Review: 2024 YT Jeffsy Core 4 - A Good Friend

Jan 5, 2024 at 18:52
by Dario DiGiulio  
Like any passionate pursuit, outdoor sports tend towards specialization, in both equipment and application. Mountain biking is no exception, with downcountry upduro light freeride rigs cropping up in just about every model lineup. As a result, people tend to overlook the generalists, bikes that can happily adapt to just about any sort of riding, with little in the way of aftermarket alteration. Sure, you can always ride a bike outside of its purview - I do it all the time - but there's something to be said for a design that doesn't really have a primary focus.

With 145mm of frame travel and a 150mm fork, the new YT Jeffsy is on the bigger side of the fuzzy category we call trail bikes, but the intention is the same. Climbing and descending are equally weighted, with the goal of handling just about anything you get up to.
Jeffsy Core 4 Details

• Carbon frame
• 29" wheels
• 145mm travel, 150mm fork
• 65° head angle
• 77.9° seat angle (size specific)
• 435-515mm reach, 475mm size L
• Size-specific chainstay length
• High-low flip chip
• Measured weight: 34.4lb / 15.6 kg
• $5,499 USD

With five years to cook, it makes sense that the third version of the Jeffsy came out with a pretty polished package, now sporting a whole new feature set, along with updated geometry and kinematics. After a few months and a wide variety of terrain, I've come away with some thoughts about Jeff - read on to find out just what, exactly.

bigquotesOverall this strikes me as a great bike for people looking for easy and intuitive handling, an unfussy layout, and good ride feel regardless of whether you're keeping it chill or pushing your limits. But don’t let that dissuade you if you’re keen to ride hard, as Jeffsy is more than willing to get rowdy.Dario DiGiulio


Frame Details

Jeffsy the third comes with either an alloy or carbon fiber frame, with a slightly lighter "Ultra-Modulus" carbon available with the most expensive build kit. The alloy and carbon frames share a 2:3 split between the 5 available builds. Those build kits are given the designations Core 1 through 5, with cost and parts spec climbing with the numbers. Each level gets a smartly-specced kit of parts, with a couple key differences between the carbon and alloy frames that really set them apart.

The carbon Jeffsy now features a well-designed hatch above the bottle cage that allows for in-frame storage, with additional accessory mounts underneath the top tube. Alloy options only have the latter feature, eschewing the frame storage. There's obviously a weight penalty to the alloy frame as well, to the tune of about 600 grams across identical builds (Core 2 vs. Core 3).

Aside from the frame storage, the rest of the Jeffsy frame is satisfyingly normal, without any weird proprietary bits or compromised areas to accommodate the changes they made. There is a flip chip in the lower shock mount that can be used to alter the geometry slightly from the stock Low position. In that alternate High mode, the bottom bracket is raised by 8mm, and the headtube and seattube angles steepen by 0.6°. This is a fairly subtle shift, but enough to make a difference on trail.

I almost forget to mention the addition of a universal derailleur hanger to the frame, as it's becoming so ubiquitous as to start to seem like a given. Popularity aside, this is great to see, both for access to common spares and for the potential to run Transmission drivetrains.




Geometry & Sizing
Coming to a decision on the "right" geometry for an all-mountain bike feels like a fraught problem to solve, as there are so many approaches to achieve the same goal. As opposed to pushing things to the extreme and compensating elsewhere, YT instead gave the Jeffsy pretty typical trail bike geo and kept things reasonable within the broader spectrum of options.

With five sizes available, reaches ranging from 435 to 515 millimeters, there's a wide berth of fit options in the Jeffsy lineup. That fit scaling isn't just constrained to the front end either, as YT implemented a semi-size-specific rear center to keep the bikes feeling balanced across the size range. Similar to the Smuggler I recently reviewed, the Jeffsy stretches two chainstay lengths across the range, with 437mm on S, M, and L - and 442mm on XL and XXL.

Another number that changes with each size is the seat tube angle, climbing ever steeper as you move up the size range. Where the Small sports 76.9° effective angle, the XXL's is nearly 2 degrees steeper at 78.6°. This may sound like an extreme swing, but it achieves an average 77° seat tube angle at each size's average saddle height.

The head tube angle is squarely set at 65° (perfect for a 50-50 up-down bike, IMO), the bottom bracket drop is 33mm, and the stack heights are in what I'd call a normal range, growing about 7mm per size. There really aren't any geometry figures that are out of the ordinary, everything just seems well considered and suited to the nature of a do-it-all mountain bike. I might have made the chainstays a touch longer, but that would detract a little from the easy pop and slow-speed handling that make the bike so easy to ride.


Suspension Design

The new Jeffsy continues YT's use of their 4VL (aka Virtual Four Link) suspension system, which is a fairly typical Horst link layout that they implement in some way or another on all of their full suspension bikes. This iteration of the Jeffsy uses a 210x55mm shock to deliver 145mm of rear-wheel travel.


They've increased the frame's progression over the prior model in hopes of keeping riders from using up all the travel too often, as this was a complaint some had about the V2 bike. Anti-squat is around 105% at sag, and sag is meant to be set around the 30% mark.

There's not too much else to report on here, as the Jeffsy has received updates and tweaks over time that simply improve on the initial concept, not re-inventing the wheel with each pass.

Release Date 2023
Price $5499
Travel 145mm
Rear Shock RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate 210x55, 145 mm Travel, RC2T, 0L2 Volume Reducer
Fork RockShox Lyrik Ultiamte, 29“, 150 mm, Charger 3, 15 x 110mm, 44 mm Offset
Headset Cane Creek 40
Cassette SRAM GX T-Type
Crankarms SRAM GX T-Type
Chainguide SRAM GX T-Type
Bottom Bracket SRAM DUB Pressfit
Pedals N/A
Rear Derailleur SRAM GX T-Type
Chain SRAM GX T-Type
Front Derailleur N/A
Shifter Pods SRAM AXS Rocker Paddle
Handlebar Renthal AL2014
Stem Renthal Apex 35, 50mm
Grips ODI Elite Motion V2.1
Brakes SRAM Code RSC
Wheelset Crankbrothers Synthesis Enduro Alloy
Hubs Crankbrothers Synthesis
Spokes Crankbrothers Synthesis
Rim Crankbrothers Synthesis Enduro Alloy
Tires Maxxis DHF / DHRII
Seat SDG Bel Air 3.0
Seatpost YT Postman V2




Test Bike Setup

The Jeffsy is one of those bikes that came with a build kit that felt satisfyingly perfect for the bike - prompting little to no changes on my end for the long-term test. Usually tires or brakes need a boost, but in this case I only swapped out the tires for one particular trip. Sizing was the bigger challenge for me on this bike, as I found myself somewhere between the L and XL in terms of ideal fit geo.

Most of the bikes I've been testing in this category have been in the 480-490mm reach range, putting the 475 on the Jeffsy just outside that zone. That said, I tend to err on the small side if I have to choose, as my home trails tend to cater better towards a bike that you can pop around and control more easily.

Suspension setup was pretty easy on the Jeffsy, thanks both to familiar components and their handy suspension setup calculator. I ended up with 165psi in the shock, and 95psi in the fork - the latter was about 10psi higher than recommended, but that's not atypical.

Dario DiGiulio
Location: Bellingham, WA, USA
Height: 6'3" / 191cm
Inseam: 34" / 86cm
Weight: 180 lbs / 81.6 kg
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @anger_dario



Over the past few months, I've managed to put some heavy mileage on the Jeffsy, which around here means gobs of climbing. Typically steep, sometimes technical, and often quick as daylight becomes scarce. The seated position on YT's all-mountain bike feels perfectly suited towards just that - riding all over the mountain. While I get along well with seat angles on the steeper side of things, the relatively neutral 77° on the Jeffsy puts you in a great position for steep climbs and long traversing sections alike. I've spent many long days on board, and the long-term comfort is certainly there.

Pedaling characteristics are definitely on the softer side of things, particularly when the terrain isn't perfectly smooth. I liked that attribute for scraping up technical climbs, and when the trail is steep enough to warrant an out-of-the-saddle effort, but on some dirt road climbs it can feel less efficient. I used the climb switch a handful of times, on long consistent road climbs servicing some of my favorite descents. That lock position is very firm, which I tend to prefer to more vague lockouts; I want to be certain that it's on.

While not specifically a climbing characteristic, the storage options in and on the new Jeffsy frame really make the bike a great all-day partner. The in-frame storage is very well sealed, with an opening large enough to get a small jacket and some tools in, the top tube mount comes with a handy little tool wrap (on the Core 4 & 5 only), and you can just squeeze a large water bottle in the cage. I didn't love YT's included tool bags, as they lack any sort of organization, but I simply used a Trek tool wrap and called it a day.



I received the Jeffsy at the beginning of what I can only describe as the Week of Perfect Dirt, where every trail is in peak form and you can do no wrong. These conditions are dreamy, but can bias you a little as everything just feels so damn good.

To the detriment of trail conditions, but the benefit of the full-spectrum review, the rains came shortly thereafter, with some regularly programmed slop sticking around for the weeks to come. This was where I spent a lot of time getting to know the Jeffsy, and where it really seemed to shine. The grip of the suspension and neutral ride height under braking meant the bike felt comfortable and composed in steeps and slippery chutes, without sacrificing too much travel. Thanks to a well-sorted build kit, I didn't feel the need to swap out a single component for the duration of the test, even as things got quite grim.

In supportive, faster-moving terrain, I found the suspension active but supportive enough, though you definitely notice your feet moving under you as you pump the bike. Though this sensation bothers some, I don't mind the feeling, as the benefit is typically better bump absorption when that smooth terrain comes to an end. Mid-size and chattery hits are handled very well by the bike's kinematic, keeping things composed, comfortable, and quiet. My biggest gripe with the suspension performance of the Jeffsy was in particularly rough and fast terrain, where you're really pushing the bike to its limits. Obviously this is typically more the purview of bigger, more downhill-focused bikes, but having found myself in that terrain on more than a few occasions it felt worth commenting on.

The sensation is mostly just an unsettled feeling underfoot as you run out of travel, which should be a familiar feeling to most people who push trail bikes into more serious terrain. I had a few hard bottom-outs on bigger single hits, but adding two volume spacers (up to the 4 token max) helped alleviate that. I think this bike would also benefit from hydraulic bottom-out, as that end stroke ramp and return is part of what makes the chassis feel unsettled as you push deep into the travel on consecutive hard compressions.

Slippery when wet.
A nice gentle compression.

As alluded to above, the Jeffsy really was an exceptionally quiet bike. In addition to the fully-guided internal routing, there are cable clamps where cables pass freely over the frame, as well as rubber plugs that sheathe cables as they enter the holes in the frame. Those little details go a long way in keeping things muted, and I'd love to see them adopted by other brands pursuing silent nirvana. Even with a day's worth of goodies in the downtube, things were silent, which is more than I can say about a lot of other in-frame storage systems I've used.

The pinnacle of testing the Jeffsy was taking the bike with me on a trip to Chile, where I got to ride the old EWS course at Parvazo, high in the Andes above Santiago. This area is famous for the rocky conditions and "anti-grip" soil, and proved to be quite a good challenge for bike and rider. Distractingly beautiful scenery aside, I definitely had some loose moments, but was impressed at how well Jeffsy handled things. It wouldn't be my choice if I were going back to race, but I had a great time careening down the mountain regardless.

YT Jeffsy
2022 Trail Bike Field Test photo by Satchel Cronk.
Santa Cruz Hightower

How does it compare?

The geometry between these two all-mountain 29ers is impressively close, with only a few millimeters and fractions of degrees separating the two. That said, their character on trail is quite different, with unique traits to each that may bias them towards certain riders. Both fit that jack-of-all-trades bill, but they get there via different avenues.

The Jeffsy biases more towards the descent and traction when compared to the Hightower, which feels like a much more efficient bike. The latter generates speed a bit better in pumping terrain, where the Jeffsy can hold speed better through rougher chop.

Both bikes feel well-acclimated to a plethora of terrain, but for those who plan on getting into looser, more challenging territory, I might edge towards the Jeffsy. When it comes to value, the choice is much easier. YT's pricing is still highly competitive, even while other direct-to-consumer brands have edged up towards traditional shop-model pricing. Comparing similar build kits, like the Jeffsy Core 3 and Hightower S, the YT sports slightly nicer parts, a $1,600 lower price, and only loses on overall weight by about a pound.


Which Model is the Best Value?

Though I found the Core 4 build to have an impressive overall value, for my money I might opt for the Core 3. With a price difference of $1,200, the most significant gain in the higher model tier is the GX Transmission drivetrain, though surely there are people who are going to prefer the mechanical option. Code R brakes are lesser than the RSCs, but you can upgrade those with the twelve hundred clams you've saved.

Luckily, regardless of the price tier you end up opting for, certain constants remain true. You'll get excellent tires front and rear, a long-travel dropper that works for your given size, powerful brakes, and a wide-range 12-speed drivetrain. Those details are all key to me, and very impressive considering just how well-priced each tier of the Jeffsy is.


Technical Report

Crankbrothers Synthesis Enduro Alloy Wheelset: This spec choice was a surprise highlight for me. I didn't think much about the choice initially, but after trying the bike with some stiffer wheels and going back to stock I realized the benefit of utilizing the relatively forgiving Synthesis wheels. The carbon Jeffsy frame is quite stiff, and having a bit of give in the system is key to providing good grip and a comfortable ride feel. I didn't hate things with a stiffer wheelset, but you definitely have to push a bit harder to get things to hook up the same way.

YT Postman V2: I tested the Jeffsy with a V1 post mounted, simply due to the 200mm variant of the V2 not being available yet. I'll have a standalone review of that new design in due time, as their new saddle clamp design is interesting. It works similarly to the AXS post, where you tighten the saddle rails via two bolts on the sides of the head, as opposed to the fiddly undercarriage method most posts use.

SRAM Dub Pressfit BB: Despite the groans that are sure to ensue as a result of a new bike using a pressfit bottom bracket, I can attest to this one proving to be completely trouble-free. With proper frame manufacturing standards and tight tolerances, pressfit shells really shouldn't pose any issues, and I'm happy to say that's the case here. Dry dusty powder, absolutely wet slop, and temperate in-between all reared their heads over the past few months, so it seems safe to say that the weather test was thorough.

Avid Centerline Rotors: Centerlines get the job done - we've been more than okay with them for years - but now that SRAM's new HS2s have hit the market, the older thinner variants just don't seem to bite the same way. After the first few rides, I ended up swapping the Centerlines for the equivalent HS2 size, and enjoyed better power and heat control. I wouldn't call this a critical upgrade, but it definitely takes the power of the Codes up a notch.



+ Intuitive and easy handling
+ Active, grippy suspension feel
+ Quality frame with well-executed storage and accessories


- Requires attention in very rough terrain
- Some may wish for more supportive suspension
- Stock frame storage bags could be improved

Pinkbike's Take

bigquotesOverall I found the YT Jeffsy great bike for people looking for easy and intuitive handling, an unfussy layout, and good ride feel regardless of whether you're keeping it chill or pushing your limits. But don’t let that dissuade you if you’re keen to ride hard, as Jeffsy is more than willing to get rowdy, even if it probably isn't your next enduro race bike. Add to that the impressive pricing and well-executed frame details, and you have a pretty compelling package. Dario DiGiulio

Author Info:
dariodigiulio avatar

Member since Dec 25, 2016
169 articles

  • 109 2
 After looking out my window at snow today, I would take a 10ft saguaro straight to the ding dong just so I could be wherever that first/top pic is.
  • 9 1
 Lovely mental image!
  • 50 0
 Right outside of Santiago, Chile! One of the coolest places I've ever gotten to ride a bike.
  • 1 0
 High alpine with cactus - nice.
  • 3 0
 I don’t know, man… you do you!
  • 3 1
 Hahah Bravo! This is why I come to comments section
  • 4 15
flag valrock (Jan 8, 2024 at 13:56) (Below Threshold)
 get a fat bike and have fun 365 days a year. Oh wait, PB'ers barely do 45 days ahahahah
  • 1 0
 Ahhh yes, that first picture is from the top of a trail in Chile named “Prince Albert.”
  • 4 1
 That is not a Saguaro by the way. Only in the Sonoran Desert...
  • 1 0
 @greenpistol: Dammit, I'm a RHH fan and shoulda known that. Thanks for the correction, do you know what kinda cactus is in that photo?
  • 1 0
 @dariodigiulio: amazing picture!
  • 64 0
 Fantastic build spec - Ultimate level suspension, GX AXS T-type, name-brand components pretty much everywhere including Renthal bar and stem, cane creek 40 headset, ODI grips and crankbros wheels.

That's fantastic gear for the money and well chosen. Nothing needs changing Salute
  • 22 12
 Threaded bb would be nice.....
  • 3 0
 Couldn’t agree more.
  • 3 0
 @dennis72: The Alloy models appear to have BSA bottom brackets.
  • 2 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: as a Core 1 owner I confirm
  • 45 2
 I find it almost impossible to not buy a roughly 140mm travel bike whenever its time for a new frame. Never too overbiked, but also never too dangerously underbiked. They aren't always super exciting or cool, but cheers to the 140mm (ish) bike!

I also wanna say, in the age when all bikes are quite good*, I apricate Dario's ability to dig a little further critically into a bike and translate his experiences in a way that's both nice to read and relatable. Bikes have gotten better, and in response reviews must get more specific and honestly more nit-picky. We must demand more from our very expensive toys.

*I do not like this sentiment, and I think we should stop repeating it. It just not true now that the tide has risen, so to speak.
  • 14 6
 Have an Evil Offering. Roughly 140r 150f. Works for everything from XC races to shuttle laps. Might I be faster getting an xc rocket and a full-size enduro bike? Yes. Will I be significantly poorer? Also, yes. It is a great happy medium in my experience.
  • 3 1
 Yup - I'm lucky enough to have two bikes (29 140/125 and mullet 170/160), but often either over or under-biked. Realistically, would be better served by a mullet 160/145 with geometry somewhere in the middle 95% of the the time.
  • 3 0
 @scotteh: if I should get a Jeffsy, I’ll make it mullet and high setting… supposedly that works pretty good on the non-MX Capra… definitely something to play with!
  • 8 0
 140r-160f gang rise up. With aggro geo you have a bike for everything, from smashing (bumbling?) wc dh tracks, chasing enduro bros or just looooong pedal days. Change the tires and you change the bike from simple trail bike into proper(ish) enduro rig. The one travel bracket we should all be in cause it just works well enough for everything.
  • 2 0
 I have a 160(f)/145(r) MX with modern geometry and it’s just the perfect balance. I had 140/140, 140/135 and 170/160 29 bikes before it but my current is the perfect mix between all, a true all mountain bike and I won’t stray in either direction (bar 10mm shorter fork) in the future, it just does everything I need it to well
  • 2 1
 @aly-14: What kind of bike?

The Santa Cruz Bronson is perfect on paper for me, but i don't want carbon and a $5,500 frame is a non-starter. If they ever came out with an aluminum version I would buy in a heartbeat though.
  • 1 0
 @scotteh: an Orange Switch 6 (so not to everyone’s taste) I’m 6ft 2 and a large is absolutely spot on - 486 reach, 64° HA, 76° STA, 448 CS, 1272 WB with a middle of the road stack so high or low rise bars work for given preferences. Genuinely the most rounded geo for me doing a mixture of trail riding of off piste ‘enduro’ trails.
I had looked at Bronsons as well but I also didn’t want Carbon and would have picked up an alloy if it were available
  • 1 0
 @scotteh: just buy one , you won't regret it
  • 1 0
 @scotteh: The Santa Cruz Bronson is a dream
  • 24 5
 A bit heavy for a proper Trail Bike, but I don't get to define these things...
  • 13 2
 Maybe it's because I'm 100kg and clumsy, but 35lb-ish has been 'the weight of a bike' for well over a decade to me. Bikes that are lighter seem to be either heinously expensive, fragile or both. Although sometimes companies just straight up lie about the weight of their bikes, looking at you 29lb Megatower.
  • 3 3
 Not really, its about right for a burely 145 build. most AM bikes are heavier, this is lighter. Bikes in that 140-160 range are now being built stronger as stuff like jeffsy, fuel gen 6 etc are being used at bike parks etc.
  • 5 0
 Does anyone know the frame weight? It looks like you could build it far lighter if you wanted to.
  • 17 0
 new bike category: improper trail bike
  • 7 0
 Throw some carbon wheels on and a mechanical drivetrain and you'd be down to 32 or less... pretty spot on in my book!
  • 1 0
 @rickybobby19: I like this
  • 3 11
flag housem8d (Jan 8, 2024 at 9:42) (Below Threshold)
 meanwhile my fuel ex is at 43 lbs; 35 is lightweight in my books

granted, the Zeb, 213mm 34.9 dropper, 223 rotors and the coil don’t help.

thing shreds!
  • 16 0
 @housem8d: 43 pounds? on a mid travel bike? I guess I just don't get it... why not have a slash at that point?
  • 2 0
 Nirvana starts at 38 pounds these days, and weight doesn’t matter. Or so I’ve been told.

That being said, I don’t think this one is too bad for what it is.
  • 3 1
 @ridedigrepeat: i don’t like idlers. Also the new slash is even heavier (frame)
Wouldve gotten the old slash but the sta is too slack.
My fuel doesnt feel like 43 lbs tbh. Also I’m running dh tires because I can’t stand flats
  • 3 0
 A bit heavy and I am questioning the "value" too. A carbon Rocky Mountain Instinct C50 lists for only $300 more (but $1700 less with the current sale) and has a stated weight of 31.2 lbs. A fully stock size medium came in at 31.4 lbs on my scale, setup tubeless and without pedals. Can't do a full apples to apples comparison on components, but the C50 has a mix of XT and SLX with Fox Performance suspension.
  • 1 0
 @nnowak: My altitude c70 also weighs less with 38 Fox. But I guess they don't mention the tires equipped on this bike. New AXS GX also weighs a lot. Not sure it's the frame's fault. Maybe the build itself is just burly
  • 2 0
 Not surprised that it’s quite heavy.
Cheap carbon frames usually aren’t light. The T type drivetrains are ridiculously heavy.
Code brakes and Renthal parts are functional but relatively portly. And that house brand dropper probably isn’t a leaf in the wind either.
  • 1 0
 @catamplifier: The YT comes stock with the same EXO+ 3C Minions that are stock on the Rocky Instinct. YT's website lists the weight at 33.29 lbs for a size small (without tubes, pedals, or water bottle).
  • 2 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: I'm not sure, could be the 100kg weight I suppose. I'm at 79kg so I can only speak for my experience. But I feel like I smash through some rough terrain at times and according to Strava I'm "decent" and anything from my 24lb 120mm bike to my 29lb 140/160 bike has never had any "failures" due to being lighter or less burly. I think many of us "enthusiasts" but not professionals are over-biked. I DO think the over-biking provides more comfort but it's not making us any faster from what I've seen from over-biked friends.
  • 2 0
 @housem8d: My Fuel EX is just under 32 lbs(no pedals) with Cane Creek DB IL Coil and light to mid-weight build. Cane Creek Helm Mk2 fork, Newmen EVO SL A.30 wheels, carbon crank, EXO+ tires. Just speaks about the versatility of the frame. Way more fun on modest terrain and pedals better than my previous bike(Meta TR) Just as good downhill. Feels plusher. German Bike have testet this bike and found out that the frame has 148mm travel. I think they measure the travel in house.
  • 1 0
 @yupstate: Over the years I've broken six frames, a couple snapped at the dropouts, a couple of ovalised headtubes, one crack at the seat tube/top tube junction and one that I snapped clean in half (and broke my wrist). I'm definitely not fast but rocks and trees seem to have ways of finding me. My assumption is that most bikes and gear are designed/tested around an average weight of rider and people like me are simply beyond that testing envelope.
  • 1 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: I don't think only the weight matters. I've seen some light guys destroying gear, and the other ones riding hard with simply having a light touch to any gear they ever use.
  • 19 0
 6'3' and on a size L? wouldn't that put you squarely on an XL?
  • 13 0
 Jack Moir: "Hold my beer"
  • 1 0
 Yeah what's up with the sizing here? The XXL wheelbase is the same as my current Large size lmao.
  • 4 0
 As a 6'3” guy myself, I appreciate that he tested a large. He explained why he chose that size. Props to more playful bikes over straightline stability
  • 18 0

- Requires attention in very rough terrain“

That’s a con of every bike I’ve ever owned
  • 12 2
 I bet it would have felt more stable a size up? Looking at the photos and given then fact that Dario is 6'3", testing a size L probably didn't flatter the bike from a stability perspective.
What a great price for the spec though.
  • 9 1
 Definitely, and I touched on that in the ride impressions. I prefer smaller bikes for my local trails, but if all-out speed is more the program then I'd size up.
  • 17 0
 100mm stem and a layback seatpost should sort that. /s
  • 2 1
 @bigtim: and the smaller frame size is lighter and more aero
  • 1 0
 derp wrong reply
  • 5 0
 @dariodigiulio "I might have made the chainstays a touch longer" Might've solved this complaint as well.
  • 5 0
 Just what I thought too....I think when testing bikes it is best when the folks stick to the size they are meant to ride according to the manufacturer. Even if they have different personal preference...
  • 1 1
 @dariodigiulio: the main photo of the bike has DT Swiss wheels with Goodyear tires, but the rest of the article has crank brother wheels and Maxxis tires as standard spec. Why is that?
  • 2 0
 @pedro46: check the first line under 'technical report
  • 10 1
 All of this and no talk of how / why YT spec'd this bike with the older AXS shifter pod instead of the newer Transmission style shifter pod... In this situation, older is better and I applaud YT for bucking the trend here!
  • 2 0
 Can you elaborate on why the older pod is better? Is it a cost thing?
  • 10 0
It actually is answered here - but in a Nutshell, YT doesn't like the new shifter pod.
Having currently owning both, I prefer the old style as it allows for both index finger and thumb shifting since it's a rocker vs the two buttons. This type of stuff is pretty subjective for personal preference but the ergonomics of the two button transmission shifter are not rad at all.
  • 2 3
 I like the shifter pod, never tried the old one though
  • 3 0
 @mariomtblt: You should see if you can try the older one, if only for the option to use finger / thumb. The best part is that they are all Bluetooth compatible, SRAM is doing some things right!

But if you like the new one it really doesn't matter. I probably wouldn't know different if I hadn't had the older set up for a season, and would like it also - Legit first world probs
  • 12 1
 34.4Lbs and it's carbon? hmm...
  • 10 0
 My thoughts exactly, why are trail bikes getting so heavy I have to pedal up nearly 2000ft round here
  • 11 1
 @novajimmer: So that they don't crack i guess
  • 5 0

I would agree that trail bikes are too heavy these days. However, part of the weight is the build kit: piggy back shocks and lyrik forks, 200mm dropper posts, etc. All that being said it’s a really good bike, I have friends who ride them regularly.
  • 21 3
 just put light xc tyres and bike will be 1 kg lighter, remove shock with piggy bag and save 300 g more, then lyrik to something lighter and 300 more g, also some 180/160 rotors to save more (don't forget 2 piston brakes), and rigid seatpost, but please don't complain after that something wrong with the bike=)
  • 4 14
flag novajimmer (Jan 8, 2024 at 9:03) (Below Threshold)
 @Noeserd: Should never happen if they are engineered correctly in the first place. Only a manufacturing fault would result in a failure, well that and dumb riders not been able to to ride properly. Never broken a frame in over 30yrs regardless of the discipline
  • 3 0
 @novajimmer: most of carbon frames are in range 2.5-3.5 kg. rest (and most) of the weigh are components.
  • 2 0
 @wyric: That would be an awful bike hahhaha. It would sure be a lot lighter though..true.
  • 4 4
 @novajimmer: come on man. My 5' tall girlfriend is riding 2000' rides just fine on a 30 pound bike.
  • 5 0
 @JSTootell: That was kind of my point, my current bike is 30lbs and its fine so why get something 15% heavier without any other benefit
  • 2 0
 @wyric: That’s entirely the wrong approach. You focus on switching out performance critical parts for lighter ones. But a bike like that could easily be built 2kg lighter without any change in performance in any way. Probably wouldn’t even be more expensive if you can live without the electro-shifting.
  • 2 1
 @Ttimer: please tell me how are you going to save 2 kg on that bike without sacrificing performance. Just in case weight difference between gx transmission and cable actuated gx around 150 g.
  • 2 3
 @novajimmer: are saying you have the same fitness and weight as my 5' tall, 125 pound girl? Ok.

You might have picked a bad metric to focus on is all I'm saying.
  • 1 0
 @novajimmer: That i would not agree, Modern bikes got so much bigger and so much more agressive even comparing to 6 7 year old bikes that they need more materials just to be strong enough.

Don't forget there is no way you are getting these components with this price if all the money went in to the frame to be as light as possible.

Also these bikes comes with tubes installed, if the weight is done with them then you have 700 grams of saves in weight already
  • 3 0
 @Noeserd: From the YT website: weight is 33.29 lbs for a size small without tubes, pedals, or water bottle.
  • 2 0
 @wyric: Starting points: light frame (Specialized, Giant, Scott, Last) ,
cable X0 drivetrain, Vecnum seatpost, wheels (e.g. Newmen), cockpit, MT5/7 brakes.
Debatable in terms of performance but probably no difference for most riders: DHR2 or DHF instead of Assegai as front tire.
  • 1 4
 Sheesh. So many weight weanies. here. It's an ALL MOUNTAIN bike. 34 lbs it light af. Look at the spec. Sure you can make it lighter, then again you should probably be riding a 120/130 trail bike or an XC bike. I mean looking at the spec list clearly explains it all. It's not the frame. It's the solid components meant to take a beating on a real mountain.
  • 3 0
 @SlavikChris: nah, I used to pedal a spesh big hit and a marin quake up to the top all the time...I know weight...I think it's more like "hey it's 2024...shouldn't these things be stronger, lighter and cheaper by now?"
  • 3 0
 @preach: As they say in the Engineering world you can only pick two out of those three at any one time Smile
  • 1 0
 @novajimmer: true true, yessir.
  • 2 1
 @wyric: Here's how to ride the bike as is and save FIVE pounds (or ride the alloy version):

BEFORE the ride: shave your head and legs, trim your nails, move your bowels, urinate, and 1 hour in the sauna. ON THE RIDE: go shirtless, freeball it, wear flip flops, and no gloves or glasses.

Celebrate your unmatched Strava times....
  • 7 0
 Props to YT for speccing real tires and brakes. If I’d be in a market for a new bike, I wouldn’t look elsewhere. I mean, across the whole range they offer great value. Only their gravel bike is too pricy, but I’ve heard rumours that budget version (Core 1 or 2 or whatever) is on the way too. Downvote me if you like to, but that gravel bike is such a pleasure to ride. Can’t say the same for JEFFSY, haven’t tried it. But again the value for money seems undeniable here.
  • 8 2
 I had a YT years ago and wouldn't buy one again due to the bad customer service in Canada. Took months to get responses and the German/US offices didn't want to get involved with Canadian customers (to my understanding it was only one canadian employee working for YT so it wasn't totally his fault). Any improvements on that front?
  • 9 0
 That’s a huge bummer. I will say, in recent years (in the US anyways) YT has gotten way better at customer service. I’ve had dozens roll into the shop and they’ve always been good about warranty, crash replacement, etc.

Canyon couldn’t even dream of being that helpful.
  • 1 0
 @TheGrey724: What experience did you have with Canyon? Been looking into one for my next bike.
  • 7 0
 Having owned a couple of YTs since 2020 and been nervous having read about some bad experiences, I can confirm that YT has taken noticeable steps to make sure their customer service is top notch. Very impressed, will be looking into a Jeffsy whenever my wallet allows for it.
  • 4 5
 worst customer service ever
  • 8 0
 @Caliwcm: My primary issue with Canyon comes with the Iridium dropper post they put on bikes. They are a nightmare and Canyon will not support them even if they break under warranty. Also very poor frame tolerance and designs that just make them a nightmare to service. Absolutely zero support for second owners. I usually advise people spend a little more and buy from a more ethical company.
  • 12 0
 I bought a YT this spring. It arrived with a small scratch in the frame. I contacted them via email the same day I received the bike. The next day, the response was: "We can ship you a new one, or offer you $100 to use on our site". I was extremely satisfied with: 1.) speed to respond and 2.) acknowledging/addressing my concern and 3.) providing more than fair and reasonable resolution to my issue.

Bikes also arrived a couple days earlier than expected.

So far, I have zero issues with their customer service.

Bike has been excellent and they are at the top of my list for my next bike.
  • 3 0
 @TheGrey724: Yikes that doesn't sound good. I will definitely do so more research before I consider a Canyon, thank you.
  • 3 0
 @neons97: That is great to hear. I had a mk1 Jeffsy back in 2016. I think one of the first ones in the Sea to Sky corridor. YT Canada was based out of Squamish then and while super friendly the response time to emails, texts, and phone calls left a lot to be desired. When they moved to Kelowna I looked elsewhere for my next bike as I was worried about problems if I ran into warranty issues.

I have always liked the look of their Capra. Maybe explore when n+1 comes calling. Smile
  • 1 0
 USA customer service is top notch. Bummer about Canada tho.
  • 3 0
 I've got an XXL Hightower, which is definitely bigger (in terms of Stack, Reach, ETT and WB) than the XXL Jeffsy. Which is great. Both are super well thought out bikes and there should be this kind of variety for people to choose from. Finally, good XXLs from more and more companies. YT's attention to detail r.e. ESTA is right on the money. Nice one.
  • 6 0
 They should do a JFSI edition Jeffsy.
Just f*cking Send It
  • 3 0
 seems like it's ready to be mullet-ed... puts it firmly in the list of bikes I would consider as a result. Would be nice if it could be spec-ed that way straight out of the box though...
  • 3 1
 Mullet's are great for very aggressive terrain and/ or shorter riders, but I find Mullet a distinct disadvantage on a trail bike.
I do run one mullet, but it's my 160mm mid power e-bike.
  • 6 0
 Come on Renthal, release that all black stem for sale!
  • 6 1
 But what kitchen appliance would you compare this bike to?
  • 3 1
 A toaster
  • 1 0
 "I think this bike would also benefit from hydraulic bottom-out, as that end stroke ramp and return is part of what makes the chassis feel unsettled as you push deep into the travel on consecutive hard compressions."

Spec list shows the SDU with R2CT...T stands for threshold, and is the air shocks mean of HBO?
  • 1 0
 T is Threshold, lockout switch. HBO is a different feature that's fixed on the SDU, if the model has it equipped which it may or may not.
  • 1 0
 Not sure when we'll start seeing other bike comparisons, but I would really like to see it compared to bikes at a closer point ice point, especially the Ibis Ripmo and Rocky Mountain Instinct. Anyone here have any thoughts? All of these are on my shortlist.
  • 1 0
 *closer price point...
  • 2 1
 Reminds of the review the Fezzari Delano Peak got a few years ago. These kinds of bikes are great because they really can do the greater part of the riding someone would do. The All-mountain category is accurate.
  • 3 0
 Definitely a proper trail bike.
  • 3 0
 15.6kg in size L for a trail bike.
  • 3 0
 Man, That saddle setup is really nose down.
  • 2 0
 Can you put a coil shock in there for the highspeed chatter @dariodigiulio?
  • 6 0
 Fitment and kinematic should work out well, though it's always worth reaching out to the company to see if there's a specific tune for the bike.
  • 3 0
 @dariodigiulio: I appreciate that! Thank you!
  • 2 0
 I want to sell my Core 2 cause I am a moron who cant get a normal waterbottle to fit in the holder
  • 3 0
 Awesome photos of Dario riding. Trails look mint too.
  • 2 0
 Both tires in the first pic say Goodyear Newton, but the treads look a bit different. What's the difference?
  • 3 0
 @mikekazimer: Son of a gun thanks. I went to goodyears website but the Newton page was only showing me the mtf. Thanks!
  • 2 0
 How does PB weigh the bikes? Are they weighed by PB with just sealant and pedals added?

  • 2 0
 Thanks for the references to the weird YT videos @dariodigiulio. I see what you did there
  • 1 2

Regarding the conclusion of the article, one thing I do not understand:
"The Jeffsy biases more towards the descent and traction when compared to the Hightower, which feels like a much more efficient bike. The latter generates speed a bit better in pumping terrain, where the Jeffsy can hold speed better through rougher chop.
Both bikes feel well-acclimated to a plethora of terrain, but for those who plan on getting into looser, more challenging territory, I might edge towards the Jeffsy."

But after reading the specifications, I woul have said the Hightower is more suitable for rough terrain, more "enduro" bike :
- HT is longer than the YT Jeffsy (wheelbase 1245 mm vs 1238 mm for L size)
- HT is steeper (head angle 64.5° vs 65°)
- Reachs are egual

What do you think, for me the specifications are not aligned with the conclusion of the article ?
  • 9 0
 Turns out static numbers don't tell the whole story.
  • 1 1
 @dariodigiulio: Yes that's true, but still strange for me ^^.
And if you compare these two bikes with the Rocky Mountain Instinct and Altitude , what can you say?
Thanks in advance!
  • 2 0
 The difference in ride type described could be applied to any two bikes having these two suspension designs: VPP vs. Horst Link.
  • 1 0
 @inter71: What do you mean ? Any bike with VPP suspension design will be less oriented descent than the same bike with Horst Link suspension design ?
  • 1 0
 Move shock vertical along seat tube, like your izzo, why do you think this would be beneficial. Comments can inspire thought sukkas.
  • 3 0
 . . . and its red. ;-)
  • 10 0
 Da red wuns go fasta!!!
  • 3 2
 How does this prevent me from riding my 15kg enduro bike on the local trails.
  • 3 0
 Thanks yt! Smile
  • 3 1
 My brother in Christ please start selling a frame only option
  • 2 0
 Youre riding in winter. Centrelines are going to be ok on a trail bike.
  • 2 0
  • 2 5
 "A Good Friend" short stack short reach good friend i dont kow why build tall rider short reach short stack mtb-s
brand 80% ? why i am 6.6 height long leg normal torso commencal short, yt short ,nukeproof short ,scott short ,modraker short , Trek not bad but,idiot top tube lenght short stack only specialized stumpy or maybe santacruz good geo chart horror price so my last chance is go costume steel frame ..
  • 1 0
 You're 6'6 mate, a genetic freak. Enjoy your height and buy a Marino frame.
  • 2 0
 Is it mulletable?
  • 1 0
 I'd know that trail anywhere, a dear favorite of mine. Sick photos.
  • 1 0
 I want one sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad.
  • 1 0
  • 3 5
 Looks like a Polygon...
  • 6 0
 I think YT had that design before Polygon.
  • 6 1
 @drjohn: and way before Canyon who just copied it Wink
  • 2 5
 Quality Frame hahahaha best laugh iv had all week
Below threshold threads are hidden

Copyright © 2000 - 2024. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.056945
Mobile Version of Website