KJP1230

Overall, I find that somewhat higher bar/stack heigh actually allows me to get weight on the front wheel more easily. I feel as if a smaller absolute weight shift from center-of-mass actually pushes more force into the front wheel. What I think is happening is that I am a.) more confident in the more centered/upright position, and b.) I am more able to selectively change relative mass-bearing load split between my legs vs. my arms with a higher overall body position. Now the caveat is that this is probably a benefit for riders who are generally more muscular. But this ability to transfer the load split between arms/legs makes me feel like I can actively apply more force into the bars dynamically, without actually shifting my center-of-mass as much. Overall, I like it and I haven't found the limit just yet.

@wburnes: Honestly, for certain applications I am keeping and open mind about a 32" front wheel. Rollover, contact patch, rolling inertia, higher stacks. I'm sure it'll take a bit more effort to really lean over, and it is extra rotational mass to accelerate - but if the goal is to safely and quickly smash through everything, I can see a 32" wheel up front meeting that objective.

I just want bike companies to take notice of the stack figures that these editors are requesting. Dario and Stephane want to see 660-670 for enduro bikes, Jessie is 5'4" and asking for a 630mm on a presumably size S frame. Having recently added max spacers and a 40mm rise bar to my existing enduro bike, I'd love even another 20-30mm of stack. It seems so obvious to me that for all-mountain through bike park riding, placing the rider more vertically and centered in the bike when descending is nothing but advantageous. I can transfer weight to the front of the bike more quickly and completely, or back off and center my mass easily. It's also much less tiring on my core and lower back after longer descents. So long as you're reasonably athletic, I don't see a downside, especially when paired with suitable chain stay lengths.

I'll point out that Paul Aston was pretty damn spot on a long time ago. Big travel, long chainstays, modern reach, steep STA, 63.5 degree HTA. Yeti just released a long-chainstay enduro bike that Dario claims is the most confident corner-er, every. As someone who hates the feeling or rear traction break-away when cornering, I tend to agree.

I spent a ton of time at the beginning of this year completely re-calibrating my suspension. Mind you, I am already a decent "tinkerer", have had my current bike for several seasons, and did spend some time initially bracketing my setup. I ended up with very different spring rates and overall settings for compression and rebound. It's been transformative. The bike has never been more comfortable, reactive, "fluttery" across the middle 40% of the shock/fork stroke, and has given me extra confidence to really push the front wheel harder. It's a wonderful thing that suspension components have become some complex and capable - but truly dialing in settings is a lot to expect from almost every consumer, and even avid rider. Love to see new approaches to helping riders dial it in.

This is a genuinely exciting bike from Yeti. I am positively surprised at the (for Yeti) decent stack height, long chain stay options, as well as the lower anti-rise. There are other bikes, like the current generation Enduro, which have similarly high anti-squat (although the Enduro keeps the high anti-squat throughout travel). I've found this bike is superb after implementing the sidekick rear hub. Interesting that Dario and Mike seemed to have different takes on the descending. It will be very interesting to see if companies like Cascade or others will come out with alternate rocker links that could extend rear travel to 165-170, and also offer a change to the leverage rate to make it a bit more responsive for non-professional caliber riders.

@meinleben: It's an interesting thought, but that is not how levers work. And bar's job is to provide a consistent lever arm which places the grips and hand position relative to the rest of the bike and the rider.

I actually think that bar width, within reason, is something we fuss too much about. I am 6'2", with broad shoulders and long limbs even for my height. I ride 800mm bars because, a.) They've been great, and b.) they come as a standard size for bars that I want to ride, c.) I don't honestly think about it, ever. But let's say that someone would suggest I try something like 770 or even 760mm bars(!) While those numbers look like a significant change on paper, we are talking about an absolute change of ~3.8%. It's miniscule. It borders on being a rounding error. I'm not confident I would even notice a difference after about 5 minutes of acclimating, and I consider myself very proprioceptive. I'm not saying there is no difference. But I also think the difference is overhyped, even for most "very good but not at the level of a pro" riders. Personally, I think there are other measurements on a bike that are worth optimizing, way before worrying too much about bar width, assuming you are using a general range of bar widths that are directionally appropriate for your height and riding style.

@justridingalong1: It gets a bad wrap because the entire strategy is more-or-less about maximizing margin, in part by reducing quality and associated costs. The whole purpose is to identify a breaking-point between minimizing cost of whatever goods or services are being offered vs. maintaining sufficient consumer demand to maximize profit. Very few are guided by any semblance of humanistic or quality-minded ethic. There's nothing "wrong" with the approach. But as a heuristic its generally a net-negative to the consumer. I would argue that the most innovative companies in mountain biking are largely privately owned without PE involvement.

@pbfan08: I intended for this to be a light-hearted and funny comment - not a religious debate. But here we are. Given that I work in the space of tech startups, I feel that I can fairly categorize the general ethos of private equity to help you "understand the circle jerk." PE's ethos is to acquire brands which are typically "overdeveloped" in consumer-loyalty, often off the back of passion for innovation and/or perceived excess value delivered from a given brand, but which are "underdeveloped" from the view of professional management, financial engineering and infrastructure. They often often roll-up adjacent brands to gain purchasing and distribution scale, then extract margin expansion and revenue growth over a typical 3–7 year hold before exiting to a strategic buyer or another fund. The underlying "bet" is that customer loyalty in these categories is relatively inelastic, and that riders will pay up for a brand they trust, creating room to raise prices, rationalize SKUs, reduce R&D, or shift production to lower-cost suppliers without immediately eroding demand. So from the consumer perspective, private equity is quite often antithetical to exactly what passionate enthusiasts prize: innovation, true value, supreme quality, genuine involvement in the community, employee welfare, etc. Are there cases where private equity is a genuine positive? Sure. I can think of some. But the general distaste for PE is sports like mountain biking is also somewhat deserved.