Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

YELLI SCREAMY GEN. 3 // The Hardtail That Started a Revolution is Back

1 reading
Jump to Latest
141 - 160 of 196 Posts
#141 ·
On another note I’ve been happy with running the fork at 140mm instead of 130mm and moving the seat all the way back. The cockpit did feel a little compact with that steep STA. Making small adjustments here and there and getting to know this bike is taking some time tho
 
#147 ·
Ok guys looking for feedback. I decided my medium Yelli is too small. I’m 5’9 with 30” inseam and long torso. It fits my wife who is shorter than me perfect, so she gets a new bike. I’m really bummed for me lol.

I put a longer stem on and had to slide the saddle back in the rails and it just feels to cramped. I rode a large Yeti ARC and that felt great. So it’s a Yeti or a large Yelli….. anyone else size up?? Opinions?
 
#148 ·
jpo1 said:
Ok guys looking for feedback. I decided my medium Yelli is too small. I’m 5’9 with 30” inseam and long torso. It fits my wife who is shorter than me perfect, so she gets a new bike.

I put a longer stem on and had to slide the saddle back in the rails and it just feels to cramped. I rode a large Yeti ARC and that felt great. So it’s a Yeti or a large Yelli….. anyone else size up?? Opinions?
Click to expand...
Im also 5‘10 and my Yelli Screamy feels to small for me. Standing up it‘s okay but the seated position feels very cramped.
I am not sure what I will replace it with. I am going back an forth between a large Nukeproof Scout and a Santa Cruz Tallboy large.
 
#149 ·
jpo1 said:
Ok guys looking for feedback. I decided my medium Yelli is too small. I’m 5’9 with 30” inseam and long torso. It fits my wife who is shorter than me perfect, so she gets a new bike. I’m really bummed for me lol.

I put a longer stem on and had to slide the saddle back in the rails and it just feels to cramped. I rode a large Yeti ARC and that felt great. So it’s a Yeti or a large Yelli….. anyone else size up?? Opinions?
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m 5’10” and just took the parts off my Yelli for a Specialized Stumpjumper S3 I just built, which fits perfectly. I was thinking of going to buy a large Yelli but I’ve got a medium Titus Fireline with 140mm fork that fits well and is way more stable than the Yelli, but still corners and climbs just as good.
I think I got turned off by Canfield with their sizing ( I was trying everything to make it fit) and in the end I’m stuck with medium frame that should’ve fit much better but now I need to sell.
 
#150 ·
jpo1 said:
Ok guys looking for feedback. I decided my medium Yelli is too small. I’m 5’9 with 30” inseam and long torso. It fits my wife who is shorter than me perfect, so she gets a new bike. I’m really bummed for me lol.

I put a longer stem on and had to slide the saddle back in the rails and it just feels to cramped. I rode a large Yeti ARC and that felt great. So it’s a Yeti or a large Yelli….. anyone else size up?? Opinions?
Click to expand...
I am just over 6’1” (186cm) and the large is too small for me.
I bought an XL and just finished building it up. I don’t know yet if that is going to work. I typically need to ride 200-300 hours to really get a feel for a bike and decide if I like it. I am looking forward to riding it more and really hope it works for me. I am cautiously optimistic though!
I built up the large with new and really good quality largely unused take-off parts which I would prefer to sell as a complete bike but may now end up parting out given the state of the bike market!
 
#151 ·
@Sssteveyoung let us know how that works out, I hope that the XL will fit you.
I think overall the Canfield frames sizes have a narrow range of people that they fit, mostly due to the very steep seat tube angle.
I don't really know whether to buy another HT frame or to switch that bike to a lower travel FS. I loved the HT on my old trails, but I can't seem to enjoy myself riding a HT on black trails where I live now. I don't know whether the YS was the wrong frame (and size) for me or whether I would enjoy a low travel FS more. Do you guys have any thoughts on that?
 
#152 · (Edited)
rpsteiger said:
@Sssteveyoung let us know how that works out, I hope that the XL will fit you.
I think overall the Canfield frames sizes have a narrow range of people that they fit, mostly due to the very steep seat tube angle.
I don't really know whether to buy another HT frame or to switch that bike to a lower travel FS. I loved the HT on my old trails, but I can't seem to enjoy myself riding a HT on black trails where I live now. I don't know whether the YS was the wrong frame (and size) for me or whether I would enjoy a low travel FS more. Do you guys have any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
I am grappling with the same set of questions to some extent. Not just with the Yelli specifically but I am trying to figure out what makes some bikes perfect almost as soon as you ride them and some just never feel quite right.
I enjoy wrenching and riding equally and so spending hours in the shop changing things and experimenting with frames is fun/relaxation for me so I don’t resent the time spent on tuning which is a big consideration when trying to understand fitting I think. My road and track bikes are perfect and have been for 20 years. I haven’t changed anything other than replacing worn out parts in the last 2 decades.
The factors that make a bike feel perfect seem to be a combination of size, geometry and riding terrain.
For more aggressive riding on a hardtail, a slacker head tube really needs a different riding style. Hardtail Party has a good introductory video on this. I am still experimenting/practicing but a forward riding position is very important (that makes reach a critical geo measurement). That was a big advance for me once I understood it.
I have a 2011 XL Yelli that is perfect for blues and greens (for me) but on blacks it tends to want to pitch me over the bars so for more aggressive trails (especially with successive small (~10-12”) drops on a steeper slope) a slacker head tube angle really seems to help (the trail measurement of the geometry is also important here and obviously also related to head tube angle).
Slack head tube doesn’t climb steep switchbacks so well as the front end seems to drift and flop around. A steeper seat tube helps that quite a bit and makes it easier to sit forward in steeper seated climbs. However, for flatter trails the steep seat tube isn’t so comfortable for seated pedaling (for me on the 2022 Yelli).
I don’t know but I think that 77 degrees may be a bit too steep a seat tube angle for a hardtail for me. Maybe??? The 2011 Yelli with 73 seat and 68 head angles works really well for me on easier trails and multi-hour seated pedalling rides. (That’s an understatement - I love it for that!!!) but the 2022 XL Yelli with a steep 77 degree seat tube doesn’t work nearly as well on the flatter trails.
What I am evaluating now is whether the XL 2022 Yelli is really good with a modern (forward) riding position on steep switchback climbs and longer more challenging droppy descents. Thought being, old geometry bike for easier terrain and longer rides and new geometry for shorter rides (up to 2 hours) on steep up and down rides.
The other consideration is that I am generally between sizes and have downsized on the last few frames over the past decade and am now thinking with modern geometry that upsizing works better. As I get older I appreciate a bigger more stable bike and I am not looking for huge air time. (I am 54). I do prefer a poppier bike to a plough though.
I have an XL Spur that I was able to dial in quickly and easily and fits perfectly. Conversely I have a large Sentinel, that I have never been able to get to feel “quite right” and may try and sell (issue there may be size rather than geometry).
That’s a long ramble and comes from someone experimenting with things they haven’t fully figured out yet so maybe others will chip in with counterpoints.
 
#153 ·
Sssteveyoung said:
I am grappling with the same set of questions to some extent. Not just with the Yelli specifically but I am trying to figure out what makes some bikes perfect almost as soon as you ride them and some just never feel quite right.
I enjoy wrenching and riding equally and so spending hours in the shop changing things and experimenting with frames is fun/relaxation for me so I don’t resent the time spent on tuning which is a big consideration when trying to understand fitting I think. My road and track bikes are perfect and have been for 20 years. I haven’t changed anything other than replacing worn out parts in the last 2 decades.
The factors that make a bike feel perfect seem to be a combination of size, geometry and riding terrain.
For more aggressive riding on a hardtail, a slacker head tube really needs a different riding style. Hardtail Party has a good introductory video on this. I am still experimenting/practicing but a forward riding position is very important (that makes reach a critical geo measurement). That was a big advance for me once I understood it.
I have a 2011 XL Yelli that is perfect for blues and greens (for me) but on blacks it tends to want to pitch me over the bars so for more aggressive trails (especially with successive small (~10-12”) drops on a steeper slope) a slacker head tube angle really seems to help (the trail measurement of the geometry is also important here and obviously also related to head tube angle).
Slack head tube doesn’t climb steep switchbacks so well as the front end seems to drift and flop around. A steeper seat tube helps that quite a bit and makes it easier to sit forward in steeper seated climbs. However, for flatter trails the steep seat tube isn’t so comfortable for seated pedaling (for me on the 2022 Yelli).
I don’t know but I think that 77 degrees may be a bit too steep a seat tube angle for a hardtail for me. Maybe??? The 2011 Yelli with 73 seat and 68 head angles works really well for me on easier trails and multi-hour seated pedalling rides. (That’s an understatement - I love it for that!!!) but the 2022 XL Yelli with a steep 77 degree seat tube doesn’t work nearly as well on the flatter trails.
What I am evaluating now is whether the XL 2022 Yelli is really good with a modern (forward) riding position on steep switchback climbs and longer more challenging droppy descents. Thought being, old geometry bike for easier terrain and longer rides and new geometry for shorter rides (up to 2 hours) on steep up and down rides.
The other consideration is that I am generally between sizes and have downsized on the last few frames over the past decade and am now thinking with modern geometry that upsizing works better. As I get older I appreciate a bigger more stable bike and I am not looking for huge air time. (I am 54). I do prefer a poppier bike to a plough though.
I have an XL Spur that I was able to dial in quickly and easily and fits perfectly. Conversely I have a large Sentinel, that I have never been able to get to feel “quite right” and may try and sell (issue there may be size rather than geometry).
That’s a long ramble and comes from someone experimenting with things they haven’t fully figured out yet so maybe others will chip in with counterpoints.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the detailed answer (y)I think you are spot-on with the things you said. Yes, modern geometry helps to not go over the bars in steep sections--and maybe also on successive hits on drops as you said. However, the modern geometry then pushes out the front which is not ideal for climbing, as you've mentioned.
I think 77 degree is too step for a HT. I think it is different from a FS because of the way sag doesn't balance out in the front and the rear (see this video by the TrailBoss).
I think there is no perfect geometry, but ideal geometry for different types of riding. I think for XC you want around 67-69 head-angle and 75-<i really dont know> seat-angle. For a trail bike I think 65-66.5 head-angle and 76-77.5 seat tube is ideal. Lastly for enduro I prefer 63.5-64.5 head angles and 77.5 seat tube angles.
The steeper seat tube angle for XC-like riding makes sense to me since that pushes you into a more road-like riding position. On an enduro bike, I either sprint standing or pedal comfortably seating.

You said you own a Transition Spur. Isn't that the ideal bike for easy trails? Honestly I'm thinking that low travel FS bikes outperform HT in every way but price. What makes you want to have a designated HT bike?

I am not surprised that you could not get used to the Sentinel. I owned a Transition Spire and could not get used to it either. I sold the frame after 3-4 months of riding it. For me Transition is going too extreme with the geometry on their gravity bikes. Their bikes are VERY slack and have REALLY long chain stays. The head-angle can be corrected with an angleset but the chain stays cannot.

Lastly, I am trying not to spend thousands on moneys because I love buying bikes. I am trying myself that it makes sense to have two bikes so that I can still ride when something brakes. Up to this point, I figured it would make sense to have an enduro bike and a trail HT. However, I crashed 3 times on my HT in one week, while waiting for my new enduro frame to come in -- I don't really crash often, even when I am racing. All of this makes se seriously rethink wheter a HT is the correct bike for me. I am considering some of these frames: Scor 2030, Fezzari Signal Peak, Santa Cruz Tallboy. But then again I could buy a Nukeproof scout frame for 500 while those other frames cost me at least 2500-3000 which is a LOT of money.
 
#154 ·
rpsteiger said:
Thank you for the detailed answer (y)I think you are spot-on with the things you said. Yes, modern geometry helps to not go over the bars in steep sections--and maybe also on successive hits on drops as you said. However, the modern geometry then pushes out the front which is not ideal for climbing, as you've mentioned.
I think 77 degree is too step for a HT. I think it is different from a FS because of the way sag doesn't balance out in the front and the rear (see this video by the TrailBoss).
I think there is no perfect geometry, but ideal geometry for different types of riding. I think for XC you want around 67-69 head-angle and 75-<i really dont know> seat-angle. For a trail bike I think 65-66.5 head-angle and 76-77.5 seat tube is ideal. Lastly for enduro I prefer 63.5-64.5 head angles and 77.5 seat tube angles.
The steeper seat tube angle for XC-like riding makes sense to me since that pushes you into a more road-like riding position. On an enduro bike, I either sprint standing or pedal comfortably seating.

You said you own a Transition Spur. Isn't that the ideal bike for easy trails? Honestly I'm thinking that low travel FS bikes outperform HT in every way but price. What makes you want to have a designated HT bike?

I am not surprised that you could not get used to the Sentinel. I owned a Transition Spire and could not get used to it either. I sold the frame after 3-4 months of riding it. For me Transition is going too extreme with the geometry on their gravity bikes. Their bikes are VERY slack and have REALLY long chain stays. The head-angle can be corrected with an angleset but the chain stays cannot.

Lastly, I am trying not to spend thousands on moneys because I love buying bikes. I am trying myself that it makes sense to have two bikes so that I can still ride when something brakes. Up to this point, I figured it would make sense to have an enduro bike and a trail HT. However, I crashed 3 times on my HT in one week, while waiting for my new enduro frame to come in -- I don't really crash often, even when I am racing. All of this makes se seriously rethink wheter a HT is the correct bike for me. I am considering some of these frames: Scor 2030, Fezzari Signal Peak, Santa Cruz Tallboy. But then again I could buy a Nukeproof scout frame for 500 while those other frames cost me at least 2500-3000 which is a LOT of money.
Click to expand...
I sold my Nimble 9 and bought a Ripley. I sometimes miss having a hardtail, but I would make name same choice again. It’s hard to beat a short travel 29er.
 
#156 ·
Sssteveyoung said:
I am just over 6’1” (186cm) and the large is too small for me.
I bought an XL and just finished building it up. I don’t know yet if that is going to work. I typically need to ride 200-300 hours to really get a feel for a bike and decide if I like it. I am looking forward to riding it more and really hope it works for me. I am cautiously optimistic though!
I built up the large with new and really good quality largely unused take-off parts which I would prefer to sell as a complete bike but may now end up parting out given the state of the bike market!
Click to expand...
I gave mine about 200 miles of tinkering, but in the end its just too small. In my opinion the seat tube angle is to steep for a hardtail. My full suspension has the same static seat tube angle that slackens when sagged and feels perfect. The yelli's seat tube angle steepens with sag.
 
#158 ·
This was my experience as well. At 5-10, I built up a new Yelli in medium last year. I loved the reach when standing and the bike would have been perfect with a slacker seat tube angle. I did not want the reach or wheelbase of a large, so I sold the Yelli and bought a M/L Trek Roscoe frame and run it with a 130mm fork, which gives it the same geometry as the Yelli, but a slacker seat tube angle, it's perfect.

It's too bad because I loved everything else about the Yelli, but I definately think that 77 degrees is too steep for a hardtail.
 
#159 · (Edited)
Sorry for the slow response - there is a lot to unpack there. I have been thinking and riding for the past week as I got a few days off work. BUT, I still haven't concluded!

rpsteiger said:
Thank you for the detailed answer (y)I think you are spot-on with the things you said. Yes, modern geometry helps to not go over the bars in steep sections--and maybe also on successive hits on drops as you said. However, the modern geometry then pushes out the front which is not ideal for climbing, as you've mentioned.
I think 77 degree is too step for a HT. I think it is different from a FS because of the way sag doesn't balance out in the front and the rear (see this video by the TrailBoss).
I think there is no perfect geometry, but ideal geometry for different types of riding. I think for XC you want around 67-69 head-angle and 75-<i really dont know> seat-angle. For a trail bike I think 65-66.5 head-angle and 76-77.5 seat tube is ideal. Lastly for enduro I prefer 63.5-64.5 head angles and 77.5 seat tube angles.
The steeper seat tube angle for XC-like riding makes sense to me since that pushes you into a more road-like riding position. On an enduro bike, I either sprint standing or pedal comfortably seating.
Click to expand...
77 degrees is, for sure, a steep seat tube angle on a hardtail but I am not ready to concede quite yet that it is too steep. I am as near certain as I can be that a lot of the challenges I had with the YSv3 were because the large is too small for me. I now have an XL that is fully built up and I need to spend time riding and tweaking. XL is running a 140mm fork right now as that is what the fork was set at when I fitted it so I will ride 140 to start and then maybe adjust from there (with obvious 0.5 deg slackening effect on the critical seat angle). Even the large YS was a ton of fun on the steeps. REALLY fun! It was good (but maybe a bit cramped) for seated climbing, but really no serious complaints there either. The main challenge was that for a couple of hours or more of undulating trail - more or less XC type terrain - it felt really cramped and there was a lot of pressure on my hands. Some of the hand pressure might be tuned out with a riser bar and more back sweep as I tend to like/need a lot of stack and have specific preferences with wrist angle (as getting older!). However, it wasn't possible for me to dissect all the things I needed to tweak in the cockpit to optimize everything properly when I had clearly bought the wrong size frame in the first place. First few rides on the XL and it is much more comfortable. The downs are just as much fun, the steep switchback ups are improved relative to riding the large but the XL still doesn't seem to be the best choice for me for flatter trail type riding. So I am thinking that the aggressive hardtails are niche bikes which are really good on steep up and down, way better in fact than the geometry of 2015/6 in the steep and chunky stuff, but at the cost of comfortable seated trail riding. For me that is a fair trade-off if you are going to run a quiver of bikes. if you want a single hardtail for a lot of different terrain that is comfortable seated for XC and undulating trail type terrain (and are O.K. with compromise with very steep ups and downs) then I would think that 67-68 head and 75-76 seat gives you a bike that works better on a broader spectrum of terrain. That's where I would go if I were buying just one bike and that bike a hardtail.

rpsteiger said:
You said you own a Transition Spur. Isn't that the ideal bike for easy trails? Honestly I'm thinking that low travel FS bikes outperform HT in every way but price. What makes you want to have a designated HT bike?
Click to expand...
For me, yes - the Spur is shaping up to be a perfect bike for easy (and not so easy) trails. If I had to have only one mountain bike it would be the Spur (or something very similar). The Spur triggered a lot of thought and changes as it was so perfect for what I wanted it for from the first ride that it made me realize that the YS and Sentinel were too small. You could reasonably argue that a light duty FS is superior to a hardtail but I really like building bikes and I really like hardtails. I can't provide a coherent explanation of why that is or justify it! I am currently obsessed with understanding how small changes in geometry affect feel and handling and hardtails seem like a good way to explore that in a series of slightly less expensive (than FS) but very fun experiments. I have all the build kit I am likely to need any time soon so hardtails allow for experimenting at around 800 bucks a frame (or way less if you go secondhand) that I find interesting. All the messing around in the garage with tools is a big part of the enjoyment too. Right now my favorite hardtail is a YSv1.0 set up 1x11. That's inferior to the YS v3.0 on the steeps but for just having fun in the woods it is a hoot. That is economic fun as the frame was a gift from my brother who "couldn't give it away" to anyone else after it was PX'ed in his shop and I got it going intially with a parts bin build. You could do the same sorts of experiments with a selection of FS frames but that would be way more expensive and for whatever reason, doesn't appeal to me.


rpsteiger said:
I am not surprised that you could not get used to the Sentinel. I owned a Transition Spire and could not get used to it either. I sold the frame after 3-4 months of riding it. For me Transition is going too extreme with the geometry on their gravity bikes. Their bikes are VERY slack and have REALLY long chain stays. The head-angle can be corrected with an angle set but the chain stays cannot.
Click to expand...
I think the Sentinel is almost certainly entirely another "bought the wrong size" problem for me. I have a large and maybe should probably have gone with XL (there's a theme here clearly...). For that sort of bike, Sentinel or Spire, I am looking for something that climbs well enough to winch to the top but is really exceptional on big long open chunky mountain descents. Slack headtube and longer chain stays on the Sentinel fit the bill for me for that application. Spire was a bit more bike that I wanted. I have ridden the Sentinel a lot in the Sierra's and also in Mexico/Oaxaca on MTB shuttle vacations and it really is a great bike, it is just a little cramped relative to the Spur and I can't get it to feel perfect (good but not perfect). The YSv1.0 and the Spur are both exactly right (I never feel like I want to change them) which is what I am still working to achieve with the YS v3.0 and the Sentinel. I am focused on getting the YS just right first, then I might turn my attention back to the Sentinel and play around with an XL if I can find one for an acceptable price. Alternatively there is something like a Lithium...

rpsteiger said:
Lastly, I am trying not to spend thousands on moneys because I love buying bikes. I am trying myself that it makes sense to have two bikes so that I can still ride when something brakes. Up to this point, I figured it would make sense to have an Enduro bike and a trail HT. However, I crashed 3 times on my HT in one week, while waiting for my new Enduro frame to come in -- I don't really crash often, even when I am racing. All of this makes se seriously rethink wheter a HT is the correct bike for me. I am considering some of these frames: Scor 2030, Fezzari Signal Peak, Santa Cruz Tallboy. But then again I could buy a Nukeproof scout frame for 500 while those other frames cost me at least 2500-3000 which is a LOT of money.
Click to expand...
I am also not looking to spend thousands either although I have not been very disciplined with the hardtail frame purchasing the past 5 years (I have 6 frames although 2 were older "rescue" bikes that I got for free). I am at the point now where the goal is to refine and reduce the quiver to a smaller number of hardtail bikes which are perfect for a given application (however niche that application might be).

For just 2 bikes, a well chosen Enduro and a lighter trail bike, both FS, cover the most bets best?. The Spur is definitely one of those bikes for me plus I want to narrow down to 2-3 hardtails longer term.

I don't want to take the Yelli thread off topic even further so I am am going to do a lot more riding before I post again. When I get somewhere with optimizing the set-up for the YSv3.0 I'll report back.
 
141 - 160 of 196 Posts
About this Discussion
195 Replies
45 Participants
Last post:
3_Dimensional
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion