SB130 vs SB150, opinions wanted!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 182 of 182
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    5

    SB130 vs SB150, opinions wanted!

    I know this is all theoretical at this point since the SB130 isn't out yet, but I want to get a discussion going concerning the merits of these two bikes and where each bike is best suited.

    I currently ride an SB4.5 and feel it is very well suited for the trails I typically ride in the Las Vegas area. It's agile, climbs well, descends with confidence and is a super fun bike to ride. I was having some trouble with blowing through the front and rear suspension on some drops and really chunky descents. I upgraded the rear shock to a Vorsprung Corset and threw a medium volume spacer in it and noticed a vast improvement. I also put an MRP Ribbon air shock on the front and have really enjoyed it. The ramp control is nice, and it handles hard hits much better than the Fox 34 did.

    I have had the SB4.5 for a year and half now and am wanting to get a new bike for no good reason other than I want to try something new out.

    So, it's between the SB130 and SB150. I think the SB130 could be more versatile for an all around excellent climber and descender. However, it sounds like the SB150 climbs pretty damn well and is a beast descending. For someone who really enjoys long, technical climbs and burly descents, I'm leaning towards the SB130. I feel as if it would give me a little more capability with descending than my SB4.5 but hopefully climb just as well with the steep STA and more modern geometry. But the descending capability of the SB150 is kind of seductive!

    What do you all think?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    706
    Only you truly knows what will work best. I would imagine the SB130 would ride like the Pivot switchblade which is plenty capable.

    The SB150 is for riders either racing, doing double diamond descents, or really crazy technical steep rocky drops.

    I think you know which bike deep down inside would be best, the problem is we think we always need more.

    I would most likely get the 150 for me as i ride in Laguna Beach and there is alot of Rocky steep terrain, i also think that the bigger bike will help my confidence and descending progression.

    Only you truly know deep down inside what will work.
    Evil Insurgent Yeti SB5.5 Evil Wreckoning Pivot Switchblade Pivot Mach 5.5 Yeti SB150

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    119
    The 150 will be too much bike for many of the folks that will purchase it. If youíre not roosting berms, sending 30í doubles... look at the 130. The 130 looks to be a wonderful addition to the fleet.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    866
    Are you keeping the 4.5? B/c the answer might be different if you are...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    19
    I am curious if there are any thoughts on how the SB 130 or SB 150 will compare to the current SB5.5. I was going to up grade to the "Updated SB 5.5" but will now be discontinued. The SB5.5 seemed like an incredible 1 quiver bike for what I ride (Auburn, Downieville, Tahoe...) but now with the new options...Currently I ride a SB5v1 converted to a LR. I appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by k/dv View Post
    The 150 will be too much bike for many of the folks that will purchase it. If youíre not roosting berms, sending 30í doubles... look at the 130. The 130 looks to be a wonderful addition to the fleet.
    I'm thinking even the 130 will be too much, but I'll find out next week when I take delivery!
    Yeti SB130 Turq
    Progressive Coil
    WAO Agents with I9s

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Here we go again.. lol deja vu (6c v 5c)..

    The sb130 is going to improve upon the 45c in many ways the new gen of SB bikes have..geo, increase effective travel, etc.

    Thinks sb130 as a more travel modern 45c and a updated less travel 55c.

    In addition you can also increase performance of the bike in either direction..increase fork by 10mm, and add a reservoir shock without sacrificing much should you desire more "party".

    It's going to climb and pedal more efficient than a sb150.
    It's going to require or reward a more precise line choice.
    It's going to be a bit more playful feel (sporty) and less plush in the suspension feel vs sb150. (Just like 45c v 55c).

    It's going to be a 1 bike quiver type imho...


    Sb100 and sb150 would be a great 2 bike roster for those who can do it..

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by yeti575inCA View Post
    Here we go again.. lol deja vu (6c v 5c)..

    The sb130 is going to improve upon the 45c in many ways the new gen of SB bikes have..geo, increase effective travel, etc.

    Thinks sb130 as a more travel modern 45c and a updated less travel 55c.

    In addition you can also increase performance of the bike in either direction..increase fork by 10mm, and add a reservoir shock without sacrificing much should you desire more "party".

    It's going to climb and pedal more efficient than a sb150.
    It's going to require or reward a more precise line choice.
    It's going to be a bit more playful feel (sporty) and less plush in the suspension feel vs sb150. (Just like 45c v 55c).

    It's going to be a 1 bike quiver type imho...


    Sb100 and sb150 would be a great 2 bike roster for those who can do it..

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Well said and I agree on all points. One note, it already comes with a DPX2.
    Yeti SB130 Turq
    Progressive Coil
    WAO Agents with I9s

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    5
    Great input! It helps to have the opinions of so many knowledgeable folks in order to feel good about a decision.

    I think Snowsed341 hit the nail on the head. I do kind of know which bike will be right for me. I think the SB130 would be perfect for what I do and provide a bit more descending prowess as compared to my SB4.5.

    If the SB130 climbs and handles as well or better than the SB4.5 while providing a little more capability on the descents, I think I will be a very happy owner. It is nice to have so many tremendous choices in this sport, but it makes decisions more difficult!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Bannerman View Post
    I'm thinking even the 130 will be too much, but I'll find out next week when I take delivery!
    Where did you order an SB130?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by msu alum View Post
    where did you order an sb130?
    lbs

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Yeah I think you will find the sb130 to do everything better than the 45c. Take the reviews of the sb100 and apply the positives, to the sb45c and you should be close to what the sb130 will be like.. plus a water bottle lol

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  13. #13
    Freezer
    Reputation: mlloyd007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by yeti575inCA View Post
    Yeah I think you will find the sb130 to do everything better than the 45c. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Not so sure about that. I, for one, voted with my wallet after seeing the specs and pics of the SB130, and ordered a SB4.5 frame last week instead of a SB130. Why? Weight- it looks like the frame is a good 1.5 lbs heavier than the 4.5; Top tube- shorter than the 4.5 (reach is great, but most of my pedaling is actually in the saddle); Asethetics- not too psyched about the look around the SI/BB area. Net/net it looks like it will be a better descender than the 4.5, but I don't see how it would match the 4.5 as a climber.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Will be amazing when it comes out. It's a Yeti

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    30
    I'm on the same boat, keen to pull the trigger on a 4.5 for a while, until I heard about the 130.
    Thing is, I would still go ahead with the 4.5 if the Lbs could offer a decent discount (there is one last frame available in the cvountry apparently), but at yhe moment the price us pretty close that of a 130 carbon entry level. Maybe I should wait and see if they discount the 4.5 further?

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    10
    I demo'd the SB150 last week. It's big. It's a monster when descending. I was fast without realizing it (I took an early digger and felt off my game after, but still set some PRs). I found it harder to get off the ground than the 5.5, and harder to change lines.

    In terms of climbing it felt very similar to the 5.5 except I had a lot more issues with pedal strikes. I don't know if the BB is lower than the 5.5 or not, but I ended up actually firming up the rear to help clean those up. I know, that's blasphemy against the Switch Infinity. My friend did not have that issue and thought it was an excellent climber (especially for a 150/170).

    We both agreed that it's a bike that feels like it was made for straight line speed and preferring to stay on the ground.

    It's a bike that needs a more aggressive rider than I am to unlock it!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MJW75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowsed341
    I think you know which bike deep down inside would be best, the problem is we think we always need more..
    This is so true, but something I keep needing to be reminded of. Because 150 is more than 130, so it must be better right!!?

    Iím impatiently awaiting reviews for both, but it think in the end Iíll end up with an SB130. I think I want to believe my skills warrant an SB150, when they really donít. I donít even have the type of terrain near me that would allow an SB150 to do its thing.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    95% of those with this question in their mind would be better served by the SB130, or the 'old' 5.5.

    A good 2 bike quiver would be the SB100 & the SB5.5.

    I understand what people are trying to accomplish by getting 2 bikes that are really spread apart in capabilities, but the end result is you rarely have the bike you need which is essentially an All Mountain rig for most of us. Not a XC race bike, nor a DH race bike.

    The SB150 climbs well for 'what it is', which is a gnarly downhill enduro rig. That bike will be a handful to try to trail ride on, and frankly will dumb down the trails a bit. It's not so heavy, but it's burly, transfers a lot of weight when pedaling, and is long.

    Good luck.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post

    A good 2 bike quiver would be the SB100 & the SB5.5.

    I understand what people are trying to accomplish by getting 2 bikes that are really spread apart in capabilities, but the end result is you rarely have the bike you need which is essentially an All Mountain rig for most of us. Not a XC race bike, nor a DH race bike.
    I 100% agree with this statement. I tell my friends frequently, we ride in the center of the bell curve, so why not have two bikes centered near the apex of the curve with differences that occur on either side of the bell curve. Yes, overlap but two bikes that will be used frequently though they accomplish different goals. The end points represent the small percentage of use and you miss out on all of the fun.

    Well said!!!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    95% of those with this question in their mind would be better served by the SB130, or the 'old' 5.5.

    A good 2 bike quiver would be the SB100 & the SB5.5.

    I understand what people are trying to accomplish by getting 2 bikes that are really spread apart in capabilities, but the end result is you rarely have the bike you need which is essentially an All Mountain rig for most of us. Not a XC race bike, nor a DH race bike.

    The SB150 climbs well for 'what it is', which is a gnarly downhill enduro rig. That bike will be a handful to try to trail ride on, and frankly will dumb down the trails a bit. It's not so heavy, but it's burly, transfers a lot of weight when pedaling, and is long.

    Good luck.
    Iím curious how the 130 will compare to the 5.5.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    35
    I'm in Vegas too and was also considering both bikes. I think for the trails we have around here the 150 will be overkill.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    31
    FWIW I ride a 5.5 here in Georgia. I just got back from Park City where I demoíd an SB100 for two days... the bike blew me away and handled all Deer Valley lift runs very well! Blues to blacks! It wasnít available when I purchased the 5.5 but if your primary trails donít call for a monster truck go for the SB100 or hold out for the 130 🤘🏻

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    40
    anyone happen to have the specs on the 130? I'd love to see 'em. I'm losing my mind on all these high end bikes.. Thinking about breaking the mold and just getting a Guerrilla Gravity.. hahaha

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by $.$. View Post
    anyone happen to have the specs on the 130? I'd love to see 'em. I'm losing my mind on all these high end bikes.. Thinking about breaking the mold and just getting a Guerrilla Gravity.. hahaha
    Be patient on sb130.. soon

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  25. #25
    Freezer
    Reputation: mlloyd007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by $.$. View Post
    anyone happen to have the specs on the 130? I'd love to see 'em. I'm losing my mind on all these high end bikes.. Thinking about breaking the mold and just getting a Guerrilla Gravity.. hahaha
    I can send if you PM me your email. Or wait until Sunday around midnight.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    30
    A bit off topic, but I'm booked to test ride the SB100 and SB130 in a couple of weeks. Will report back if anyone is interested in a side by side comparative. Not testing the SB150 as it's too much bike for the trails around here

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Yes please post your findings. Thx

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    95% of those with this question in their mind would be better served by the SB130, or the 'old' 5.5.

    A good 2 bike quiver would be the SB100 & the SB5.5.

    I understand what people are trying to accomplish by getting 2 bikes that are really spread apart in capabilities, but the end result is you rarely have the bike you need which is essentially an All Mountain rig for most of us. Not a XC race bike, nor a DH race bike.

    The SB150 climbs well for 'what it is', which is a gnarly downhill enduro rig. That bike will be a handful to try to trail ride on, and frankly will dumb down the trails a bit. It's not so heavy, but it's burly, transfers a lot of weight when pedaling, and is long.

    Good luck.
    Spot on. I was going to go this route but in reality, youíll either be over biked or under bikes for most of the time. Itís like you need the gap in the middle which would be the most used bike. The SB130.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ---------------------
    Evil Following

    weareelements.com

  29. #29
    JCL
    JCL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,543
    The only geo/sizing difference is 1 degree in HA.

    If your trails are really chunky, go 150. If not the 130 will be faster, more fun, lighter.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jon123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwirider1 View Post
    A bit off topic, but I'm booked to test ride the SB100 and SB130 in a couple of weeks. Will report back if anyone is interested in a side by side comparative. Not testing the SB150 as it's too much bike for the trails around here

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
    Very interested please.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryano4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    68
    I'm very interested in the sb130 as well. I have a 2018 Yeti SB5LR and its nice I just can't get into the 27.5 realm. So, I found a good deal on a 2016 SB4.5 and its like a rubber band in flex compared to the Turq LR. The LR soaks up some much more of the trail chatter and makes it a very nice ride, but the 4.5 is so much faster and climbs better. If I had my Frankenstein mix, I'd put the Fox 36 150 up front on a Turq frame with 130mm in the rear.. which = the sb130 in 29er. The only thing thats really messing me up is the price point on the Turq frames. The GX and GX comp maybe my only hope, but if they flex like the 4.5 I'll be sad.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: THE L1ZARD KING's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by vor_lord View Post
    I demo'd the SB150 last week. It's big. It's a monster when descending. I was fast without realizing it (I took an early digger and felt off my game after, but still set some PRs). I found it harder to get off the ground than the 5.5, and harder to change lines.

    In terms of climbing it felt very similar to the 5.5 except I had a lot more issues with pedal strikes. I don't know if the BB is lower than the 5.5 or not, but I ended up actually firming up the rear to help clean those up. I know, that's blasphemy against the Switch Infinity. My friend did not have that issue and thought it was an excellent climber (especially for a 150/170).

    We both agreed that it's a bike that feels like it was made for straight line speed and preferring to stay on the ground.

    It's a bike that needs a more aggressive rider than I am to unlock it!
    In the Worldwide Cyclery vid on the 2019 lineup they mentioned that the new bikes are being specíd with 175mm cranks, compared to 170mm previously. Perhaps that contributed to the amount of pedal strikes you experienced.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by JCL View Post
    The only geo/sizing difference is 1 degree in HA.

    If your trails are really chunky, go 150. If not the 130 will be faster, more fun, lighter.
    The difference between a DPX2 and an X2 is less than 100 grams. The 150 requires someone who knows how to push the bike. In the correct body position IMO it's the most nimble bike Yeti has made in the last few years. The rear end just disappears.
    Denver, CO

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    The difference between a DPX2 and an X2 is less than 100 grams. The 150 requires someone who knows how to push the bike. In the correct body position IMO it's the most nimble bike Yeti has made in the last few years. The rear end just disappears.
    Streetdoctor - how would you extrapolate thoughts on the SB130 based on your time with the SB150? The differences appear subtle - travel difference being the largest, with head angle, WB, reach being slightly steeper and shorter. I am personally interested in the SB130, like a number of people, only because I don't feel my local trails warrant the SB150. I ride in Santa Cruz, which has a range of great trails in redwoods -- steeps, not the most technical but challenging, a number gap jumps, etc. They are fun sold trails and fairly natural. I love jumping, even though I am not the best - gap jumps are the mental highlights of my rides.

    My go to bike is a 130mm Evil Calling slackened out to 65HA with a 150mm fork, which rides above its travel numbers. I have ridden this bike at Whistler, Squamish, Pemby, Shore, Washington, etc - though I admit it was undergunned for a number of these trails. As much I as love my Evil Calling, I am looking for something faster and can handle a bit more without being a pig. I really enjoy nimble poppy bikes. I have an HD4 for my bigger bike which pedals great, the extra travel is nice on the bigger features, and notice the stability with the increased in WB. I have more fun on the Calling, because of the shorter travel which allows me to pop off of the so-called extra credit features all of the time, which is key to me. I also think the medium HD4 is too short for me at 5' 9"

    The SB130 being longer and the bigger wheels I am hoping gives me that extra to push it faster than the Calling without sacrificing the fun factor, which is the shorter travel to push off of features.

    I am hoping that I am making the correct decision as I will be buying without a test ride.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post
    Streetdoctor - how would you extrapolate thoughts on the SB130 based on your time with the SB150? The differences appear subtle - travel difference being the largest, with head angle, WB, reach being slightly steeper and shorter. I am personally interested in the SB130, like a number of people, only because I don't feel my local trails warrant the SB150. I ride in Santa Cruz, which has a range of great trails in redwoods -- steeps, not the most technical but challenging, a number gap jumps, etc. They are fun sold trails and fairly natural. I love jumping, even though I am not the best - gap jumps are the mental highlights of my rides.

    My go to bike is a 130mm Evil Calling slackened out to 65HA with a 150mm fork, which rides above its travel numbers. I have ridden this bike at Whistler, Squamish, Pemby, Shore, Washington, etc - though I admit it was undergunned for a number of these trails. As much I as love my Evil Calling, I am looking for something faster and can handle a bit more without being a pig. I really enjoy nimble poppy bikes. I have an HD4 for my bigger bike which pedals great, the extra travel is nice on the bigger features, and notice the stability with the increased in WB. I have more fun on the Calling, because of the shorter travel which allows me to pop off of the so-called extra credit features all of the time, which is key to me. I also think the medium HD4 is too short for me at 5' 9"

    The SB130 being longer and the bigger wheels I am hoping gives me that extra to push it faster than the Calling without sacrificing the fun factor, which is the shorter travel to push off of features.

    I am hoping that I am making the correct decision as I will be buying without a test ride.
    Are you sure you'll jive on 29'er wheels ? Every bike you listed above is 27.5" and If I remember correctly you owned an SB5 at one point and for whatever reason you bought a God Awful Evil....Lol "JK"

    I'll be in Santa Cruz riding October 19-21 as the Yeti FB group is doing a small NorCal Yeti tribe meetup of about 20 riders for UCSC and Demo.

    You'll be able to set up an SB130 Demo soon at Trailhead in San Jose as I'm sure the bikes will be ready for Demo by then.

    If your patient the new 27.5" Yeti's should be ready in March/April and I'm thinking the SB5 replacement will be the SB145 and have all the similar Geo numbers as well as the Improved "Fun/Playful" Kinematics that the 29'ers have received.
    Yeti 2020 SB165
    Yeti 2019 SB150
    Yeti 2019 SB130 AXS
    Yeti 2018 SB100 AXS

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,254
    Quote Originally Posted by skinnybex View Post
    Are you sure you'll jive on 29'er wheels ? Every bike you listed above is 27.5" and If I remember correctly you owned an SB5 at one point and for whatever reason you bought a God Awful Evil....Lol "JK"

    I'll be in Santa Cruz riding October 19-21 as the Yeti FB group is doing a small NorCal Yeti tribe meetup of about 20 riders for UCSC and Demo.

    You'll be able to set up an SB130 Demo soon at Trailhead in San Jose as I'm sure the bikes will be ready for Demo by then.

    If your patient the new 27.5" Yeti's should be ready in March/April and I'm thinking the SB5 replacement will be the SB145 and have all the similar Geo numbers as well as the Improved "Fun/Playful" Kinematics that the 29'ers have received.
    Haha - great memory! Yes I tend to lean toward 27.5. I really liked the SB5 suspension, except for bottom outs. It was a great trail bike. Owing to my enjoyment of the SB5, this is why my interest is piqued with the SB130 and 150 being more progressive.

    As far as the 29er, I am ready to try this again. I briefly rode francios Ripmo a few months ago at UCSC and was surprised by how well it rode. I am not planning to replace the Calling. I am planning to replace the HD4 and see how it goes. I had a down payment placed on the Bronson to replace the HD4, but wasn't 100% happy with this. As soon as the Sb150 and SB130 (i saw the website and took screen shots), I knew this was the direction that I wanted to go. I immediately switched my down payment to SB130.

    Lastly, I am impatient. I am very excited about the SB130, but just curious if the SB150 is the better direction.

    Anyway happy to meet up in October. Hopefully we will get some rain by then though the trails are holding up well enough. And since you know the UCSC trails, my benchmark for bikes is mailboxes, I love hitting the jumps but it takes a lot of energy. I want to be able to ride most of UCSC and end with mailboxes and the bike not be too exhausting to rail that trail.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Honestly I havenít looked into the 130 much. The 150 for me is a pure race machine and going fast. For easier trails or long distance xc rides I have a sub 28lb SB4.5 that Iím very happy with. Riding it aggressively the bike feels extremely nimble and stable. Much more fun to ride than the 5.5 IMO but still fun if you arenít riding at your limit. I canít reiterate enough though, you need to be in an aggressive stance over the front on the 150 for the bike to ďwake upĒ. Riding in the back seat/timidly is not how this bike was designed to be ridden.

    Iím intrugued on the differences in the 130 as well because from the little Iíve seen they will be really similar. I would imagine theyíll make it lighter but I canít see there being more than a 1lb difference. I think all Yeti bikes climb great so I personally wouldnít assume I need the shorter travel bike because of efficiency.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post
    Haha - great memory! Yes I tend to lean toward 27.5. I really liked the SB5 suspension, except for bottom outs. It was a great trail bike. Owing to my enjoyment of the SB5, this is why my interest is piqued with the SB130 and 150 being more progressive.

    As far as the 29er, I am ready to try this again. I briefly rode francios Ripmo a few months ago at UCSC and was surprised by how well it rode. I am not planning to replace the Calling. I am planning to replace the HD4 and see how it goes. I had a down payment placed on the Bronson to replace the HD4, but wasn't 100% happy with this. As soon as the Sb150 and SB130 (i saw the website and took screen shots), I knew this was the direction that I wanted to go. I immediately switched my down payment to SB130.

    Lastly, I am impatient. I am very excited about the SB130, but just curious if the SB150 is the better direction.

    Anyway happy to meet up in October. Hopefully we will get some rain by then though the trails are holding up well enough. And since you know the UCSC trails, my benchmark for bikes is mailboxes, I love hitting the jumps but it takes a lot of energy. I want to be able to ride most of UCSC and end with mailboxes and the bike not be too exhausting to rail that trail.
    Funny enough MBís is also my favorite trail and I love the flow up top and the finish with the waterfall. Along with Chupacabra and Sweetness we have plenty of options. Probably shuttle MB 3 times early Saturday to leave the other UCSC stuff for after lunch.

    I think the SB130 is the perfect Santa Cruz bike because itíll be a great climber for all the punchy stuff back to the top and then with the new leverage ratio achieved through the Clevis/Yoke itíll make the bike very lively and give the rear end that great mid to end of travel feel. I hear the new bikes are so good with suspension that itís that last 7-10% Travel that you always have in reserve which is exactly what you want.

    Plus the SB130 will be better in the tight stuff with that little tighter WB

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by skinnybex View Post
    Funny enough MBís is also my favorite trail and I love the flow up top and the finish with the waterfall. Along with Chupacabra and Sweetness we have plenty of options. Probably shuttle MB 3 times early Saturday to leave the other UCSC stuff for after lunch.

    I think the SB130 is the perfect Santa Cruz bike because itíll be a great climber for all the punchy stuff back to the top and then with the new leverage ratio achieved through the Clevis/Yoke itíll make the bike very lively and give the rear end that great mid to end of travel feel. I hear the new bikes are so good with suspension that itís that last 7-10% Travel that you always have in reserve which is exactly what you want.

    Plus the SB130 will be better in the tight stuff with that little tighter WB
    How do you think the 130 would be running a 140mm fork?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    How do you think the 130 would be running a 140mm fork?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I bet it would ride great. I know exactly what your thinking Bogey...😂😂😂, you love the SB100 but what if the SB130 was a bit mellowed out with HTA and would it be a bit closer to killing 2 birds with one stone. I believe that answer is yes but be aware reach will increase a bit so fine tuning that aspect will be fine and maybe some 170mm cranks instead of the Factory 175mm for pedal strike reduction.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by skinnybex View Post
    I bet it would ride great. I know exactly what your thinking Bogey..., you love the SB100 but what if the SB130 was a bit mellowed out with HTA and would it be a bit closer to killing 2 birds with one stone. I believe that answer is yes but be aware reach will increase a bit so fine tuning that aspect will be fine and maybe some 170mm cranks instead of the Factory 175mm for pedal strike reduction.
    Yep. I am going to run a frame calculator tonight. I use 165mm cranks anyhow so strikes shouldn't be an issue.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    Yep. I am going to run a frame calculator tonight. I use 165mm cranks anyhow so strikes shouldn't be an issue.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Looks like a 4mm drop in BB height, 3mm increase in reach. Point 5 increase in ST angle. Decrease .5 in HT angle.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    Looks like a 4mm drop in BB height, 3mm increase in reach. Point 5 increase in ST angle. Decrease .5 in HT angle.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    That sounds a lot like a Ripmo now. We shall see but I think the bike will be ultra efficient in stock Geo and some small tweaks to rotation mass and of course tire choice will make it a very flexible bike.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by skinnybex View Post
    That sounds a lot like a Ripmo now. We shall see but I think the bike will be ultra efficient in stock Geo and some small tweaks to rotation mass and of course tire choice will make it a very flexible bike.
    What is the weight of the frame?

    Singletrack World says the frame is designed around a 130mm to 150mm fork. They say it in their video and in the print article. Interesting....

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    43
    In the PB video uploaded at youtube they said that the SB130 and SB150 are sharing the same HW, except the upper linkage. Are these the same frame but just different linkage and suspension?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris29er View Post
    Are these the same frame but just different linkage and suspension?
    No, completely unique front and rear triangles. Just look at the shock mount. The seat stays are noticeably different as well. Plus they have different carbon layups to suit the intended riding styles. The safe option is to buy one of each. If you don't have $18k to burn, get the 150 if you're competitive in BME (or higher) enduro racing. Everyone else get the 130.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Terp View Post
    No, completely unique front and rear triangles. Just look at the shock mount. The seat stays are noticeably different as well. Plus they have different carbon layups to suit the intended riding styles. The safe option is to buy one of each. If you don't have $18k to burn, get the 150 if you're competitive in BME (or higher) enduro racing. Everyone else get the 130.
    Lol 😂I love the way you quickly summarized the 2 bikes and in all honesty your 100% correct.

    The SB150 is also reinforced in the head tube junction area with the carbon thickness and I also believe itís Dual Crown approved.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    77
    I wouldn't trade in the 4.5 for a 130... just too similar, and the 100 is a great bike for most things...
    I just want a bike I can turn down the most rocky broken up rooty trails I can find and believe the 150 is the bike for that job...
    2018 - Yeti SB100
    2019 - Yeti SB150
    Previous bikes:
    SB75
    SB5
    SB4.5

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    I ride Ucsc all the time almost every other weekend. I own a coiled 6c and recently added a 45cLR. I have ridden my 45c 2x at UC down sweet,magic,chupa,mb, donut, and extra credit.

    My times on the 45c v 6c are almost as good! If I was looking to replace my 2 I would go with sb130LR.

    Since the 45c is new to me and I am enjoying it, and my 6c is 2015.. I will be replacing the 6c with a sb150.

    If I replaced both 45c and 6c with 1 bike, it would be a sb130LR (x2 plus Fox 36/160) and I think it would be the perfect for around here.

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  50. #50
    ban
    ban is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,526
    I think a good combo is either a sb150 with a 4.5 or a sb150 with a sb100....for those wanting just one bike the sb130 is perfect though...

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451


    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jboyd122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by ban View Post
    I think a good combo is either a sb150 with a 4.5 or a sb150 with a sb100....for those wanting just one bike the sb130 is perfect though...
    I agree. I just sold my SB5.5. Love my SB100 and as soon as I can get my hands on a frame for a custom build(being told not till the end of Oct) I'll have a SB150. The SB100 is so good in the rough and the SB150 is a good enough peddler that I'll have the range covered. Sure there will be a gap area in the middle where the SB130 would fill, but my marriage can't sustain 3 Yeti's.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by jboyd122 View Post
    I agree. I just sold my SB5.5. Love my SB100 and as soon as I can get my hands on a frame for a custom build(being told not till the end of Oct) I'll have a SB150. The SB100 is so good in the rough and the SB150 is a good enough peddler that I'll have the range covered. Sure there will be a gap area in the middle where the SB130 would fill, but my marriage can't sustain 3 Yeti's.
    Me 2. Lol sb45lr and sb150 for me.. or I tell the other half I'll sell 2 yetis and consolidate to 1, but she already asked what color sb150 am I getting lol #winning!

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  54. #54
    Go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    309
    Anyone looking for a demo in Socal... we will have medium and large demos of both bikes available soon so you can get a good comparison.. Right now we just have a medium 150 in the shop

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    https://youtu.be/UWAK_g4Lr28

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    199
    Why would the 130 climb better than the 150? Both have over five inches of suspension, both suspensions can be firmed up if needed. Does the 0.79 inch difference in travel make that much of a difference? Other than weight, what would be the advantage to the 130? Are the geometries strikingly different?

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,593
    There's more to suspension than travel, kinematics play a big part in how a bike climbs.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    https://www.bikemag.com/gear/mountai...de-yeti-sb130/

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    199
    That review said what I was thinking. There isnít much downside to selecting the longer travel bike due to the efficient designs that are now prevalent.

  60. #60
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Eyeing the linkage, it looks like they made this one a lot more progressive. Progressive: plusher to soak up small bumps and more pop for getting air, but sacrifices mid-stroke for plowing through medium sized hits (e.g. chunk like exposed roots and rock gardens). Linear would be more focused on plowing through medium sized hits, and less about popping up for air, gaining plushness through sheer travel.

    The more compact wheelbase and short travel, on top of the progressive feel, will make it more ideal for a rider who's not particularly fast/fit/skilled, riding easier trails, as it's more fun to have a shorter wheelbase and more ground feedback, pop, and flickability at moderate to low speeds (7-13 mph). It retains the challenge, to a point between being not too easy/boring nor too hard/scary, while the extra refinement in everything will improve the overall ride experience.

    IMO, the SB150 would be a better enduro *racer* with longer chainstays, as it would gain extra stability and smooth things out better, especially at over 15 mph. Keeping the chainstays short makes it more appealing to consumers, as it would less likely feel like overkill on easier trails, as the feedback and the extra need for rider involvement results in a livelier feel, compared to a longer CS bike (e.g. Pole Machine). I guess they know their market, as I don't think anyone shopping Yeti would want a "La-Z-Boy" ride experience, that a plush long chainstay bike would offer... those types would be looking out for bikes like the Tallboy LTc with a Cane Creek DB Air and Fox 34.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stalkerfiveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by k/dv View Post
    The 150 will be too much bike for many of the folks that will purchase it. If youíre not roosting berms, sending 30í doubles... look at the 130. The 130 looks to be a wonderful addition to the fleet.
    This

    The 130 is a 5.5 with a steeper STA to keep it climbing nicely with the new steeper HTA. It should basically be a new 5.5 that does better downhill but still climbs as well as the old 5.5.
    In serving the wicked, expect no reward, and be thankful if you escape injury for your pains.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalkerfiveo View Post
    This

    The 130 is a 5.5 with a steeper STA to keep it climbing nicely with the new steeper HTA. It should basically be a new 5.5 that does better downhill but still climbs as well as the old 5.5.
    I wonder how it will climb compared to the 4.5, that thing felt like a rocket on the demo, hoping the 130 feels similar.
    Yeti SB130 Turq
    Progressive Coil
    WAO Agents with I9s

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    537
    I'm having a hard time deciding between a 130 and 150. I sold my 2018 Enduro 29er because it was too much bike for most of my riding and not super fun. My previous Nomad3 was likely the same. In that regard the 130 sounds appealing. However, I'm 6'3.5" and ~ 215lbs geared up so the beefier carbon on the 150 sounds more appealing. I'm also not concerned with being as fast as possible on the climbs. I would rather trade off some weight for durability at my size. In terms of simply suspension I think the 130 would be fine for 80% of my riding. I might be a little under biked at Northstar, but prefer trails like Livewire to the really rocky stuff so I may be fine there as well. This would be my only bike and is mainly for the SF Bay Area / Santa Cruz. Thoughts on what direction I should go and why?

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jboyd122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnessgeek View Post
    I'm having a hard time deciding between a 130 and 150. I sold my 2018 Enduro 29er because it was too much bike for most of my riding and not super fun. My previous Nomad3 was likely the same. In that regard the 130 sounds appealing. However, I'm 6'3.5" and ~ 215lbs geared up so the beefier carbon on the 150 sounds more appealing. I'm also not concerned with being as fast as possible on the climbs. I would rather trade off some weight for durability at my size. In terms of simply suspension I think the 130 would be fine for 80% of my riding. I might be a little under biked at Northstar, but prefer trails like Livewire to the really rocky stuff so I may be fine there as well. This would be my only bike and is mainly for the SF Bay Area / Santa Cruz. Thoughts on what direction I should go and why?
    If the Enduro and Nomad were too much bike, I suspect you'll find the 150 to be the same. I know it's getting rave reviews on its climbing ability, but the reviews are with the understanding that it is a 150/170mm travel bike. My feeling is that you should buy the bike that will suit your 80%. It's not like the SB130 won't be able to handle anything you throw at it at Northstar.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnessgeek View Post
    I'm having a hard time deciding between a 130 and 150. I sold my 2018 Enduro 29er because it was too much bike for most of my riding and not super fun. My previous Nomad3 was likely the same. In that regard the 130 sounds appealing. However, I'm 6'3.5" and ~ 215lbs geared up so the beefier carbon on the 150 sounds more appealing. I'm also not concerned with being as fast as possible on the climbs. I would rather trade off some weight for durability at my size. In terms of simply suspension I think the 130 would be fine for 80% of my riding. I might be a little under biked at Northstar, but prefer trails like Livewire to the really rocky stuff so I may be fine there as well. This would be my only bike and is mainly for the SF Bay Area / Santa Cruz. Thoughts on what direction I should go and why?
    Your a bigger guy regarding weight and since you do live in NorCal the trail variation within a 4 hour drive means you should be on the SB150 since you might one day be riding buffed out flow trails and the next day be at Northstar.

    The Yeti SB150 is going to climb much better in regards to efficiency than both those previous bikes and with the added progression and the ability to tune the X2 for how you want the suspension and bike to handle will make it a fun ride on all types of trails.

    The worst thing that could happen is you bought the sB130 and had buyers remorse for passing on the big sled.
    Last edited by skinnybex; 09-11-2018 at 03:45 PM.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jboyd122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    400
    I agree with Bex's points, but you really need to dig deep down and accept what you'll be riding and pick the correct bike. The best thing you can do is test ride both before throwing down the cash. All accounts on the SB150 say that it needs to be ridden aggressively to get the most out of it.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by skinnybex View Post
    Your a bigger guy regarding weight and since you do like in NorCal the trail variation within a 4 hour drive means you should be on the SB150...
    Does anyone know the "stiffness" of the 100, 130, and 150? Are they all enginerd to be the same or is the 150 >130>100?

    I commented in the other thread: as a bigger guy, I'm looking at the 130 for the frame stiffness, larger cockpit, and the 36 fork...even if a 120/100 or 130/100 is more appropraite for my local terrain.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Does anyone know the "stiffness" of the 100, 130, and 150? Are they all enginerd to be the same or is the 150 >130>100?

    I commented in the other thread: as a bigger guy, I'm looking at the 130 for the frame stiffness, larger cockpit, and the 36 fork...even if a 120/100 or 130/100 is more appropraite for my local terrain.
    Send Yeti an email and hopefully youíll get a response about this. I know in the Vital MTB Audio interview with Lead Engineer ďStretchĒ Peter Z he stated that some rear end compliance - flex was built into the SB150 to help keep the bike from being overly jarring during extremely rough riding. He said it does not negatively effect the performance of the bike and Rude was the test subject.

    I can tell you the SB100 is solid chassis and if anything it would be the wheels and fork that would exert flex more than the chassis.

    Also If you read the Bike Mag report on the SB130 the reviewer said the front headtube of the SB150 was reinforced moreso than the other bikes.


    I think just the fact that the lifetime warranty is now in effect for all the new releases these frames will be very durable and should hold up to a wide range of rider sizes and weights.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Does anyone know the "stiffness" of the 100, 130, and 150? Are they all enginerd to be the same or is the 150 >130>100?

    I commented in the other thread: as a bigger guy, I'm looking at the 130 for the frame stiffness, larger cockpit, and the 36 fork...even if a 120/100 or 130/100 is more appropraite for my local terrain.
    All the reviews such as this one:
    https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...-sb150-review/

    are saying the 150 is significantly tougher than the 130 (DH vs Trail standard etc). This is the main reason for me to swing this direction based on my size. If I were 170 lbs I would likely swing towards the 130. There is slightly more progression on the 150 vs 130 if I understand correctly and I think that's better for a bigger rider.....it might be easier to dial in the suspension. I think you can make the same argument for the 130 vs 100.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by jboyd122 View Post
    If the Enduro and Nomad were too much bike, I suspect you'll find the 150 to be the same. I know it's getting rave reviews on its climbing ability, but the reviews are with the understanding that it is a 150/170mm travel bike. My feeling is that you should buy the bike that will suit your 80%. It's not like the SB130 won't be able to handle anything you throw at it at Northstar.
    I partly think you're right. I should clarify that I didn't find the Nomad and Enduro super fun if they weren't pushed hard, but for their time they climbed well. I think the SB150 will likely climb better and be more fun due to geo and kinematics etc. Of course this is internet guessing and it would be a lot easier if these were available to demo. If I knew the SB130 wouldn't flex and would be super durable under my weight / riding style, then that would tell me something as well.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by skinnybex View Post
    Your a bigger guy regarding weight and since you do like in NorCal the trail variation within a 4 hour drive means you should be on the SB150 since you might one day be riding buffed out flow trails and the next day be at Northstar.

    The Yeti SB150 is going to climb much better in regards to efficiency than both those previous bikes and with the added progression and the ability to tune the X2 for how you want the suspension and bike to handle will make it a fun ride on all types of trails.

    The worst thing that could happen is you bought the sB130 and had buyers remorse for passing on the big sled.
    I'm leaning this direction and the SB150 has less rear travel than my last two bikes, but more front travel and a LONG wheelbase. Hmmmm!

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by fitnessgeek View Post
    I'm leaning this direction and the SB150 has less rear travel than my last two bikes, but more front travel and a LONG wheelbase. Hmmmm!
    I think your going to be blown away by the difference of the 44mm offset fork paired with the 77 degree seat tube angle and once you start to ride with your attack position ď Torso and weight over the front wheel your going to find the bike rides much more nimble that the crazy numbers suggest.

    The Sentinel is very much the same way and I love the bike. Itíll be a few rides to adapt but be very open minded and donít stay on the back wheel

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    That long reach will bring your weight forward when your out of the saddleand the rear end will swing through turns better than those other bikes and likewise the steep STA will help bring your weight over the front wheel on climbs and navigating tight switchbacks and keeping the front wheel from lifting or wandering to much in the steeps.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,166
    I have a steep seat tube, long reach bike and it does take getting used to. I hear all of the time how people new to the fit struggle with the position. Mainly because they want to feel the same as their old geo position and try to adjust towards that feeling. With these new bikes, get used to the saddle and pedal position and then adjust the front cockpit. If not you may find yourself squirming all over trying to find the right spots. Such a steep STA is going to feel funny and you will need to find the best position for the saddle. You may even find you are using different muscles than you are used to. Remember that this STA most benefits climbing....it's like scooting forward on the seat, but the reach has been increased to keep from crowding etc. On the flats it may feel like you are too forward over the crank. I think the sweet spot can be identifed when you find that you are staying in essentially the same position on the saddle through most all conditions.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jboyd122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    I have a steep seat tube, long reach bike and it does take getting used to. I hear all of the time how people new to the fit struggle with the position. Mainly because they want to feel the same as their old geo position and try to adjust towards that feeling. With these new bikes, get used to the saddle and pedal position and then adjust the front cockpit. If not you may find yourself squirming all over trying to find the right spots. Such a steep STA is going to feel funny and you will need to find the best position for the saddle. You may even find you are using different muscles than you are used to. Remember that this STA most benefits climbing....it's like scooting forward on the seat, but the reach has been increased to keep from crowding etc. On the flats it may feel like you are too forward over the crank. I think the sweet spot can be identifed when you find that you are staying in essentially the same position on the saddle through most all conditions.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I agree with your characterization of the newer long reach/steep STA geometry bikes. The thing I have noticed the most is that they really reward you for using good bike handling skills. If you're in a proper attack position and allowing for proper bike-body separation this new generation of bikes will sing to you.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    18
    The new SB130 looks sweet. Still considering the SB5 with the minor updates released as well (new rear triangle, Fox 36 forks on the non-LR versions). At this point do you think the latter will feel dated? I still tend to lean toward 27 tires for something a little more playful. Any thoughts on SB5 vs SB130?

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skinnybex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyutah97 View Post
    The new SB130 looks sweet. Still considering the SB5 with the minor updates released as well (new rear triangle, Fox 36 forks on the non-LR versions). At this point do you think the latter will feel dated? I still tend to lean toward 27 tires for something a little more playful. Any thoughts on SB5 vs SB130?
    I'll paste my response to basically this same question in another thread. BTW, I think the SB5 in current spec is a damn good bike and actually caters better to most of the newer 27.5" releases because it still has a tighter Wheelbase and the chain stay length is spot on balance without going overly short or extremely long.

    About the SB130 compared to the SB5
    Iím very nervous suggesting any 29íer Bike to you based on what your used to and the type of trails you ride most often which are traditionally where Longer WB 29íers tend to struggle unless you have stellar bike handling skills.....stoppies and can trackstand and hop around if needed in really tight stuff.

    If your open minded to taking the time to adapt to the ďBigĒ change in the way the bike will feel and the needed adjustment to how you need to position your body on these new Geo bikes with the forward riding position and body separation I have no doubt youíll be faster and maybe never look back at the smaller wheels again.

    You need to demo one of these bikes or meet up with another owner on the Yeti FB group and throw a leg over one.

    Then again if you can hold out another 6-8 months youíll have the chance to try out the new 27.5 Yeti models that will implement many of the Geo philosophies that the 29íers were give but with the more nimble 27.5 wheels.
    Yeti 2020 SB165
    Yeti 2019 SB150
    Yeti 2019 SB130 AXS
    Yeti 2018 SB100 AXS

  78. #78
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Off-topic rambling about my experience on the SB5c deleted.
    Last edited by ninjichor; 10-01-2018 at 12:16 AM.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Does anyone know the "stiffness" of the 100, 130, and 150? Are they all enginerd to be the same or is the 150 >130>100?

    I commented in the other thread: as a bigger guy, I'm looking at the 130 for the frame stiffness, larger cockpit, and the 36 fork...even if a 120/100 or 130/100 is more appropraite for my local terrain.
    I'm a bigger guy....5'11" and about 220 lbs. I'm leaning towards the 150 because of durability, but I think the burlier nature and longer travel of the 150 will be better for my weight.

    I've taken a couple of years off riding, so I'm hoping to change that 220 lbs figure sooner rather than later.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    A guy that holds many of the KOMs around here, not on XC trails, rides an SB5.
    Yeti must have done something correct on that model.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by McGG View Post
    I'm a bigger guy....5'11" and about 220 lbs. I'm leaning towards the 150 because of durability, but I think the burlier nature and longer travel of the 150 will be better for my weight.
    .
    Not to hijack a Yeti thread, but if thatís your angle, you should definitely check out the Firebird 29. Burly - check. Long travel - check. Rides well - check.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by skinnybex View Post
    Then again if you can hold out another 6-8 months youíll have the chance to try out the new 27.5 Yeti models that will implement many of the Geo philosophies that the 29íers were give but with the more nimble 27.5 wheels.
    Is there thinking that we will see some new 27.5 bikes from yeti before spring?

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    6-8 Months is Spring

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    Rom3n has an SB150, with an SB130 on the way.

    It sure would be cool if he found a typical Enduro style trail loop that he knows well and used Strava to record not only his overall times, but specifically where each bike held advantages. Would need to be long enough to incorporate the effects of exhaustion cause any experienced rider can power over a heavy/ less efficient bike for 30 minutes, but once you get over an hour it gets hard to keep it up.

    If the loop was anything short of DH racing, I'd guess the SB130 would prove to be 3-7% faster everywhere, while giving up 1-2% on the steeper descents. Just a guess however.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    I have a steep seat tube, long reach bike and it does take getting used to. I hear all of the time how people new to the fit struggle with the position. Mainly because they want to feel the same as their old geo position and try to adjust towards that feeling. With these new bikes, get used to the saddle and pedal position and then adjust the front cockpit. If not you may find yourself squirming all over trying to find the right spots. Such a steep STA is going to feel funny and you will need to find the best position for the saddle. You may even find you are using different muscles than you are used to. Remember that this STA most benefits climbing....it's like scooting forward on the seat, but the reach has been increased to keep from crowding etc. On the flats it may feel like you are too forward over the crank. I think the sweet spot can be identifed when you find that you are staying in essentially the same position on the saddle through most all conditions.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    There's no such thing as a stupid question....just stupid people who ask questions....

    KOPS (knee over pedal spindle) may or may not be relevant, and it may just be accidental relationship. I'm only using that measurement for the purposes of my question.

    On these steeper STA bikes, does it turn out that your position is further forward in this particular measurement? Is your knee now further forward of this mythical line, when you are comfortably seated? Is it only as though you mount the seat further forward, combined with a longer cockpit to prevent crowding?

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by MSU Alum View Post
    There's no such thing as a stupid question....just stupid people who ask questions....

    KOPS (knee over pedal spindle) may or may not be relevant, and it may just be accidental relationship. I'm only using that measurement for the purposes of my question.

    On these steeper STA bikes, does it turn out that your position is further forward in this particular measurement? Is your knee now further forward of this mythical line, when you are comfortably seated? Is it only as though you mount the seat further forward, combined with a longer cockpit to prevent crowding?
    In a word, yes. If you clamp your seat in the same position in the same clamp, then yes. It would need to be a shorter measurement because of the steeper angle. At first you may find yourself too far forward and almost pedaling backwards at a point in the stroke. It will come down to feel and efficiency really.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    In a word, yes. If you clamp your seat in the same position in the same clamp, then yes. It would need to be a shorter measurement because of the steeper angle. At first you may find yourself too far forward and almost pedaling backwards at a point in the stroke. It will come down to feel and efficiency really.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Thanks. Does this make manuals more difficult (like on downhill ledgie drops), or have the designers compensated for that, in your experience?

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Kind of getting off-topic, but to answer @johnnyutah: I don't understand the SB5 really. It combines a suspension curve made to plow, with a compact/unstable chassis and smaller wheels. It's seemingly middle-of-the-road on everything, but the ability to plow calls for beefier parts if you're not afraid to push it.
    How much time have you spent on a SB5? I'm approaching the 2k mile mark on mine and I find it to be an absolute ripper.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,254
    Quote Originally Posted by MSU Alum View Post
    Thanks. Does this make manuals more difficult (like on downhill ledgie drops), or have the designers compensated for that, in your experience?
    Manuals you are out of the saddle, so seattube angle, etc are not relevant, more front and rear center of the bike.

    Also - I believe it was Bontrager years ago argued against the KOPS, and example he pointed to were recumbants that don't follow this rule on it, yet people use them successfully.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post
    Manuals you are out of the saddle, so seattube angle, etc are not relevant, more front and rear center of the bike.

    Also - I believe it was Bontrager years ago argued against the KOPS, and example he pointed to were recumbants that don't follow this rule on it, yet people use them successfully.
    Good point regarding manuals being "out of the saddle".

    I agree about KOPS, I just needed to come up with a way to visualize position.
    Last edited by MSU Alum; 09-14-2018 at 11:34 AM.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    647
    If anyone is interested in the weight difference between these two frames the 130 is 6.15 lbs and the 150 is 7.11 lbs on my scale.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    If anyone is interested in the weight difference between these two frames the 130 is 6.15 lbs and the 150 is 7.11 lbs on my scale.
    Thank you sir! Two questions: size? With shock? Anything else on frame (headset, B.B. inserts, hangar)?

    I guess that 3 questions... 😁

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    Just saw a Medium 130 frame on Instagram on a scale. 6.99lbs with shock and rear axle.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    866
    Thanks....I guess that would put a XL at around 7.5lbs. Seems to be the going weight for ďtrailĒ XC.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Thank you sir! Two questions: size? With shock? Anything else on frame (headset, B.B. inserts, hangar)?

    I guess that 3 questions... 😁
    Axle and shock

  96. #96
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy View Post
    How much time have you spent on a SB5? I'm approaching the 2k mile mark on mine and I find it to be an absolute ripper.
    ~700 miles, since around April '17 on SoCal trails.

    It ripped on tamer trail systems. The experience was buzzkilled by the lighter wheelset, tires, and fork I had on it, when pushing the bike's limits--I experienced a few broken spokes (broken at the J-bend) and tire casing tears (tires just wobbly, and unsettling when ridden at higher speed). I tried making it more "enduro-ready" and took it to trails I'd take my bigger bike to, but found the bigger bike offered a better experience. I was thinking of swapping in a 29er 36 I had, set to 120, and running mixed wheel size to test a theory, but instead decided to disassemble and sell.

    Notice the bike I'm eyeing. It serves as a solution for weight weenie parts being too fragile, while still offering the experience of rocketing uphill, while still offering some of the strengths of a bigger bike. If it proves to live up to my hopes of simplifying things quiver-wise, being easier to live with, being very versatile, and offering a premium experience, I'd commit.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    6
    How do you get an x2 on the SB130?

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by RubyDrools View Post
    How do you get an x2 on the SB130?
    Would be aftermarket upgrade

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    6
    I get that but the shock size is quite particular on the 130 210x52.5? You would have to make the smallest size even smaller?

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    https://www.mbr.co.uk/buyers_guide/y...n-bikes-379404

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by RubyDrools View Post
    I get that but the shock size is quite particular on the 130 210x52.5? You would have to make the smallest size even smaller?
    I didn't check sizes bit possible fox would release smaller metric sizes..


    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jon123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy View Post
    How much time have you spent on a SB5? I'm approaching the 2k mile mark on mine and I find it to be an absolute ripper.
    Ditto!
    I canít believe what an absolute blast the SB5 is to ride.
    I have mine built up fairly lightweight trail (stock shock, 34 fork, Enve M60 wheels) and this bike does everything well .... and FUN

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    18
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm coming from a Pivot 5.7 (26" for life!) and i really like how balanced that bike is. Would love some more modern geo and larger tires but have had a hard time getting comfortable with the new long reaches. It honestly might just be that I need that month break in time to get attached to a new rig. Both bikes look great to me. But I'd prioritize (without riding both) playfulness over plow through / straight line capability for bay area / tahoe riding I think.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyutah97 View Post
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm coming from a Pivot 5.7 (26" for life!) and i really like how balanced that bike is. Would love some more modern geo and larger tires but have had a hard time getting comfortable with the new long reaches. It honestly might just be that I need that month break in time to get attached to a new rig. Both bikes look great to me. But I'd prioritize (without riding both) playfulness over plow through / straight line capability for bay area / tahoe riding I think.
    Sb130 may be your bike...

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    6
    This would probably work. It's weird because this size is not listed on Fox's site.

    https://www.worldwidecyclery.com/pro...-kashima-black

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    6
    Confirmed that this is not true. Sounds like it could be in the works though.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    471
    Let's get this thread back to life, I am on the fence about the 130 vs 150. I like the thought ripping down a really chunky trail and not having to worry about it, or take the 150 to a bike park and not being outgunned, but the reality is that most of what I ride would be trail style riding a lot of climbing and some decents that range some mild-pretty gnarly (most of them someplace in between) but they are all manageable on my 5.5.

    Now the question is do you really pay the price for choosing the 150 over the 130 all things being equal running X2 in the rear and fox 36 GRIP2 up front, the weight doesn't really seem to be an issue, the sizing is pretty damn close, now is the efficiency thattt different? I like something that has some ability to climb well and still be able to go down well, with some precision. on paper, it seems like the 150 would be the bike to get. So is the 130 just as capable with that little more feedback but with more precision? would it be outgunned in most situations?

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 04 F2000SL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    689
    Probably call yeti and chat with someone with a lot of time on both.

    Imo fitness would be the biggest difference in uphill performance. Richie rode could ride a huffy faster than me on a 150 so...

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kwapik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    558
    My thinking always has been....I'd rather have too much bike than not enough. I'll pay the price in the small climbing difference between them. And like the post above me says, fitness is key.
    Last edited by kwapik; 09-27-2018 at 01:56 PM.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dude!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,254
    I have been agonizing over this as well. When I first saw the SB130 (when we weren't suppose to see it) during the SB150, I put money down on the SB130.

    I prefer short travel bikes that ride above their travel, but remain poppy/playful owing to the short travel. I learned over time, I have more fun with short travel bikes. Being overbiked (depends on the bike) can be a buzzkill owing to only using its potential for a small percentage of the ride. Though many times, the smaller percentage is the most fun!

    The SB130 with its new geometry appears to cross unique boundaries - long, slack, etc. This is why I like my Evil Calling because it is a trail bike with AM geometry and can handle the rough stuff.

    I still feel the SB130 is unique, but from reading the tea leaves with the reviews, I believe the SB150 is more of the unique anomaly. It is the one that is playful all-rounder.

    Owing to the small difference in travel, geometry, etc, why not have the more capable if it can be more fun. I switched my order from the SB130 to the SB150.

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post
    I have been agonizing over this as well. When I first saw the SB130 (when we weren't suppose to see it) during the SB150, I put money down on the SB130.

    I prefer short travel bikes that ride above their travel, but remain poppy/playful owing to the short travel. I learned over time, I have more fun with short travel bikes. Being overbiked (depends on the bike) can be a buzzkill owing to only using its potential for a small percentage of the ride. Though many times, the smaller percentage is the most fun!

    The SB130 with its new geometry appears to cross unique boundaries - long, slack, etc. This is why I like my Evil Calling because it is a trail bike with AM geometry and can handle the rough stuff.

    I still feel the SB130 is unique, but from reading the tea leaves with the reviews, I believe the SB150 is more of the unique anomaly. It is the one that is playful all-rounder.

    Owing to the small difference in travel, geometry, etc, why not have the more capable if it can be more fun. I switched my order from the SB130 to the SB150.
    I think it obviously comes down to the type of trails and riding you mostly do. If your trails have a lot of rolling hills or short ups and downs, the lighter weight of the 130 and shorter travel would be best. Where I ride its primarily a long grind up and then all DH. So for me the weight penalty and extra 20mm of rear travel isn't worth giving up to really let it rip on the way back down. Especially when just seated grinding away uphill.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    I feel that the pedaling efficiency and overall performance difference between these 2 platforms would be much wider if the SB130 had trail tires (i.e. Vittoria Goma & Morsa) mounted and the SB150 had enduro tires (i.e. 2.5 DHF 3c & DD Aggressor with Huck Norris) mounted.

    Once they had the ideal tires and set up for their intended application, the overall difference would be much more obvious. Even though Yeti essentially choose the best tires, they didn't really match the tires well for the intended usage to highlight to pros/ cons of both platforms imo.

    So do you need a rad trail bike than can manage at the enduro course, or do you need a rad enduro bike that can manage at the trails?

    Good luck!

  113. #113
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    To give my opinion on the answer to the topic question:

    - if you're a size L, go SB130.
    - if you're a size M, go SB150.
    - if you're a size XL, go SB5 or SB6.
    - if you're a size S, go Canfield Toir or upsize.
    - if you're worried about being overbiked, just go faster. Get the fit right, trust the bike, and your concerns will fade away.

    If you got loads of money to spend, want cutting edge, and are average height (~5' 9"), check out the Structure SCW-1 (G2 size).

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    To give my opinion on the answer to the topic question:

    - if you're a size L, go SB130.
    - if you're a size M, go SB150.
    - if you're a size XL, go SB5 or SB6.
    - if you're a size S, go Canfield Toir or upsize.
    - if you're worried about being overbiked, just go faster. Get the fit right, trust the bike, and your concerns will fade away.

    If you got loads of money to spend, want cutting edge, and are average height (~5' 9"), check out the Structure SCW-1 (G2 size).
    What if we are average height (5í8Ē) and currently have a size M Toir/Riot?

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 04 F2000SL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    689
    Honestly how is 5'8" average? I dont know anyone that short.

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by 04 F2000SL View Post
    Honestly how is 5'8" average? I dont know anyone that short.
    Totally...shouldnít you really be looking here:
    https://spawncycles.com/rokkusuta-24

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    I think 5'9" is average. I'm 5' 7", full on manlet status over here.
    Yeti SB130 Turq
    Progressive Coil
    WAO Agents with I9s

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by 04 F2000SL View Post
    Honestly how is 5'8" average? I dont know anyone that short.
    Damnnnnnnn. Youíre cold blooded. Always dreamed of the day the Dr. says Ďlooks like youíre 5í9Ē nowí...it never came.

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude! View Post
    I have been agonizing over this as well. When I first saw the SB130 (when we weren't suppose to see it) during the SB150, I put money down on the SB130.

    I prefer short travel bikes that ride above their travel, but remain poppy/playful owing to the short travel. I learned over time, I have more fun with short travel bikes. Being overbiked (depends on the bike) can be a buzzkill owing to only using its potential for a small percentage of the ride. Though many times, the smaller percentage is the most fun!

    The SB130 with its new geometry appears to cross unique boundaries - long, slack, etc. This is why I like my Evil Calling because it is a trail bike with AM geometry and can handle the rough stuff.

    I still feel the SB130 is unique, but from reading the tea leaves with the reviews, I believe the SB150 is more of the unique anomaly. It is the one that is playful all-rounder.

    Owing to the small difference in travel, geometry, etc, why not have the more capable if it can be more fun. I switched my order from the SB130 to the SB150.
    or just buy the new Evil Offering, problem solved.
    Evil Insurgent Yeti SB5.5 Evil Wreckoning Pivot Switchblade Pivot Mach 5.5 Yeti SB150

  120. #120
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    If you're a M, yea, the Offering is an option. Or a L Ripmo. That's 140 too. xD Not sure why the emphasis on travel. It should be about fit and forget, and more about the wheelbase length. I'd recommend the SB55 or RM Instinct for XLs too, rather than these new designs. A tall guy on a 1200 WB 120 travel bike can likely ride stuff as fast as a shorty on a 1200 WB 150mm bike--similar stability, but with a more responsive, sporty, and predictable ride in the short travel bike, and plusher ride in the longer travel bike.

    RE the M Canfield Toir, well, it's just a bit more physically demanding in tech than a size M SB150, Calling, Process 153, Capra 27, Bronson, etc. and you might find yourself relearning to put weight forward a bit more than you're used to. Not the end of the world, but less natural. I would've suggested a size M Spider 275c if you really wanted something agile that was friendlier to skinny people, but if you are a bit on the heavy and muscular side, and like the 29er wheels for racking up miles and elevation comfortably, it's not a bad choice, esp if you run a bit more sag F&R to balance it a bit (I don't recommend upping fork travel over stock, for sake of balance/fit). Add a long wheelbase bike to the quiver to complement it for the going-against-the-clock days (M SB150 or L Ripmo), keeping the Toir for smiles-for-miles.

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    LOL this thread is getting funny. The bike just works. In all sizes.
    Denver, CO

  122. #122
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    LOL this thread is getting funny. The bike just works. In all sizes.
    Jokes on you if you believe that. You are implying all the people who demo different sizes and feel that it's better in different sizes, despite fit issues, should be fine even if they simply followed fit guidelines. I wouldn't recommend anyone 5' 6" or 5' 7" to downsize to S. It's because the geo determines where the weight is balanced between the wheels. If your weight's too forward, from a CS being long in relation to the FC/WB, then you'd often be riding defensively behind the saddle when you need to be in control due to traction loss in the tech, and pedaling from such a position is probably one of the last thing's you're thinking about. You'd also encounter a lot more incidents where your rear wheel slips out when you're pedaling out of the saddle up something steep, since where you want to pedal from is too far forward (you can counter this by pushing your hips back, but that's not a comfortable position to hold). Too much weight on the front also made it so the front "pushed" unpredictably in corners (AKA washing out), if you didn't get your weight back and went in with a bit too much inertia. You'd be far radder on a bike that emphasizes balance, doing 2-wheeled drifts, and finding it natural to pedal out of berms and what not.

    Geo is just one part of the equation, but it's lame to get that wrong when you can arm yourself with knowledge. Suspension and tubeset stiffness are other parts, along with spec. High anti-squat/kickback is one of the main issues with feeling like you'd risk crash/injury/death if you pedal in the middle of a rough section despite no pedal strike risk. That's one reason to consider an active suspension design like a Ellsworth Evolution (if you fit size L). As a bonus, it doesn't feel like a hardtail riding up a hardpack fireroad climb with a ton of cracks/ruts in it. A too stiff tubeset vs a compliant one can affect things such as the liveliness of the ride. Can painstakingly adapt to tubeset stiffness by bulking up your own body or riding harder if it's too stiff, and the suspension can be tuned at a cost, but geo is a tricky one to get right since it's a juggling act to get all the measurements to come together.

    This is a $3k+ decision people are considering. Don't need such recklessly ignorant comments. If it were meant to be optimistic, implying the bike brands who offer full size ranges know best, then you're doing more of a disservice to Yeti, when people don't agree that the bike is refined as it's hyped up to be. The trend is to shorten seat tubes to allow people to choose based on other geo figures, like length, because it might be more ideal to upsize in some cases. Being 5' 7", I'm noticing that most bikes are optimized for L and typically given +/- one inch here and there for other sizes, and it's a relief to finally find 29ers in M that look dialed (at the expense of other sizes getting the +1 inch here and there treatment--Norco being an exception). Kona had it close early on with the Process 111, but it was still better optimized in L than other sizes. People were demanding short CS for a while, but instead wheelbases just got longer, which accomplished something similar in terms of balance. The trend of longer geo matches the appetite riders have for high speed riding, brought on thanks to the rising popularity of blue flow trails and bike parks. Pole is leading the way with wheelbases in the 1325 range with 455 CS, which has balance in size L (you could've guessed it, not coincidentally being the size the founder rides).

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    To give my opinion on the answer to the topic question:

    - if you're a size L, go SB130.
    - if you're a size M, go SB150.
    - if you're a size XL, go SB5 or SB6.
    - if you're a size S, go Canfield Toir or upsize.
    - if you're worried about being overbiked, just go faster. Get the fit right, trust the bike, and your concerns will fade away.

    If you got loads of money to spend, want cutting edge, and are average height (~5' 9"), check out the Structure SCW-1 (G2 size).
    Can you elaborate? Iím interested because as a clyde (6í2Ē 200lb) Iíve definitely noticed that having same geometry with each size makes for a very different bike. I currently ride XL FS 29. The industry plays to the majority, understandably. However, Iíve not been able to really pinpoint it so specifically across a set of bikes. Iíd prefer to stay 29er so most curious about recommending SB 5 or 6 in XL over the SB 130.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by attaboy View Post
    Can you elaborate? Iím interested because as a clyde (6í2Ē 200lb) Iíve definitely noticed that having same geometry with each size makes for a very different bike. I currently ride XL FS 29. The industry plays to the majority, understandably. However, Iíve not been able to really pinpoint it so specifically across a set of bikes. Iíd prefer to stay 29er so most curious about recommending SB 5 or 6 in XL over the SB 130.
    Oh man, donít encourage him. That is way too much thinking about something thatís supposed to be fun. I imagine when heís out riding he stops every 30 seconds to tinker and talk about what he needs to tweak. Ever notice a lot of pros donít even know their own settings and theyíre still able to go fast? Itís not rocket surgery, itís bikes. And yeti makes some of the best . Trust them, not some gibberish from an internet fellow whoís got way too much time on his hands.

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 04 F2000SL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    689
    Hes not wrong but not totally right either. Short people are sensitive to chain stay length where tall people need more stiffness in certain areas.

    Yeti being such a small company makes me wonder how optimized the layups are for each size.

  126. #126
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by jbob27 View Post
    Oh man, donít encourage him. That is way too much thinking about something thatís supposed to be fun. I imagine when heís out riding he stops every 30 seconds to tinker and talk about what he needs to tweak. Ever notice a lot of pros donít even know their own settings and theyíre still able to go fast? Itís not rocket surgery, itís bikes. And yeti makes some of the best . Trust them, not some gibberish from an internet fellow whoís got way too much time on his hands.
    Nah, I'm the exact opposite. I consider upgraditis a cancer-like disease that is caused especially by the spread of misinformation, fueled by drunken speculation and overly optimistic imaginations. I much prefer learning new wisdom, rather than hanging out with wallet warriors endlessly chasing incremental gains.

    @attaboy the SB55 is also a good choice for XL, if you missed me saying so in my last post. Main reason being the CS to WB proportions being just right to get you that balanced "centered" feeling, when standing with your hips straight out-of-the-saddle, with almost all your weight on the pedals and a very light touch on the bars. I kept the choices to a minimum here, since I presumed Yeti attracts riders who want a stiff frame and sporty suspension, rather than a highly active suspension and frame that feels more lively under a lighter rider. I can list a ton, based on rider weight, emphasis on ground hugging or pop, active and comfortable under pedaling power, etc. and getting geo tuned (wheelbase mainly) for the trails you ride, such as if you ride something with flow vs something that has built in speed limits (trees, chicanes, switchbacks, etc. that force abrupt line changes). If you want to continue this off-topic stuff, it should be moved to PM or another thread.

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Nah, I'm the exact opposite. I consider upgraditis a cancer-like disease that is caused especially by the spread of misinformation, fueled by drunken speculation and overly optimistic imaginations. I much prefer learning new wisdom, rather than hanging out with wallet warriors endlessly chasing incremental gains.

    @attaboy the SB55 is also a good choice for XL, if you missed me saying so in my last post. Main reason being the CS to WB proportions being just right to get you that balanced "centered" feeling, when standing with your hips straight out-of-the-saddle, with almost all your weight on the pedals and a very light touch on the bars. I kept the choices to a minimum here, since I presumed Yeti attracts riders who want a stiff frame and sporty suspension, rather than a highly active suspension and frame that feels more lively under a lighter rider. I can list a ton, based on rider weight, emphasis on ground hugging or pop, active and comfortable under pedaling power, etc. and getting geo tuned (wheelbase mainly) for the trails you ride, such as if you ride something with flow vs something that has built in speed limits (trees, chicanes, switchbacks, etc. that force abrupt line changes). If you want to continue this off-topic stuff, it should be moved to PM or another thread.
    Which bike would you recommend to a very light 5'8.5" rider.
    Active suspension with loghter feel.
    Currently on L Nomad 3 with pish coil front and back and avy open bath damper.

    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Jokes on you if you believe that. You are implying all the people who demo different sizes and feel that it's better in different sizes, despite fit issues, should be fine even if they simply followed fit guidelines. I wouldn't recommend anyone 5' 6" or 5' 7" to downsize to S. It's because the geo determines where the weight is balanced between the wheels. If your weight's too forward, from a CS being long in relation to the FC/WB, then you'd often be riding defensively behind the saddle when you need to be in control due to traction loss in the tech, and pedaling from such a position is probably one of the last thing's you're thinking about. You'd also encounter a lot more incidents where your rear wheel slips out when you're pedaling out of the saddle up something steep, since where you want to pedal from is too far forward (you can counter this by pushing your hips back, but that's not a comfortable position to hold). Too much weight on the front also made it so the front "pushed" unpredictably in corners (AKA washing out), if you didn't get your weight back and went in with a bit too much inertia. You'd be far radder on a bike that emphasizes balance, doing 2-wheeled drifts, and finding it natural to pedal out of berms and what not.

    Geo is just one part of the equation, but it's lame to get that wrong when you can arm yourself with knowledge. Suspension and tubeset stiffness are other parts, along with spec. High anti-squat/kickback is one of the main issues with feeling like you'd risk crash/injury/death if you pedal in the middle of a rough section despite no pedal strike risk. That's one reason to consider an active suspension design like a Ellsworth Evolution (if you fit size L). As a bonus, it doesn't feel like a hardtail riding up a hardpack fireroad climb with a ton of cracks/ruts in it. A too stiff tubeset vs a compliant one can affect things such as the liveliness of the ride. Can painstakingly adapt to tubeset stiffness by bulking up your own body or riding harder if it's too stiff, and the suspension can be tuned at a cost, but geo is a tricky one to get right since it's a juggling act to get all the measurements to come together.

    This is a $3k+ decision people are considering. Don't need such recklessly ignorant comments. If it were meant to be optimistic, implying the bike brands who offer full size ranges know best, then you're doing more of a disservice to Yeti, when people don't agree that the bike is refined as it's hyped up to be. The trend is to shorten seat tubes to allow people to choose based on other geo figures, like length, because it might be more ideal to upsize in some cases. Being 5' 7", I'm noticing that most bikes are optimized for L and typically given +/- one inch here and there for other sizes, and it's a relief to finally find 29ers in M that look dialed (at the expense of other sizes getting the +1 inch here and there treatment--Norco being an exception). Kona had it close early on with the Process 111, but it was still better optimized in L than other sizes. People were demanding short CS for a while, but instead wheelbases just got longer, which accomplished something similar in terms of balance. The trend of longer geo matches the appetite riders have for high speed riding, brought on thanks to the rising popularity of blue flow trails and bike parks. Pole is leading the way with wheelbases in the 1325 range with 455 CS, which has balance in size L (you could've guessed it, not coincidentally being the size the founder rides).
    It's riding bikes in the dirt man not spaceship construction... you're way over thinking it.
    Denver, CO

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by jbob27 View Post
    Oh man, donít encourage him. That is way too much thinking about something thatís supposed to be fun. I imagine when heís out riding he stops every 30 seconds to tinker and talk about what he needs to tweak. Ever notice a lot of pros donít even know their own settings and theyíre still able to go fast? Itís not rocket surgery, itís bikes. And yeti makes some of the best . Trust them, not some gibberish from an internet fellow whoís got way too much time on his hands.

    This.
    Denver, CO

  130. #130
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    It's riding bikes in the dirt man not spaceship construction... you're way over thinking it.
    If that's the case, why are you here looking at something that's $3k? Why aren't you riding your sub-$200 hand-me-down bike from when you were a kid on dirt? If it's simple, do you think some average mtn biker with millions of dollars at their disposal can come up with a contender without deep understanding?

    It's a vehicle bound by physics. It's complicated, hence why people suggest trusting the creators. These things have been refined very slowly over time, strongly influenced by demand to survive by generating sales. I consider that a problem that could use solving.

    Think of how painstaking it is to pilot an aircraft and being forced to always hold the stick back and to the right slightly, to offset its tendency to lose altitude and drift in one direction in what should be level flight in controlled air space. They have trim controls to correct that, so they can relax in a more comfortable position, only using their controls to react to temporary/short instances of outside forces affecting the piloting of the aircraft.

    On a bike, your "trim controls" are your stem and handlebar geo, seat rail position, post setback and height, crank length, angle set, EBB/sliding dropouts, etc. Your control stick is essentially your body positions. You can move to the tip of the saddle to keep the nose down on a climb, move your weight back to avoid your front end from pushing through on the apex of a turn, or move your hips to regain balance after a tire slipping off your desired course on an off-camber section. What if you picked a bike with unadjustable trim that required you to compensate for weight being too far forward by hanging off the back due to long chainstays on a relatively short wheelbase bike, whenever you wanted to get out of the saddle? We're forced to live with that until we pick a new frame, since the only way to trim that is to get a bike with the right balance in CS and wheelbase. Extending the front out a bit more helps only so much when this problem is really bad, accompanied by other side effects. Tall people probably think that short chainstays suck, except when they're on their short WB bike (that they likely downsized to, since it felt better) and are into "jibbing", recently discovering the magic of long chainstays and getting their proper XL size, becoming more interested in racing the clock, while still jibbing at every opportunity.

    The most common position you're in on a bike is your pedaling position. What if the bike's geo was set to treat that as the central common point. What if your standing and seated positions (CoG) were matched? The geo was pre-trimmed from the factory in a complete build. Like any other human powered tool, ergonomics plays a big role in efficiently utilizing your body's motor skills to do a big job. In this case, having the saddle extended a certain amount is common knowledge to efficiently recruit your leg muscles to turn a crank in circles, but what if told you that I had scientific evidence that suggests that the angle between your back and legs is also important? What if you could corner, pump, and hop from the same position you pedal from? Some might say they can, while I imagine the majority might be skeptical of that possibility. This is the elusive sweet spot. You only hear the interviews of WC DH/EWS pros that are making stand-out performances, who say they feel really comfortable on the bike (not uncommonly with a new bike involved), which is likely that sweet spot. Think of how many others are struggling, possibly changing up bikes and teams and not getting the results expected, which may be marginalized into slumps or injuries, to protect the reputation of the industry.

    These are fundamental questions that question current design. Forward geo is getting close to matching standing and seated positions. Who's willing to come up with new questions, and answer them in clever ways, such as how do you located a seat without a straight/rigid seat post and seat tube? Softride asked this question, but that's not the only answer available. Inspiration/fresh ideas can come from anywhere, such as a Herman Miller Aeron office chair's tensioned mesh surfaces.

    Good engineering is to credit behind everything man-made that happens to do work invisibly, without concern. The bike industry is notorious for having a poor ratio of engineers to other employees. They don't have the freedom to ask such questions, to re-engineer things. Has anyone here questioned how strong a top tube needs to be, or how much better the ride would be with a bit more compliance? If they did test and they got mixed test results which didn't decide one was better than the other, how did they decide on one over the other? Aesthetics? Weight?

    The centralized balance thing I speak of is a infinitely small point, that is a moving target. I have experimented enough to spot it, but a big detractor that makes the spot move is telescopic forks compressing and decreasing the front center (distance from BB to front axle). It's why I suggested a linkage fork is the future. Right now, the industry's moving so slowly that they're yet to move away from old road bike and XC geo, and people are afraid of length reach and wheelbases, thinking they'd handle like a bus or stretch limo, except they imagine themselves at the helm, rather than someone skilled, and disparage the vehicle itself.

    This quote popped up in my mind when it came to responding to you: "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Is trying to act or demonstrate being wise unwelcome here? Why not encourage it? I have no authority on controlling what's said here, but I'll say F* off to you and anyone else with the same attitude as you. I fully welcome any wisdom--if someone honestly has ridden a 1325 WB 455 CS 500+ reach size L bike (Pole Machine) and found it handled way better than their older size L 1180 WB bike ~455 reach bike on switchbacks and what not, without much learning curve, I wanna know.

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    ThatÔŅĹs fine and dandy but I have 400 miles on this bike and I can ride it just as fast or faster than my last bike and the one before that. IÔŅĹm on a Large 150... IÔŅĹve noticed zero bad tendencies in the way the bike handles even after an Enduro this last weekend that was 45 minutes of racing.

    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    If that's the case, why are you here looking at something that's $3k? Why aren't you riding your sub-$200 hand-me-down bike from when you were a kid on dirt? If it's simple, do you think some average mtn biker with millions of dollars at their disposal can come up with a contender without deep understanding?

    It's a vehicle bound by physics. It's complicated, hence why people suggest trusting the creators. These things have been refined very slowly over time, strongly influenced by demand to survive by generating sales. I consider that a problem that could use solving.

    Think of how painstaking it is to pilot an aircraft and being forced to always hold the stick back and to the right slightly, to offset its tendency to lose altitude and drift in one direction in what should be level flight in controlled air space. They have trim controls to correct that, so they can relax in a more comfortable position, only using their controls to react to temporary/short instances of outside forces affecting the piloting of the aircraft.

    On a bike, your "trim controls" are your stem and handlebar geo, seat rail position, post setback and height, crank length, angle set, EBB/sliding dropouts, etc. Your control stick is essentially your body positions. You can move to the tip of the saddle to keep the nose down on a climb, move your weight back to avoid your front end from pushing through on the apex of a turn, or move your hips to regain balance after a tire slipping off your desired course on an off-camber section. What if you picked a bike with unadjustable trim that required you to compensate for weight being too far forward by hanging off the back due to long chainstays on a relatively short wheelbase bike, whenever you wanted to get out of the saddle? We're forced to live with that until we pick a new frame, since the only way to trim that is to get a bike with the right balance in CS and wheelbase. Extending the front out a bit more helps only so much when this problem is really bad, accompanied by other side effects. Tall people probably think that short chainstays suck, except when they're on their short WB bike (that they likely downsized to, since it felt better) and are into "jibbing", recently discovering the magic of long chainstays and getting their proper XL size, becoming more interested in racing the clock, while still jibbing at every opportunity.

    The most common position you're in on a bike is your pedaling position. What if the bike's geo was set to treat that as the central common point. What if your standing and seated positions (CoG) were matched? The geo was pre-trimmed from the factory in a complete build. Like any other human powered tool, ergonomics plays a big role in efficiently utilizing your body's motor skills to do a big job. In this case, having the saddle extended a certain amount is common knowledge to efficiently recruit your leg muscles to turn a crank in circles, but what if told you that I had scientific evidence that suggests that the angle between your back and legs is also important? What if you could corner, pump, and hop from the same position you pedal from? Some might say they can, while I imagine the majority might be skeptical of that possibility. This is the elusive sweet spot. You only hear the interviews of WC DH/EWS pros that are making stand-out performances, who say they feel really comfortable on the bike (not uncommonly with a new bike involved), which is likely that sweet spot. Think of how many others are struggling, possibly changing up bikes and teams and not getting the results expected, which may be marginalized into slumps or injuries, to protect the reputation of the industry.

    These are fundamental questions that question current design. Forward geo is getting close to matching standing and seated positions. Who's willing to come up with new questions, and answer them in clever ways, such as how do you located a seat without a straight/rigid seat post and seat tube? Softride asked this question, but that's not the only answer available. Inspiration/fresh ideas can come from anywhere, such as a Herman Miller Aeron office chair's tensioned mesh surfaces.

    Good engineering is to credit behind everything man-made that happens to do work invisibly, without concern. The bike industry is notorious for having a poor ratio of engineers to other employees. They don't have the freedom to ask such questions, to re-engineer things. Has anyone here questioned how strong a top tube needs to be, or how much better the ride would be with a bit more compliance? If they did test and they got mixed test results which didn't decide one was better than the other, how did they decide on one over the other? Aesthetics? Weight?

    The centralized balance thing I speak of is a infinitely small point, that is a moving target. I have experimented enough to spot it, but a big detractor that makes the spot move is telescopic forks compressing and decreasing the front center (distance from BB to front axle). It's why I suggested a linkage fork is the future. Right now, the industry's moving so slowly that they're yet to move away from old road bike and XC geo, and people are afraid of length reach and wheelbases, thinking they'd handle like a bus or stretch limo, except they imagine themselves at the helm, rather than someone skilled, and disparage the vehicle itself.

    This quote popped up in my mind when it came to responding to you: "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Is trying to act or demonstrate being wise unwelcome here? Why not encourage it? I have no authority on controlling what's said here, but I'll say F* off to you and anyone else with the same attitude as you. I fully welcome any wisdom--if someone honestly has ridden a 1325 WB 455 CS 500+ reach size L bike (Pole Machine) and found it handled way better than their older size L 1180 WB bike ~455 reach bike on switchbacks and what not, without much learning curve, I wanna know.
    Denver, CO

  132. #132
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    ThatÔŅĹs fine and dandy but I have 400 miles on this bike and I can ride it just as fast or faster than my last bike and the one before that. IÔŅĹm on a Large 150... IÔŅĹve noticed zero bad tendencies in the way the bike handles even after an Enduro this last weekend that was 45 minutes of racing.
    I tried to simplify with that guideline. Some may have wanted more support to explain why I came to such a statement. It's bound to get complicated in such an explanation. According to the guideline, I stated to go with a L SB130 instead of SB150, if you were that size. Rather than be curious why, you prefer to ignore the reason?

    Why did you choose L SB150 over the XL or M? Did you explore how upsizing/downsizing could've felt better on demos/test rides? I wouldn't be surprised if you downsized from XL. I pinpointed the M as being dialed. Upsizing and "long-forking" from that is acceptable, but I doubt long-forking a L will help it, being fine as is. Upsizing from L to XL isn't likely to be good. Downsizing from M to S isn't likely to be good. Reasons in that wall of text you quoted, if you didn't read it.

    In short, your choice is fine, especially so in a sense vs every other option on the market. I'm more curious why you act as if you're defending against me, as if my words were antagonizing some sacred beliefs. SB130 vs SB150 is a relatively minor decision, in comparison to what else is out there, that should've only justified the effort I put into writing up that size-based guide. It's like it's hard to go wrong. xD

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    I tried to simplify with that guideline. Some may have wanted more support to explain why I came to such a statement. It's bound to get complicated in such an explanation. According to the guideline, I stated to go with a L SB130 instead of SB150, if you were that size. Rather than be curious why, you prefer to ignore the reason?

    Why did you choose L SB150 over the XL or M? Did you explore how upsizing/downsizing could've felt better on demos/test rides? I wouldn't be surprised if you downsized from XL. I pinpointed the M as being dialed. Upsizing and "long-forking" from that is acceptable, but I doubt long-forking a L will help it, being fine as is. Upsizing from L to XL isn't likely to be good. Downsizing from M to S isn't likely to be good. Reasons in that wall of text you quoted, if you didn't read it.

    In short, your choice is fine. I'm more curious why you act as if you're defending against me, as if my words were antagonizing some sacred beliefs.
    Nope didnít downsize. Large is my size. What Iím saying is youíre spewing false information. The subtle differences wouldnít be noticed by 99.99999% of this forum including myself.

  134. #134
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Nope didnít downsize. Large is my size. What Iím saying is youíre spewing false information. The subtle differences wouldnít be noticed by 99.99999% of this forum including myself.
    Well, that settles things. Taking something personal then making 99.99999% of this forum, that you may have just disrespected, back up your view. xD Can't do anything against that authority.

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    If that's the case, why are you here looking at something that's $3k? Why aren't you riding your sub-$200 hand-me-down bike from when you were a kid on dirt? If it's simple, do you think some average mtn biker with millions of dollars at their disposal can come up with a contender without deep understanding?

    It's a vehicle bound by physics. It's complicated, hence why people suggest trusting the creators. These things have been refined very slowly over time, strongly influenced by demand to survive by generating sales. I consider that a problem that could use solving.

    Think of how painstaking it is to pilot an aircraft and being forced to always hold the stick back and to the right slightly, to offset its tendency to lose altitude and drift in one direction in what should be level flight in controlled air space. They have trim controls to correct that, so they can relax in a more comfortable position, only using their controls to react to temporary/short instances of outside forces affecting the piloting of the aircraft.

    On a bike, your "trim controls" are your stem and handlebar geo, seat rail position, post setback and height, crank length, angle set, EBB/sliding dropouts, etc. Your control stick is essentially your body positions. You can move to the tip of the saddle to keep the nose down on a climb, move your weight back to avoid your front end from pushing through on the apex of a turn, or move your hips to regain balance after a tire slipping off your desired course on an off-camber section. What if you picked a bike with unadjustable trim that required you to compensate for weight being too far forward by hanging off the back due to long chainstays on a relatively short wheelbase bike, whenever you wanted to get out of the saddle? We're forced to live with that until we pick a new frame, since the only way to trim that is to get a bike with the right balance in CS and wheelbase. Extending the front out a bit more helps only so much when this problem is really bad, accompanied by other side effects. Tall people probably think that short chainstays suck, except when they're on their short WB bike (that they likely downsized to, since it felt better) and are into "jibbing", recently discovering the magic of long chainstays and getting their proper XL size, becoming more interested in racing the clock, while still jibbing at every opportunity.

    The most common position you're in on a bike is your pedaling position. What if the bike's geo was set to treat that as the central common point. What if your standing and seated positions (CoG) were matched? The geo was pre-trimmed from the factory in a complete build. Like any other human powered tool, ergonomics plays a big role in efficiently utilizing your body's motor skills to do a big job. In this case, having the saddle extended a certain amount is common knowledge to efficiently recruit your leg muscles to turn a crank in circles, but what if told you that I had scientific evidence that suggests that the angle between your back and legs is also important? What if you could corner, pump, and hop from the same position you pedal from? Some might say they can, while I imagine the majority might be skeptical of that possibility. This is the elusive sweet spot. You only hear the interviews of WC DH/EWS pros that are making stand-out performances, who say they feel really comfortable on the bike (not uncommonly with a new bike involved), which is likely that sweet spot. Think of how many others are struggling, possibly changing up bikes and teams and not getting the results expected, which may be marginalized into slumps or injuries, to protect the reputation of the industry.

    These are fundamental questions that question current design. Forward geo is getting close to matching standing and seated positions. Who's willing to come up with new questions, and answer them in clever ways, such as how do you located a seat without a straight/rigid seat post and seat tube? Softride asked this question, but that's not the only answer available. Inspiration/fresh ideas can come from anywhere, such as a Herman Miller Aeron office chair's tensioned mesh surfaces.

    Good engineering is to credit behind everything man-made that happens to do work invisibly, without concern. The bike industry is notorious for having a poor ratio of engineers to other employees. They don't have the freedom to ask such questions, to re-engineer things. Has anyone here questioned how strong a top tube needs to be, or how much better the ride would be with a bit more compliance? If they did test and they got mixed test results which didn't decide one was better than the other, how did they decide on one over the other? Aesthetics? Weight?

    The centralized balance thing I speak of is a infinitely small point, that is a moving target. I have experimented enough to spot it, but a big detractor that makes the spot move is telescopic forks compressing and decreasing the front center (distance from BB to front axle). It's why I suggested a linkage fork is the future. Right now, the industry's moving so slowly that they're yet to move away from old road bike and XC geo, and people are afraid of length reach and wheelbases, thinking they'd handle like a bus or stretch limo, except they imagine themselves at the helm, rather than someone skilled, and disparage the vehicle itself.

    This quote popped up in my mind when it came to responding to you: "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Is trying to act or demonstrate being wise unwelcome here? Why not encourage it? I have no authority on controlling what's said here, but I'll say F* off to you and anyone else with the same attitude as you. I fully welcome any wisdom--if someone honestly has ridden a 1325 WB 455 CS 500+ reach size L bike (Pole Machine) and found it handled way better than their older size L 1180 WB bike ~455 reach bike on switchbacks and what not, without much learning curve, I wanna know.

    i went for a ride in the time it took you to write that. Grab your bike and get off your keyboard and quit over thinking it homie.

  136. #136
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    I actually did spend about 1 hr on that. I think I'm more about examining the industry and the psychology of the community, than the design of bikes itself. Mechanical things I can understand, but people not so much. Can carry on with your SB130 vs SB150 stuff---I didn't even mean to write this much in the first place. Only learned the price of these bikes earlier today. Not really after anything here, besides to maybe bounce a bunch of rough ideas around--got no business looking at these bikes, so sorry for hijacking the thread on loosely related bike geo shit. Unsubscribed from Yeti forum threads.

  137. #137
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,946
    Jayem, is that you?
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    Jayem, is that you?


    paralysis by analysis! I apologize to the 0.000001% I offended, your attention to minutiae is incredible.
    Denver, CO

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    90
    Should have some input to contribute here in a few days. Getting a couple on an SB150 late this week. Gonna run Apex and then Green Mountain/N Table to see how it compares to the SB130 I bombed around Boise last week and my Nomad 4.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    706
    WOW JUST WOW, I am not really sure how to take the last day of Posts. The same guy is blowing up the evil offering thread.

    I think it may be Picard!!!
    Evil Insurgent Yeti SB5.5 Evil Wreckoning Pivot Switchblade Pivot Mach 5.5 Yeti SB150

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kwapik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowsed341 View Post
    WOW JUST WOW, I am not really sure how to take the last day of Posts. The same guy is blowing up the evil offering thread.

    I think it may be Picard!!!
    Myself, I was amazed at the number of posts by Ninjichor especially considering he only signed up in July. I guess he really likes to share his wisdom.

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    "wisdom"
    Yeti SB130 Turq
    Progressive Coil
    WAO Agents with I9s

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    73
    I've posted in the other threads already, but should contribute my experience here. I took out the 150 on Monday, and rode Lair O' the Bear for the first time. I felt like the bike climbed great, better than my SB5+ for sure. I'm 5'10+ and was on a MD, and it was spot on. Tuesday I rode Apex for the first time, up Argos to PnS and up Apex to descend Enchanted Forest. Again, all first time for me. The bike made me want to be a better rider, but I never felt like it was a "big bike". Just a pleasure to ride, and confidence inspiring. I rode some stuff I think I would have balked at with my 5+. In full disclosure, I'm pretty conservative, and still walk things that I should try to ride.

    Rode the 130 today, and again at Lair O' the Bear. This time I went a lot farther than on Monday, and the bike was great both up and down, but I honestly didn't think it felt much different than the 150, and at the end of the day, I think that's the one I'll end up with. There's something about that bike that speaks to me. Maybe it's more travel, or whatever, but between the two, the SB150 just seemed like the bike for me.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kwapik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Bannerman View Post
    "wisdom"
    Exactly

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by YetiKK View Post
    I've posted in the other threads already, but should contribute my experience here. I took out the 150 on Monday, and rode Lair O' the Bear for the first time. I felt like the bike climbed great, better than my SB5+ for sure. I'm 5'10+ and was on a MD, and it was spot on. Tuesday I rode Apex for the first time, up Argos to PnS and up Apex to descend Enchanted Forest. Again, all first time for me. The bike made me want to be a better rider, but I never felt like it was a "big bike". Just a pleasure to ride, and confidence inspiring. I rode some stuff I think I would have balked at with my 5+. In full disclosure, I'm pretty conservative, and still walk things that I should try to ride.

    Rode the 130 today, and again at Lair O' the Bear. This time I went a lot farther than on Monday, and the bike was great both up and down, but I honestly didn't think it felt much different than the 150, and at the end of the day, I think that's the one I'll end up with. There's something about that bike that speaks to me. Maybe it's more travel, or whatever, but between the two, the SB150 just seemed like the bike for me.
    I ran into you in the parking lot today, good meeting you! I was on the 4.5/100 with my wife. I have not ridden the 130 but feel the same way. I own a 150 and have nearly 500 miles on that now and love it. 4.5/150 is a great combo only using the 4.5 for real long distance rides over 30+ miles or xc endurance events. If your terrain calls for it (anywhere but the midwest), the 150 is easily a 1 quiver bike.

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    73
    Cool Streetdoctor, nice meeting you too. Wish I would have asked your name! Yeah, I really couldn't find any downside to the 150. It did not fell like a big, heavy bike to me in any way. Really impressed by it.

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    I sure wish more riders would time their segments cause feeling faster and being faster don't always correlate.

    But then I don't either. Every route, conditions, and people I'm riding with changes to often to get a consistent result.

    But then maybe it's not about the highest average speed to many?

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dagonger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,451

    SB130 vs SB150, opinions wanted!

    Streetdoctor....My thoughts exactly... sb150 replacing my 2015 sb6c, and in a year I will replace my 45c with a sb100...



    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    Instagram/Youtube- Dagonger
    Yeti Cycles sb45c/sb150

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    42
    Spent two days on the 150 last weekend. Set two PRís at Hall in Lyons, CO and a 2cnd on a loop at the top. Wasnít pushing it hard. More or less did the same on another ride in Evergreen. Same thing, wasnít trying that hard; more focused on how it climbed and how it felt on descents. The downside, in my opinion, is how casually this handled the trails. Climbs great, rode a medium and had no issues on switchbacks. Comparing mostly against a medium Pivot 5.5 (which is also great w/X2 and ACS3 coil upgrade, but a bit undersized for me). Rode a Ripmo and GG Smash as well, both also amazing. Rode the Ripmo at White Ranch and will need to look at those times. Too many great options!

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by hinchmant View Post
    Spent two days on the 150 last weekend. Set two PRís at Hall in Lyons, CO and a 2cnd on a loop at the top. Wasnít pushing it hard. More or less did the same on another ride in Evergreen. Same thing, wasnít trying that hard; more focused on how it climbed and how it felt on descents. The downside, in my opinion, is how casually this handled the trails. Climbs great, rode a medium and had no issues on switchbacks. Comparing mostly against a medium Pivot 5.5 (which is also great w/X2 and ACS3 coil upgrade, but a bit undersized for me). Rode a Ripmo and GG Smash as well, both also amazing. Rode the Ripmo at White Ranch and will need to look at those times. Too many great options!
    How tall are you for that medium? I cant demo it at the moment, and I cant decide between m and L. 5'11" here.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    I sure wish more riders would time their segments cause feeling faster and being faster don't always correlate.

    But then I don't either. Every route, conditions, and people I'm riding with changes to often to get a consistent result.

    But then maybe it's not about the highest average speed to many?

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    Oh man.... I feel you! How do you weed out the "fuc*ery" of MTB'ing?! Everyone rides "aggressive, fast, gnar, rad, etc" I strava every ride and so far I've mostly ridden bike park. Lots of PR's on the 150 downhill including a handful of top 10's out of thousands. It's also about 6lbs lighter than my previous bike though. I had 5th in Pro/Open pretty wrapped up at the vail outlier enduro last weekend until I literally crashed directly in front of the finish line

    I don't think there's a "bad" new enduro bike out there though currently. It's more a game of strengths and weakness' so saying a certain bike is "faster" is... meeeeh. The Yeti design may not descend as well as FSR but as a race bike it certainly sprints better. My weakness has always been my fitness so for me it works. I will sacrifice some downhill prowess (really minutiae) for a bike that I can get an edge sprinting the flats and climbs on.
    Denver, CO

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by McGG View Post
    How tall are you for that medium? I cant demo it at the moment, and I cant decide between m and L. 5'11" here.
    5í11Ē as well (32Ē inseam). Want to try a large to be certain. Shop didnít seem at all concerned with fit and I know them. Not just pushing a bike.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    44
    5í11Ē with 32Ē inseam here. Riding a large and it is spot on.

    By comparison, also have a medium SB100, and it feels too small. Iím on top of the bike and when Iím attack position, Iím centered back on the bike.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Rom3n View Post
    If anyone is interested in the weight difference between these two frames the 130 is 6.15 lbs and the 150 is 7.11 lbs on my scale.
    Hey Roman, so you have owned both the FB29 & the SB150. Can you compare these 2 bikes in all regards but especially climbing?

    Thanks.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  155. #155
    ejj
    ejj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by McGG View Post
    How tall are you for that medium? I cant demo it at the moment, and I cant decide between m and L. 5'11" here.
    I'd go large. These modern bikes are built around a short stem and keeping your weight centered between the wheels. Small frames with big people screws up the math when they slide the seat back and put a bigger stem on.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    90
    Rode a 150 yesterday at Apex - was actually slower (only very slightly) on it going uphill that I was on my Nomad 4. Which is interesting because it felt faster and easier to pedal

    Going downhill, I was faster than my Nomad 4 in nearly every section - sometimes significantly. Which is interesting because it felt slower, more "on the edge", and a bit less playful. That said, I do think it pops off of lips maybe a bit better.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by ejj View Post
    I'd go large. These modern bikes are built around a short stem and keeping your weight centered between the wheels. Small frames with big people screws up the math when they slide the seat back and put a bigger stem on.
    Hi 1st post
    I am 5'7'', inseam 32 and arm span 71.3" so considerable ape index (arms longer than height by 9cm). On the charts which only go only by height, I'm medium. My current bike is SB5 medium (reach 413) with 50mm stem.
    I am close to pulling the trigger on SB130 . Initially wasn't sure re 130 or 150. Have been fortunate to test ride 150 in Lge, 130 in Med and Lge back to back and then a few days later 2nd test ride of 130 in med.

    150 feels like too much bike for me most of the time. I would like to be riding shuttles and steeps often enough that this bike was justified but it was slower up and coming down it wasn't as much fun as the 130. For me 90% of the time the 130 would be the better bike and its not as if the 130 can't do shuttles or bike park just not as full on as the 150.
    The 130 felt great up and down and faster than my existing bike. Surprisingly with all this talk about geometry / increased reach the medium felt cramped in the cockpit. large felt great.
    LBS sized me at the shop on trainer and agreed that better position on lge. Suggested I could get better position by longer stem but most opinions suggest short stem with short offset stem.
    I think my longer arm span may have something to do with my sizing discrepancy. Measured my existing center of bar to center of seatpost at riding height = 64cm, same measurement in med was 62cm, large 64cm.
    I think the slacker headtube angle, steeper STA and 50mm down to 40mm stem all reducing cockpit space may also play a part. ? opinions please as I have previously always ridden mediums and still a little anxious about getting large.

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bannerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by GCYeti View Post
    Hi 1st post
    I am 5'7'', inseam 32 and arm span 71.3" so considerable ape index (arms longer than height by 9cm). On the charts which only go only by height, I'm medium. My current bike is SB5 medium (reach 413) with 50mm stem.
    I am close to pulling the trigger on SB130 . Initially wasn't sure re 130 or 150. Have been fortunate to test ride 150 in Lge, 130 in Med and Lge back to back and then a few days later 2nd test ride of 130 in med.

    150 feels like too much bike for me most of the time. I would like to be riding shuttles and steeps often enough that this bike was justified but it was slower up and coming down it wasn't as much fun as the 130. For me 90% of the time the 130 would be the better bike and its not as if the 130 can't do shuttles or bike park just not as full on as the 150.
    The 130 felt great up and down and faster than my existing bike. Surprisingly with all this talk about geometry / increased reach the medium felt cramped in the cockpit. large felt great.
    LBS sized me at the shop on trainer and agreed that better position on lge. Suggested I could get better position by longer stem but most opinions suggest short stem with short offset stem.
    I think my longer arm span may have something to do with my sizing discrepancy. Measured my existing center of bar to center of seatpost at riding height = 64cm, same measurement in med was 62cm, large 64cm.
    I think the slacker headtube angle, steeper STA and 50mm down to 40mm stem all reducing cockpit space may also play a part. ? opinions please as I have previously always ridden mediums and still a little anxious about getting large.
    I'm 5' 7" as well but 31" inseam and 5'9" wingspan. I've been on the Medium SB130 for three weeks now at it feels about perfect. I couldn't see wanting to be on a large but it really depends on your riding style.
    Yeti SB130 Turq
    Progressive Coil
    WAO Agents with I9s

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    Seems like the new Yeti's have some darn low BBs as is the trend.

    Those that ride in chunky terrain, how are you getting along with that?

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Seems like the new Yeti's have some darn low BBs as is the trend.

    Those that ride in chunky terrain, how are you getting along with that?

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    I was wondering about this. I got a chance to noodle around a parking lot just for the sake of saying I rode one...and it seemed really low...as in: really, really concerning low.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    I was wondering about this. I got a chance to noodle around a parking lot just for the sake of saying I rode one...and it seemed really low...as in: really, really concerning low.
    They sit pretty high in their travel. No where near as low as Santa Cruz or transition.
    Denver, CO

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    614
    I've been looking at the geometry of several different mid-travel 29ers and they all seem to have a bottom bracket height in the range of 13.3 to 13.6 inches. Guess I am just wondering if there are bikes in this category with a substantially higher bottom bracket, or if the difference between 13.6" and 13.3" is considered significant.

    To clarify, I've looked at the SC Hightower, Yeti SB130, Spot Mayhem, Cannondale Habit, Pivot Trail 429, Pivot Switchblade, Ibis Ripmo and Scott Genius.

    Of course, I am also assuming the manufacturers are accurately reporting these numbers....

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakyWheel73 View Post
    I've been looking at the geometry of several different mid-travel 29ers and they all seem to have a bottom bracket height in the range of 13.3 to 13.6 inches. Guess I am just wondering if there are bikes in this category with a substantially higher bottom bracket, or if the difference between 13.6" and 13.3" is considered significant.

    To clarify, I've looked at the SC Hightower, Yeti SB130, Spot Mayhem, Cannondale Habit, Pivot Trail 429, Pivot Switchblade, Ibis Ripmo and Scott Genius.

    Of course, I am also assuming the manufacturers are accurately reporting these numbers....
    If all the bikes you were comparing were the same rear travel then those numbers would be somewhat significant. Considering the range in rear travel it doesn't tell much of a story.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    614
    Fair enough, although the bikes are all in the 120mm - 140mm travel range.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    58
    I currently ride a 5.5. And I want the weight of the 130, rear travel of the 150, and a 160mm fork. Oh well guess I'll need to man up and get a 150.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Seems like the new Yeti's have some darn low BBs as is the trend.

    Those that ride in chunky terrain, how are you getting along with that?

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    165-170mm cranks works fine but I would say the same for most of these new lower BB 29ers as that's what I always run on them.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakyWheel73 View Post
    I've been looking at the geometry of several different mid-travel 29ers and they all seem to have a bottom bracket height in the range of 13.3 to 13.6 inches. Guess I am just wondering if there are bikes in this category with a substantially higher bottom bracket, or if the difference between 13.6" and 13.3" is considered significant.

    To clarify, I've looked at the SC Hightower, Yeti SB130, Spot Mayhem, Cannondale Habit, Pivot Trail 429, Pivot Switchblade, Ibis Ripmo and Scott Genius.

    Of course, I am also assuming the manufacturers are accurately reporting these numbers....
    I found the 13.9" BB height on the 140mm Ellsworth Evolution to be really ideal for me riding rocky, tech trails.

  168. #168
    ejj
    ejj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakyWheel73 View Post
    I've been looking at the geometry of several different mid-travel 29ers and they all seem to have a bottom bracket height in the range of 13.3 to 13.6 inches. Guess I am just wondering if there are bikes in this category with a substantially higher bottom bracket, or if the difference between 13.6" and 13.3" is considered significant.

    To clarify, I've looked at the SC Hightower, Yeti SB130, Spot Mayhem, Cannondale Habit, Pivot Trail 429, Pivot Switchblade, Ibis Ripmo and Scott Genius.

    Of course, I am also assuming the manufacturers are accurately reporting these numbers....
    You can't really compare the numbers on these. Every manufacturer reports it differently. Some report it "sagged." Some report drop. Some report it with big tires.

    And yes, companies lie--because people will exclude them based on measurements.

    For the most part, a low BB is awesome--it just requires learning/adjusting to it's trade-offs.

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakyWheel73 View Post
    I've been looking at the geometry of several different mid-travel 29ers and they all seem to have a bottom bracket height in the range of 13.3 to 13.6 inches. Guess I am just wondering if there are bikes in this category with a substantially higher bottom bracket, or if the difference between 13.6" and 13.3" is considered significant.

    To clarify, I've looked at the SC Hightower, Yeti SB130, Spot Mayhem, Cannondale Habit, Pivot Trail 429, Pivot Switchblade, Ibis Ripmo and Scott Genius.

    Of course, I am also assuming the manufacturers are accurately reporting these numbers....
    The constant mixing of standard and metric sizing is incredibly annoying to me.

    Anyways. 8mm is very noticeable. When I swapped from 175 to 170 cranks, that 5mm of additional clearance made a tremendous difference in the number of momentum stealing pedal strikes I would have a on a typical ride. My new ordered Foxy 29 is 13mm taller than the SB130. The Foxy is 4mm taller than my current SB5.5 which I consider pretty darn good in the clearance department with 170 cranks right now. But one must consider the rear travel differences. At 30% rear sag the 150 travel bike is going to give up an extra 6.5mm of clearance once sagged when compared to a 130mm travel bike. Still enough to matter at 6mm, but not nearly as dramatic as 13mm.

    I get the handling advantages of a lower CoG afforded by the lower BB but I'll pass on those advantages in exchange for a fraction of the pedal strikes (which can be dangerous if you are traveling fast by the way).

    I've never ridden the new Yeti's (I'm on a 5.5 that I love btw) or the new Foxy I have on order for that matter, but I don't like the short top tube lengths nor the low BB heights of the new Yeti's for my riding and terrain, on paper at least. I do like the other angles and the reach however as well as Switch Infinity performance in general.
    Last edited by Suns_PSD; 10-11-2018 at 06:42 PM.

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    I've never ridden the new Yeti's (I'm on a 5.5 that I love btw) or the new Foxy I have on order for that matter, but I don't like the short top tube lengths nor the low BB heights of the new Yeti's for my riding and terrain, on paper at least. I do like the other angles and the reach however as well as Switch Infinity performance in general.
    The TT lengths on the SB130 are virtually identical to your 5.5, so not following your logic.

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy View Post
    The TT lengths on the SB130 are virtually identical to your 5.5, so not following your logic.
    Yah, the TT length on my 5.5 is about 1-1.5" too short even though it's a large and I'm only 5'11". This causes me to have to run an absurdly long stem & slam my bars down and run a high rise bar to stretch the thing out, which is less than ideal. That and the reach being at least 2" too short are the reason I'm swapping bikes. I took it to a bike park where I stood the entire time and that's when I truly realized that my hands damn near touching my knees when standing in the attack position was less than ideal. IMO, the Large 5.5, unless being used for XC riding, is sized appropriately for a 5'6"- 5'10" rider. Your experience may vary. It took me a couple of years to really understand my bike fit but now I understand why there was a big craze around 'up-sizing' the bikes with people cutting seat tubes and what not. With previous gen bikes (and many current) it was the only way to make them fit correctly.

    I think the current geometry trends might be fashionable, but really trying to compensate for some other things that are still off.

    Looking at the SB130 I see a bike that is a bit extreme in the head tube angle for a 130 bike that arrives with no volume spacers and runs a basic shock, but I think that's to compensate for a tt that's too short as it helps with stability. Bars have gotten too wide and that's been a direct consequence of the Reach measurements being too short. Now they are making the BBs just too low for people in rocky terrain cause fashion and what not. Are the seat tube angles becoming to extreme (I have little experience with this)? We'll see but I think this stuff is now in the ballpark.

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    Quote Originally Posted by ejj View Post
    You can't really compare the numbers on these. Every manufacturer reports it differently. Some report it "sagged." Some report drop. Some report it with big tires.

    And yes, companies lie--because people will exclude them based on measurements.

    For the most part, a low BB is awesome--it just requires learning/adjusting to it's trade-offs.
    They all seem to provide 'Bottom Bracket Drop" in the Geo charts now which sort of excludes all those variables. Just where the BB is in relation to the axle centers. A negative number indicates the BB is below the axles and a larger negative number indicates it's further below.

    For reference here are BB drop numbers from a little Geo chart I have in front of me when I was comparing my existing 5.5, the SB130, and the Foxy 29. At one point I had a few other candidates in their as well.

    Foxy : -21 mm
    SB5.5: -25 mm
    SB130: -34mm

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slimphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    882
    sb130 xo1 coming in about 4 to 6 weeks....super pumped!

  174. #174
    ejj
    ejj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    They all seem to provide 'Bottom Bracket Drop" in the Geo charts now which sort of excludes all those variables. Just where the BB is in relation to the axle centers. A negative number indicates the BB is below the axles and a larger negative number indicates it's further below.

    For reference here are BB drop numbers from a little Geo chart I have in front of me when I was comparing my existing 5.5, the SB130, and the Foxy 29. At one point I had a few other candidates in their as well.

    Foxy : -21 mm
    SB5.5: -25 mm
    SB130: -34mm
    Have you ridden the bikes?

    The geo charts are interesting and all, but you really need to ride the bikes. I've ridden both Yetis: the 130 is pretty sweet. Great suspension feel. For me, I would not consider the 5.5 after riding it.

    I haven't ridden the Mondraker, but a friend who has felt that it was more inline with the SB150 in purpose. (In short, meant to haul major ass, but not as comfortable doing it.)

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    Quote Originally Posted by ejj View Post
    Have you ridden the bikes?

    The geo charts are interesting and all, but you really need to ride the bikes. I've ridden both Yetis: the 130 is pretty sweet. Great suspension feel. For me, I would not consider the 5.5 after riding it.

    I haven't ridden the Mondraker, but a friend who has felt that it was more inline with the SB150 in purpose. (In short, meant to haul major ass, but not as comfortable doing it.)
    There is no doubt that there are better people to ask about bikes than me, because they ride more bikes (and more often) than me. I have not ridden the above bikes yet.

    As a new bike shopper, I had identified what I disliked about my 5.5, and primarily wanted to narrow my choices down to bikes that corrected these specific issues. With my limited schedule (I'm a business owner and parent and it's hard to get away), and the cost of local bike rental, and the rarity of local demo events, demoing every contender bike just wasn't going to happen.

    Although the Geo charts don't tell you how a bike rides, they most certainly can be compared to your current ride to figure out fit. And we have reviews and people we can speak to, to access other aspects of performance like efficiency (most important to me).

    The SB130 is more slack than the Foxy, the SB150 is considerably slacker still. The SB150 is also longer than a Foxy, and has longer forks. I think both the Foxy & the SB150 are both stable bikes. However the Foxy is a fast trail bike with an enduro slant where-as the SB150 IS an enduro bike.

    The SB130 was designed for more flow imo whereas the SB150 has a considerably higher BB and is therefore more appropriate for chunk. But neither has enough top tube length with running a shortish stem for me personally.

    These are my 'on paper' assessments which frankly is the best I can do in my circumstances. Once I take possession of a bike, well I'm going to ride it for at least 2 years either way.

    ~ take care

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,742
    I guess I'm one of the rare birds who doesn't care about times so much. Maybe if I raced I'd feel differently. If I "feel" better while riding Bike A but I'm slower than on Bike B, I'm taking the bike where I feel better especially if that translates to seeming to take less energy to climb techy sections. Also, the smile on my face at the end of the ride is always more important than how fast the ride was completed.
    Carpe Diem!!

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by k2rider1964 View Post
    I guess I'm one of the rare birds who doesn't care about times so much. Maybe if I raced I'd feel differently. If I "feel" better while riding Bike A but I'm slower than on Bike B, I'm taking the bike where I feel better especially if that translates to seeming to take less energy to climb techy sections. Also, the smile on my face at the end of the ride is always more important than how fast the ride was completed.
    Does that happen often?

    I think usually if you feel better, and it feels like it takes less energy than you are usually faster. Not that it matters. I've never heard of anyone say "man that last section felt really easy on this bike" and they ended up being slower.
    Denver, CO

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,297
    29ers usually feel slower than 27.5s, but the stop watch don't lie!

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  179. #179
    ban
    ban is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,526

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    38
    I figured I would bring this back up after my demo ride this weekend. I ride a 5.5 and after a 130 demo last fall I was in no hurry to get my checkbook out. I liked the new ride position but my 5.5 -1 headset felt faster and more composed. So fast forward to this weekend and I got out on 150, this bike rips. I did the same climb/trail/descend loop I always demo on and I had PR's on the rooty rocky flat rolling trail section and the DH parts. I ruled this bike out with the reviews saying its to big, to long EWS only bike but after a ride I'll pick this all day long over a 130. I think with some suspension dial turning you can adapt this bike to a lot of scenarios. This is just my 2 cents for whats its worth, I would have missed out on this bike had I not demoed it.

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by tilltheend View Post
    I figured I would bring this back up after my demo ride this weekend. I ride a 5.5 and after a 130 demo last fall I was in no hurry to get my checkbook out. I liked the new ride position but my 5.5 -1 headset felt faster and more composed. So fast forward to this weekend and I got out on 150, this bike rips. I did the same climb/trail/descend loop I always demo on and I had PR's on the rooty rocky flat rolling trail section and the DH parts. I ruled this bike out with the reviews saying its to big, to long EWS only bike but after a ride I'll pick this all day long over a 130. I think with some suspension dial turning you can adapt this bike to a lot of scenarios. This is just my 2 cents for whats its worth, I would have missed out on this bike had I not demoed it.
    As a former 5.5 owner, I concur with your assessment. To me the 150 is the better choice in a one bike stable.

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by foggnm View Post
    As a former 5.5 owner, I concur with your assessment. To me the 150 is the better choice in a one bike stable.
    I took another demo and got out back to back on a 130/150 and took a 150 home. Things awesome, Im surprised at the traction this thing has compared to my 5.5 or 130 must be the X2 but unless your after a trail bike(SB100 would be my choice then) I cant see a reason to not get a 150, it just begs you to push it faster and harder but somehow still turns the same times on the flats.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1165
    Last Post: 4 Days Ago, 10:19 PM
  2. SB150 review
    By Streetdoctor in forum Yeti
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 03-01-2019, 07:50 AM
  3. New Yeti SB150 sneak peak!
    By svinyard in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-27-2018, 12:54 PM
  4. Opinions wanted on a few bikes!
    By bodben in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-19-2011, 03:58 PM

Members who have read this thread: 27

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.