I'll try to compare my Yeti with the Fisher. Remember, however, that the test is unscientific and I have no experience reviewing bikes (just wine and sushi).
Let's start with a geometry comparison between my Yeti A.R.C. and the Paragon - both 19" frames when measured from the center of the BB to the top of the seat collar. I've tried to convert the Yeti measurements to metric, but you should consult the Yeti website for more accurate geometry.
| Measurement | Yeti A.R.C. | Gary Fisher Paragon |
| Wheels | 26" | 29" |
| Seat Tube | 19" | 19" |
| Wheelbase | 1,072 mm | 1,121 mm |
| Head tube | 114.3 mm | 102.5 mm |
| Top Tube Horizontal | 594.4 mm | 622 mm |
| Standover | 767.1 mm | 772.5 mm |
Aside from the identical 19" seat tubes, the standover is also similar. This is significant, as the axles and ergo the frame sits 1.5 inches higher on the Paragon than the A.R.C.. In theory, this should raise the standover 1.5 inches as well. However, that's not the case because as you can see the head tube on the Fisher is over a centimeter shorter than the Yeti. Plus the headset on the Fisher is a ZeroStack 2 which shaves the distance between the fork crown and the bottom of the head tube. The lower, shorter head tube and also a lower intersection of the top tube with the seat tube combine to make the standover almost equivalent. Now take a look at the top tube and the wheelbase. Whoa - big difference! The Paragon is certainly longer. Now that's partly standard Fisher geometry - longer top tube and a shorter stem. It's worth mentioning though that Yetis are also traditionally long bikes.
What does this mean on the trail? I think it means the following:
- Better stability when pointed downhill from the longer wheelbase and the ability of the larger wheels to make all obstacles seem smaller.
- Better traction going uphill and through the turns from the larger tire patch.
- Faster climbing. I can't explain this one. Sorry.
- The bike is harder to lean over than the Yeti in the turns. But so far the bars are still super wide and cutting them down might fix this.
- A difference in acceleration probably exists, but I'm not sure I noticed it.
- Overall I think the Paragon is faster for me in rough singletrack, climbs, and descents. It seems to offer no speed advantage on flat, straight, and smooth trails.
1 comment:
It went from 70 to snow in Colorado, great. Nice article. My useless ramblings include: The 29er has a longer chainstay and possible more issues in tight single track; moreover, with greater rotational weight, it should have a little harder time accelerating from a dead stop. However, once you get rolling, it's game on. The ARC likely has a steeper head tube angle, and that might make descending more sketch. It also will likely have a lower BB height, so climbing over good size rocks might be tougher. With a steeper seat tube angle, you get over the front wheel easier and it might be easier to get more power to the BB when needed. The top tube and stem length is the key. I think bikes are different because people are different; short torso, more flexibility, maybe longer top tube and can still get the required weight over the front wheel (critical). If you can do the same course faster on one bike than another, then that bike suits your riding style and that's all that matters. fun and fast.
Post a Comment