Field Test: Yeti SB130

Dec 17, 2018
by Daniel Sapp  


PINKBIKE FIELD TEST

Yeti SB130

We see a lot of bikes come and go but the SB130 has become the "go-to" for aggressive trail riding. Its all around prowess in both ascending and descending technical terrain keep it as a top choice for a variety of riding.

Words by Daniel Sapp, photography by Trevor Lyden



The SB130 is Yeti's latest all-rounder, with 29" wheels, 130mm of rear travel, and a 150mm fork up front.

The angles of the bike are some of the more progressive out there, with 460mm of reach on a size medium, a 65.5-degrees head angle and a 77-degree seat angle. There's also room for a water bottle on the correct side of the down tube, something that was missing on Yeti's prior SB models. The SB130 is a highly capable ride, but if the bike park or enduro races are more your speed, the longer travel SB150 may be a better choice.

SB130 Details
Intended use: trail / all-mountain
Travel: 130mm
Wheel size: 29''
Frame construction: carbon fiber
Head angle: 65.5
Chainstay length: 433mm
Sizes: S, M, L, XL
Weight: 28.6 lb / 12.9kg
Price: $8,199 USD
More info: www.yeticycles.com
The SB130 uses Yeti's Switch Infinity system, those two small and short Kashima-coated rails located just above the bottom bracket, to manipulate the bike's axle path. As the bike goes through its travel, the carrier moves up on the rails to give the bike a slightly rearward axle path and improved pedaling performance. As the rear wheel continues through its travel, the mechanism moves downwards and reduces the amount of chain tension for better absorption of big hits.

The unique two-piece shock extension design bridging the gap between the link and shock allowed Yeti's engineering team the ability to manipulate the leverage rate of the bike within a huge range, independently of other kinematic variables such as anti-squat. The SB130's suspension design is more progressive than the 5.5 that preceded it, which means it's coil shock compatible for riders interested in going that route.

The SB130 was designed along side the longer travel SB150 and shares a lot of traits with that bike but, besides the obvious differences in rear-wheel and fork travel, the head-tube angle and leverage rate progressivity (12% for the SB130 and 15% for the SB150) are different. The SB130 is tested to Yeti's trail standards, while the SB150 is tested to their DH standards as the bikes are suited for two different purposes. The greatest change to the layup between these two standards can be seen near the head tube, top tube, and down tube with the SB130 saving weight in areas that don't need as much reinforcement as its longer travel sibling does.






Climbing

Most modern bikes in the 130-150mm travel range pedal impressively well compared to the bikes we were on even a few years ago, especially given their increased capabilities on the descents. The SB130 holds its own while heading uphill against the best bikes currently out there in its category, and although it has a burly mix of parts, a long reach, and a slack head-tube angle, the steep seat tube puts you in a good position to manage chunky terrain. It's a very impressive climber, and the only place I even consider cranking on the pedaling platform switch was on a paved road climb.

The long reach number may look intimidating on paper, but the steep seat angle makes for a very comfortable climbing position. I never felt too stretched out, and I was able to comfortably move the bike around in tight and techy terrain.

There's consistently plenty of traction on the SB130. Sections of trail that require a punch of power to bump over roots or rocks on certain bikes are noticeably easier to sit down and power on over without spinning out. The suspension feels supple and conforming to the terrain, and doesn't fight or force you to choose the path of least resistance while climbing. It encourages you to give it a little more hell knowing there's traction and a lower likelihood of breaking free and smashing your kneecap into the clamp of your shifter.





Descending

The SB130 hits out of its league on descents, so much so that I've consistently found myself questioning the safety of the speeds I feel comfortable riding this bike. The suspension stays active and keeps the bike glued to the ground, all while maintaining a lively feel that encourages getting airborne whenever the opportunity presents itself.

The SB130's long reach makes it easy to stay balanced and centered in the steeps, which came in handy on Whistler's countless rock rolls. While it is a blast to hang on and plow down the trail, straight-lining over off-camber roots and rocks, it seamlessly transitions to holding a line into and out of turns.

The SB130 is as close to an enduro bike as any 130mm travel bike I've ever ridden, but it's light and lively enough to make it an apt choice for big days of pedaling. Trying to decide between the SB130 and the SB150? It's all about deciding where your priorities lie. If you've got a calendar that's full of enduro races, trips to the bike park, and a bunch of rides with extra-burly descents, the SB150 is the way to to. But if you're looking for something that's a little less gravity oriented, with enough travel to take almost anywhere, the SB130 is the way to go.

All in all, the SB130 is a delight to ride and strikes a solid balance as a bike that can efficiently get uphill and rarely hold you back while heading down.


Views: 9,679    Faves: 5    Comments: 8




Pros

+ Versatile and capable
+ Excellent traction
+ Doesn't hold descenders back from climbing to the top
Cons

- Expensive
- Slightly tight rear tire clearance



362 Comments

  • + 108
 cons: no 27,5 option
  • + 31
 +1...I would love this bike in a 27.5, with slightly better tire clearance.
  • + 5
 SB5 "Lunch Ride" is probably pretty close to a 27.5 version of this?
  • - 43
flag c-radicallis (Dec 15, 2018 at 11:07) (Below Threshold)
 All 29'ers have the option to run 27.5'' wheels
  • + 16
 @c-radicallis: but smaller wheels lend to shorter chainstays which you can’t fix on a bike meant to run 29”
  • + 3
 @bikeryder85: have a look at the Whyte T130C
It's basically that
  • + 4
 That's a plus.
  • + 10
 @c-radicallis: nope. Aside from chainstay length, the smaller wheel also drops your bottom bracket height quite a bit, so you would smash your pedals on everything.
  • + 5
 @kit-nz: sorta how a High Tower would be a 29 version of a Bronson right?

Except that the suspension platforms just changed and we can't wait till they update the other model.
  • - 2
 @jeffhall124: FWIW, the BB on my SB130 is slightly lower than on my 27.5 Evil Insurgent. I know that’s just one frame to compare with but Yeti definitely managed to keep the BB plenty low.
  • - 13
flag DrPete Plus (Dec 15, 2018 at 12:23) (Below Threshold)
 LOL@ the downvote. Check the damn geo charts.
  • + 4
 @cuban-b: Not true. The Kona Process and Pivot Switchblade are probably the two shortest chainstays on the market and both are 29ers.

This belief that 29ers have long rears needs to die along with flat earth theory, the science does not support it.
  • + 9
 @Hand-of-Midas: I think an Excel table is in order.
Surely a 27.5 bike is 100% likely to have shorter chainstays than a 29er by... I'd say approximately the difference in diameter of the respective wheel sizes. And the only way it wouldn't would be through messing with ST angles. No?
  • - 5
flag bohns1 (Dec 15, 2018 at 13:09) (Below Threshold)
 @cuban-b: sure u can.. Its called super boost... Not to mention my 130 is plenty short enough
  • + 2
 @BenPea: Yes you can get shorter on 27.5, but the difference is smaller than you'd think since 29ers have more BB drop so the wheel can be tucked into the seat tube more. I suppose this is also why the eff sta and actual sta disparity seems larger on 29ers (especially low BB, short chainstay ones like Evils).
  • + 16
 @DrPete: We all know that 29ers don't have to have high BBs. His comment was about how low the BB would be if you put 27.5" wheels in a frame designed for 29" wheels.
  • + 4
 @showmethemountains: Ah, I see. Didn't catch that.
  • + 1
 @cuban-b: no, they don't. The rear axle is in the same place, so the chain stays remain the same.

What does happen is that the bottom bracket drops, by the difference in wheel diameter. I actually had a look at yeti's geo charts to see if it'd be feasible to run this at 27.5. The bb height on this model and their 27.5 sb5 is actually the same - which means the drop on the SB130 must be 19mm less (the diameter difference between wheel sizes). That's a lot, when you're thinking about pedal clearance. So no, I don't think it'd run 27.5 well. Unless you have midget cranks.
  • + 3
 @BenPea: theoretically, yes, of course. The difference is 19mm. But in practice frame designers aren't doing that. If you compare 27 and 29 frames across a range of brands, you'll find surprising similarities in chainstay. Something I've done because I'm designing a frame...

The choice of chainstay length affects manualling capability and stability. Shortest isn't necessarily best.
  • + 1
 @Ktron: yeah: Gotta be the 2019 Hightower 29, eh?
  • - 5
flag BenPea (Dec 15, 2018 at 16:51) (Below Threshold)
 @dominic54: I agree, short STs make me nervous. Manuals are for when you're in an internet video, which is rare for me.
I meant radius not diameter btw.
I kind of get the BB drop thing... Actually I don't.
@sspiff: ah yes that's it. An aha! moment for a frame designer. But comment fodder for the tall.
  • + 3
 @bikeryder85: ibis mojo 3
  • + 1
 @bikeryder85: ibis mojo 3
  • + 0
 @kit-nz: too bad the geometry so out of date and seattube length. A 450mm in a size small.
  • + 29
 $8200.00... eat a dick
  • + 13
 Geometry aside. If they are going to list "There's no 29" version..." for the Bronson they better return that favor to every high end bike they review.It just comes across as PB trying to find something to make a Yeti have more pros and fewer cons than another bike. The number one rule of reviews is consistency. Everyone who's spent any time in a lab knows the importance of controls (I know that's not exactly what the wheel size gripe is). PB, if you don't know read up before you drive me nuts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control
  • + 4
 @Hand-of-Midas: the Orbea Rallon R4 has 420 (ha!) chainstays. No 29er could get that short.
  • - 2
 @telemarc67: go on then...
  • + 0
 @telemarc67: is that how much you charge?
  • + 1
 @southoftheborder: when you consider that the SB130 comes in at 433 with a 29er wheel that’s decent. When you consider the radius of the wheel you’d expect a Rallon 29er to be 439mm.
  • + 3
 The lack of reading comprehension never surprises me anymore.
  • - 1
 @cuban-b: Not sure whose reading comprehension you were dismissing but there are more favors than wheel size. The SB130 and Bronson have chainstays within 3mm of each other. My 27.5 Evil has the same length chainstays as the SB130. So clearly the smaller wheel doesn’t lend itself THAT much to shortening the stays.
  • + 2
 @DrPete: but doesn't Evil break the steep ST angle taboo to achieve this?
  • + 3
 @southoftheborder: Canfield Riot at 417mm?
  • + 1
 @kylar: yup, forgot about that one, thanks! My point was there are a lot more 650b bikes with shorter chainstays. A couple more from Canyon and Rose come to mind.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: I get the ratio argument, but they are still longer than their 650b siblings. The Rallon/Canfield/Canyon chainstays couldn't be any shorter without the rear wheel contacting the seat tube. And I can vow for the Rallon's poppyness, owning one.
  • + 1
 @kylar: that makes the 450mm chainstays on my 26er seem long
  • + 1
 @telemarc67: There's always YT for ya bud!
  • + 0
 @telemarc67: I love laughing at people scared to drop their carbon on anything
  • + 0
 @BenPea: Do you mean that they use the “bent” seat tube that makes it a little slacker than the geo numbers would suggest in order to keep the chainstays shorter? I kinda always thought so, but what’s interesting is that the Offering has the steepest seat tube Evil has ever used and the chainstays are shorter at 432. So someone way smarter than me about these things would need to explain that. Smile
  • + 2
 @DrPete: most bikes aren’t designed with the shortest chainstays possible. 436 felt neither stable nor playful on my first 29er frame, but 440 makes for a beast on loose climbs. Shorter isn’t always better.
  • + 3
 @DrPete: Yes, the bent seat tube is a monstrosity motivated by the need to make room for the rear tire at full compression. Only a few bike makers are really beginning to understand the LLS philosophy and taking REAL seat tube angles into the 76-77 degree field. Most of the rest keeps lying about those "effective" seat tube angles, which only make sense for a small fraction of the users, since not everyone has the same proportions
  • + 2
 @southoftheborder: being taller at 6ft2in/187cm I’ve definitely gotten familiar with this issue. There were a couple considerations when I was looking at Offering vs SB130 and that was one of them. Similar STA by the numbers but Yeti’s looked steeper.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: It's possible that they invented super MFing boost when nobody was looking.
  • + 1
 @telemarc67: its 2018, that's now an ambiguous statement
  • + 1
 @telemarc67: i did but I'm still $8150 short Frown
  • + 2
 It is hard to believe (and in the case f weight an oxymoron) that a 29 wheeled 29 pounds bike is 'light and lively" ...
  • + 1
 @DrPete: i have a 27.5 bike that has a chain stay that is 3mm shorter than this bike and this bike is pretty good, don't judge a bike based on its geo you judge it based on how it rides.
  • + 0
 @southoftheborder: what the f*ck is with people and f*cking chainstays it is pure bullshit just ride the dam bike
  • + 1
 @Yetisb7: I did. That’s why I bought one. Wink
  • + 1
 @Knackerbags: how do you only have fifty dollars that is pretty poor of u
  • + 0
 @telemarc67: this guy gets it
  • + 3
 @DrPete: okay dude, we get it. You own this bike. I think 20 comments to that effect will be enough.
  • + 1
 @thegoodflow: didn’t mean to beat a dead horse. Sorry. Sounded like that wasn’t clear from the response.
  • + 1
 @Yetisb7: you ride yours, I'll ride mine. No need for name calling dude.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: PB comment nesting makes it easy to mess up with the answers/questions threads. Thanks for sharing your impressions on the bike. It's always a good thing hearing opinions from regular folks (I.E. not industry lizurrds)
  • + 104
 Omg so many ungrateful rude whiners in the comments, thanks so much Pinkbike for all this content, love the text and video format and great to see a comparison between all these bikes!
  • + 55
 You're welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed it. And there are still a few more Field Test videos on the way.
  • + 21
 @mikekazimer: yeah despite the griping these are exceptionally well done and they surpass any other bike reviews in print/ digital form I’ve seen. I hope these get you guys some $$ so you can continue them next off-season. Really intertaining to read in the colder months.
  • + 20
 @mikekazimer: can't wait!
Was reading through all the comments on this review, mostly critical comments based on pure unfounded scepticism and thought to myself, 'man I'd just give up bothering with all that negativity every time I posted anything'... made me realise I need to post something positive as I have visited this site most days for a decade and love the constant feed of content you guys deliver year in year out to feed my addiction! Thankyou!
  • + 0
 @mikekazimer: really looking forward to the Ransom test, since I wanna buy one in 2019
  • + 7
 amen.
anyone complaing about PB should try reading UK mags, they are absolute sh@t. 100% payed for, ridden round a flat trail centre once rubbish. that or there crap riders. all you get off them is the same old voodoo hartail and bossnut drivel with a 2 page spread on how to lube a chain or some other child level maintenence
  • + 5
 @markg1150: Seriously dude - give the UK journos a break - they have to cater for the masses and cant focus on the UBER GNAR niche that you think you occupy... Watch this www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGfOEadF4iY - and tell me that they arnt riding test bikes on serious terrain and offereing good insight when they can. Ive ridden with Danny and Alan and they will tear the legs off most riders of their age, up and down.
  • + 3
 The whiners generate a lot of ad revenue
  • + 3
 @LiveAeons: I rode the ransom and the yeti sb 150...both descend over and through anything you can imagine but the sb 150 climbs light years better then the ransom and seems far more nimble.
  • + 55
 queue the "I can't afford therefore I'm going to hate on it" comments..
  • + 22
 I was thinking it was not expensive enough...
  • + 9
 Lol....it’s cheaper than the Giant
  • + 1
 @Thustlewhumber: that was the comment the user @Dentist was supposed to make.
  • + 1
 @Thustlewhumber: I think at that price it has aluminum wheels
  • + 5
 @This bike is also 2 lbs heavier than the Giant.
  • + 1
 Well my plan was to be quiet because I simply give a sh*t, it is completely out of my scope, just like a golden toilet. Even if I could afford it (which for me means I would not even notice such expense, cause I definitely have enough money to buy a few of them) I would not buy it. I believe it is a great bike, probably one of the best out there. But still it's just a bike.
  • + 2
 @lkubica: giant is for others.
  • + 8
 Maybe three percent of the criticism here comes from people who have actually ridden this bike. The rest comes from people who are mad because the can’t afford it.
  • + 3
 @TheR: Bingo
  • + 2
 @TheR: Am I still allowed not to like it, or are you going to send the Thought Police to my home because I said it? Aesthetics still play a big role in our sport. And luckily, there are alternatives to choose from for every folk out there.
  • + 0
 What a tired trope. People can see something, be able to afford it, and still think "that...is just an absurd price for a bike". I can afford 60k for a new car, but also see that as an absurd amount to spend on an depreciating asset.
  • + 2
 @southoftheborder: You’re free to think what you want, as long as they’re the right thoughts. Better get in line.
  • + 0
 @TheR: Big Bro is watching. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
  • + 42
 Let me get this right. You review a Yeti and it’s price is listed in the ‘cons’. You review the Giant and you didn’t list the price as a con. Even though the Yeti is cheaper than the giant. Every time a Yeti is reviewed everyone whines about the price but no one whined about the Giant Trance being $8k. WTF people.
  • + 6
 @Stumpy2 - I was wondering about that, too. Perhaps they figure the price is a con if there's not an affordable entry-level model. But then again, those entry level models, at least for some brands, are just not a decent choice. Example - both Specialized and Giant have rear suspension designs that work pretty well if you have a high-end shock that hyou can tune properly to the bike. But with the low-end shocks fitted on the base models, as a heavy rider, there's not much to love as you're constantly blowing through the travel. So not listing the high price of the top-spec Giant as a con, but doing so on the Yeti, does indeed seem inconsistent unless they also test the lower end Giant and determine it to work as well as the expensive one, just with lesser parts/more weight.
  • + 6
 I though that was odd too. Maybe it’s a comment on starting prices for complete bikes. You can get a complete trance 29 carbon cheaper than the lowest priced complete sb130. The trance frame is also cheaper than the 130 frame. Through that lense I could see why the price is a con for the yeti.
  • + 17
 The Giant does have carbon wheels vs the other brands which explain a bit of the costs.
  • + 19
 We tried not to go too deep into price judgements because value is subjective, but the Giant has carbon wheels and a less expensive frame only price.
  • + 1
 @brianpark: yes but the Giant is $600 more expensive. I have no problem with whatever price people pay for their bikes. My problem is with people saying they have ‘to mortgage their house’ such is the intro to this review yet no such mortgage was needed for the more expensive Giant. All I ask is for consistency from people, which I think is missing a lot of the time. For the record I do own a Yeti and no I am not a dentist.
  • + 7
 @Stumpy2: 4000 USD gets you a lightweight aluminum Giant with carbon wheels and spec leaving nothing to be desired in a Giant Store. You try go shopping with that in a Yeti store, if such a thing exists.
  • + 2
 @PaperbackRider: I understand you can get a cheaper Giant. My point is both bike tested in the field tests are $8k. One is expensive and the other is not?? How is an $8k Yeti breaking a mortgage and an $8k Giant not??.
  • + 2
 @Stumpy2: so they expressed their thoughts in a less than ideal way, to me it was clear what they meant...
  • + 2
 @Stumpy2: stigma... That's how! A yeti is not some holy grail of unaffordablity if mtb is ones true hobby! Those comments are getting tired.
  • + 0
 @PaperbackRider: well, then go buy that. I personally don't want a cheap ass ALU frame. Or a giant bike for that matter.
  • + 0
 @PaperbackRider: it doesn't exist because yeti prides themselves in being a high end bike company only which I respect. That have no desire to compete with YT or low end giant or specialized...and their sales don't seem to be hurting so kudos to them for being at the top end of the bike build spectrum
  • + 1
 @rzicc: well kudos to you for arguing besides the point!
  • + 1
 @brianpark:beecause nothing else you have written is subjective?
  • + 1
 @PaperbackRider: I inserted my argument in the wrong area. My bad. I was basically agreeing with you and trying to defend yeti to someone else for not making a entry level build. I don't want cheap ass anything either.
  • + 38
 "Bikes with a really long reach make you feel off the back of the bike..."

Since when? This is precisely the opposite feeling that a rider should be getting when riding a longer bike.

Longer reach = bars further forward = weight further forward.

The main innovation of long reach bikes is that they place the rider's weight more into a more neutral position on the bike, correcting the problem that plagued short bikes of riders' having to hang off the back to put their weight evenly between the axles to maximize cornering grip. I'm confused how a tester would be feeling the exact opposite?
  • + 7
 Scared? Crap technique?
  • + 4
 Well said.
  • - 14
flag dcshoeco (Dec 15, 2018 at 15:34) (Below Threshold)
 Thats what OFF the back of the bike means, your weights moved forward so when desending it can feel less confident because your weights OFF the back of the bike. not sure how you missed that .
  • + 9
 Exactly! It should read: "if you try to hang your ass over the back wheel on bikes with a longer reach, it makes you feel far away from the bars and disconnected from the steering, so maybe try riding centered over the bike like you should"
  • + 14
 @dcshoeco: Huh, maybe! I've just literally never heard someone use "off the back" in that context. I've always heard people describe the "off the back" riding position as one where your weight is off the back of the bike, not "off" as in your weight is not "on" the back (e.g. hanging off the back).
  • + 8
 @dcshoeco: I actually thought the same thing as @eblackwell. I'm pretty sure they mean that it is hanging off the back when they say off.
  • + 4
 @eblackwell: Yep agree with this
  • + 41
 Did I miss something, where's the huck-to-flat video?
  • + 4
 Wondering the same thing.
  • + 1
 I scrolled down to find this comment... bummed for sure!
  • + 25
 The bike broke.
  • + 3
 Yep... No need to watch the video since there's no huck-to-flat section.
  • + 15
 George Soros and the Illuminati suppressed it because it showed the rear triangle flexing on landing.
  • + 1
 I would like to see that too!
Maybe PB could do a video with all the huck to flat?
  • + 1
 Samething where is it!!!!!!!!!
  • + 21
 We blew it. We’ll upload the clip separately and put it into the story. And we’ll include it in a huck to flat compilation video at the end. Smile
  • + 33
 Put this in the advent calander please!
  • + 30
 Yeti 'dh standrads'?? Uhh u have no dh bike.
  • + 37
 But they have standards.
  • + 2
 You do realize they had a fantastic DH program for years before switching their focus to trail-bikes.
  • + 0
 @bulletbassman: Tomac was racing downhill on their trail bike...though, back then, they were all just mountain bikes.
  • + 12
 Video didnt show jump to flat slow MO. this must be included in every video because its super cool watching the flex in the forks and compression of the tiresplease included in next video
  • + 11
 Oops. We'll work on tracking that down.
  • + 9
 was kind of hoping for a better comparison to the 150. Kind of a vague "if you want a more dh oriented bike buy the 150" doesn't really cut it. How different is the climbing? are you giving up much in climbing performance and gaining much on the descents?
  • + 6
 Watch "Yeti Cycles SB130 vs SB150 // Everything you need to know!" on YouTube
youtu.be/E-PMF-D-4lY
  • + 2
 There is a good comparison video on YouTube. This guy has ridden a ton of bikes in the last couple years on the same trails (not super gnarly stuff) and is fast enough to offer pretty good insight.

youtu.be/E-PMF-D-4lY
  • + 23
 Yeah that's something we should look at doing more of—comparing some bikes within their own product families. Stumpjumper ST vs normal vs EVO. SB130 vs 150. etc.
  • + 25
 No offence man, but as it reads, it's pretty clear:
"If you've got a calendar that's full of enduro races, trips to the bike park, and a bunch of rides with extra-burly descents, the SB150 is the way to to. But if you're looking for something that's a little less gravity oriented, with enough travel to take almost anywhere, the SB130 is the way to go."

There is only so much words can do. The only way to make these reviews totally quantifiable is to have metrics for everything and then you're still reliant on how well the reviewer knows the trail, how they are feeling physically and mentally, and the weather, etc..
  • + 2
 @Ian713: thanx man, glad you cleared that up for me. I was super confused.
  • + 3
 @jbob27: LOL!
  • + 1
 @Golden-G: I like that type of review but that guy kept going on about how much better the 150 held the trail and it was more plush. Kinda stating the obvious, it has more travel and it’s meant to track better downhill. Still it’s a good comparison of the two.
  • + 6
 @jbob27: alright, alright, very funny, but what specific wording could they have used? How much specific instruction do you need from these people to tell you what to do with that kind of cash? I think you're asking for more than can honestly be delivered.
  • + 1
 @brianpark: hey guys.. For the record the 130 does not replace the 4.5...It replaces the 5.5 as per Yeti themselves.. The 150 is an entirely new animal and replaces nothing..
  • + 2
 @Ian713: a direct comparison between two bikes they reviewed is more than can be delivered? I don't think so. It doesn't really matter, im stoked theyre doing these reviews.I did find this whole review a bit vague and rushed in comparison to the first batch, but whatever, its free content, im happy.
Keep up the good work, keeping the keyboard warriors honest.
  • + 2
 @jbob27: I think you're right in that, but,to what I'd written before, if we want something super objective then it needs to be all about metrics and reducing variables...would that be fun to watch? I'm not even a good rider so I just come here for the bike porn :/
Have a good one.
  • - 6
flag animatedcorpse (Dec 15, 2018 at 15:04) (Below Threshold)
 @brianpark: As Consuela would have said it: No, no... The correct* order should be Stumpjumper Lagom (just the right amount of travel) vs too much vs a different bike altogether.

*The Feminist Socialist Goverment of Sweden created the equitable, non-species and non-gender biased Singletrack and Trail Authority with the mission to investigate which suspension travel is satisfactory for human powered vehicles in our commonly owned forrests. They came to the conclusion that 12-13 cm was sufficient to please women, men and non-binary persons alike.
  • + 0
 @animatedcorpse: no woman is happy with 12-13cm
  • + 3
 @Dlakusta: Are you talking 12-13cm in length, stroke, circumference, or diameter? This is PBike. We demand reviews, comparisons, statistics, charts, and photogra...... eh... and we also want to know about water bottle mounts!
  • + 0
 @Dlakusta, @nuttypoolog: Well, considering the whole section I wrote about “goverment stipulated travel” was completely made up, Sweden is luckily not yet DDR, the measure could of course refer to whatever suits your fancy.

Anyway, if looking at the average Swedish trail conditions, ski resorts not included, I would argue that bikes with around 12-13 cm of travel are sufficient. Personally I’m planning to return to a steel ht for next year to increase the challenge (which makes it more fun I hope). And there are zero water bottle mounts on the frame in question...
  • + 2
 Rode both same weekend (all weekend), even same day. 150 has more squish and will easily monster truck sections you might gap on the lighter, livelier 130. Though 150 climbs very well for such a bike, it's heavier enough than 130 to notice the difference on the ups. If you've got big climbs and like to jib the 130 is incredible, no slouch on the descents - much like the SB 4.5 - but you've gotta be more precise maybe. As an all-rounder, it's the best bike Yeti have made yet, IMO
  • + 8
 Big thank you to everyone involved in these tests. I think they are fantastic and some very informative. Its great to see the bikes in action too. The riding on the Bronson was sweet. The huck to flat was also a fantastic idea. Love your work.
  • + 12
 Possibly the ultimate ONE bike.
  • + 1
 I’m not quite ready to ditch my 160/150 all-coil gnar machine just yet, but yeah. It hasn’t seen much riding since the SB130 got all built.
  • + 2
 @DrPete: lucky for you Norco has an all coil sight for 2019.
  • + 1
 @j-t-g: Nah, I’m good. Insurgent and SB130 cover all the riding I do.
  • + 7
 Pinkbike You muppets!
both yeti's reviews 150 & 130 are lacking,how come you never mentioned the flexy rear? with every bike Levy reviewed he mentioned tire clearance why not here? can you fit a 2.5 maxxis WITHOUT rubbing the shit out of the rear???
you guys lost credibility with these reviews, I just don't buy it that you had no issues with these frames when every other online review mentioned there is an issue with these bikes! (nsmb,vital etc..)
sb100 sb130 sb150 all have problems,neg prop all day but you worth nothing then your buy and sell section.
  • + 24
 dude pumped on speed today?
  • + 29
 You're right. I've hear a lot of criticism from people who own these new Yetis that there is a flex/ rear tire rub issue. It should be addressed.
  • + 8
 The rear end flex is by design. The tire clearance concern is a design compromise. If you don't like it don't buy it. I do agree that PB is providing some less that comprehensive reviews as of late. Bike mag has been providing some solid and critical reviews this year.
  • + 0
 Have you experienced this flex firsthand? People who have actually ridden it don't seem to have such a problem.
  • + 14
 I was concerned by the conjecture eeasy mentioned while doing research on the 130 a few weeks ago. Although his rage on this topic is a bit weird. Looking across all the forums there were deffo a small number of very very vocal people with justifiably negative experiances with 150s and 100s in particular. But after totting up the positive and negative feedback I came to the conclusion that they were drowning out the much larger number who had none. In the 150 review PB even directly addressed this by saying that what they heard on the interwebz, they could not find on their sample. Maybe it was an early batch which caused the problems. I've got a 130 and the clearance is as advertised, good for up to 2.4 could be tight for 2.5 depending on tyre brand. It's the same as my previous bikes. Not too much flex. All good.
  • + 12
 No flex coming from my SB100 ridden at 195lbs.
  • + 3
 @Karve: I'm wondering about the early batch theory too. Haven't managed to bring out this flex under my 230lb winter body with a Nobby Nic 2.35 in back. It may be that there was a quiet rear triangle update after the early reports. Who knows.
  • + 2
 I dunno, Sapp looks pretty confident airing off that log jump.
  • + 6
 @Karve: My rage is not directed at Yeti.
last Yeti I owned was ASR7 which was ok for it's time , I find it a bit strange that Pinkbike does not address an issue that is widely reported by others. it may have been a "first batch" or " early production" frames that some consumers received but it is still something they need to mention, do you think pinkbike was not aware of those issues? do you think the flex and poor tire clearance is not an issue?
  • + 43
 The bikes we reviewed in the Field Test were tested as is, out of the box. We didn't swap tires and while testing at Whistler and we had no issues with flex or tire rub on either the SB130 or SB150.

@mikekazimer has the SB150 and I have the SB130 currently and we're going to be doing a much longer-term review on both bikes where we'll swap tires around, among other parts. If there are issues with clearance, flex, or anything else, don't worry, we'll bring it up and call it out as we have in the past with other bikes.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: I can't say if it was problem of the bike I tested or the whole "SB" range is effected but yes, I experienced this flex and didn't like it at all. Bikes I tested on demo weekend, Remedy, 5010, S150 and T130 (Whyte) all felt really solid but the SB130 felt like it was floating around. I've even checked tension of the spokes and tyre pressure as I couldn't believe what is happening but compare to others, it's not as solid as I'd like. I wonder how obvious it would be without direct comparison with other bikes though.
  • + 0
 @dara85: Interesting. When did you ride it? I bought mine mid-October. Just testing the theory that there may have been an update.
  • + 1
 Or maybe a difference between the Turq and standard frames?
  • + 6
 I have the SB4.5C and it does have a very flexy rear triangle. My 2.3 Agressors have worn right through the paint to the carbon below (I have 3M tape on it now but still have to replace the tape every few months). I was hoping the SB100/130/150 would be better but from what I hear it not but then others say it's rock solid. So I dunno.

Just a note on the impact of rider weights. My riding weight with all my gear and full CamelBak is close to 200lbs. My friend has the exact same bike and his riding weight is 30lbs less than me and has no issue with tire rub.
  • + 40
 gee I loved my SB130 until I read PB comments and realized it was a POS, so I threw it in the trash.
  • + 3
 Send it! @ EEEASY
  • + 6
 @danielsapp: I would trust your review... but why 2 yeti bikes when you could try to get another brand to have a bigger sample of brands ? dont tell me Yeti offered the bikes and no one elese bla bla bla... Many fantastic brands out there that dont get any press... cheers...
  • + 7
 I’m no featherweight and noticed zero flex when riding the sb130.. I’m not a fan of 2.5 or greater tires in the the rear and never understood why people like them. 2.5 front is all you need so that wasn’t an issue for me.. This bike was however long as hell!! Playful trail bikes are becoming obsolete to compensate for people’s lack of downhill skill / confidence.. pissing me off!! Keeping my hd3 and sb4.5
  • + 2
 @danielsapp: RE swapping tires, have you considered using control tires to eliminate that variable between bikes? MBR does that and I thought it was wise: a shit spec OEM tire can certainly ruin an otherwise good bike.
  • + 5
 @Lagr1980: No doubt, there are a lot of really good bikes out there but for the Field Test, we focused on new platforms for 2019 and bikes that we could get a hold of in the appropriate timeframe. Plenty of other reviews and videos are in the pipeline.
  • + 4
 @eeeasy Have you ridden one? A stiff bike rides not so great, 2.4 tire fits fine and is really all you need in the rear on a Trail bike...
  • + 5
 I have never ridden the 150 or 130, but there is enough flex in my sb5 that I have rub marks on seat stays from running a 2.3 aggressor.
  • + 2
 @danielsapp: hopefully @mikelevy chimes in too.. I tend to share his opinion on frame geometry / handling characteristics. If trail bikes are turning into super long and slack “confidence inspiring, plow over shit, boring ass rides I’m out!!!!
  • + 5
 I’ve been on one for months. I ride with a 2.5 aggressor about back and neither myself nor the Strava cups and Pr’s seem to notice or be bothered by flex. #fakenews
  • + 6
 I'd also mention that some of PB's reviews seem to directly contradict the characteristics of certain bikes described by other media outlets. While PB said that the GT's pedaling platform was super stiff, Bikeradar described it as plush and sitting deep in its travel. Flow MB described the Giant trance as being "squishy", while PB compared it to XC race bikes. Not saying one observation is more correct than the other, just kind of odd that there are such big discrepancies between reviews.
  • - 5
flag drivereight (Dec 15, 2018 at 14:50) (Below Threshold)
 Take a look at the bottom out picture, you can see rub mark made with frame contact with the tires, FLEX! This is review is DOA!
  • + 2
 I have a 2.5 rear on my sb5.5....no issues and it is supposed to be max 2.4. Why do you care what pink bike writes anyway? The best thing is to read reviews from people that have ridden a bike for several months...mtbr forum, reviews on retail sites, youtube, etc. Don't expect a fair or useful review from PB or BM or any of the other big advertising sites. I can tell you I gave up my HT LT for a Yeti and have zero regrets.
  • + 1
 @ReformedRoadie: this is a great idea. Def would make future reviews more insightful.
  • + 1
 @cdnfirefighter: is your friend running a stiffer wheelset?
  • + 5
 @bridgermurray: Regarding the Sensor, our findings were validated when GT confirmed that they did a running change on their shock tunes to address the issues we described. The question is: were other media outlets on the same shock tune as us? Smile

As for the Trance feeling "squishy," our review touches on that, saying "the suspension stays very active" during climbing," and "there was a little bit of motion when we were climbing on this bike." It's got some bob under pedaling, but being short travel and light weight keeps it an excellent climber—especially in Levy's favourite (lol) climb mode. It's also worth remembering that in our test it was compared to trail bikes, while other media may have been comparing it to other 110mm-115mm "marathon" style bikes.
  • + 4
 @DrPete: its not a problem. It a positive. Flexy is termed as 'compliant' when it's by design. Nico Vouilloz used to run lower tension in his wheel builds for this very reason. More compliant (flexy) wheels & swing arms track the rough terrain much better and are less likely to be deflected off line. Off course there is a point where excessive compliance would be detrimental.
  • + 9
 @bridgermurray: the difference is that the PB reviewers ride well.
  • + 5
 @ReformedRoadie: yeah we considered using "control" tires and may do that next year. The trouble is that we were riding these bikes pretty squarely in their intended use/terrain, and at $4K+ it's CRAZY if bikes don't come with appropriate tires.
  • + 45
 @eeeasy, you commented pretty much the same thing in the SB150 article. I specifically mentioned the amount of tire clearance, and the fact that the frame wasn't super stiff. Here's what I wrote, "I've been putting additional miles in on the SB150 in preparation for a longer term review, and have had a number of riders ask about tire clearance. More and more 2.6" tires are hitting the market, but the SB150's max tire size is 2.5", and even that might be pushing things a bit depending on which tire and rim combo you use. I've been running a 2.4" Maxxis Minion DHR II WT for the last two months, a time period that's included multiple extra-muddy rides, and haven't run into any frame clearance issues at all - the paint on the chainstays is untouched."

It's possible that there was an issue with some frames, but so far I have zero tire rub marks with that 2.4" tire, and the amount of flex isn't anything out of the ordinary. Believe me, if we had an issue we would have reported it. That's what we're here to do, but if we don't experience something firsthand we're not going to spread rumors based on a few vocal internet commenters.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: Love how u got down voted for that.. I have one as well and the flex is a non issue.. Also running 2.4 and no run whatsoever..
  • + 4
 @Karve: Amen.. Same with my 130...This issue is blown way way out of proportion.. This is simply the best trail bike I've ever owned.. Period! And I've had a few
  • - 3
 @eeeasy: Non issue over here as well! Best bike I've ridden yet!
  • - 2
 @dara85: Crazy... I don't demoed my 130 alomg with Hightowers reg and LT as well as a slash, fuel ex (2019), and a norco range... im 195lb and for the life of me could not perceive this flex.. It was simply the best bike out of my demos and went ahead with the purchase and couldn't be more stoked.
  • - 1
 @utley06: I find the 130 uber playful.. Then again I'm a rangy gangly 6'3..Thing fits me like a glove.. Manuals awesomely and stays stable while airborn..
  • + 1
 @DrPete: probably one of the worst tires for the rear in my experience no matter what tire pressure they feel like they are sliding out in corners on my bike. I had to switch to a Nevagal which isn't much better but it is a bit better. I'll never run NN's again.
  • + 0
 @mhoshal: I don't really mind them, but as winter sets in I may go to Hans Dampf for a little more traction. For me they roll pretty fast and on fall/winter Pacific Northwest trails they do ok.
  • + 2
 won't the tire rubbing on a frame be caused by weak arse wheel builds and tire flex.
solution by carbon wheels :-)
  • + 1
 @danielsapp: so what you’re saying is you haven’t given these bikes a long term review, but you’re willing to give this 2019 bike a nomination for 2018 bike of the year?
  • + 1
 @markg1150: wheel build definitely comes in to play. A lot of carbon and alloy builds flex, especially in 9’r size.
  • + 3
 @jkipp: We've been riding these bikes for several months since these videos were shot in August - just because there's not a "long-term review" posted doesn't mean that we haven't spent ample time riding them.
  • + 3
 @hyperider: just got the 130 coming from the 5.5 and the 130 is much more capable IMO. A little floppy into low speed turns at first but worked that out, a few PBs on descents in the short time Iv'e had it too. I have no problem Enduro racing this. Also way quieter, the internal routing is sorted. Probably put a 200mm rotor up front with a bigger caliper and maybe a grip 2. I
  • + 3
 @markg1150: no, stiff carbon wheels are more likely to rub on the frame. Push down hard on a floppy wheel and it will bend between the axle and contact patch. Push down on a stiff wheel and it will not give and the frame will twist against the upper part of tge wheel.
  • + 3
 @acali: sometimes one needs to help with eye-openers like this one...!thanks...
  • + 2
 @skiwenric: get the grip 2! I absolutely love it, went 160. I’ve been debating whether to go 200 up front.. The only critique I had was it does seem have a lot of chain slap. Bit of mastic tape on the chainstay solved that one..
  • + 1
 @bohns1: so are you on an xl?
  • + 2
 @mikekazimer: That is odd. I have the SB150, same tire on a 29mm ID rim, and after 3 rides i have clear rubbmark scratches. LOVE the ride tho and I have not felt it being flexy at all, compliant more like.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: Is it good for the bike to flex that much?

Did a side by side comparison on the trail between the SB150 and my SB5.5 and the SB150 flexed significantly more in the rear triangle, had me scratching my head if that is a good thing or not.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: Have u checked the shock for lateral(side to side play)? My new 130 has this now.. An audible clunk side to side.. Bolts are tight.. Seems to be a huge issue over in the mtbr forums..

Yeti claims its normal to mitigate impingment of the shock but I have a hard time with that one.. None of my other bikes have ever had that play.

Wondering if ur test rigs have that?
  • + 1
 @hyperider: well I have an sb130 as well... Just discovered the shock play side to side... Makes an audible clunk.. Hope it gets taken care of without me having to shell out coin.

Yeti is claiming this is normal... I call Bs.. None of my other bikes have this play.
  • + 1
 @bohns1: mine has a bit of play too, and the messaging from Yeti on this one has been a little inconsistent. One CS person told me it was normal but that I could try to buy new bushings if I wanted—and that they didn’t have any new ones. Talked to Jenson (where I bought the frame) and the answer they got from Yeti was that there was an issue with the bushing spec and that they were sending new ones out to dealers. Haven’t really had a problem with mine so I’m just waiting for the new bushings.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: ya that's the message of inconsistencies I'm getting off the forums as well.. I hope they don't direct me to pay for bushings on a frame that already cost over 4k cad..

That and the 2.5 tire rub debacle.. My 2.4 touches easily with a two finger press to the drive side as well.. Haven't had a real ride on her yet tho.

Perhaps I'll go through the lbs dealer on this one.
  • + 1
 @bohns1: maybe there’s a batch of iffy rear triangles out there but I’ve had zero problems with tire rub of any kind. Maybe I’m just not running big enough tires. The bushing thing kinda falls into the minor aesthetic nuisance category for me as well. Still very happy overall. I’d just check with the lbs.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: oh ya, don't get me wrong.. The thing is a beast... I know the bushing thing will be rectified.. But I wouldn't have thought a 2.4 would touch so easily..
  • + 1
 @DrPete: ok, funny the hate yeti gets on cs on the forums... For the record... Amanda for Yeti emailed me xmas day to inform me she has new bushings being sent to my lbs on the 27th..May take a week.. Any other concerns please let her know...

Color me impressed on that one!
  • + 1
 @bohns1: that’s a better response than I got. When I wrote back in a non-hostile way to explain that the shop got a very different response about the bushings than I got and that it would be worth making sure everyone was on the same page about the issue I received absolutely nothing back. But it sounds like Amanda did it right.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: Ya not to sure then.. Perhaps some care more than others at Yeti... Which is still the wrong way to handle things... Cs should all be on the same page..

I filled her in on the issues over on the forums.. Her response was that they are a small company and don't have time to get involved or to monitor forum banter,and they will stay out of it.. That pretty much confirms that people waiting for a response from yeti on mtbr will be waiting a long time.
  • + 1
 @bohns1: I don’t necessarily disagree with that strategy but I think consistent messaging is important. I have a feeling that this is one of those little issues that it’s easy to be inconsistent with. The rest of my experience so far has been good.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: Agreed... Let's be real here... Its still the best bike I've ever ridden in regards to its discipline... Just a beast!
  • + 1
 Hey I have a 2017 trek fuel ex9 and am wondering what you thought about that bike compared to the sb130. No dealers near me and have to go by the reviews. Thanks. @bohns1:
  • + 6
 Am I the only one that thinks from an aesthetic standpoint this is one of the most gorgeous bikes ever created? Its like a work of art. It's up there with the mondraker foxy and the trek slash...but that's just my opinon
  • + 5
 I just rode my SB130 for the 1st time today on the Zen trail. I'm fat and out of shape and still managed to throw down a couple of PRs. I have some suspension tuning to do and I really want some We Are One carbon wheels, but the bike feels very good. My first 29er in a while. I bought the GX build and removed all SRAM crap and installed XT, XTR, E13 cassette and it weighs 31.06 lbs with pedals and the original wheels. Stoked!
  • + 1
 Really want to take mine to Yacolt... see what it does with a lap on Thrillium.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: new trail there too
  • + 1
 @chasintrails: thanks for the info. Just need an excuse to get down there again. Hopefully the CDC will stop there this year too.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: CDC at Yacolt is July 20th this year.
  • + 0
 @fpmd: doh. I’ll be in Afghanistan. :/
  • + 5
 The trail bike reviews have not been as good and critical as the Enduro/AM set of bikes. Kind of disappointed. Keep that quality up PB. You have a good thing going with these series.
  • + 6
 Definitely agree. The bulk of the review feels like a geo/spec overview plus a bunch buzzwords of praise (which is like 90% of bike reviews). Then finally you get the pros and cons and it's a couple incredibly vague sentences.
  • + 4
 Both the SBs look like awesome bikes, but I bought an aluminum transition instead and have enough money left for a sweet riding trip or 3. The bikes stair step on travel but have super close geometry so I would love to see a smuggler vs sb130 or sentinel vs sb150 comparison.
  • + 4
 No comments from Yeti direct? Early frames had issues and all is good now, huh. I’m so ready to lay down 4K on this wonderbike.

My sb95 was on of my favorite rides, but the constant lack of QC for such an Uber expensive bike just turns me away from this brand.

They look awesome though
  • + 1
 @wfo922. Wouldn't worry about it.. I've had yeti reach out to me on their own will after purchase just to inquire as to how I was liking it and that they have my back on any warranty issues in the future should they arise... Also if you got a good lbs/yeti dealer that's huge as well.. Mine has always been there..

I thought the same as you initially.. Now that I have the 130 it has been stellar.. Haven't tried a 2.5 but 2.4 dhr is an easy fit with no rub at all.. Flex is a non issue.. I'm 195lb
  • + 4
 @mikekazimer Is there going to be a field test on the Ripmo? How does the SB130 compare to the Ripmo? I'm considering buying either one of these. I do a lot of trail rides with the occasional bike park or enduro race in the North East. I think either bike would be a good choice but I'm just stuck on which one to go with.
  • + 1
 my spirit bike shopper! i am stuck on the exact same two bikes as you. even just sent the question to a podcast. I know you can't go wrong, but would be curious the differences. Same riding as you but in the eastern rockies. leaning to yeti but love that Ibis/Ripmo let's you customize
  • + 7
 $8,200! I’ll buy a sc al5150 and a BronsonC
  • + 9
 The GX build is like $5100, or you can get the frame and customize. The $9400 option with carbon wheels was too rich for my blood so I went with the frameset. Saved me switching things out too. Had to look for some sales on components but with some smart shopping you can keep the price less insane. Ended up with XO1, Ribbon fork, We Are One wheels, etc for less than the build reviewed here.
  • + 3
 ☝️This guy has the right idea. Although next fall you will be able to get the base model of this bike online for 25% off (with a great spec) which is the same price as frame only right now.
  • + 0
 @jdtball Ya, but then you'd be stuck with those! By once cry once!
  • + 3
 @DrPete: That's exactly what I did.. Frame set and slapped my pike on her.. Yes even with the 51mm offset at 140mm.. Thing shreds.. Mixed and matched Eagle components via various online deals and I'm into my ride for just over 5k and stoked!
  • + 1
 @Ozzx3: I'll believe that when I see it.. Yetis never seem to be on sale.. Atleast until the new model are on the horizon.
  • + 1
 @DrPete: although they continue to play “yeti” games with frame pricing. Whats the sb, like $3800? When damn near every other brands carbon frames sit at 3k
  • + 1
 @bohns1: i agree. 25% off is laughable. Even if there was any chance it would be leftover size SM’s
  • + 1
 @bohns1: also not sure how your build is sitting at 5k with a 3500 dollar frame. Something isnt adding up...
  • + 0
 @pargolf8: $3500 for the frameset, only available in Turq. Within a couple hundred bucks of most competitors.
  • + 1
 I'm finding weird builds on my LBS websites. This sb130 on both local sites the x01 build comes with GX shifter, cassette and chain. Cant figure out why
  • + 0
 @Dlakusta: There are two XO1 builds-- XO1 and XO1 Race. Looks like the regular XO1 has a couple downgrades to save some $. That's probably what you're seeing. www.yeticycles.com/bikes/sb130/?guide:spec-geo
  • + 2
 @pargolf8: how so? I got a slight discount on the frame via my lbs as I've been with them for years.. I mixed and matched sram Eagle gx/x01 on various Interweb deals I scrounged.. Tossed my 140mm 51offset pike on her (I no, 51 offset heaven forbid)... Utalized my carbon nox hoops and Shimano slx brakes from my last bike as well as my turbine cranks and one up dropper..
  • + 1
 @bohns1: haha well i didnt know you were factoring in both a fork and rims with no cost. Probably number 2/3 as far as bike builds go besides the frame. My point is, if you aren’t counting takeoffs from something you already have laying around, you cant build that bike for 5k
  • + 1
 @bohns1: so basically your bike was 5k not counting rims, brakes, fork, dropper post and crank. Thats half the build, dude!
  • + 1
 @pargolf8: If u read my initial comment I state I bought frame only and mixed and matched Eagle components.. Never said I built a complete bike.. All I do is frame onlys and it's all I'll ever do from here on out..

5k got me drive train (minus cranks), headset, bottom bracket, shelter tape frame protection, all new cables and housings and a boostinator kit.. That's cad pricing.
  • + 2
 Big height difference between Sarah & Daniel would be good if it was noted as part of the review particularly with Sarah referencing reach being more in line with previous large sized bikes. I currently ride a large Knolly Warden which has a reach of 460 and I fit it well, would not be wanting a medium. At 183cm tall (with riding shoes on) I am in the large size in the yeti website so would assume Yeti intends for me to ride a large. On current bike I have a 50mm stem so assume with a 35mm stem on a yeti sb130 or SB150 that would make the reach almost identical. As bikes are so costly now, the last thing you would want is to spend all that $$’s and realise you got the wrong size. There was a fair bit of debate on the SB150 review with reviewers stating there preference been choosing on reach figures rather than manufacturers size charts. Not sure I agree with this but think all bike companies could benifit from sizing guides that took more into account than just overall height. Maybe a calculator that you entered in your height, inseam, torso and arm length before recommending a frame size? For the price your expected to pay it would definitely give more confidence on clicking buy!!
  • - 3
 Forget the manufacturers sizing charts, they're garbage.

Knowing your preferred reach, and to a lesser extent, stack is critical. You're bang on when you weighed up the difference between the bikes an adjusted the stem to mirror your current bike. Say you liked another bike but in the reach you need the seat tube is too long for you to run the dropper length you like or it has too much stack so your bars would be too height etc. That's how you rule those out. No guide is ever going to get as accurate as you riding bikes are working out the reach/stack numbers you need. Long enough so you can move around and weigh the wheels independently but not too long so you're stretched.
  • + 2
 Reach does not define the length of your cockpit alone. It only tells you how much top tube there is in front of a vertical line that goes through the BB. All else equal, as the seat tube angle gets steeper, the saddle moves forward, and the distance from your saddle to bar gets smaller. So, you should also compare effective top tube measurements. My current bike has a 495mm reach, but the ETT as my previous bike with a 435mm reach. They both fit well, but the current bike handles a million times better than the old one. Reach really tells you about how roomy the cockpit will feel when you stand up and get the saddle out of the equation. Don't be fooled by the industry's recent obsession with reach. It's only one piece of the puzzle and unless you are sure you know better, it's probably safer to trust the manufacturer's sizing chart.
  • - 3
 @skylerd: Wrong. Reach (combined with stack) is the distance between your hands and feet. Nothing else matters for out of the saddle sizing = descending.

Like most who buy bikes like the above, I don't really give a crap about seated pedalling performance.

If you're buying bikes based on ETT you're almost definitely compromising reach.
  • + 3
 @Prh they're both within the reach range they prefer on the SB130, as well as the size range recommended by Yeti on the bike.

@skylerd beyond reach+stack, the only other thing that determines cockpit while standing is stem length+bar shape.
  • + 0
 @jclnv: Hmm @skylerd’s explanation of reach is actually more correct.
  • - 6
flag jclnv (Dec 15, 2018 at 18:47) (Below Threshold)
 @irck: I understand the measurement. If you buy a bike size based on ETT you're lost.
  • + 1
 @jclnv @brianpark:
"Reach really tells you about how roomy the cockpit will feel when you stand up and get the saddle out of the equation. Don't be fooled by the industry's recent obsession with reach. It's only one piece of the puzzle and unless you are sure you know better, it's probably safer to trust the manufacturer's sizing chart."(@skylerd, Dec 15, 201Cool

Go ahead and size down if know what you want. Yeti is surely just trying to communicate how they intended for their design to work/feel/perform.
  • + 2
 @jclnv: to clarify, I'm not disagreeing with anything you said except that the size charts are "garbage". They're a good start for a lot of people, especially people who fall in the middle of a size range. I, admittedly, often disregard them because my height is right between sizes, so I need to look at other factors to choose whether to go up or down.

Like you said, it definitely makes sense to think about stem length to get a complete picture. ETT is certainly relevant for thinking about pedaling position - yes it matters.
  • - 1
 @jclnv: I don’t think anyone had suggested to size off ETT...
  • + 3
 @jclnv: Whoops. Looks like they have now. Disregard.
  • + 1
 @irck: oh dear... That's not what I meant by "yes it matters"! I mean pedaling position matters. ETT is just a number that tells a bit of the story about pedaling position. I'm not at all suggesting you should base your size purely off ETT!
  • + 1
 @skylerd: Yeah, I understand what you mean. I think it’s becoming less of a focal point now that seat tubes are steeper but does help accurately compare cockpits to see how stretched you’ll be when pedaling seated.
  • + 1
 @skylerd: If you know the reach you need why do you need a sizing chart? For beginners it'll help but if you've been riding long enough to know the reach and stack you need it should be of zero use to you.

The numbers are facts, sizing charts are a manufacturers subjective opinion. I know what I'll base my purchases on!
  • + 1
 @skylerd: Rider compartment = reach + stack + STA at ride height. Third dimension is trickiest and most crucial for distance pedaling. Yeti doesn't publish an STA. The nonkinked seat tube suggests that it fits true to size--though I wouldn't say that about a Large 5010.2-- especially for the leggier rider. But at 183cm and preferring a whippier bike, I'd still gamble on a Medium SB130 and moreso SB150, despite ETT, which is so variable it hardly deserves to be called a number. @Prh can't hope to decide without STA considerations.

Looked for your 495mm in profile, and was rewarded with excellent photos of AZ!
  • + 1
 @ceecee: 495mm? AZ??
  • + 1
 @ceecee: I was told a Large by Yeti themselves via email given my just shy of 6'3 height.. Glad I pedaled a L in the parking lot... Not even close to a fit.. Maybe with an 80mm stem... XL fits me like a glove and I can rock a 40mm stem.

I never go off size charts
  • + 5
 @jclnv: "Like most who buy bikes like the above, I don't really give a crap about seated pedalling performance."

Huh??
  • - 5
flag jclnv (Dec 16, 2018 at 12:06) (Below Threshold)
 @leelau: Seated position doesn't matter on MTB's. You don't need to be aero do you? Manufacturers obviously think the same as they're putting steep seat tube angles on bikes which puts the rider very upright position to aid tech climbing performance.

If you're buying a modern bike like the above based on the ETT of a bike from 5 years ago you'll end up with a reach number that is far too long and you'll be a passenger on descents.

This is pretty basic stuff. Can't believe this is controversial.
  • + 0
 @Prh: Skylerd's current bike has a reach of 495mm, dramatically up from 435mm. Arizona, USA. Some distance from Calgary, but you've still got him beat. Size is a compromise. Assuming yr Warden fits (with its slack STA, very low stack height, and short wheelbase) Medium SB is significantly larger. Unless yr saddle is slammed to rear on Knolly, Medium Yeti has to fit better. Would a Large be even better? Do you need almost 80cm of front center on a bike with 130mm of rear wheel travel for your local terrain? Can't the dealer in Queenstown help? It can be difficult to decide when so many experts are in attendance, providing scant analysis.
  • + 0
 @bohns1: Parking lot 'ride'? 'Rocking'?

Many gloves don't fit like gloves.

Not enough info; not credible.
  • + 6
 @jclnv: "Seated position doesn't matter on MTB's. You don't need to be aero do you? Manufacturers obviously think the same as they're putting steep seat tube angles on bikes which puts the rider very upright position to aid tech climbing performance.

This is pretty basic stuff. Can't believe this is controversial."

I raced XC a lot. I still pedal a lot. Seated climbing happens a lot. Slack seat tube angles are not good for seated climbing

You seem like a smart guy even if you troll every now and then (I do that quite often so that's not a burn btw). I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing how you can make that statement; unless it's for trolling
  • - 2
 @leelau: I think there's a misunderstanding.

I love steep SA angles for the benefit they bring steep climbs.
I'm not concerned that bikes feel short when seated due the above and that ETT lengths are far shorter than older bikes I've owned.
Subsiquently I think buying bikes based on ETT is pointless as are the manufactuers opinion on what size you should ride.

That's it, thats all.

Yep I love trolling from time to time but I think there's sometimes common sense within the nonsense.
  • + 2
 @jclnv:

Assuming I "knew what reach I needed" ten years ago, I'd currently be riding a 2018 size S or M. But I'm 188cm tall and I ride size XLs. Bikes have changed a lot, and we ride them differently now. If you were set on what reach you needed a few years ago, I think you'd be holding yourself back a lot from the improvements that have been made to geometry since then. No disrespect, but the geo on your Warden is pretty long in the tooth, so it's worth sizing a new bike with a bit more of an open mind about how numbers have changed.

Also edit for the benefit of @ceecee, my old bike actually had a reach of 445mm. My bad.
  • - 1
 @skylerd: Yes I agree but ten years ago I didn't have the option to ride longer reach bikes, they didn't exist. However, I've ridden plenty now and I know what's too long for me in reach and too high for me in stack. For example a Large Stumpjumper has an okay reach number for me but the stack feels too high, even slammed with a flat bar.

So there you go, a 440-450mm reach and 620mm stack (plus 40mm stem and 760mm bar) is ideal for me to control the bike optimally for my height and ape index. You and Pole can tell me I need 470mm or tell Sam Hill he's wrong for riding 430mm but I'll take my direct back to back timed testing over a manufacturers or other riders opinion.

With all due respect this is page one for me and I'm bored trying explain such obvious basics. Reach and stack are simply fixed sizing metrics. Work them out and you have a baseline to compare geometry between bikes. If not you throw another variable into the mix that won't help you at all to determine geometry or suspension differences.
  • + 1
 @ceecee: Didn't realize u were that literal... Fits like a glove as in the gloves I wear... So fits like the gloves I would buy.. How's that?

If u can't tell that a bike does or does not fit you via a quick parking lot spin.. You got bigger issues..

What more info would you like?

At just under 6'3 a Large is simply, too small!
  • + 1
 @bohns1: Rude rides a M. Fits like a glove
  • + 2
 @ceecee: Whatever works!
  • + 2
 SB130, Evil Offering, GG Smash. I’ll be looking for all of these as used frames, all great options for trailduro or whatever someone calls it now- how about “mountain bike.” The SB150 is Super Enduro IMO and has possibly life-threatening capabilities.
  • + 1
 I love my Insurgent and almost went with the Offering for my shorter-travel rig but just wanted to try Switch Infinity. The Offering owners I've talked to love it. I think the two are really similar.
  • + 2
 Bleh. For the review I was looking forward to the most and for what I believe is one of the most anticipated bikes of the year in the category I was bummed at such a short video that really didn't contain much not already tackled in prior reviews. No mention of tight tire fits, no mention of any flex. I've read conflicting reviews that say the sb130 is amazing downhill on all but true enduro courses and others that said you have to pick your lines as the backend can easily get overwhelmed and knocked off line, so I was kind of hoping to see that addressed in the video review. I guess for a bike nominated for bike of the year, I expected more from the field test video.
  • + 2
 That narrow seat stay clearance is a Yeti trait. A friends ASR now has self installed protection to stop his not very wide marathon tyres from eating the carbon. No clever curves just straight tubes.
  • + 1
 Why are the SB130 and 150 videos so much shorter than all the others? For the price they have to be offering something special if Yeti's still in business this long, would have loved to see a little bit more on these bikes...
  • + 4
 I'll take it! Now where did I leave that winning lottery ticket...........
  • + 2
 yeti ticked most of of my next bike boxes.
light, lively, 29er, mid travel, coil friendly and sexy AF.
anyone want a process or a vanquish?
  • + 2
 Amazing bike, amazing brand. Unfortunately they don't like damp British winters at all. Make sure you stock up on bearings as soon as theres a sniff of a sale at a yeti dealer/ distributor.
  • + 1
 stop complaining about 29rs it is a pretty awesome bike to ride in my opinion; the only way to truly understand how the bike rides is by riding it so don't assume anything unless you've ridden the bike.
  • + 1
 "The SB130 hits out of its league on descents, so much so that I've consistently found myself questioning the safety of the speeds I feel comfortable riding this bike." Sweet Jeez!
  • + 4
 Where’s the huck to flat slo-mo!!??? My favorite part of these vids...0
  • - 5
flag drivereight (Dec 16, 2018 at 11:12) (Below Threshold)
 They won’t show it cause if you noticed the rub marks on the rear tire on the picture, it clearly rub the rear frame...flex?
  • + 1
 How is this Yeti's price stated as a con yet again when comparably speced bikes like the Giant Trance 29 and Stumpy 29 are more expensive? Please explain? You guys couldn't find anything else to criticize?
  • + 4
 Maybe the others have carbon rims?
  • + 5
 @jclnv, that's correct - the Giant and the Stumpy both have carbon wheels, and a less expensive frame only price.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: the Bronson?
  • + 2
 @Golden-G, yes, the Bronson had carbon wheels as well, and a lower frame only price.
  • - 4
flag Golden-G (Dec 15, 2018 at 16:08) (Below Threshold)
 @mikekazimer: damn! It is spendy then! Once you go Yeti, its hard to ride anything else. I tried a different brand this past season...back to Yeti for next season.
  • + 2
 @Golden-G: I have to agree with you good sir. My SB6 was my first Yeti and has improve my riding out of sight. My next bike will be a Yeti too.
  • + 2
 @mikekazimer: Agree. The Trance carbon frame only can be had at a lot less than the Yeti. I'm building up a trail bike and considered the SB130, but price of a frame only was a big reason I went with Giant.
  • - 1
 @MikerJ: you get what you pay for. The Trance is not comparable to the Yeti. Not even close.
  • + 1
 @MikerJ: Buy once cry once I always say,and get what u truly want.. I hate having purchase regrets.. Especially within my hobbies, just to save a few hundy.
  • + 1
 @bohns1: I agree, but the industry has us convinced we need a new bike every year or two because geometry, latest greatest, etc. Somehow the two year old Hightower I have in the garage can no longer possibly provide me the fun and performance it used to because I know there is something lower, slacker, and with a steeper STA. I haven't even thought about replacing my 16lb, 7 year old Scott CR1 carbon road bike because no bike could do what getting off my ass, losing a few lbs, and riding more could. Why can't I look at mtn bikes the same way? Spending a few hundred on some real coaching would make me a hell of a lot faster than spending 8k on a Yeti.

By the way, I still really want a new Yeti, can't have fun riding anymore without it......
  • + 2
 @Golden-G: What ...a frame engineered and handmade by the actual bike company which possesses the name on the downtube? Hahaha.
  • + 1
 @dcaf: I’m not sure that MTB is directly comparably to road when it comes to frame design. It seems to me that road bikes have plateaued for general design whilst most mountain bikes have been making significant advances in geometry of current models. Hopefully we’re hitting period now where manufactures are starting to hit that Goldilocks geo that road bikes have.

I also think a big difference is the handling aspect. Mountain bikes are going faster, more safely thanks to the new geo (and suspension) whereas the big advancements in road bikes seem to be new shock absorbing devices built into frames or the adoption of disc brakes.

But I do hope it calms down soon. I don’t think this makes last season’s bikes unrideable (I’m on a 3 year old bike) but it does make me reluctant to invest in anything new until design levels off for a bit.
  • + 1
 @dcaf: Haha.. Funny you say that.. I feel the same about my specialized crux.. I still love it 6 years in... Yet my 2016 fuel ex 9.9 felt dated... I don't know what it is either.. Guess I'm a sicker.. But damn, is riding that yeti sure sweet.
  • + 2
 Where is the comparison of trail bikes and the weapon of choice of the reviewers?
  • + 1
 In that huck-to-flat vid, looks like friggin sparks shooting out from the shock right at the moment of bottom out! Is that a trick of the light, or what the hell?
  • + 3
 It better be good given it was nominated for bike of the year
  • + 2
 I got 82 hundred problems but a Sb130 ain't 1. Time to go play with my wanker.
  • + 1
 "...breaking free and smashing your kneecap into the clamp of your shifter..."

Pffft! This is why --> knee armor!

Great review.
  • + 0
 My ibid mojo HD full carb and ti bolds id at 12.5 without pedals and very reliable.. ( is at Buysell..) why do we need allmountain bikes? Just invest proper i to amd enduro one good pedaler...
  • + 2
 @paurexs

This has to be the best Google translate f-up of all time:

"He has not made landings with beasts or big bumps. Very fine rider."

I can only hope this is my epitaph (although I must say, I'm partial to bumps of many sizes; large or small)

Your ride looks sweet. I'd jump on it if it was in USD and located here Smile
  • + 1
 @mattr: sorry my spelling mistakes late night on cell keyboard... Could not arrange it somehow...

Send the bike to you it's only a 100 bucks and for USD price is about 10 percent cheaper so it's still a great deal! Seriously I am still amazed there is no second bike at all like mine around... Simply impossible to find the quality and geek I offer...
  • + 2
 Here is your winning rig!
  • - 1
 I you only listen to the video they could have described any other bike out there in the category or it could even be an ad. Could it get more boring when you describe all bikes with the same words.
  • + 1
 This bike has damned near the same geo as my 2017 Guerilla Gravity Trail Pistola!
  • + 2
 queue the "queue the" comments...
  • + 1
 Pretty bike. Too bad it is so expensive, Typical overprice denverite merchandise. What happened to tbc?
  • + 1
 might be a nice ride...but this is a fugly bike..and looks real generic...sorta like a honda.
  • + 2
 How would this compare to a trek fuel? Albeit the fuel has a 130mm fork.
  • + 0
 Building your own from a frameset is definitely the way to go. It's a BOTY ride for sure but with some smart shopping you can get a better spec for less money.
  • + 1
 this bike i tested a couple days ago and it was amazing on the up-hill and down hill i love this bike.
  • + 2
 I thought they already tested a Yeti. ?????
  • + 1
 Bikes Bible tests went all the way to three Yeti's. Stacking the deck...
  • + 1
 Yes no problem running. 2.5 high rollers. No rubbing. How tall are the testers on an M?
  • + 2
 Daniel's 5'9", and Sarah's 5'7". Yeti's sizing chart suggests that the medium is best suited to riders from 5'7" to 5'11", so they're both within that range.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: actually at those heights Sarah is just in the medium size bracket by mm and Daniel is just in the large size bracket by mm. Out of interest were they both using the same stem or swapping between each rider. Would be real interesting to see how Daniel would find the large with a 35mm stem as a comparison.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: They rode the bike as specified without changing stems or handlebars depending on rider? The reason I ask is that for this kind of in depth testing I think the reviewer should use their preferred stem lengths and handle bar widths so that it does not negatively affect the riders opinion on the bikes behaviour. I suppose the same goes for the tyres btw but someone already mentioned that earlier.
  • + 1
 @Prh, you must be looking at a different sizing chart than me. In any case, if I were to recommend a size, it’s unlikely I’d tell a 5’9” rider to ride a large. The 460mm reach of the medium is already very roomy.

And @animatedcorpse, riders were free to switch bars and stems as they saw fit. Luckily, most bikes these days come with short stems and appropriately sized bars, so minimal swapping was necessary.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: right you are I didn’t pay enough attention to your comment (thought you said his height was 5’11). I agree 460 reach is long for a medium it is the same as my current large Knolly Warden however standover height, top tube, seat tube lengths are all much more in comparison to the large size Yeti which I guess is the big difference over the last 3-4 years. Where the reach on bikes was less 3-4 years ago but most builds came with 65mm stems now you have greater reach figures and 35mm stems. Obviously there’s more to it than just that with longer wheelbase’s 29” wheels and steeper seat angles for myself at 183cm the large would be my go to with a short stem on the yeti. When however you look at something like the mondraker foxy even though I’m still in the large size range according to them the geometry figures for that bike would have me looking at a medium.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: I'm just under what Yeti recommends for an xl... However riding L in the parking lot felt cramped with a 50mm stem and 780 bars despite that cockpit . It was an xl no question for my lanky ass..

Demo is key if possible.. Two people the same height could still fit different sizes depending on body type.. Ie Long legs with shorter torso or vice versa.. Yeti told me themselves via email I'd be a large... Glad I pedaled one before purchasing.
  • + 0
 Seeing people in Tshirts on those wonderful trails makes me wanna cry a little bit.
  • + 1
 Are you just trying to sell me socks here?
  • + 1
 "CUT YER BARS"
Love that little trail!
  • + 1
 Buddy's rear shock sparked when it bottomed out on the suspension video
  • + 1
 fugly design for me.. i prefer my sb6 design..
  • + 1
 If you only have one. SB130 or Giant Trance 29?
  • + 1
 Transition Sentinel Carbon.
  • + 1
 fuck yeah !! now its the big boys time
  • - 2
 Just watched the slomo of the bottom out, that switch infinity didn't seem to move anything like the video on the Yeti website, imagine that
  • + 0
 So you can buy two carbon gt's for the price of this okie dokie.
  • + 11
 @mhoshal...ya but then I'd be stuck with two GT's!
  • + 1
 idk why....its ugly
  • + 2
 Agreed. I used to think they were some of the best looking bikes but they’ve definitely sacrificed good style to fit the water bottle in. Personally, I much prefer straight down tubes for looks and, more importantly, reducing rock strikes. Then again, I prefer using a camelbak so a water bottle is irrelevant to me.
  • + 4
 @irck: Agree 100%. I thought the previous models (4.5, 5.5, etc) were the best looking bikes out there, absolutely beautiful. I wouldn't call the current iteration ugly, but they're more just average looking mountain bikes now.
  • + 3
 @stevemokan: Have u seen one in person up close? They still have that yeti dna... To each their own but I love the new shapes and the look of that steepened seat angle if we're talking aesthetics
  • + 2
 @bohns1: I like the steep seat tube. It all looks great until your eye hits the downtube. The new profile is sharp and boxy where it used to flow and look organic. Still looks like an expensive bike but the aesthetics have just turned an unappealing corner (IMO).
  • + 3
 @irck: This is all subjective of course but I always found the old frames a bit bloated in their curvyness. I much prefer the strait line racey purposefulness of the new designs. Although the SB150 is the better looker of the 2 id say.
  • + 1
 @Karve: Yup. Definitely subjective. Have to add that I’d definitely love to own one, regardless of aesthetics.
  • + 1
 @Karve: looks to boxy now. I prefer the old model
  • + 1
 Bargain
  • + 0
 I wonder how a Hightower vs SB130 would compare?
  • + 4
 Ht too old now... How about offerings vs ripmo vs sb130..
  • + 2
 @jrocksdh: Some people buy stuff on sale.
  • + 1
 looks like an e-bike
  • - 1
 I really want to love this bike but I can't.... because the look of switch infinity
  • + 1
 switch 4mm
  • + 1
 Cons- No metal version
  • - 1
 What is the intro music???
  • - 3
 trail-forks-- by the way sucks mtb project is way better
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.222595
Mobile Version of Website