Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Racin' a Rush

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5

    Racin' a Rush

    I've been reading the posts regarding the Rush, particularly the opinions on whether or not you could race XC w/it (reasonably well.) I'm not necessarily talking about marathon races.

    Seems like there's a set camp that thinks it for pure endurance events but the more I read, the more it seems like folks are actually racing it XC. So what's what?

    I'm new to the mtn scene. I'm really looking to race and place, but I can only do 1 bike right now. I had been looking at the scalpel for a while but kind of wanted something a bit more versatile.

    That said, I was leaning toward the Scalpel 2, the Rush Carbon 2, or maybe last year's Rush 2000 (basically an XT/XTR setup w/a good set of wheels.) Were the criticisms against the Rush as an xc racer primarily it's weight or was it a mix of things?
    Between the carbon 2 and the alum 2000, is it a mere 1/2 lb difference (stock) or what?

    Paricularly interested in hearing from those that do race it.

    many thanks.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    243

    xc racing a Rush..

    I am using my Rush 3 as my xc race bike. I had a Scalpel 3000 that I swiped most of the parts for the Rush build. I have since upgraded a few things. I have an aluminum large Rush down to 24.5 lbs - a very respectable race weight. I feel much faster on the Rush since it doesn't seem as fragile as the Scalpel.

    The only issue I see right now is water bottles. You only have one on the downtube and one under the downtube (seems like a wierd location). Anybody have input on how to carry 2 bottles easily? I will use the downtube bottle cage and was considering just throwing a bottle in my back jersey pocket.

    All in all I really like the bike and think with 2 wheelsets it would make a very good 1 bike solution.


    Matt

    Quote Originally Posted by stuttsdc
    I'm new to the mtn scene. I'm really looking to race and place, but I can only do 1 bike right now. I had been looking at the scalpel for a while but kind of wanted something a bit more versatile.

    That said, I was leaning toward the Scalpel 2, the Rush Carbon 2, or maybe last year's Rush 2000 (basically an XT/XTR setup w/a good set of wheels.) Were the criticisms against the Rush as an xc racer primarily it's weight or was it a mix of things?
    Between the carbon 2 and the alum 2000, is it a mere 1/2 lb difference (stock) or what?

  3. #3
    mad aussie
    Reputation: Flying Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,124
    I have been racing mine at the Marathon distance, but given that our 3 1/2 hour events are raced at only slightly slower than expert pace and a pace at the front of the race we often race faster than most of the sport class I think I can comment. Given that it is only 1/4lb more than a Scalpel frame or lighter if you have the Carbon I think it is totally raceable. For smoother courses just run the RP23 in max pro pedal setting.
    You can certainly build it up light, my medium aluminum with race wheels is looking like coming in at just under 24lb, and I have room to shed a little more with a Stans conversion and some Ti parts.
    The Rush can give you the best of two worlds, with flat bar and Stans 355 rims with 2.1's it makes a great race bike, and when I add my Mavic 819 with 2.3's a great ZXC oriented all mountain ride.

    Kevin

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bleebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    73
    I've got a Alu rush and a first generation scalpel and I have raced on both of them over dirt crits (1/2 hour), the normal Olympic style 2hr races and enduros 100k, 6hr, 24hr teams) etc.

    I'm going against the flow here by saying that in my opinion the scalpel is head and shoulders a better race bike then the rush. My rush is slightly heavier but I swap my one set of crossmax's between the two bikes when I race so its not the wheels that make the difference.

    The main difference I find is in the climbing ability, the scalpel is an excellent climber but the rush I would describe as ordinary at best. With the rush I need to pump the shock up to a pretty high psi wound the rebound out and set the rp3 to firm to make it an acceptable climber, but with so much air in the shock, when I get back onto level ground I find that small bump compliance is gone.

    There are a couple of races where I will always use the rush, one of these is a dirt crit in an old orchard and when you go across the paddock the rush does a great job at smoothing out the bumps, there are no big climbs on this course so the rush's weakness is not exposed. Other races where I know that its pretty rocky or bumpy with not to much climbing I will use the rush, but for the majority of races I use the scalpel.

    Don't get me wrong I don't dislike the rush, and I do most of my training on the rush but when it comes to being competitive in a race the scalpel is a weapon. Look at the latest UCI world cup results, 4 cannondale - vredestein riders in the top 10 and from what I can make out from the pictures they were riding scalpels.

  5. #5
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by stuttsdc
    I've been reading the posts regarding the Rush, particularly the opinions on whether or not you could race XC w/it (reasonably well.) I'm not necessarily talking about marathon races.

    Seems like there's a set camp that thinks it for pure endurance events but the more I read, the more it seems like folks are actually racing it XC. So what's what?

    I'm new to the mtn scene. I'm really looking to race and place, but I can only do 1 bike right now. I had been looking at the scalpel for a while but kind of wanted something a bit more versatile.

    That said, I was leaning toward the Scalpel 2, the Rush Carbon 2, or maybe last year's Rush 2000 (basically an XT/XTR setup w/a good set of wheels.) Were the criticisms against the Rush as an xc racer primarily it's weight or was it a mix of things?
    Between the carbon 2 and the alum 2000, is it a mere 1/2 lb difference (stock) or what?

    Paricularly interested in hearing from those that do race it.

    many thanks.
    From a physics standpoint, it depends on your weight. What I mean is that the more you weigh, the more suspension you need to transfer vertical momentum caused by bumps etc.
    It also depends on your style and what you are used to - what kind of bike you like to ride.
    You may think this is wierd, but I have whidled by prophet down to 27 lbs. and I race it at the expert level. I did 2 races last year and took 2nd both times. The first race I was beaten by a semi-pro guy. You see for me (at 190lbs.) I have a definite advantage not having to worry about needing to stand up all the time or getting beat up by all the bumps. I just power up the hills and the bike absorbs everything.
    Another big thing is the geometry. If you know what you like, you know what you like. I have no problem at all climbing whatever with a 69 degree frontend like the prophet or rush. i suggest you figure out what works best for you and take that into consideration.
    I think the Rush is an awesome bike, but I love the higher bottom bracket of the prophet. I do know that the rush is stiffer than the scalpel at the bottom bracket area and this does make a difference the more you weigh or the more you like to mash the pedals.
    Hope this helps at all.

  6. #6
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by mattmor
    I am using my Rush 3 as my xc race bike. I had a Scalpel 3000 that I swiped most of the parts for the Rush build. I have since upgraded a few things. I have an aluminum large Rush down to 24.5 lbs - a very respectable race weight. I feel much faster on the Rush since it doesn't seem as fragile as the Scalpel.

    The only issue I see right now is water bottles. You only have one on the downtube and one under the downtube (seems like a wierd location). Anybody have input on how to carry 2 bottles easily? I will use the downtube bottle cage and was considering just throwing a bottle in my back jersey pocket.

    All in all I really like the bike and think with 2 wheelsets it would make a very good 1 bike solution.


    Matt
    Matt ~ If your stem is long enough, you can mount a bottle there. It needs to be at least 120mm. I have a King Stainless cage on mine and it has never dropped a bottle and I do not have to look away from the trail to get or put the bottle back. Have done very well with this. Look at the "Is the prophet race worthy?" for a look.

  7. #7
    mad aussie
    Reputation: Flying Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,124
    It is a personal preference thing. I have tried my team mates Scalpel and found it to be no better a climber than my Rush. I dont have any problem with suspension movement with my RP23 set in pro pedal 1, and in 3 even out of the saddle it wont move. The Rush is certainly better for me on rough courses.
    I think that often longer travel bikes feel like they are slower because they glide over the bumps, but if you were to actually plot power versus speed they are as fast or faster.

    Kevin

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    59
    So I race for the Bear Naked Cannondale Team, last year I was rocking the scalpel and this year I elected to try the carbon rush 1. I race pro xc, stxc, and super d. I think it is the best bike I have ever raced. Without pedals it comes in at just over 23lbs. The shock allows the bike to pedal like a hardtail and rock down descents better than anything I have ever raced. The slack head tube lowers the front end for climbing and makes it super stable at high speed. I think the rush can do it all, race or trail riding.

  9. #9
    mutaullyassuredsuffering
    Reputation: used2Bhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,051

    Shock

    I owned a Rush last year and raced it a few times. I had the same problems the other guys mentioned. The RP23 over the RP3 does make a difference. I could never get the RP3 to have enough platform, so I was overpressuring the shock to make it climb better. My buddy now has one with the RP23 and it's a much better ride. The weight was a big detractor as well. The carbon version has sorted that out a bit.

    The scalpel is a wonderful race bike. I used one as a trail bike for a while as well and it did an admirable job considering the lack of travel.

    If you are going to be serious about racing then get an XC race bike like the scalpel, carbon Rush or other. You will at some point realize that is what you should have done in the first place (I speak from experience there...)There might be the occasional ride where you wis you has an all mounatin bike because you are getting beat up, but for thew most part you will have fun smoking your friends. If you are just going to do an occasional race, but are more of a trail rider an alum. Rush will be fine.
    Free will is an illusion, people will always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5

    so then

    So I think what I'm hearing is that even if I mainly do short xc races, the Carbon Rush would be just as fine as a similar (component-level) Scalpel... but an alum Rush (again w/similar components) might not be. Odd though... isn't there minimal weight difference between the alum and the Carbon?
    My focus would be on xc and not necessarily marathon stuff, btw. I was just thinking of wanting something that might be able to tackle any type of course. On the other hand, seems like folks are saying the Scalpel will serve those needs fine as well, w/out the weight penalty.

  11. #11
    mutaullyassuredsuffering
    Reputation: used2Bhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,051

    Pig

    The alum rush is a pig. Mine was 6.2lbs for a medium. Also the carbon just seems to tighten and quicken the bike up. Where the alu rush felt a bit sluggish the new one will surge ahead. I have ridden them a few times and love the bike. It really is a different machine.
    Free will is an illusion, people will always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

  12. #12
    mad aussie
    Reputation: Flying Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,124
    I rode the Carbon Rush Team at 24HOP, nice ride, but to be honest I couldnt tell any difference from my aluminum rush given a similar component spec. The thing I liked the best was the SI cranks. I would agree on the RP23 as making a huge difference, it was the best upgrade I made to my Rush. For me the Scalpel doesnt have enough travel for a 40YO with a history of back problems, I like to be able to get back on my bike and ride the days after a long rough race. If the Carbon weighs only 200 grams or so less than the aluminum thats not a noticeable difference.
    Having said that if your primary focus is not on marathon distance I would certainly look at the Scalpel closely. With this years Rush line you pretty much would have to go with the Carbon to get a raceable bike anyway. I am lucky enough to work at a bike shop so with trade in employee discount I can afford to upgrade the components. It would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade a Rush 3 to what i would consider a raceable spec. Or alternatively wait until the Scalpel replacement comes out. Our local rep is telling me to hold onto my al Rush as the new frame will be worth the trade in!

    Kevin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •