? It's looking like a very strong maybe.

    The geometry on the SB75 is starting to make sense. The long 17.4" chainstays are stable at speed and the low 13.1" BB should rail corners. The 73 degree seattube angle is something I wish I had on the SB95. 5" of travel is just right, not too much and not too little and well matched to a 140mm fork. I'm still not jazzed about the tall seattube, but it will work.

    Now if Fox could just make a decent fork.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by killjoyken View Post
    Now if Fox could just make a decent fork.
    And why would you want that? The replacement is called PIKE!

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by White Bear View Post
    And why would you want that? The replacement is called PIKE!
    Name:  pike.jpg
Views: 3158
Size:  111.2 KB

    The Pike is out of my budget right now. Eventually I'll upgrade, but for now I have to make due with the OEM Fox. At least the new 2014 tune is rideable. The 2013 tune was absolute garbage.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yeti575inCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,851
    I'm like my x fusion slant so look into there new 650b fork

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by yeti575inCA View Post
    I'm like my x fusion slant so look into there new 650b fork
    Trust me, I'm eagerly awaiting the Sweep fork to come out. Reviews are saying it's as good as the Pike or better for only $600. Too bad they keep pushing back the release date.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3
    To anyone here who has the curiosity of the bike and what not, here it is:
    1. Carbon also provides dampening qualities which reduces trail chatter
    2. Provides better power transfer when pedaling
    3. I work for one of the top Yeti dealers in the country and our sources at Yeti say that we could be looking for a carbon SB-75 come Sea Otter.

    Any more questions? Feel free to ask!

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtb_tico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by killjoyken View Post
    I couldn't wait for the SB75, so I made my own.



    Now if Fox could just make a decent fork.
    Very Interesting KillJoyKen!! Thanks posting your experience of going 29er to 27.5 on the SB95.

    I can imagine the handling must be nice considering the lowered BB and since Yeti's generally already have low BBs. Lower centre of gravity. I guess to compensate, run a smaller crank ring (34T or 32T) with a closely matched bashgaurd size. I see you have a big bash on there now.

    One other thing is the Fork. Its made for 29" wheels. If you planned to go permanently to 27.5", perhaps you can throw on a 160mm 650B fork. Maybe the Axle to Crown height will be matched better. Just my thoughts. Cheers.

  83. #83
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: Coondog#77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    518
    Has anyone here tested an SB75 and SC Solo side by side? I've ridden the SOLO (5010) and like it, but the SB75 fits my budget better and I'm not so much worried about weight. I'm just curious the real differences between the two and currently don't have the time to find a demo.
    Salsa El Mariachi SS
    Roca Roja Breezy 29+ SS


    Flat Tire Bike Shop, Cave Creek, AZ

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,977
    Has anyone got theirs yet? They've had black in stock at jenson for a month and I'm waiting on turquoise (or my wife is anyway).
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  85. #85
    CJH
    CJH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Coondog#77 View Post
    Has anyone here tested an SB75 and SC Solo side by side? I've ridden the SOLO (5010) and like it, but the SB75 fits my budget better and I'm not so much worried about weight. I'm just curious the real differences between the two and currently don't have the time to find a demo.
    I haven't but if you find any related info or reviews, please post back. My wife rides a small Solo and is curious to try a XS SB 75.

    She likes her Solo well enough but wouldn't mind a bit more stability. The XS SB 75 wheelbase is 1.3 inches longer than the small Solo, which shows you just how crazy opposite Yeti and SC are with their sizing.

    I rode a large Solo at a SC demo before I bought my SB95. I liked it but really wanted to try 29" wheels for my next bike. Neither of the Tallboys suited me so I ordered the SB95 the next week.

  86. #86
    CJH
    CJH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    Has anyone got theirs yet? They've had black in stock at jenson for a month and I'm waiting on turquoise (or my wife is anyway).
    My LBS has a small Turqoise they just built up. I didn't realize it at the time, but the reach on a small SB75 is just 0.1" shorter than the reach on my medium SB95 so I didn't ask to take it for a spin. I may have try it next week, at least in the parking lot.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swissam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,128
    Edit. Nevermind.

  88. #88
    dontcha?
    Reputation: captain spaulding's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by CJH View Post
    My LBS has a small Turqoise they just built up. I didn't realize it at the time, but the reach on a small SB75 is just 0.1" shorter than the reach on my medium SB95 so I didn't ask to take it for a spin. I may have try it next week, at least in the parking lot.
    The large SB75 is pretty similar to the XL SB95, makes me think I can get the large and be fine, but i think i'm gonna wait for an XL size to come out.
    "The future belongs to those that believe in the beauty of their dreams."

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10

    SB66c with 27.5 fork and front wheel?

    Has anyone tried this set up? perhaps a 27.5 150mm fork and front wheel, won't change much the geometry, coming from a 26 160mm fork?

    What do you think?

    Can we make a perfect thing (like the sb66c), even better?

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    389
    Does anyone know what the 'comp' spec weighs (in med or large) out of the box?

    The more I read about this bike the more I like it; comparing against the 2014 Kona process 134 DL and 2014 Giant Trance X1 as 'near equivalent' price points. I've demo'd both the Kona and Giant but only have the option of demoing a buddy's 2013 SB66c.

    The comp package + cost of dropper + XT brake upgrade appears to be closest in price. The bike just has an inferior spec in almost every other regard (X7/9 vs SLX/XT). Figuring out how much it would take to get the Comp + dropper + XT brakes all sorted and what that might weigh in relation to the process 134 DL which comes in around 31 lbs.

    Thanks in advance!

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: giantdefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by probiscus View Post
    Does anyone know what the 'comp' spec weighs (in med or large) out of the box?

    The more I read about this bike the more I like it; comparing against the 2014 Kona process 134 DL and 2014 Giant Trance X1 as 'near equivalent' price points. I've demo'd both the Kona and Giant but only have the option of demoing a buddy's 2013 SB66c.

    The comp package + cost of dropper + XT brake upgrade appears to be closest in price. The bike just has an inferior spec in almost every other regard (X7/9 vs SLX/XT). Figuring out how much it would take to get the Comp + dropper + XT brakes all sorted and what that might weigh in relation to the process 134 DL which comes in around 31 lbs.

    Thanks in advance!
    I weighed the SB66 comp at 29.5 lbs no pedals and the SB95 enduro at 31.5 lbs w pedals. It's gotta b somewhere in the middle. Flowmountainbike.com has the SB75 race at 13100g or 28.88lbs. I ordered mine and should arrive NLT 13 Dec.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by giantdefy View Post
    I weighed the SB66 comp at 29.5 lbs no pedals and the SB95 enduro at 31.5 lbs w pedals. It's gotta b somewhere in the middle. Flowmountainbike.com has the SB75 race at 13100g or 28.88lbs. I ordered mine and should arrive NLT 13 Dec.
    Perfect, exactly what I was hoping for. The reality is my current bike ('12 giant anthem x1) built up as is, is over 31 lbs anyway. I've been looking to upgrade to a larger travel bike but I really don't see the need for anything more than 5" or so. So many of the 6" bikes seem to wallow for me - weighing 180-185 pre-gear. I still need to try the bike but the more I read about the switch suspension the more I like it. Plus, I've wanted a yeti since the early 90s, now that I'm in my 30's I can afford it

    The GF likes the yellow better than the black or turq but I'm pretty sure I'd have to go w/ turq

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: giantdefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    161
    Does anyone have their sb75 yet? Mine got postponed to January.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,977
    The wifes hasn't showed up yet. medium, turquoise, race build from jenson. She was told it should ship the first week of december but no news yet.

    I called after i got the 20% off coupon and asked about applying it to the bike. Dude said if we cancel the order and re-place it with the coupon that would work. And he also said that we are the only people keeping one on backorder in that color/build/size. And the coupon saved us over 800$ on a brand new bike.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: giantdefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    161
    Same here. Ordered from Jenson using the 20% coupon on a small yellow sb75 comp. they emailed me saying it would be delayed a month.

  96. #96
    Long live the ASR-7
    Reputation: Doba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    270
    Common theme with Jenson. Friend had a 66 on order for a month when they first came out, he got fed up and ordered from Huck N Roll when they were still around. He had his bike within a week. Not sure how well Jenson keeps tabs on their Yeti complete bike stock.

    I'd try Competitive Cyclist and see if they will price match even with the 20% off.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: giantdefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Doba View Post
    Common theme with Jenson. Friend had a 66 on order for a month when they first came out, he got fed up and ordered from Huck N Roll when they were still around. He had his bike within a week. Not sure how well Jenson keeps tabs on their Yeti complete bike stock.

    I'd try Competitive Cyclist and see if they will price match even with the 20% off.
    Tried that when jenson offered the 20% several weeks ago. I was trying to save on paying Cali sales tax. competitive cyclist would not budge on the price. But they mentioned that they were getting their shipment in January. Jenson gave me a guaranteed delivery date of 13 Dec, now it's delayed a month. WTH?

  98. #98
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: Coondog#77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by CJH View Post
    I haven't but if you find any related info or reviews, please post back. My wife rides a small Solo and is curious to try a XS SB 75.

    She likes her Solo well enough but wouldn't mind a bit more stability. The XS SB 75 wheelbase is 1.3 inches longer than the small Solo, which shows you just how crazy opposite Yeti and SC are with their sizing.

    I rode a large Solo at a SC demo before I bought my SB95. I liked it but really wanted to try 29" wheels for my next bike. Neither of the Tallboys suited me so I ordered the SB95 the next week.
    The demo fleet is scheduled to hit Phoenix in January, I'm going to try and get the day off to go test out the SB 75. Ill report back what I find.
    Salsa El Mariachi SS
    Roca Roja Breezy 29+ SS


    Flat Tire Bike Shop, Cave Creek, AZ

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,977
    Got an email saying the bike will be at Jenson 12/13/13. I guess that's about the time they said in the begining.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8

    Coupon

    May I ask how you got the 20% off coupon? I looked online but didn't find anything. Thanks



    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    Got an email saying the bike will be at Jenson 12/13/13. I guess that's about the time they said in the begining.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-27-2013, 05:31 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-01-2013, 01:11 PM
  3. new yeti 575
    By cafam1 in forum Passion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-04-2011, 08:12 PM
  4. Yeti-man's Yeti Pro FRO disc version
    By digilux in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 07-11-2011, 07:56 AM
  5. Yeti 575 vs. Yeti ASR 5C for Grass Valley/Tahoe
    By schweisd in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 12:41 PM

Members who have read this thread: 30

Posting Permissions

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