Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 355

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
    68
    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
    3,796
    Boom...

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

    I must say was hoping 6" travel...

    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  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
    79

    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
    5,668
    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
    151
    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
    1,337
    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
    2,722
    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
    3,905
    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
    9,077

    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
    731
    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
    62
    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
    3,796
    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.

    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  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
    185
    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
    9,077

    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
    3,796
    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.



    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    259
    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
    3,796
    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")

    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  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
    563
    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
    1,337
    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
    563
    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
    5,668
    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
    151
    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
    5,668
    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
    2,722
    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
    1,665
    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
    151
    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
    9,077

    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:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,387
    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
    731
    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
    5,668
    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
    5,668
    True that.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Raymo853's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    632
    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
    5,668
    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
    3,796
    Looks like the SB75 demos will be starting very soon... Reports back from anyone lucky enough to try one out??...


    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2dopler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    62

    "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
    9,077
    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
    537
    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"


    www.yeticycles.com

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... 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

Posting Permissions

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