Page 1 of 36 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 1779

Thread: Yeti SB4.5C

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66

    Yeti SB4.5C

    I couldn't decide on which existing post to add to so I've created my own...

    I've read a couple of first look, first ride articles and forum posts regarding the SB4.5C and I suppose it's a mixed reception.

    I, for one, was really looking forward to the release of this bike. I'd looked to replace my ASR5C with an SB95C but could not source a demo and didn't want to risk another big outlay for something that I was unsure about from a geo perspective. Whether that geo concern was right or wrong I'll never know.

    One of the reviews has stated how unbalanced the suspension feels (140 F / 114 R) and another stating that it wasn't the best climber due to slack head angle, big forks and more importantly big wheels.
    Yet the SB4.5C cannot be too much different from its predecessor the SB95C? Would any owners care to comment on this?

    It's also close on numbers and style of bike to the Evil Following, Ibis Ripley LS, etc. for which it will be truly compared against.

    Having got these bikes on the list of possible 'next' bikes whilst waiting hopefully to see what Yeti release I don't remember reading such negatives of unbalanced feel and climbing prowess in their reviews. Or that of the riders that have bought them. And I thinking more of the Evil Following with 67.4 HA and 120mm rear travel often coupled to 140mm forks.

    I’m really looking forward to seeing one in the flesh and taking one for a spin but personally I’d probably look to use a 130mm fork rather than the 140mm. Probably a Pike too. I think this would provide a much more rounded feel to the bike in regards to travel (130 F / 114 R) and head angle (67.8).

    Although it’s slightly disappointing that it’s solely 1 x and that there are no ISCG mounts there are other positives in the form of Yeti’s stiffest frame yet with good ETT, reach and stack for the sizes.

    I must admit £3k for frame-only in the UK is also eye-watering.

    What do other Yeti fans think of the SB4.5C and comments made?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    391

    Yeti SB4.5C

    "This big bike felt bigger than it should have on the steep climbs, so while it seems like it fits firmly in the trail category, the cross-country label is a bit of a stretch. "
    Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/...SSmJaLEPaOT.99

    From bicycling.com:

    "My take: The SB4.5c is the most XC-feeling of the SB series so far. On the whole, it felt closer to Yeti’s ASRc than the SB5c, though it pedals better, is stiffer, and is more capable than the ASR."


    So, which is it?? More XC like the ASR or a full on trail bike?

    I'm guessing the 1x11 is due to the short chain stays and SI suspension. Yeti probably sacrificed the FD for a better handling bike, and realized the majority of bikes they sell were 1x11 setups.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,580
    The velonews reviewer comes to a poorly reasoned conclusion, imo, when comparing the downhill capability of the 4.5c and the 5c.

    "According to Strava, I set PRs going down Enchanted Forest, and I wasn’t even pushing the pace."
    He attributes that to Yeti’s suspension and geometry platforms more than the wheel size.
    I assume he has strava times over that same terrain on a 5c which also uses the same SI suspension and related geo.
    The major difference between the two bikes is the 29 wheel.... and without even pushing the pace--PRs.
    His more logical conclusion should be-- the 29 is fast. The SI suspension and 29 wheel combo blast past other options without even pushing the pace. And that's without even wide rim wheels.

  4. #4
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,447
    I've ridden a Mach 429Trail, similar geo/travel and it didn't feel unbalanced at all. Probably has to do with riding style. If you put your weight far back, you'll notice the less rear travel.

    Like: 1x only. Dislike: No chainguide option at all.

    Question I didn't see addressed. If we're going to be stuck with Boost spacing in the rear, will we at least be able to play with some 27.5+ rubber back there?

    I realize the shock placement isn't well suited to it, but, man this would have been nice with a water bottle. As it is, that completely knocks it out of being used for XC races, well, the Boost does that too, since you wouldn't be able to switch over your race wheels from a hardtail, none of which are boost yet...

    The Mach 429Trail was really fun and fast though, and I suspect this will be as well. Great choice if you're not already invested in nice 29'er wheels and aren't interested in racing, which I imagine is a fair bit of folks.
    Wow, GJ, Fruita, and Moab trails are riding great. This is a killer spring for riding!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,580
    The Procal is a race ht with Boost.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    501
    I was kind of surprised at the reception as well. 6 months of frothy anticipation was replaced with everyone deciding X is a deal breaker for me within 6 hours and one quick review logged over 10 miles (albeit 10 diverse technical miles, Apex is a great trail system). 1x only seems to have turned some people off and the couple $100 bump over the competition got some more. They only have 2 build kits with a front der as is (low spec XC bikes) which probably aren't flying off the shelves and over the 2 year development probably asked a couple shops how many people were still using one. When it came time to decide on a stiffer frame and shorter CS vs front der I'm sure it was a quick decision. SI costs what it costs. Someone's bikes have to be the most expensive. As for those thinking its not "big" enough, they probably don't want this bike anyway: Not enough travel? CS too long and HA too steep? There are only 4 or so 6" 29ers and they haven't been updated since 650B took over. Wishing for an SB8 DH doesn't make this bike better or worse.

    If you look at the Ibis and Pivot forums the prevailing attitude was "shut up and take my money". But out of all the bikes in this class (that I've looked at geo for), the SB4.5 has the shortest CS and slackest HA combination which have been enshrined as MTB gospel to be held above all else.

    According to said Geo Gospel, its a clear improvement on my SB95, on which I never feel the bike holding me back. Instead almost every ride I'm a little faster than the last time just by letting the bike go a little bit more (this after 1700 miles). If they've somehow made it more efficient and stable its certainly worth a look.

    As I look over that text above I probably come off as a yeti apologist/fanboy but so be it. I like my bike a lot and on paper this one is an improvement to say the least. Plus the frame is pretty damn light (bet we'll see a ~24lb build without sacrificing too much strength) and looks really slick with the yeti swoops and internal routing. Of course that's without riding it and even when I do I'm still just some guy on the forum. Guess we'll see as reviews trickle in.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    108
    I agree with you Terp, that it may be hasty to be passing on this offering just based on the limited reviews out there.

    Many of us with SB-95s were hoping for an improvement of X, whatever X may be, in the SB4.5c. I think the problem is that many of us want the SB-95 or SB4.5c to be something that it is not. I really want my SB-95c to give nothing up on the downhill and nothing up when hammering XC. Is the SB4.5 an improvement in both those areas? I don't know.

    What I do know, is that I've come to the conclusion that as my riding improves, there is no such thing as a one quiver bike. Rather than paying to upgrade to the SB4.5, I'll be investing in a Hardtail and an SB6c. Really I don't see any other way around it.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    I was just at the point of going 150mm on the SB95c within the past couple of months and my only real complaint with it is it's an overly flexy bike in terms of pedal torsion translated through the rear swing arm. I'm ok with probably giving up .5" in the rear and I'm betting a 150 Lyrik up front on a SB4.5c will work swell. But what won't work is adding any kind of bail out gear for all day grinds in the way of a 3x front and that's what I wanted a SB4.5c for,...destination riding where you're riding everything from down hill parks to scenic paved green ways when vacationing. At this past tribe I spent plenty of time in the lowest AND tallest gears on a 3x10 XTR drivetrain, not just a 100yds here and there. Somehow I managed to set a top 3 overall time across 7 miles of Continental Divide and fastest Clyde to Strava it so I reckon I'm a decent rider in the least. Not sure if being 210lbs means I need or can use the gear range more effectively but most of my PRs at home are also on this SB95c and using the 3x up front for quick burst over a short climb to keep momentum rather then dumping a rear cassette worth of gears. I already have my play bikes for the local parks set up for our local conditions, I need a versatile comfy rig and this isn't exactly what I was waiting for to be honest but have already sold some stuff off to come up with the coin for a new toy this fall.
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    757
    I wouldn't put too much stock in early reviews. Let's face it, some of the reviewers in major magazines seem out to lunch. I'd trust the folks at Yeti to build a good riding bike. It's not like they didn't test out a bunch of prototypes etc. And the amount of nitpicking that goes on these days (e.g., people complaining that the chainstays on the new Turner RFX weren't .00001 of an inch shorter etc.), is crazy. My only beef is price - it's just too expensive. I know, I know, Yeti wants to build the best bikes etc., and all the power to them. When a frame is 2400-2800, I can justify it, save etc., but when things are 3400 or more, and bikes 7-8k, that's just too damn much (and I like to think I earn a decent income and spend a lot of money on bike crap). I am looking for a trail oriented 29 frame, but now I am looking at a Kona or Transition.

  10. #10
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Terp View Post
    I was kind of surprised at the reception as well. 6 months of frothy anticipation was replaced with everyone deciding X is a deal breaker for me within 6 hours and one quick review logged over 10 miles ...
    I resemble this remark.

    The review part, yeah, that's all subjective and based on not much. Just because that guy thought it was too slack doesn't mean any of us would. But I am one of the few who isn't on the slacker-is-better bandwagon. I like a responsive bike. As such, Yetis over the years have proven to be not my cup of tea. My ASRc broke that losing streak because by my standards, it's balanced in terms of responsiveness .vs fast 'n stable.

    My shop will have a full size run of the 4.5 in demo a week after they are widely available, because they will kill here. My little town was apey over 29" wheels before Fisher started building production 29ers. So I will surely ride one. But even if I love how it rides, I won't want one.

    I'm an endurance geek, and my feeding system relies on a water bottle. Not changing it because of a bike I could barely afford anyway. And I use a triple. I do everything on my bike including 100+ mile gravel grinders. I live in Colorado, 3+ hour sustained climbs are part of my normal summer riding. I log big miles and I love the climbing, but I'm slow and large and I need a real granny.

    So yeah, even though it's seemingly knee-jerk, I have definitely eliminated the 4.5 as a bike I would ever buy.

    That said, after I test ride one I'll post my feedback.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    432
    The geo numbers are spot on for a modern 29 trailbike. The price tag is not as the M429 trail is $2500 Following $2600 Ripley $2900 and the Yeti $3,400??

    Then add the change to boost an a new wheelset...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    I resemble this remark.

    The review part, yeah, that's all subjective and based on not much. Just because that guy thought it was too slack doesn't mean any of us would. But I am one of the few who isn't on the slacker-is-better bandwagon. I like a responsive bike. As such, Yetis over the years have proven to be not my cup of tea. My ASRc broke that losing streak because by my standards, it's balanced in terms of responsiveness .vs fast 'n stable.

    My shop will have a full size run of the 4.5 in demo a week after they are widely available, because they will kill here. My little town was apey over 29" wheels before Fisher started building production 29ers. So I will surely ride one. But even if I love how it rides, I won't want one.

    I'm an endurance geek, and my feeding system relies on a water bottle. Not changing it because of a bike I could barely afford anyway. And I use a triple. I do everything on my bike including 100+ mile gravel grinders. I live in Colorado, 3+ hour sustained climbs are part of my normal summer riding. I log big miles and I love the climbing, but I'm slow and large and I need a real granny.

    So yeah, even though it's seemingly knee-jerk, I have definitely eliminated the 4.5 as a bike I would ever buy.

    That said, after I test ride one I'll post my feedback.
    Sounds like we're on the same page, Just for giggles I compared the final drive numbers of my various 1x11 set ups and my 3x10 XTR,..The 3x10 is just way more practical (when my front derailleur works properly on my SB95c) I spent more time in granny gear on that SB95c than I'd like to admit at Tribe earlier this month but in spite of that we got the job done and wasn't completely trashed after a brisk paced 40 miler at 9,500' elevation. I'm also doing the International Nepal Tribe in November and was really hoping to have a SB95c replacement and not have to make any compromises other than let the pennies loose. I'm not griping about the price and I'd pay another few hundred if that damn thing could take a front derailleur!!
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    81
    For all of you complaining about 1x

    EUROBIKE 2015 | Huge gear ratios and lots of carbon from E13 | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine

    I want to know when we are going to see a boost dt 240s hub. Anyone know what hub is specced on the 45?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    97
    Early reviews are inconclusive? I agree that the dork at Velonews should learn how to climb... but the rest of the reviews have been fairly glowing. Ya'll are looking for that one cloud in a bright, sunny sky.

    As for the "10 minutes on the bike thing".... welp, pretty sure that Brice Minnigh - the editor at Bike magazine - has the early and authoritative review of the bike, having taken it to the Caucasus mountains in Russia for an extended bikepacking trip (!). Yeah, it's been tested.

    Wilderness Tested: Yeti SB4.5c | BIKE Magazine

    " High in the Caucasus Mountains—one of the world’s steepest, most inhospitable chains—and I’m riding the SB4.5c up climbs that my brain is telling me are not worth the effort. And, side note, my bike and back are fully loaded with food, survival gear and camera/film equipment for the Bike mag feature and short film we were working on. Despite all this, I was pedaling the SB4.5c through some climbs that, at first glance, didn’t seem worth the energy expenditure it required to clean them. Yet I was slaying many of them, even though I was tired, underfed and over-weighted. I felt like my initial hunch had been borne out in reality: Even though I was suffering from a weight disadvantage, the combination of 29-inch wheels with the pedaling efficiency of the Switch Technology platform was impossible to overlook, and the technological benefits were allowing me to do things that I might not have been able to do otherwise." (Note to Velonews reviewer.... you suck at climbing).

    "The Switch Infinity system is designed around a translating main pivot, which moves upward at the beginning of its travel, creating a rearward wheel path with distinct anti-squat characteristics. This could immediately be felt through steep, chunky sections of momentum-sapping singletrack. The pedaling was precise, and the rear wheel hugged the ground like a mother re-united with a lost child.

    Okay, the next question is, understandably, “well, how does the bike descend?” And, as is the case with the most capable 29ers on the market, the answer is, “incredibly well.” This is especially true when the bike is pointed in a straight line—it plows through chunder and the most beefy baby heads with the greatest aplomb, the big wheels essentially replicating another solid inch of travel all the way to the bottom."

    Yeah, he mentioned that the bigger wheels could be a bit of a handful in tight, steep switchbacks.... but what niner is not like that? BFD.

    So basically..... it's a freaking awesome bike. Stop fixating on whether this angle or that length is a tenth of an inch from "perfect" and ride the damn thing. I'm sure it'll put a sh*t eating grin on your face like the 95 did when you first rode that... only more betterer.



    TAKE MY MONEY YETI! (that is, after I sell my 95C to someone who thinks that extra 14mm of rear travel is the difference maker).

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: velojonthan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    32
    The velonews review read a bit odd.

    "but powering up and over obstacles on the 29er SB4.5c was difficult because the front end wanted to come off the ground; sections I’ve never struggled to clear became hike-a-bikes due to the unwieldy front end."

    If someone is riding sections of home trails that they clean easily and the bike is making them mandatory hike sections, one would think that the bike has to be very extreme.

    "The dreaded 29er wheel flop reared its head a few times, right when I needed a boost of power through a tech section or pinpoint steering around a switchback"

    Not sure what wheel flop has to do with the guy being gassed and not on the power or poorly positioned through an uphill hairpin.


    A slack 29 will have some wheel flop and (Depending on the riders setup) harder to steer on a steep uphill.

    Seemed like the article needed a better cyclist, or perhaps the editors to come back from euro bike and proofread.

    The new bike is cool but I'll ride my sb95c till the frame is toast then upgrade.

  16. #16
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7,559
    Quote Originally Posted by mattwright999 View Post
    For all of you complaining about 1x

    EUROBIKE 2015 | Huge gear ratios and lots of carbon from E13 | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine

    I want to know when we are going to see a boost dt 240s hub. Anyone know what hub is specced on the 45?
    They definitely exist. Graves and Rude are running them on the Boosted SB6c. The new Trek Top Fuel comes with super light DT wheels that I have to imagine are rolling on them, too. Trek Factory Racing's XC guys are almost certainly on them.

    When will they be available to us normal peons? Your guess is as good as mine.
    Death from Below.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    They definitely exist. Graves and Rude are running them on the Boosted SB6c. The new Trek Top Fuel comes with super light DT wheels that I have to imagine are rolling on them, too. Trek Factory Racing's XC guys are almost certainly on them.

    When will they be available to us normal peons? Your guess is as good as mine.
    Actually emailed DT and just got a reply

    "We will not be offering 240s level Boost hubs for sale on their own for at least 6 months. That said, we expect to have 350 level hubs available later this year."

    If you look around 1:23 in this video it looks like he is on a 350?

    Video: Bike Break with Richie Rude | BIKE Magazine

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    I'm wondering if the Boost spec rear spacing is why the SB4.5c is not capable of a FD and yet the 15 SB6 and 5c is. Seems a tad early for the Boost spec, but I think I'll like the extra wheel rigidity with it but being stuck with no high end hubs for a $10-11k MTB is a bit hard to wait for the market to catch up.
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yeti575inCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,623
    maybe i will just keep my sb95c and add a 6c to the garage..lol

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,592
    Does anybody know the details on the internal cable routing? Has Yeti implemented a way to secure the cables inside of the tubes?

    I've tested several bikes this season and I could hear the cables rattling in the tubes on most of them.

  21. #21
    old but slow
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9
    Just my 2 cents, I have been riding Yeti's since Juli won Durango and this bike is the best one yet.
    Granted, I only rode it for an hour, but it steers so frisky, pedals so easy, the new suspension is so smooth and fun feeling, the bike has few limits.
    Yes, I want a front der and a bottle without giardia.
    Been going back and forth between SB95c and Sb66c the past 3 years -ride one for a month and switch back, etc.
    The first 20 minutes after changing are usually relearning how to steer or make the 66 go straight .
    The SB45c was just fun and balanced right away, no undo hesitation in steering and the SI is way smoother on the climbs than the previous switch.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bigdrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,140
    The 45c looks incredible. But the price difference between that and the Pivot 429 Trail...... We will see. Its not always about price.

  23. #23
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by yeti575inCA View Post
    maybe i will just keep my sb95c and add a 6c to the garage..lol
    That's what I would do, if I were you.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,756
    I will win the Lottery and I will have one! (or two...)

    -------------------------------------
    Opinions are like A-holes... everybody
    has one & they're usually full of...??
    to err is human... to face plant is frickin hilarious!!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66
    I was pretty much sold on the SB4.5C before it was released and as I said elsewhere on this forum it ticks all the boxes and is what I expected it to be. More so, like the ASR5C I owned before it, suited to me, what and where I ride and my riding style.

    I don't necessarily need a 'big' bike and have been riding local XC/Trail from the door as well as more technical, mountain trails in Scotland and the Lakes on a steel 29er 100mm hardtail with 70 degree HA.

    Granted it's often been like taking a knife to a gunfight but you ride what you have and you ride accordingly. The SB4.5C looks to be the 'gunship' I need. A long, low, slack, aggressive, stiff, short travel 29er FS. A combination between the ASR5C and my 29er HT.

    I suppose I couldn't understand those negative comments from journalists both sides of the Atlantic when there are lots of other bikes in the short travel 29er trail bike category with the same numbers running pretty much the same travel front and rear.

    As others have said though, it's just early reviews and early opinions. Looking forward to making my own. Although, sourcing a demo in the UK may take some time

    Which might be a blessing as I have a build in mind already so will be going frame-only and will need to wait for boost hubs to be made available.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    124
    I'm so pumped for this bike, but at the same time so bummed about the price. Saving up 5k for bikes has been hard enough, but there's no way I'll be able to drop that kind of coin on a bike. Maybe I'll nab one next year when the new model comes out. Looks awesome though. Can't wait to ride it.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by MostChillin View Post
    Yeti is now the Ferrari of bikes. Gotta pay to play!

    Edited because I didn't mean for my original comment to come across the wrong way. Huge Yeti fan here.
    Haha. Understood. I'm just searching hard for a SB95. I can still make that work, and it's a fantastic bike.

  28. #28
    LCW
    LCW is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,965
    I applaud Yeti for the 4.5C... It's pretty well known that the switch infinity hits above its weight (ie. feels like more travel than it is, as proven by the 5C and 6C).

    As an SB66 owner (and 575 before that), I have no desire for a burly long travel 29er. Also not quite sold on 27.5 to be honest (praise it all you like, it was a marketing coup by the bike/component companies to sell more bikes/wheels/tires). So the SB4.5C might be my ticket for a fast, efficient, yet plush riding trail bike. 29er is a big enough delta from my 26er to make a noticeable difference.

    I'm glad it's 1X only. That is the future. The front derailleur is an aberration and I'm glad it's going out of style. Simplifies the drivetrain, less to maintain, more room in cockpit for dropper and/or suspension remotes. It's too bad the Hammerschmidt never caught on (too heavy and pricey I guess) - as that actually resolved the front derailleur problem while still allowing the 2X benefits.

    While the price is crazy, it is what it is. I'd either grab a GX, or more realistically get a frame a build up my own setup with Shimano parts.

    No ISCG isn't a deal breaker. Disappointing yes but not a deal breaker. Narrow-wide rings have eliminated the need for a chain guide (my 2X 575 had a chain guide because it needed it, my SB66 with 1X narrow-wide does need it at all - never dropped a chain even in gnar chunk). To mount a bash guard would be nice, but for my usage (fast efficient trail bike), it's not really necessary. I have my SB66 for bike park, gravity, gnarly/chunky riding.

    I'm going to have to seek out a demo on the 4.5C. Being in MN, that's a bit easier said than done...

    EVIL Following

    Surly Wednesday

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    I have played with 1x plenty but will take a 3x for any destination trip or day ride over 40 miles that has 3k+ feet of climbing or more. I'm a big guy and a fairly strong pedaling one at that. I have issues with chain skip in the smaller cogs when I put the hammer down on anything less than a 34 tooth front on quick climbs up a roller which can put me in a cog under 17 in the rear at the speeds I'm carrying in some sections, but want a 30f/42r for long climb duty. I'm pretty strong in the XC grinding category and while just barely in clyde territory these days I've spent 4 miles in and out of granny in a 3x set up on my SB95c just recently on a long gravel climb with 10% plus grades. The 27.5 bikes are smaller diameter and less weight, so that much easier to get by with a wide range 1x. My fatbike does ok with 1x locally, but I even prefer 2x on it for bail out when the legs have had enough. When Yeti is offering a 29" trail rig chances are they're appealing to some bigger guys and longer range guys,.....so why eliminate a front derailleur? 90% of my riding is local and 1x works GREAT there where I know what to expect and will still use the full range (42-11 XTR) on a short 5 mile trail with the variety we have here.

    I wanted to take my riding to the next level this year and figured signing up for a trip to Nepal would be good motivation to get to where I'm averaging 100 miles a week on a good weather week to be fit and comfy at altitude for a week plus of pedaling. I should be just plain happy with my SB95c and it's a great bike for this kind of thing, however the tail wagging rear and occasional choppy Switch behavior can be a thorn in my ass though. I had my hopes on an almost exact replacement with SI and stiff ass chassis. I'm not worried about bottle holders, this is a destination bike for me and wearing a back pack, even a small back pack on my 10-20 mile local rides for hydration. I can understand loosing .5" in the rear with a more efficient platform, hell I have my SB95c set up on the stiffer side and rarely bottom it out even bombing down stuff.

    So in a perfect world I would have an SB4.5c with Lyrik 150mm fork, Boost spec Chris King's or DT240 all around(whenever they might become available) with Enve M60 HV, Cane Creek Double Barrel AND A FRONT DERAILLEUR. World isn't perfect but the lack of an FD for a 29" trail/AM bike with a clyde like myself is pretty much a deal breaker for blind brand loyalty and just buy the next best offering. I have an ASRc with RS-1 120 travel front that is capable of a FD, I think I'll throw my 140 pike on it along with a FD and see where that gets me but in my head it doesn't make sense to make and ASRc the all day destination bike in my quiver and get a SB4.5 for my local short haul ass strava PR kinda rides. The ASRc does climb pretty darn good 1x11 wide range but I've never loaded up for a long day trip on it to see if 36 oval front and 42 rear is low enough for extended climbing for me and still have legs for the long haul and down hill. It's a bit nervous down hill with the RS-1 but AWESOME on typical XC stuff.
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by cpolism View Post
    Haha. Understood. I'm just searching hard for a SB95. I can still make that work, and it's a fantastic bike.
    I don't think you'd be sorry--probably the most versatile bike I've ever ridden. I'm running mine with a 1x drivetrain, db inline shock, Pike 140, Thomson dropper and a set of the Carver Carbon rims laced to King hubs. A little more than 26 lbs, and this bike continues to surprise me for anything other than flat-out xc racing. I raced the BC Bike Race on it, and it was a perfect choice. I take it to Black Rock (free ride area) and it handles more than it probably should. I'm guessing the 4.5 is awesome, but the SB95 is plenty special!
    Keith in Corvallis

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    687
    IMO, 130 rear travel would have set this apart from the 29er competition out there. Otherwise, it's an expensive bike in a crowded field. My wallet thanks Yeti though since now I won't be tempted.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Man View Post
    IMO, 130 rear travel would have set this apart from the 29er competition out there. Otherwise, it's an expensive bike in a crowded field. My wallet thanks Yeti though since now I won't be tempted.
    SB5.25 I like it!!!!!! Just make sure it has a freaking FD!haha
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ReXTless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by some dude View Post
    I have played with 1x plenty but will take a 3x for any destination trip or day ride over 40 miles that has 3k+ feet of climbing or more. I'm a big guy and a fairly strong pedaling one at that. I have issues with chain skip in the smaller cogs when I put the hammer down on anything less than a 34 tooth front on quick climbs up a roller which can put me in a cog under 17 in the rear at the speeds I'm carrying in some sections, but want a 30f/42r for long climb duty. I'm pretty strong in the XC grinding category and while just barely in clyde territory these days I've spent 4 miles in and out of granny in a 3x set up on my SB95c just recently on a long gravel climb with 10% plus grades. The 27.5 bikes are smaller diameter and less weight, so that much easier to get by with a wide range 1x. My fatbike does ok with 1x locally, but I even prefer 2x on it for bail out when the legs have had enough. When Yeti is offering a 29" trail rig chances are they're appealing to some bigger guys and longer range guys,.....so why eliminate a front derailleur? 90% of my riding is local and 1x works GREAT there where I know what to expect and will still use the full range (42-11 XTR) on a short 5 mile trail with the variety we have here.

    I wanted to take my riding to the next level this year and figured signing up for a trip to Nepal would be good motivation to get to where I'm averaging 100 miles a week on a good weather week to be fit and comfy at altitude for a week plus of pedaling. I should be just plain happy with my SB95c and it's a great bike for this kind of thing, however the tail wagging rear and occasional choppy Switch behavior can be a thorn in my ass though. I had my hopes on an almost exact replacement with SI and stiff ass chassis. I'm not worried about bottle holders, this is a destination bike for me and wearing a back pack, even a small back pack on my 10-20 mile local rides for hydration. I can understand loosing .5" in the rear with a more efficient platform, hell I have my SB95c set up on the stiffer side and rarely bottom it out even bombing down stuff.

    So in a perfect world I would have an SB4.5c with Lyrik 150mm fork, Boost spec Chris King's or DT240 all around(whenever they might become available) with Enve M60 HV, Cane Creek Double Barrel AND A FRONT DERAILLEUR. World isn't perfect but the lack of an FD for a 29" trail/AM bike with a clyde like myself is pretty much a deal breaker for blind brand loyalty and just buy the next best offering. I have an ASRc with RS-1 120 travel front that is capable of a FD, I think I'll throw my 140 pike on it along with a FD and see where that gets me but in my head it doesn't make sense to make and ASRc the all day destination bike in my quiver and get a SB4.5 for my local short haul ass strava PR kinda rides. The ASRc does climb pretty darn good 1x11 wide range but I've never loaded up for a long day trip on it to see if 36 oval front and 42 rear is low enough for extended climbing for me and still have legs for the long haul and down hill. It's a bit nervous down hill with the RS-1 but AWESOME on typical XC stuff.
    I think you've gotten your point across. What you don't seem to accept is that your personal preferences are very much a minority viewpoint. People are far more likely to want the increased stiffness and shorter rear over the ability to run a triple. It's a deal-breaker for you. Understood. But, you can't blame Yeti for making a better bike for just about everyone else.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by ReXTless View Post
    I think you've gotten your point across. What you don't seem to accept is that your personal preferences are very much a minority viewpoint. People are far more likely to want the increased stiffness and shorter rear over the ability to run a triple. It's a deal-breaker for you. Understood. But, you can't blame Yeti for making a better bike for just about everyone else.
    So then why SB5 and SB6(really not a long hauler by most accounts) have FD mount points? There's been no info stating the FD wasn't possible on the SB4.5, so it appears it's merely because cost to benefit ratio wasn't there on paper, and I get it,........doesn't mean I'm happy about it. I might as well had my new Yeti money stolen out of the damn bank!
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ReXTless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by some dude View Post
    So then why SB5 and SB6(really not a long hauler by most accounts) have FD mount points? There's been no info stating the FD wasn't possible on the SB4.5, so it appears it's merely because cost to benefit ratio wasn't there on paper, and I get it,........doesn't mean I'm happy about it. I might as well had my new Yeti money stolen out of the damn bank!
    Less room in a 29er rear than 27.5. They prioritized travel, chainstay length, and stiffness over 2x and 3x. A front mech is certainly possible, but would have come with unacceptable trade-offs in the other areas.

  36. #36
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,254
    Run an oval ring on a 1x.

    It'll give you the extra assistance you need on the climbs, while still maintaining the speed you desire on the flats.

    The SB4.5c looks cool. Not for me, but looks cool.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steadyflow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Man View Post
    IMO, 130 rear travel would have set this apart from the 29er competition out there. Otherwise, it's an expensive bike in a crowded field. My wallet thanks Yeti though since now I won't be tempted.
    This is where I am at on this as well. I am sure Yeti has very good reasons for going with a 29'er with less travel than the 95c, but for me I love my 95c. If I could have gotten into a newer version with more travel, that had an even better pedaling platform I would have.

    For now I will keep riding my 95c and see what comes out in the next couple years. It does seem most of the bike companies are moving away from long travel 29'ers which is too bad, as that is the kind of one bike quiver I like. I am sure I am in the minority though otherwise the industry wouldn't be moving away from those bikes.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    775
    Come on all you SB95C owners, let's see those frames start popping up on ebay, Pinkbike or here so I can replace my alum model. Large or X-Large...(I think I can make either work at 6' 2 '') Thank you!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,063
    Quote Originally Posted by kingofbiscuits View Post

    What do other Yeti fans think of the SB4.5C?
    Thirty. Four. Hundred. Dollar$.

    Just for the frame.

    No way I can afford that. Alloy option coming?

  40. #40
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by some dude View Post
    So then why SB5 and SB6(really not a long hauler by most accounts) have FD mount points? There's been no info stating the FD wasn't possible on the SB4.5, so it appears it's merely because cost to benefit ratio wasn't there on paper, and I get it,........doesn't mean I'm happy about it. I might as well had my new Yeti money stolen out of the damn bank!
    Getting rid of the FD allowed for the shorter chainstays everyone was yammering for. Should be great. A 429T ticks your boxes for $900 less frame price (and has a water bottle mount), though even that is double ring only because of boost. I'm pretty sure there's no boost triples. But a double with an 11-42 XT cassette, or a 10-42 SRAM cassette will offer more range than a traditional 3x with an 11-36 anyway. You could go faster on crutches than with a 22T front and 42T rear (unless your spinning like 150rpm, then you'd gain a slight advantage over the guy on crutches)
    Wow, GJ, Fruita, and Moab trails are riding great. This is a killer spring for riding!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    792
    Still glad I purchased a 95c frame when they went on sale. Loving my 95c with a 130 mm PIKE, and lightweight build. 1x drivetrains are not for me, just not a wide enough gear ratio for long high altitude riding in Colorado.
    Looks to me like Yeti had to make some compromises to make SI work for 29" wheels (less travel and no FD), oh well... hopefully my 95c lasts awhile, it sure rips for my XC/Trail riding preference.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Run an oval ring on a 1x.

    It'll give you the extra assistance you need on the climbs, while still maintaining the speed you desire on the flats.

    The SB4.5c looks cool. Not for me, but looks cool.
    Already done that, played with 32, 34 and 36 and running a 36 Absolute on the ASRc with a 11-42 XTR 11spd, however I might change to XD driver body and see what a Sram XG cassette with 10-42 might get me and allow a 34 front for ever so slightly better granny. 24/36 of a 3x is a .67 final drive ratio and 36/42 of 1x is a .86,...still alot of gap to make up of a 1x to a 3x. I'd be fine with a 2x that had a 38 big ring and a 28 little with a wide range 11spd cassette, it'd only loose out at the 35-40mph range which is not so common even on long gravel downs but have the exact same crawl ratio with better ring/chain wear.
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    83
    Was pretty excited about the SB4.5 announcement as I couldn't pull the trigger on the ASR-C because I wanted something more trail-capable and I could not sacrifice losing the rear Switch. The 5c and 6c are 27.5's so that was a deal-breaker for me. Everything sounded good until the price of the SB4.5 frame and more importantly, the new Boost 148 requirement. I can't use my custom 12x142 wheels which I thought would be around a lot longer. I have to think about this and whether I want to commit to a frame and new wheels (or hubs). Or I can just enjoy my SB95 and not think about it. We'll see...

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    97
    What new bike out there is made for a triple? In ANY category?

    Give up the ghost dude.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by Shifty Bits View Post
    What new bike out there is made for a triple? In ANY category?

    Give up the ghost dude.
    2x11 would be more than acceptable but 3x is preferred for a destination/trail rig of mine. Redundancy and not having to cassette dump are big for me but not as big as wide ratio for a versatile bike. 1x works great for enduro and DH,..I want that AND long hauler
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yeti575inCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,623
    Quote Originally Posted by keithrad View Post
    Come on all you SB95C owners, let's see those frames start popping up on ebay, Pinkbike or here so I can replace my alum model. Large or X-Large...(I think I can make either work at 6' 2 '') Thank you!
    I have a xl frame...pm me

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yeti575inCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,623
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    Thirty. Four. Hundred. Dollar$.

    Just for the frame.

    No way I can afford that. Alloy option coming?
    YetI stated no more alum frames...carbon only go forward

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridetheridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    380
    Yeti usually nails the geometry on bikes and I'm fairly sure the 114mm out back will ride on the trail like it has a lot more travel. It's not for me though... I like my current bike quite a bit.
    The Mtn Bike App --> http://mtbphotoz.com

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ReXTless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by some dude View Post
    2x11 would be more than acceptable but 3x is preferred for a destination/trail rig of mine. Redundancy and not having to cassette dump are big for me but not as big as wide ratio for a versatile bike. 1x works great for enduro and DH,..I want that AND long hauler
    Everyone understands your point. Nobody agrees with you. There are a lot of solutions to your "problem". You don't want to hear any of them.

    Can we move on?

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by ReXTless View Post
    Everyone understands your point. Nobody agrees with you. There are a lot of solutions to your "problem". You don't want to hear any of them.

    Can we move on?
    Only solution to gearing range is well,............gearing range. It's just math, really not that hard to figure out ;-) Show me a solution that provides a .67 ratio climb gear with anything over a 3.50 ratio tall gear in a 1x (crickets)

    I'm not going on about price or water bottles which there are solutions for.
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

Page 1 of 36 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2012 yeti asr-5 or 2014 yeti sb95
    By Yetimnstr575 in forum Yeti
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-20-2015, 06:14 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-27-2013, 05:31 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-01-2013, 01:11 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
  •