Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bleebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    73

    Good job! Rush 1000 report

    Had my rush 1000 for just short of a month now, probably done about 300k off road which has consisted of mostly trail rides with a couple of short races. I’ve been lucky enough to also own a scalpel which has a 70mm fatty ultra which I have had for a couple of years, so it is kind of interesting to compare the rides.




    I'm still in the process of getting the bike set up. I’m 6ft 3” and the 350mm FSA seatpost was about 20mm too short for my optimal seat positions so I got a 400mm WTB post. There's a lot of seatpost sticking out with the XL rush seat tube being 6cm shorter than my XL scalpel. Hopefully this will not result in a crack at the top/seat tube join like it has on other dual suspension designs I have owned (non cannondale).

    The bike was specced with a 120mm 20° riser which just has me sitting way too upright. The hills really suck with this position, so I flipped the riser over and it climbs a lot better. What I need is a 120mm 5° rise and flat bar, an upgrade in the near future. I also replaced the 34 tooth rear cassette with a 32. The rush weighs in at 13.1kg (28.82lbs) compared to my scalpel @ 12kg (26.4lbs).

    Riding this bike is sweet over the rough stuff, especially on the flat - put it in its big ring and just apply the power. The rush really does soak up the bumps and I found the big chainring was not smacking into logs and my pedals weren't hitting rocks, unlike the scalpel. Considering they both have the same bottom bracket height I can only put this down to the raised front end because of the 110mm lefty vrs 70mm fatty.

    Cornering - With the inital set up I found that the front end did not have enough weight over the front wheel and wanted to wash out on tight corners. Once I had flipped the riser stem over, its cornering was much improved, on par with the scalpel.

    Acceleration - was a little slow as expected, not snappy like a scalpel or a hardtail. But once you get going it just wants to ride over everything.

    On the hills I found the rush to be a little slow, probably due to the extra weight. I especially noted this in a couple of races where guys who I would normally be toe to toe with would get away from me on the short hills, I kind of found myself wishing for a lockout. The climbing did improve after I lowered the bars.

    Initially I was very impressed by the lack of bob on the rush. I very rarely get out of my seat type of rider and this certainly helps with the lack of bob. I put in the recommended extra 10psi for xc racing over the recommended pressures for my weight (84kg) and that works well. When out on a trail I normally leave the rp3 in the middle setting, and when I get to a hill I'll flip it over to the firm setting. Going up hills in the middle setting produces too much unwanted bob, especially when you get out of your seat.
    When it comes to racing I just leave the rp3 setting firm for the whole race.

    At the end of the day its a big thumbs up for the rush, much more fun then my scalpel. I realise these are different beasts for different jobs but there is a lot of crossover in there intended use. I'll use the rush for most of my trail riding/training, a few non priority races and doing night laps at the enduros. But for the important races I'll stick to the scalpel.

  2. #2
    Hup, Hup
    Reputation: cbuchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    536

    Good job!

    Excellent write up bleebs. I really find the details in comparison to the Scalpel and the different changes that you made to your Rush intriguing while I sit here waiting for my Rush to arrive.
    '06 Cannondale Cross
    '08 Cannondale Cross
    '08 Cannondale Scalpel Team
    '07 Cannondale SystemSix Team

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5
    Nice write up. It is relevant for me because I am in an on going debate with myself trying to decide between a 2000 scalpel or 2000 rush.

    I took a demo 1000 rush out for a few days and put about 30 miles on it. I liked the ride characteristic except for how sluggish it felt on long climbs... painful. On long climbs, with the propedal set to the far right, it still felt slower then a sugar 3+ I've been riding since my sugar 1 got stolen. Might have been the tires and the added weight of discs but it was really slowed down when I hit a climb.

    As much as I loved how the bike rode I don't know if I can handle the way it climbs. I think I might be leaning towards the scalpel now.... man, this is driving me crazy.

    How is the scapel on the climbs and on the rough stuff compared to the rush?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    704

    Question

    Hi, by any change do you know the weight on the rush 1000?

    thanks

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by sebastian21
    Hi, by any change do you know the weight on the rush 1000?

    thanks
    I weighed the large 1000 demo bike and it came in at 29.6 pounds. It is around the same weight as the sugar 3+ ive been riding but it has a bit more rotational weight which I could feel.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bleebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by mgri999
    How is the scapel on the climbs and on the rough stuff compared to the rush?
    Thanks for the comments guys.

    In answer to mgri999, I find the scalpel to be a far superior climber to the rush. With the scalpel you get traction, and you certainly notice that when climbing over the rough stuff. I do have a handlebar lockout for the rear on the scalpel, and I will use this on smooth fireroad climbs or if I need to sprint.

    Riding the same hills on both bikes I will tend to use 1 less gear on the rush but spin at the same cadence as the scalpel, therefore resulting in faster climbing on the scalpel.

    Over the rough, you will need to get out of the seat more on the scalpel, but less than a hardtail. The rush does a better job at smoothing out the bumps and you can stay seated longer, but I still feel the scalpel even over the rough stuff can go faster because of its lighter feel and better acceleration.

    If I had to choose one bike, it would definitely be the scalpel because I race most weeks and It is a quicker bike, but that's taking nothing away from the rush which is a great ride.

    In answer to sebastian21 my XL rush 1000 weighs in at 13.1kg (28.82lbs).

  7. #7
    mutaullyassuredsuffering
    Reputation: used2Bhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,053

    I have the opposite experience...

    I found the Rush climbs equally fast as my sclapel because of the increased traction. On super steep and rough technical climbs it's faster. The Scalpel will accelerate much easier and does feel faster in the tight twisty smooth stuff.

    Maybe I am putting a little more energy into it but I can stay in the seat more and grind my up at a better pace. I lose a bit of time when I get to the top of the hill. Normally I would pop up a ring, stand up and crank on the scalpel, but now due to the bob it's better on the rush to just sit an fire through gears on the cassette.

    I loved my Scalpel, but it seems that in the areas where the Scalpel is superior over the rush, a Hardtail is the best choice. I really wanted to get one bike that did everything, but in the Scalpel I found it was a little too unforgiving for my technical trail rides and long cobble strewn trails, and a blast on the smoother quicker stuff. The Rush is just a joy on the technical rocky rides, but a little slow on the quick acceleration and cornering stuff.

    I love the Rush, but I think I'm going to just build up an inexpensive hardtail and race whichever bike fits the course better.

    My Rush 2000 with carbon bars, seatpost, XTR front der, and Crossmax SL's weighs in at 26.5 lbs. My scalpel was approx 1 lb lighter.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5
    I kind of wonder if the sluggishness I felt was more related to the rolling resistance then from the weight of the rush 1000 I demo'ed.

    The crossland rims, crossmarx tires and LX discs probably added up to a great deal more resistance then the sugar 3+ I have been riding. the 3+ had v brakes, fire pro XC tires and super light tubes so even though it weighs the same as the rush 1000 it probably had a lot less rolling resistance which might be what I felt on the long climbs.

    It would be nice to see what a 2000 feels like in comparision to the 1000 with a set of decent tires.

    The rush was such a sweet bike, if it give me a little better impression on the climbs I would definitely want it over the scalpel.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    261

    Ick

    Quote Originally Posted by mgri999
    I kind of wonder if the sluggishness I felt was more related to the rolling resistance then from the weight of the rush 1000 I demo'ed.

    The crossland rims, crossmarx tires and LX discs probably added up to a great deal more resistance then the sugar 3+ I have been riding. the 3+ had v brakes, fire pro XC tires and super light tubes so even though it weighs the same as the rush 1000 it probably had a lot less rolling resistance which might be what I felt on the long climbs.

    It would be nice to see what a 2000 feels like in comparision to the 1000 with a set of decent tires.

    The rush was such a sweet bike, if it give me a little better impression on the climbs I would definitely want it over the scalpel.

    Too bad they made the XL so short in the seat tube because their frames don't fit tall riders anymore I am so pissed! I have had a Scalpel for 3 years and it's so small to my custom Ti SS that I can't ride it anymore....does anyone know if they will address this issue for next year??

  10. #10
    mutaullyassuredsuffering
    Reputation: used2Bhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,053

    Big tire...

    Quote Originally Posted by mgri999
    I kind of wonder if the sluggishness I felt was more related to the rolling resistance then from the weight of the rush 1000 I demo'ed.

    The crossland rims, crossmarx tires and LX discs probably added up to a great deal more resistance then the sugar 3+ I have been riding. the 3+ had v brakes, fire pro XC tires and super light tubes so even though it weighs the same as the rush 1000 it probably had a lot less rolling resistance which might be what I felt on the long climbs.

    It would be nice to see what a 2000 feels like in comparision to the 1000 with a set of decent tires.

    The rush was such a sweet bike, if it give me a little better impression on the climbs I would definitely want it over the scalpel.

    I demo'd a rush 2000 with the 819 setup up front, but a big Kenda DH tire on a fat rim. It was the slowest machine I had ridden in a while. I was about to go with another bike, but I decided I would try my buddy's bike with Crossmax SL's and Pythons. It was a totally different machine. I went from climbing one or two rings higher up the cassette to the same gear as my Scalpel. I couldn't believe the difference!

    See if you can try one with a better wheelset. I'm totally happy with mine.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by used2Bhard
    I demo'd a rush 2000 with the 819 setup up front, but a big Kenda DH tire on a fat rim. It was the slowest machine I had ridden in a while. I was about to go with another bike, but I decided I would try my buddy's bike with Crossmax SL's and Pythons. It was a totally different machine. I went from climbing one or two rings higher up the cassette to the same gear as my Scalpel. I couldn't believe the difference!

    See if you can try one with a better wheelset. I'm totally happy with mine.
    It kind of felt like the bike was more pedal efficient then the sugar +3 but just more sluggish because of the rolling resistance.... meh, I got to find a way to test a 2000 or 3000 rush.

  12. #12
    USED2COULD
    Reputation: NS2000X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,274
    I can't wait to ride the Rush 2000 I ordered, however for real off road ridding I will have to wait months, for the snow to melt around here. Until then I'll continue to carefully read reports as in this thread - keep them coming.

    NS2000X

  13. #13
    rgg
    rgg is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1

    rush 3000 weight

    Anyone knows the Rush 3000 real weight?

  14. #14
    mutaullyassuredsuffering
    Reputation: used2Bhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,053

    a guess?

    If you switch my crank, brakes, and shifters to XT It would shave maybe 1/2 pound of of mine, and bring it to 3000 spec. That would put it at around 26lbs even, according to the weight of mine now.

  15. #15
    USED2COULD
    Reputation: NS2000X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by used2Bhard
    If you switch my crank, brakes, and shifters to XT It would shave maybe 1/2 pound of of mine, and bring it to 3000 spec. That would put it at around 26lbs even, according to the weight of mine now.
    You missed the 'R'

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    704

    Check this out

    Check this Rush 1000 with SOME upgrades, this beauty weight 23.4 LB, its a rush 1000



  17. #17
    LA CHVRE
    Reputation: Dan Gerous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,435
    Very nice bike, but the picture could be smaller... doesn't even fit in my 1600x1200 screen!

    DAN.GEROUS.NET : MOUNTAIN BIKING : CYCLOCROSS : ROAD :

  18. #18
    mutaullyassuredsuffering
    Reputation: used2Bhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,053

    Good catch!

    Quote Originally Posted by NS2000X
    You missed the 'R'

    Ya I don't think replacing my identical components would do much!

    I also have 959 pedals, so the eggbeaters would shave off a bit.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: david8613's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    what the heck do you change out to make 23 pounds? thats light!!! you sure your scale is not broken...

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bleebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    73
    Check this Rush 1000 with SOME upgrades, this beauty weight 23.4 LB, its a rush 1000


    Wow, that's some serious upgrading.

    If that bike is 23.4lb that makes is 5lb lighter than my rush 1000.

    And I bet it climbs hell of a lot better.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    704

    hey

    Hi, its not my bike, its a guy that lives in Chile, HE changed everything, just look at the pictures?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    95
    The 23 Lbs bike sure looks like Rush Team Replica. I don't think it's a 1000. Anyway, does anyone have a picture of the Rush 1000 in the Grey color? I ordered mine last week and wanna see a pic of her...Also, any comments on changes you would make to the 1000 if you could.

    Thanx every1,
    Devin

  23. #23
    USED2COULD
    Reputation: NS2000X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by djdub
    The 23 Lbs bike sure looks like Rush Team Replica. I don't think it's a 1000. Anyway, does anyone have a picture of the Rush 1000 in the Grey color? I ordered mine last week and wanna see a pic of her...Also, any comments on changes you would make to the 1000 if you could.

    Thanx every1,
    Devin
    The Team Replica would come with the Si crankset. Who would change that out? It would also come with an X.0 Rear Der - who would switch that to the X.9?

    There is one picture of the charcoal grey Rush 1000 in the 'Post Your Rush' thread. Enjoy your Rush when it arrives.

  24. #24
    Hup, Hup
    Reputation: cbuchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by djdub
    The 23 Lbs bike sure looks like Rush Team Replica. I don't think it's a 1000. Anyway, does anyone have a picture of the Rush 1000 in the Grey color? I ordered mine last week and wanna see a pic of her...Also, any comments on changes you would make to the 1000 if you could.

    Thanx every1,
    Devin
    There is a pic of the grey one on the "PostYour Rush" thread here

    post your rush
    '06 Cannondale Cross
    '08 Cannondale Cross
    '08 Cannondale Scalpel Team
    '07 Cannondale SystemSix Team

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    95
    Right on everyone. Thanks for the directions to the other post. I can't wait!!! Anyone wanna ditch work and go ride right now? (hehe, I wish)

  26. #26
    Patagonia survivor
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    26

    Sebastian21´s Rush

    I´m sure that´s not the real bike weight.
    A week ago I weighted the Scalpel Team Replica 06 (stock) and including pedals (cheap cranks) it was 11kgs.(24.23lbs.)
    let me start by saying the Scalpel is at least 1 pound (0,454kgs.) lighter than a Rush.
    Please note: Sram X9 rear derailleur is about 100grs. heavier than X.0 (in Scalpel TR), Carbon cranks are heavier than Cannondale SI Crankset, etc.

    So Sebastian, check out your scale or post the real weight in kgs.

    By the way I´m chilean too, own a Scalpel 1000 (bought to Pedro Madueño in Intercycles)with a lot of upgrades (Lefty Carbon Terralogic, full X.0, carbon seatpost, handlebars, SLR seat, cranks Ti, No tubes in Maxxis Exceptions, Hugi 240s rear hub with DT 4.1 rims and still my bike is 11.16kgs (24,5lbs).

    Saludos,
    Pablo

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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