dminor 

I think more than anything, Yeti was just adjusting their marketingspeak for those who are just coming on board with the idea of slacker AM bikes. Yetis have always been slacker than the norm, with an emphasis on descending prowess. The rest of the industry is just finally catching up with them.

I should ask Sarah .

As far as concerns about the eccentric pivot: I'm not trying to discount a prudent "wait and see" approach or gloss over very real concerns about early pre-production and initial-production runs; but I will say that I recall a lot of fretting about the rail-and-car setups found on the 303DH, 303R DH and new-gen 303 - - and how all of that worry was, for the most part, unfounded. It looked to many an untrained eye (myself included) like a magnet for mud and crud problems. In reality, it's a non-issue. It requires a little more care as far as cleaning and re-lubing; but, well-taken-care-of, works superbly as promised.

Diameter-wise, the eccentric's bearing is a monster. Granted, the balls must be pretty small (headset-size?), because the inner race diameter is also fairly large; but I've been surprised many times now at how robust the somewhat-counterintuitive 'small-ball' approch on bicycle bearings works out. The pivots themselves appear to basically be 20mm thru-axles of sorts. A pretty impressive recipe.

cryptid01

I hope the reason they feel different is more due to the claimed superior anti-squat characteristics of the Yeti. The geo numbers are so close, I seriously doubt that they two bikes feel *that* dissimilar, especially since they were both designed with the same type of riding in mind.

Except for Spec, who was onto it 7 years ago. Which was my point.

dminor 

I was not trying to discount that; just making the point that Yeti was not a johnny-come-lately to the slack geometry game, but rather was another of the pioneers. Case in point being the 575, which at 68° (with a 150mm fork) is in keeping with its roots - - the first-gen 2004 had an HA of 69°/67° (130mm or 160mm fork).

ed 

Oh yeah? Well the 2005 Komodo had a HA of 67.5 with a 150. And it actually was marketed as a "big-hit performance" rig. Absolutely no pedal bob with this beefy rig!


So there.




(and mine's still kickin'!)


edit:
See...they even marketed it with a picture of the bike going "down" a hill:

cryptid01

Maybe if we all chipped in, we could get ed this frame so he stops talking about Jamisses.

So anyway, have another look at this if you will:



Simplicity is sophistication. Or as dminor says when he's trying to act all hip and stuff, "sano."

Seriously, just look at it! Silky smooth streamlining, internal rd cable routing, integrated stay protection. Probably crazy stiff. I wonder if I could buy just the rear triangle so I could carry it around with me and admire it.

If also know that I were a chainguide designer, I would make an upper assembly that clamped to the fd interface.

kenhill3

A roundy look, indeed.

Is that a 150mm rear?

scrublover

Eh, internal routing is a PITA as far as I'm concerned. The rear mech on my Reign-X has it, and it's about the only thing I'm not fond of on that bike.

e.13 and MRP both make single ring upper guides that mount off the front direct mount.

And I'll still take a wrapped tube over the "integrated" protection. Not so much for protection, but noise dampening - a wrapped tube or big chunk of neoprene does way better for that than harder plastic stuff stuck on the chainstay.

My opinions only, and YMMV of course.

ed 

Ummmm....+1.

I promise if you did...I would.

cryptid01

Doh!

I agree, and I'm hopeful that the Yeti crew knows this too, and makes it out of something softer.

kenhill3, it's a 142 rear. The aluminum version is swappable 135 or 142.

scrublover

Anyhow, don't get me wrong: I'd take one of these if someone wants to buy me one, but the price-tag is more than I really want to shell out for just a frame.

Perhaps if it was my only bike, but buying other lower cost alternatives means I get to have three mountain bikes.

The fact that we are on here at all is a cool enough thing. Think about it. Most of tyhe worlds population does not have the luxury time or money to own a bicycle to ride purely for pleasure, let alone more than one, or one costing what even a budget built SB66 would run.

dminor 

I have to believe it's the same material that is on my 303R swingarm - - a molded TPR-like rubbery material. And my 303R has internal RD cable routing that I have no issues with. The entrance and exit points are spot-on; I slipped my housing through there and have pretty much had the luxury of ignoring it since.

Has anyone else noticed that the prototype rear triangles were complete triangles but they removed the front section and just terminated it at the pivot bosses on the final production version? Interesting. Saved weight, I'm sure; wonder what they did to achieve the same stiffnes w/o that piece.


Chalk that up to a childhood devouring hot rodding magazines - - Hot Rod, Car Craft, Rod & Custom, etc.

It would be fun to see a bike mag do a photo spread in green/black duotone.

kenhill3

Kinda like this, Doug?

dminor 

^^ A little more subtle . . . Think HRM from 1960; a bucket T with wide whites and baby moons.

cryptid01

Not sure I follow - are you referring to the fact that there's no strut (for lack of a better term) between pivots/stays on the drive side like there is on the non-drive side, a la SC Blur 4X and others?

dminor 

I'm not sure I follow me either. I stand corrected. I thought I had seen the strut on the drive-side as well of earlier versions of the frame. I was mistaken. They've all been one-sided, as you pointed out.

cryptid01

They should offer a double sided strut option for the one by crowd. I don't need a stinking fd hanger any more since those guys stole my chainguide idea.

Dilberto

Trying to point out the semi-floating rear pivot, which I think Giant's Maestro has perfected.