Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How does the 130 compare to the 4.5 on efficiency? I was looking for a daily rider/trainer and using the SB100 on XC races. I currently ride a 4.5 and use my 100 the week of my endurance races. I have read many comparisons vs. the 5.5 but nothing against the 4.5. Also, what about pedal strikes? Is it worth the extra weight penalty to go Lunch Ride to avoid pedal strikes? To be honest, the bike would be over kill for the trails I ride, so I want it closer to the 100 in feel. I just hate re-thinking my climbing lines because of pedal strikes. Thanks in advance for any input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Ha ha I'm just considering the same thing! Shop trying to convince me to go 4.5 but wary of buying a now superseded model, and the no water bottle is a bit of a pain.
Can demo the 130 but not 4.5 which makes it hard.
I have an sworks epic and want something more fun as I'm not really racing XC anymore.
 

·
Freezer
Joined
·
586 Posts
How does the 130 compare to the 4.5 on efficiency? I was looking for a daily rider/trainer and using the SB100 on XC races. I currently ride a 4.5 and use my 100 the week of my endurance races. I have read many comparisons vs. the 5.5 but nothing against the 4.5. Also, what about pedal strikes? Is it worth the extra weight penalty to go Lunch Ride to avoid pedal strikes? To be honest, the bike would be over kill for the trails I ride, so I want it closer to the 100 in feel. I just hate re-thinking my climbing lines because of pedal strikes. Thanks in advance for any input.
Didn't you sort of answer your own question? If you already have a 4.5 and an SB100 and think that the SB130 is overkill for your trails, you don't need an SB130. It's a much bigger, heavier bike than the 4.5 and unless you have the descents to take advantage of, you're just hauling a heavier, less efficient pedaling bike around for no reason. Why don't you just get a second set of wheels for the SB100 that you can mount up 2.4 or 2.5 tires on for training/trail rides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks for the replies and input. I am not sure where I am at. I don't really like the added weight on the Lunch ride model (brake rotors, longer seat post, heavier brakes, and wider bars). The weight difference is 2 pounds, according to the website. I do like the longer travel fork and rear shock. It seems to solve the issue of pedal strikes and a more plush front fork. I was also thinking of building up a burly sb 100 with a 130 pike up front and bigger brakes and tires. I am not sure if the 130 front 100 back combo would be optimal. I will do some research to see if it has been done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
Thanks for the replies and input. I am not sure where I am at. I don't really like the added weight on the Lunch ride model (brake rotors, longer seat post, heavier brakes, and wider bars). The weight difference is 2 pounds, according to the website. I do like the longer travel fork and rear shock. It seems to solve the issue of pedal strikes and a more plush front fork. I was also thinking of building up a burly sb 100 with a 130 pike up front and bigger brakes and tires. I am not sure if the 130 front 100 back combo would be optimal. I will do some research to see if it has been done.
I really don't understand the weight thing at all. Sure lighter is better. If you are looking for a trail bike then the SB130 is the ticket, is 30lbs really that heavy. I seriously don't even notice the difference between a 29lb bike vs a 33lb bike.

You already have a 100 so why build another up. Weight is not the be all end all. I would rather have a bike that weighs a couple of pounds heavier than bike that is not capable or durable. Is 20g penalty for a 203 Rotor even noticeable.

Seems to me that you are looking for a Down Country bike. I hate that term but that is what it seems you are looking for.

What not check out the Pivots. They have a wider range. I bet the 429Trail would be your ticket. The new SL is supposed to be even more capable than the 100.

You have not even really explained how tall you are, what you weight, what type of trails you ride. Without this type of information your probably getting bad advice.
 

·
I am Walt
Joined
·
6,393 Posts
A. Don’t get the 4.5; too close to the 100
B. If you want a different, plusher, more “trail-ish” bike, just get the 130.
C. Or just ride the **** out of your 100; maybe adding a “beefier” configuration to make it a bit different from your “race” config. I am new 100 owner/rider, and find that it is all the bike I need or want, for race or trail/all-mountain days.
D. As was previously mentioned, consider a Pivot Trail 429.

If I were you, I’d do C., or possibly B. Don’t overthink it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I am definitely keeping the sb100 and I love riding and racing it. I'm 6'3" and a fit 200, so this bike is perfect for my occasional XC endurance races. I found other XC bikes flex too much and running a 32 or similar fork just doesn't work well with me.

I do think I am looking for a Down Country type bike. My favorite bike to ride is my 5.5 but I find myself wishing I was on the SB100 when climbing over 3,000 feet in a day. The bike is a dream downhill and climbs decent but you can't keep up with capable riders around here on the uphills. When I ride the 100, I find myself wishing I was on the 5.5 when the trails start down. It is great downhill but requires finesse and not really aiming for the big stuff. I don't really know where I would place the 4.5, hence the reason I'm looking to replace it. It climbs decent and descends decent. It was an amazing bike for many years for me. Far more capable than anything I rode previous. Just looking to "have my cake and eat it too" bike. Something between the 130 and 100 would be my choice but I can't figure out what end of the spectrum to go. I am also having a hard time figuring out if I went 130, if the lunch ride would be the better option? Or going with a beefed up SB 100. I'm trying not to overthink it, just trying to make the best decision with wonderful input from everybody.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
If you race XC with the 100 on the weekends, the obvious move seems to go for the heavier trail bike (the SB130 either LR or not). You’ll have a dedicated trail/all mountain bike that with the extra weight will make you stronger when you hit the XC circuit on the 100.
 

·
I am Walt
Joined
·
6,393 Posts
When I ride the 100, I find myself wishing I was on the 5.5 when the trails start down. It is great downhill but requires finesse and not really aiming for the big stuff.
I think that observation is spot-on about descending on the 100, and fits how I ride.

I agree with the post above this, and say get the 130.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I own a 4.5 and have done for 3 years. I've demo'd an SB130 (twice).

Firstly, the 4.5 is an incredibly versatile bike. What that bike is capable of with 140F/114R in relation to its numbers is amazing.

And that's the problem. I'm struggling to find a replacement. The SB130 would be its natural successor. Especially as I feel the extra travel front and rear should make up for some of 4.5 short comings when things get fast, the hits get bigger, etc. But still retaining the SI support and feel for climbing.

Yet, on the two SB130 demos I had, which I have written my experience of over in the build thread, I wasn't completely sold like I was when I demo'd the 4.5.

It's heavier. It feels shorter (cockpit). It doesn't feel as playful.

Obviously the frame is heavier and the components are too. So this is a given and expected. So something to get used to.

The steeper STA, shorter ETT (only by 5mm), shorter stem (by 10mm) and wider bars contribute to the cockpit feeling shorter than the 4.5. The smaller frame from a standover and ST length contribute to this feeling also. There's not a lot in it and with tweaks (adopting a 50mm stem rather than 40mm), bars with less sweep, more rise perhaps this can be accommodated. I think World Wide Cyclery have an overaly image of both the 4.5 and SB130 on one of their first look articles for the SB130.

The weight, longer wheelbase and slacker HA made the bike feel less playful. Maybe this is how a lot of the nu-skool geo bikes feel. More planted and plough like. Granted it did feel good descending. It retained that relatively firm short travel feel to push and pump against when rallying the bike yet soaked up the hits with the longer travel.

I would like a third demo on the bike as both times have been at unfamiliar trail centres. So riding both a local xc orientated loop from the front door as well as a more steep up, steep down descent orientated natural loop a short drive away should either seal the deal or send me back to the drawing board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
I own a 4.5 and have done for 3 years. I've demo'd an SB130 (twice).

Firstly, the 4.5 is an incredibly versatile bike. What that bike is capable of with 140F/114R in relation to its numbers is amazing.

And that's the problem. I'm struggling to find a replacement. The SB130 would be its natural successor. Especially as I feel the extra travel front and rear should make up for some of 4.5 short comings when things get fast, the hits get bigger, etc. But still retaining the SI support and feel for climbing.

Yet, on the two SB130 demos I had, which I have written my experience of over in the build thread, I wasn't completely sold like I was when I demo'd the 4.5.

It's heavier. It feels shorter (cockpit). It doesn't feel as playful.

Obviously the frame is heavier and the components are too. So this is a given and expected. So something to get used to.

The steeper STA, shorter ETT (only by 5mm), shorter stem (by 10mm) and wider bars contribute to the cockpit feeling shorter than the 4.5. The smaller frame from a standover and ST length contribute to this feeling also. There's not a lot in it and with tweaks (adopting a 50mm stem rather than 40mm), bars with less sweep, more rise perhaps this can be accommodated. I think World Wide Cyclery have an overaly image of both the 4.5 and SB130 on one of their first look articles for the SB130.

The weight, longer wheelbase and slacker HA made the bike feel less playful. Maybe this is how a lot of the nu-skool geo bikes feel. More planted and plough like. Granted it did feel good descending. It retained that relatively firm short travel feel to push and pump against when rallying the bike yet soaked up the hits with the longer travel.

I would like a third demo on the bike as both times have been at unfamiliar trail centres. So riding both a local xc orientated loop from the front door as well as a more steep up, steep down descent orientated natural loop a short drive away should either seal the deal or send me back to the drawing board.
I also have a 4.5 and have done a 2.5 hour demo on the sb130. The cockpit did feel shorter, but not quite uncomfortable. I bet you'd need to move the seat back to compensate for the STA. Aside from that, maybe you could roll the bars forward a bit on the demo to make up for the shorter stem. If I were to get a 130, I'd probably end up with a 50mm stem.

I really couldn't find any short comings to the 130 at all. The 4.5 definitely feels more sensitive to steering inputs, where the 130 felt more stable. It took me about a minute descending to get used to the more forward positioning. I was also riding on the trails down the street from Yeti. I'd have to demo one again on local trails as they're quite different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
I own a 4.5 and have done for 3 years. I've demo'd an SB130 (twice).

Firstly, the 4.5 is an incredibly versatile bike. What that bike is capable of with 140F/114R in relation to its numbers is amazing.

And that's the problem. I'm struggling to find a replacement. The SB130 would be its natural successor. Especially as I feel the extra travel front and rear should make up for some of 4.5 short comings when things get fast, the hits get bigger, etc. But still retaining the SI support and feel for climbing.

Yet, on the two SB130 demos I had, which I have written my experience of over in the build thread, I wasn't completely sold like I was when I demo'd the 4.5.

It's heavier. It feels shorter (cockpit). It doesn't feel as playful.

Obviously the frame is heavier and the components are too. So this is a given and expected. So something to get used to.

The steeper STA, shorter ETT (only by 5mm), shorter stem (by 10mm) and wider bars contribute to the cockpit feeling shorter than the 4.5. The smaller frame from a standover and ST length contribute to this feeling also. There's not a lot in it and with tweaks (adopting a 50mm stem rather than 40mm), bars with less sweep, more rise perhaps this can be accommodated. I think World Wide Cyclery have an overaly image of both the 4.5 and SB130 on one of their first look articles for the SB130.

The weight, longer wheelbase and slacker HA made the bike feel less playful. Maybe this is how a lot of the nu-skool geo bikes feel. More planted and plough like. Granted it did feel good descending. It retained that relatively firm short travel feel to push and pump against when rallying the bike yet soaked up the hits with the longer travel.

I would like a third demo on the bike as both times have been at unfamiliar trail centres. So riding both a local xc orientated loop from the front door as well as a more steep up, steep down descent orientated natural loop a short drive away should either seal the deal or send me back to the drawing board.
I echo this sentiment as well. Look at the numbers and there's no way in the hell the 4.5 rides as well as it does with those odd numbers, but it does - 421mm reach with a 437mm chainstay (M) say whaaaa?! I can't seem to get rid of this bike because it's such a hoot to ride.

IMO Yeti left a hole when they discontinued this bike. The closest successors are named Pivot Trail 429 and Ibis Ripley.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top