Powered by Outside

Review: Yeti SB140 - Little Wheels & Lots of Fun

May 4, 2020
by Sarah Moore  

With their new SB140 bike, Yeti banked on the fact that there are still plenty of people out there who don't want to ride a 29er but still want a new bike with modern geometry. Catering to those diehard 27.5" fans, the Yeti SB140 has 140mm of rear travel, coupled with a 160mm fork up front.

Along with the SB130 and SB165, the new SB140 is part of what Yeti calls the Rip category – bikes best suited to having fun and exploring outside the race tape. Bigger wheels have proven themselves on the race course, but since racing isn't for everyone, it makes sense that not all bikes should be designed purely around flat out speed. That being said, the SB140 is no slouch when it comes to going fast (more on that later).
Yeti SB140 T2 Details

• Wheel size: 27.5"
• Travel: 140mm / 160mm fork
• Carbon frame
• 65° headtube angle
• 433mm chainstays
• Weight: 29.05 lbs
• Price: $7,399 USD
• Colours: Inferno, Grey, Turquoise
• Lifetime frame warranty

There are three complete models of the SB140 available in Yeti's highest quality 'Turq' carbon fiber, with prices ranging from $6,899 up to $8,299 USD. All of the Turq bikes come with the same suspension, a Fox Factory Grip 2 36 fork and a Fox Factory DPX2 rear shock, and DT Swiss M1700 wheels. The drivetrain and brakes are the only things that change as the price goes up. All three models can be upgraded with DT Swiss XMC 1200 wheels and there's also a SRAM AXS upgrade option on the T2 and T3 models.

Yeti SB140
Yeti SB140
All of the Turq bikes come with the same suspension and wheels.

Yeti SB140
Yeti SB140
Drivetrain and brakes change on the Turq models as the price goes up.

Yeti also offers two models of the SB140 in their C series, which use a 220 gram heavier frame that's said to deliver the same strength and stiffness as the higher-end carbon. The C series bikes are both equipped with a Fox Performance 36 fork and a Fox Performance DPX2 rear shock. The difference between the two models, which are priced at $5,399 and $5,999, comes from the upgraded wheels, brakes, crank and derailleur on the C2. Both C series models can be upgraded with SRAM AXS and/or DT Swiss XMC 1200 wheels.

Partial to the bike's geometry but would rather pick and choose your own components? Your build will start at $3,499 with the SB140 Turq frame and Fox Factory DPX2 rear shock.

bigquotesThe Yeti SB140 is light and poppy, but still super stable at speed. It's most in its element on trails with wide-open sight lines where you can let the brakes off and get playful on well-sculpted berms and jumps.Sarah Moore

Yeti SB140
All SB140 frames have a lifetime warranty against manufacturing defects for the original purchaser.

Don't think orange really is the new black? You can also get the SB140 in this smoke colour.
Or in the traditional Yeti turquoise.

Construction and Features

The SB140 frame looks very similar to the 29" wheeled SB130, and other than the shock position, closely resembles the SB150 and SB165 as well. All bikes have identical frame protectors on the seat stay, chainstay and down tube, and have enough room in the front triangle for a water bottle. In fact, you can even squeeze a large water bottle in the frame on a size medium I rode despite the piggyback shock.

The seat tube heights are low enough that the size medium I'm riding can accommodate a Fox Transfer post with 150mm of drop, the size L and XL frames come with a 175mm post, and there's 125mm of drop on the small and extra-small sizes.

While the SB140 does away with the front derailleur mount and is a 1x drive specific frame, there are ISCG 05 chain guide mounts in case you want to go for some extra drivetrain security.

As you would imagine, the SB140 features internal routing for all cables. The molded sleeves in the frame help make the bike quiet and clean looking and reduce cable rub on the paint.

As of 2019, all Yeti frames, including the Switch Infinity, are covered for life against damage due to manufacturing defects for the original purchaser. Paint and finish are covered for one year.

Yeti SB140
The SB140 is designed to run its 140mm of rear travel with a 160mm travel fork.
Yeti SB140
Yeti and development partner Fox recommend lubing the Switch Infinity suspension every 40 hours of riding.

Yeti SB140
The Yeti SB140 comes with a 2.6" tire and that's the maximum width the brand recommends riding.


The SB140's reach numbers are nearly identical to those of the SB130, 150 and 165, ranging from 430mm on a size small all the way up to 505mm on an XL. The medium that I've been on for the past several months has a 460mm reach. All five models in the Yeti lineup come in small through XL, but the SB140 is the only model that has an additional XS size, with a 405mm reach.

To balance out those long reach numbers and make the climbing position more efficient and comfortable, the SB140 has a 77-degree seat tube angle. That is coupled with a 65-degree headtube angle, half a degree slacker than the SB130.

Compared to the SB5 which was last updated in 2016, this is an entirely different bike. For starters, it has 10mm more travel front and rear. In addition, the headtube on the SB140 is a degree and a half slacker than the SB5 was, the seat tube is 3.4 degrees steeper, and it has a 37mm offset fork instead of a 44mm offset fork. On the size medium, the reach has grown by 37mm and the wheelbase is 40mm longer.


Yeti SB140
You'll find the Kashima-coated suspension on all of the carbon models of the SB140.

Suspension Design

Like all of Yeti's other bikes, the SB140 uses the Switch Infinity suspension design. This has a translating pivot that switches directions as the bike moves through its travel – moving upwards in the beginning of the travel, and then downwards deeper in the travel. That change in position is intended to give the bike enough anti-squat for supportive pedaling, while reducing the amount of feedback delivered by bigger hits.

The unique Kashima coated rails and the sliding mechanism that make up the Switch Infinity design are the same size on the SB130, 140, 150, and 165 – it's the location in the frame and the amount that the carrier moves that's different. Like the SB130 and SB150, the SB140 was designed with an air shock in mind, but it can accommodate a coil shock as well, although it doesn't have as much progression as the SB165. The kinematics give it a 13% leverage ratio progression; the SB130 is 12%, the SB150 15%, and the SB165 is 27.5%.

Views: 13,943    Faves: 5    Comments: 2

The squish video. What you really look at Pinkbike reviews for.


Release Date Jul 29, 2019
Price $7399
Travel 140
Rear Shock FOX FACTORY DPX2, 210 X 55MM
Cassette SRAM X01 EAGLE 1295 10-50
Crankarms SRAM X1 EAGLE 30T 170MM
Bottom Bracket SRAM DUB BB92
Rear Derailleur SRAM X01 EAGLE
Shifter Pods SRAM X01 EAGLE
Handlebar YETI CARBON 35X780MM
Brakes SRAM G2 RSC
Wheelset DT SWISS M1700 30MM
Tires MAXXIS MINION DHF 2.6 EXO (front) + MAXXIS REKON 2.6 EXO (rear)
Seatpost FOX TRANSFER 31.6MM / XS-SM: 125MM, MD: 150MM, LG-XL: 175MM


Yeti SB140
Yeti SB140
Testing took place on my local trails in Squamish, as well as some days in the Whistler Bike Park and two weeks vacation in Moab, Utah.

Test Bike Setup

For my 155 pounds, I ran the Fox Factory DPX2 shock at 185 psi, which is close to the 33% sag range that Yeti recommends as a starting point on their excellent shock setup page. I settled on 6 clicks of Low Speed Compression and 10 clicks of Low Speed Rebound and ran the bike with no spacers in the rear shock, as it comes from the factory.

For the Fox 36 fork, I ran 65 psi and the one stock volume spacer with the following clicks of rebound and compression from closed: HSC: 16, LSC: 9, HSR: 8, LSR: 12. This is slightly higher pressure than what Yeti recommends in their shock setup guide for someone my weight, but I liked the additional support it provided up front.

I rode the stem in the lowest position, swapped out the saddle for a slightly wider one, and ran slightly narrower tires than the stock 2.6" ones.

Photo by Trevor Lyden
Sarah Moore
Location: Squamish, BC, Canada
Age: 29
Height: 5'7"
Inseam: 30"
Weight: 155 lbs
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @smooresmoore

Testing took place between July and December on my local trails in Squamish, as well as some days in the Whistler Bike Park and two weeks vacation in Moab, Utah.

Yeti SB140
The SB140 is an incredibly dependable climber.


The SB140 has a nice upright position for climbing with the 77-degree seat tube angle and 460mm reach on the size medium. The firm pedaling platform means that I didn't feel the need to lock out the rear shock on anything but the most onerous of paved climbs. Despite that efficient pedaling platform, there's good traction on climbing trails scattered with rock obstacles and slippery roots and when fire roads get steep with loose gravel.

While the front end feels like it's a long way in front of you on the SB140, it tracks well. Although I did find the length of the bike noticeable when making my way around tight switchbacks. I also found that it took a bit of an effort to maneuver the SB140 up big square-edged steps. This was especially noticeable during my time in Moab, Utah. While there's enough standover height for shorter riders and Yeti's size range for the medium is 5'5" - 5'11", it definitely feels bigger than mediums from some other brands, and from Yeti's previous generation, so I would keep that in mind if you're between sizes.

All in all, while you're not going to win any climbing segments on the SB140, it's an incredibly dependable climber and it will get you to the top of the climb with plenty of energy left for the fun part.

Yeti SB140
Looking for alternate line options and wide-open trails descending on the Yeti SB140.


Despite riding it for months, every time I took the Yeti SB140 out, I was shocked by how fast it could go when you pointed it down a straight section of trail or a rock slab. Yet even when I felt like I was going Mach 10, I felt in control and the bike felt stable and composed.

Some of the most fun I had on the SB140 was when I took it to the Whistler Bike Park. Normally, I prefer tech trails to A-Line laps, but on the SB140 I felt so comfortable at speed, in bermed corners, and in the air, that I wanted to keep lapping jump trails all day and whipping the back end quickly around turns. The orange speed demon was forgiving with mistakes and didn't blow through its travel easily, despite having much less travel than most bikes in the line-up for the chair lift.

Back home in Squamish, I found that the one place that the SB140 struggled a bit more was on steep technical descents with tight trees and lots of cornering, where even the strongest of riders have to grab fistfuls of brakes to slow down. The bike didn't feel as composed and stable under braking, and the smaller wheels didn't make their way through chunky holes and over roots the same way that a 29er would.

While you could race the SB140, a better option for a racer is Yeti's SB150 with slightly more travel and bigger wheels, and the SB130 is a better all-rounder for big days in the mountains. My favourite laps on the SB140 had lots of alternate line options, wider bermed corners, and good lines of sight so that I could hoot and holler without my fingers on the brake levers. Dream rides on it are party laps in the Whistler Bike Park and riding in the middle of a pack of friends in a social race.

Yeti SB140
Yeti's SB140

Santa Cruz Bronson
Santa Cruz's Bronson

How does it compare? Yeti SB140 vs. Santa Cruz Bronson / Juliana Roubion

I spent a lot of time on the Santa Cruz Bronson's sister bike, the Juliana Roubion last year, and while it and the SB140 both have 27.5" wheels, 65-degree headtube angles, and 160mm of travel up front, they're very different bikes.

The Yeti SB140 is a much longer bike, with a 460mm reach on the size medium compared to the Bronson's 429mm in the Low setting. However, the effective top tube length is almost the same on both bikes due to the difference in seat angles - the Yeti's sits at 77-degrees, while the Bronson's is 2 degrees slacker at 75 degrees. The wheelbase on the Yeti is also a fair bit longer at 1208mm compared to the Bronson's 1191mm.

The Yeti SB140 feels like a bigger bike that's more gravity focused, despite having 10mm less travel in the rear, while the Bronson feels like a more balanced and nimble bike.

Riding steep terrain and technical climbs, the Bronson would be my preference, while the Yeti wins on all-out speed, flow trails and bike park days.

Yeti SB140
The frame protectors on the seat stay, chainstay and down tube are solid and well though out.
Yeti SB140
Despite my less-than-optimal maintenance of the Switch Infinity, it stayed smooth and silent.

Technical Report

Overall, the parts spec on the Yeti T2 leaves little to be desired. Fox's top-level fork and shock didn't miss a beat, and SRAM's G2 brakes and drivetrain were smooth throughout the abuse of the test period.

Tire combo: I found the climbing slightly sluggish with the wider 2.6" 2.6" Minion and Rekon tires, so I swapped them out for a slightly narrower 2.5" Maxxis Minion DHF front tire and a 2.4" DHR II rear tire. These both had my preferred EXO+ casing instead of the EXO casing that the bike came with. I find the regular EXO casing a bit too easy to roll and burp in high-speed corners, and I like the added support of the EXO+ casing on the descents so I can run less air pressure.

Switch Infinity: I'm not proud to say that I grossly mistreated the Infinity link and did not lube it every 40 hours as Yeti recommends. Despite that, it stayed smooth and silent through wet PNW winter riding and Moab's infamous red dust.

G2 RSC Brakes: I thought that the G2 brakes had ample power for the SB140 and they worked consistently for months with just one pad change. And I know I've said this before, but I also love the adjustability of the RSC brakes so that I could easily run the levers close to the bars.

Paint Job: I was impressed with how resistant the paint job was to the abuse it should have suffered on tailgate pads, lifts, and tumbles down the trail. Not one chip after months of thrashing and the pearly orange shine is still going strong.

You'll need to be a strong rider to keep up with the speed this orange monster likes to carry.


+ Stable at highs speed and on jump trails
+ Dependable climber
+ Comes in size XS


- Not as composed on steep descents
- 2.6" tire combo with EXO casing won't be for everyone
- Riders on that are in between sizes may want to size down

Pinkbike's Take

bigquotesThe SB140 is eager to climb to the top of the hill and then make its way back down while finding all the alternate lines on the side of the trail. The orange monster is incredibly stable at speed and thrives on long sightlines and wide-open trails. That being said, you need to be a strong rider to keep up with the SB140 and one who isn't afraid to let off the brakes. Sarah Moore

Author Info:
sarahmoore avatar

Member since Mar 30, 2011
1,472 articles
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

  • 220 4
 Aren't these medium sized wheels? I thought 26' were little wheels.
  • 100 55
 26?!? What's that?!? Sounds slow.
  • 95 3
 The title was intended to trigger outrage and website traffic. And here you are, top comment.
  • 25 16
 Triggericon 2020 please post your prayers in the comments below:
  • 86 2
 I had no idea my brand new bike with its tiny 27.5" wheels was so outdated. What a fool I've been.
  • 29 0
 We have downhill, enduro, cross country, road,.... and now we have the Jibs segment. Can´t wait for those Jibs specific parts
  • 11 1
 No, a different category. In 2020 26" are kids waggon wheels.
  • 71 19
 @Gilmarques: oh don’t be silly Big Grin there is no jibs function on Strava popping Super Mario stars and points on Relive every time you pull a “trick”. Then jibs involve lots of focused practice time and falling and looking really silly for the first year of trying, which then takes away your Strava time.

“So Campbell, 1h ride, zero watts, 27ft vert and 0.3mile ridden? We are worried about you! We just hammered a super hardcore fireroad run on our SB130s, 34miles and 2500 verts, you better step it up or we won’t accept you to come with us on the Fellowship 100miler in Utah in September. We are there to get into all time top 1000 and we won’t allow you to mess it up for us! Remember Richard? He started dirt jumping, his Vo2max got screwed, we no longer tell him about rides and Finnley charges him more for implants. He is about to lose his wife and she’ll take his Corvette. Oh BTW! Henry saw you rolling on alu rims to a skatepark. I am writing this because I am a friend of yours, still a friend: Get a grip! We won’t be giving you kudos until you start real mountain biking. I’ll setup a few Gravel challenges on Strava later during the day and expect you to accept them and complete them.

Sincerely yours
Dr Carl Jeffrey Ford
  • 66 16
 @jollyXroger: I just built a 24" bike to my 8yr old daughter. So far she's been fine on 20". This morning overheard her talking to my wife and I am not shittin you: Mom, today when we ride to the city together I want the new bike, not the old one, because new one is faster because it has bigger wheels.

Waiting for this to happen: - Dad? How big are your wheels? - erm... 27.5. - What does that mean? - inch is a awkward measure for countries who went to the moon, their citizens got guns but can't get milimiteres, the only Americans using milimiters program Mars landers and microdose mushrooms... milimeters, the mm go for microdose mushrooms. They make you smarter. Where was I going with this... ekhem, your brothers are 20" Yours are 24", moms 26", mine a 27,5" - Are there bigger ones? Like 28" or 29"? - yes off course but they... - so why don't you get bigger ones you'll be faster. - awkward silence. Did you do your homework?! Did you prepare your clothes for tomorrow?! Did you made the bed?! Brushed your teeth?! What is your problem?! I didn't raise you like that!!!
  • 7 2
 @inked-up-metalhead: my god how many people here don't understand sarcasm
  • 13 2
 @WAKIdesigns: and in the background the brother is in a tantrum screeming #20aintdead
  • 27 1
 "Catering to those diehard 27.5" fans"... Almost feels like 27.5 is the new 26, I mean... this wheel size is not even a decade old.
Great review though, my comment is not intended to PB but more to this narrative the industry is increasingly pushing up.
  • 3 13
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 4:41) (Below Threshold)
 @freebikeur: it's definitely more than a decade old.
  • 3 14
flag bohns (May 4, 2020 at 4:51) (Below Threshold)
  • 6 2
 @thegoodflow: 650b is old historically speaking, but as a new MTB wheel size standard I believe it was Scott who introduced it circa 2012 (or 2011?). So not 10 years. My point being it feels a little early to treat it as "old-school" already. IMO
  • 31 25
 @thegoodflow: with all the non-due respect, pre 2012 650B bikes were preposterous contraptions, save a few Kirk Pacentis hardtails if anybody cares about them. They happened because Gravel didn't come soon enough and now we are all paying the price. Whoever rode 650B bikes in the past, had no bloody clue about handling a mountain bike. How can one assume that? because whoever rode one back then sacrified great tyres and great suspension in favor of medium wheelsize feeling. There were no good tires and no good forks in 650B back then. And even if someone stuck 650B into a fox, the tire was still sht, so whatever a 650B early adopter dweeb thought he gained, he lost it in every single situation tire grip is important, like braking or erm... cornering. There's no defending this. Bored ass, middle aged dweebs who plateaud in their quest to discover God only knows what and wanted a different flavor, then picked up by a few aholes in the industry, coming up with a great way to render big portion of the market obsolete. Had we had gravel bikes back in 2007, this mess would never happen. Luckily kids bikes are picking 26" back up.
  • 20 36
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 5:17) (Below Threshold)
 @WAKIdesigns: with all the disrespect I can muster, go f*ck yourself. I didn't say they were any good, but the first production mtb tire was introduced in 2007ish. Whether or not you approve of them or the early adopters is irrelevant. And we didn't need gravel bikes back then. XC hardtails and cross bikes worked well enough. Not sure what that has to do with it though
  • 6 4
 @thegoodflow: how is it that we didn't need gravel bikes in the past?
  • 6 16
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 5:41) (Below Threshold)
 @felimocl: Because we had xc hardtails and cyclocross bikes, both of which work quite well for gravel and mixed surface riding. Not saying that there's anything wrong with a niche developing that is the ultimate specialized tool for the job though. But, "need" was the key word in my statement. The way I see it, there's two types of people when it comes to gravel bikes ...

1) there's the type that uses the bike that is available to them to go gravel/mixed-surface/adventure riding because that's what they wanted to do. Back then that probably meant an xc hardtail or a cyclocross bike.

2) the second type is the guy that rides gravel because he needs somewhere to ride the new trendy bike that he just bought.

It's a chicken or the egg thing? Which came first, the gravel biker or the gravel bike?
  • 4 0
 @jollyXroger: Yup, been researching 24" kids bikes and the 26" trek fuel Jr positions itself as the kids version of a 29er.
  • 24 20
 @thegoodflow: not sure why you got angry, but whatever. If you think that production MTB tire in 2007 (you possibly mean that worthless Kenda) was worth anything (mind you we had Minions since 2002) then please don't comment, you just proved my point that you don't know much about handling a bike if you found that to be a MTB tire. Like most Kenda tires, it was something you put between rims and the ground so that the bike doesn't scratch the floor in wallmart. Kirk Pacentis own Neo moto tire was possibly good for aggro XC/light trail but it came in 2009 - correct me if I'm wrong and please don't tell me that all 650B "enthusiasts" were using it. We can talk pros vs cons of one wheelsize over another when there are Minions DHF on both of them. And pre 2012 - there weren't. No problem with having a niche product tlike Kirk has done, bravo to him fro doing what he did, it's just why did we have to go through this shit when it is dead obvious 29" and possiibly( and hopefully in near future bigger) is the way to go. Not defendable. 650B as a mainstream thing, like Boost, was a crime against mountain biking. They all need deserve open bashing for imposing this piece of crap on us for zero reason at all.
  • 9 28
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 6:03) (Below Threshold)
 @WAKIdesigns: Ok, wakoff, whatever you say.
  • 15 18
 @thegoodflow: It is 2020, I am not bashing you for what you did 13yrs ago. We all did things we may regret. Please manage your soft spots. Are you now defensive about gravel? Hint: it’s ok. Even if top of the bars is high as fuk and you lose all benefits of aerodynamic position that drop bars give so you may as well ride a 29” HT with 42c tires
  • 8 23
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 6:08) (Below Threshold)
 Btw waki, any luck in your quest to learn how to slide on a berm? It's tough, but you'll get there. Then you can come back and arrogantly spray some more bike handling expertise at everyone.
  • 4 12
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 6:11) (Below Threshold)
 And I've never even owned a 27.5 or gravel bike, so not sure what I would have to be defensive about
  • 1 1
 @WAKIdesigns: have they ever made a proper kick stand for a mtb? They’ve made them for dirt bikes last few years, but my son won’t stop dropping his reaper.
  • 6 16
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 6:19) (Below Threshold)
 @Arcadyus: finally a topic that Waki could actually contribute to... kickstands!
  • 1 3
 @thegoodflow: I know I know but I’m being serious. The kickstand first my yz was like $300 and it’s amazing. I have no idea what I’d do without on the trails. I’m sure there’s nothing and everyone will tell me I’m a wanker but does anyone make one that’s not a piece of shit?
  • 5 1
 @baca262: right? Was clearly a tounge in cheek joke. Up till 6 months ago I was on 26 and honestly, I'd say the modern geometry/suspension makes the new bike faster, not the slight increase in wheel diameter, but also wouldn't say it was less 'playful' or anything like that.
  • 3 7
flag EnduroriderPL (May 4, 2020 at 6:39) (Below Threshold)
 Maybe Sarah is much bigger girl than on the photos?
  • 15 9
 @thegoodflow: no 27.5 and no gravel? so why did you even speak to me and ruin what started as a great funny thread. Anything else you don’t like about me, some grudge you are holding? If no then Go play in the other room ok?
  • 3 0
 Little wheels?
I guess, with the new 32 inch wheels coming out soon.
  • 3 0
 Twenty-six aren’t little wheels. You guys want to try poppy and playful, you need to check out 12-inch.
  • 9 0
 @thegoodflow: as someone who used to ride "gravel" with a cx bike with short top tube, steep head angle, high bb, and cantilever brakes, I am super glad gravel bikes are now a thing. Gravel bikes are basically the longer, lower, slacker bikes of the road world and they are so much more capable and fun to ride than the CX bikes of the past.
  • 9 11
 @WAKIdesigns: Projection much? I wasn't even talking to you and you used my comment as an excuse to go off on another misguided and arrogant rant. You're a fool, bro.
  • 4 6
 @dthomp325: that's cool, I don't doubt any of what you say. I used to use a cross bike to fill that role for many years, and now I just use a light 29er xc hardtail with fast tires. I see the appeal of the specialist bike, but for me the bike I already own is plenty capable for big mile days of backroad/gravel/trail/wherever I end up.
  • 11 3
 @thegoodflow: jeez, who pissed in your cereal this morning
  • 9 11
 @felimocl: idk, apparently I'm an a*shole for saying that "the industry" didn't invent 650b in 2013, and that you don't need an ultra capable gravel bike to ride gravel (seriously? of all the disciplines to need a bike that's more "capable"? Gravel? Just ride your bikes you needy pussies). And also, Waki is a c*nt. See ya
  • 1 0
 @Snowrydr01: I have a specialized grom 24" and an xs 26" hardrock. other than the 170mm cranks the hardrock fits him well. 10 years young. 4'10". the YT 26" is definitely up there. Do you follow thebikedads? they got a section for 24 and 26" bike builds. recently they imported the Vpace, and it looks sweet.
  • 3 3
 @fruitsd79: If you want shorter, spiderless cranks at the Price of XT, try Trailcraft.
  • 5 8
 The small wheel comment is retarded, but whatever, it'll swing back once all those 29er riders figure out there slower on a 29er Wink

Nice looking bike, doesn't sound like it knows what it wants to be, comparable to a Bronson but not as composed and not as good for climbing, less travel than a Bronson but better for a bike park, sounds like Yeti missed the mark.

Odd, short travel and long, should be long travel and long, but oh well.
  • 5 0
 @jollyXroger: I still see most of the best freeriders in my area on 26.
  • 5 1
 @WAKIdesigns: and pre 2012 29ers were absolutely crap, so what's your point?

All bikes have a beginning, there was a time when 26" bikes sucked balz.

A wheel is a wheel, any bike can be made to ride well with any size wheel, it's the industry BS that sells bikes, not actual performance.

I have the choice of any bike and any wheel size, but even my Pistola is rolling on 27.5 most of the time.
  • 3 4
 @thegoodflow: you kinda told someone to go f*ck themselves with explicit disrespect literally written out. LOL
  • 5 10
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 9:50) (Below Threshold)
 @cuban-b: Yeah, so? I'd prefer not to be passive aggressive. f*ck him.
  • 6 1
 You were wondering why everyone thinks you’re an a*shole. For the record, I don’t personally think you’re an a*shole - I’m just trying to help clarify.
  • 2 2
 @DaFreerider44: wow. Resorting to insults over a joke.
  • 5 9
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 10:02) (Below Threshold)
 @cuban-b: Thanks for the clarification. I just responded in turn to his weird passive aggressive trolling. Sorry if I offended the gravel bike owners who need to justify their purchases by telling themselves that they never could have acheived true gravel bliss without the latest long-low-slack ultra capable grinding machines. They should let all the tour divide racers know that their 29er hardtails aren't capable enough for a route that's almost 90% gravel. Those guys "need" a gravel bike, they just don't know it yet.
  • 4 8
flag DaFreerider44 (May 4, 2020 at 10:06) (Below Threshold)
 @inked-up-metalhead: The only joke is you sitting in your underwear trying to dis a 16 year old on an online mountain bike forum because you made a stupid ass comment about how small wheels are slower. BTW smaller wheels = more nimble. More nimble = more speed and better line choice. Plus you can throw 3's and look dope af
  • 8 1
 Turquoise dentist edition or nothing for me.
  • 2 0
 @thegoodflow: bottom line it’s just the bike industry trying to sell more bikes by filling a market segment, and people bought them, so you can’t really blame one side or the other. So you’re right - it is like a chicken or egg situation.
  • 5 2
 @DaFreerider44: i hope you're trolling
  • 4 2
 Other than the fact that people aren’t buying them, 26
totally ain’t dead.
  • 2 0
 @fruitsd79: My son is a small 7yr old and is on a Scott Spark jr 20. It is currently in its third build iteration because he keeps out riding it and is going to be on a shortened fox RLC 26" fork, rear air shock, 1x10 with zee components (others kept braking) tubeless, and disk brakes. His next 24" needs to be comparable spec.......but not break the bank Frown Marin Hawk Hill 24 looks pretty nice
  • 1 0
 @Snowrydr01: mine was on a hotrock 20 and a spinner grind 300 fork. I laced up a 32h front wheel for disc. I don't know what to get him next. We ride NWA quite a bit, but local trails a hardtail is all you need.
  • 1 0
 @inked-up-metalhead: I sold my 2013 Norco Truax One this year all suped up and he's effen flying on it!!
  • 3 2
 @DaFreerider44: riiiiight. Your 16. That explains everything.

Let me go over this again, slowly.

The joke was that 26" is slow, I clarified that when someone commented people couldn't take sarcasm, and in another comment, stated I couldn't tell the difference in speed. So get down off your high horse, realise that there's nothing to get butt hurt over because I'm having a laugh, and maybe just do a bit more reading before you start jumping on your keyboard.
  • 6 2
 @baca262: I don't think he is, I think he's a hormonal 16 year old that feels personally attacked because I said his 26 inch wheeled bike is slow and he's really fast.
  • 1 0
 @nurseben: coming from BMX, this is my ideal bike, super poppy rear, fun size wheels, and not so much squish that it only feels at home on the DH Worlds circuit. This totally hits all my marks, but to each their own. I’m on a stumpy evo, but I’d rather be on this
  • 1 0
 @Snowrydr01: That Fuel Jr looks quite nice
  • 1 1
 @BMcP: you must have missed the part where the reviewer found it long and less playful than the Bronson.

... any bike can be stretched out for stability, but that doesn’t make it playful and poppy. Actually, quite the opposite.

Are you sure you ride BMX? I can think of way more fun bikes that are actually short and poppy.
  • 3 0
 @nurseben: watch their little promo from the release... tell me it doesn’t look playful. I think it strikes a balance between too short and too long. SC is more all mountain

And yes, I was on flow team for Fit and fbm and Vans, have shots in ride mag...
  • 3 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Bro it's called Irony, I was being Ironic x) But understandable since we don't know each other and I coud really not know what Jib means. Don't take life that serious maaate
  • 1 0
 @baca262: thaaanks
  • 1 0
 @Gilmarques: thanks 50 to 01!
  • 5 0
 @thegoodflow: Jesus Christ, someone forgot to take their meds....
  • 2 4
 @Shafferd912: yes, please send meds
  • 87 4
 Wow, so good to see a 27.5 review. I just want the industry to keep giving riders the choice. We don't all want or like riding 29ers!
  • 31 9
 No we don't funny I found an old article ref 27.5 vs 29:

You can consider buying a 29er mountain bike if:

You have a height of at least 180cm
You find passing over obstacles a challenging task (the larger wheel will help you overcome them easier)
You’re looking to achieve a higher rolling speed

I don't meet criteria 1 but I like a challenge and prefer to pump, jump and pick my lines! Just pulled the trigger on a new bike and it wasn't a 29!
  • 50 1
 @sostokedaboutthat: The number one criteria is to pick a wheel size and be a dick about it
  • 11 3
 @roma258: true dat

It is nice to see a reviewer who isn't 6ft+ for a change.
  • 33 2
 I love that this review simultaneously perpetuated the two dumbest myths held here on Pinkbike:

1. 27.5 aren't fast

2. And 29ers arent't fun.
  • 12 0
 Yeti flattening the wheel size curve. Back to normal 26" in 10 years' time.
  • 11 15
flag zanda23 FL (May 4, 2020 at 9:35) (Below Threshold)
 Pinkbike: Reviews the Bronson, scout, ripmo, sb165, et cetera

Pinkbike Commenters on each one: Thank you for finally reviewing a 27.5 I thought you never would!

Either way, I think that it makes sense to review more 29ers, as for most people, they make more sense. Yes you can get more playful on a 27.5 bike, but a large portion of riders are xc dads and trail warriors, not bros auditioning for Tom Caldwell's next rut blasting edit. Yes Rowdiness has its place and many benefit from smaller wheels but I would say the majority of people are served by the pedaling advantages of 29ers. Now for my personal opinion this makes sense, as In my experience I have found that 29ers are more playful than 27.5 is fast, especially on flatter, more pedally trails.
  • 9 6

Soooo, the Ripmo is 29”, not 27.5”

Also, pedaling advantages of 29” bikes are great for fire roads but not tight single track, switchbacks, etc...
  • 9 0
 @zanda23: Most people? Sounds like you've been hanging out in your snuggies at mtbr a little too long...
  • 3 6
 @Saidrick: Sorry I meant the mojo my bad. And for some reason I can somehow get my Hightower around any switchback thar presents itsself. Even on my dad's trails that he created for his klein 26er hardtail back in 1996. And on any modern trail it makes no difference. The Wheelbase of a bike will make a much bigger difference than the wheel size. For example, you could get a fuel ex around a switch back far easier than a sb140. and there is 10 mm of difference on travel.

And on your point aboyt single track, 29ers are so much better at climbing over obstacles than 27.5 bikes are.
  • 2 9
flag zanda23 FL (May 4, 2020 at 10:53) (Below Threshold)
 @BuildSendRinseRepeat: Yes Most people. My point is that many get smaller bikes because they think they will be able to get way roudier than they actually will. And 29ers are just as capable at being playful. So most people would be better served on one.
  • 12 1
 @zanda23: 29ers are not just as capable of being playful. Why do you think most world cup dh racers (outside of minnaar) say they prefer 27.5, but have to race 29 for speed's sake? And playful/rowdier is relative to the person. Each person uses each wheel size to its specific advantages relative to the other. While there are tons of people who are faster than me, I'm a hell of a lot faster than a lot of people on 29ers. And there's many people rowdier than me, but I'm a lot rowdier than a lot of people on 27.5. That said, I'll go faster on a 29er, and have more fun on a 27.5

Fun wins.
  • 2 2

If you have to use different types of bikes to prove your point, you don’t really have one...
  • 5 5
 @ranke: the whole history of cycling and motor sport racing disagee.

People didnt invent racing to make a living people started racing because it's FUN.
The ideal that tail whipping over and over is more fun then ripping down a dangerous trail at high speed on the edge of control doesn't compute.
  • 6 3

You’re confused, racing has never been about fun, it’s about being the best at something. Which usually requires hard work, again hard work is not fun.

Fun on the other hand, is about relaxing with your friends, stopping mid ride to check out a drop or a jump, not worrying about if you took the fastest line or what ever...
  • 1 0
  • 1 0
  • 1 1
 @zanda23: ripmo is a 29er
  • 1 0
 @zanda23: Thank you for sticking, and in fact reinforcing the proper criteria for choosing a wheel size.
  • 2 1
 @Saidrick: hmm. Hard work and getting better at what I do is fun for me.
Not all the time but seeing the fruits of my labor is definitely fun.

It's like there's more then one kind of person 8n this world or something ...
  • 9 0
 Yo. Everyone. The act of mountain biking is fun. Therefore, riding a 29er is fun by this very definition. Riding a 27.5 is fun. Each one can be more fun to a given application, but it's all fun, and I don't think the things you can do on a 29er are any more or less fun than the things you can do on a 27.5. And vice-versa. And for what it's worth, I've never had any problems with switchbacks or tight turns on a 29er, although I suppose someone can come on and say I need to be doing tighter switchbacks.

A 27.5 is fast. I can ride mine like lightning. Aaron Gwin or Richie Rude can ride one and make it look like your 29er is sitting still by comparison. Is it the best choice to win World Cup races? Maybe not. If that's the case maybe 29ers are faster, but that doesn't mean a 27.5 can't be fast.
  • 1 0
 @Saidrick: Ok fine I used hyperbole, but go to any modern trail and wheel size will not make a difference in how you climb.
  • 1 0
 @zanda23: and some people think eight inches is a foot.

True story
  • 2 0
 @Saidrick: You're right. And it saddens me that many of our local group rides are almost ruined by people who think that every trail leading downhill should be done without stopping, sessioning or just trying things out and goofing a bit. "I'll cool down", or "my strava time will get messed up", or "I have to train" is the common excuse. And many other listen to those as those are "racers" and somehow demand more respect. So they all climb for 25 minutes multiple times, bomb down in couple of minutes on nice trails with some features without any technique, learning or anything. And wonder why our group is getting smaller and smaller.
  • 50 0
 I'm not sure the word "solid" is the best description for this squiggly downtube protector. I guess it will do the job most times,
but with those gaps on the sides it ain't exactly "solid". Clearly a bit of "form over function".

Nitpicking. The bike looks sick.
  • 22 4
 if it was "form over function", they would remove the bottle mount and get rid of that hideous prolonged bottom
  • 33 0
 @f00bar: nobody likes to look at a hideous prolonged bottom.
  • 14 0
 The gaps are probably to make the molding cheaper, this can be made as a flat part and it just conforms to the frame. Otherwise you'd need a bigger mold to make a more 3D part that fits the frame right out of the mold.
  • 39 0
 @NickBosshard: Yeah that kinda thing is normal with budget brands like Yeti. Wink
  • 17 0
 @thenotoriousmic: When my SB140 frameset showed up, I tried telling my wife it was a budget brand. She was like “you realize I know how to Google, right?” Hey, I tried!
  • 2 0
 @thenotoriousmic: Well that's what you call making money 101 Wink
  • 2 0
 "form over function" is the Yeti R&D mantra isnt it?

It does look sick though Big Grin
  • 3 2
 If you zoom in on that downtube protector photo (best done while saying "ENHANCE"), it looks like little rock strike paint chips in those exposed parts of the squiggle. My direct-to-consumer carbon bike that saved me enough money over this Yeti to almost buy another bike came with a far better protector than that. Pretty lame IMO. A Gucci brand like Yeti should come with better armor than that squiggle thing.
  • 1 0
 @rickybobby18: oh rickybobby, you're so anonymous, and so right
  • 1 0
 @rickybobby18: the carbon under the paint on the SB series is not the same color as dirt.
  • 1 0
 @UnInc126: I see a market for Huffy stickers with top shelf brand colours that can be stuck over the 'Yeti', 'Santa Cruz' etc.
  • 6 0
 I had a rock strike on one of those gaps on my SB150 where I had even applied mastic tape to create a complete downtube protector. It was a big rock but it cracked the carbon. Took my frame in to my LBS where I purchased and they immediately said Yeti wouldn't cover it. True enough they didn't. $900 for a new front triangle. So much for race bred.

Yeti accused me of lying when I emailed them to clarify. Said I must have dropped my frame on a rock for that damage.

Yeti is a joke and is more marketing company than bike company.

Yes, I'm a bit bitter.
  • 1 0
 @heatproofgenie: haven’t had any warranty claims for my SB130 so far but that’s discouraging to hear because I’ve been thinking about the switch to the 150 for a “burlier” bike.
  • 1 0
 @DrPete: It's too bad because the bikes do ride well but I'm less than impressed with the company. I'm local to them in Golden too.

I'm on a Banshee Titan now and am much happier. Burlier bike and much more balanced with a CS length commensurate to longer reach.
  • 1 0
 @heatproofgenie: I had been drooling over the SB150 for a while but now that the new Sentinel showed up... haha
  • 1 0
 @DrPete: New Sentinel looks so good!
  • 1 0
 @heatproofgenie: yeah, I think it's going to make me sell my SB130 at some point soon. Haha.
  • 1 0
 @heatproofgenie: carbon can be repaired.
  • 1 0
 @iamamodel: It's true and I definitely considered that route. Decided against it as the warranty would have then been void and selling the bike becomes more difficult. Likely I should have gone that route but ah well, I've sold the 150 frame and have moved on. On an alloy bike now.
  • 55 2
 "Catering to those 'diehard' 27.5" fans" ?!? So if you don't ride or want a 29er you're a 'Diehard' now!
  • 15 0
 I'm fully triggered, it's a ridiculous thing to write. When 27.5 is no longer being ridden at dh WCs and the EWS then write something like this. Oh, and when everybody riding bikes are 1m85 or taller. Until then... #27.5ain'tdead
  • 4 1
 And then they get angry when you call 29er wagon wheels. This shit is like High school
  • 48 2
 Pinkbike 27.5 review , thanks for taking the time from your race schedule to test the tiny bike. I actually ride mountain bikes to have fun and I've already realized that Loic Bruni is faster than me. When I get to the point where I can do my favorite runs without needing brakes I'll decide the bike is too slow. 27.5 isn't little, it's just fun .
  • 6 2
 You aren't faster than Loic because you are on a tiny baby bike. Upgrade your wheels, get a new helmet and shoes, that gap will close. Ft. Bill 2021 here you come!
  • 37 1
 Little wheels? Thought the bloody thing had 26" wheels for a second there. #26aintdead
  • 10 2
 26" aren't the little wheels. 24" has always been the small wheels for mountainbikes, typically used in the rear for bikes intended for "fun" as they say.
  • 5 6
 @vinay: I'm 6'3" tall, 26" is the little wheel haha
  • 3 0
 @SoddenDeath: I personally only ride 12” wheel runbikes anything else is just a marketing ploy for the companies to sell you useless components like new hub standards or drivetrains/brakes
  • 2 0
 @endurogan: You want poppy, go Strider! #12inchforlife
  • 33 1
 Swoon.... A 27.5 review!
  • 8 1
 27.5 Aint dead!
  • 33 2
 $7399? Not bad for a Yeti, but how much for the complete bike?
  • 33 4
 Got all excited they had brought out 26er...How does 27.5 class as small?
  • 29 10
 Because it's basically the same size as 26".
  • 7 1
 @PhillipJ: For the lazy: 26" = 559mm, 27.5 = 584mm, 29" = 622mm
  • 11 0

Why are you complicating this with your fancy number speak?
  • 14 0

when I went from 26 to 27.5 I really thought the world had changed (like square edges and hits no longer existed), but when I went from 27.5 to 29 I just thought I was swimming in wheels.
  • 4 5
 @coletrane-mtb: we need metric wheels sizes as the next big thing. 650mm as the new wheelsize that rolls over better than 29ers. Then road bikes with 700mm.
  • 1 1
 @coletrane-mtb: only if the lazy don't notice that the correct conversion is 25.4 mm/inch! But then they wouldn't be lazy I guess Smile
  • 3 0
Honest question here....

What is the "b" in 650b. And also the "c" in 700c?

Im too lazy for google and reading. I just want answers fed to me, (Because I want to be a Millenial)
  • 2 0
 @enis: Originally, the number referred to the outside diameter of the tire/wheel combo. Obviously, if you have a bigger tire, then the rim needed to be smaller so the outside diameter stayed the same. This is why 650c (triathlon bike front wheels and some women’s road bike wheels) and 650b rims aren’t interchangeable. Later, they standardized the rim and let tires change size. I think, the only remnants are 700c, 650c, and 650b.
  • 2 0
 @PhillipJ: ... and a 29er is the same size as a 700c road bike, gawd, who the hell wants a wheel that big, lammo!
  • 25 1
 27.5" , for die hards that want fun on little wheels, when I read the head line I thought it was a 26er
  • 14 0
 Lots of angry people out there today. With how popular 29ers are, especially in the media, I wonder how many of these Yeti sells compared to the SB130. Starting think we're lucky bike brands are still making 27.5 when every review mentions it would have been better with bigger wheels.
  • 26 0
 "Better" is relative I suppose. I've made the choice to buy only bikes that are manufactured in North America or Europe moving forward and unless I fins a 29er that changes my mind I'll stick with 27.5. I jumped on the 29er bus 6 years ago and never looked back. Owned 8 29ers in that time span and didn't love any of them. For S&G I decided to demo some 27.5 bikes and fell in love with riding all over again. Bought a Bronson, gave up chasing Strava and absolutely love riding my bike again.
  • 5 0
 @NotSorry: so much this^
  • 4 0
 @NotSorry: same, I'm 6'5" and rode 29ers because I thought I had to, I've been 650b for 3 years now.
  • 1 0
 @RonSauce: Right on!
  • 20 3
 27.5? You have my attention...
  • 21 7
 I do wish Yeti, and others put the proper cable routing in for moto setup as well as the backward one popular in the USA
  • 15 15
 I mean, it's in fact most the world that uses left hand rear brake on bicycles... It's only the mouth breathers that can't figure out what side the steering wheel belongs on that are stuck with "moto" style.

Also, last time I checked all my motos, my left hand operated a clutch, not a brake.
  • 8 3
 Ah shit, screwed that up. Too early too long of a ride, not enough coffee.
  • 2 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: I would like them to set the frames with the option for either and a few grommets to plug the holes you dont need to use
  • 1 0

Lucky...Id take a ride over coffee any day.
  • 2 0
 I ride a SB150 in moto and have no issues?
  • 2 2
 @chrismac70: then buy a Trek or some other brand that has a ton of flexible cable routing options.
  • 1 0

Thats what she said
  • 15 6
 Straight away it infuriates me when i see the comment "little wheels" !!!! These are not little wheels they are just wheels!! With wheels you have all the various options in size and diametre, never should a 27.5 bike be described as little wheels!!
  • 21 0
 Heh heh, little wheels...
  • 6 0
 @SoddenDeath: Lol set myself up that didnt I?
  • 4 0
 It's not the size of the wheels, but what you do with them.
  • 14 1
 What is this.........a bike for ants!
  • 10 1
 It seems that @sarahmoore complaints centered on the geometry and the fact that this bike was too big for her.

She spends almost no time talking about the suspension performance, and a lot of time talking about how long the bike felt on the climbs and the descents. Perhaps you were pushed toward bermy jump trails because you were on a bike that was too large? It also seemed to be your chief complaint when comparing to the Santa Cruz, which had a 31mm shorter reach and proportionally shorter wheelbase. Wouldn't both of these issues be solved by comparing to a small SB140?
  • 6 0
 Comparison: (Size M Bronson vs Size S SB140)
Wheelbase: 1176 (Yeti) vs 1191 (SC),
Reach: 430 (Yeti) vs 436 (SC),
Chainstay 433 (Yeti) vs 430 (SC),
Stack 594 (Yeti) vs 602 (SC).

These bikes are nearly identical at these sizes. Wouldn't the size Small Yeti offer you the shorter wheelbase you prefer for technical descents, a slacker head angle, and steeper seat angle, while otherwise providing nearly identical fit?
  • 2 0
 @KJP1230: they're even closer w/ M Bronson in low mode. The Yeti has a longer chainstay, but a 15mm shorter wheelbase. This is impossible or I've lost my mind.
  • 1 0
 @ceecee: With longer reach, higher stack and a slacker headangle (in low mode), plus different fork offset, the SC could manage to be a little longer than the Yeti, even with the shorter chainstay. Ultimately, we are talking about 1.5cm. If someone can really feel the difference in 1.5cm of wheelbase.....
  • 3 0
 @KJP1230: millimeters got robbed! Thanks for the partial explanation. People must take issue with their wheels being called little and their frames Small.
  • 3 0

Maybe Im wrong, but difference in fork offset? Yeti has shorter
  • 5 0
 Yeah that was a horrible review. Should have been ona small. I'm 5 9 and could easily get by on a small with a bit longer stem...
  • 10 2
 The latest trend in bike in geometry is the very steep seat tube angle. I understand the need for it, but the side effect is that effective top tube gets really short, while reach is not affected at all. As I understand this it means that a medium will feel like a medium when standing, but like a small when seated, albeit with my weight nicely positioned for climbing. Did you notice this shortening of the seated position during testing? How does it feel compared to bikes with slightly more relaxed seat tube angles and longer ETT?
  • 2 0
 Seat tube angle should be irrelevant while standing, you aren't in the seat. If it feels like a small when you're in the saddle, that bike is small.
  • 2 1
 @RonSauce: Of course it's irrelevant when standing. I'm talking about the huge contrast of ETT and reach on the latest bikes, which is partly a result of the steep seat tube. I agree that a bike should fit when pedaling seated, but in many cases right now this would result in a huge reach and very long wheelbase. Don't mistake me for an old school geo evangelist, I ride a '16 frame from one of the most progressive brands and know the benefits of longer, lower, slacker.
  • 2 0
 There was a point where the progression probably made sense,a little more reach and a little stepper seat tub, but they just kept going. It does to your point mean that if you were to try to downsize to a more normal reach that the seat might be a bit steep.
  • 11 3

Hi Sarah, do you not think that maybe why you found it not as confident on steep tight off piste type trails is because the bike was a little big / long for you? And had you sized down would have been ok?

Or do you think its down to the wheels / what you are used to riding?

Or is it a particular fault / trait with this bike?
  • 11 0
 I think so, too. Sam Hill is 5cm taller and runs a medium Mega with a reach of 455mm. I guess these bikes just get too big for most people, and sizing up is often the wrong thing to do.
  • 2 1

Yea, i tried a much longer bike recently on my local trails. Flat out down semi-steep trails was mega fun, but very steep twisty chutes with trees on corners was much worse - not only were my arms completely stretched out in front of me to be able to get my ar5e far back enough, but the length of the big was harder to corners too.
  • 2 7
flag thegoodflow (May 4, 2020 at 4:54) (Below Threshold)

"...not only were my arms completely stretched out in front of me to be able to get my ar5e far back enough..."

Just when I was starting to question your credibility, you let this gem slip out and erased any doubt.
  • 1 0

Maybe I didn’t explain that very well.
Normal I’m center (with weight behind front axle)
But on a really long bike, my arms are too stretched out and it makes me feel like I’m fighting the bike.
Probably just a lack of confidence riding a bike too big for me.
  • 7 1
 It's the wheels, definately the wheels, I mean, what other possible factors could there be? The wheels, no other option, I can't see what your getting at, it's obviously the wheels. Look at them...THE WHEELS ARE TOO SMALL!
  • 2 0
 @Richt2000: it might help if you identified the longer bike and its size, as well as your regular bike. One perplexing thing about Moore's comparison to Bronson.3 is that a Small 140 has about the dimensions of a Medium Bronson in low mode, but a 15mm shorter wheelbase. All else being equal, where did those 15mm go?

Based on my measurements, published wheelbase of a Medium Bronson.3 is correct.
  • 1 0
 @Richt2000: Mess with your suspension setup / bar position until you can stay on the front of the bike most the time. Long FC bikes dont work very well with your weight behind the rear axle too far.
  • 1 0
Thabks buddy, I’m fine on my bike - i was talking about a demo bike too long for me.
  • 11 0
 27.5 is the new 27.5. You heard it here first.
  • 10 0
 Perfect mullet candidate....?
  • 2 0
 @jamesdad: there was a sick sb165 featured on vital. With a little searching you can find it. It was built us as a mullet. Really nice build...
  • 5 0
 Yup with a 140mm 29 fork it'll be perfect mullet
  • 1 0
 Lately I have been running my Fuel EX 9.8 with a 27.5" (Rocket Ron 3.0") in back and 29er (various tires ~ 2.35") in front. It floats through the Spring soft stuff almost as well using plus tires front and rear, and feels nearly as nimble. It seems as fast as using as 29er front-and-rear. It also looks cool, like my dirt bike.
  • 8 2
 "Catering to those diehard 27.5" fans"

They might not be "diehard fans", but maybe just don't give a shit about race results or being the absolute fastest.

"part of what Yeti calls the Rip category – bikes best suited to having fun and exploring outside the race tap"

I mean, you paraphrased Yeti themselves right there: this is not a race bike. And guess what? Most riders _are not racers_... So it's not so much anyone wants 27.5 specifically, they just don't want to make sacrifices simply for the sake of pure speed.

(Yes, everyone says "you get used to the big wheels", but some people would rather spend that "getting used to" credit towards throwing even more shapes and flicking through even tighter trails.)
  • 44 39
 "Back home in Squamish, I found that the one place that the SB140 struggled a bit more was on steep technical descents with tight trees and lots of cornering"

Or maybe the rider just struggles with these sections?

Bike reviews that imply the bike can do more than the rider are crazily stupid but you read shit like this all the time. Its bollocks
  • 8 1
 Think you've got that last sentence back to front, based on the first part of your comment. If so, I agree. Generally speaking, the slowest thing on the bike is the rider.
  • 55 8
 She points out that she usually prefers steep tech, but the Yeti led her more towards high speed flow lines. Not sure why you find this difficult to grasp
  • 18 21
 @Franziskaner: Because she claims that 29" wheels are better at steep twisty tech, which is largely bollocks IMO.
  • 8 9
 @headshot: 29 are as good as 27.5 if you know how to ride. The biggest bollocks is the idea that a 5cm longer bike would make hard to make 3m radius turns... Maybe you need to lean the bike a bit more, maybe you have to put your weight more forward at times. But it is just a matter of riding style adjustment.
I have changed from 26 to 29 a year ago, so I still remember.
  • 23 8
 @headshot: No she doesn't. She says long travel 29ers are usually better for racing, which I think we can all agree on, and also that 29" wheels roll better over chunk. Also not a controversial statement.

If you're going to make shit up, make it plausible. Anyone can simply scroll up and see for themselves that you're talking out of your hole.
  • 4 11
flag headshot FL (May 4, 2020 at 5:32) (Below Threshold)
 @Franziskaner: Nope, chump, its implied here - "Back home in Squamish, I found that the one place that the SB140 struggled a bit more was on steep technical descents with tight trees and lots of cornering, where even the strongest of riders have to grab fistfuls of brakes to slow down. The bike didn't feel as composed and stable under braking, and the smaller wheels didn't make their way through chunky holes and over roots the same way that a 29er would.
  • 7 11
flag headshot FL (May 4, 2020 at 5:36) (Below Threshold)
 @lkubica: Disagree. I've got a Covid-19 riding loop in my garden - my 26" HT with average reach and HTA (around 66 when I'm on it) is way easier to make it round the slow speed tech than my 64 deg longer enduro bike with 27.5 wheels. I'm sure I could get better at it, but its really not ideal for the tight stuff. I can only imagine how terrible a 29er would be.
  • 18 5
 @headshot: Implied? Isn't that your personal baggage to deal with? Let's focus on what she actually says. What she actually says is that this particular 27.5 Yeti isn't great in tight technical trails, because it is long and comparitively unweildy in those situations. If you think that means she's 'implying' that all 29ers are better on those trails, then being called out on the internet is the least of your problems.

Another thing that she actually says is that she prefers the Roubion or Bronson (27.5 bikes) for tight tech. That doesn't fit your bullshit anti-29er narrative very well either does it?
  • 23 7
 @headshot: Wait. She's a professional bike journalist and Squamish local, but your shitty hardtail on your shitty backyard trail tells you more about technical riding than her review? Have I got that right?
  • 7 1
 "where even the strongest of riders have to grab fistfuls of brakes to slow down. The bike didn't feel as composed and stable under braking" - I think that the main problem is Yetis high anti rise. In terms of braking Yeti is in-line with single pivots - grab brakes and the rear suspension stops working (100% antirise). Santa typically has MUCH lover AR values.
  • 4 0
 @headshot: The fact that it is easier on one bike vs another does not mean that after e.g. 3 months of riding you cannot get comfortable on the former bike. I have narrow, twisty and low-speed trails at hand and can comfortably ride them on a 29er. It took me few months though.
  • 3 0
 @lkubica: she had the bike for months. Sounds like she knew it well.
  • 3 1
 @Arcadyus: Having the bike for moths != months of riding on the bike. Especially if you are an editor, you probably have a few bikes at once.
  • 4 0
 @headshot: I think the problem with the SB140 is it’s really just a long and bigger handeling bike. It’s long and slack and stable, but it really has to be thrown around hard, and just isn’t as fun as a 27.5 bike should be in tighter sections. Strong riders can absolutely throw this bike around, but I found a bike like this doesn’t ride any more fun than the sb130, and not as “nimble” as other brand 27.5 bikes.
  • 1 0
 @lkubica: she better be ducking proficient with them all then
  • 5 0
 @Franziskaner: not sure how the massive 17mm longer wheelbase of the Yeti (1208 vs. 1191) would make it “long and comparatively unwieldy”?!?
  • 17 4
 @jonchaney: Fair enough; those were my words, not hers.
I'm just a bit annoyed at the keyboard warriors who claim to know more about this bike and how it rides than the reviewer, a Squamish local who literally does this for a living. There's more than a whiff of sexist bullshit in the air.
  • 5 0
 Agreed. She also appears to gravitate towards smaller bikes and I suspect she would have had a different experience on a size small. Most of the 'dings' on the Yeti vs. the Santa Cruz seem to be related to the fact that they were different sized bikes (460 vs 429mm reach). Perhaps the Yeti would've felt more manageable and better in tech if it were shorter/smaller.
  • 3 0
 @KJP1230: The Bronson does have some pretty magical handling IMO. The rear suspension could have been given a better leverage curve but it's somehow the right mix of stable and agile. I've owned a number SC bikes over the past few hears and the Bronson is by far the most versatile.
  • 1 0
 Exactly this - it's never the bike. It's always the rider.
  • 2 10
flag headshot FL (May 4, 2020 at 8:14) (Below Threshold)
 @Franziskaner: Actually what you divine (imply) from what she says is directly contradicted by the passage i quoted above. She does mention the length but not in the context of the tight twisty stuff. No, instead she brings in the wheel size, clearly implying that a 29er, and maybe any 29er would be better. Why so keen to protect this reviewer? Because she's a woman? What kind of sexist BS is that?
  • 2 13
flag headshot FL (May 4, 2020 at 8:17) (Below Threshold)
 @Franziskaner: Wait, I should take your petty insults delivered from a country where almost nobody has a garden, seriously? No. BTW, the shitty HT comes from your shitty country. That's right.
  • 2 0
 @NotSorry: I've also ridden a Bronson. I wouldn't say it's "magic" per se, but certainly a solid bike.

A bike really boils down to suspension kinematics and geometry (assuming similar build kit). The fact is, the geometry on the Bronson and a size small Yeti is very similar (reach, HA, wheelbase, chain stay).

In comparing the 429 reach Bronson to the 460 reach Yeti Sarah spent the whole comparison discussing the difference as a function of wheelbase length. The fact is, the size Small Yeti would fit her identically to the Bronson, and the wheel base would be identical as well. So just pick a different size so we can compare based on the kinematics.
  • 1 0
 @jonchaney: could be the 37mm reduced offset fork.
  • 1 1
How would a medium Bronson fit the same as a small SB140? The Bronson has a 598mm TT vs. 567mm on the SB140. That is quite short for a 5’7” rider, esp. one with an XC background.
  • 3 0
 @konakula20: TT does not matter (relatively). TT length is a function of the stack height, angle at which the tube design intersects to the seat tube, etc. Even "effective" TT is going to be a function of reach and seat tube angle. Its more an indication of how the bike is literally designed (as in, aesthetically)

This is why the industry is moving towards using reach (distance from BB center to steer tube center). Regardless of seat tube angle, you are always going to adjust your seat tube and saddle position so that your hips are in a similar position relative to the BB - you have to do this in order to pedal efficiently, which is the same position regardless of bike.

If I take a bike that has the same reach, same stack heigh, similar chain stay length, and same HT angle, those bikes will ride the same (from a geometry perspective), regardless of how long and what angle you connected a TT from the HT to the ST.
  • 3 0
 @KJP1230: I'm down with that comparison. Good stuff.
  • 3 0
I understand reach and stack and where you were going with your original comment.

What I was trying to point out that it isn't always as simple when comparing two bikes with the same reach. While the two bikes will feel the same while descending, a bike with a 77 deg. STA is going to feel much shorter while climbing and pedaling with the seat up compared to a 74/75 STA.

This is often an issue when you are between sizes. Sizing down to get closer to an ideal reach can often result in a very cramped position/too small (and hitting knees on the bars) while climbing/pedaling on bikes with steep STA’s like the Yeti.
  • 1 0

high anti-rise (greater than 100%) = rear end of bike compressing while using rear brake
low anti-rise (less than 100%) = rear end of bike extending while using rear brake

does this imply that the extension of suspension during braking equates to better suspension performance while the compression of the rear suspension during braking degrades suspension performance (as you put it 'rear suspension stops working')?
  • 2 0
 @twonsarelli: Yes, this implies exactly this. All single pivots have AR around or above 100%. Sarah explicitly stated that the bike caused problems when braking on steeps. I know a very good rider who has sold sb66 axactly bacause this and bought a plain horst instead. Now, I am riding a single pivot and you need to be cautious with rear brake. Most of the time it is even an advantage because it makes you NOT use the rear brake in the first place. But there are places where you simply must grab this brake on bumps.
  • 1 0
 @lkubica: is the improved suspension performance on bikes with low anti-rise a result of more travel being available or is it some other issue?
  • 2 1
 @konakula20: I disagree, especially when you are talking about differences in seat tube angle of 1-2 degrees.

Ideal pedaling position is about the location of your hips relative to the BB. The seat post can be moved up or down (y axis) and your saddle can be moved forwards or backwards (x axis) to accomplish the same position of hips relative to BB.

Effective top tube doesn't matter as much as reach, so long as you are within the margin of adjustment for the saddle height and fore/aft positioning. That is why every time we hear about a bike with a "too slack" seat tube angle, the reviewer quickly mentions that this was adjusted for by sliding the saddle forward a couple of cms.
  • 1 0
 @KJP1230: do we know if saddle manufacturers are optimizing the length of rails to accommodate the maximum adjustability? i wouldn't be surprised if they weren't using the longest rails possible. i am sure there are some concerns about bending/breaking rails if the length was increased.

personally, i had a spec phenom saddle that i liked (ti rails) so i bought the sworks version to lose some weight. turned out that the rail position was totally different - it was shifted forward by probably 2cm vs the ti-rail version. this meant that i actually had to go back to my ti-rail saddle because i wanted to push the saddle a bit farther forward.

thankfully the road bike fit works well with the expensive saddle or i would have been really annoyed (not to mention out $270 for nothing)!
  • 1 0
 @shredtheduck it would help if she was on the proper size bike.
  • 7 1
 I fear the day that mtb industry choose to not support 650B. This will be the day I sadly switch my bike for a fishing boat and call it a day.
  • 4 0
 "The Yeti SB140 is a much longer bike, with a 460mm reach on the size medium compared to the Bronson's 429mm in the Low setting. [...] The wheelbase on the Yeti is also a fair bit longer at 1208mm compared to the Bronson's 1191mm."

Obviously you wouldn't ride a medium Bronson if you were looking for 460ish mm of reach, you size up to the large. That's not a good comparison at all.
  • 4 0
 As I read this review I found myself thinking that the writer really seemed to know what she was talking about, based her impressions on what was actually going on with the bike rather than parroting everybody else, and communicated her thoughts really well. I know, I'm using my vague impressions of my feelings to pass judgement on her objectivity, but this is the internet, dammit, I'll do what I want!
  • 3 0
 Love yeti for making all the different sub category’s of all mountain bikes. Sb 130-165 are all great all round bikes that you can “do it all on” suiting different styles I love it they are mastering the art of MTB creations
  • 4 0
 I think you need to turn the Infinity switch past Beyond and back to Normal wheelbase, useful for riding up, down, and around obstacles on "trails" .
  • 5 0
 The cutouts in the downtube protector seems dumb for something that you know, it's supposed to protect.
  • 6 0
 So Its a pivot 5.5 with a stupid linear Lower link Okay
  • 2 0
 "I found that the one place that the SB140 struggled a bit more was on steep technical descents with tight trees and lots of cornering"

Struggled compared to what? Other "fun" 140/160 bikes? 160/170 enduro race bikes? A DH race bike? An old skool freeride bike?

Because my 140/150 27.5 fun bike is just at home in straight jump lines as ripping tight corners through the trees. So it would be nice to know if there is something about this bike's rear suspension kinematics under braking that makes it act up under hard braking, or if you're for some weird reason comparing to another category of bike all-together. Maybe it's the geo: too long of a front-center (because that reach is f*cking long) compared to rear-center and it's harder to weight the front wheel and it can feel sketchy driving hard into steep corners. Does the Bronson "struggle" in the same conditions? No to mention that steep corners are always going to be more work than no-braking straights and berms.
  • 4 0
 She must be a brave rider to make it down those trails on such tiny wheels. We all know "small wheeled" bikes are almost unridable .
  • 3 1
 Invariably, any article that even mentions a non 29er wheel size generates controversy. This is so predictable, it's getting chronically exhausting. 27.5 fans obviously will flock to a review of a 27.5 because we prefer them. Yes, I am a 650b fanboy and as a 6'1" middle age guy, I should not be. I not only have one, but two new ones that I paid full price for them to get the right spec. So it was a choice conscious choice. What's strange is that so many 29er riders feel the need to still read these reviews and spill their insecurities in the comment section. Clearly they still feel the need to justify their choice of wheel size. I read 29er reviews but never make a comment about the wheel size. In fact, I venture to predict that most 29er reviews are read by most 27.5 users but the comment section hardly ever turns into a wheel size dogfight. So, it looks like more 29er riders feel the need to go into the 27.5 underworld and attempt to stir the pot.

Dudes, you already have a larger percentage of MTB being sold and most of the reviews and articles. Why can you just be happy with that. You win, there you go. You are much faster and rollover easier, so go ahead and celebrate your victory. I, for one, am happy for you.

We the losers, will just lick our wounds and wipe our tears riding into the sunset. We'll be joined by other know nothing, skill-less, losers that prefer small wheels like Semenuk, Lacundeguy, Zink, Lopes, Gwin, Bruni, Aggazis, Bryceland, Wilmer, MacAskill, Brosman or the McCauls. I am sure we are all wrong, and have no valid reasons to like smaller wheels. We are all such idiots.
  • 3 0
  • 1 0
 What's with all these carbon bikes extending 15cm straight out in front of the bb? Riding rocky trails with sticky tyres always throws rocks up into my downtube and the idea of making it more prominent on a frame that costs thousands and in a material not renowned for impact resistance makes no sense to me. Does it increase stiffness or is it to get a particular angle on the downtube or some other good reason?
  • 11 0
 water bottle inside the frame compatibility
  • 5 4
 @Becciu: Which is - LAME ;-)
  • 4 0
 @griffinsurfboard: I like my water bottle inside the front triangle.
I'll take that over Yeti's previous design every day (if i was going to consider one of thir frame), even if, to me, it was slightly more appealing.
I acknowledge someone might think otherwise.
  • 2 0
 @griffinsurfboard: Go back to the shaping room ;p
  • 1 0
 @justwan-naride: Fashion over Function - Surfboards are the similar ;-)
  • 5 2
 Since when is 27.5 little wheels, looks like a new wheel size larger than 29 is gonna come out soon and make bikes even less fun
  • 1 0
 @smooresmoore Hey Sara, with that Fox 36 ramping up so much in that last 25% of travel...would you want to up the PSI like you did but also remove the space? Or are you smashing hard enough to hammer past the kashima logo consistently? I'm just curious what a lighter rider does with that fork since its pretty dang stingy with that travel. I have more than a few friends that never come to close to the logo and often wonder if removing the spacer would be appropriate.
  • 5 4
 Thanks for the detailed review; I did in fact enjoy it and think this is a cool bike. Also....Nothing says I'm a badass like disliking EXO casing tires and 2.6's. You are a true Pinkbike writer! Meanwhile those of us in the real world will continue to not be badass and enjoy them.
  • 2 0
 I just bought an evil calling, 130mm/150mm 27.5 trail shredder. Never had more fun on a bike. Carries speed like no tomorrow for me and I can have so much fun while doing it. Short to mid travel 27.5 ain’t dead.
  • 3 0
 The title tricked me. I thought it was some super small wheel kids bike or something. I love my 27.5. I’ll pass on the road bike size thanks anyway.
  • 1 0
 I have noticed the faster rolling on a 29er, but honestly, my 27.5 is really fun. Its (a little) easier to pop, pump, and flow down trails. The 29er that I ride (my friends bike) is a really good rock garden smasher, but the 27.5 is just so fun. (29ers can be fun too, its just not as easy)
  • 2 0
 It looks beautiful but that linkage looks overly complicated, does it need a strip down every 40hrs or just a squirt of lube?
  • 3 0
 there's a grease port, couple of pumps and good to go
  • 3 0
 Just two small screws filling lubing ports, 2 minutes job
  • 25 0
 @ad15: Amen to this. Two pumps and a squirt.
  • 1 0
 Yeah, just to be clear: just add grease, pump and squirt. Easy!
  • 1 0
 Luckily, it' only £320 to replace when it eventually wears (and is not a warranty item).
  • 1 0
 @watchmen: Does it "eventually" wear quicker than fork stanchions? Makes me wonder if until now, linkage forks, USD forks and Cannondale Headshock like forks were the norm and suddenly someone introduced "upside up" forks with exposed stanchions. With the arch in front to catch the debris thrown by the front tire and dispose it on top of the dust wipers. I could imagine the PB comment section would go mad.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: thats why you use a mudgrard
  • 2 0
 @zyoungson: Yeah, a mudguard is a good option for those worried (and who have a forward facing fork arch). But just like that option is there, isn't there an option to shield the tiny Yeti stanchions? And even then, my comment was in the context of this discussion. The amount of muck thrown at the Yeti stanchions is a fraction of what a typical suspension fork is subject to and (even without a fender) holds up just fine. An air shock would maybe have been a better example here. Shielding (through frame tubing or specific fender) is comparable to how the Yeti stanchions are being protected so I expect them to be subject to similar wear. Which, as far as I know, is little.

Personally I don't use a mudguard for my fork as my forks have a rearward facing arch too and for me that's sufficient. I wipe them of after the ride and I'm good. If I need to clean them wet, I do so upside down, wipe them dry upside down again and they've always been fine for every lower leg service.
  • 2 0
 @snorkelsucker: sounds like my married sex life
  • 3 0
 @watchmen: I'm riding one from 2016 and guess what... it's still the original one, running smoothly, also if you wanna save you can use some stanchions repair kit for few bucks, yes it needs attention but it takes almost zero time to take care of
  • 1 0
 @vinay: Yes.
  • 1 0
 @snorkelsucker: I'm more of a one pump chump
  • 1 0
 @vinay: If the seals are good you are fine. You only get problems when oil gets past them on the stanchion and drags dirt in to the fork. Then no amount of careful washing is going to help. Worth noting on the fox videos they say fine dust is the worst, water doesnt seem to cause a problem as the fork seals can deal with it.
  • 4 0
 I’ve owned an SB140 for a couple months and loved every bit of it.
  • 3 1
 Owned being past tense?
  • 1 0

Nico Vink had a leftover Ransom frame for me so I’m riding that now and I sold the SB140. But don’t get me wrong, I have nothing but good words about that Yeti...
  • 1 0
 Easy on the eye bikes, ok they are expensive but Yeti's ride well. I've had a Yeti and it was like going out with a high maintenance partner... it needed attention but was worth it when you got you leg over it.
  • 3 0
 Is there a noticeable performance benefit to the infinity link that makes the added complexity and cost worthwhile?
  • 7 6
 lol, no.
  • 5 0
 Last season I rode an SB150, and I found the Switch Infinity system to be superb. The climbing efficiency and traction was top notch, the mid-stroke gave plenty of platform to pop off of (at speed) and the end stroke had a very bottomless feel that gave the impression of more like 160mm travel than 150. I suspect that part of the bottomless feel was also aided by the geometry which begged to weight the front wheel. Once you take the time to dial in the Float X2, it left me with zero to complain about. Easily the best bike I have ridden to date - very confidence inspiring at speed. Hoping that my 2020 bike leaves me as excited.
  • 1 3
 @KJP1230: It's not an effect that can't be accomplished by a lower link instead of a slidey thing. The slidey thing is heavier, more expensive, and more fussy to maintain. It's a Rube Goldberg solution, but very appealing for marketing purposes. If I was in charge of Yeti, I still would have approved the design. But as a consumer I'm not going to pay a premium for it.
  • 5 1
 @JohanG: There's honestly nothing fussy to maintain about the switch. It's a slider on two rails that you grease once a month. No valves, no fluid, no rebuilds. How is that different from any other bike with a greaseport on the lower link....that constantly eats bearings, and starts with Santa. I'd personally say it's less work, and holds up better.
  • 3 0
 @JohanG: Where is the premium? Everyone ding's Yetis for their price, but this bike is within $200 for frame only on the new Transition Sentinel (largely considered to be a bargain brand).

Yeti's prices are right in line with most of the major players in this industry for comparable build kit (Santa Cruz, Specialized, Ibis, etc.) If we are talking about a premium of a couple hundred bucks on a complete build, and you like the way it rides, looks, the brand, etc...you probably don't care.

Also - Switch Infinity started as a sealed, counter rotating bearing idea way back when it was first introduced. They later got rid of this for the simpler version you see here today. A car riding on 2 rails is pretty simple.
  • 1 2
 I wonder if the axel path is significantly different from that of a bike with a lower link? Just from the look of it I figured that without the link they'd need to run an idler with this design?
  • 1 0
 @KJP1230: The premium is in the spec. Compare the $5400 Mach 5.5 with the $5400 SB140.
  • 3 1
 An easy test would be to wedge something in your friend's Switch Infinity so it doesn't move, and do it mid-ride without telling them. Do they notice?
  • 4 0
 Not a jib in sight. Not even a mast. Lame.
  • 2 0
 FUN FACT: I just found out by trying many objects that a Sodastream bottle cap makes a prefect 35 mm seal driver tool. Little tip to save money in this DIY period
  • 4 0
 nah, don't want one. (translation = please sell me yours in 2023)
  • 3 0
 27.5 is like the Bad News Bears of wheel size. I’m happy to be on the team.
  • 2 0
 Here to testify that the sb165 is glorious on the steep gnar she said the 140 isn't so great on. And it has awesome tiny wheels too!
  • 2 1
 Does anyone make a 26" bike anymore?

I initially laughed at the little wheels heading but I can't think of any current 26" bikes. I think we've officially hit the point where 27.5" really is the little wheel option.
  • 4 0
  • 1 1
 Went from 27.5 to 29 this year. I find the climbing on technical single track much easier, and it is much faster and stable in straight lines, steeps, and rough stuff. It is a bit slower in corners and accelerates slightly less quickly (both likely also due to longer, lower, slacker geo, and being a few pounds heavier). It still jumps well. and adds confidence in rough stuff. Nothing we don't already know.
I think which one is faster is very dependent on the trail. Lots of tight turns, without many high speed sections? 27.5 may very well be faster.
Would I go back to 27.5? No, but I like to smash and hop straight through and into rough stuff, not dance around it. I think if I went back, I would most miss the larger wheels on technical ups. You just don't get hung up on the roots and rocks that give you trouble on 27.5 wheels as much.
  • 3 4
 Came here for the 26" comments and to say what we're probably all thinking... when are @foxfactory going to match the flavour of their rear shock Kashima with the forks and dropper!!!! Come on fox, even the Switch tubes are matching, you're seriously missing a trick here.
  • 1 3
 More kashima layers on the shock to protect against the side forces from the linkage.
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: really don't get people down voting for saying this. Everybody wants colour matching for their dream bike, why do fox do one element a different colour? it makes no sense!
  • 2 0
 Anodized colors can vary due to different base materials. Yes these are all aluminum bits, but the same anodizing process can yield different hues when applied to different alloys (i.e. 6000 series vs. 7000 series aluminum). The same variation exists for other colors too... reds, blues, etc..
  • 1 0
 @ActualSize: that's genuinely very interesting, and I would love to know more, do they use different materials for the shock stanchion versus the fork stanchions or seat post? Is the Kashima coating an actual coating, is it anodised or is there something in-between? Would be fascinating to know if there's more to it like you suggest, but even then presumably they are capable of mixing the right treatment so that the end result visually matches the other components?
  • 1 0
 @landscapeben: I used to care before I ditched Fox for Manitou. Now I re-build my own shocks and the colors match.
  • 11 8
 27.5 isn’t little. 29 is too big.
  • 2 0
 We need 28.25!
  • 2 0
 @4thflowkage: there's no money to be made in world peace, which is exactly what that would achieve.
  • 1 0
 @4thflowkage: Its coming..
  • 1 0
 One thing I just noticed - there isn't a single "Yeti" logo on the side view. Also the paint is quite bland. I guess they let their linkage do the advertising for them.
  • 1 0
 @sarahmoore: Any chance you can slap on a 29er fork and wheel on this bike and give it a whirl? Would love to hear how it performs this way...
  • 3 0
 Ignore this turd and get the 165. Why f**k around?
  • 1 0
 This bike seems like a great candidate to run a 29" front wheel with a 140mm fork.
Can't help but think for medium sized riders this would hit a sweet spot.
  • 1 0
 Anyone put a 29er wheel up front and dropped the fork down to 140? Seems like a perfect candidate to do a mullet bike setup on?
  • 2 0
 Those chain-/seatstays look suspiciously massive ...
  • 1 1
 as does the 2.6 tyre. Probably go hand in hand.
  • 5 2
 i'll give you 5$ for it
  • 1 0
 Climbing: the tester prefers the Bronson, even though it has a slacker seat tube?
  • 14 1
 probably because the Bronson does not have the wheelbase of a mid-sized bus
  • 5 3
 Bronson relies on older "proven" 27.5 geos where these latest editions of updated 27.5 bikes are following design trends developed for 29ers. I see it when I ride my buddies 2020 Jeffsy 27.5 compared to my 2019 Spectral. Spectral is a proven 27.5 design and the new Jeffsy is what I call a "trickle down bike".

27.5 bikes were the answer to engineers inability to truly make 29 work and when they dropped to that wheels size everything just fit perfect and all the geos they had developed for 29er made a 27.5 butter.

So now engineers have updated 29ers but why drop that technology down to 27.5? I don't get this industry at all.
  • 1 1
 I eonder why the cranks are in the dame position in the all the pics but one. So ugly just don’t ser the need for that shape
  • 5 2
 press fit. yikes
  • 3 0
 If you're buying a Yeti you can afford the press tool, or better yet, just pay your shop to do all of your maintenance for you!
  • 3 0
 PF is great. My press fit kit that is also good for hub bearings was $50.
  • 1 1
 @JohanG: just checking you live somewhere dry. I was right! PF sucks if you ever have to do BB maintenance
  • 1 0
 @chrisclifford: You got me - I only ride in the dry!
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: replacing BBs is way easier with a normal threaded one. I usually go through 2 per year since I ride in the winter in Oregon. Although I’ll grant you press fit BBs have gotten a lot better, they’re still so hard to replace
  • 3 2
 Yeti's are such an attractive looking bike. Now if only their reliability matched their looks...
  • 2 0
 "Little" Wheels ???? ????
  • 1 0
 I demand timed 27.5 vs 29 comparisons with 10 riders and 2 different trails.
  • 1 0
 and on ebikes so we can control for power output!
  • 3 1
 7.4k for mismatched ca$hima is OK??
  • 1 0
 I really love the spec. comparison tool! Super helpful! Any chance we can get something similar for geo in the future?
  • 1 0
 Can’t quite figure this bike out. I’d take a scout over it if I was looking for a mid travel 27.5.
  • 1 0
 Well, since this thread has all the controversy required, I’ll take my Epstein didn’t kill himself comment elsewhere...
  • 1 0
 That's a nice-looking rig, great color choice!
  • 1 0
 Little Wheels & Lots Of Money
  • 3 2
 I wonder how it would ride with a 140mm 29er fork in the front...
  • 4 2
 Just buy an SB130 if you want to mess with it that much.
  • 1 1
 @Ajorda: Mulleting the 130 will mess up the geo too much. This bike is a much better candidate because its overforked, and already 650b in the rear.
  • 2 4
 @hamncheez: I'm not saying mullet the SB130, I'm saying you're wanting to turn a SB140 into an SB130, just buy an SB130 and bump the travel to 160 up front.
  • 2 0
 I wonder the same thing. A Yeti with matching front/rear wheel travel and mismatching wheels...
  • 3 0
 @Ajorda: I don't want to turn the 140 into the 130. I want to try mulleting the 140. Those are not the same things at all. Whats so hard about this?
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: you could buy a Guerilla Gravity Shred Dog (GGs 140mm 27.5) and buy it as a mullet. No messing around and because they use different lower headset cups for different wheel sizes you can mostly preserve the Geo without dropping fork travel. I have the Megatrail set up this way and it's awesome
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: yeah that's what I have. They used to have a secret menu with these options, it's just a $30 upcharge for wheel restocking to get the mullet setup on the Megatrail and shred dog
  • 1 0
 Okay so who's Jib and what does she want with my money
  • 1 0
 26” wheels are trending up again!
  • 1 2
 Tell us all about your vacation. Go into detail. Did you fly? Did you stay in a hotel? Did you ride with people in a group?

Tell us!
  • 1 0
 Whither the Revel Rail long-term review?!
  • 1 1
 It’s An okay bike..... trek remedy is like 1000 times more fun and faster I think.
  • 2 1
 Turq....and JD?
  • 3 3
 SB140-for the contrarian dentist.
  • 1 0
  • 1 1
 My dentist is such a jibber..
  • 1 3
 looks like a great bike for children or possibly child-sized adults. I got no time for these silly little wheels.
  • 12 14
 27.5? Is this a kids bike?
  • 1 8
flag m88888m (May 4, 2020 at 1:40) (Below Threshold)
 my daughter rides 29 Wink
  • 8 1
 @m88888m: is your daughter 6'4"??
  • 2 1
 @SoddenDeath: They grow (up) so fast
  • 9 0
 Remember everyone, speed and strava times are the ONLY things that are fun when it comes to mountain biking.
  • 2 0
 @m88888m: you hate her, don't you?

  • 7 0
 @Ajorda: It's too bad it has come to this isn't it? BITD PB was all about the ride and beautiful media depicting shredding and having fun. The editorial lately is focused only on one aspect of this sport. Strava times and speculating how a bike would do in a race.

You know what would be fun on this bike? Technical lines. Instead of focusing on going from A to B in the fastest way possible use the agile wheel size to get creative with lines.

I do agree with her that the longer trend has it's drawbacks. There's a point where a bike is just too long for you to be able to maneuver it naturally and comfortably.
  • 1 0
 I'm still a kid on the inside.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.097374
Mobile Version of Website