[Closed] Yeti sb100 and sb130

I demoed both recently and was blown away by the SB130's climbing ability.  It didn't feel like it lost much to the SB100, but obviously is more capable on the descents.  Didn't buy either in the end - put off by potential maintenance issues with the extra suspension bits on the 130 as they're more exposed than on the 100.

This is unlikely to help you much, but I've got an SB100 and a Orbea Rallon (same HTA and fork as the SB130). I ride the Yeti about 90% of the time (conservative estimate). It's just more suited to my local trails, has a bit more pep (it's 4 or 5 lbs lighter). Both bikes climb well, but prefer the shorter travel and geo for longer (30+miles) rides. If I could only have one bike it would be the Yeti for sure. There are, of course, instances where the longer travel is nice, so I guess it comes down to whether you can afford both!

The upkeep on the Yeti is a doddle. The infinity link needs maintenance every 50hrs in wet conditions. Removing the rear to access the linkage only requires one bolt removing and takes less than 10 minutes. Personally it’s one of the easiest bikes to self maintain.

All of the current crop of Yetis ride amazingly.

I currently own an SB4.5, which the SB100 replaced, and like you I've been considering the SB130.

The SB4.5 is an amazing bike and over the last 3 years my riding has progressed with it. The bike is just as capable and fun dispatching an xc loop from the front door as well as riding in alpine holiday destinations.

Yes, there's a compromise and the bike can get overwhelmed when things get fast with big, repeated hits but it is only a trail bike.

I've demoed the SB130 twice now. So I've had around 2.5 hours on it. The first demo was an hours blast at Hamsterley. I was a little underwhelmed to be honest. The bike felt sluggish both up and down and I didn’t find the bike particularly playful in comparison with the 4.5. Now this could be down to several factors. Weight. Geometry. Setup.

The second demo was at Llandegla. I’d ridden the Megatower and Ripmo before the SB130. Both bikes with similar travel and geo. The SB130 felt much better on the second demo ride. It certainly felt much better at ‘just riding along’ than the first demo. It climbs OK. It’s not as good as the 4.5 but not far off. Which is to be expected as its heavier. It jumps OK. The rear suspension has that supportive racy feel which short travel SI bikes tend to have. It descends well. I set the best time on the 130 on the final red descent of the demo loop. The extra weight, travel and burlier components make the 130 much more cable than the 4.5 on the downs. That longer wheelbase and reach making it feel very stable. The travel didn’t feel overly ‘big’ which I like having predominately always had short travel FS bikes.

So generally I like the bike but I’m not completely sold.

When pootling along its not a very playful bike. Again perhaps not being used to the weight and geo difference. It doesn’t pop like the 4.5. On the first demo I struggled to pick the front of the bike up (trying to manual over two small kickers) and it feels heavy when trying to hop the bike. When you start descending and the speed increases it comes alive a bit more. If that makes sense.

I’m also really struggling with the geo. The long reach is deceptive. This really only comes into play when out of the saddle descending. When seated, the ETT is slightly shorter than the 4.5 and with a shorter stem and wider bars coupled with the steeper STA and smaller ST it makes the cockpit feel quite cramped and in turn I feel ‘on’ the bike not ‘in’ the bike. Now I know there can only be a matter of 1.5-2cm difference in all this but it feels significant. The Ripmo also felt short yet the Megatower with practically the same numbers as the 130 did not. Which might be to do with the STA not being as steep as stated on the Megatower.

I did demo the XL 130 and 150* and it feels much more roomy as expected yet the downside is a significantly longer, heavier bike. I’d also need to run the seat forward on the rails to get comfortable.

So, I hope that helps. The SB100 for x% of your riding, like my 4.5, is more than enough bike. Yet the 130 is a very good bike that provides decent climbing and mile coverage, albeit perhaps not as good as the 4.5 and 100 but generally not far off. So in this case, that's the compromise but more importantly it has improved descending.

*actually the 150 set the quickest time on the descent but the 130 pretty much everywhere else.

I’m also really struggling with the geo. The long reach is deceptive. This really only comes into play when out of the saddle descending. When seated, the ETT is slightly shorter than the 4.5 and with a shorter stem and wider bars coupled with the steeper STA and smaller ST it makes the cockpit feel quite cramped and in turn I feel ‘on’ the bike not ‘in’ the bike. Now I know there can only be a matter of 1.5-2cm difference in all this but it feels significant. The Ripmo also felt short yet the Megatower with practically the same numbers as the 130 did not. Which might be to do with the STA not being as steep as stated on the Megatower.

That's the thing with reach and a steep seat angle, especially compared to a bike with a comparitively slack seat angle. You are not miles out over the back wheel and thus creating extra space, albeit in the wrong place. I imagine you do feel a bit more perched on top with a bike with a much more steep seat tube.

The Megatower looks like is has a fairly reasonable effective seat tube angle, but the actual seat tube angle reportedly slack, which obviously gets worse the longer the post is, If your tall which you seem to be by testing L and XL bikes, the Megatower probably feels really roomy in comparison.

Slight thread hijack KoB but how did the Yeti 130 compare to the Ibis Ripmo?
I'm currently on a SB5.

I liked the Ripmo. I've not ridden a DW link bike before and was suitably impressed at how stiff and supportive it felt from a pedalling and climbing perspective. It's certainly a bike that you could comfortably cover some distance on. And this is with 145mm rear travel.
It also felt great on the downs. Really quick. It actually felt the quickest yet from a Strava perspective I don't think it was. Although this is all relative.

It would be a close call between the SB130 and Ripmo. From a sizing perspective I rode a Large on both and they were very similar. I'd probably say the Ripmo edged it slightly. Maybe 🙂

I did think the ride was a little harsh on the Ripmo and thought this may be down to those 2.5 WT Maxxis being over inflated. Yet the guy at Ibis said they had 22/24 PSI F and R. The Ripmo also had carbon wheels. The Yeti some cheap, heavy DT Swiss M1700. The Ripmo had an X2 shock over the Yeti's DPX2.

At the end of the day my mate said that if he was buying a bike, the Ripmo would probably be the bike he would purchase out of all those tested.

Cheers guys for the in-depth detail. I did get the feeling the 130 might be slightly different on the ups etc. It is definitely one or the other for me as I want to keep a hardtail for coaching at my local club through the winter. It looks like I will try and get a demo for a bit and take it from there.

I rode a SB130 only for 1/2 hour at a demo day, I thought it was a very good climber, fast and pretty capable. I bought a Ripmo though, way more fun for certain. When I first rode one it was a few months after the SB demo but I think it descends better and faster but doesn't quite climb as well. I had reservations about the Yeti reliability and warranty but none with Ibis.

Ive go an SB100 and its the best bike ive ever owned. Just cant get over how ast it is. May look for another bike to sit alongside it thoigh for bigger days. The Ripmo looks ace. The new Ripley also looks extremely good.