[Closed] Bike Check: Dan Milner's 'Modern Klunker' Yeti SB115

Nice. A bike for riding the kind of riding I like to do.

But does it jib?

I presume this should read. My adventure dream adventure spec within the constraints of my sponsors catalogue

Nice bike from an amazing ambassador for the sport and pretty decent picture taker too 😂

13.2kg....

Sounds much more realistic than some of the nonsense weights thrown around the forum.

Makes my 13.6kg Occam seem fairly light.

... and without constraints of a normal person's wallet

Hmmm, looks like someone was one article short of his contractual obligations for the year.

So it's a downcountry, klunker, wilderness adventure bike that's capable of being ridden up and down big hills. Think we need to come up with a more concise name, maybe mountain bike?

Was just about to say - its a general do-it-all mountain bike. Why does the bike industry seem so obsessed with giving bikes labels.

Dissector front, DHR rear? Does he ride everywhere backwards!?

Lovely thing though. 10-51t with a 28 tooth chainring would be some big hills though!

4 pot brakes and smaller rotors save weight and good for prolonged descents.

To my mind (completely unsceintific guesswork) both of those things are wrong.

Clearly in the first case, he has proved himself correct by measuring - that he has saved a fraction of weight.

But I also had in mind that a nice big heat dissipating rotor would have less fade/more consistency with the big rotors as a heat sink, giving up some of the first contact full power of a 4 piston setup thats more suited for big dollops of power for short sharp uses at high speed and/or with a heavy rider.

our pursuit of ‘bigger, slacker, faster, more’ has made bikes heavy and sluggish

Yeah, but not everyone has done this. Partly through not wanting a big heavy enduro bike and partly not being able to afford a big heavy enduro bike.
Back to my lust for a RM Element. It ain't XC, down****ry or modern clunker, its a mountain bike.

I got one paragraph in, realised it was an advertorial and went elsewhere.

13.2kg….

Sounds much more realistic than some of the nonsense weights thrown around the forum.

It sounds ridiculous. I'm amazed that manufacturers are pumping out kit that make it easy to build a 29lb bike with so little travel for so much money and people accept it. The weights of the bikes in the Pink Bike field test are unacceptable - not one of the trail bikes is under 30lb and they're all over 5k.

People need to start demanding lighter bikes rather than being sold the lie that bikes are as light as manufacturers can make them for a certain strength. Mountain bikes have been around for fifty years, the technology should exist now to make them lighter as well as stronger but a lack of imagination and innovation on the part of manufacturers is stopping that happen.

People need to start demanding lighter bikes

Why? If you want crazy light stuff, it’s available, if not front and centre off the shelf.

29lb is good for a short-travel trail bike IMO.

29in has made it harder to get closer to 25lb, as we used to aim for with XC-ish bikes.

What's more interesting to me, is how there's now often not much weight difference between the £2.5k bike and the £5k+ bike.

Bike parts generally weigh what they need to - and you have to spend £££s to drop a couple of lbs.

i love the idea of just calling our bikes 'mountain bikes' and stopping there.... but there are different genres of riding and riders, that occupy very different places on the MTB spectrum (and of course in marketing speak), and those distinctions do help people identify with geometries and component choices that will be best for their riding.
I ride a pretty chunky "enduro' bike most of the time here in the Alps —which I love— but I remember riding ultra light XC hardtails here too, and theres always something about a lighter more noble bike, especially when faced with the kind of big unknowns that wild adventures present.
Yeah I know the Klunker acronym is stretching it - but hey, when did I ever make an earnest serious video?

4 pot brakes and smaller rotors save weight and good for prolonged descents.

To my mind (completely unsceintific guesswork) both of those things are wrong.

I get your concern over my maths and physics, 😀 but this is the set up that works great for me, on the kind of adventure places I ride. It might not for you. I agree that a 203mm would be better at heat dissipation, but I have no fade issues with a 180mm rotor, and the thrust of this piece is to to highlight where I look to shave weight from my bike without compromising — this being one of them. Maybe I'm just not the fastest descender, and certainly a lot of trails we encounter are very nadge tech rather than flat our, which is where I like the feedback and finer control of the 4-pots. (TBH, in really remote places several days from a hospital, we generally do reel in the Strava aspirations anyway)

I got one paragraph in, realised it was an advertorial and went elsewhere.

Sorry if it came across like that.. not my intention. My idea was to try to shed some light on the kind of bike that comes with me to high altitude, wild corners of the world, and to talk about the choices and reasoning I make when building it (this comes after a couple of paragraphs in.)
Of course that said, I am an grateful ambassador for some brands so it is inevitable that a bike check piece will risk looking like an advertorial (though not all these parts are from sponsors), as it would if it were about an EWS or DH racer's bike. So yes, bike checks like this are indeed unavoidable 'eyes on the product' pieces, but also (I hope) give an insight into the kind of set up ridden at the edges of our sport.
Certainly the support the brands give people like me, and many other globe-trotting photographers out there, helps me go and shoot the stories I do.

a very nice build.

Another reminder that sometimes, less is more!

Dissector front, DHR rear? Does he ride everywhere backwards!?

LOL. I get where you're coming from there —certainly there was a big move to riding DHR II as a front tyre a couple of years ago, and it left a legacy. Tyres are very much a personal choice, but they are one of the most important decisions to make on an "adventure bike" - getting the balance between weight, resilience, grip (climbing, braking and cornering), predictability and so on. That said, I tend to stick with the Maxxis design guys on this one, accepting that they probably knew what they were doing when they designed the DHR II primarily as a rear tread (big square cross blocks dish out climbing grip), and the Dissector as either F or R.
But hey, it's just the set up that works for me.

Four weak points off the top of my head:

I've picked up loooooads of those Fabric bottles from the side of trails over the years. They seem pretty solid when properly clicked in, but it's not 100% clear when you post the bottle whether you've clicked it in correctly or not.

Similarly - I stopped using King headsets back before King started licensing / using the Dia Compe conical washer. Over a certain A-C length it was practically impossible to keen the headsets set up perfectly. I've used Hope ones ever since.

Mavic wheels tend to be a bit proprietary about spokes - these may be different, of course, but spares might be a bit of a pain

A press fit bottom bracket - really? I'd be chucking a Wheels or Hope adapter in there ASAP. I don't think I've had a PF BB last more than 1,000km

Pro photographer and Shimano ambassador Dan Milner has been exploring remote places on his mountain bike for three decades. His ambitious search for trails has led him through places as diverse as North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Patagonia’s sub-Antarctic islands. Check him out at danmilner.com

*swoons*

People need to start demanding lighter bikes rather than being sold the lie that bikes are as light as manufacturers can make them for a certain strength.

I agree. With the advanced materials and engineering knowledge that all areas of engineering have learnt I don’t understand why good engineering and design is not producing lighter bikes. The cynic in me thinks it’s because it’s easier to engineer a heavier bike and the marketing / warranty department have an easier time. If you can make a frame 500g heavier due to more material and get away with it then why bother to engineer it properly

I think the problem for manufacturers when it comes to weight is the diversity and ability of many riders these days. Bikes are so capable these days, you could make your short travel frame lighter and it could be fine for a light skillful rider but there's no guarantee it's not going to be bought by an 18 stone rider who's going to huck it off a 1.5m drop. No manufacturer wants a rep for bikes that break and riders expect decent warranties. I imagine a combination of these 2 things will lead to a degree of over engineering to keep on the right side of weight/strength ratio. When I started biking it wasn't unusual for a rigid bike with cantis to weigh 29lb. When you consider what a modern bike is capable of it's amazing they're as light as they are.

Singletrackworld:

an 18 stone rider who’s going to huck it off a 1.5m drop

I think that manufacturers/magazines/whatever should be quoting bike weights without tyres (rather than without pedals). Tyre choice makes a big difference in overall bike weight.

rider who’s going to huck it off a 1.5m drop ride it down an ‘easy red’ having battered it the day before on a DH track

FTFY.

Very nice I don't see the Klunker in it anywhere.

Nice. A bike for riding the kind of riding I like to do.

Agree. In fact I agree so much it *is* the bike I use for the kind of riding I do.

my spec is bit more mis-matched ( 11 speed XTR, hope E4s, DT 1501) because thats what I already had. but it does build into a nice, comfy, light engough bike for riding around all day.

So it’s a downcountry, klunker, wilderness adventure bike that’s capable of being ridden up and down big hills. Think we need to come up with a more concise name, maybe mountain bike?

I love the idea of ditching the tags and calling it all mountain biking, just like it was back in the 1980’s. But things have (thankfully) moved on with our bikes since the Klunkers and rigid 15-speed Raleigh Mavericks. As soon as specialisations in the sport appeared (albeit mostly through racing) we were destined to embrace different frame designs and geometries, and diverging demands on components.
I’d argue that the industry tags that arose (DH, Freeride, XC, Trail, Enduro, Downcountry, etc... and even the glorious K.L.UNK.E.R, along with its soon to be BAFTA nominated voice over 😆!) help us riders identify the kind of bikes that best suit our own preferred type of riding. And of course (cynically) allow marketing peeps to get excited.
It is all mountain biking and of course many of us like to blend the categories and not be pigeon-holed, but even the DH bikes that were part of what was 'just mountain biking' in the early 90’s, with their triple crown forks and heavy builds, were already becoming a different breed to the lightweight bikes most of us were riding, and wouldn’t have fared well on the bridleways we looked for —just as my Cannondale M800 and 35mm-travel Pace RC35 forks wouldn’t have fared great on the DH tracks then. Both were ‘mountain biking’, but the distinction in genres helped riders find what they were aspiring towards.

Mountain biking isn’t tennis: it’s much more divergent. (he says inviting a torrent of abuse from tennis enthusiasts, that inevitably leads to a forum debate over lawn vs clay..). Similarly a $150 Walmart mountain bike, with its 26” wheels, 18 gears and nobbly tyres has less off-road capability than a contemporary decent gravel bike, so perhaps we should just call them all “bikes"?

Very nice I don’t see the Klunker in it anywhere.

Yeah dont take the Klunker reference to heart...! it was always going to be a clickbait play on words and a tongue in cheek, ambitious acronym. The only cross over is the idea of building up a bike that does the job you want it to. It is crazy though, how the main focus the Klunkers history is seized by the repack DH, and less so on the actual Klunker trail riding/exploring that was going on at the same time.

I think that manufacturers/magazines/whatever should be quoting bike weights without tyres (rather than without pedals). Tyre choice makes a big difference in overall bike weight.

Good point. What a lot of people dont realise when they see a (rarely) listed bike weight is that it is listed without pedals. So you can add 400g+ to that listed weight. Back when companies commonly did list bike weights, we saw a lot of bikes supplied with lightweight tyres with very shallow treads that might be fine on the dusty trails of California or the buff Colorado Trail, but were pointless everywhere else. You still see a lot of lighter weight tyres spec'd on 29'ers, for the same reason -to keep overall listed weight down. That said, maybe the industry is assuming you will likely change the tyre for something more suitable to your home trail conditions anyway? Just like swapping out the saddle. These are things we offered to do in the shop for free on a new bike when I worked in a bike shop in Bristol even in the early 1990's. Do shops still do that?

Four weak points off the top of my head:

Thanks for those points. Certainly I havent had any problems with CK headsets, and the PF BB have been fine, if you accept they aren't for life —and yes a threaded converter would be a great (if heavier) option for the long game.
We always take spare spokes for our wheels on our adventures and expeditions —its imperative, so it doesnt really matter if the spokes are proprietary. You will likely not find a bike shop, let alone spokes for any 650 or 29 wheel no matter how regular the spokes they're laced with, in many of the places we've gone, or if you do, they'd be a few days drive away from where the breakage happens. Spokes are not a big heavy spare part to take with. Ditto with derailleur hangers (although Sonam at the Dawn to Dust bike shop in Kathmandu turns out a decent variety of home made, machined brass billet hangers - amazing!). Our group spares also include a rear mech, brake bleed kits, chain links, a gear cable, and a spare tyre or atleast a tyre patch.

… and without constraints of a normal person’s wallet

I get ya, though when I first filed this piece, the ed suggested it didn't have enough of the 'exotic' rare to find, uber-elitist, anodised, lust-merchant parts in the build! I guess you can't please everyone all the time eh.

People need to start demanding lighter bikes rather than being sold the lie that bikes are as light as manufacturers can make them for a certain strength.

What would the mechanism behind people 'demanding lighter bikes' look like? Petitions? Street riots? Interpretative dance?

Also, does a light bike really make much difference apart from when you're carrying the thing? Often people seem to confuse 'light' with 'fast rolling', but while light changes the feel and acceleration of a bike slightly, does losing, say two kilos from the weight a mountain bike really make a significant difference over the course of a day in the saddle?

I'm not sure it is all that clear that bikes could be massively lighter if the ****less manufacturers only knuckled down a bit.

Or at least, not within the constraints of function and budget.

I have a really light MTB, it's sub-11kg. And it got there by being tiny and sketchy: 26er QR wheels, flexy straight-steerer 32mm stanchion Reba, short/high/steep hardtail frame, no dropper, relatively narrow bars, single speed. It is fun to ride, but nothing like as capable as my modern 29er hardtail, and to be honest I mostly notice the weight difference when lifting them over gates.

I'm not saying weight doesn't matter since of course it does within some limit; but rather that so long as the bike is "light enough" weight reduction is a game of diminishing returns, and doesn't trump function or budget for the average rider.

Also, does a light bike really make much difference

I'd say in most regular situations then perhaps the bike weight (so long as its reasonable) doesnt make a massive difference to a 2 hour loop —especially if the terrain we're riding calls for a heavier-hitting build and going light means compromising the resilience or ride quality. We have to realise that the pace we're hitting trail features now is a lot heavier and harder (often without necessarily a lot more skill) than we used to, so beefing up bikes was inevitable in an industry fearing law suits. But then a lighter bike does make for a more nimble ride, and genuinely feels less like dragging an old mule along a trail on all-day (or multi day) endeavours. Adventure means enjoying the climbs too, not just enduring them for the gravity reward.
A lot depends on rider-weight:bike-weight 'ratio' too, just as the bigger wheels don't necessarily cut it for shorter riders. A 2kg lighter bike might spell a lot more difference to a 55Kg rider than a 80Kg rider, and the latter might benefit from heavier duty components.
Much also comes down to geometry. Long bikes with long chainstays don't feel as energetic on climbs as a rule, and along with more weight (especially when carrying — my riders know that 4 hour hike-a-bikes are typical on my trips) can turn an adventure into a grind.
As TomParkin says above, weight reduction is a game of diminishing returns. You have to find your own sweet spot.

Firstly, piss off trying to get me to subscribe to read an advertorial.

Secondly, your bike is too heavy. 33lbs for an XC race bike is 10lbs too much.

The only acceptable additions to the "bikes are just heavier now and these additional weights are good" category are: Tyre inserts, wider tyres, wider (to an extent) rims, larger cassettes and dropper posts. To counter this; suspension is lighter, carbon is better, carbon wheels are priced to the masses and machining has improved tenfold.

Ignoring my belief that most people are overbiked and under-skilled (I'm just appropriately biked and under-skilled; and the popularity of electronic motorbikes says people are under-fit as well), XC bikes should be 24lbs or less (and that's full suspension, hardtails should be under 21lbs). Trail bikes should be 24-28lbs. An enduro bike should be 28-30lbs.

Things that are making your bikes heavy; too much suspension, steel frames because you're a hipster, steel railed saddles, chunky stems, heavy lock-on grips, cushcore inserts (rimpact are 300g lighter across both wheels, a whole pound), DH casing tyres on xc bikes, cheaply made frame hardware, handled thru axles, lazy thick paintjobs, 14-pot brakes.

You don't need these things for the nant bield pass (you can ride it on a 21lb xc hardtail), and you really do not need these things for two laps of Barry Knows Best then a cake in the Peaslake cafe.

(rimpact are 300g lighter across both wheels, a whole pound)

Are you sure?

Where is there a 33lb XC race bike?

I'm sure continuity is just trolling, but I'm having a slow day....

Apart from his irritating Brexity habit of measuring bike weights in pounds, looking at other specifics;

Firstly, piss off trying to get me to subscribe to read an advertorial.

It didn't come across like that to me. Don't be so harsh

Secondly, your bike is too heavy. 33lbs for an XC race bike is 10lbs too much.

It's not a ****ing xc race bike. It's a mtb for doing cross country rides. You could literally call it an XC bike, though most would disagree, but it sure as hell ain't an xc race bike.
Etc

Does does continuity think that Dan’s bike is 33lbs? Dan’s 13.2kg bike? No wonder it seems too heavy…

Firstly, piss off trying to get me to subscribe to read an advertorial.

Secondly, your bike is too heavy. 33lbs for an XC race bike is 10lbs too much.

Hi Jospeh, let me help you out here..
The bike here does not weight 32 lbs, but 29.1 Lbs (13.2 Kg). I agree that 33 lbs for an 'XC race bike' would be way too silly, but this isn't an XC race bike. This build sits somewhere between the weights for trail and enduro bikes that you have deemed acceptable to you, which is fortuitous as the bike was intended to span that gap, as I say in the text: to ride long distance multi-day trips but still handle everything in its way (the caveat being that it's me onboard).
Aside from this weighty point, I'm very glad you agreed with my text in all the other points you raise. And yes I do wish enduro bikes weighed 28-30 lbs (my SB140, with 160 forks, comes in at nearly 32 lbs).
Thanks for reading, and glad you could access this without having to subscribe.

couple of quotes from the article:-

one that I could still ride how I wanted to, down any trail my adventures led me without fretting about durability or reliability

but they’re not the kind of kit I’d trust with my survival on remote expeditions

I'm not sure how either of them square up to buying a Yeti. Has something changed? To my mind Yeti means "delicate", "immature proprietary suspension tech", "nice colour", "tribe". not robust, go anywhere, trustworthy. The "lifetime Warranty" doesn't help when the chainstays break or the linkage thingy seizes in the middle of nowhere

Things that are making your bikes heavy; too much suspension, steel frames because you’re a hipster, steel railed saddles, chunky stems, heavy lock-on grips, cushcore inserts (rimpact are 300g lighter across both wheels, a whole pound), DH casing tyres on xc bikes, cheaply made frame hardware, handled thru axles, lazy thick paintjobs, 14-pot brakes.

You don’t need these things for the nant bield pass (you can ride it on a 21lb xc hardtail), and you really do not need these things for two laps of Barry Knows Best then a cake in the Peaslake cafe.

things in bold, I agree with you

I've said before that I'm not a huge fan of 4 pot brakes as a concept. However the current offerings from the major manufacturers mean I do have E4 on my big bike. If someone made a comparable 2 pot I'd be all over it. But to internet dweebs more pistons = better and I think that ship has sailed.

I've only done nan bield once, and I chickened out an dabbed a foot on one of the top corners. It was a great descent though, and there is no chance it would have been either quicker or more fun on a light weight race hardtail.
Surrey hills I've ridden a lot. Trail tyres with no inserts would be my preference, but otherwise I would take the bike you describe as unneccesary. And I'll wholly enjoy the ride. Not buying food unless its a 4 hour plus ride though.

This thread has proven quite enlightening with respect to something I posted a few weeks ago.

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/do-stw-writers-get-pricklishness-training/

That isn't intended as a dig at you BTW Dan, more am observation on the dynamics. You've done that pretty impressive thing of getting deeply involved in the post article discussion and also keeping your cool. 🙂

Love the tongue in cheek Acronym™️. Lovely build and article. Although my local trails are more sedated and my rides shorter, couldn’t agree more with the idea of having a bike to do just enough. Have a pretty similar build with my Ibis Ripley and it’s just fun on almost everything.

I think you missed a trick not calling it a Qlunker.

@thegeneralist

Rides are measured in km, bikes are weighed in pounds. I don't make the rules; I just guard them.

@danmilner

Got me on the conversion. Someone else earlier in the thread quoted 33lbs so I went with that. However, now you've got me on it, you propose that this is the 'quickest lightest uncompromised'

1. A sb115 is unnecessarily heavy (breaking 2 and 3) - a kilo heavier than an equivalent spark in the same size.

2. Should have been a 34 SC at no loss except weight (2 and 3 broken).

3. 2 pistons with 200mm are lighter and brake better than 4 pistons with little rotors (all 3). Bring back formulas r0!

4. Dissector on the front, dhr on the back!?

5. 2kg for a wheelset...?

6. 213g for a saddle and 110g for grips?

This is just whoever gave you the components. I had access to the article because it's an advert. Do you think you should have to pay to see adverts?

Klunker?

@ Dan

Honestly, don’t feel the need to justify your bike to a bunch of strangers on the internet. As another industry professional (and mutual friend of Chipps’), this forum is simultaneously the best and worst of MTBing society. It’s your bike (and a lovely one at that!), enjoy it… If a stranger on the internet doesn’t get why you’ve specced it a certain way, what does it matter?

Was just about to say – its a general do-it-all mountain bike. Why does the bike industry seem so obsessed with giving bikes labels.

Because marketing… 🤷🏻‍♂️ But then again, that’s testament to the success of the sport/pastime/hobby that the marketing men have got involved. As someone who works in a marketing team for a cycling company, many/most of the terms and acronyms annoy me, and certain brands’ insistence that they need a new marketing buzz word every other year does grate somewhat. But then again, innovation improves the breed, so…

Back to my lust for a RM Element. It ain’t XC, down****ry or modern clunker, its a mountain bike.

In the classic tradition of recommending what you own, keep on lusting… 👌🏻 I’ve got a 2019 model that I’ve specced up a bit, as an antidote to modern “LLS” yet at the same time still incredibly capable trail bike, it’s right up there. I did look at the SB100/115 instead, and do love the look of them, but the slacker seat angle on the Yeti was noticeable and though the Element has a 1.5deg steeper head angle, it also has a ZS44/56 headset too so it’s easy to rectify this with an angleset.

I’ve picked up loooooads of those Fabric bottles from the side of trails over the years. They seem pretty solid when properly clicked in, but it’s not 100% clear when you post the bottle whether you’ve clicked it in correctly or not.

I’ve seen countless of them dropped off over the years too. Good idea, poor execution sadly!

A press fit bottom bracket – really? I’d be chucking a Wheels or Hope adapter in there ASAP. I don’t think I’ve had a PF BB last more than 1,000km

Nothing wrong with a decent press fit BB, and a lot right with it. I’ll take a decent PF BB with replaceable MR2437 or 6806 bearings over a threaded cartridge unit every day thank you. Less waste, lighter and stiffer interface, cheaper replacements (as you’re only replacing the bearings when they’re worn, not the cups they sit in too).

The biggest issue with PF BB’s is home mechanics insisting they can fix everything without the appropriate tools! 🤭 Which brings me on to this…

It sounds ridiculous. I’m amazed that manufacturers are pumping out kit that make it easy to build a 29lb bike with so little travel for so much money and people accept it. The weights of the bikes in the Pink Bike field test are unacceptable – not one of the trail bikes is under 30lb and they’re all over 5k.

People need to start demanding lighter bikes rather than being sold the lie that bikes are as light as manufacturers can make them for a certain strength. Mountain bikes have been around for fifty years, the technology should exist now to make them lighter as well as stronger but a lack of imagination and innovation on the part of manufacturers is stopping that happen.

There’s many reasons bikes aren’t that light any more (well, some still are). People insisting they can fix their bike at home with a minimum of tools doesn’t help as designers have to design bikes heavier as a result in many cases. But also, there’s the evolution of the trails we’re riding… 20 years ago I was 65kg and rode pretty smooth trails mostly, and any off piste was mostly bridle paths. Riding wasn’t that technical, wheels were 26” and tyres 2.1” wide, and CEN tests didn’t exist. These days I’m 95kg, most trails I ride are pretty technical and off piste, wheels are 29” and tyres are burlier, dropper posts and wide bars are de rigeur even on XC bikes and anything non CEN tested would probably last 5 minutes with my lard arse on top of it… Times change! 🤷🏻‍♂️

Anyway… Light bikes exist. Nobody is stopping you from buying them. They do cost a lot, and they aren’t suitable for most of what constitutes “Mountain Biking” for the vast majority of riders these days (though they’re equally suitable for the 90’s definition of it, if not more so than a 90’s MTB) as peoples expectations have moved on… I’m just building a lightish XC hardtail as we speak, aiming for sub 11kg with a dropper and pedals included. It will be fun to ride on tamer trails and cover ground quickly I am sure, but won’t be that much more capable off road than a Gravel Bike I suspect…

Aside from Continuity’s obvious troll grumble about weight, his terrible maths and insistence on what he believes people should be riding rather than letting them make that decision themselves… Mountain Biking is supposed to be FUN! Sometimes I think people forget that too readily. Don’t like eMTB’s? Fine… Don’t ride one! But don’t tell the next person on one what they are or aren’t allowed to ride. Same goes for someone on an Enduro bike riding your local woods. From 30 odd years experience riding MTB’s I know all too well that a lighter bike with faster tyres and less suspension travel is usually the most fun, if not the most capable bike to be on for any given circumstance, but we’re all different. Some people enjoy riding uphill ffs! Perverts!!!

1. A sb115 is unnecessarily heavy (breaking 2 and 3) – a kilo heavier than an equivalent spark in the same size.

SB115 isn’t aimed as an XC race bike, when the Spark is… Similar travel granted, but not designed for the same reason.

2. Should have been a 34 SC at no loss except weight (2 and 3 broken).

34SC is 120mm max travel… The SB115 is designed around a 130mm fork… If it wasn’t apparent already, I’d say facts hold very little substance for you, and you’re one of those people who values the ability to shout the loudest over and above provide a valid and well reasoned response to an argument!

3. 2 pistons with 200mm are lighter and brake better than 4 pistons with little rotors (all 3). Bring back formulas r0!

More smaller pistons provide better modulation and feel. As the Pirelli adverts used to say decades ago, “power is nothing without control”. I have yet to find an example yet where an equivalent 2 piston brake can match the modulation or feel of a 4 piston brake, even if it comes close to or matches its power for a given rotor size.

Dissector on the front, dhr on the back!?

Gotta have confidence in your tyres… Wouldn’t be my choice, but tyres are a hugely personal topic!

2kg for a wheelset…?

Isn’t too bad for a modern 29er trail capable wheelset that doesn’t break the bank. Yes there are lighter, but you’re starting to make compromises on strength or durability as you go lighter obviously.

213g for a saddle and 110g for grips?

Is incredibly light for components I’d actually want to use, even on an XC race bike! A saddle is no use if you can’t sit on it for hours on end, and grips no use if you can’t hold onto them likewise.

Do you think you should have to pay to see adverts?

This is the way much of the media works these days… Don’t like it, then don’t pay for it… Simples! Which shouldn’t be a problem as you’re not by the looks of it anyway!

@mboy

Nothing wrong with a decent press fit BB, and a lot right with it. I’ll take a decent PF BB with replaceable MR2437 or 6806 bearings over a threaded cartridge unit every day thank you. Less waste, lighter and stiffer interface, cheaper replacements (as you’re only replacing the bearings when they’re worn, not the cups they sit in too).

I hear ya. I guess my main argument in favour of a threaded BB instead of PF is that you can generally screw in HTII cups by hand, reducing the need to carry around a threaded bar and adapters. The weight of an HTII is trivial enough that I'd probably throw a spare one in my luggage if I was travelling with my bike these days.

I had a Stache frame with PF and regardless of whether a proper bike mechanic fitted it, or if I did it myself with the correct tools, it ate PFBBs. I've had no such problem with a Kona using the Hope adapter, mind, and I'm sure a pair of 6806s could be dug up almost anywhere on the planet, mind so there is that.

Things that are making your bikes heavy; too much suspension, steel frames because you’re a hipster, steel railed saddles, chunky stems, heavy lock-on grips, cushcore inserts (rimpact are 300g lighter across both wheels, a whole pound), DH casing tyres on xc bikes, cheaply made frame hardware, handled thru axles, lazy thick paintjobs, 14-pot brakes.

I've just put together an XC trail bike with none of the above. 1900g full suss frame (110/100mm), SID forks, aluminium i28 rims, 2.4" light tyres = 12.2kg all in including pedals and copious sealant.

Could of saved 200g with an Ultimate Race Day fork, 100g with a Luxe shock, 200g with DT carbon wheelset, more with a spangly top of the range SRAM cassette instead of a SunRace.

It's as #upcountry as I could make it for my budget.

View this post on Instagram

Honestly, don’t feel the need to justify your bike to a bunch of strangers on the internet. As another industry professional (and mutual friend of Chipps’), this forum is simultaneously the best and worst of MTBing society. It’s your bike (and a lovely one at that!), enjoy it…

Erm, I see what you're saying, but if you write an article saying how brilliant your bike build is, it's not unreasonable to be justifying - I think 'explaining' is a less loaded term fwiw - to posters in the follow-up comments to that article.

But whatever, I think it's great that Dan's taken the time to engage with folk on here. It's a shame that doesn't happen more consistently.

2kg for a wheelset…?

Isn’t too bad for a modern 29er trail capable wheelset that doesn’t break the bank. Yes there are lighter, but you’re starting to make compromises on strength or durability as you go lighter obviously.

2kg is ridiculous for anything less than full dh duty. This is the problem, media keep peddling the idea that heavy is fine. It’s not

Well, thanks everyone for chipping in here. I love the debate these kind of features create — especially over bike weights (something that, as an ageing old ex-XC racer turned all mountain enduro upcountry adventure rider and bike-shoulderer, has long been at my heart for years), and I am truly chuffed that my feature has even introduced the concept of 'interpretive dance' to the comment forum.
I set out to give an insight into the kind of bike that comes with me to the quite remote, wild or off the beaten track places I go to shoot stories. This bike came with me to Rwanda in October (amazing place: story to come soon) and did exactly what I wanted/needed it to —keep me rolling up and down, and have fun while trying to absorb and photograph an incessant barrage of amazing experiences. Theres enough going on in these places for me to not need to worry about bike reliability or having to handle it like an EWS pro (I leave that to my riders).

It does seem from some peoples comments that maybe I didnt explain the component choices well enough perhaps, or maybe some readers own interpretations, or maths, or personal preferences seem to cloud their willingness to just accept this is a bike built by me for the kind of adventures I do: Nothing more than that, albeit with a jangly headline, and you can take my experiential knowledge on what works for me in such places, or leave it. But at the same time I also accept that I have a responsibility to 'put my money where my mouth is' if I am going to write/shoot/film this kind of content, and I hope I have helped clarify and answer points in my previous replies. (And no, @thegeneralist, we don't get anti-prickliness training LOL; it's just something learnt over years on the job.)
On that note, here are a couple more points (now I worked out how you paste more than one quote in the same reply!)

I’m not sure how either of them square up to buying a Yeti. Has something changed?

I know it is currently popular to knock Yetis, and honestly, truly, I cannot find a genuine reason for this. They are not delicate, and they never have been; ever since the first ARCs that were raced, they have been trusted. I have been riding Yeti's by choice for the last 13 years, through the 575, SB5, SB6, SB140 and SB115. All have been put through the mill in very wild, high, remote places, without letting me down. In all those years and models, I have only had one 'breakage' (an early SB6, its ISCG mounts cracked after hitting an outcrop of BB-height bed rock at full, OMG speed —must learn to pull up faster!) but it wasn't something that stopped play, or the trip, but was only to be sorted afterwards. Yeti have long been associated with backcountry adventures (too much so if you ask some marketing peeps) and their bikes have been trusted by many to explore some of the most challenging places to ride on earth (ask Joey Schusler too). If we adventure dudes didn't trust them, we wouldn't take them. Simple. No, OK a lifetime warranty might not help much in the middle of nowhere but it gives you the security of mind that it is very, very unlikely to fail, and frames generally are not the parts to suffer on such trips.
And as for "immature" suspension tech, I'd argue to the contrary. The 575 was as 'conventional and established' a design as it gets, and the current Switch Infinity works really well, giving the bike a lot deeper travel feel than it actually has (in a good way), as well as eliminating pedal bob. The 'fancy link' (ie Switch Infinity) won't 'seize up' in the middle of nowhere (if you have injected grease a couple of times per year as recommended), and is actually a lot less complex and needs a lot less fuss/maintenance than many other companies' linkages.
While I am not suggesting that @Speeder, you fit this demographic, it is popular nowadays to choose a scapegoat to demonise in the industry, as part of some kind of personal credibility/power play, and many riders choose Yeti to be it. A while back it was Specialized, who were, quite literally (if you read forums) the spawn of the devil. Today Yeti ticks that box for the opinionated wanting to get noticed amongst their online, anonymous peers, reaching 'dentist-loathing' tendrils through the internet like a bike riding QANON. It's an odd psychological state of play. Perhaps it is because their bikes are expensive, or that they are an independent company, or they liked turquoise before every other company decided they would too... or a mate of a mate of a mate of mine had one and it broke, I think (just like we all have mates of mates who broke a bike by brand X, Y or Z).

However, now you’ve got me on it, you propose that this is the ‘quickest lightest uncompromised’

OK, @continuity, as @mboy explains, this isn't an XC race bike like the Spark fitted with 120mm SIDs, and, again as mboy helpfully points out, most of the other component suggestions you make, while appreciated, are just not valid here for the type of build I have done. If I was building a super light XC rig then maybe. And again aside from the preferred modulation etc, etc, as I explained in the piece, a Shimano XT 2 pot+203mm rotor is heavier than an XT 4 pot+180mm rotor combo. Its just the way they are. I can't change that. So for the weight saving I would choose better modulation and smaller rotors over less modulation and bigger rotor, and again I have never had fade issues with 180mm ice tech rotors (and I live in the Alps). But hey, thats just me. You can put whatever you want on your adventure bike, I don't know where you're headed or how you ride. BTW, as said the Mavic's came in at 1919g (49g above the factory claimed weight), not 2Kg. It's hard to really find trustworthily tough adventure wheels with 30+mm rims in a 29' size for much less weight than 1850g (yes 27.5 would be easier), without going carbon rim or going super exotic — again as I explain, both of which I keep away from for my adventure trips.

@mboy

If you've watched Scotty Laughlan's series on YouTube (amazing content for free, obviously with elements of advertising benefit for the brands supporting but you don't mind being advertised to because you're also being delivered actual content) - the new Spark trail is perfectly capable of ripping down technical mountain descents. Hardly an xc race only bike?

@danmilner As a microcosm of the issue: XT rotors are boat anchors and they deform at high temperatures and so rub. The Formula one pieces are lighter in 203 than the xts in 180. My question still hangs unanswered - can you honestly say you picked these parts off the shelf yourself (even if, say, wiggle gave you a max budget) or were they just what Mavic / Shimano / yeti wanted you/STW to push?

I'm (ever so slightly) trolling (well, exaggerating for effect) because I feel trolled by the state of bike journalism (3 page forum thread following a rant in my post history) and this feels like another example of it - featuring the requisite amount of people glibly telling me I should be glad that I got to view the advert without paying (what a freeloading hippy).

FYI I'm only human and also lust after a yeti - but think the sb115 is the worst proposition in the range: frame weight about the same as an sb130 but nowhere near the capability.

Similarly, if you want reliable, then why pick a high-maintainance high performance solution (switch infinity link) over a simpler one (something like a spur?). You'd have a better bike with a simpler frame, and could even spec carbon wheels (which don't magically explode).

At risk of this becoming a "you guys should get a room" two or threeway, between us and mboy @continuity I have enjoyed your probing, don't worry. And I applaud your call out of apparent industry dishonesty. While I am still a little confused by the idea that this is an "advert", and not "acceptable product placement content" as Scotty's videos are (would including wild pics of something adventurous helped make it acceptable content? though those are in the video), I accept that I am guilty of conjuring up a clickbait headline that eluded to me building the "quickest, lightest.." and I deserve to be called up on it, as yes I could have built lighter. "Kwicker" on the other hand was always going to be ambiguous claim, as as that depends on my legs, lungs and VO2 max.

So yes, for clarity, I am an ambassador for Yeti and Shimano (as Scotty L is for Scott and Shimano). But they did not instruct me to do this piece, or what to promote or build. They help me with kit each year so I can do what I do. Yes you could argue that by being such an ambassador, then my hands are tied to their products for this build and yes that is right to an extent (although not exclusive, as you see with the saddle, seat post, grips, headset, wheels), but I chose these brands and approached them for sponsorship a while back, rather than the other way around, and that distinction matters. Even handed a golden supermarket sweep ticket around Wiggle, I'd still have spec'd the bike like this, pulling on and trusting my past experiences of components. I have ridden many bike brands (either as my own bikes, or indeed testing many for magazines or at press camps) and I have ridden almost all the drivetrain and suspension option/companies that have come (and gone) over my 35+ years mountain biking. I have never snapped a Shimano crank, but I have other brands. I chose Yeti and Shimano for support as they shone out for how I ride and what I want from my bike: true performance and reliability. It is not a case of "we pay you. so go say this" as you may get with pro racers bike checks etc. If the kit didnt work for me, I'd go elsewhere and build a bike differently.
And yes Scotty Laughland's stuff is great. He's a very nice person -we did a big shoot together earlier this year and have joint projects in the pipeline for 22. It will probably also involve products and placements and adverts. But eitherway, as the sort of ex-DH/EWS pro rider that can do anything well on a bike, he could ride a single-pivot Spark, or equally a rusty wheelbarrow, down a clanky hill faster and better than me, so I'll stick with the Switch-Infinity SB115 and all the help it gives me, thanks.

Fair reply - and I appreciate your honesty.

To answer your question - i think pairing an advert-driven piece with content that explores something else (aka, using the money from the industry to do more than just give a list of parts and some glowing reviews) is a big distinction, and does make all the difference.

In many ways, I also suspect it makes for better advertising for the company - have I not come away with a sense, without him having said a single thing about which wheelset he's using on the bike, that a Scott Spark could do all of the things I need a bike to do, just because I have watched Scotty do them? Is that not actually incredibly effective?

(Ignoring that I'm nowhere near as skilled a bike rider)

I know a slightly tongue-in-cheek nodded to Dan Milners skill set early on in this thread but I have to say my hat is tipped to him for his follow up comments in here too! (Non sponsored hat I’m tipping just to be clear!)

I’m pleased he addressed the anti Yeti thing too. I am certain, given his talent, if the brand he used constantly let him down he’d be in a decent position to change brands!

I’ve never met Dan, only ever exchanged brief DMs on insta over a podcast he was on (yes, I like Yeti 🤷‍♂️) but a more genuine great ambassador for the sport I don’t think you could find.

All this time i've assumed Dany Milner = Dan Milner of cool mtb adventures! Mind blown.

am guilty of conjuring up a clickbait headline that eluded to me building the “quickest, lightest.

< pedant mode>
No, I think you did get the clickbait headline
</pm>

I know it is currently popular to knock Yetis, and honestly, truly, I cannot find a genuine reason for this. They are not delicate, and they never have been

It’s mostly because of the blind patriotism the fans display. And because they build bikes that fall apart, in the real world.

In the last 7 years, I’ve cracked 4 bikes. 3 of them have been Yeti’s. That doesn’t include the rest of the other warranty issues either (worn SI Links).

I’ll let you work out which of brands was an absolute sh*t show to deal with as part of the warranty process..

IMO they deserve all the sh*t they get.

It's a, it's a, wait for it - it's a bike.

Sorry Dan but whilst I don't have any direct experience of Yetis and may be somewhat swayed by the general online mistrust of the brand, I do have friends and acquaintances that share similar experiences to HobNob's.

I wouldn't touch them, even though they're obviously pretty cool and look lovely, for me it's not worth the risk. That's why I ride a British made steel single pivot. Simple, reliable, repairable.