[giantdefy]

I was watching videos on the Yeti Switch Eccentric. I noticed the SB66 has more movement than the SB95. Don't have one on the SB75 yet. I also noticed that the Upper link (big link thingy in the center) on the SB66 is shorter than the SB75 and SB95.
Has anyone notice the switch link on the SB75 or SB95 move?

see videos:

Yeti SB 66 Switch suspension - YouTube
SB-95 pivot - YouTube
SB95 Eccentric - YouTube

Yeti SB66

YEti SB75

Yeti SB95

 

[John P.]

That's by design. We were looking for pretty major differences in the rates on each of those bikes to coincide with the major differences in intended use. You'll find that the eccentrics on the 95 and 75 have similar characteristics and ranges of motion because they're both built as trail bikes. The 66 is pretty drastically different for obvious reasons.

Finally, don't make the mistake of thinking a smaller range of motion in any of the components you mention makes one bike 'better' or 'worse' than another. When dealing with suspension kinematics thousandths of an inch make a noticeable difference, so a little movement goes a very long way in determining what kind of ride you'll have.

FYI,

JP

 

[giantdefy]

Thanks for clearing this up! I do remember a different company mentioning a rear pivot rotating .991 degrees making a difference.

 

[some dude]

Different travel too, 6" vs 5" is a 20% difference.

I'm more curious as to why the SB95c has a bearing on the right side of the eccentric/switch but a bushing on the left side where as the SB66c has bearings on both sides.

 

[kelstr]

Different travel too, 6" vs 5" is a 20% difference.

I'm more curious as to why the SB95c has a bearing on the right side of the eccentric/switch but a bushing on the left side where as the SB66c has bearings on both sides.

When I first took my 95 apart I was surprised to see a bushing , but it was working well .
It had more stiction than I liked but it did do the job , the SB95 Switch does not rotate as much as the 66 so It should be fine .

Now after I started getting a rocking movement in my Switch axle causing some rear end deflection, I really feel that the two bearing set up is a better way to keep rigidity and stop the Switch axle from developing a rocking movement from the side loads that the bike sees and eliminate stiction .

 

[swan3609]

John P..

Get me the design for the 4" link you built for Graves at Sea Otter and I will buy another 66 in a heartbeat just to have as a play bike.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[bear]

... I really feel that the two bearing set up is a better way to keep rigidity and stop the Switch axle from developing a rocking movement from the side loads ...

meh, I dunno. Tough call. I was slightly surprised too with the bushing, however the original bushing lasted 2x as long as the drive-side bearing ... and I it didn't necessarily *need* replacement just recently, I just did it pre-emptively. I do run it with the quad o-ring in place, and I use a light coat of grease on the ring to help seal up that side from crap ingress since I live and ride in a moist climate.

I had added a custom-cut ring layer outside the DS bearing when I replaced it winter '12-'13. It seemed to help because the original DS bearing was shot after six months of riding but the replacement I put in a year ago was in better shape. Not great, and worth pre-season replacement, but still much better than the original.

I really can't fix my opinion whether bushings vs bearings is better in that application. With the very very low amount of rotation I'm inclined slightly towards bushings though, but it'd be nice to have a lazy-man's way of cleaning/lubing them vs removal of the Switch assembly (ala the Turner grease ports).

In either case I wouldn't think it'd be bad to have *wider* joints, I just don't know that it'd be a *meaningful* improvement. Maybe roller bearings instead of ball bearings would be a clear win? Considering the low rotation amount it could also possibly tolerate a more aggressively sealed bearing set without impacting rotational freedom.

Whatever, I don't have the resources or true inclination to test that theory.

*shrug*

 

[kelstr]

meh, I dunno. Tough call. I was slightly surprised too with the bushing, however the original bushing lasted 2x as long as the drive-side bearing ... and I it didn't necessarily *need* replacement just recently, I just did it pre-emptively. I do run it with the quad o-ring in place, and I use a light coat of grease on the ring to help seal up that side from crap ingress since I live and ride in a moist climate.

I had added a custom-cut ring layer outside the DS bearing when I replaced it winter '12-'13. It seemed to help because the original DS bearing was shot after six months of riding but the replacement I put in a year ago was in better shape. Not great, and worth pre-season replacement, but still much better than the original.

I really can't fix my opinion whether bushings vs bearings is better in that application. With the very very low amount of rotation I'm inclined slightly towards bushings though, but it'd be nice to have a lazy-man's way of cleaning/lubing them vs removal of the Switch assembly (ala the Turner grease ports).

In either case I wouldn't think it'd be bad to have *wider* joints, I just don't know that it'd be a *meaningful* improvement. Maybe roller bearings instead of ball bearings would be a clear win? Considering the low rotation amount it could also possibly tolerate a more aggressively sealed bearing set without impacting rotational freedom.

Whatever, I don't have the resources or true inclination to test that theory.

*shrug*

Actually the bushing should be better , its has more surface area and the anodized axle does fit real good , if I had a frame that did not have flex in it my bushing may work fine ,
if Yeti does not warranty out my obvious week frame set I will add the second bearing and make it so I can just load the bearing slightly to remove any play in the bearings and see what I get

 

[bear]

Get me the design for the 4" link you built for Graves at Sea Otter and I will buy another 66 in a heartbeat just to have as a play bike.

short-stroke the shock?

 

[swan3609]

short-stroke the shock?

Of course you would have too, but having a custom link to not fubur all the geo with the new shock would be ideal. Just throwing a shock on there would lower the BB and Slack it out too much..

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[bear]

I get it, you'd need the rear shock mount moved to handle the reduced e2e (if the shock was shorter).

 

[John P.]

John P..

Get me the design for the 4" link you built for Graves at Sea Otter and I will buy another 66 in a heartbeat just to have as a play bike.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

No problem. You can download SolidWorks models for it and a bunch of our other prototype stuff HERE.

 

[hillharman]

no problem. You can download solidworks models for it and a bunch of our other prototype stuff here.

ahahahahahahaha.

 

[swan3609]

Ahaha. I am so glad you at least replied to my joking comment. Most industry folk would have ignored in and went on.

So your saying your prototyping a 4" link for the 66 that will be unveiled at Sea Otter, and then Noone will buy it and then everyone complains that it's gone because nobody bought it? I think I got that right.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk