If you happened to find yourself on Yeti's website during a bout of aimless internet wandering, you'd have to look under the cross-country category to locate the SB4.5c. With 4.5” (114mm) of rear travel and 29” wheels that designation makes sense, that is until you realize that the bike has Yeti's long-and-low geometry, a 140mm fork, and a 67.4-degree head angle, numbers that suggest there might be more to this turquoise machine than initially meets the eye.
There are two complete builds available, the GX version for $5,599 USD, or the XO1 version we tested that retails for $6,899. Riders who wish to build their own ride from the ground up will need to part ways with $3,400 for the frame and shock.
SB 4.5C Details• Intended use: XC / trail
• Rear wheel travel: 114mm
• Wheel size: 29"
• Carbon fiber frame
• BB92 bottom bracket
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL
• Weight (as shown, size L w/o pedals): 25.75 lb (11.68 kg)
• MSRP: $6,899 USD, $3,400 frame / shock only
•
www.yeticycles.com /
@yeticycles Frame DetailsThe SB4.5c's full carbon fiber frame shares a similar look to the other models in Yeti's line of Switch Infinity equipped bikes, with the same swoopy styling and generous amount of standover clearance. The cable routing further adds to the clean, modern look, tucking the brake, derailleur, and dropper post routing out of sight inside the frame.
The frame is designed to work solely with 1x drivetrains – there's no front derailleur mount to be seen – but unfortunately, Yeti also decided to forgo ISCG mounts. Clutch derailleurs and narrow-wide chainrings work very well, but it would be nice to at least have the option to run a small upper guide to completely eliminate the chance of a chain falling off.
Boost spacing is in place at the front and rear of the bike, which provides enough clearance for a 29 x 2.3” tire in the back, and room for something even bigger in the front. There are a number of bikes on the market that can run either 29" or 27.5+ wheels, but the SB4.5 is intended to be a dedicated 29er.
The location of the Switch Infinity suspension system means there's no room for mounting a water bottle cage inside of the frame, but there are mounts on the down tube. That's better than nothing, but be aware of what you've been riding through before blindly taking a swig from your bottle.
Suspension DesignBy now, the Switch Infinity suspension design doesn't look quite as radical as it did when it was first announced, but it's still different enough to raise questions from riders who haven't seen it out in the wild.
For those who aren't unfamiliar with how the system works, it relies on two short Kashima-coated rails (courtesy of Fox Shox, who collaborated with Yeti on the design) located just above the bottom bracket to manipulate the bike's axle path. Initially, as the bike goes through its travel the carrier moves upwards on the rails, giving the bike a rearward axle path for improved pedaling performance. As the rear wheel goes deeper into its travel, the mechanism moves downwards, reducing the amount of chain tension for better big hit absorption. The carrier itself only
moves a few millimeters in each direction, but it's enough to have a significant impact on the way the bike's suspension behaves, especially compared to a single pivot suspension design.
As far as maintenance goes, there's a grease port on each of the rails, and Yeti recommends lubing the system every 40 hours to ensure everything stays buttery smooth, a procedure that can be performed in mere minutes.
3 Questions With YetiThere's quite the travel difference between the 114mm rear end and the 140mm fork, but it works extremely well out on the trail. Were the bike's geometry figures originally developed with that configuration in mind? Yes, we will often play with various aspects of our suspension spec with our internal testing team and professional athletes. Our intention with this bike was to give it a bit more travel in the front and ensure this was an aggressive XC/trail bike. The result is a bike that climbs extremely well and is just as capable on descents. In fact, we would say that the most common response from first time riders on the SB4.5c is that they knew it would climb well, but they never expected it would descend as well as it does.
What was the reasoning behind not including ISCG 05 tabs? Again, our intention with this bike was to design a truly aggressive XC/trail bike. As we looked at the advantages vs. disadvantages of adding the ISCG 05 tabs, we felt that the majority of riders on this bike would be inclined to run a 1x setup without a chain guide, so it made sense to keep it clean and simple for the SB4.5c. We were also working on the SB5.5c, our longer-travel 29er, at the same time we were developing the SB4.5c. We knew the SB5.5c would be the most aggressive enduro-focused bike of the two 29ers and spec’d the SB5.5c with the ISCG 05 tabs, among other components, to clearly equip that bike for the toughest enduro tracks in the world.
We're starting to see more bikes that can accept both 27.5+ and 29” wheels. Was that a consideration during the design process of the SB4.5? No, it was not a consideration. We get this question quite often and, for now, designing bikes with multiple wheel size options just isn’t our direction. We simply haven’t found the ride quality we are looking for with bikes that can accommodate multiple wheel sizes. For us, the compromises outweigh the benefits.
GeometrySpecifications
Specifications
|
Price
|
$6899 |
|
Travel |
114mm |
|
Rear Shock |
Fox Float Factory DPS |
|
Fork |
Fox 34 Factory 140mm Boost |
|
Headset |
Cane Creek 40 internal |
|
Cassette |
SRAM 1180 10-42 |
|
Crankarms |
Race Face Turbine 30t |
|
Bottom Bracket |
Race Face BB92 |
|
Rear Derailleur |
SRAM X01 11-speed |
|
Chain |
SRAM 1130 11-speed |
|
Shifter Pods |
SRAM X01 11-speed |
|
Handlebar |
Easton Haven carbon 740mm |
|
Stem |
Easton Haven 55mm |
|
Grips |
Yeti lock-on |
|
Brakes |
SRAM Guide RSC |
|
Hubs |
DT Swiss 350 |
|
Rim |
DT XM401 |
|
Tires |
Maxxis Ardent 2.4 f / Ikon 2.2 r |
|
Seat |
Yeti / WTB Custom |
|
Seatpost |
RockShox Reverb |
|
| |
SetupIn its stock configuration, the SB4.5c is aimed squarely at the XC / trail side of the spectrum, but I'd love to see Yet offer a version with a slightly burlier spec. As it is, riders who live in wetter climates, or who frequent steep, loose trails will probably want to swap out the Maxxis Ardent / Ikon tire combo for something more substantial. The same goes for the 740mm Easton Haven carbon bars. If that's your preferred length, you're in luck, but it's about 40mm too narrow for my tastes.
ClimbingHave you ever seen an asphalt milling machine in action? You know, that tank-treaded contraption that chews up pavement and then spits it out into a dump truck? Well, that's the image that regularly popped into my head when I was aboard the SB4.5c – it simply eats up the trail, and if you're not careful, before you know it you'll be three hours away from home on what was supposed to be a quick spin around the block.
The SB4.5's handling on the climbs feels a little calmer than the SB5, a bike that takes off like a jackrabbit at the merest hint of a hill, but that doesn't mean that the bigger wheeled bike is any less capable. It still has the chops to clamber up just about everything short of a vertical wall, and even then there's still a chance it might make it to the top. There's just enough rear suspension movement to keep the rear wheel on the ground without slipping, and plenty of support to keep it from bobbing or wallowing.
The SB4.5's uphill prowess is on par with Trek's Fuel EX, but Yeti's Switch Infinity system has less movement when standing up and putting the power down, a trait that I prefer, and one that allowed me to keep the Fox DPS shock in the Open position in the second compression setting for both climbing
and descending.
DescendingEven with 'only' 114mm of rear travel, the SB4.5 is capable of handling seriously rough trails, thanks to the combination of its big wheels, well managed rear travel, and dialed geometry. Of course, as usual, there's the caveat that you can't go charging headlong into a rock garden the same way you would on a 160mm enduro monster, but I still came away extremely impressed with just how forgiving of a ride the SB4.5c provided.
In fact, if I didn't know better I would have guessed that there was 130mm of rear travel on tap – it was only the occasional 'clunk' of the shock reaching the end of its travel, usually off of a drop into a hard G-out, that would remind me of the rear end's limits. Compared to Kona's Process 111, the bike that deserves credit for kicking off the short travel aggressive 29er movement, the Yeti has a more plush suspension feel, with better small bump sensitivity at the beginning of its travel. That helps provide more grip during cornering, and smooths out the chattery, potentially jarring sections of trail.
| Even with 'only' 114mm of rear travel, the SB4.5 is capable of handling seriously rough terrain, thanks to the combination of its big wheels, well managed rear travel, and dialed geometry. |
There's a speed demon hidden somewhere under the SB4.5c's carbon skin, and going fast is its forte. Now, making a 29er that goes fast in a straight line isn't an extraordinary feat, but to create one with such a beguiling mix of liveliness and stability is especially impressive. It'll whip in and out of tight turns without missing a beat, and just as easily take on a steep chute pockmarked with awkward holes and chunky rocks.
The SB4.5c's geometry is thoroughly modern, but not overly radical - there are 29ers out there with chainstays shorter than 437mm, and head angles slacker than 67.4-degrees, but all of the SB4.5's numbers add up to create something that's incredibly versatile, no matter how wild or tame the terrain. And anyone who still believes the old myth that '29ers can't jump' should take this bike for a spin – it takes minimal effort to get it airborne, and the sub-26 pound weight only serves to make it that much easier to pop towards the sky.
The only issue I had with the SB4.5's downhill performance was the fact that it can get kind of noisy at higher speeds on rough trails. Even with an integrated chainslap protector, the design of the chainstay means that when the chain hits it at a certain angle it echoes loudly, alerting riders and other forest creatures that you're rocketing down the trail towards them.
Component Check• Fox Float 34 Factory: Fox's 140mm 34 was smooth and silent throughout the test period, and felt well matched to the Float DPS shock. Even though there's more than 20mm difference between the front and rear suspension the bike still felt very balanced.
• SRAM X01 drivetrain / Race Face Turbine cranks: The X01 rear derailleur's clutch didn't seem particularly strong, which may have exacerbated some of the chainslap noise I experienced. Otherwise, with the exception of one dropped chain, the 1x11 drivetrain was trouble free, with crisp, accurate shifts even after being doused in pouring rain and splashed by deep mud puddles.
• DT XM401 rims The XM401 rims remained dent and wobble free even after a few months of abuse. I wouldn't mind if they had a wider internal width, but they still provided enough support for running 2.3” tires without any burping or rolling off the rim.
• DT 350 hubs: As for the hubs, I do have a couple of gripes. The first is related to the Centerlock to 6-bolt adaptor that was used to mount the SRAM rotors. I'd rather have a dedicated 6-bolt hub – there's much less chance of the system coming loose or developing play. I'd also prefer a 36 or 54 tooth star ratchet rather than the 18 tooth version that was spec'd. Once you've become accustomed to quicker engaging hubs, the difference is readily apparent when going back to something with 20-degrees between points of engagement.
Pinkbike's Take:
| Speed freaks will rejoice at the SB4.5c's capabilities, but even riders who prefer to cruise along at a more subdued pace will appreciate the handling and suspension feel that Yeti have baked into this turquoise machine. It's a lively trail bike that doesn't balk when faced with more technical terrain, and I'll admit that I felt more than a twinge of regret when it was time to box up the SB4.5c and return it to its Colorado home. - Mike Kazimer |
Visit the high-res gallery for more images from this review
About the ReviewerStats: Age: 33 • Height: 5'11” • Inseam: 33" • Weight: 160lb • Industry affiliations / sponsors: None Twenty years deep into a mountain biking addiction that began as a way to escape the suburban sprawl of Connecticut, Mike Kazimer is most at home deep the woods, carving his way down steep, technical trails. The decade he spent as a bike mechanic helped create a solid technical background to draw from when reviewing products, and his current location in the Pacific Northwest allows for easy access to the wettest, muddiest conditions imaginable.
120 is a nice concept but struggles to work in reality. Such bike is a perfect thing for guys getting into some hormonal phase (like I did) where they think less is more, which usually ends up with having a slower bike and having an excuse to be slow, and then coming out as a hero for tackling some rough bit on a small bike.
Yes such bikes are perfect for enlightened XCers but if you like descending, take some pills, visit life coach and ride a proper bike. Otherwise you are just a guy that is so bored with life that you want to shag a dwarf
* Yes I realise perfection is an unobtainable myth.
Maybe I just need to give one a go though.....
As a guy who has come from a bmx background, the 150+mm of rear travel bikes have a really deep pre-load, that gets a little uncomfortable when trying to elevate the bike in a bunny-hop.
I have a smuggler with a 1 deg Angleset fitted so the HA is 66.5 now. And I love it, you can plow it in to everything and it just laughs it off. I was torn between upping the pikes to 140/150 but didn't want to raise my bb to much so fitted the Angleset and it's awesome. Krunk rides the EWS on his smuggler
WAKI, I disagree with almost everything you say, but sometimes you truly are a treasure. Laughed my ass off.
1.They don't really pedal better.
2.They don't really handle better on climbs
3.Their geo allows you to go relatively fast even in a bike park BUT only if you can really nail it. As soon as you lose balance, miss a rock with your vision, there is no safet margin, your arse will fly up. The travel cannot simply keep up with geometry and components.
4.When I am riding a 160 bike I am half way into a DH bike, I am standing on a platform that allows me to look a bit further and plan my moves better, I simply have time to take a look at what is coming at me without being unsettled by the chatter of smaller bumps. Even on my slow local trails (bumpy none the less) If I'm going for some Strava masturbation, my 160 bike allows me to correct sht and be more creative with line choice. Yes 120 bike can do it here almost as fast BUT you have to nail it every single time.
5.I ride hardtail occasionally and 120 bike with whatever shock (like one in the test here, o piggy back no care) just seems to close to it. Once I get into a really bumpy section, let's say brake bumps, I can feel how my speed is dropping where 160 bike doesn't slow down me that much. What is mostimportant though is that 160 bike allows me to be heavy light over stuff, where 120 would just give me a big kick If I tried to load it on bumps.
I totally get that if you ride flow trails, if your terrain is relatively smooth, then 120 bike with lack geo can be great but that isn't even an option in the terrain Mike is riding in this test. Yes it sounds like a great 3rd bike but those things as expensive as hell.
Riding a 29er hardtail it is undeniably better over rough terrain than a 26 or 27.5" bike so imagine those benefits would translate well to a 115mm FS 29er in a lot of situations bar the real heavy stuff.
I am itching to try a short travel 29er as our local riding is quite mellow and I have a DH bike for 'proper stuff'
You have to be on the ball all the time. This is fun when your trails aren't that tricky or long like my local trails (Surrey Hills). If I was riding bigger terrain I would want 160x27.5 or a 140x29.
^^haha awesome!!.....so much yes.
My price ceiling for full bike is around this frameset price - firmly cheapskatey mid-level spec category (not saying that's right or wrong, btw. It's just how much I feel OK spending). On bikes of that level I definitely feel like I notice a difference in pedaling/climbing between 120 and 150 - and for a guy who likes climbing and covering lots of miles that matters a lot. You're probably right that you can tune out the difference on a decent frame design with an awesome shock, but I think the fact that most people tend to buy bikes in the regular monarch/float range explains much of the recent popularity of shorter travel bikes.
Or maybe I'm totally wrong and it's an industry conspiracy. Also entirely possible that I just can't tune my low/midrange shock worth a damn.
@Racer951 - From short travel 29ers I rode Process 111 and Camber. There is no way I'd buy them over Stumpy 29. And I am comenting solely on what is happening to the rear on the downhills and overall experience of climbing.
@WhatAboutBob - I just had Lee Likes Bikes coach coming to Gothenburg and he said that indeed trails are a bit special with combination of lower speed and large obstacles, especially with short yet difficult singletrack climbs. But I must say that great suspension with great shock (I am fortunate to own the level of finesse that Steve Jones had on his super dialled Stumpy 29 Evo) will do what 120 bikes are suppose to give: platform for pumping and poppyness. Yes my 160 Nomad that I sold 3 years ago to buy 120 Blur was blowing through travel too easily and Blur made everything more alive but all in all, even that Nomad was more of an all round machine, considering I have those extremely rare occassions to ride in big mountains 3-4 times a year, and I want to make most of it. I just talked to a guy who tested Float X2 and he says that the level of support in the mid travel for pedalling or slashing berms is just epic. Same for Öhlins TTX.
I must say here that if not Peter at BFG Suspension, I'd never set my Cane Creek well. It's a can of worms, and there's still some thing that is a bit off with the rebound(s). Damn, it took me two months of 3 rides a week to set Lyrik so it comes close to amazing 36 Van RC2.
The only variable that makes a difference is wheel and tire spec. Put the same tires and wheel on each bike and they will climb at the same speed. Suspension travel does not have any effect even on smooth fire road climbs. The ONLY place a 29 has any advantage is on rolling terrain where momentum from a downhill gets you 75% of the way up the next hill.
I have yet to see any reviewers write anything more than one bike "feels" faster than another. Create a baseline on one bike. That can be used as a fitness gauge for correction. From there create a standard tire setup, whatever are the reviewers favorites for each style of bike. Now you can time specific segments and at least get a feel for how fast bikes really are. Can't correct for everything, but at least you can get a good feel for how bikes perform in comparison.
BTW I owned a Yeti SB5c that was mentioned in the article as a great climbing bike. It was built as my short travel do anything bike, but I always run the same wheels and tires by necessity (anything lighter and I get sidewall cuts within 20 miles). Guess how fast it climbed compared to my coil shock equipped Nomad? Yep, same times going up on every trail/pavement climb I rode. It did FEEL faster though....
If a 160 climbed like a 120 bike shouldnt we see the whole XC race field on them? - I think you ride quite specific climbs and that is why you see no difference - you are honestly stating you see no efficiency increase with a bike that has 30% less travel?
Mountainbiking is a lot more than smooth fire roads / tarmac ups and a blast downhill and I can guarrantee over a usual 'trail ride' a coil shock nomad will be a LOT slower than a decent 120mm bike with identical build kit - its obsurd to think otherwise.
I'll stick with my 160 thanks.
As for that hormonal phase, is it the same type that makes guys run single speed?
My climbs vary from pavement to super technical and I spend equal amounts of time on both. Travel has no impact on climbing. Shock setup and suspension design can have a massive impact though. If I take a 160 bike and put 350 PSI in the rear shock and a 120 bike and put 50 PSI in which will climb better? I also know that the Enduro 29'r sucks to ride with the shock wide open as did the VPP implementation on the old Intense Tracer. In comparison the DW implementation on both Ibis and Pivot feel great wide open even though the Pivot has a much softer feel in the initial travel. The Santa Cruz implementation of VPP on the new Nomad also feels way different compared with the new Bronson even though they are only separated by 15 mm of travel. I know all of this because I have spent my own hard earned money to buy each of these frames and then build them with nearly identical build kits.
Wheels and tires have a much bigger impact on climbing and general riding than suspension travel. With modern shocks and climb switches it is simple to change the action of the travel.
I doubt that you have spent your own money building multiple bikes to own them simultaneously so that you could test theories on what makes a bike climb and descend faster. I have done this and put hard numbers to the ideas. Even with the bikes built with specific purposes in mind (XTR vs Saint brakes, SixC vs NextSL cranks etc) there was no difference. Change the tire spec and suddenly one bike would pull away. Physics will tell you this is exactly the expected behavior.
BTW is is absurd (not obsurd) to make assertions that you have not tested yourself. I have spent a lot of time and way too much money switching back and forth between bikes and continue to test these theories on a regular basis. If you can prove me wrong by running the same wheels and tires on similar builds over months of riding the same trails I would love to see the data.
I have pitched the idea of spending my own money to buy frames and building them with the same build kits and then testing them to multiple media outlets and have gotten the same response from all of them. "We only test the manufacturers build kits that they provide". Don't believe the hype.
You may have wasted your money testing this theory of yours on your specific 4 types of trail but as I say, there is no way an good 160mm bike will be as efficient as a good 120mm bike with identical kit both with modern and well setup shocks, not some bizarre situation that you have thought up with 300psi in one shock and 50psi in the other.
Winching your arse up some long climb is just not the same as technical singletrack / trail riding where the trail is constantly up and down. Some lardy coil shock mini dh bike is just not going to be as fast or fun in that situation, its the whole reason manufactuers dont only make 160mm bikes but feel free to continue your expensive ground breaking experiments there!
I just took off Butcher Control which is lighter and rolls faster than Minion, and replaced it with 2.5 Minion TR MaxxGrip - I didn't brake at all on my 6 minute ridge ride, virtually flat, you can see a slight decrease on pedalling (which could easily have been being tired) and spikes of gaining time which are surely the corners. Bike does feel slower now when pedalling and rolling but it just keeps the speed up, so there is no point in aiming at that acceleration.
Honestly, "out of subject here", sorry, I rode without Minions for 6 months and now I'm back and whatever fancy shmancy details we are discussing about progression of the trchnology, we cannot thank enough to Colin Bailey to design the Minion DHF. We could do without 29ers, we could do without carbon and dropper posts, but Mountain Biking would not be what it is without Minion DHF.
Mr Colin Bailey and Maxxis - RESPECT
More seriously though, I do agree though that 120 on big or proper wheels is an iffy middle ground. It seems like a marketing thing for me rather than something that translates to real world benefits. 100mm is great for fast XC, 140mm is probably about right for the trail crowd and 160 about right for the middle aged mincer looking for ultimate skill compensation/ the rad endurbro dudes.....
@WAKIdesigns - a 160 mm bike has higher BB due accommodate all that travel. Which means you have to give it a fair amount of pressure to get it to settle down low into its travel when railing turns and match the in-the-bike feel of a short travel 29er. So yes, the extra travel buys you more forgiveness on chunky stuff and over brake bumps and whatnot, and it sure makes for smoother landings, but it also requires a lot of skill when you don't have a berm to push into. For mere mortals like me, shorter travel bikes unlock fun and playfulness at lower, more attainable (and saner) speeds.
Think about it the ultimate perfect bike. It climbs as efficiently as a hardtail on pavement and perfectly soaks up technical climbs. On downhills the suspension works so well that you can ignore the bumps and don't even feel them.
In other words the perfect bike makes your trails equivalent to a paved bike path. Is that more fun? If somebody's local trails are relatively tame then the bar for "too much bike" is even lower. But if you're riding WC DH courses after work then the 160mm bike is already hero-worthy.
Another aspect is going too fast. If there's no other challenge what else can you do but turn up the speed. But that will often get you in trouble with other trail users and the law where I live. And it'll hurt more if you do crash.
The other part of this is the 160mm bikes are generally still noticeably heavier feeling on uphills, although to be honest most of this is just the build these days (especially tires). There's a budget factor there too.
That said, the sb95c and tallboy definitely climb better than the bronson. There are several techy climbs on my local trails that I can't make on the bronson but can easily do on the tallboy, and numerous other climbs which I can do on the bronson but take noticeably more energy (and I run ardent/ardent race tires on both bikes usually)
If I was more fit and racing XC, yet it would be a big deal.
Your small bike wil make your bigger bike fun again.....!
That is my final verdict for this short travel trend and I'm OK with that....
For me two bikes are the way to go. One sporty light 29er bike (approx. 140mm travel) for fast to medium technical trails. The second bike would be more like a 160-180mm travel bike with maybe even a coil in the back for hardcore technical and bike park stuff.
but i am faster on the wreckoning on some rough trails, on some other (more flow, some small climbs) no chance against the following. would also never go on cycle holidays with a 8kg backpack on a 160bike. especially with the fox 36 without any kind of lock-out. if you race against yourself on strava, you will recognize that 120 bikes do pedal better and to handle better on short sprints
As to racing, well it's just about the terrain. And you are talking about generating speed. Well obviously 160 bike carries speed better in most Enduro races in the world, keeping speed up, thus cutting seconds. It's irrelevant that you can generate speed faster on 120 bike when you have dips in speed graph through rough bits and corners.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
I agree theres no such thing as too much travel as long as it works efficiently and geometry isn't comoromised.
I cant see a single pivot with slightly migrating IC feeling as good under braking as a horst setup in terms of stiffening suspension and loss of traction?
Can you quantify how it was strides ahead for you? As a flat pedal user I try to go for multi link bikes as I tend to struggle with a single pivots braking behaviour which at the end of the day is what the Yeti is.
I had the chance to ride a Scout and SB6 back to back, and while they are different class/travel of bike, the longer, burlier SB6 was clearly a better climber and had more jump...or whatever you call it when you hit the gas and how it responds. It is an impressive design.
That being said, the pricing does seem a little out of line, relative to other high-end bikes.
So please respond, I am also very curious.
You guys seem mainly concened with climbing ability, and 'jump' or acceleration but dont comment on the systems traction over terrain and stability when pushing hard (coping with heavy compressions etc) which are certainly factors I consider over the ability to stand up and mash on the pedals.
I dont have either a Transition or Yeti so am a fanboy for neither.
The reason I say it's so superior is you get to have your cake and eat it too. I've never rode a bike that is so plush and responsive that doesn't "wallow" in its travel. Somehow it doesn't bob when you're climbing, and yet it's climbing traction is insane.
As for the braking, its ability to 'stop' is not what we were asking, as you said its the effects braking has on suspension we were interested in and of course it has some brake related squat, every bike does! Again you are being a fan boy there.
In honesty, they Yeti is so far out of my price range I am not sure why I am commenting on it, I am more of an aluminium kind of guy too, for lots of reasons...
Riding close to the same loop, the SB6 made it feeling it had been paved. Hard to recall exact details, but I don't think there were any negative attributes to the suspension action...though I do remember details like the Spec. Slaughter tire works better than you'd think, and that I had to consciously watch for pedal strikes on the Scout.
I have had conversations.with other experienced riders who have spent time on or own SB bikes and they all have nothing but praise, incl. shop guys and journalists who are not biased by ownership.
If you can't put bosses in the main triangle, just don't bother!
My Ibis has them, holds the armor on.
In the PNW, I can go 5-20 miles on one water bottle (normal weather). On longer rides I take a steri-pen (uv water filter about the size of a small multi-tool). However, for steri-pen you need clear flowing streams. So a great example of legitimate different approaches to different riding locations/climates.
@stigwierd : Glad you mentioned how good Yeti were as they know how to look after everyone. Even as a second hand owner you can purchase replacements easily. The SB66 has been out of the range for over 2 years now, the new models are real good. Yeti are like every single brand out there, always improving and developing.
pass ....
Clutches seem to be getting weaker (as they should if you appreciate your rear suspension performance) and chains are getting longer as cassette get bigger, all more reasons you need a little extra insurance that your chain won't be flung off your chainring when you're doing as 2 Chainz says and "riding around and gettin' it."
Clutch mechs and N/W chain rings are the only reason they can get away with it. Otherwise the bike would be torn apart in reviews. It's interesting that they seem to have forgotten the risk rocks present to chain rings.
When I demo'd the 4.5 I felt like it could be the best all around bike out there. Blew my stumpy away.
Other than Simi I dont need that extra travel.
Super light, climbs like a goat and descends like a rocket!
Has actually beaten some of my local trails personal Strava times vs my main bike the Santa Cruz Nomad C 650B...
Love them both equally!
I'd be more interested to know what the max chainring size is 30t isn't enough, all the new bikes I've seen have been under geared or just use a front mech.
Big rings go on the crank not the back wheel!
Thats what I think,
As for the bike... well yeah it's a f*cking Yeti of course it is sick.
For f**ks sake, please make a high quality standard water bottle with a protective cap! Both the Nalgene and ebay/china ones suck!
Though I'd have to say the biggest difference though... one goes "clunk" and one doesn't, I'm sure you can breakdown which one does the clunking.