RockShox Pike or Revelation at 140mm?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,399

    RockShox Pike or Revelation at 140mm?

    Me being 140lbs. 140mm Fork on a 650b trail bike with 5-5.5" rear travel. (SC 5010, Devinci Troy...) Pike lowered to 140mm.
    Is the Pike and its stiffness worth the weight penalty?
    Any other benefits with going with a Pike instead of the Revelation?

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by jazzanova; 02-21-2014 at 03:06 PM.

  2. #2
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,621
    id say rev for sure. im 155 and run a 150 rtc3 rev and it is plenty stiff for me.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Me being 140lbs. 140mm Fork on a 650b trail bike with 5-5.5" rear travel. (SC 5010, Devinci Troy...) Pile lowered to 140mm.
    Is the Pike and its stiffness worth the weight penalty?
    Any other benefits with going with a Pike instead of the Revelation?

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    Had a Rev RCT3 @ 150mm, now have a Pike @ 160mm. I like the Pike better, but the Rev was great too. Doubt you'll be flexing the rev, but if you have the cash the Pike is a bit better fork. I weigh 205 and felt a slight difference in stiffness, at 140 bet you feel no difference in stiffness.

    Why are you looking at 140mm on those bikes? I'd take a bit more travel and slackness by running at 150-160mm.

  4. #4
    Broken but on the mend
    Reputation: mzorich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by kroe View Post
    Had a Rev RCT3 @ 150mm, now have a Pike @ 160mm. I like the Pike better, but the Rev was great too. Doubt you'll be flexing the rev, but if you have the cash the Pike is a bit better fork. I weigh 205 and felt a slight difference in stiffness, at 140 bet you feel no difference in stiffness.

    Why are you looking at 140mm on those bikes? I'd take a bit more travel and slackness by running at 150-160mm.
    You would run a 150-160mm for on a 5010. The bike has 125mm or rear travel. You would mess the geo up really really bad. 140mm tops on that bike. For the Troy 140mm is perfect to match the rear with maybe a 150mm up front anything more and once again your geo gets all out of whack. The Troy is already really slack for a trail bike and if you pull the HA out anymore your going to be left with a bike thats a really shit climber.

    Op i think its all in what you looking for. for the bikes you stated above i would really consider how much travel you want to run up front. for the 5010 i would run the Revelation. it complements the bike batter and you can get a lighter build with it. The Troy i would go with the Pike. The bike itself is beefier so i think the pike would better compliment it. Just my opinion though and both are great bikes. Im looking at both myself once i sell my Stumpy Evo

  5. #5
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,847
    Man, the Rev lineup is very, very good but...

    The damping and quality of the travel on the Pike is much better feeling, no contest. IMO, that paired with the somewhat stiffer feeling chassis is well worth the pretty minimal weight gain.

    Caveat: let where/what/how you ride guide you. Price as well - you shold be able to pick up a good deal on one of the Rev forks for a whole lot less than a Pike at this point.

    I've spent a fair bit of time on various Revelation, older generation Pike, Lyrik, and now the new Pike - far prefer the Pike, and would go for it on any bike looking for a fork in the 140-160mm range.

    Suspect the newer tech will make it's way to the rest of the RS line at some point, at which I'd expect the prices on those other forks to bump up as well.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,996
    Quote Originally Posted by mzorich View Post
    You would run a 150-160mm for on a 5010. The bike has 125mm or rear travel. You would mess the geo up really really bad. 140mm tops on that bike. For the Troy 140mm is perfect to match the rear with maybe a 150mm up front anything more and once again your geo gets all out of whack. The Troy is already really slack for a trail bike and if you pull the HA out anymore your going to be left with a bike thats a really shit climber.

    Op i think its all in what you looking for. for the bikes you stated above i would really consider how much travel you want to run up front. for the 5010 i would run the Revelation. it complements the bike batter and you can get a lighter build with it. The Troy i would go with the Pike. The bike itself is beefier so i think the pike would better compliment it. Just my opinion though and both are great bikes. Im looking at both myself once i sell my Stumpy Evo
    There is a long thread in the SC Forum talking about the "Brolo" setup which is a 150 travel fork on the Solo/5010. Since the BB's are so low on these bikes it does not really mess with the geometry at all. Definitely an option to run the longer fork depending on your riding style and location.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Since the BB's are so low on these bikes it does not really mess with the geometry at all.
    Except slacken the head and seat tube angles by a degree. And raise the BB height. Nope, no geo change at all.

  8. #8
    Broken but on the mend
    Reputation: mzorich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Scotth72 View Post
    Except slacken the head and seat tube angles by a degree. And raise the BB height. Nope, no geo change at all.
    the HA is the one i would be worried about with a bike like the SOLO\5010. Its a super capable rig but putting that much travel up front could make that bike a mess and really take away the charictoristis that make the bike so great

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,399

    Re: RockShox Pike or Revelation at 140mm?

    Thank you all for the responses.
    The fork I would use will most likely be a 140mm or possibly a 130mm on the 5010.
    650b Pike can be lowered to 140mm with an exchange of the internals. It can also be cut to 130mm.
    It looks like the performance of the Pike is worth the higher weight and price.

    Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Scotth72 View Post
    Except slacken the head and seat tube angles by a degree. And raise the BB height. Nope, no geo change at all.
    Typing too fast. My intent was to say that it does not negatively effect the geometry. You don't end up with a 14.5" BB height or 63 degree HA. It obviously changes the geometry.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    267
    I would think if you're going to be doing more AM/DH oriented riding go for the Pike, if you're going to be doing more XC/trail riding go with the Revelation. I have a Revelation on my trail bike and a Lyrik on my AM bike. I can tell a small difference in stiffness but the difference in weight is very noticeable. IMO if you go with a <130mm frame stick with the Revelation, if you end up with a 140+ go with a Pike.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    438
    What is the weight penalty between the two? I've been on many of the same threads as you Jazznova (probably because we're both shopping the same bikes) and I can tell you're quite knowledgable, but I've noticed you do seem to be quite focused on weight.

    That being said, I agree with DYI01, it depends on the main purpose of the bike and the trails you intend to ride.

    I do think the Rev would be perfect for the Solo. I have one and it feels plenty stiff for me at 155lbs. I'm riding the 140mm 27.5 on the front of a Blur LTC and it feels quite capable. If I went Solo, I'd move the fork right over.

    If you go with the Troy and want it to handle more aggressive riding, people are going with up to 160mm forks, so that's when I might consider the Pike. Though I'd probably still try the Rev first since I already have it.

    Curious: which frame are you leaning towards right now if you were to buy today?

    Good luck!

  13. #13
    Woohooo! Moderator
    Reputation: kristian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,101
    I spent the summer on a '14 Rev 140mm and have been riding a Pike this fall. I was really impressed by the Rev--it was a noticeable improvement over the 140mm Reba I had before. That being said, the Pike blows both of them away. The damping really does feel bottomless, and it is crazy smooth. It's the most plush fork I've ridden since the glory days of Marzocchi, yet it still has the controlled feeling I've come to love with Rock Shox.

    For what it's worth, I'm using a 150mm Pike on a 120mm Shinobi (designed for a 140mm), and it's a total rally bike. I wouldn't worry too much about running a little extra travel up front if you prefer a slack feeling bike.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,399

    Re: RockShox Pike or Revelation at 140mm?

    Quote Originally Posted by So Cal RX View Post
    What is the weight penalty between the two? I've been on many of the same threads as you Jazznova (probably because we're both shopping the same bikes) and I can tell you're quite knowledgable, but I've noticed you do seem to be quite focused on weight.

    That being said, I agree with DYI01, it depends on the main purpose of the bike and the trails you intend to ride.

    I do think the Rev would be perfect for the Solo. I have one and it feels plenty stiff for me at 155lbs. I'm riding the 140mm 27.5 on the front of a Blur LTC and it feels quite capable. If I went Solo, I'd move the fork right over.

    If you go with the Troy and want it to handle more aggressive riding, people are going with up to 160mm forks, so that's when I might consider the Pike. Though I'd probably still try the Rev first since I already have it.

    Curious: which frame are you leaning towards right now if you were to buy today?

    Good luck!
    Ha, and it looks like we also ride the same trails. I live and mostly ride in OC... Aliso 50% of the time since it is my closest park.

    Yes the increase in weight bothers me just a bit, it is very minimal though,
    1861g for 150mm Solo Pike RCT3
    1787g for a Revelation
    So, 0.163lbs difference?
    Both 650b.

    The ideal frame for me would be a 130mm-140mm 650b, low BB - 13.1 to 13.4, steep ST - 73.5, HA around 67.5, M frame 23.3" TT and a short CS under 17".

    I like my 650b TRc, but would like to run a bigger tire in the back and also the shock had to be shimmed - less travel...
    So for now I am leaning towards the 5010, I also like the threaded BB SC still uses. It would be nice to have few extra mm of travel and that's why I also consider a Bronson.

    I am confuses a bit about the Troy. There is supposedly something wrong with the claimed geo numbers, they promised to fix it on their website... Be careful if you go by the published numbers. Since I cannot demo the Troy, I will most likely not go with the bike.
    Troy is also a bit heavier than Bronson or 5010.
    But the price and warranty is very nice though...

  15. #15
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,621
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    Caveat: let where/what/how you ride guide you. Price as well - you shold be able to pick up a good deal on one of the Rev forks for a whole lot less than a Pike at this point.
    this. i got my rct3 rev for $400. a pike is $1000. to me the performance/ weight/ price ratio made it a no brainer.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Ha, and it looks like we also ride the same trails. I live and mostly ride in OC... Aliso 50% of the time since it is my closest park.

    Yes the increase in weight bothers me just a bit, it is very minimal though,
    1861g for 150mm Solo Pike RCT3
    1787g for a Revelation
    So, 0.163lbs difference?
    Both 650b.

    The ideal frame for me would be a 130mm-140mm 650b, low BB - 13.1 to 13.4, steep ST - 73.5, HA around 67.5, M frame 23.3" TT and a short CS under 17".

    I like my 650b TRc, but would like to run a bigger tire in the back and also the shock had to be shimmed - less travel...
    So for now I am leaning towards the 5010, I also like the threaded BB SC still uses. It would be nice to have few extra mm of travel and that's why I also consider a Bronson.

    I am confuses a bit about the Troy. There is supposedly something wrong with the claimed geo numbers, they promised to fix it on their website... Be careful if you go by the published numbers. Since I cannot demo the Troy, I will most likely not go with the bike.
    Troy is also a bit heavier than Bronson or 5010.
    But the price and warranty is very nice though...
    Oh the weight diff between Pike and Rev are less than I thought. b-kul has a good point with the price though.

    My ideal frame I think now is close to yours, though I have toyed with getting a beefier frame for trail just because I already have an endurance bike. So I don't care that much about it being the fastest climbing bike. Bottom line though: after trying different bikes I just think a bike like the 5010 would be more fun, mainly because it will be more nimble/playful with lower BB and shorter WB and CS. The Troy does sound tempting with similar geo and a little more travel, but I too would rather have a good old threaded BB.

    Good luck with your bike search. Maybe I'll see you over at Aliso some time, and maybe we'll both be riding 5010s!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,399

    Re: RockShox Pike or Revelation at 140mm?

    GuY
    Quote Originally Posted by So Cal RX View Post
    Oh the weight diff between Pike and Rev are less than I thought. b-kul has a good point with the price though.

    My ideal frame I think now is close to yours, though I have toyed with getting a beefier frame for trail just because I already have an endurance bike. So I don't care that much about it being the fastest climbing bike. Bottom line though: after trying different bikes I just think a bike like the 5010 would be more fun, mainly because it will be more nimble/playful with lower BB and shorter WB and CS. The Troy does sound tempting with similar geo and a little more travel, but I too would rather have a good old threaded BB.

    Good luck with your bike search. Maybe I'll see you over at Aliso some time, and maybe we'll both be riding 5010s!
    I just purchased a 150 Pike on sale for $750 + tax, so basically $800.
    I am debating if I should keep it, since I do not have a bike to put it on... Yet...
    I still have few weeks left to decide.

    Good luck to you too with the right decision on the bike.
    If you see a skinny guy on an orange/black 650b TRc in OC, its most likely me.
    Last edited by jazzanova; 01-02-2014 at 11:41 PM.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,399

    Re: RockShox Pike or Revelation at 140mm?

    I've just weighted the 650b 150mm RCT3 Pike.
    1930g with the skewer.
    1860g without.
    Last edited by jazzanova; 01-02-2014 at 07:51 PM.

  19. #19
    Broken but on the mend
    Reputation: mzorich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    I just purchased a 150 Pike on sale for $750 + tax, so basically $800.
    I am debating if I should keep it, since I do not have a bike to put it on... Yet...
    I still have few weeks left to decide.

    Good luck to you too with the right decision on the bike.
    If you see a skinny guy on an orange/black 650b TRc in OC, its most likely me.




    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    if you sell it i will take it off your hands

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,054
    Curious what internals lower that fork to 130. I thought the best you could get was 143 by using the 140 29er internals.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mint355's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by thorkild View Post
    Curious what internals lower that fork to 130. I thought the best you could get was 143 by using the 140 29er internals.
    You need to machine off 10mm on the 150mm 26' pike air shaft to lower your 150mm 27.5 pike to 130mm.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,399
    When I am looking at my dream bike geometry, it looks like a Norco Sight might be the ticket.
    Great review by Bike magazine.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CMS...e_gdata_player

    The Pike would be great for this bike.

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,399

    Re: RockShox Pike or Revelation at 140mm?

    Quote Originally Posted by So Cal RX View Post
    What is the weight penalty between the two? I've been on many of the same threads as you Jazznova (probably because we're both shopping the same bikes) and I can tell you're quite knowledgable, but I've noticed you do seem to be quite focused on weight.

    That being said, I agree with DYI01, it depends on the main purpose of the bike and the trails you intend to ride.

    I do think the Rev would be perfect for the Solo. I have one and it feels plenty stiff for me at 155lbs. I'm riding the 140mm 27.5 on the front of a Blur LTC and it feels quite capable. If I went Solo, I'd move the fork right over.

    If you go with the Troy and want it to handle more aggressive riding, people are going with up to 160mm forks, so that's when I might consider the Pike. Though I'd probably still try the Rev first since I already have it.

    Curious: which frame are you leaning towards right now if you were to buy today?

    Good luck!
    In the case you miss this post from a Troy thread:
    [QUOTE=downhill502;10926603]This is from Matt at Billy Goat Bikes in North Carolina, who is a killer guy by the way and knows his shit.

    "Medium Troy carbon 22 13/16"
    Large Troy carbon 23 5/8"
    Large Sight alloy 23 3/4"
    Large Banshee spitfire alloy 24"
    These were measured parallel to the floor using a level and a tape measure. The Banshee is the only one who actually measures close to what they say it is."

    The Troy TT claimed is way off if this is correct...



    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    80
    What would be the most significant differences between a Revelation RL 140 (2013) and the RTC3 140 (2014)?
    I'm considering buying the older model because its currently a very affordable price, as an upgrade from my current Marzocchi 44 RLO that has aged really well but its never the less an entry level fork.
    Not very important but would any of those 2 models be able to reduce to 130mm travel?
    I could wait and buy it later if its that much a of a difference between the Revelations.

    Ty.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,285
    [QUOTE=jazzanova;10926645]In the case you miss this post from a Troy thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by downhill502 View Post
    This is from Matt at Billy Goat Bikes in North Carolina, who is a killer guy by the way and knows his shit.

    "Medium Troy carbon 22 13/16"
    Large Troy carbon 23 5/8"
    Large Sight alloy 23 3/4"
    Large Banshee spitfire alloy 24"
    These were measured parallel to the floor using a level and a tape measure. The Banshee is the only one who actually measures close to what they say it is."

    The Troy TT claimed is way off if this is correct...



    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    Published tt length on the Troy is a virtual/effective measurement and the reason it's longer than the actual measured tt (doing it like most people do) is because the seat tube is bent/curved. If you draw a line directly from the BB to the stop of the seat post in normal pedalling position, then measure a horizontal line from the top center of the head tube to where it bisects this line... This is the ETT and this measurement will be longer. Not sure if it would be almost an inch longer as observed here, but it would be longer.

    Same thing applies to Knolly and any other bike that doesn't have a straight seat tube that joins/bisects the BB junction exactly.

    Here's a quote with diagram to explain better what I'm talking about borrowed from the Knolly forum:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms View Post
    Christmas refresher course:



    Words by Noel:

    Measuring top tube length is generally considered to be a horizontal line from the center axis of the top of the head tube, that goes backwards and intersects with the seat tube axis. The trick is, what is the difference between TT length and ETT length? On a frame with traditional construction (i.e. where the seat tube axis pierces the BB shell's axis), the ETT length and the TT length are exactly the same.

    However, on a frame where the seat tube axis does NOT pierce the BB shell axis, the standard TT length then becomes meaningless because the seat tube angle doesn't mean anything. This is an issue on many, many modern frames, not just Knolly frames. Consider the multitude of frames that have "bent" seat tubes (whether actually bent or hydro-formed aluminum tubes, or are laid up in carbon this way). While the bottom of the seat tube may match up with the BB shell, the seat tube axis (where the seat post is installed into the seat tube) does NOT pierce the BB shell axis. This is extremely common to ensure that there is enough room for the rear wheel / rear linkage under full compression of the frame. On these kinds of frames, the actual seat tube angle cannot be used to make an effective measurement of the top tube length. Additionally, since the actual angle of the seat tube is slacker than the normal range of 72-74 degrees (for an MTB) when the seat is raised, it's hard to get a good indication of where the seat will be a) relative to the BB axis, and b) relative to the head tube.
    Hence, the creation of the ETT(Effective Top Tube length). The idea here is to have a "virtual" seat tube: this is essentially an imaginary axis that is at a prescribed angle (i.e. 73 degrees) and this axis is considered to pierce the BB shell axis. On any well designed frame with a seat tube that doesn't pierce the BB shell axis, the actual seat tube and the virtual seat tube should meet up where the saddle would be in a normal pedaling position. When dropped, the saddle will move slightly forwards, away from the virtual seat tube axis. While it's very obvious on our frames (because the seat tube intersects the down tube visually), the same situation exists on many (in fact, most) modern frames with travel more than about 5" because the tire and rear linkage need somewhere to go when fully compressed.

    The diagram gives a good idea of what happens here. Obviously, I can't speak for other manufacturers, but the situation shown in the diagram (with the continuous seat tube) is exactly how Knolly frames are designed. There are obviously a few more tweaks than this in determining frame geometry, but this gives the general idea, and how ETT length and TT length are similar, but not quite the same thing. It also explains how we deal with ensuring that we have enough room behind the seat tube for the rear wheel and linkage, while still allowing a full length seat tube to be used in the frame (especially important for medium and small frames and customers using dropper posts).

    Assuming that the seat tube angle is reasonable, ETT is the correct measurement when looking to determine the top tube length for fitting frame sizes, as (actual) TT length is meaningless for any frame that doesn't have a seat tube axis that pierces the BB shell axis.
    Last edited by KRob; 01-09-2014 at 06:04 PM.
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Me being 140lbs. 140mm Fork on a 650b trail bike with 5-5.5" rear travel. (SC 5010, Devinci Troy...) Pile lowered to 140mm.
    Is the Pike and its stiffness worth the weight penalty?
    Any other benefits with going with a Pike instead of the Revelation?

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    Don't take this the wrong way, but you are really light and the Rev will be plenty stiff. I am nearly 200lbs and ride aggressively and I don't notice the lack of stiffness on the Rev unless I am riding some really aggressive terrain in North Vancouver.

    However, I just upgraded to the Pike as I wanted the stiffness for those times and the new damper just for giggles.

  27. #27
    Woohooo! Moderator
    Reputation: kristian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,101
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCurto View Post
    What would be the most significant differences between a Revelation RL 140 (2013) and the RTC3 140 (2014)?

    Ty.
    The RTC has more adjustability since you have a full open, a "trail", and a lock out setting. I don't use the Trail very often on mine so the RL wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. It is also lacking adjustable low speed compression which is nice to have though since it allows you to run lower PSI without bottoming.

    I have a 2013 RL Reba on my XC bike and its the least plush RS fork I've had in years, but I'm not sure if it was supposed to be like that since its a racier fork than I'm used to. I would like to have low speed C on it so I could drop the air a little and make it a little more plush. Theoretically you can do that by only moving the lockout lever part way, but it doesn't feel as good to me.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by kristian View Post
    The RTC has more adjustability since you have a full open, a "trail", and a lock out setting. I don't use the Trail very often on mine so the RL wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. It is also lacking adjustable low speed compression which is nice to have though since it allows you to run lower PSI without bottoming.

    I have a 2013 RL Reba on my XC bike and its the least plush RS fork I've had in years, but I'm not sure if it was supposed to be like that since its a racier fork than I'm used to. I would like to have low speed C on it so I could drop the air a little and make it a little more plush. Theoretically you can do that by only moving the lockout lever part way, but it doesn't feel as good to me.
    Silver knob on RCT3 is Low Speed Compression adust. It does not only effect the trail setting, it effects all three including open.

    RCT3 is much nicer damper than the RL. Shimmed compression and rebound. RL has a very digressive compression (a good amount of LSC can be put in with preset quick blowoff) circuit and I belive a single port rebound circuit but not too sure about that last part.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10
    I have a 2014 fox float 32 trail ajust bumped up to 140 on my 5010 and was considering returning the fox for a refund and getting a pike lowered to 140, because the pike is on sale at my local shop for 846. I am able to return the fox without having a loss on the fork, however I only weight about 127 lb, and was wondering if I would notice any difference in the two? is it just a waste of time or will some one of my weight class notice a performance increase by switching to the pike? if any one has any insight that would be great.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: aliikane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,559
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Me being 140lbs. 140mm Fork on a 650b trail bike with 5-5.5" rear travel. (SC 5010, Devinci Troy...) Pike lowered to 140mm.
    Is the Pike and its stiffness worth the weight penalty?
    Any other benefits with going with a Pike instead of the Revelation?

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    I don't think it is worth the weight penalty if you are gonna drop it to 140mm. I have a Revelation 150mm on a SC Blur LT2 and just put a Pike on an Intense Carbine. The Revelation is a great fork. Very agile feel, super smooth and can take a lot of abuse.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ride the biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by leggatt View Post
    Don't take this the wrong way, but you are really light and the Rev will be plenty stiff. I am nearly 200lbs and ride aggressively and I don't notice the lack of stiffness on the Rev unless I am riding some really aggressive terrain in North Vancouver.

    However, I just upgraded to the Pike as I wanted the stiffness for those times and the new damper just for giggles.
    Could you comment on the difference between the pike's charger damper and the rev's damper? It looks like the rev does not have the charger.

    Recently rode a pike but would need adjustability down to 130mm for 26", so I dont think pike is an option.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,000
    you need to be more concerned with axle to crown and not travel. it change from manufacturer to manufacturer and model to model. as stanchions get bigger so do crowns and lower casts offsetting a2c.
    .
    below are a2c 26" inch versions..... 27.5 typically add 10mm not always such as fox.
    fox 32 140mm=511mm
    fox 34 @ 140 =519.5
    older lowerable fox 36 @140=525
    RS 32's 140mm= 517-519mm
    new pike @ 140= 525mm
    x fusion velvet 140 =519
    x fusion [email protected]= 525
    older fi

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,000
    edit

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,000
    if the frame is a 55 or 56 lower headtube you can run zerostack headset @4mm of stack
    if its a 49mm frame you have to run a ec cup with 12-14mm of stack. another consideration

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mangchi BB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    60
    Damn man the pike has changed everything for me. I love it so much. It just has a feel that I have never gotten from any other fork out there. Words don't even describe it. The feeling of the Pike cannot be expressed in any modern civilization's language. In order to accurately describe to you the feeling I get when riding the pike I have to draw back to the ancient language of the old Mesopotamian Gods (Anunnaki) from the 12th planet "Nibiru". The words to describe this cannot be translated so I will have to do my best to type it out in our Latin based English alphabet. I believe the most accurate way to do so would be as follows : nfjksdhjkghsdjkrghssdjkgdjhasvjhbejhbsegt serhtsdjkghsejkrthweklhtsejk ghtseyue4kuwjherjkghwlkakjfahkdbjherwerghweht wehgwejhrtgkwegt4jh5gyjh4yhwgejkrgfhsgdfgh HHHGSDFHGHGA!!!!! ghsksk eauiguw5ohqghgt gygsehg jhrstgshhrg4ktj ?

    As it cannot be directly translated into any modern or pre-modern language I will just have to assure you it basically means the fork is rad.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,798
    Weight penalty? I varies by model but it's less than 100 grams... that's like what a clif bar weighs.

    Anyway, at your weight you probably won't notice the stiffness change but 140mm is pretty long for 32mm stanchions. I had a 140mm Revelation and went to a 140mm Pike and the difference in stiffness was mind blowing. However, I'm 240lbs so that's probably quite a bit of the difference.

Similar Threads

  1. Rockshox pike coil u turn won't hold 140mm setting
    By austineatonsantacruz in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2013, 01:10 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 05:37 PM
  3. Rockshox Revelation RL 140mm to 150mm?
    By whatasport in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-02-2012, 11:27 PM
  4. Pike 20mm lowers on a Revelation 140mm
    By AL29er in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-29-2012, 04:22 AM
  5. RockShox Revelation Air 140mm wheezing
    By skewe in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-31-2011, 03:09 PM

Members who have read this thread: 5

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.