[jmrg]

Hi

Looking for new bike advice. I currently ride a hardtail and am looking to go full bounce. I don't ride anything too mega - the hardest stuff I do would be a 7 Stanes black-rated route (Scottish man-made trails) or the occasional trip to the Alps (Morzine etc) and I can manage these on my current bike. May also ride the odd enduro this year - but my racing days are behind me and I am just out to have fun a bike. Would like to go full-sus to help me push it a bit more on the downs. At the moment, I am a 'wheels on the ground' type of rider, but hope to push the boundaries a bit on my new bike. I'm 6'1", ~ 185 lbs and like going up as well as down. My short list is down to a Yeti 575 or a Trek Fuel EX 9.0. Test rode the Yeti a couple of weeks ago and found it great on the downs, but it felt slower than my hardtail on the ups. I plan test ride the Trek when my LBS gets it in. The Trek is meant to be a good climber - but what is it like on the downs? Not sure what to go for. The Yeti has the bling factor, but the Trek looks better value. What would you go for? Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[crisillo]

You seem a perfect candidate for a Large 575... while the 575 may never climb "as your hardtail", actually very few, if any, will,...the 575 is an awesome climber, especially once you have taken a while to setup the shock to your liking....

PS: Welcome to mtbr! :thumbsup:

 

[jmrg]

Thanks for the advice. Decided on the Yeti. One more question. Is it worth getting the carbon rear end? There is half a pound in weight saving for a relatively small cost increase (£50 difference in the UK - less than $100), so it seems like a no-brainer to me. But... is stiffness adversly affected by the carbon? What about tyre (tire) clearance? Durability? Thoughts and wisdom of the mtbr crew would be much appreciated.

 

[womble]

That's odd, I was sure that the carbon 575 only took a 2.3" tire and the aluminium version took 2.5". But looking at the 2007 Yeti site FAQ gives:

Q: How big of a tire can I fit on the 575?
A: The 575 can accept up to a 2.5 rear tire.

Has the carbon rear been modified for 2007, or am I just mis-remembering the 2006 info?

FWIW, I went with the aluminium stay. Call me a Luddite, but I don't trust carbon on mountain bikes

 

[crisillo]

According to all reports I have seen so far, yeah the carbon rear has a bit less clearance... the info in the FAQ was written before the carbon rear came out....

 

[womble]

In that case, the Alu would be the better choice. If the OP is riding in Scotland and the Alps, then the ability to go wider than 2.3 is going to be important.

I'll shoot Yeti an email to ask.

 

[crisillo]

In that case, the Alu would be the better choice. If the OP is riding in Scotland and the Alps, then the ability to go wider than 2.3 is going to be important.

I'll shoot Yeti an email to ask.

Yep, that'd be the safest bet!

 

[womble]

This is the response from Yeti:

> The carbon clearance is a little bit tighter, and we recommend a max tire size of 2.35”.

So get the aluminum as if you're going to be doing steep stuff in the Alps.