# What is it that causes Yeti's to be ridden with such a forward aggressive riding style?



## habaden (Sep 16, 2019)

In every review I've read or watched of the SB130/150 everyone says that in order to ride them well it requires them to really ride the front end to get traction. Compared to other bikes with similar geo, the Yeti seems to be one of the only ones that have a reputation for this. 

Is this an element of the switch infinity suspension design or something else?


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

The premise of this thread is incorrect, there's nothing special about Yetis that requires different technique.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

In size L & XL every Yeti has too short of a chainstay length, this requires a very forward position and active riding style to maintain front wheel traction.

Since all Yeti models use the exact same CS length on all sizes, smaller sizes don't experience this imbalance.

For example in the Enduro Bike Mag review the Medium SB150 was the fastest bike whereas the L was well off the pace, when ridden back to back.

Short chainstays suck, unless you are riding a small or possibly a medium.


----------



## habaden (Sep 16, 2019)

Suns_PSD said:


> In size L & XL every Yeti has too short of a chainstay length, this requires a very forward position and active riding style to maintain front wheel traction.
> 
> Since all Yeti models use the exact same CS length on all sizes, smaller sizes don't experience this imbalance.
> 
> ...


This makes more sense, seems like most reviewers are on size L and above


----------



## VThuckster (Jul 10, 2010)

I think it’s a faulty premise only in that it applies to more bikes in the new long, low and slack geometry category. A slacker head angle encourages you to put more weight up front and attack the trail vs throwing all your weight back like it’s an old cross country bike. Remember that image of the guy in spandex with his seat up under his chin? Those days are gone. I’ve been on a sentinel for three years, and it requires a forward aggressive position. Everyone I rode with who gets a new bike with modern geometry had to learn to do this. Watch someone on a new bike. The fork will be dialed on correctly and they still won’t use much of the travel until they learn how to ride it. Only takes a few days once it is pointed out. And in case your wondering, it’s way better and holds so tight in berms. I did demo a 130 LR last year, and was similar to the sentinel in this regard. It’s an awesome bike.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Not really imo. Modern bikes with LLS AND long chain stays work well mostly in the center of the bike.
Old bikes required hanging off the bike.
Modern LLS bikes with short CSs require a very exaggerated forward lean thru flat turns and basically heavy weighting of the front end to even work right.
I get that many people don't rail turns or always have berms so might not notice this.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


----------



## VThuckster (Jul 10, 2010)

I agree with that. Plenty of bikes in the centered category with lls. They can get pretty long though boosting reach, slackening the ha and a long cs. Shorter cs gives the bike a more Playful feel, but will require a bit more forward pressure to hook up in corners. I really prefer that style, but if I were concerned about times in enduro I think I may want to be more centered and have a longer cs.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

The length thing is one that is brought up often, but not something that I notice much. One local trail I really enjoy is Emma Long Motorcycle Park here locally It's a fairly tight and very ledge-y trail that some would consider ideal for short chainstays, and here we are discussing literal millimeters of length, yet dirt bikes are going down the same trails 2' longer than us. To add to this, even this tight trail has lots of places to lean the bike over and rail around long turns. I've ridden this trail on nearly identical chassis dimension bikes with the only significant difference in geo being the CS length, and MUCH prefer the long CS length as it's so much faster thru these long turns with less effort required (all that required extra focus on intentional and exaggerated front end weighting gets old).

I just think the maneuverability argument is overblown personally.

If I had to have a shorter bike for East Coast slow going trails or whatever, I'd choose a shorter reach, a steeper hta to get there, but I would not sacrifice chassis balance by choosing a long bike with short chain-stays.

I'll add that if I were 3-4" shorter and was comfortable on a medium, I'd likely be on a new Yeti (again). The cool thing about bikes is that there is a seat for every ass, you just have to figure out what you need and that becomes a time consuming and expensive process.

Props to the OP for picking up this tidbit about modern Yeti's from the reviews. The reviews can tell you a lot, you just have to understand where the reviewer is coming from and understand that they don't have the option of just slaughtering a bike's performance lest they will be out of the review business. But if you read carefully, you can gain significant insight into the subtleties of each model bike. If you read enough bike reviews by good reviewers, and for some reason only the Euro mags seem to really notice how a bike turns, you will notice the imbalance I mentioned above becoming a common theme on short chainstay size Large bikes and you might notice that the fastest most praised bikes often have longer chainstays for their front center size.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

The other issue with short (unbalanced) chainstays is that shifting your weight onto the bars is not a perfect solution. It sucks to steer/lean the bike with your arms supporting your weight on the thing you're trying to maneuver. It makes your arms a lot stiffer and you lose fine motor control. This is partially why race cars have highly bolstered seats, because you can't drive for **** if you're trying to use the steering wheel to both brace against and steer with. Driving a car with supportive seats instantly boosts your driving ability a shocking amount the first time you experience it. Shifting your weight forward is also fatiguing but screwing with your steering control is an even bigger issue that I rarely hear anyone mention.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

You should always ride forward, it's no different than in any other sport. It's not specific to any bike design, though linkage forks seem to respond best to a forward riding style.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Riding forward is one thing, short chain stay bikes require an entirely other level of 'ride forward' to maintain front wheel traction. More like 'push really hard on your outside handlebar to not understeer thru 1000 turns per ride'.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

As pointed out, its not a Yeti specific thing, at least not only Yeti specific. Most bikes with really lopsided/uneven front/rear centers will have similar issues.

Some people really like the feel of a short rear center center. And in my experience so far, most of those people either are shorter-ish, ride really over the rear wheel (lots of manualing, etc), climb out of the saddle a lot (ie, hardtails/rigid/single speed) or like to ride what I think some would argue could be called "intentionally" unstable bikes (which, absolutely is a valid preference).

I currently ride a bike with a really short rear end (425mm, on a long travel 29'er). And I'm on the slightly taller than average side of things (6'1"), and I've found that I do struggle to weight the front tire enough. So much so, that I've been really looking into/considering other bikes with a more balanced front/rear center ratio. And while I haven't been able to spend much time on anything yet (covid has made finding demos hard), I'm really curious to try out a few bikes with either longer chainstays (a la the Banshee Titan), or bikes with chainstays that adjust for each size (Norco Sight, Privateer, Stumpjumper Evo), to see if its as noticeable as I hope/feel it might be.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> Riding forward is one thing, short chain stay bikes require an entirely other level of 'ride forward' to maintain front wheel traction. More like 'push really hard on your outside handlebar to not understeer thru 1000 turns per ride'.


I ride short chainstay bikes and I'm no more forward on those bikes than on any other bike. Even a short chain stay bike, say 420-425mmmm is not that much shorter than a bike with long chain stays; at most 10-15mm. But yeah, you can probably be a lazier rider on a really long chain stay bike like a 450-460mm chain stay that you'd see on an ebike with less front end lift, but riding forward is essential for good handling regardless of the bike geometry.

A few years back I rode a long chainstay bike, the Foes Mutz, and it was certainly a stable and sturdy bike (read as heavy as hell), but it was also not as agile. Since then my chainstays have varied from 420mm to 435mm, currently riding 420mm and 423mm.

I have a couple Trust forks, just reinstalled a Shout on my Shred Dogg, and immediately I was riding further forward because that fork design rides best with a strong forward riding style, but when I switch back to a telescopic fork I'll have to be careful or I'll be over the bars in a minute.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

jeremy3220 said:


> The other issue with short (unbalanced) chainstays is that shifting your weight onto the bars is not a perfect solution. It sucks to steer/lean the bike with your arms supporting your weight on the thing you're trying to maneuver. It makes your arms a lot stiffer and you lose fine motor control. This is partially why race cars have highly bolstered seats, because you can't drive for **** if you're trying to use the steering wheel to both brace against and steer with. Driving a car with supportive seats instantly boosts your driving ability a shocking amount the first time you experience it. Shifting your weight forward is also fatiguing but screwing with your steering control is an even bigger issue that I rarely hear anyone mention.


Yep, It is much easier to get good bike body separation when you are balanced on your bike and not leaning on the front end. I find corners to be much more fluid and natural when I have relaxed hands


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Nurse Ben said:


> I ride short chainstay bikes and I'm no more forward on those bikes than on any other bike. Even a short chain stay bike, say 420-425mmmm is not that much shorter than a bike with long chain stays; at most 10-15mm. But yeah, you can probably be a lazier rider on a really long chain stay bike like a 450-460mm chain stay that you'd see on an ebike with less front end lift, but riding forward is essential for good handling regardless of the bike geometry.
> 
> A few years back I rode a long chainstay bike, the Foes Mutz, and it was certainly a stable and sturdy bike (read as heavy as hell), but it was also not as agile. Since then my chainstays have varied from 420mm to 435mm, currently riding 420mm and 423mm.
> 
> I have a couple Trust forks, just reinstalled a Shout on my Shred Dogg, and immediately I was riding further forward because that fork design rides best with a strong forward riding style, but when I switch back to a telescopic fork I'll have to be careful or I'll be over the bars in a minute.


How tall are you again Ben? And, as I've not been around the sport for super long (2 years), I'm not familiar with the Foes Mutz. Did it have a long front center as well? Because I don't think I've seen anyone ever call out for longer rear centers than front centers, but more just trying to find some sort of balance.

A few months back, in response to another user talking about "proper" weight distribution, I actually went out in the garage with a scale, and tried to figure out what my "normal" riding position was. It was actually pretty interesting.



> ...
> I was in a bit of a rush, and didn't have an assistant to help me, but I tried it a few times, and found that on average, I have about 85lbs on the front wheel, and 135lbs on the rear wheel in my normal riding position (roughly chin over the bars, normal standing "neutral" aggressive stance). If I "backed off" the back of the bike like if I was riding scared, that would go to about 75lbs/150lbs.
> 
> This means I'm getting the reverse of your balanced weight distribution, at ~*62%* on the rear wheel, and ~*38%* on the front wheel, in my "aggressive" stance. This explains why I feel like I have to over-exaggeratedly/constantly weight the front end to keep from washing out (which is my most common form of crash).
> ...


It could be my body positioning is off, I'll gladly admit that.

But it was kind of interesting reading the recent pinkbike DH bike tests as well. Looks like the DH bikes have consistently longer rear centers than most "enduro" bikes. With the Commencal having chainstays that get up to~470mm at sag, and 525mm at full compression (high pivot and all that), and being called out as one of the ones that was less demanding to ride quickly. And then also hearing about how Greg Minnaar has ~470mm chainstays on his V10 right now. And finally, looking at some of the more successful EWS rider/bike combinations, you see some of the same trend (Sam Hill on the Mega, which until this year had 450mm chainstays, and Richie Rude riding the Medium SB150, which is also more balanced).

And I know that UCH WC DH/EWS bike setup is NOT the gold standard for everything. I just find it interesting. Maybe one of these days I'll finally get to demo something with > 425mm chainstays, and have stronger feelings one way or the other.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

Suns_PSD said:


> Riding forward is one thing, short chain stay bikes require an entirely other level of 'ride forward' to maintain front wheel traction. More like 'push really hard on your outside handlebar to not understeer thru 1000 turns per ride'.


This kind of exaggeration helps no one.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

andy f said:


> This kind of exaggeration helps no one.


I don't know how you ride, where you ride, your tire set up or much else but I assure you for me to go the speed I want to thru the turns (and it's definitely my strong point) it's NOT at all an exaggeration for me on a long front center/ short chain stay bike. I have to consciously and with significant force push the front tire hard in to the ground to get both tires to drift ever so slightly perfectly evenly (even with a much grippier front tire than rear) when I really nail a turn. If I do not do this the front tire will slip/ push/ run wide way before the rear is even close to breaking loose (on these imbalanced bikes) to the point where I am slower. There are other tricks that certainly help including lower bars, lower stem , longer stem, etc. But once you have gotten that to your best compromise between comfort and improved handling you need the bike balance to do it's part as well.

This phenomenon is reflected in many reviews and timed tests as well. The short CS/ long front center bikes are just slower. If you look at the timed Enduro Mag bike tests the balanced bikes ran the fastest times. They didn't say it, but it's reflected in their notes as the fast bikes were referred to as: balanced, easy, etc. even with widely varying specs and geo.; where-as the slow bikes that all had short chainstays for the size tested it was said: requires a very active riding style, must lean over the front, etc. The most interesting comparison was how the L & the M SB150 handled so differently for them. The M was class leading and the L was mid to pack of the pack. There is a ratio in there that results in a great handling bike. Since riders stand thru these turns it's likely a relationship of CS to overall WB or something along those lines.

I bought a bike that is significantly longer than my previous one and there are no real downsides compared to my previous similar modern geo bike that had short Chain stays. I don't fight the turns any longer, otherwise it does nothing better. But as a result I knock back PR's left and right on the new bike when revisiting an old trail and I'm not riding any differently. The only small thing is due to less weight transfer to the rear wheel it can have a bit less traction on really steep loose climbs.

This short CS thing will be gone in 5 years along with 73' htsa's & 67' sta's.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I sold my last bike partially because of this issue. It was a hardtail with a 500mm reach, 65° HTA, and 419mm chainstays. Managing the weight on the front wheel was often a struggle. I had to shift my weight more forward to maintain the same front to rear tire balance in corners. In tight corners I sometimes felt like I was struggling to find a spot between too far forward and too far back.


----------



## wishiwasbiking (Nov 10, 2019)

Suns_PSD said:


> In size L & XL every Yeti has too short of a chainstay length, this requires a very forward position and active riding style to maintain front wheel traction.
> 
> Since all Yeti models use the exact same CS length on all sizes, smaller sizes don't experience this imbalance.
> 
> ...


You say short chainstays on L & XL Yetis, but they aren't that different than the other bikes.

Yeti sb150 L chainstay length =433 mm, Santa Cruz Megatower L chainstay length = 435mm, Ibis ripmo L chainstay length = 435mm, Commencal meta am L chainstay =433....


----------



## waltaz (Oct 14, 2004)

Great thread. I’m 5’10” on a Large SB130 LR, and I definitely feel the need to be way forward. I should be on a Medium, and will likely look to sell the Large.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

jeremy3220 said:


> I sold my last bike partially because of this issue. It was a hardtail with a 500mm reach, 65° HTA, and 419mm chainstays. Managing the weight on the front wheel was often a struggle. I had to shift my weight more forward to maintain the same front to rear tire balance in corners. In tight corners I sometimes felt like I was struggling to find a spot between too far forward and too far back.


I stopped reading today's Pinkbike review of the Salsa Timberjack after I got to the "short chainstays to preserve the snappy handling" part.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

Suns_PSD said:


> I don't know how you ride, where you ride, your tire set up or much else but I assure you for me to go the speed I want to thru the turns (and it's definitely my strong point) it's NOT at all an exaggeration for me on a long front center/ short chain stay bike. I have to consciously and with significant force push the front tire hard in to the ground to get both tires to drift ever so slightly perfectly evenly (even with a much grippier front tire than rear) when I really nail a turn. If I do not do this the front tire will slip/ push/ run wide way before the rear is even close to breaking loose (on these imbalanced bikes) to the point where I am slower. There are other tricks that certainly help including lower bars, lower stem , longer stem, etc. But once you have gotten that to your best compromise between comfort and improved handling you need the bike balance to do it's part as well.
> 
> This phenomenon is reflected in many reviews and timed tests as well. The short CS/ long front center bikes are just slower. If you look at the timed Enduro Mag bike tests the balanced bikes ran the fastest times. They didn't say it, but it's reflected in their notes as the fast bikes were referred to as: balanced, easy, etc. even with widely varying specs and geo.; where-as the slow bikes that all had short chainstays for the size tested it was said: requires a very active riding style, must lean over the front, etc. The most interesting comparison was how the L & the M SB150 handled so differently for them. The M was class leading and the L was mid to pack of the pack. There is a ratio in there that results in a great handling bike. Since riders stand thru these turns it's likely a relationship of CS to overall WB or something along those lines.
> 
> ...


Nice flex. I know what you're talking about is real but it's not that hard to compensate. You make it sound like the difference between 170mm F/R and rigid.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

wishiwasbiking said:


> You say short chainstays on L & XL Yetis, but they aren't that different than the other bikes.
> 
> Yeti sb150 L chainstay length =433 mm, Santa Cruz Megatower L chainstay length = 435mm, Ibis ripmo L chainstay length = 435mm, Commencal meta am L chainstay =433....


Chainstay length is only half the equation. Need to look at front-center also to understand how the bike is balanced. The yeti has the longest front center out of all those bikes (used geo for 2020 meta). That means more weight on the rear tire and less on the front with pedals weighted. As the sizes get bigger, the front center gets longer shifting even more weight to the rear requiring even more counter weighting to the front tire.



Suns_PSD said:


> I don't know how you ride, where you ride, your tire set up or much else but I assure you for me to go the speed I want to thru the turns (and it's definitely my strong point) it's NOT at all an exaggeration for me on a long front center/ short chain stay bike. I have to consciously and with significant force push the front tire hard in to the ground to get both tires to drift ever so slightly perfectly evenly (even with a much grippier front tire than rear) when I really nail a turn. If I do not do this the front tire will slip/ push/ run wide way before the rear is even close to breaking loose (on these imbalanced bikes) to the point where I am slower. There are other tricks that certainly help including lower bars, lower stem , longer stem, etc. But once you have gotten that to your best compromise between comfort and improved handling you need the bike balance to do it's part as well.
> 
> This phenomenon is reflected in many reviews and timed tests as well. The short CS/ long front center bikes are just slower. If you look at the timed Enduro Mag bike tests the balanced bikes ran the fastest times. They didn't say it, but it's reflected in their notes as the fast bikes were referred to as: balanced, easy, etc. even with widely varying specs and geo.; where-as the slow bikes that all had short chainstays for the size tested it was said: requires a very active riding style, must lean over the front, etc. The most interesting comparison was how the L & the M SB150 handled so differently for them. The M was class leading and the L was mid to pack of the pack. There is a ratio in there that results in a great handling bike. Since riders stand thru these turns it's likely a relationship of CS to overall WB or something along those lines.
> 
> I bought a bike that is significantly longer than my previous one and there are no real downsides compared to my previous similar modern geo bike that had short Chain stays. I don't fight the turns any longer, otherwise it does nothing better. But as a result I knock back PR's left and right on the new bike when revisiting an old trail and I'm not riding any differently. The only small thing is due to less weight transfer to the rear wheel it can have a bit less traction on really steep loose climbs...


Good post.

For me though, being a taller rider, I have found I can climb steeper, techy terrain better with the longer rear end, but for shorter riders, i can see how they may loose traction.

But check out this video here. They do a great job talking about balance front and center and the "*shopping cart, barge like handling"* that comes from the long front/short rear of old-school mtb geometry like genesis.

This should start you at the part about chain-stay length and climbing. Gets into shopping cart handling, turning axis and corners at about 24:00


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Yes, it's not about the literal chain stay length, it's about the percentage between front and rear center. A 420mm chain is really short if your reach is 500mm but it probably feels pretty long if your reach is 420mm. My BMX bike has 360mm chain stays but it also has a 74.5° head tube angle and doesn't feel unbalanced. "Shopping cart handling" is a good way to describe an overly short rear. I always described it as feeling like I was driving from the back seat. 

Keep in mind that within reason you can run a shorter chainstay to make the handling a bit quicker/snappier. You'll find that there's a range of what works for a given front center length. For me and the XXL trail bikes I ride, 430-435mm is about the minimum I want to go and 450-455mm is probably about the max I'd want to go. It depends on the application.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

wishiwasbiking said:


> You say short chainstays on L & XL Yetis, but they aren't that different than the other bikes.
> 
> Yeti sb150 L chainstay length =433 mm, Santa Cruz Megatower L chainstay length = 435mm, Ibis ripmo L chainstay length = 435mm, Commencal meta am L chainstay =433....


All bikes that likely in larger sizes don't work really well.
Yoann Barelli was timed on the Grim Donut & his new Gnarvana and is much faster on both of these bikes compared to his (now previous) sponsored ride, the Meta. In the onboard footage you could see him finishing the turns better on the Donut.
Much longer CS length is the reason.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

wishiwasbiking said:


> You say short chainstays on L & XL Yetis, but they aren't that different than the other bikes.
> 
> Yeti sb150 L chainstay length =433 mm, Santa Cruz Megatower L chainstay length = 435mm, Ibis ripmo L chainstay length = 435mm, Commencal meta am L chainstay =433....


The Megatower has adjustable chainstays. Mine is set at 445mm. I don't think another 5mm would hurt either.


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

Suns, can you comment on the Mondraker?

LOTS of reviewers had problems riding it. The ones who "got it" routinely said something like: not until I got over the front...like waaaay over the front...like uncomfortably far over the front...and trusted the bike, did I understand the Mondraker geo. 

The ones that were able to do it seemed to think the forward geo was the greatest thing ever...those that couldn't were stuck in "meh" territory.

Just wondering what you found. I know you liked the bike...but did you have to change your riding to get to like it...or did it just click with you?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

smartyiak said:


> Suns, can you comment on the Mondraker?
> 
> LOTS of reviewers had problems riding it. The ones who "got it" routinely said something like: not until I got over the front...like waaaay over the front...like uncomfortably far over the front...and trusted the bike, did I understand the Mondraker geo.
> 
> ...


I had always noticed the lack of front wheel traction on all of my size L bikes but the Foxy 29 (435 mm CS, 490 Reach), as much as I loved that bike in so many ways, really brought it to the forefront for me. It was the first bike I've had that truly physically fit me (Size L, I'm 5'11" with long legs & arms). I became faster on it and just as important more consistent, and started to really notice front traction problems.

I experimented with tires, pressures, rim width, stems, bars, seat positioning, seat height, etc. and all these had some notable effect. But none of these overcame the loss of front traction at the limit and I had to learn to catch the front tire against something (random rock/ root or something) or to heavily weight the front end to get the front tire to stick in a flat turn. I truly wish I had been doing the same on my previous bikes (L SB5.5, Bronson V1, Ibis Mojo) as they struggled with front traction as well but I wasn't consistent enough to figure out what was happening and I don't think it was as severe. To be clear, you need to raise your outside elbow and push down on the handlebar firmly through fast turns, positioning similar to turning an MX bike but with the added trouble of applying that downward force.

Applying the weight up front is viable and not so hard, but it requires some retraining, some thought, and ultimately takes you out of the 'light hands, heavy feet' position you should be in. Quick direction changes become unnatural and clumsy.

When I set out searching for a new bike I knew I wanted longer chainstays. I spent a lot of time reading bike reviews and quite a few test rides trying to unlock what I thought was the key and the lack of chainstay lengthening, as the rest of the bikes grew, really stood out to me.

I settled on a new SJ Evo S5 instead of the S4 because the chainstays grow 13 mm I think going from S4 to S5. Really I wish I could have had the S4 front triangle and the S5 chainstays. I'm at a 448mm CS and the bike works very well but even raising my bars 5mm recently resulted in a notable lack of front wheel traction and I had to focus on pushing down on the front again but not nearly as bad as before. It's funny cause I built the Evo frame using the parts off the previous bike right down to the used tires and from the first ride until the most recent, I'm blowing away my PRs, and a lot of them. It's funny cause it feels like I'm working less hard on the Evo. Guess I am cause I mostly just steer it, none of that adding excessive weight on the bars business is required.

My next bike will have even more balance. I'll either have a shorter front center, a longer rear center, or a combo of the 2.

Honestly I think the Banshee Titan L has about as ideal geo as exists currently (Reach 480 & CS 452). Shorter front end, longer back end. If they made a plastic bike I would buy that. What I'm saying is that I don't think my Evo geo is ideal yet, it's just getting closer. There is room to improve.

Hope that helps.


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

Thanks! That's a great explanation...thanks for taking the time!


----------



## b rock (Jan 5, 2017)

Suns_PSD said:


> I had always noticed the lack of front wheel traction on all of my size L bikes but the Foxy 29 (435 mm CS, 490 Reach), as much as I loved that bike in so many ways, really brought it to the forefront for me. It was the first bike I've had that truly physically fit me (Size L, I'm 5'11" with long legs & arms). I became faster on it and just as important more consistent, and started to really notice front traction problems.
> 
> I experimented with tires, pressures, rim width, stems, bars, seat positioning, seat height, etc. and all these had some notable effect. But none of these overcame the loss of front traction at the limit and I had to learn to catch the front tire against something (random rock/ root or something) or to heavily weight the front end to get the front tire to stick in a flat turn. I truly wish I had been doing the same on my previous bikes (L SB5.5, Bronson V1, Ibis Mojo) as they struggled with front traction as well but I wasn't consistent enough to figure out what was happening and I don't think it was as severe. To be clear, you need to raise your outside elbow and push down on the handlebar firmly through fast turns, positioning similar to turning an MX bike but with the added trouble of applying that downward force.
> 
> Applying the weight up front is viable and not so hard, but it requires some retraining, some thought, and ultimately takes you out of the 'light hands, heavy feet' position you should be in. Quick direction changes become unnatural and clumsy.


I took "light hands, heavy feet" at face value for a while, and didn't pay close enough attention to the additional instruction around this from where I was getting it (_Mastering Mountain Bike Skills 3rd ed.)_ where there is a section or two talking about punching (as opposed to leaning on) the handlebars down to get more traction in turns. Front end wash in turns and off camber has bitten me hard a few times, so I kept digging around until I found that advice and started using it, and do the same thing with trying to push down on the outside handlebar to get more grip, just like I try to weight the BB, typically with my outside foot. I think Lee McCormack, the main author, is one of the best coaches out there, and I don't think the advice to put intentional pressure on the handlebars is specific to anything other than "modern bikes", and he does have plenty of experience coaching DH riders, whose bikes, according to this thread, may have longer CSs typically. I do get that "how much" to punch the handlebars vs teacup hands is a spectrum, and the tire weight distribution from the BB according to geometry has an effect on how to implement the advice.

I do think the fixed CS length for all sizes of a model seems like a shortcut, and I am on the extreme end of it, riding an XL. But, my reach vs CS isn't as extreme as some people have stated (482, 438 430, 6' + a few)


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Suns_PSD said:


> In size L & XL every Yeti has too short of a chainstay length, this requires a very forward position and active riding style to maintain front wheel traction.
> 
> Short chainstays suck, unless you are riding a small or possibly a medium.


It doesn't matter what the chainstay length is when the suspension feels like ass, regardless.

Maybe Yeti owners get over the front end to escape the crap rear sus?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

This article (first of two) is relevant to this discussion.









NSMB.com - Is Your Riding Posture from 2006?


While bikes have changed and we riders have adapted a little, it could be that some of us are still riding like we're on 26...




nsmb.com


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

Suns_PSD said:


> I had always noticed the lack of front wheel traction on all of my size L bikes but the Foxy 29 (435 mm CS, 490 Reach), as much as I loved that bike in so many ways, really brought it to the forefront for me. It was the first bike I've had that truly physically fit me (Size L, I'm 5'11" with long legs & arms). I became faster on it and just as important more consistent, and started to really notice front traction problems.
> 
> I experimented with tires, pressures, rim width, stems, bars, seat positioning, seat height, etc. and all these had some notable effect. But none of these overcame the loss of front traction at the limit and I had to learn to catch the front tire against something (random rock/ root or something) or to heavily weight the front end to get the front tire to stick in a flat turn. I truly wish I had been doing the same on my previous bikes (L SB5.5, Bronson V1, Ibis Mojo) as they struggled with front traction as well but I wasn't consistent enough to figure out what was happening and I don't think it was as severe. To be clear, you need to raise your outside elbow and push down on the handlebar firmly through fast turns, positioning similar to turning an MX bike but with the added trouble of applying that downward force.
> 
> ...


I'm the same size as you and skipped the Stumpy because of this exact reason, S4 is a little too small, esp chainstays, and S5 has a bit too much reach. I got a L Transition Spur instead.

I do have a Spec Enduro, I bet you'd love the S4... and it actually pedals better than the EVO, it's just a little heavier. It's an amazing bike with dialed geo, imo.

My last bike was an '18 Slash, 459 reach, 433 cs, 65 HA. I never fully got on with it cornering, it felt like you had to be too far forward and the f/r balance was on a knife-edge. It was a difficult bike to ride well. My Enduro is exactly the opposite in many ways, the longer reach and longer cs together made weighting f/r much easier and more intuitive, it's a cornering machine for sure, best bike I've ever rode.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

mikesee said:


> It doesn't matter what the chainstay length is when the suspension feels like ass, regardless.
> 
> Maybe Yeti owners get over the front end to escape the crap rear sus?


Ha! People love their Yeti's though. They are good bikes, especially in a medium and they do pedal well.
Awful climbing traction though!

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

davec113 said:


> I'm the same size as you and skipped the Stumpy because of this exact reason, S4 is a little too small, esp chainstays, and S5 has a bit too much reach. I got a L Transition Spur instead.
> 
> I do have a Spec Enduro, I bet you'd love the S4... and it actually pedals better than the EVO, it's just a little heavier. It's an amazing bike with dialed geo, imo.
> 
> My last bike was an '18 Slash, 459 reach, 433 cs, 65 HA. I never fully got on with it cornering, it felt like you had to be too far forward and the f/r balance was on a knife-edge. It was a difficult bike to ride well. My Enduro is exactly the opposite in many ways, the longer reach and longer cs together made weighting f/r much easier and more intuitive, it's a cornering machine for sure, best bike I've ever rode.


I'm very interested in adding a Spur as my light duty trail bike.
As I recall the L reach is 480 with a 435 CS but my theory is that the WB is actually way shorter because it's not as slack and has short travel so 435 cs is just fine for overall balance on this bike.
Thoughts?

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

Suns_PSD said:


> I'm very interested in adding a Spur as my light duty trail bike.
> As I recall the L reach is 480 with a 435 CS but my theory is that the WB is actually way shorter because it's not as slack and has short travel so 435 cs is just fine for overall balance on this bike.
> Thoughts?
> 
> Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


Yeah, I'm thinking the same... compared to my Enduro, which is 487 reach, 442cs, 63.5 HA the Spur is 480, 435 and 66 so the f/r proportions end up being pretty similar, wheelbase / cs length is 2.88 for the Enduro and 2.80 for the Spur.

I've tried to put my finger on exactly why my Slash sucks so much vs my Enduro, and I always thought the reach was too short for me, I ended up putting a 60mm stem on it and liked that a lot better. So, I think the issue is 9ers just need to be longer. A 460 reach bike used to be on the longer side of average for a L, now it's a solid size M in most brands. This was why I was hesitant on the Stumpy S4, it's sort of in between a M and L, and the S5 is not quite XL but close, and unfortunately, that sizing just doesn't work for me that well. I think the S4 might be too close to the size of my Slash and I may end up not liking it, IDK... it doesn't matter too much because it doesn't seem like there's any to buy anyways.

Also, in spending far too much time reading and watching reviews of the Spur, it seems like it has the geo I'm looking for judging by descriptions of how it handles, and a L seems like it'll fit me pretty well. And, it helps that I could get one.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Suns_PSD said:


> I'm very interested in adding a Spur as my light duty trail bike.
> As I recall the L reach is 480 with a 435 CS but my theory is that the WB is actually way shorter because it's not as slack and has short travel so 435 cs is just fine for overall balance on this bike.
> Thoughts?
> 
> Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


The easiest way to compare bikes (IMO) is to do a quick bit of math. I just divide the front center by the rear center, to get a ratio that I can easily compare across bikes.

sometimes front center is listed in the geo sheet. If not, it's quick and easy to determine. It's just wheelbase minus the chainstay length. And rear center is just the chainstay length. So the math looks like this

(Wheelbase - chainstay length)/ chainstay length.

My 2018 Kona Process 153 29'er in size L looks like this.

(1218mm - 425mm)/425mm = 1.87.

A size Large Banshee Titan looks like this.

(1275mm - 452mm)/ 452mm = 1.82.

Which means the Titan is more balanced front to rear.

But you are right front center length is not just the reach. A longer travel bike with the same reach, and head angle as a shorter travel bike will have the front tire farther "out there" (larger front center).


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Would be useful to try and graph many bikes using these ratios on a chart and compare them to positive & negative handling reviews to try and decipher what the sweet spot is.

Also should include several variations of the ratio to see which version is the best predictor. I stand a lot, but there are also smooth fast turns where I remain mostly seated, so possibly considering sta in relation to bb might be a ratio to look at. I dunno.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I think rider body proportions and riding style will affect the ideal FC:RC ratio. Even the terrain/application will. You'll have different weight distribution and handling priorities based on if you're climbing vs descending and how steep the grade is.


----------



## b rock (Jan 5, 2017)

ocnLogan said:


> The easiest way to compare bikes (IMO) is to do a quick bit of math. I just divide the front center by the rear center, to get a ratio that I can easily compare across bikes.
> 
> sometimes front center is listed in the geo sheet. If not, it's quick and easy to determine. It's just wheelbase minus the chainstay length. And rear center is just the chainstay length. So the math looks like this
> 
> ...


Canyon Spectral 27.5 XL
1235/430 - 1 = 1.87

I rented a Kona Process 153 27.5 once because it was the closest bike to my spectral. I didn't push it as hard as I push my bike in corners at the time, so it is kind of hard to judge if it too needed the same intentional pressure on the outside grip in dry and flat corners that the spectral seems to need.

Spectral reviews were very good (Bike of the Year 2018 etc.), but they tend to test size L (1204/430 - 1 = 1.8). I don't recall if I read an XL review.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

b rock said:


> Canyon Spectral 27.5 XL
> 1235/430 - 1 = 1.87
> 
> I rented a Kona Process 153 27.5 once because it was the closest bike to my spectral. I didn't push it as hard as I push my bike in corners at the time, so it is kind of hard to judge if it too needed the same intentional pressure on the outside grip in dry and flat corners that the spectral seems to need.
> ...


I haven't test ridden tons of bikes. But so far, my favorite bike that I've ever demoed, was the Transition smuggler (last gen). Running the numbers on that, its got a front/rear center ratio of 1.82. Which, coincedentally, is the same as the Banshee Titan. Its just almost impossible to demo a Banshee.

Also, its not an exact comparison, as that was nearly 2 years ago (I've been riding for 2.5yrs, so my skills have progressed since then, plus my memory isn't perfect from that event), and that was a high end build (Kashima Fox 36 with grip 2, etc) vs low end build (motion control yari, etc) on my personal bike.

Also, another thing I was just thinking about, was that the chainstay length for a standard "low pivot" mountain bike, will get shorter as it compresses. Whereas a high pivot will grow at sag, and at full compression. So that is another way that short travel and longer travel bikes differ.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

ocnLogan said:


> The easiest way to compare bikes (IMO) is to do a quick bit of math. I just divide the front center by the rear center, to get a ratio that I can easily compare across bikes.
> 
> sometimes front center is listed in the geo sheet. If not, it's quick and easy to determine. It's just wheelbase minus the chainstay length. And rear center is just the chainstay length. So the math looks like this
> 
> ...


Lol, I just did that in the post directly above this one... guess you missed it.

Anyways, while I do think it's helpful to look at there are also a lot of unknowns so I'd caution folks not to attribute ride feel with f/r ratio entirely. I think simply choosing a bike with proper reach is likely more important and there are so many contributing factors to how a bike rides you can't single any one thing out.

Look at the new Canfield bike, 425 cs and for some people it's a huge plus. I've also spent some time on a ~7yr old Demo dh bike and despite super short stays the bike rode very nicely imo, didn't have any of the same issues as my Slash.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

davec113 said:


> Lol, I just did that in the post directly above this one... guess you missed it.
> 
> Anyways, while I do think it's helpful to look at there are also a lot of unknowns so I'd caution folks not to attribute ride feel with f/r ratio entirely. I think simply choosing a bike with proper reach is likely more important and there are so many contributing factors to how a bike rides you can't single any one thing out.
> 
> Look at the new Canfield bike, 425 cs and for some people it's a huge plus. I've also spent some time on a ~7yr old Demo dh bike and despite super short stays the bike rode very nicely imo, didn't have any of the same issues as my Slash.


We were typing at the same time apparently . But nice to know I'm not the only one doing nerdy stuff like this (I've got a big spreadsheet with this, Stack, Reach, Span, effective BB height, and lots of other nerdy things for all the bikes I'm interested in).

But I completely agree. Its an easy way to compare, and get a rough idea how it will feel, but it is NOT the end all/be all measurement.

That said, I'd love to ride a bunch more bikes, fine tune what I personally need from a bike/compare to what I "think" it should be like from some of the geo measurements. Its just hard to get a demo anywhere these days .


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Well, seeing as how the topic has wondered pretty far off the Yeti path, I'll chime in with my short chainstay experience. 

Midwest rider, on trails most would consider XC/Trail. A fair amount of roots, some rocks, minimal elevation (500-700 in a typical 10mile ride). I am a taller rider at 6'2", and had a 2014 Canfield N9, which has very short stays, slack STA, and relatively steep hta @ 68. That bike was good everywhere but seated climbing, as you could lift the front end with even a 3/4 power pedal stroke, which made the bike very difficult to handle as the front end flopped side to side. 

I am pretty sure that is one of the main reasons they have pushed the sta straight up, to put the weight further forward and get riders off the back of the bike. If you move the seat forward, you have to increase the reach. I would also imagine in a hardtail, that really short chain stays make it difficult to provide a compliant ride, and in all bikes really short wheelbase makes for a less stable bike (just like it make for a less stable vehicle). 

Now I have not ridden a new geo bike, but I would hope the longer front center doesn't mean the front it harder to lift when riding. As even though suspension helps, you will always be faster if you can lift and skip, vs plow. 

And my main take away on this new geo, is that it really isn't designed for my local trails. I can't imagine how much the front end of a 66* hta bike flops side to side on slow in the saddle climbs. And I would be really interested to see if they new forward geo helps the front end stay down on those same climbs my old N9 would lift.


----------



## kamper11 (Feb 8, 2008)

interesting read in many regards. I too have read the reviews and thought about the many comments about committed weight forward riding to get the most out of the yeti's. I started comparing some geo's, and low/behold my med Ripmo AF has an even longer front center than a medium yeti - but not one review talks about committing to weight forward riding on the Ripmo... and the CS length doesn't change across all sizes of Ripmo. I will state - I am very much less a tailgunner on the AF vs previous, shorter/steeper bikes and ride much more btw the wheels on the AF. So it would imply its never just 1 measure but sum of them all that seems to land how a bike feels and rides


----------



## Anchorless (May 15, 2008)

ocnLogan said:


> The easiest way to compare bikes (IMO) is to do a quick bit of math. I just divide the front center by the rear center, to get a ratio that I can easily compare across bikes.
> 
> sometimes front center is listed in the geo sheet. If not, it's quick and easy to determine. It's just wheelbase minus the chainstay length. And rear center is just the chainstay length. So the math looks like this
> 
> ...


Just for comparison sake, the Revel Rascal (L) works out to 1.8175.

(1220-433)/433.


----------



## stuart24 (Mar 12, 2020)

I'm 5'10 and ride a medium sb150, first used a 40mm stem and then changed to a 50mm one, really feels more balanced.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

kamper11 said:


> interesting read in many regards. I too have read the reviews and thought about the many comments about committed weight forward riding to get the most out of the yeti's. I started comparing some geo's, and low/behold my med Ripmo AF has an even longer front center than a medium yeti - but not one review talks about committing to weight forward riding on the Ripmo... and the CS length doesn't change across all sizes of Ripmo. I will state - I am very much less a tailgunner on the AF vs previous, shorter/steeper bikes and ride much more btw the wheels on the AF. So it would imply its never just 1 measure but sum of them all that seems to land how a bike feels and rides


A medium SB150 has a slightly longer reach, slacker HTA, and shorter chainstays. It looks like your Ripmo AF has a shorter FC and longer RC.


----------



## kamper11 (Feb 8, 2008)

Aaaah - I did compare mine to the 130 not the 150 - obvious now that 150 would have been the more appropriate compare!


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

jonshonda said:


> Well, seeing as how the topic has wondered pretty far off the Yeti path, I'll chime in with my short chainstay experience.
> 
> Midwest rider, on trails most would consider XC/Trail. A fair amount of roots, some rocks, minimal elevation (500-700 in a typical 10mile ride). I am a taller rider at 6'2", and had a 2014 Canfield N9, which has very short stays, slack STA, and relatively steep hta @ 68. That bike was good everywhere but seated climbing, as you could lift the front end with even a 3/4 power pedal stroke, which made the bike very difficult to handle as the front end flopped side to side.
> 
> ...


There really is far less flop than you'd imagine. My current bike has a HTA of around 64 degrees and I don't notice any to complain about. Fork offset plays into wheel stability and tracking too, but IMO that kind of wheel flop while climbing is actually due to inefficient technique and sawing at the bars. I notice it increases to the point of noticeable when I get tired. If you can ride a bike no-handed, while pedaling and making other inputs (not sitting still in other words), there's really no wheel flop. And I'll point out that an all-mountain / enduro bike designed with downhill intentions is definitely intended to be pedaled up long slow climbs.

My thoughts on chainstays are similar to yours. I had a Canfield, too. Mine was a Yelli, and I enjoyed it. But noticed that my Banshee Prime with unfashionably long chainstays was a much better seated climber, especially when things got really steep- despite being heavier and squishier. I started to think about why, and re-evaluate my opinions on geometry. The Canfield was a great sink-or-swim introduction to riding the front wheel, though. If you didn't have your weight forward you'd blow the turn.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Yeah I am hearing more and more good things locally about new geo working better then the numbers would suggest! I think I might try a hardtail first to see how it works out, before I go balls deep into anything full squish.

Hmmmmmm, which steel hardtail will fit the bill.


----------

