Yeti Sb130/150 riders. I'm in the market and just want an idea of what size to get.

PB Forum :: All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country
Yeti Sb130/150 riders. I'm in the market and just want an idea of what size to get.
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Message
Posted: Oct 9, 2019 at 19:36 Quote
First post so thanks for the help.
I'm 5' 10" and right between sizes on newer SB Yeti's on paper. I have longer arms and torso and can easily touch the floor. I've ridden both the 130 in Medium and Large but just around the streets at the bike shop. They are both rideable. The M feeling just a tad short while the L feels just a tad long. The bike shop feels the large is better for me. But most of what I've come across puts a 5'10 into a Medium. What sizes are people riding vs their height? And is it better to go a touch bigger and swap the 50mm head for a 35mm.

Posted: Oct 9, 2019 at 23:07 Quote
The new SBs fit longer than most, so both sizes are reasonable. The bad news is that doesn't give you a definitive choice; the good news is you can choose how you want the bike to ride.

If you like an agile ride and you're comfortable moving around on the bike, you'll probably like the Medium. If you prefer to stay centered and want stability, the Large fits that description.

A long torso and, especially, long arms favour a long stem. That's not to say you can't ride a shorter stem, just that your center of mass will be a bit more rearward than if you had precisely average proportions.

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 15:02 Quote
I test rode a SB150 not too long ago and am an XL.
I stand a about 6'1" with shoes on and i too am betwen sizes in thier charts, but once I sat on the bike the XL felt so much better. The Large ( as with many other manfacturers ) felt cramped but the seat tube felt right. The XL top tube and reach felt great but the seat tube was a tad bit high.
I find on just about every manufacturer that this is the same. ( Intense, SC, YETI, Scott , Ibis)

so at 5'10" I would say a Large.

I ride with a buddy who has a SB150 and he is 5'7 and he rides a medium.

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 16:57 Quote
Thanks. I know it's personal preference. It's probably not right to compare 2015 geometry to 2019. Reach and ETT. On the large, the dropper is smashed into the post. At full extension it's just right. I suppose that optimal.

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 17:03 Quote
Longshank wrote:
Thanks. I know it's personal preference. It's probably not right to compare 2015 geometry to 2019. Reach and ETT. On the large, the dropper is smashed into the post. At full extension it's just right. I suppose that optimal.

Average reach, for a given size, has increased about an inch since 2015. That's about one size, meaning a 2015 Large is a 2019 Medium.

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 17:11 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
Longshank wrote:
Thanks. I know it's personal preference. It's probably not right to compare 2015 geometry to 2019. Reach and ETT. On the large, the dropper is smashed into the post. At full extension it's just right. I suppose that optimal.

Average reach, for a given size, has increased about an inch since 2015. That's about one size, meaning a 2015 Large is a 2019 Medium.

I see it as just the opposite. I went from 2 different 2014 bikes to a 2018 bike ( same geo as the 2019) in both cases I was a large and the newer versions of the same bikes I was way more comfortable on an XL.
I think one other big difference is also stem length. Most bikes now come with 35mm-50mm stems. Een as recent as 2014-15 those bikes were spec'ed with 70+mm stems. Once I went to a shorter stem there is no going back.(esp on a trail bike.)

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 18:04 Quote
Three6ty wrote:
R-M-R wrote:
Longshank wrote:
Thanks. I know it's personal preference. It's probably not right to compare 2015 geometry to 2019. Reach and ETT. On the large, the dropper is smashed into the post. At full extension it's just right. I suppose that optimal.

Average reach, for a given size, has increased about an inch since 2015. That's about one size, meaning a 2015 Large is a 2019 Medium.

I see it as just the opposite. I went from 2 different 2014 bikes to a 2018 bike ( same geo as the 2019) in both cases I was a large and the newer versions of the same bikes I was way more comfortable on an XL.
I think one other big difference is also stem length. Most bikes now come with 35mm-50mm stems. Een as recent as 2014-15 those bikes were spec'ed with 70+mm stems. Once I went to a shorter stem there is no going back.(esp on a trail bike.)

Simply, you're wrong about reach. But before we fight, let me explain - and offer an olive branch!

I maintain a database of every trail, AM, and enduro bike on the market for nearly the past decade - several thousand bikes - and run analytics on them. I assure you, my numbers are correct.

That said, I think I understand what you're feeling. "Reach" refers to the horizontal measurement from the BB to the top of the head tube*. As you noted, seat-tubes have become steeper and stems have become shorter, which both decrease the butt-to-bar distance (effective top-tube length + stem length, which doesn't have a standalone term for it). Thus, a newer bike may have a longer reach, yet still feel more cramped due to a shorter butt-to-bar. If you were to slide your saddle back to replicate your old bike's effective seat-tube and put on the same stem as the old one, the new bike would feel longer.

The outcome is that bikes fit differently now than they used to and we need to approach sizing differently. Some people like the new approach and some prefer the previous style. The good news is that a modern bike can replicate the old geometry by:

• sizing down
• using a longer stem
• using a seatpost with an offset head

An old bike can't replicate new geometry because:

• Even with the saddle slammed fully forward, seat-tube angles were still too slack to produce a modern effective seat-tube angle
• Sizing up for longer reach leaves you with a seat-tube too long to accommodate a dropper
• Even the longest reaches from a few years ago are only on par with a new size Large and head-tube angles were steeper, so the front-centre of an old bike will be considerably shorter



* Stack affects reach, so I calculate a "normalized reach" for all bikes that represents what the reach would be at a standardized stack.

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 18:29 Quote
Thanks for the explanation. Ya i think what i am referring to is effective top tube length .
I run my seat where I am comfortable climbing and don’t get knee pain. That tends to be close to the middle. I run a 50mm stem on an XL frame. it fits me perfectly like no other bike I have owned.

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 18:32 Quote
I'm 6'2" and I thought the Large SB130 fit perfectly.

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 20:36 Quote
I had a 2015 Bronson Large. My lower back would feel sore after riding and I always felt it was too low in the front. I pulled the bars closer with a shorter stem and riser bars. It helped.
With the newer slack head and a 170mm fork, I didn't feel like I was hanging over the front end on the medium. But then coming from a 27.5, the perception changes. The wheelbase is longer, the wheels larger and it somewhat masks the frame size. I think at 5"9.5 and longer arms, the large can work. It's comes with a 50mm stem. I could reduce as low as 32mm. But naturalnight at 6'2" on a larger makes me second guess.

Posted: Oct 10, 2019 at 21:13 Quote
Longshank wrote:
I had a 2015 Bronson Large. My lower back would feel sore after riding and I always felt it was too low in the front. I pulled the bars closer with a shorter stem and riser bars. It helped.
With the newer slack head and a 170mm fork, I didn't feel like I was hanging over the front end on the medium. But then coming from a 27.5, the perception changes. The wheelbase is longer, the wheels larger and it somewhat masks the frame size. I think at 5"9.5 and longer arms, the large can work. It's comes with a 50mm stem. I could reduce as low as 32mm. But naturalnight at 6'2" on a larger makes me second guess.

Your lower back pain was probably due to the slack seat-tube angles of older bikes. You raised the bar and brought it closer to open your hip angle. Most of us did the same!

Newer bikes have steeper seat-tube angles, which opens your hip angle. This allows you to have a longer butt-to-bar and/or lower bar for the same hip angle.

For what it's worth, I'm 6' with 10 mm short arms and ride a frame that's close to the XL - let's call it large-and-three-quarters - with a 40 mm stem. Saddle slammed forward for a super steep effective seat-tube angle. I would like a slightly longer butt-to-bar distance when climbing (seated), but the bike is already extremely stable when descending and I'm not sure I need more than that. Much longer and I might become a "passenger", unable to properly move around on the bike. Trails that used to be fun are now boring due to how capable the bike is (29" × 2.6" tires also contribute) and the speeds at which the bike comes alive are pretty ridiculous.

Posted: Oct 11, 2019 at 11:00 Quote
I just picked up a large 130 and I'm 6' 2.5" coming off an XL V4 Nomad. Much more comfortable. The reach on the nomad had me feel like I was bent and stretched out all the way past the bars. The 130 has a steeper seat angle and shorter stem than the nomad so it feels more compact when seated and climbing but once I stand up to decend its perfect.

Previous Page | Next Page

 
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.008406
Mobile Version of Website