Editor’s Note: With these Ride Impressions Twenty Nine Inches riders do not imply that these bicycles are ultimately good, bad, or indifferent for you. We do mean to convey through our many hours of riding lots of different 29 inch wheeled bicycles over a period of years to give you, the reader, an indication of what you might expect from these new rigs. In other words, this ain’t no review, but hopefully it points you in the right direction.
Yeti SB 95 Ride Impressions: by Grannygear
I was quite excited to get onto the newest Yeti with the Switch rear suspension and I took my place in line at the Demo Days booth and waited..and waited…and…well, waited. To say that the SB 95 was popular is an understatement for sure, but finally I got an XL ready to go out of the gate. I liked the set-up of the shorter stem and wide bar and after some intro into shock settings, I was off.
My focus this Demo Days was on the latest 120mm bikes (and two 100mm bikes too) so several bikes had already been ridden (and one was still to come) so the Yeti had some work to do. Within the first 100 feet I knew I was in ‘like‘. By the time I was halfway through the loop I was in love. When I was headed back to the Yeti tent I was wondering how much one of these would cost me (and I know it would not be cheap). Yeah, I think it is that good.
For one thing, keep in mind that poor set-up can make or break a test ride of 30 minutes in duration. Even a poor stem or handlebar choice can tilt a ride into the so-so zone, so I have to say that this bike fit me perfectly. But beyond that, it was just so darn dialed feeling. I was going very fast on a difficult trail nearly right away, in fact it was like I had been riding it for days. The only other bike that came off that way to me was a DW link Turner I rode at Demo Days a couple of years ago and in my opinion this Yeti spanks the DW rear end as far as inspiring you to go fast down the trail. Like most good designs these days, whether by pivot placement or shock platform or both, the pedaling was steady and smooth and just slightly firm. In that it was more like the Horsethief which I had already ridden, but the Yeti was just a bit spunkier feeling and the shorter rear end made it simple to loft the front and carry it over rollers and such. Jumps and dips were a hoot. Yeah, buddy. The wheels were clad with 2.1 Racing Ralphs and not some 2.3 trail tire like the Horsethief had, so credit some of the speed to a light rubber choice. I doubt that many riders would choose that tire on a 120mm trail bike, so keep that in mind.
120mm of travel on this bike felt like a bit more and I was hitting some of the moderate drops on the loop with not even a wiggle and rocketing over the top of the following climb. After just riding the FSR 130mm Project Long Legged XC at Mammoth Mtn Bike Park, I would have guessed the Yeti had more than 120mm if I had not known better. I was told that the suggested limits of fork travel are still being discussed so whether or not you can go to 130mm or 140mm is up in the air as of test day.
So what did I not like? Well that 2.1 Racing Ralph was already looking snug in that chainstay. Having a short rear end is good (to a point) but the price seems to be a lack of room for a truly big trail tire. I am not sure if the 2.3 Geax Sturdy I have on the FSR test bike would even fit (it barely fits on the FSR). There is only one bottle cage mount, but that is common these days.
Other than that? Well, Yetis are expensive, so expect to pay a lot more than say, the Salsa 120mm Horsethief. A lot more. But price is still being decided as I was told. Now whether that extra cost is worth it to you is for you to decide and really, although the intent of the two bikes are the same, the average audience may not be. This is a boutique frame in the way that Turners and Ellsworths and Ibis are so they cost a bit to play. But if I were writing a check today and I had the clams in the bank, I would have Yeti Cycles on the ‘PAY TO THE ORDER OF’ line.
And Now…. A short video/interview with Stretch from Yeti and Luke from Sotto Design: Click Here
Stay tuned for the Salsa Cycles Horsethief ride impressions and more coming soon!
Nice angle on the right side behind the crank. Was wondering how the FD fit in there.
GT, it looks like the only bottle cage mount is UNDER the down tube. IMO, this makes it more of an “Almost a Bottle Mount”. I am hoping my eyes have deceived me.
No doubt many others are waiting for word on whether or not bigger tires will or will not fit. I know that I am. A rugged trail bike that cannot run a Maxxis 2.4 rear tire size is just a curiosity to me. It really does matter that much.
Finally, if they don’t certify this frame for use with the new 140 mm Fox 34, they will send prospective buyers flying into the arms of the competition.
Otherwise, sounds like a killer bike, and the classic Yeti Team colors look great!
GT, how tall are you again? The xl Yeti has a 26″ top tube right?
Actually, Grannygear rode the Yeti, and he is a tad bit more rangy than I.
@All
Grannygear, here. I actually rode this XL SB95 and I am 6’2″ tall with long arms. I also tip towards XLs and 25″-ish TT lengths. However, I can do a large depending on the ‘reach’ of the frame and the intent of the ride. So, I asked the Yeti guys as the final arbiter and they hemmed and hawed and put me on the XL. It fit great but I bet that the LG would work for other folks my size.
Yes, although the pre-production bike I rode had no ‘braze-ons’ for any bottles, I was told that the cage mount goes under the down tube. Remember how those Indians on the western movies would hang under the horse while in full gallop and shoot those pesky cowboys? Getting to the bottle while riding is kinda like that.
As far as tire clearance, as I said in the impression article it was not generous. Will the frames that hit the showroom be different? Not sure but I was not told that parameter would change. A 2.25 would be good. Bigger than that? Well…..it will be interesting to see as these roll out to buyers as to what actually fits. I could be wrong.
grannygear
Glad to know I wasn’t the only one with good things to say about the SB95
Oops, sorry GG . . . Thanks for the info. This bike looks like a ton o fun and perfect for my 6’6″ frame. Might wait for the carbon version though . . . GG, have you spent any time on a xl or xxl Tallboy? Just wondering about fit comparisons (not the ride) . . . .
And I’m putting a Fox 140 on there no matter what they say!!
Any pics of the non-drive side. What is attaching the swing link to the swingarm and is is threaded into the drive-side swingarm?
Are these built overseas or is this a USA built frame?
@Me
I did review the XL Tall Boy back in the past on TNI.com It has been a while, but I would say they were a comparable fit…XL to XL, but that also needs to be taken in light of stems, seatposts, etc.
No, I think I only shot the drive side. No idea on where they are built.
grannygear
@SS: I have some images of the frame only display at the yeti booth. I’ll have to check through those and see what I can find.
@Kosmo: agreed. A bike like this deserves big rubber. 2.35 Schwalbes should fit!
First reviews of short cs bikers like SB95, Element 29, Spider 229 vs long cs bike like Horsethief all tell the same story: short CS are nice, but compromise tire clearance. :-/
@ all:
or maybe not… ? Rip Cs is reasonable and has quite a lot of tire clearance if i’m correct. Bit problematic on the triple setup, though.
Any more ?
This review, read with the Horsethief one following, are interesting indeed. GG likes the Yeti with its short chainstays, but bemoans the lack of tire clearance. Likes the Horsethief (less, I am deducing), but the 18″ chainstays do allow bigger rubber.
Guess that leaves us to decide whether the shortCS/smaller tire combo is what we like, or the larger-tired/longer CS ‘thief is the better ride.
Looks like room for both in our world – can’t wait to demo both and see what rings the bell.
I am in the market for a long travel 29er this year – perhaps TNI can share some wisdom on how to evaluate the many offerings:
How does 130mm or 140 mm on a 29er compare to similar travel on a 26er fully? Do we need 150mm on our 29er big-hit machine?
For trail/AM riding – what should we 29er drivers be looking for in tire clearance? Chainstay length? BB height?
What other metrics apply to evaluating 29er trail/AM?
Well regarding ‘having it all’ –
I just spent some time at a California Bike Park doing some lift assisted riding on the Project Long Legs FSR so that is fresh in my mind. First of all, the FSR has, according to Specialized a 450mm/17.7″ CS length. I think that is a very good place to be and I appreciated that when I needed to do drops off of the stunts at Mammoth Mtn. It just makes it that much easier to do and gives away very little in climbing ability or stability.
As well, I specifically mounted some of the Geax 2.3 Sturdys on the FSR for the pumice and rocks of Mammoth. That is a big tire and worthy of the task at hand. It fits on the FSR with some room to spare. I also am running 2×9 on that bike and it shifts fine. So, you can have it all. If you want even shorter stays than that 17.7″ length on a longer travel FS, then you may need to give up a front der and if you are really a serious AM/DH rider, that may not matter to you at all.
Talking with an engineer for one of the companies, the number spit out that is the minimum for getting it all to work is 17.75″ and that seems to be doable based on the FSR. However, the suspension design may not physically allow for that, especially some of the short link bikes, and still hit all the bullet points of clearance, etc.
I am still up in the air about the travel limits on 29ers and where it will play out. Lenzsport has been at the top for some time now and his PBJ bike works great. Bigger than that? Not sure. I will say that I don’t think that it is purely a travel measurement that separates a big hit/AM 26er from an AM 29er. While 6″ on a 26er may be equal to 5″ on a 29er and so on, the beefy forks, wheels, tires, and slacker angles on the 26ers are still a step above what 29ers have going. But they have been refined to that point over time and I am sure that 29ers will continue in that direction and get better over time. But just where they stop? I am not sure anyone really knows just yet as a lot of that will be what the consumer wants to ride.
Will the pads and full face folks embrace big wheels, even if the bikes are built and for sale?
grannygear
@Lee T: I’ve got a bit of a write up on Devin Lenz coming that points to how he has had it figured out since 2007. 🙂
I’ve ridden a Lunchbox at Outdoor Demo, back in 2008 and in 2009. The bikes Devin was making then were rolling 1300 gram prototype WTB tires, not quite up to snuff White Brothers forks, and sub-par rear dampers. Oh- and straight steer tubes too. 🙂 All those things didn’t hold back the bike though, and if all those things were the “new and improved” versions, I would say the bar is set pretty dang high for companies following in his footsteps. Devin showed sub 18″ chain stays, long travel, front derailleurs, and big tires can all get in there some how and work really, really well.
That said, the Horsethief is just another way to skin the cat, and it works really, really well. Remember, were grousing about what amounts to 5-6mm of chain stay length here when talking about the Salsa vs the other bikes with just under 18 inch stays. 😉
“Really” short chain stay bikes do exist that are FS rigs. Stay tuned for the update on the Devinci Atlas soon…..
@GG – Mammoth is my inspiration for this bigger-travel hunt – I am on a 100mm ’08 Hifi 29er with Flows and Stouts, and while it handles a lot, it’s time for the next level. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I have suspected there was more than some parametric between 26 and 29 travels.
@GT – well, I have always wanted a Lunchbox, and it is the standard against which I am evaluating the newer entrants. Of course, if I could get a 150mm fork with a tapered steerer, the 6″ Box would just do it. I have had some very good advice from people anyone would respect that I should do the Box on a tapered 140 and trade up when the right bigger fork comes along.
Looking forward to the report on Devin. Colorado has a lot of bike genius.
FYI…Another review from singletrack.com states “The bike I rode was fitted with narrow Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25-inch tires — not what I would throw on, if this were a personal sled. Worryingly, the short chain stays left little room for the rear tire to breath. There certainly isn’t room for a big trail tire.”
I tried this thing at Tamrancho in Marin and it is so sick. This climbs better than the big top(also demo) The SB-95 is more for the mellow rider though. It kind of takes the fun out of a technical trail. They should make it a SB-94 with a short chain stay. Then this thing would HAUL.
just demo’ed this bike against the arc5 carbon. I had orginally gone to try the 575 vs the arc5, but Brian talked me in to trying the sb95. rode the same 3 mile loop back to back – no comparison is the firmnest of the suspension, with the switch, it just rocked up the climb. The arc5 carbon, though almost 3 lbs lighter, felt like it bobbed along, and tired me out. nice ride! and of course the 29 downhill smoked the 26er front wheel on the arc5. nice job yeti!!
Have a 2.35″ Hans Dampf on my XL SB95….and it barely fits! By my 2nd ride, there was paint that had rubbed off the seattube – a clear indication that the seattube is touching the rear tyre when getting near the limits of its travel. Not good.