SB130 Mullet Geometry
Lot of questions on the new Mullet concept. Yeti has come out with the geometry for the SB140 as well as SB165 mullet conversions (check out our interactive geo comparison here) but I got a lot of inquires on the SB130 concept. So let’s look at the SB130 Mullet Geometry.
My first instinct, having owned and SB130 since the launch, is that the BB dimension would be too low for most riding conditions. But I’m all for a quick look to see how right I am. OK, or, well, kinda right.
I built out a model of the Medium SB130. When you “mullet” a bike the geo changes are more distinct on the smaller bikes due to the proportion of height change in wheel to total wheelbase. So a large would actually have slightly less dimensional shift than this example but you get the idea. Continue reading SB130 Mullet Geometry
180 vs 203mm Rotors
Power, Modulation, Heat Capacity and Personality. Let’s look at some differences between 180 vs 203mm rotors (7″ and 8″).
Increasing the radius of the rotor increases the brake’s leverage ratio.
Using Magura HC rotos as an example we measure about 12.7mm of “usable” rotor / pad interface. Picking a point of reference halfway in the usable interface the we come up with a 180mm (7″) rotor at 83.65mm versus the 203mm (8″) at 95.15mm. The change in available leverage around 12%.
Continue reading 180 vs 203mm Rotors
Enduro 29ers Geometry Comparison
There were many questions after my comments about cockpit setup in the Alchemy Arktos 29 First Impression Blog. Let’s disclaim this a couple ways: bike geometry DEFINITELY matters. There are small windows that work well for a particular type of riding. At BikeCo we work with the very best in MTB. The bikes we position are class leaders. These bikes have varied geometry for particular riding styles / conditions as well as in pairing with suspension personality.
I find some riders hang up on geometry numbers. Reach in particular. But here’s the deal: Reach, the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center headtube, doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Another disclaimer – the guys at [R]evolution Magazine asked me to write up an article on fit recently so I’ve been way down the rabbit hole of geo, setup and application… Continue reading Enduro 29ers Geometry Comparison
Alchemy Arktos 29 First Ride Impressions
After the first two EWS rounds Joe came back to the shop with his fresh Alchemy. Which, of course, means I stole it from him for a couple days. So here are my Alchemy Arktos 29 First Ride Impressions…
The Important Non-Trail Issues, ie First, First Impressions
Colors: Working with Cody Kelley we’ve had a ton of the Arktos 29’s in the shop since their launch. Still to this day, I’m not sure which color I would choose. Both the gray / red as well as the vanilla / brown / orange color combos look great. And like an adult designed them… Both colorways offer a variety of build options that would look good without dating your build.
Lines: The Arktos 29 balances hard edge lines with softer radius tubes. The low mount of the rear triangle creates a long, low look to the chassis. This is a bike that looks elegant. And fast. And that’s important.
(Bikes should pass the eye test… Just watch PinkBike or Vital for the “new” brands that simply do not pass the eye test hahaha…) Continue reading Alchemy Arktos 29 First Ride Impressions
Maxxis Aggressor 2.3″ vs. 2.5″ Review
The Maxxis Aggressor has quickly become one of the favorite rear trail and enduro tires in MTB. Designed as a fast rolling option with good cornering knobs what’s not to love? I’ve spent quality time on Yeti SB130’s with both the 2.3 and 2.5″ Aggressor options (First Impressions on the Aggressor Here). So does .1″ (2.54mm) per side really change performance? Yup. Let’s go through the details that create personality differences in a Maxxis Aggressor 2.3″ vs. 2.5″ Review.
The test bike is a Yeti SB130 spec’d with 30mm internal width rims. 2.3 and 2.5″ tires are an appropriate spec for 30mm rims, but have quite different trail personalities. Continue reading Maxxis Aggressor 2.3″ vs. 2.5″ Review
150 vs. 160 Fork Headtube, Trail & Flop
The Story Behind the Images. Looking at 150 vs. 160 Fork Headtube, Trail & Flop
I wrapped up the 150 vs 160 comparison and needed an image. I grabbed BikeCo’s demo SB130 (with a stock setup) and mine with the 160 fork and headed out. And struggled. I couldn’t get an image to show with any level of credibility the difference in crown race height. With a 10mm steer spacer in hand I tried to figure out how to photograph such a small difference.
Some quick math said the axle to crown height difference when the forks were standing straight up would be only 1.76%. Less when you factor in the headtube angle when viewed straight on.
Intrigued I downloaded a trial of AutoCad recalling my old design days. Continue reading 150 vs. 160 Fork Headtube, Trail & Flop