Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 2388 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I couldn't decide on which existing post to add to so I've created my own...

I've read a couple of first look, first ride articles and forum posts regarding the SB4.5C and I suppose it's a mixed reception.

I, for one, was really looking forward to the release of this bike. I'd looked to replace my ASR5C with an SB95C but could not source a demo and didn't want to risk another big outlay for something that I was unsure about from a geo perspective. Whether that geo concern was right or wrong I'll never know.

One of the reviews has stated how unbalanced the suspension feels (140 F / 114 R) and another stating that it wasn't the best climber due to slack head angle, big forks and more importantly big wheels.
Yet the SB4.5C cannot be too much different from its predecessor the SB95C? Would any owners care to comment on this?

It's also close on numbers and style of bike to the Evil Following, Ibis Ripley LS, etc. for which it will be truly compared against.

Having got these bikes on the list of possible 'next' bikes whilst waiting hopefully to see what Yeti release I don't remember reading such negatives of unbalanced feel and climbing prowess in their reviews. Or that of the riders that have bought them. And I thinking more of the Evil Following with 67.4 HA and 120mm rear travel often coupled to 140mm forks.

I’m really looking forward to seeing one in the flesh and taking one for a spin but personally I’d probably look to use a 130mm fork rather than the 140mm. Probably a Pike too. I think this would provide a much more rounded feel to the bike in regards to travel (130 F / 114 R) and head angle (67.8).

Although it’s slightly disappointing that it’s solely 1 x and that there are no ISCG mounts there are other positives in the form of Yeti’s stiffest frame yet with good ETT, reach and stack for the sizes.

I must admit £3k for frame-only in the UK is also eye-watering.

What do other Yeti fans think of the SB4.5C and comments made?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
889 Posts
"This big bike felt bigger than it should have on the steep climbs, so while it seems like it fits firmly in the trail category, the cross-country label is a bit of a stretch. "
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015...4-5c-mountain-bike_382786#8ymluSSmJaLEPaOT.99

From bicycling.com:

"My take: The SB4.5c is the most XC-feeling of the SB series so far. On the whole, it felt closer to Yeti’s ASRc than the SB5c, though it pedals better, is stiffer, and is more capable than the ASR."


So, which is it?? More XC like the ASR or a full on trail bike?

I'm guessing the 1x11 is due to the short chain stays and SI suspension. Yeti probably sacrificed the FD for a better handling bike, and realized the majority of bikes they sell were 1x11 setups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,859 Posts
The velonews reviewer comes to a poorly reasoned conclusion, imo, when comparing the downhill capability of the 4.5c and the 5c.

"According to Strava, I set PRs going down Enchanted Forest, and I wasn’t even pushing the pace."
He attributes that to Yeti’s suspension and geometry platforms more than the wheel size.
I assume he has strava times over that same terrain on a 5c which also uses the same SI suspension and related geo.
The major difference between the two bikes is the 29 wheel.... and without even pushing the pace--PRs.
His more logical conclusion should be-- the 29 is fast. The SI suspension and 29 wheel combo blast past other options without even pushing the pace. And that's without even wide rim wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,620 Posts
I've ridden a Mach 429Trail, similar geo/travel and it didn't feel unbalanced at all. Probably has to do with riding style. If you put your weight far back, you'll notice the less rear travel.

Like: 1x only. Dislike: No chainguide option at all.

Question I didn't see addressed. If we're going to be stuck with Boost spacing in the rear, will we at least be able to play with some 27.5+ rubber back there?

I realize the shock placement isn't well suited to it, but, man this would have been nice with a water bottle. As it is, that completely knocks it out of being used for XC races, well, the Boost does that too, since you wouldn't be able to switch over your race wheels from a hardtail, none of which are boost yet...

The Mach 429Trail was really fun and fast though, and I suspect this will be as well. Great choice if you're not already invested in nice 29'er wheels and aren't interested in racing, which I imagine is a fair bit of folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
I was kind of surprised at the reception as well. 6 months of frothy anticipation was replaced with everyone deciding X is a deal breaker for me within 6 hours and one quick review logged over 10 miles (albeit 10 diverse technical miles, Apex is a great trail system). 1x only seems to have turned some people off and the couple $100 bump over the competition got some more. They only have 2 build kits with a front der as is (low spec XC bikes) which probably aren't flying off the shelves and over the 2 year development probably asked a couple shops how many people were still using one. When it came time to decide on a stiffer frame and shorter CS vs front der I'm sure it was a quick decision. SI costs what it costs. Someone's bikes have to be the most expensive. As for those thinking its not "big" enough, they probably don't want this bike anyway: Not enough travel? CS too long and HA too steep? There are only 4 or so 6" 29ers and they haven't been updated since 650B took over. Wishing for an SB8 DH doesn't make this bike better or worse.

If you look at the Ibis and Pivot forums the prevailing attitude was "shut up and take my money". But out of all the bikes in this class (that I've looked at geo for), the SB4.5 has the shortest CS and slackest HA combination which have been enshrined as MTB gospel to be held above all else.

According to said Geo Gospel, its a clear improvement on my SB95, on which I never feel the bike holding me back. Instead almost every ride I'm a little faster than the last time just by letting the bike go a little bit more (this after 1700 miles). If they've somehow made it more efficient and stable its certainly worth a look.

As I look over that text above I probably come off as a yeti apologist/fanboy but so be it. I like my bike a lot and on paper this one is an improvement to say the least. Plus the frame is pretty damn light (bet we'll see a ~24lb build without sacrificing too much strength) and looks really slick with the yeti swoops and internal routing. Of course that's without riding it and even when I do I'm still just some guy on the forum. Guess we'll see as reviews trickle in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I agree with you Terp, that it may be hasty to be passing on this offering just based on the limited reviews out there.

Many of us with SB-95s were hoping for an improvement of X, whatever X may be, in the SB4.5c. I think the problem is that many of us want the SB-95 or SB4.5c to be something that it is not. I really want my SB-95c to give nothing up on the downhill and nothing up when hammering XC. Is the SB4.5 an improvement in both those areas? I don't know.

What I do know, is that I've come to the conclusion that as my riding improves, there is no such thing as a one quiver bike. Rather than paying to upgrade to the SB4.5, I'll be investing in a Hardtail and an SB6c. Really I don't see any other way around it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
I was just at the point of going 150mm on the SB95c within the past couple of months and my only real complaint with it is it's an overly flexy bike in terms of pedal torsion translated through the rear swing arm. I'm ok with probably giving up .5" in the rear and I'm betting a 150 Lyrik up front on a SB4.5c will work swell. But what won't work is adding any kind of bail out gear for all day grinds in the way of a 3x front and that's what I wanted a SB4.5c for,...destination riding where you're riding everything from down hill parks to scenic paved green ways when vacationing. At this past tribe I spent plenty of time in the lowest AND tallest gears on a 3x10 XTR drivetrain, not just a 100yds here and there. Somehow I managed to set a top 3 overall time across 7 miles of Continental Divide and fastest Clyde to Strava it so I reckon I'm a decent rider in the least. Not sure if being 210lbs means I need or can use the gear range more effectively but most of my PRs at home are also on this SB95c and using the 3x up front for quick burst over a short climb to keep momentum rather then dumping a rear cassette worth of gears. I already have my play bikes for the local parks set up for our local conditions, I need a versatile comfy rig and this isn't exactly what I was waiting for to be honest but have already sold some stuff off to come up with the coin for a new toy this fall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
I wouldn't put too much stock in early reviews. Let's face it, some of the reviewers in major magazines seem out to lunch. I'd trust the folks at Yeti to build a good riding bike. It's not like they didn't test out a bunch of prototypes etc. And the amount of nitpicking that goes on these days (e.g., people complaining that the chainstays on the new Turner RFX weren't .00001 of an inch shorter etc.), is crazy. My only beef is price - it's just too expensive. I know, I know, Yeti wants to build the best bikes etc., and all the power to them. When a frame is 2400-2800, I can justify it, save etc., but when things are 3400 or more, and bikes 7-8k, that's just too damn much (and I like to think I earn a decent income and spend a lot of money on bike crap). I am looking for a trail oriented 29 frame, but now I am looking at a Kona or Transition.
 

·
Team Velveeta™
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
I was kind of surprised at the reception as well. 6 months of frothy anticipation was replaced with everyone deciding X is a deal breaker for me within 6 hours and one quick review logged over 10 miles ...
I resemble this remark.

The review part, yeah, that's all subjective and based on not much. Just because that guy thought it was too slack doesn't mean any of us would. But I am one of the few who isn't on the slacker-is-better bandwagon. I like a responsive bike. As such, Yetis over the years have proven to be not my cup of tea. My ASRc broke that losing streak because by my standards, it's balanced in terms of responsiveness .vs fast 'n stable.

My shop will have a full size run of the 4.5 in demo a week after they are widely available, because they will kill here. My little town was apey over 29" wheels before Fisher started building production 29ers. So I will surely ride one. But even if I love how it rides, I won't want one.

I'm an endurance geek, and my feeding system relies on a water bottle. Not changing it because of a bike I could barely afford anyway. And I use a triple. I do everything on my bike including 100+ mile gravel grinders. I live in Colorado, 3+ hour sustained climbs are part of my normal summer riding. I log big miles and I love the climbing, but I'm slow and large and I need a real granny.

So yeah, even though it's seemingly knee-jerk, I have definitely eliminated the 4.5 as a bike I would ever buy.

That said, after I test ride one I'll post my feedback.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
The geo numbers are spot on for a modern 29 trailbike. The price tag is not as the M429 trail is $2500 Following $2600 Ripley $2900 and the Yeti $3,400??

Then add the change to boost an a new wheelset...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
I resemble this remark.

The review part, yeah, that's all subjective and based on not much. Just because that guy thought it was too slack doesn't mean any of us would. But I am one of the few who isn't on the slacker-is-better bandwagon. I like a responsive bike. As such, Yetis over the years have proven to be not my cup of tea. My ASRc broke that losing streak because by my standards, it's balanced in terms of responsiveness .vs fast 'n stable.

My shop will have a full size run of the 4.5 in demo a week after they are widely available, because they will kill here. My little town was apey over 29" wheels before Fisher started building production 29ers. So I will surely ride one. But even if I love how it rides, I won't want one.

I'm an endurance geek, and my feeding system relies on a water bottle. Not changing it because of a bike I could barely afford anyway. And I use a triple. I do everything on my bike including 100+ mile gravel grinders. I live in Colorado, 3+ hour sustained climbs are part of my normal summer riding. I log big miles and I love the climbing, but I'm slow and large and I need a real granny.

So yeah, even though it's seemingly knee-jerk, I have definitely eliminated the 4.5 as a bike I would ever buy.

That said, after I test ride one I'll post my feedback.
Sounds like we're on the same page, Just for giggles I compared the final drive numbers of my various 1x11 set ups and my 3x10 XTR,..The 3x10 is just way more practical (when my front derailleur works properly on my SB95c) I spent more time in granny gear on that SB95c than I'd like to admit at Tribe earlier this month but in spite of that we got the job done and wasn't completely trashed after a brisk paced 40 miler at 9,500' elevation. I'm also doing the International Nepal Tribe in November and was really hoping to have a SB95c replacement and not have to make any compromises other than let the pennies loose. I'm not griping about the price and I'd pay another few hundred if that damn thing could take a front derailleur!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Early reviews are inconclusive? I agree that the dork at Velonews should learn how to climb... but the rest of the reviews have been fairly glowing. Ya'll are looking for that one cloud in a bright, sunny sky.

As for the "10 minutes on the bike thing".... welp, pretty sure that Brice Minnigh - the editor at Bike magazine - has the early and authoritative review of the bike, having taken it to the Caucasus mountains in Russia for an extended bikepacking trip (!). Yeah, it's been tested.

Wilderness Tested: Yeti SB4.5c | BIKE Magazine

" High in the Caucasus Mountains—one of the world’s steepest, most inhospitable chains—and I’m riding the SB4.5c up climbs that my brain is telling me are not worth the effort. And, side note, my bike and back are fully loaded with food, survival gear and camera/film equipment for the Bike mag feature and short film we were working on. Despite all this, I was pedaling the SB4.5c through some climbs that, at first glance, didn’t seem worth the energy expenditure it required to clean them. Yet I was slaying many of them, even though I was tired, underfed and over-weighted. I felt like my initial hunch had been borne out in reality: Even though I was suffering from a weight disadvantage, the combination of 29-inch wheels with the pedaling efficiency of the Switch Technology platform was impossible to overlook, and the technological benefits were allowing me to do things that I might not have been able to do otherwise." (Note to Velonews reviewer.... you suck at climbing).

"The Switch Infinity system is designed around a translating main pivot, which moves upward at the beginning of its travel, creating a rearward wheel path with distinct anti-squat characteristics. This could immediately be felt through steep, chunky sections of momentum-sapping singletrack. The pedaling was precise, and the rear wheel hugged the ground like a mother re-united with a lost child.

Okay, the next question is, understandably, “well, how does the bike descend?” And, as is the case with the most capable 29ers on the market, the answer is, “incredibly well.” This is especially true when the bike is pointed in a straight line—it plows through chunder and the most beefy baby heads with the greatest aplomb, the big wheels essentially replicating another solid inch of travel all the way to the bottom."

Yeah, he mentioned that the bigger wheels could be a bit of a handful in tight, steep switchbacks.... but what niner is not like that? BFD.

So basically..... it's a freaking awesome bike. Stop fixating on whether this angle or that length is a tenth of an inch from "perfect" and ride the damn thing. I'm sure it'll put a sh*t eating grin on your face like the 95 did when you first rode that... only more betterer.



TAKE MY MONEY YETI! (that is, after I sell my 95C to someone who thinks that extra 14mm of rear travel is the difference maker).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
The velonews review read a bit odd.

"but powering up and over obstacles on the 29er SB4.5c was difficult because the front end wanted to come off the ground; sections I’ve never struggled to clear became hike-a-bikes due to the unwieldy front end."

If someone is riding sections of home trails that they clean easily and the bike is making them mandatory hike sections, one would think that the bike has to be very extreme.

"The dreaded 29er wheel flop reared its head a few times, right when I needed a boost of power through a tech section or pinpoint steering around a switchback"

Not sure what wheel flop has to do with the guy being gassed and not on the power or poorly positioned through an uphill hairpin.


A slack 29 will have some wheel flop and (Depending on the riders setup) harder to steer on a steep uphill.

Seemed like the article needed a better cyclist, or perhaps the editors to come back from euro bike and proofread.

The new bike is cool but I'll ride my sb95c till the frame is toast then upgrade.
 

·
Formerly of Kent
Joined
·
12,200 Posts
For all of you complaining about 1x

EUROBIKE 2015 | Huge gear ratios and lots of carbon from E13 | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine

I want to know when we are going to see a boost dt 240s hub. Anyone know what hub is specced on the 45?
They definitely exist. Graves and Rude are running them on the Boosted SB6c. The new Trek Top Fuel comes with super light DT wheels that I have to imagine are rolling on them, too. Trek Factory Racing's XC guys are almost certainly on them.

When will they be available to us normal peons? Your guess is as good as mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
They definitely exist. Graves and Rude are running them on the Boosted SB6c. The new Trek Top Fuel comes with super light DT wheels that I have to imagine are rolling on them, too. Trek Factory Racing's XC guys are almost certainly on them.

When will they be available to us normal peons? Your guess is as good as mine.
Actually emailed DT and just got a reply

"We will not be offering 240s level Boost hubs for sale on their own for at least 6 months. That said, we expect to have 350 level hubs available later this year."

If you look around 1:23 in this video it looks like he is on a 350?

Video: Bike Break with Richie Rude | BIKE Magazine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
I'm wondering if the Boost spec rear spacing is why the SB4.5c is not capable of a FD and yet the 15 SB6 and 5c is. Seems a tad early for the Boost spec, but I think I'll like the extra wheel rigidity with it but being stuck with no high end hubs for a $10-11k MTB is a bit hard to wait for the market to catch up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,599 Posts
maybe i will just keep my sb95c and add a 6c to the garage..lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,443 Posts
Does anybody know the details on the internal cable routing? Has Yeti implemented a way to secure the cables inside of the tubes?

I've tested several bikes this season and I could hear the cables rattling in the tubes on most of them.
 
1 - 20 of 2388 Posts
Top