First Look: 2021 Yeti SB115

Jun 30, 2020
by Mike Kazimer  
Yeti SB115


The SB100 was released two years ago, a short travel rig that was aimed at XC riders looking for something a little different than a pure-bred race machine. It wouldn't be a stretch to call it a downcountry bike, and Mike Levy did just that in his review, inadvertently putting a name on a category that seems to have stuck.

The new SB115 is cut from the same cloth as the SB100 (literally – the two models share the same front triangle and swingarm). It's closer to one of Yeti's Lunch Ride creations, where they take an existing model, eke a little more travel out of it and adjust the build kit accordingly, as opposed to being something that was developed entirely from scratch. That extra travel comes via a new shock link as well as a longer stroke shock that measures 190 x 45mm.
Yeti SB115

• Intended use: cross-country / trail
• Wheel size: 29''
• Rear wheel travel: 115mm
• Fork travel: 130mm
• 67.6-degree head angle
• Switch Infinity suspension
• Carbon front and rear triangles
• Weight: 27.17 lb / 12.3 kg (T2 model, size L)
• MSRP: $4,700 - $8,000
• Frame MSRP: $3,400 USD
www.yeticycles.com


Yeti SB115


That 115mm of rear travel is paired with a 130mm fork. According to Yeti's press materials, that's because their “115mm of rear suspension outperforms similar travel forks.” Sure, the Switch Infinity suspension design works really well, but that sentence made me roll my eyes. The Switch Infinity suspension layout uses two Kashima-coated rails to control the bike's axle path - Pinkbike's Dan Roberts recently wrote an in-depth article that provides more insight into how the system works. On the SB115 (and the SB100) the rails are positioned next to each other, a 90-degree difference from the orientation used on Yeti's longer travel bikes.

Yeti SB100 Review
This is the SB100, but the orientation of the SB115's Switch Infinity system is the same. A bolt-on cover usually shields this part from the elements.

A 130mm Fox 34 puts the head angle at 67.6-degrees, a smidge slacker than the SB100's 67.8-degree head tube angle. The reach on a size large measure 450mm, and the seat angle is 74-degrees.

Those number are a touch conservative compared to bikes like the recently launched Transition Spur and the Revel Ranger; they're more in line with the numbers found on the Cannondale Scalpel SE. What's that translate to out on the trail? Well, all of those bikes, along with the new Specialized Epic Evo were put to the test during our recent XC Field Test – you'll be able to watch and read our findings in the near future.

Yeti SB115

The SB115 build kits reflect its more all-around intentions. All models come with a 50mm stem and 780mm handlebar, along with four piston brakes and a 2.5” Maxxis Minion DHF / 2.3” Maxxis Aggressor tire combo.

The frame alone is priced at $3,400, with complete bikes starting at $4,700 USD for the C1 model, which uses a slightly heavier frame than the Turq series models. The C1 has Shimano SLX 12-speed drivetrain, Fox Performance 34 fork, and DT Swiss M1900 wheelset.

At the other end of the price scale is the T3 version, which has a SRAM XX1 drivetrain, Fox Factory suspension, and DT Swiss XM1700 wheels. Want to get even fancier? There's also the option to upgrade to SRAM's AXS wireless drivetrain or DT Swiss' carbon wheels.


Yeti SB115



240 Comments

  • 152 4
 I think I'm gonna wait for the SB118
  • 117 6
 SB119.99 SRAM edition
  • 82 3
 If you feel like you need 118mm, you’ll probably be happy with the new SB93.2. I know most people THINK they need more travel but it’s more progressive and poppy, lively and playful, yet feels bottomless over rough terrain and big hucks...

What you really need is to be dissatisfied with whatever bike you currently have. It’s junk. Buy this one.
  • 80 2
 That new transition spur is the geo the 115 should have been....
  • 6 0
 @Richt2000: She tells me 15mm doesn't make any difference... so will just keep rolling with what I got
  • 5 0
 @nineteeninch If you were a true Yeti fan/hedge fund manager you'd get both...
  • 91 2
 Being a massive Yeti fan makes this tough to say, but I think this is a mistake. It's a SB100 with the "lunch ride" treatment. The reach and seat tube angle should have been reworked, and I personally would rather see the full sized switch used with the shock extender treatment like all the other new models. I liked my SB100, but it's from well over 2 years ago and now my 2020 Trek Top Fuel is more progressive geometry than this 115...
  • 10 0
 Couldn't agree more. Was hoping to see an improved Geo comparable to the SB130 or at least close to it. Should have just made a Non-LR 130 with a dps shock and a 34 on it to provide a sub 30lb weight for the trail yet still let you get stupid with it from time to time.
  • 5 0
 So it's a more pay for yeti lunch ride type model...
  • 11 0
 Well said. Mistake for sure.
Not alone the reach and SA but also the HA should’ve gone to 66 or 66.5... Transition Bike Co. did it better.-
  • 38 5
 is it now a requirement for a new model of bike to have more progressive geometry than its predecessor? At what point is everything going to become the "Grim Doughnut"? If it aint broke don't fix it. SB100 and SB4.5 ride great
  • 23 0
 @Hudnut: Agreed, for sure. This bike is not for bombing downhill—I’d much rather have something lively and reactive. Longer and slacker is not always the answer for every new bike.
  • 4 0
 @Hudnut: yup! It's not like we're comparing DH bikes of the 2000's to a 2021 model. We're talking minor changes, half a degree here a few mm's there. Sure some is driven by "progress" and testing but I feel planned obsolescence is now happening with Geo rather that BB size, or hub spacing.
  • 6 7
 This. I genuinely hope no one buys this bike because they're pitching an old bike as "new" and charging accordingly. It's also out of line with it's intentions as a "downcountry" or light trail bike, the HTA is just too steep and the STA too slack. Yeti makes great bikes and the SB130 and SB150 are top of my list on bikes I want, but this is a total cop out.

Either develop a new replacement for the SB100 or save the R&D, give us something like this and price it accordingly.
  • 10 11
 @tgent: lol the sta is too slack? You guys are clueless about bike fit
  • 3 0
 @clink83: not really.. For current times it is showing its age.. Just the way it is.
  • 10 3
 @bohns1: wanting more than a 74* sta on an XC inspired bike is completely pointless. Fad driven geometry to sell bikes.
  • 6 1
 @clink83: Yup a 74 deg STA and a reach of 470mm on a size XL is "old" geo. Yes it's an XC bike, but it's advertised as an XC bike that can handle the downhills as well. A 74 deg STA will put your weight too far back over the back wheel when climbing, the reason why older bikes don't climb as well as newer bikes. A steep STA with a longer reach, effectively positions your center of mass further forward resulting in a minimal increase in seated reach and a longer more balanced bike.

Look at every bike in this category being released today, they are all longer, slacker, and with steeper STAs than this Yeti (including Yeti's other models like the SB130 designed from the ground up). Obviously some of it is preference, and if you think 74 deg is the number for you have it, but you're missing out on the benefits of new age bike geo.
  • 1 0
 @tgent:

I haven't ridden the sb100 but hasn't there been alot of feedback on how flexy the rear end is? And now it's updated to be ridden harder? No claims of xx% increased stiffness?

I have ridden the sb130 and thought is was awesome, so not a hater, just outside my range for now so I went with the ripmo heavy metal edtion.
  • 2 0
 I think it's great and what I always wanted. An SB4.5 with a short seat tube and water bottle in the front triangle. I will be happy to upgrade the link and shock on my SB100 (assuming the price is reasonable). Otherwise I might just be tempted to buy a 130 and give up on the One-bike-to-rule-them-all Quiver-of-One.
  • 2 0
 @WasatchEnduro: Having ridden as SB100, yes it is not a very stiff bike. When I rode it ~2 years ago when it was released, I really liked it. It was one of the most capable "XC" bikes on the market and a great all-arounder due to it's slack and low geo numbers. BUT fast forward 2 years to now and bikes have continued to evolve, and man the ride difference between this and an SB130 or a more modern XC bike due to geo is massive. I would have happily bought an SB100 2 years ago because it was one of the most modern bikes in that segment, today I wouldn't consider it because it's one of the least modern in the segment. To name a few that have updated geo and I'm sure will handle all-around terrain better than this include the Ibis Mojo, YT Izzo, Transition Spur, Scott Spark and Specialized Epic Evo...

My point is, this just a lazy refresh. If this is the type of geo/XC bike you want, have at it. For me, for an all-around or downcountry focused XC bike, more updated (aka longer/slacker) geo is a clear winner.
  • 1 0
 @tgent:

fo shizzle. Tranny Spur FTW over this bike. I'm liking that Izzo too. Alas I'm on a one bike quiver for now so 150ish is the sweet spot.
  • 9 10
 @tgent: lulz. My XC race bike has a 73sta, the spark has a 73sta. You are fooling yourself if you think a steep STA "climbs better". You guys need to get off the internet and actually ride bikes.
  • 8 0
 @tgent: There needs to be a distinction between "downcountry" and "short travel trail". There's a reason road bikes don't have ~80 degree STA: that's not how human legs work. Same with HTA: when the heck would you ever see a 66 degree HTA in a world cup XCO race???
  • 4 0
 @clink83:

Yo clink. 2 things: 1. It's personal preference, 2. I think you're right though bc shorter travel bikes don't 'need' as steep a sta due to less sag anyways. These slacked out all-mountain bikes with lotsa squish benefit from a steep sta much more than an xc whip.

No way in hell I'd buy a trail/AM bike with a sta that's shy of 75 and change, and that's after demoing alot of bikes in the last couple years. Sure it's a sum of all parts to some extent but after tasting the sweet sweet steepness it's hard to go back.
  • 2 2
 @clink83: i know for my lanky 6'3 ass i prefer the steep seat tube angles for sure on the climbs.. Gets you in a good position to lay the power down... Not a fad at all.. You tellin me you know more than the engineers who design these rigs?
  • 6 3
 @WasatchEnduro:
www.pinkbike.com/news/pinkbike-poll-how-much-time-do-you-spend-riding-in-a-given-week.html
1) The average pinkbike barely rides for one thing. They don't have the power output to know what a "good climbing bike" is.
2) it's a matter of physiology, the human body makes peak power in only a narrow body position, arbitrarily putting you forward of the bottom bracket decreases glutes activation.

The geometry that is good for winning enduro and XC are not the same, you're kidding yourself if you think they cross over at all.
  • 3 7
flag clink83 (Jun 30, 2020 at 14:56) (Below Threshold)
 @bohns1: I'm an inch taller than you and can get a proper fit on a 73 or 74 sta. Perhaps you just ride a janked up setup?
  • 4 2
 @clink83: Get off yourself. I never said a steep STA climbs better, I said: "A steep STA with a longer reach, effectively positions your center of mass further forward resulting in a minimal increase in seated reach and a longer more balanced bike."

XC bikes can use slacker seat tubes because their wheelbase is so short and you're more balanced between the wheels. When you increase your reach numbers to ohhh IDK 480mm on a size L like the Transition Spur, you get a bike that is vastly improved on the downhill.

Keep riding your old bike and have fun, you're buddies will drop you on the downs.
  • 3 1
 @MaplePanda: Personally I don't think there does need to be a distinction between the categories, but also don't think categories really matter. These days there's so little difference between a 115mm travel "Downcountry" bike and a 130 mm "trail" bike, why not just compare them and say bike X does this better, bike Y does this better.

I agree with you on road bikes, but also some newer enduro and trail bikes with STA ~78 degrees pedal really well, so it's not like we're way past the limit of body kinematics. IMO steep STA allowed manufacturers to design in much longer reaches which result in a more balanced and stable bike. Also, I bet you'll see 66 deg HTA in World Cup XC races real soon. The new Epic has a 67.5 deg HTA and I bet someone will race the Evo at 66.5.
  • 3 0
 @Hudnut: word up
I wouldn't trade any of those for my Asrc from 2016
  • 5 0
 @gooutsidetoday wrote:
"Being a massive Yeti fan makes this tough to say, but I think this is a mistake."

From the perspective of the consumer, it's a just a new fork and shock on an existing frame. Underwhelming, but nothing wrong with having an additional choice.

From the perspective of the manufacturer, they got some press exposure and created a "new model" for the cost of a new SKU in the database and a new page on the website. That's a win for them.

Well played, Yeti, now get to work on a proper chassis update!
  • 2 0
 It's not a mistake. It's just a parts bin frankenbike designed to boost sales in the interim before the new SB120 is released.
  • 4 0
 @clink83:

Brahahahaha! But we're not 'average', we're all roughAF here didn't you know?!

Physiology?! No sh*t. If you go too slack or steep it's gonna suck. But what is too slack or steep? That's going to depend on the amount of travel the bike has as well as rider preference and how their body is built.

I think we're almost saying the same thing. Geo will be different on a shorter travel rig. Should that 'short' 120 rig have a 77 deg sta? Don't know. Probably not. But IMO it sure as sh*t shouldn't have a 73 deg sta. I hopped on a friend's Scott Spark one morn and pedaled it up for a few minutes and the slack sta felt horrible to me. It works for him though. I also demoed a La Sal Peak and had to slam the saddle all the way back for it to even approach a comfortable position for me with that 78 deg sta. 77 feels about perfect for me as I'm on 76 (albeit an all-mountain bike) with the saddle slammed forward. And bro you should see my glutes! You don't get a can like this by riding a fkn road bike!

Generally i think 120 bikes need to move toward the geo of all-mountain bikes, but not all the way. At least that's my preference. There will always be companies lagging behind in geo and that's where you are free to shop. Or get an offset dropper post.... i think a couple companies still make those.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Drink the cool-aid! I said DRINK, damnit!!!!

Ride on.
  • 1 0
 @tgent: The mentality is different. Short travel trail bikes are “a trail bike with less travel meant as a challenge”. Downcountry is “saving a few seconds at the expense of a pound or two on the descents”. Idk, I just find it funny to call a bike with Assegai and 203 rotors front and rear “downcountry”. You’d never race XCO with that setup.

67 is probably the limit for now. I just don’t want some brand bringing out a 64 degree HTA “XC bike” next year.
  • 4 7
 @tgent: My friends on trail bikes trail bikes are only marginally faster on downhills, and I can drop them on the uphills and flats enough that it doesn't matter.
The sb115 is a XC race bike, its not designed to win enduro races. Cool Flex though.
  • 4 4
 @WasatchEnduro: The thing you are missing is just about every brand is standardizing XC race bikes at about 74* STA and 68*. You can sit and bitch about XC race bikes, but it just makes you look dumb. All the elite level athletes that develop these bikes know what works. If you dont want an XC bike, dont buy one. There are tons of bikes on the market with all sorts of geometry.
  • 4 2
 @clink83:

Who is standsrdizing what?, the new scalpel race bike is barely ar 68. The new Epic race bike is below. The new spark will be the same, if not around 67 sta, as Scott have been at the forefront of xc geometry in the last few years(1. they have launched a 68.5 sta race bike when everyone else were doing 70 and 1. Nino is using a bike with 110mm fork and 120mm travel for the frame, thus statically, making it a 68 sta bike while dynamically being slacker due to the longer travel).

Ffs, orbea will launch soon the new alma(HT), with a 68 sta. For sure, the next Oiz race will be, at least, with 0.5 degrees slacker(current numbers are 69.5 for the Alma and 69 for Oiz); not to mention about the Oiz tr, which will be arouns epic evo geo numbers.

What I want to say is, every manufacturer is updating their xc geo numbers, mostly accordingly to their production and development plans. It is bar impossible and take considerably financial efforts to launch a bike 1 year earlier m, in order to stay relevant to the market. For xc bikes, they are in luck as xc riders are pretty conservative and don't care that much about 74 sta vs a 76 sta, although I can argue that my 75 sta from my nukeproof reactor and my former custom 2019 Oiz do not feel as good on the climbs as the 77 on the occam. It is very simple really, when the climb/abrup comes, the steep seat angle feels like you have more power than you actually have; or like some degree of tail wind. It is better.
I do not think (100mm)race bikes could really use 77+ stas as the effective sag is less than on a real mountain bike but, something along the lines of 75.5-76 would be great.
As for slacker HAs, that should be mandatory on all bikes. The so called agility loss is bogus and can easily be compensate with very little rider skill and/or some adapting; it is, really, a win-win.
  • 2 1
 @clink83: A couple final points, because your mind is made up and nothing we can say will convince you anything other than old school XC race geo is best.

1) This Yeti SB115 is not a race bike. It's not designed for that and it's not marketed as that. Therefore we want geo that reflects this, like every other current bike in this category.
2) Everyone here wanting more modern geo wants a "downcountry" or light trail bike, whatever you want to call/classify it. These prioritize the downhill over uphill and pure XC racing. No one disagrees with you that your old XC bike will climb faster/better.
3) AGAIN, ride what you like, no one is forcing you to buy this bike. The point we are making is if you took your old bike and raced it against a new-er geo bike like the Tran Spur I guarantee you you'll be significantly faster on the downhill.
  • 2 1
 @tgent:

Actually, the difference between my 2018 Oiz and 2019 Oiz was about 23 minutes on a 77 kms with 1800 m of ascending. If anything, I was less fit in 2019 than I was in 2018.

Same parts, as both bikes were build from frame and I've had the parts from the 2018 model year transfered to the 2019 frame.
  • 4 0
 @tgent: Just wanted to mention 1 thing, the 115 is 100% built as a race bike, not so much for world cup XC more burly multi day XC stage racing, like the BC bike race, which was meant to be a big part of this bikes release.
  • 1 1
 @jaredgraves: Appreciate the input! Totally agree, my statement of it's not meant to be a race bike was specifically talking to XC World Cup, though obviously I'm sure if a pro like Nino rode it, he'd still be winning. I also agree that if you're looking for a versatile frame that can handle everything from WC XC to some pretty serious trail riding depending on the build, this is a great option. For myself personally, I'm not XC Racing (or any other type of racing), and therefore want a bike that's most fun and capable on the downhill and prefer something a bit slacker and longer.

Allllll that being said, I do wish Yeti had done a full redesign instead of simply updating the linkage to create a bike that is between the SB100 and SB130 in Geo as well as travel. I also recognize the SB100 is only 2 years old and Yeti is going above and beyond to update it after just 2 years. I will also wager that when the SB100/SB115 is updated it will be longer and slacker.
  • 2 0
 @laksboy: I have a 4.5, 6 and 130LR. Selling/sold the older versions because the 130 does it all. You could run an inline shock if you want it to sit on the light XC side or a coil if you want to smash DH.
  • 4 0
 @clink83: nope sb130 dialed in homie.. Came of a 2016 fuel ex.. The seat angle difference is notable in every facet... Maybe you just dont know nothin about it..
  • 1 6
flag clink83 (Jul 1, 2020 at 16:03) (Below Threshold)
 @tgent: Lol you got mikedropped by @jaredgraves
Do you want to continue on on your expertise about XC bikes? lol.
  • 4 1
 @clink83: Lol he simply provided input that was great. Unlike you, we can have a good conversation and acknowledge the pluses and minuses of particular bikes.
  • 1 5
flag clink83 (Jul 1, 2020 at 17:10) (Below Threshold)
 @tgent:
"1) This Yeti SB115 is not a race bike. It's not designed for that and it's not marketed as that. Therefore we want geo that reflects this, like every other current bike in this category."
" Just wanted to mention 1 thing, the 115 is 100% built as a race bike, not so much for world cup XC more burly multi day XC stage racing, like the BC bike race, which was meant to be a big part of this bikes release."

My "old bike" is a 2018 Pivot mach 429sl. It's not old, and the stans pivot team did quite well on it on the stages races and epic ride series that Geoff Kabush also races his SB100 on, and developed the sb115 for. The newest version of the Pivot race bike has the same STA and HTA as the SB115 with a 120mm fork, and has won multiple domestic races and world cups.

The real problem is you just dont know much about XC bikes, or what works. If you watched the videos of Claudo struggling to keep up with Nino on his race bike you wouldn't be repeating the "XC bikes cant descend" trope. That wold championship winning bike has a 73.8 STA too.
  • 1 0
 @MikeJensen2145: I have a 12 year old who's gunning for my bike... I intentionally sized down when I bought the Hundo so I could pass it on to him sooner. Also a wife, who rides road bikes and the same size frame as me. One of these days she's going to come around and join the rest of the family on the dirt.
  • 3 0
 @clink83:

Are you serious?, it is laughable

Pivot..a wc winning bike?, hahahah

sb115.."not so much wc bike but one for multi-stage race racing"?, sb100 was no so much a race bike but one multi stage racing.

Get your grips and facts, you know absolutely nothing about bikes.

Ffs, ppl are running cape epic on HT and most of them are on 100mm fullys; fyi, those are race bikes, not 115mm bikes with 130mm forks and assegais.

I can bet you anything you want that a 76-77 sta will make you climb faster than a 73-74 one. Also longer reach, also longer wb, also slacker ha.

The difference btw us is the fact that I have raced(amateur local xc and xcm events) the same bike(spec) with 2 different frame iterations and, surprise-surprise, the longer(wb, reach), slacker(ha) and steeper(sta) was faster.

But even the modern one, light years away from the previous one(437 reach vs 414, etc-etc) had a feeling of a too small of a bike; and it was/is, because it has been launched 2 years ago and, in the meantime, things evolved rapidly. I have sold it this spring, as there were no races anyway, and now I am considering my options.
What I do know and I can tell you for sure is the fact my next "race bike", will have a reach of minimum 450 in size M(my size, that is), minimum 1150 for wb, 75-76 sta and below 68 for ha.

These are xco-xcm bikes or, racing mountain-bikes. They are not sprint bikes for the road. The elements I have mention before really di make a difference, not only in feel but, most importantly, on the clock. So, try to be less ignorant next time and open your mind, give up on your conservatorism and start to understand mtb-ing design.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: haha It wouldnt matter what bike Nino was on.... 90% of riders aint keeping up with him... Up or down.
  • 66 1
 "A bolt-on cover usually shields this part from the elements."
*shows picture of part covered in the elements*
  • 9 0
 My thought exactly. If that’s what it looks like when you remove the cover, there’s an issue
  • 49 0
 Come on Yeti! We don't want a reworked SB100. Give us a SB200 downhill bike!
  • 34 0
 Slap 2 SB100s together
  • 7 0
 @rmclarke: Gotta make sure it's one on top of another and not side by side so you get the correct additive effect.
  • 2 0
 @kinematix: I figured I better combine them front to back. The wheelbase at 2400mm is getting a little long, but how often are you really turning.
  • 42 4
 A lot of these comments are totally ridiculous. Not all bikes need to out-slack the last bike, or outreach the last bike. If that happened yearly where will bikes be by 2025? This bike looks fun and snappy.
  • 21 0
 Where will bikes be in 2025? The answer is Grim....
  • 7 4
 I don't think these comments are ridiculous
if you come out with a XC bike with more travel, why not have longer reach and steeper STA?

but I do think, that you can ride a bike for 3+ years and still be happy
very happy indeed - with the right mindset
  • 11 5
 I've been conducting an experiment actually. I look at the profiles of the people complaining about the STA and HA. Usually they're fairly new members/riders. They've come into the industry believing things MUST change EVERY model year. Oh well if they sell their bikes every year it supports the industry and I can pick them up cheap on the used market! lol
  • 9 0
 Remember how bikes like the Ibis Mojo use to get rave reviews due to how fun and snappy they were? Having bmx-esque flickability use to be a positive!
  • 2 0
 @jordan47: exactly! We need to see the Grim before another new bike is reviewed!
  • 1 9
flag clink83 (Jun 30, 2020 at 11:05) (Below Threshold)
 @vhdh666: because a steep sta on a 115mm bike is like lipstick on a pig
  • 3 0
 @clink83: I don’t think so but I like your analogy
  • 2 2
 Clearly you haven't ridden a bike with "new" geometry. They're using it for a reason.
  • 2 4
 @tgent: clearly you aren't an XC racer who rides bikes that actually climb well.
  • 1 0
 @jordan47: but only if you eat donuts religiously.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: dude, chill.
  • 1 0
 @Ironmonsoon602: You havent been here long enough to see all the XC articles turn into shitshows. At least the pinkbike reviewers have stopped saying that enduro bikes climb like XC bikes.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: I stand by my original statement
  • 30 3
 As someone who has been on this bike for a while and involved in the last couple months of the process leading up to the launch I'm here to try and clear a few things up.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a lot of these comments scream out that many of you have missed the point of what this bike is about. I also feel like some key points were missed in this article.

First off, This bike is intended as a race bike primarily. and more specifically , for burly XC stage racing like the BC bike race, which both Geoff Kabush and myself were both meant to be competing in right now (before Covid changed that) which was going to be a big part of this bikes release originally.
As far as XC race bikes go, this thing undoubtedly on the modern/aggressive end of the spectrum. And if you think it isn't then check the Geo of Nino Schurters bike. I dare you to tell him his bikes outdated

I think what is confusing some people comes down to the spec of the bike. It's spec does shine it in a light more in the direction of a do it all everyday trail bike, which it is, but it can be built for pure XC race needs or general trail riding purely by changing some key parts. No parts spec is ever going to be to everbodys liking. Thats why frame only options exist, so you can buy the frame and build it up to suit you.

We are doing a feature next week, with Kabush and myself based around the versatility of this frame and how it can be built to suit different wants and needs. So some of you might be very interested to check that out when it hits. TO not give away too much, its fairly straight forward to turn it into a super fun capable descent shredder, or an xc all around weapon. It might not be the lightest frame, because it built burly and strong. I can also say, that on my personal XC build I have it at 10.9 kg complete with 34 Step cast fork, XTR trail 4 pot brakes, and no silly crazy light parts, you could definitely get it down to 10.5kg or under if you went all out with the build.

To the people who mentioned that every bike shouldn't have to be longer/slacker HA and more aggressive than previous models - THANK YOU! You guys get it. Were at a point now where we've reached the sweet spot, from ths point what we are going to see more of is refinement. minor tweaks here and therewith geo, optimizing kinematics, strength to weight ratios improving. Poeple need to get past the mindset of different always equals better, it simply doesnt.

The guys at Yeti are all extremely passionate abut what they do, a lot of trial and error/testing and thought goes into every new model. their fingers are on the pulse so to speak. The big mistake would be to keep going with longer slacker constantly, and going too far, which as some others here mentioned, brings the bike to the point where it goes past its intended purpose and into a different category.

If this bikes geo isnt aggressive enough for you, then it's not the bike for you anyway, you'll be far happier with the SB130, once again, its main intended purpose is an aggressive XC type race bike.

to answer a few questions to some comments here.
- someone mentioned why you wouldnt spec it with a 140 fork, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from putting a 140mm fork on this bike if thats what you want to do.

- Yes Yeti recognized the SB 100 had some stifness issue in the back end which was a big reason for the redesign and chnages to this frame, with a lsight tweak and travel and kinematic update to go with it, it pedals just as well as the 100 but now has a bit more out the back to help on the descents.

- the dirt under the cover, c'mon seriously, dust gets into everything! do a summer full of riding in dust then take your cranks out and see the dust thats somehow found its way into your BB shell. The cover is only there to keep mud from accumulating, and even then it isnt really necessary, part of the reason is because people asked for it, if it makes you feel better that a 27g (yes ive weighed it) piece of plastic is there to put your mind at ease that theres some protection there for the switch, then its worth it, its there because people wanted it and Yeti listen!


I Could go on with more but I'll leave it at that for now, but I'll check back in to give more answers if you have any questions, or ask one of the engineers if I don't know the answer.

Nobody is forcing you to buy this, if you want to then that's awesome, you'll love it! If another bike tickles your fancy more then go for that. Just go easy on the strong opinions if you haven't ridden one.
  • 8 1
 Mike drop! Thanks JG.
  • 4 1
 Heck yea! Well said.
  • 5 18
flag Robertoregency (Jun 30, 2020 at 19:28) (Below Threshold)
 I appreciate you jumping in to defend the guys that sign your checks... so the mud cover is a placebo mud cover, got it!
  • 14 2
 @Robertoregency: After everything I wrote and this is what you focus on??? and even then you twist words and completely misunderstand what I've said. cool.

I'm Simply making an effort to clear up some points that people might like to get a better understanding about. Since there's a lot of people throwing out opinions based on what they see on paper and no real world knowledge of how the bike actually rides.
  • 4 2
 @Robertoregency: a little respect
  • 5 1
 @jaredgraves

Good to see your reply here and interesting to read also. Bummer about the BC Bike Race. That would’ve been good to watch.

The only thing I was actually surprised about is the HA. I’ve been riding a bunch of different bikes lately and personally I found the sweet spot at 66-66.5 degrees. So, okay, that’s personal.. But I have a feeling that a lot of people share this with me when looking at these new, so called down country bikes.
But then, your explanation about the aggressive XC riding and what this bike is actually intended for really clears things up about the HA, but I’m looking also from the marketing side of things. I might be too “trailbike” minded and I can’t look inside Yeti’s marketing department etc, but what if they had slackened it a bit to go with the current marketing / down country trend..?
On the other hand, Revel did the same thing with their Ranger so there must be a market for it... It’s interesting to see.

Mounting a 140mm fork could be an option too. I ride a Santa Cruz Chameleon which, in the charts on their website, should be run with a 120mm fork with 29 inch wheels. I mounted a 140mm and have to say that it’s pretty much perfect. And that’s also a 67+ degree HA bike.....
  • 4 13
flag Robertoregency (Jul 1, 2020 at 4:52) (Below Threshold)
 @jaredgraves: slow race season I get it, calm down turbo!
Hard to take your opinion objectively when you are paid by the brand to ride their bike.
  • 4 8
flag Robertoregency (Jul 1, 2020 at 4:54) (Below Threshold)
 @twozerosix: hahahahahaha!
  • 4 1
 @jaredgraves: I had Synopsis playing in the background while wrenching on my bike last night. So waking up to see you active in the comments is rad!
I love that you broke it down into so many great points but at the same time I feel bad. I feel bad you spent all that time only for some lip skidder to focus on the wrong thing.
  • 10 0
 @Robertoregency I get that, Yes im paid by them, but If somebody cant accept some honest comments to clarify some things about this bike that people are misunderstanding, from someone who has real world time spent riding this bike, then who would you like to hear it from?

Im not here to try and tell anyone they are wrong, or convince anyone to buy it, everyone can have their opinion. Just some friendly first hand accurate information that some people will appreciate.
  • 2 0
 @jaredgraves: All great points! Just curious, you said "Yes Yeti recognized the SB 100 had some stifness issue in the back end which was a big reason for the redesign and chnages to this frame, with a lsight tweak and travel and kinematic update to go with it..." Do you mean that Yeti changed the carbon layup to make it stiffer? Unless a lot of that flex was coming from the linkage, seems like they would have to do that to make any meaningful increase in stiffness. I'm curious what changes were actually made as the article suggests it's just a new linkage.
  • 4 0
 @tgent: thanks for the question, I just got off the phone with Yetis product manager to try and answer this. There are no changes to the front and rear tri, the revisions were made to the swtich infinity itself, where now it is threded allowing it to be directly bolted to the frame, where as the 100 had bolts that went through the link and clamped the switch to the front tri. It is just more secure this way. As well as the link and hardware being revised, and the rear shock being tuned to suit all the changes.
  • 3 0
 @jaredgraves: Hey man awesome input again, good to know!
  • 1 2
 @jaredgraves: I appreciate you responding and spending the time to give first hand experience. It is what makes pink bike comments something special. Since you have access to the full yeti fleet what would you ride if you had to choose just one bike for personal riding 27.5 or 29??
  • 27 0
 Forbidden: hey...look...we'll sell you this link for, say...$150.
Transition: hey...look...Cascade will sell you a link for, say...$300.
Yeti: how about, say, $9800...but you get the frame and components with it!
  • 28 10
 So..sb115 is a sb100 with different rocker and the same relative old geometry. Why they have bothered?, when the geometry is not in the industry trends, especially at this price point, sales take a hit. It is that easy. You cannot milk it by changing the rocker. Look at orbea rallon. No one buys it for a year now but, they still did not change it, the new Oiz and the new Rallon being scheduled for next year. #missopportunity #losingsales #losingclients #etc
  • 19 1
 Not saying that SB115 is the "correct" way to go but I find it kind of refreshing not going with a trend
Which by the way always leads to bike models leaving the initial targeted usage finally ending up creating new bike categories (for marketing purposes).

Not to mention that the majority of customers does not care about numbers nor do they buy a new bike every 1-2 years. Also not every bike needs to get longer and slacker. I suppose the Stumpjumper, for example, was that successful because many people immediately liked how it felt. It was never really progressive nor was it the most efficient bike - its just a nice ride.

But that's just my personal opinion. Marketing guys will probably have a very different point of view.

I guess we'll have to wait for the field test.
  • 8 15
flag eugenux (Jun 30, 2020 at 3:59) (Below Threshold)
 @chri:
I'm in the category that buys new bike/bikes every year.

I could also tell you how supportive a 77 sta feels vs a 74 one. Tried and tested, not read it from a geo chart. The same goes for reach.

The only reason I buy new bike/bikes every year is becsuse, if you take/wait more than 2-3 years to buy a new one, the old one would value little to nothing, as the geo would be obsolete, especially these days.
  • 14 2
 @eugenux:
No offence but I would't give to much about those figures.
First there is no industry norm on how to measure the (effective) STA for a defined rider (e.g. seat height depends on the inside leg which influences the effective STA, rider weight / Sag as well).
Second the STA needs to be seen in relation to reach. To still feel "centered" on a bike with long reach requires steeper STA. Visa versa if you don't have as much reach you can go with slacker STA.

Now how much reach someone wants is pretty much personal preference these days - there are hardly any bikes where you can argue that the reach is way to short (in its category).

But again I doubt that the majority of customers will rule out a bike just because of geometry figures.
  • 2 1
 @eugenux: I agree with you 100%.
  • 9 1
 @eugenux: "the geo would be obsolete"???

We aren't talking about a clunker from the 90's. The human body hasn't changed and geo's have been pretty been in the same ballpark for the last few years. It's not like I try to throw my leg over a Stumpy from 2015 and my body says "sorry we aren't compatible with this model"
  • 10 0
 @eugenux: I love buying your “obsolete” bikes for a fraction of the cost. Keep it up
  • 5 0
 Missed opportunity, questionable. Loosing clients, wtf? Do you think this drives away clients? The SB100 or SB130 are two awesome bikes that people are very much buying. Not sure if you think a full overhaul is required every two years or if you buy a new bike every year but it sounds like you have misconstrued what the current industry trends are.
  • 2 0
 @eugenux go look at the buy and sell and then tell me a 2 to 3 year old bike is worth little to nothing lol. I sold an 06 glory in 2012 and still got 1300 for it.
  • 1 0
 @chri: How is this not going with a trend? I mean, there's nothing more trendy right now than these sorts of short travel trail bikes, so much so that what was supposed to be a gentle put-down ('downcountry') has become a category name.
  • 2 0
 @chri: "But again I doubt that the majority of customers will rule out a bike just because of geometry figures."

Maybe, maybe not. But either way, geometry figures on paper can and do influence the perception of a bike. Pinkbike will say its geo is "out-dated", "conservative", "not progressive", when it was perfect two years ago, because it doesn't match the steepest seat tube and longest reach that they most recently tested. Doesn't seem to matter that crazy long reach isn't how everyone wants to ride, and seat tube is just all over the place with actual angles and adjustment of the seat rails. Then that model/design gets an online reputation as being behing the times, and although yes most of the loud people online aren't the only ones buying bikes, the perception of a bike/frame they create can be real. Just look at how many brand hashtags are in many Instagram posts.
  • 1 0
 @just6979: I somehow doubt that the majority of customers care too much about online reviews really. If they would there would be some really well selling bikes and quite some that hardly anyone would buy.

Don't get me wrong, yes I do find reviews helpful (to get a first impression). No I won't buy any bike without testing it.

But I also think that most people go to one or two shops next to them (if they don't have a favorite shop anyway), ask for advice and finally buy what ever has been recommended by the shop and felt ok for them.
  • 1 0
 @chri: I didn't say "reviews", I talked about "perception.

Sure, many people do go to the local shops and see what they have, but they also not even consider a shop if they don't see "Well-reviewed Brand A" on the sign, or they might avoid it because it has "Internet-says-its-shitty-and-out-of-date Brand B" on the sign. And you can't ignore direct sales, where online reviews _are_ "the shop"...

"If they would there would be some really well selling bikes and quite some that hardly anyone would buy." Umm, that's how it is... some bikes _do_ sell really well, and others don't...
  • 22 5
 The new transition looks way better. Looks like yeti tried to fit a square peg in a round hole. Seat tube not steep enough head tube too steep. 450 reach on a large?!! 470 should be standard. Yeti, take notice.
  • 19 3
 Man some of you guys put WAY too much stock in these numbers.
  • 4 0
 @skierdud89: I think the more extensive of a bmx background you have the less you care about these micro changes in geometry.
  • 3 0
 It's a long travel XC bike with fairy conventional numbers. Compare it to the spark 120.
  • 2 1
 @nyhc00: Disagree. In the BMX world riders get real nerdy with top tube length, stem and bar dimensions probably more so than the MTB world used to be.
  • 3 0
 @skierdud89: I should have clarified myself. Bmx riders who get it into mtb’ing don’t seem to get as caught up in the numbers game.
  • 15 0
 Rear wheel travel is measured by the vertical displacement of the wheel, whereas fork travel is measured along the axle path of the front wheel. Hence the vertical component is the fork travel will actually be shorter. For this reason, pairing a 115mm rear travel with a longer fork is entirely logical. No eye-rolling required.
  • 1 0
 *of the fork travel
  • 1 0
 vertical? Are you totally sure everyone is measuring theirs in a straight line and not the curved axle path, which would be longer compared to vertical?
  • 13 0
 I think I'm gonna go with the Ranger
  • 16 5
 Meh - Geo is still out dated and about the same as a 2015 santa cruz or intense
  • 16 2
 I still ride two 2015 bikes. geo seems spot on
  • 3 1
 Yeah, I just checked, the geo on this is almost exactly the same as my V2 5010 from 2016
  • 1 0
 "Out-dated" to you might be "fits great" for someone else. The chainstays aren't stupid short, so that helps with the "old" seat tube angle. Head tube angle maybe could be considered out of date since we're learning that slack does not actually mean "turns slow", but some people might be scared of too slack, while the riders who "need" it more slack would probably be better off on another bike.
  • 7 0
 Quite a few short travel 29er bikes out recently Yeti Sb115, Revel Ranger 115, Specialized Evo 110, Transition Spur 120, and maybe some more to come. I would be interested how they would stack against each other.

I have an Sb100 and like it the way it is but just for kicks I was considering changing out the shock, updated switch infinity link and upper swing link which is possible.

Info I got directly from Yeti:

"...At this time we aren't selling all of the parts to make the swap, though they will eventually all be available separately in a few months. It will require a new upper link, 30mm bearing hardware, new shock, as well as a new switch infinity; cost for this can start to reach well over $1000, and that's not including a new 130mm fork that would be needed to preserve the balance in geometry with 115mm travel in the rear..."

Nice Post Mr. Jared Graves - very well said.
  • 1 0
 Sad Face.... Maybe adding a 130 to the quiver is the better option then.
  • 6 0
 Not my type of bike (gonna wait for the new SB140) but if I was gonna ride less harsh terrain I would be a great option.

Would be even nicer if, given the seat tube is pretty straight, there would be an option to use 8pins dropper posts.
@Yeti: please produce some prototypes and sell them Wink
  • 2 1
 You do realize the SB100 came our way before the SB140 - pretty sure you’ll be waiting a good while before 140 is changed at all
  • 1 0
 8Pins is so good while it works! I wish it was standard on more (all) bikes!
  • 6 0
 If the front and rear triangles are the same - then a new shock and link would convert an SB100 to SB115? Other than the fork increasing, trying to understand the differences (beefier tires and 780 bars as well - but trying to focus on the frame).

"The new SB115 is cut from the same cloth as the SB100 (literally – the two models share the same front triangle and swingarm)."
  • 9 0
 Back 2 The Future - 2015 geometry today
  • 5 0
 Same exact frame as a SB100? So all I would need is the new link, fork, and shock. I believe the SB100's shock is a 190x45 reduced to 37.5. Spacer removal is easy. This is great news for folks that wanna refresh their SB100s, like myself.

Kudos to Yeti for keeping the great frame and (hopefully) allowing SB100 owners to buy the long link in the not too distant future.
  • 4 1
 Actually its a 190 x 40 with a 2.5mm spacer. So a new shock is needed.
  • 3 0
 I had a friend remove the spacer for an "SB106.7". I asked Yeti about doing the same, but they said "The tire can contact the seat tube under full compression which can damage the frame and the carrier for the Switch can move to far along the rails which can damage the seals."
  • 2 1
 @laksboy:

Ah I see. The new linkage probably prevents the tire from contacting the frame.

But as far as the shock is concerned, the eye to eye length in both shocks are still 190mm. I figured that shocks with the same eye to eye length were the same shock, with the lesser stroke having more spacers inserted. I suppose getting official word from Yeti would be best instead of speculating.

Nevertheless, LR-ing the SB100 with a few parts that would probably cost $1500 or so is still much cheaper than buying a new frame.
  • 6 1
 Descriptive alphanumeric bike model designations...they just seem to lack a soul without a real name. I mean, wouldn’t it be weird to meet a trail dog named STD4L (Super Trail Dog 4 Legs)? =P
  • 4 1
 I remember Acura’s / Honda’s mistake when they went from Integra to RSX (and TSX, RL, TL, MDX, RDX, ILX, RLX, ZDX, TLX, NSX). Can’t keep track...just letters (and sometimes numbers) with no real name.
  • 6 0
 I love it. No guessing involved. The name implies the intended application.
  • 2 0
 @big-red: I think Levy agrees with you too
  • 1 0
 @big-red: Sweet Bike 115
  • 2 0
 Descriptive alphanumerical user name designations.... checks out
  • 1 0
 @big-red: Naw, not when their XC, AM, and Enduro bikes are all SB “Super Bikes” which is more hype than descriptive. The only part that helps understand what the bike is the “115” for travel. Plus, when using a generic SB + travel destination, any branding related to the model is lost when the travel changes — unlike a model name like “Bronson” which is not lost when they up the travel. I quite like the approach of a branded model name plus version number — quite useful for consumers and spare parts and resale.

But that’s coming from me — a business-oriented materials / structures engineer who also helps executive management with general marketing and technical marketing (including brands like McLaren...helping with their Monocell branding after developing the chassis and carbon fiber engineering / production for 5 years, and chastising them for the MP4-12C name, which they fortunately got rid of). I work with Bugatti and Bentley too. Love Veyron, Chiron, Mulsanne, and Continental names — much classier than McLaren’s original performance-derived “MP4-12C” model name (MP4 for McLaren Projects 4; 12 for Vehicle Performance Index 12; C for Carbon). Dry and boring. Obviously named by an engineer.
  • 1 0
 @brappuccino: Haha! ‘Zactly! I don’t want people to know who I really am...my true identity...it’s all lost in a mess of letters that most people assume is for World Rally Championship, when it isn’t. Intentional vague ambiguity with a slight hint of what I might be about. Great for social media ambiguity. Bad for product branding =P
  • 2 0
 @WRCDH: what you are saying makes sense, however it would make less sense for Yeti to start using more .... evocative ... naming conventions, when for the majority of the brand’s lifespan the numbers/letters have sufficed to delineate models and provide meaning to customers. 303RDH, ASR, ARC, so forth...10+ year old names that have significance.
  • 1 0
 @twozerosix: Yeah, with their heritage, they have heaps of naming / branding options. Who wouldn’t want to ride a “Yeti Durango”?! Heck, even a “Yeti Durango 115” if they wanted to include the travel. ARC is a definite good option — maybe ARC for their XC or AM line, replacing “Alloy Racing Composite” with “All-Mountain Racing Composite” or All-day Riding Composite or “Aerospace Rated Composite.” They should hotbox the Yeti HQ conference room and have a brainstorming sesh. Maybe invite John Parker and Frank The Weldwe back, along with some old team members. Myles would be down, I bet!
  • 4 0
 Sounds like a surreptitious fix for the flexy pivot of the SB100. Owners of the SB100 can update their bikes simply by changing the switch infinity sliders. If they want more travel, then they can get linkage and new shock. Pretty smart way to fix the problem.
  • 9 0
 SB 4.5 Metric Edition
  • 4 0
 Calling geometry from 2018 "obsolete" seems hyperbolic. Is it really so functionally useless as to make unrideable? This is the benefit of so many years riding 71/73...everything is "longer, lower, slacker." I say bring on the insanely capable "short travel" bikes.
  • 9 1
 Nice, but needs a fox38.
  • 13 6
 Yetis are cool but I’ve heard they break...
  • 1 0
 <Dentist joke>

Although I would like to see whether it's really that much better than say an Anthem 29.
  • 9 0
 My “old” SB5.5 is still going strong.
  • 6 0
 @Chadimac22: My "ancient" 2013 SB66c as well!
  • 5 0
 ...eye roll has become my reaction to these yeti bikes. Very good marketing team!
  • 4 0
 ooh. very nice. i have an overbuilt SB100 and enjoy it very much. The SB115 seems nice, but not sure if i'll notice any difference.
  • 4 2
 SB115 vs SB100 vs SB130 geometry...
geometrygeeks.bike/compare/yeti-sb115-2021-lg,yeti-sb100-2019-lg,yeti-sb130-2019-lg
…so SB115 is VERY similar to the SB100, really not any more "progressive". I still want one!
  • 2 0
 That's because it's the same front triangle as the SB100
  • 5 0
 First thing I thought when I saw the title was "I'm buying that". Pity it turned out to not be an entirely new model.

I'll hold out for the release of a proper new SB115. Something along the lines of 66°, 76°, 470mm reach in large. And a heavier duty frame.
  • 6 2
 @DirkMcClerkin: it honestly sounds like you might just want an sb130. Geometry is much more progressive and the bike pedals like a bike with 20mm less travel.
  • 5 0
 @big-red: Of course I do, what kinda fool says they wouldn't take an SB130. It's like saying no to parfaits.

But I just sold off a 65° HA long fork bike and am currently on a 66° HA shorter fork bike, the inherent difference in mid-range support and a pumping speed is vast. Jibby bikes are addicting.
  • 3 0
 "The new SB115 is cut from the same cloth as the SB115 (literally – the two models share the same front triangle and swingarm)"

And name, apparently.
  • 8 7
 Switch infinity link that moves less then a cm.... to everyone who can read between the lines, you can imagine a single pivot with articulated rear shock would feel nearly the same. But you need to get that niche yeti / fox branding action or your not gonna sell.
  • 3 3
 I'm with you on that. All that harware and complicated suspension / desing ... can be done much simpler IMO
  • 3 1
 @BrutalSyl: word
simpler
cheaper
less maintenance
  • 5 0
 @vhdh666: Less maintenance than squirting grease into a hole once a year? SI link is pretty simple to maintain.
  • 2 0
 So with all the hate, or more so disappointment, if you were a SB100 owner, who really liked the bike for the nearly the last two years. But were ready to replace it, would you get a new SB100 or the SB115?
  • 2 0
 I'd buy the link after market and upgrade my SB100. Which is what I hope to do.
  • 4 0
 So they are basically making the SB4.5 again? The numbers are pretty close.
  • 5 0
 This might be the most snooze worthy bike release ever
  • 1 0
 So I know that under-the-BB routing is not the end of the world, but they literally put armor _all around_ the cable and hose where they exit the down tube.

So which is it? Are the cable/hose in no danger of ever being hit and the armor is excessive? Or is the armor needed and the cable/hose is just left to fend for itself?

Is that carbon more fragile than a brake hose? That's not an insignificant piece of rubber protecting the carbon... implying that carbon is weak AF compared to a hose.
  • 1 0
 Would love to hear from a designer on the decision to have matched front/rear travel vs longer front travel. 130/115 on this vs, for example 120/120 on the Transition Spur.

I've had both (150/125, 160/140,160/160, 150/150, 150/145), and I think I like equal or almost equal slightly better (though this may be due to a more off-the-back riding style that tends to use lots/most of the rear travel but rarely bottoms out the fork). On the unequal bikes I almost always get the o-ring to the bottom of the shock even if the fork still has 10% left, where on equal travel both front and rear usually had the same travel used (whether 10% or 0% left)
  • 1 0
 I have a 100 and a 130. I ride my sb100 the majority of the time. It climbs fast and goes down fine too.

I’ve taken it thru a ton of gnarly terrain and it works fine. I’ve bottomed it out but it still works. And it sub 24lbs. I’ll stick with the 100.
  • 1 0
 Too burly and heavy to do actual XCO racing, probably not burly enough for hard-charging trail riding. The SB100 at least had potential as a race bike, but I genuinely don't see a reason why you'd buy this when the SB100 and SB130 already exist.
  • 1 0
 marathon and stage racing. The SB100 is too heavy to be a legit XCO bike in the first place.
  • 4 0
 Bringing back Dual Slalom....
  • 4 0
 Unlucky timing for yeti as the transition looks a better bet on paper
  • 5 1
 Seems like a bigger flop than the 52 cog.
  • 4 0
 Was excited by title, let down by specs in the article.
  • 2 0
 Except that I can finally convert my Hundo to what I always wanted it to be.
  • 2 0
 Glad they brought the 4.5 back but man, this was a lazy attempt. Should have given it a more modern geo like the Ripley and allowed for a 36 140mm fork.
  • 3 0
 Why Xc seems downsized? XL equals to L.
  • 2 0
 I'm holding out for the Transition. If it doesn't fit the bill, then Ranger.
  • 3 0
 The Ranger looks like an awesome bike. First xc-ish bike I would like in 2 years.
  • 3 0
 Yeti Bikes are becoming a matryoshka,,,
  • 1 0
 sS an SB4.5 with a SI orientation that is proven to be problematic? Also spec'd with a shorter travel fork? oh, but water bottle!
  • 2 0
 $3400. All that needs to be said. I ride an Ibis so I'm not being sensitive.
  • 2 0
 It's all just a bit underwhelming... it's going to look and seem very dated very quickly
  • 3 1
 Minion DH tyre with 34mm stanchion fork?.... sounds a bit confused to me. the part-time transvestite of the biking world.
  • 1 0
 I run an Assegai on the front of my Hundo and full cushcore.... DownCountry AF. This is what I always wanted an SB4.5 but with a waterbottle. Hopefully I can buy the link
  • 3 0
 Is the link going to be sold individually?
  • 2 0
 I hope so!
  • 3 1
 A XC / trail bike with 2.5” Maxxis Minion DHF / 2.3” Maxxis Aggressor tire combo. Are you sure ?
  • 2 0
 Exactly what I’m running on my sb100 and it’s phenomenal!
  • 1 0
 @fredro: try an assegai up front and a 2.3 DHF or DHR in the rear. and cushcore. Even more phenomenal. I sure hope they sell the link aftermarket ASAP. Because I want one.
  • 1 0
 @laksboy: I'm running an Assegai/Aggressor on my Nomad. Great combo!
  • 1 0
 Now with a 28.25 inch wheel option & 30.5 inch wheel option.
Giving you ultimate pleasure while we steal your moonie.....your fooken moonie ..... ha ha ha ha haaaaa
  • 1 0
 Too many hairsplitting bikes offered these days. Not sure why they couldn't just call it the SB100 Lunch Ride like their beefed up SB130.
  • 2 1
 Is that bottom picture the new Crest white colorway? I’m more a fan of the traditional Yeti Listerine color
  • 2 0
 Today is downcountry bike released day. SB115 and Transition Spur.
  • 2 0
 just here for the comments!
  • 2 0
 Yeti got their lunch(ride) stolen by Transition!
  • 3 0
 Transition > Yeti
  • 1 0
 When I had a Yeti 4.5 I kept thinking "If only there were 0.7 more mm of travel"
  • 1 0
 I was expecting a sb120 with more porgressive geo. I"ll wait for a new pivot trail 429 then
  • 1 0
 2 years ago my 120mm 29er was classed as old fashioned now it's the new cool!!! Short memories eh lol
  • 2 0
 Cavity fillings, new dentures, and insurance billing just increased
  • 1 3
 Nuff said, XC bike, can't change that fact even if you stretch the reach, that is too steep for any use other than mellow, fellow. I got me a GG Pistola, way better all mountain geometry, less expensive, and built to take the hits. Me thnks dentist XC bike. Love the color, not really.
  • 1 3
 Get the 165. Why f**k around? Or go spesh/cannondale for the lightweight. Why go 100 when a 130 exists? Why go 100 when an ultralight hardtail exist? 10 grand for a substandard road bike with knobs? Guess it takes all kinds...
  • 3 3
 Another 29er. I was hoping a shorter travel 27.5” wheel bike was in the pipeline, maybe SB120. Disappointed.
  • 2 2
 All I can do is window shop a Yeti....lovely bikes....premium prices. I'll stick with steel for now.
  • 6 10
flag fullendurbro (Jun 30, 2020 at 8:09) (Below Threshold)
 Genuine curiousity: what makes you think Yetis are lovely? IMO they're the biggest pieces of shit on the market.
  • 1 0
 Yawn... Nothing new and same length cs. Ridiculous in this day and age.
  • 1 0
 Long times no white yeti.
  • 1 0
 Rad bike, but they should’ve given it a 66 deg HA.....
  • 2 0
 That’s what the 130 is for...
  • 1 0
 Whats the warranty like? Not that youd need it? ????
  • 6 3
 Same shit warranty. They'll try to convince you that a random crack was an "impact" and force you to pay for a replacement frame.
  • 1 0
 Alright well that's a bust. A white sb130 frame would be nice though.
  • 1 0
 Bring back your DH frame!
  • 2 0
 Blegh
  • 1 0
 This is cool, but seems extremely pointless
  • 2 0
 yawn...
  • 1 0
 That white looks incredible!
  • 1 0
 Nice, a SB4.5 with a steeper seat tube angle...
  • 1 0
 and a water bottle and shorter seatube.
  • 1 0
 Yeti isn’t even trying at this point....
  • 1 0
 thank you for the ISCG Mount
  • 2 0
 Beautiful bike.
  • 1 0
 Boooooorrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiinnnnnnggggggg!!!!!!
  • 4 4
 Nah, rather have my lunch than ride those numbers
  • 1 0
 Following.
  • 9 10
 Down country stuck ? Mainly because you kept ramming it down out throats .
  • 14 2
 Yeah, I keep reading the stories of people getting kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to buy bikes.
  • 4 0
 They said it stuck, therefore it must be true. Right?
  • 2 0
 It's not an XC bike. Downcountry? Trail lite? Call it whatever you want, just not XC.
  • 3 0
 @DrPete: I swear honey, they put a gun to my head and forced me to order it! They don't take returns... I might as well ride it to make the best out of this unfortunate situation.
  • 2 0
 @DrPete: believe their hype sucker
  • 2 1
 @chriskneeland: you can’t tell me what to do.

It is an XC bike.
  • 1 0
 @pigman65: I don’t own one and I’m not going to. It’s just dumb to say the industry is forcing anyone to buy bikes.
  • 2 1
 @DrPete: I SAID THEY WERE FORCING THAT f*ckING MONIKER DOWN OUR THROATS, WHERE DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BUYING BIKES ? FFS READ FIRST,SPEAK AFTER
  • 2 0
 @pigman65: and how is that? I would have to imagine that the same people forcing you to buy bikes are also forcing you to say Downcountry.
  • 7 8
 Sadly I'm not a dentist, so I'll rather buy Trance 29.
  • 3 0
 Not sure why the downvotes on this. My Trance Advanced Pro 1 cost as much complete as a typical Yeti frame, weights 29 lbs with pedals, and is crazy-capable (maybe not "plush", but certainly willing if the rider is). I see the bikes as very similar. No brand cachet with Giant, though, I suppose.
  • 4 0
 @toooldtodieyoung: That's exactly it, the brand cachet. I love my Trance 29 and it's definitely a great deal for what you get, but it's not a boutique name Yeti/Ibis/Pivot/etc.
  • 2 0
 @Edvurd: The trance really is a killer bike, I dunno why it doesnt get more love.
  • 1 0
 @clink83: Yep it's been great, especially for the price. Would I love to have a Yeti or something for $5k+? Of course. I think it just doesn't get much love because it's "just a Giant."
  • 1 0
 I've ridden the Trance 29 Advanced Pro 2 and it was probably the most lively bike I've ever tried - super jibby, agile and lightweight feeling. It's also pretty good value for money considering that it comes with a set of carbon wheels as standard.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.032248
Mobile Version of Website