Revel Bikes Reviews- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 231
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11

    Revel Bikes Reviews

    Surely there must be some new Revel Bikes hitting the trails by now. Post your review here.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by tktaylor View Post
    Surely there must be some new Revel Bikes hitting the trails by now. Post your review here.
    Hang tight, Iíll have my review up shortly. My build was just completed on Thursday but Iíve been out of town since.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by tktaylor View Post
    Surely there must be some new Revel Bikes hitting the trails by now. Post your review here.
    Iíve got over 100 miles on my rascal. It has a great suspension platform. Very poppy. Climbs better than I do. Easy to throw into corners.
    My riding on it has been on slow technical rooty trails with decent drops and steep downs, and an xc race that was fast and flowy. The xc race was one Iíve done several years in a row on a trail I knew well. The rascal is very good at everything. My climbing times were equal to the Ripley LS I had before and I set a pr on the one decent I wasnít stuck behind someone on.
    I donít think thereís anything Iíd change about it. It has very active suspension and does not bottom harshly. If you have any specific questions I can try to help. Demo one if you can!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    And here I was thinking my ee wings wouldnít be a match...

    Iím looking for 100mmíish long/low/slack frame (like sb100), to add to the stable. Do yo ever feel like the Rascal is too much bike?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    And here I was thinking my ee wings wouldnít be a match...

    Iím looking for 100mmíish long/low/slack frame (like sb100), to add to the stable. Do yo ever feel like the Rascal is too much bike?
    Eewings match everything it is too much bike for a dedicated xc race bike but it was very competitive and a ton of fun so Iím good with that. Also Iím a big guy 200lbs so bike weight matters less to me than others. The Rascal is a 140f/130r but Iím sure you could run a lighter 130 fork and be just fine. Iíve had very few pedal strikes, much less than the Ripley. Iíd call it a very balanced great pedaling bike that can handle chunk.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    252
    Revel Bikes Reviews-ca17d56a-9ed0-4489-b402-61178dce143e.jpg

    Now that I finally got the maiden voyage behind me, I figured Iíd chime in with my thoughts. For reference, Iím coming from a Canfield Bros Riot the last few years. I had been patiently waiting for the carbon version, but when this was announced I didnít want to wait any longer.

    I built the frame up and tossed some NOBL wheels on it as well. The bike pretty much checks all the boxes for me. 130 - 140 rear was always my goal, and 140/150 front. The bike checks in at just about 28 lbs, which is about 3.5 lbs less than my Riot. On the climbs, I can absolutely feel the difference in weight. The bike feels much longer in reach, but still very comfortable.

    Climbing was great, even though Iím very out of shape. It took me a little bit to dial the suspension in, but when it was I absolutely ripped on it. Tight corners were different...had to take them a little wider, but overall not much different than the Riot. I demoíd the HT LT, and SB130 coming into this. I would say it felt very similar to the 130 with a bit more pop feeling and less bulldozing.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    865
    Quote Originally Posted by cpolism View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CA17D56A-9ED0-4489-B402-61178DCE143E.jpg 
Views:	582 
Size:	488.4 KB 
ID:	1250624

    Now that I finally got the maiden voyage behind me, I figured Iíd chime in with my thoughts. For reference, Iím coming from a Canfield Bros Riot the last few years. I had been patiently waiting for the carbon version, but when this was announced I didnít want to wait any longer.

    I built the frame up and tossed some NOBL wheels on it as well. The bike pretty much checks all the boxes for me. 130 - 140 rear was always my goal, and 140/150 front. The bike checks in at just about 28 lbs, which is about 3.5 lbs less than my Riot. On the climbs, I can absolutely feel the difference in weight. The bike feels much longer in reach, but still very comfortable.

    Climbing was great, even though Iím very out of shape. It took me a little bit to dial the suspension in, but when it was I absolutely ripped on it. Tight corners were different...had to take them a little wider, but overall not much different than the Riot. I demoíd the HT LT, and SB130 coming into this. I would say it felt very similar to the 130 with a bit more pop feeling and less bulldozing.
    Can we get a few more pics (from the side and close ups)? The Revel sure is a nice looking bike (I'm waiting to see what they do with 29".)

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175


    I can get some closeups if you want to see the black version.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by autosmith View Post


    I can get some closeups if you want to see the black version.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Yes, please! Such a good looking bike. How's the geometry feel? Seat angle steep enough for how long it is? Still impressed with the climbing ability/efficiency? No experience with cbf suspension but I'm intrigued. Thanks!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Loving my Rascal after the first few rides.
    Initial thoughts...

    Internal routing on the rear brake cable was really annoying for the build-up, but it is riding basically silent - pretty nice. Everything else on the build was easy.

    Coming from a Canfield Riot since late 2015, so the suspension is what attracted me. It's great in this version as well.
    Not a huge difference to me 130mm rear versus 140mm (Riot was 140, and other bikes I considered this year were 140).

    Really fast and comfortable.
    Revel Bikes Reviews-rascal29era.jpeg

    Revel Bikes Reviews-rascal29er.jpeg

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by La Nada View Post
    Yes, please! Such a good looking bike. How's the geometry feel? Seat angle steep enough for how long it is? Still impressed with the climbing ability/efficiency? No experience with cbf suspension but I'm intrigued. Thanks!
    Geometry is spot on. Seat angle is a bit slack for me and might be for others with a very long inseam. The actual angle in slack but the effective angle at normal seat heights is 75+ so thatíll vary depending on rider. Climbing is better than I expected. It never feels like extra work. Climbing while standing is particularly good. Bike felt a little long in corners at first but after cutting down the bars and trusting the bike more it is very quick to change direction. The only thing Iíd change would be the seat angle so my seat wasnít slid all the way forward but Iíve never had a bike that wasnít the case on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by autosmith View Post
    Iíve got over 100 miles on my rascal. It has a great suspension platform. Very poppy. Climbs better than I do. Easy to throw into corners.
    My riding on it has been on slow technical rooty trails with decent drops and steep downs, and an xc race that was fast and flowy. The xc race was one Iíve done several years in a row on a trail I knew well. The rascal is very good at everything. My climbing times were equal to the Ripley LS I had before and I set a pr on the one decent I wasnít stuck behind someone on.
    I donít think thereís anything Iíd change about it. It has very active suspension and does not bottom harshly. If you have any specific questions I can try to help. Demo one if you can!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    Nice rig! Iím currently on an LS and on the fence about the v4 Ripley. There are a few folks really struggling with the new steeper seat tube angle and extra weight on the hands. My LS is dialed but I do have some arthritis in my hands so Iím looking at other options too. Notice any negative in cockpit set up with the 75 degree STA? Also Iím on A CC IL on my Rip LS, love that shock. I was considering another of the next bike, is the DB Air a good fit or overkill? Thanks

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramjm_2000 View Post
    Nice rig! Iím currently on an LS and on the fence about the v4 Ripley. There are a few folks really struggling with the new steeper seat tube angle and extra weight on the hands. My LS is dialed but I do have some arthritis in my hands so Iím looking at other options too. Notice any negative in cockpit set up with the 75 degree STA? Also Iím on A CC IL on my Rip LS, love that shock. I was considering another of the next bike, is the DB Air a good fit or overkill? Thanks
    Cockpit fits perfect. I went with 20mm riser bars and a shorter stem to put the bars in nearly the same spot relative to the saddle. It came with the RockShox but I changed it out for the dB air after some back to back runs I like the feel of cane creek stuff a lot. I have the compression almost completely open and still donít notice any pedal bob. If you like a custom ride feel or like to change it depending on where youíre riding go cane creek. Iím still so happy with the rascal Iíd only look at the v4 Ripley if I was going to do a lightweight XC build.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11

    Revel Rail Review

    Finally got my new Revel Rail frame built with all my favorite bits and out for the first ride this weekend. First impression - this one is definitely a keeper! Previous bike was 2015 YT Capra and other bike is 2018 Intense Primer so I have great comparisons. Andy at Revel was very helpful with fit and build questions since the purchase was sight unseen. The build was easy as there is nothing to press and cable routing is very clean. The finish on the frame is fantastic. The trails consists of climbs with switchbacks and some tech. The downs are flowy with rock gardens and plenty of opportunity for air for those that want it. The ride finished off with a double black gnar decent. I have a little fork tuning to do but otherwise the Rail was brilliant in every area. I was initially worried in my ďdriveway testĒ after build finish that there was some rear suspension bob but didnít notice anything on the trail. The suspension absorbed every little bump going up and offered some nice squish going down. While I wonít say the Rail is as light and agile as the Primer I was surprised how close it was. I was never totally pleased with the fit of the Capra but the Rail is spot on. For me it positions pretty neutral and ready for whatever I want from it. Loving the Rail so far.

    Revel Rail Medium
    Fox 36 Grip2 170mm travel fork
    Fox X2 165mm travel shock
    Fox Transfer 175mm
    Sram X0 Eagle drivetrain
    XTR Trail brakes and Centerlock rotors 203F, 180R
    LB Recon Pro Carbon 36mm wheelset w/DT240 hubs
    Renthal Carbon Lite bars and Apex 40mm stem
    Koobi PRS saddle
    Maxxis Minion DHF 2.5/DHR 2.4 tires
    Wolf Tooth axles and seat post clamp
    Oury Lock on grips
    29.5 lbs w/o pedals
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Revel Bikes Reviews-20190602_144949.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-20190602_145020.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-20190608_100442_hdr.jpg  


  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tkblazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,492
    Bike just posted up a review as part of their bible of bike tests

    https://youtu.be/x2H_I3V8Q_w

  16. #16
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,089

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,276
    Anyone have a bottle cage fitted to a Rail? What size bottle fits?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by tktaylor View Post
    Finally got my new Revel Rail frame built with all my favorite bits and out for the first ride this weekend. First impression - this one is definitely a keeper! Previous bike was 2015 YT Capra and other bike is 2018 Intense Primer so I have great comparisons. Andy at Revel was very helpful with fit and build questions since the purchase was sight unseen. The build was easy as there is nothing to press and cable routing is very clean. The finish on the frame is fantastic. The trails consists of climbs with switchbacks and some tech. The downs are flowy with rock gardens and plenty of opportunity for air for those that want it. The ride finished off with a double black gnar decent. I have a little fork tuning to do but otherwise the Rail was brilliant in every area. I was initially worried in my ďdriveway testĒ after build finish that there was some rear suspension bob but didnít notice anything on the trail. The suspension absorbed every little bump going up and offered some nice squish going down. While I wonít say the Rail is as light and agile as the Primer I was surprised how close it was. I was never totally pleased with the fit of the Capra but the Rail is spot on. For me it positions pretty neutral and ready for whatever I want from it. Loving the Rail so far.

    Revel Rail Medium
    Fox 36 Grip2 170mm travel fork
    Fox X2 165mm travel shock
    Fox Transfer 175mm
    Sram X0 Eagle drivetrain
    XTR Trail brakes and Centerlock rotors 203F, 180R
    LB Recon Pro Carbon 36mm wheelset w/DT240 hubs
    Renthal Carbon Lite bars and Apex 40mm stem
    Koobi PRS saddle
    Maxxis Minion DHF 2.5/DHR 2.4 tires
    Wolf Tooth axles and seat post clamp
    Oury Lock on grips
    29.5 lbs w/o pedals
    So beautiful my man! Stunning!

    What kind of tire clearance are you working with in the rear, is the 2.4 kind of maxing things out? Room for 2.5? 2.6? Gaspó2.8?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    38

    Accurate weight for medium Revel Rail

    Joining the thread as a new Reveler! Previously an Ibisian for the last 3 years, I have to say the attention to detail on these Revels are on a whole other level. Received my frame and fork on Saturday and ready to start the build. I forget if the site shows frame weight so here it is for those inquiring minds who want to know.

    Size medium Rail with RS Super Deluxe Ultimate, 2 water bottle cage bolts, and Maxel. 7.5 lbs exactly.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Revel Bikes Reviews-3cd43a41-4318-43c1-96cc-1508ea40d41e.jpg  


  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by milodog View Post
    Joining the thread as a new Reveler! Previously an Ibisian for the last 3 years, I have to say the attention to detail on these Revels are on a whole other level. Received my frame and fork on Saturday and ready to start the build. I forget if the site shows frame weight so here it is for those inquiring minds who want to know.

    Size medium Rail with RS Super Deluxe Ultimate, 2 water bottle cage bolts, and Maxel. 7.5 lbs exactly.
    Congrats! Same story for me and one the best surprises was that the paint seems to be bomb proof. Not a chip yet despite several rock strikes. My Ibis had plenty of chips the first week.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    38
    Iím glad to hear that! I was shocked at how easily the paint chipped on the Ibis! And so had matte black! Lol! The clear coat chipped.  I loved my Mojo 3.....and as much as people and journalists say the quality is top notch, wait till they check out a Revel. I read somewhere that every frame has 9 layers of paint and clear coat! I forget where I saw that. It was one of the reviews. Maybe Pink Bike? Anyway, stoke to hear no chips from you this far. Iím hoping for a frame finish to hold up longer than the Ibis. My 2010 Stumpjumperís finish never chipped once for the 7 years so owned it...... and I put 5000+ miles on that bike! Keeping my fingers crossed for the Revel. 🤞

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rollmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    187
    Rascal frame weight anyone?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by rollmonkey View Post
    Rascal frame weight anyone?
    Just right.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Milodog weighed his a few posts up, looks like 7.5 lbs. All the builds look sweet, I ended up ordering a Ripmo as I sent Revel a few emails and never got a response, I saw that as a sign. If I donít get along with the Ripmoís geo I may take another look at the Rascal but for now Iím still an Ibisian.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rollmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    187
    The post above is for a rail, I was hoping rascal maybe not as fat. I demod this bike and it was the only thing competitive with the ripmo... But it's less travel and 1.5 pounds heavier maybe? Hard to say.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by milodog View Post
    Joining the thread as a new Reveler! Previously an Ibisian for the last 3 years, I have to say the attention to detail on these Revels are on a whole other level. Received my frame and fork on Saturday and ready to start the build. I forget if the site shows frame weight so here it is for those inquiring minds who want to know.

    Size medium Rail with RS Super Deluxe Ultimate, 2 water bottle cage bolts, and Maxel. 7.5 lbs exactly.
    What kind of tire clearance are you getting on the Rail?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by rollmonkey View Post
    The post above is for a rail, I was hoping rascal maybe not as fat. I demod this bike and it was the only thing competitive with the ripmo... But it's less travel and 1.5 pounds heavier maybe? Hard to say.
    Yup see that now. 👍🏻

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by rollmonkey View Post
    Rascal frame weight anyone?
    Donít have a pic but mine was a little over 7lbs with shock.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by rollmonkey View Post
    The post above is for a rail, I was hoping rascal maybe not as fat. I demod this bike and it was the only thing competitive with the ripmo... But it's less travel and 1.5 pounds heavier maybe? Hard to say.
    I wish I could remember my exact weight before I built it, but it was a hair over 7lbs. My whole build on the Rascal is around 28.5lbs.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by autosmith View Post
    Congrats! Same story for me and one the best surprises was that the paint seems to be bomb proof. Not a chip yet despite several rock strikes. My Ibis had plenty of chips the first week.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I'm assuming you had an hd4, how does the rail climb vs the hd4. I'm currently own an hd4. thanks

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by cpobanz View Post
    I'm assuming you had an hd4, how does the rail climb vs the hd4. I'm currently own an hd4. thanks
    I had a ripely. Now on the rascal. Never been on an hd4 so canít help there.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    865
    Just returned from DirtRagFest and had a chance to demo the Rascal. There was a TON to love about this bike...and one terrible downside.

    Bruceton Mills, West Virginia is rocky. Like, next level rocks....there were rocks under the rocks. If you ever wanted to test "best bike for rock gardens," Bruceton Mills would be a default spot. That being said, there was also some flowy, ribbony stuff on the demo loop.

    I am 6'4" with long limbs, so XL is default. Revel guys said sag is generally 30%. I mention this to get the room's elephant out the the way. Pedal strikes were next level. I ate shit two times (another poster noted lack of pedal strikes; I had the exact opposite) b/c of pedal strikes. It wasn't just bad luck either or bad riding...there were significantly more pedal strikes than on my bike or any of the 5-6 bikes I demo'd this weekend...and more than any other bike in recent memory.

    The Revel guys mentioned that the Rascal was set at 30% sag; the XL has 175 cranks. They mentioned that some XL guys had switched to 170, but some run 175 with no problems. I tried to go back and demo it at 25% sag, but it was always out. I'd really like to try it at 25% sag with 170 cranks to see if it got rid of the pedal issues, b/c if it did:

    The first think you notice about a bike is how it looks. Revel kills it with both the Rascal and the Rail. There is attention to detail in the builds and I didn't notice any chips on the demo bikes; the bikes just look really great. Also, the XL doesn't look ridiculous...which is important to me.

    So looks are important...but how the bike rides is importantist. I immediately noticed that the Rascal TAKES OFF. It was incredibly easy to get moving...fast. It was easier to get up to speed than the SB130 I tried just before it. The Revel people said it was ~30#; about average for a 140/130 bike, but it felt much lighter than that when riding. The bars were too wide for W.V. (but that's an easy fix), but the speed, balance, and agility made it easy to rail through some of the tighter and flowy stuff. The bike is well balanced and pretty easy to get air on.

    The next thing I noticed right away was how quiet it was. There was almost no noise from the entire package...the only sound was the clunk when changing gears...or the terrible pedal strike noise.

    I've never ridden a Canfield before, but I will say, based on the Rascal, the hype is real. The CBF suspension is fantastic. Over the weekend I felt 3 platforms out-shined others: Switch Infinity (I'm a sucker for SI and I generally compare everything to it), Esker's Orion (I think it's the best Weagle yet...better than DW-link and Split Pivot), and the CBF. On the Rascal, there was that perfect feeling of efficient and supportive when going up, but cush when going down.

    I did say rocks, right? When climbing, I never noticed the rear get hung up on anything and the front just rolled over rocks and roots. Descending, the Rascal had no issues smashing through stuff in its way. It's easy to pick lines when slowly climbing or while bombing down...but it was also able to go through things if you chose wrong.

    All-in-all, I thought the bike was unique in that it felt light and quick, but could smash through things...it was really good climber, but cushy descending. It really is a bike I could ride all day every day...EXCEPT: those pedal strikes.

    Other similar bikes I've tried are the Pivot SB, Stumpjumper ST, Smuggler and FollowingMB (I guess they're kinda similar), Salsa Horsethief, Norco Sight, and prolly a couple I forget. I would gladly take the Rascal over any of those...a no-brainer really (except the pedal strikes).

    This is a close competitor to the SB130 for my dollars in that both felt like bikes I could ride all day. The SB130 felt more planted and enduro-ey, while the Rascal felt more flickable and speedy (don't read this as unstable...b/c it certainly wasn't). All-in-all, it's a "pick 'em" btwn the two, but if it Rascal rode the same at 25% sag and I could live with 170 cranks, the choice would be more clear. Revel should sell a ton of these.

    Edited to add: I also demo'd the YT Jeffsey (150/150)...a bit of apples/oranges, but I'd take the Rascal over that too.
    Last edited by smartyiak; 07-19-2019 at 08:47 AM.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    ^Nice write up.
    Very cool to hear confirmation of some of my impressions, especially on the badass CBF and on the Rascal's general speediness and performance.

    I'm running 170 cranks on my Large Rascal. I've gone with 30% sag. After switching to 170 cranks, I never noticed any pedaling differences beyond the first ride.
    I have had a few pedal strikes climbing, certainly. No big ones on fast descents thankfully.
    I don't necessarily think it's more prone to pedal strikes than some of the other modern bikes I've tried recently. It seems to be a trend these days with current geo.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Just returned from DirtRagFest and had a chance to demo the Rascal. There was a TON to love about this bike...and one terrible downside.

    Bruceton Mills, West Virginia is rocky. Like, next level rocks....there were rocks under the rocks. If you ever wanted to test "best bike for rock gardens," Bruceton Mills would be a default spot. That being said, there was also some flowy, ribbony stuff on the demo loop.

    I am 6'4" with long limbs, so XL is default. Revel guys said sag is generally 30%. I mention this to get the room's elephant out the the way. Pedal strikes were next level. I ate shit two times (another poster noted lack of pedal strikes; I had the exact opposite) b/c of pedal strikes. It wasn't just bad luck either or bad riding...there were significantly more pedal strikes than on my bike or any of the 5-6 bikes I demo'd this weekend...and more than any other bike in recent memory.

    The Revel guys mentioned that the Rascal was set at 30% sag; the XL has 175 cranks. They mentioned that some XL guys had switched to 170, but some run 175 with no problems. I tried to go back and demo it at 25% sag, but it was always out. I'd really like to try it at 25% sag with 170 cranks to see if it got rid of the pedal issues, b/c if it did:

    The first think you notice about a bike is how it looks. Revel kills it with both the Rascal and the Rail. There is attention to detail in the builds and I didn't notice any chips on the demo bikes; the bikes just look really great. Also, the XL doesn't look ridiculous...which is important to me.

    So looks are important...but how the bike rides is importantist. I immediately noticed that the Rascal TAKES OFF. It was incredibly easy to get moving...fast. It was easier to get up to speed than the SB130 I tried just before it. The Revel people said it was ~30#; about average for a 140/130 bike, but it felt much lighter than that when riding. The bars were too wide for W.V. (but that's an easy fix), but the speed, balance, and agility made it easy to rail through some of the tighter and flowy stuff. The bike is well balanced and pretty easy to get air on.

    The next thing I noticed right away was how quiet it was. There was almost no noise from the entire package...the only sound was the clunk when changing gears...or the terrible pedal strike noise.

    I've never ridden a Canfield before, but I will say, based on the Rascal, the hype is real. The CBF suspension is fantastic. Over the weekend I felt 3 platforms out-shined others: Switch Infinity (I'm a sucker for SI and I generally compare everything to it), Esker's Orion (I think it's the best Weagle yet...better than DW-link and Split Pivot), and the CBF. On the Rascal, there was that perfect feeling of efficient and supportive when going up, but cush when going down.

    I did say rocks, right? When climbing, I never noticed the rear get hung up on anything and the front just rolled over rocks and roots. Descending, the Rascal had no issues smashing through stuff in its way. It's easy to pick lines when slowly climbing or while bombing down...but it was also able to go through things if you chose wrong.

    All-in-all, I thought the bike was unique in that it felt light and quick, but could smash through things...it was really good climber, but cushy descending. It really is a bike I could ride all day every day...EXCEPT: those pedal strikes.

    Other similar bikes I've tried are the Pivot SB, Stumpjumper ST, Smuggler and FollowingMB (I guess they're kinda similar), Salsa Horsethief, Norco Sight, and prolly a couple I forget. I would gladly take the Rascal over any of those...a no-brainer really (except the pedal strikes).

    This is a close competitor to the SB130 for my dollars in that both felt like bikes I could ride all day. The SB130 felt more planted and enduro-ey, while the Rascal felt more flickable and speedy (don't read this as unstable...b/c it certainly wasn't). All-in-all, it's a "pick 'em" btwn the two, but if it Rascal rode the same at 25% sag and I could live with 170 cranks, the choice would be more clear. Revel should sell a ton of these.
    Nice description of its riding characteristics. I ride a large and have it at 23% sag according to the shock wiz. I have less pedal strikes than I did with my Ripley. And still run 175 cranks. I havenít noticed a difference with the way it pedals at any sag. Although when I do have a pedal strike it seems huge, it might have something to do with the active suspension while pedaling allowing it to bottom easier?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cSquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Just returned from DirtRagFest and had a chance to demo the Rascal. There was a TON to love about this bike...and one terrible downside.

    Bruceton Mills, West Virginia is rocky. Like, next level rocks....there were rocks under the rocks. If you ever wanted to test "best bike for rock gardens," Bruceton Mills would be a default spot. That being said, there was also some flowy, ribbony stuff on the demo loop.

    I am 6'4" with long limbs, so XL is default. Revel guys said sag is generally 30%. I mention this to get the room's elephant out the the way. Pedal strikes were next level. I ate shit two times (another poster noted lack of pedal strikes; I had the exact opposite) b/c of pedal strikes. It wasn't just bad luck either or bad riding...there were significantly more pedal strikes than on my bike or any of the 5-6 bikes I demo'd this weekend...and more than any other bike in recent memory.

    The Revel guys mentioned that the Rascal was set at 30% sag; the XL has 175 cranks. They mentioned that some XL guys had switched to 170, but some run 175 with no problems. I tried to go back and demo it at 25% sag, but it was always out. I'd really like to try it at 25% sag with 170 cranks to see if it got rid of the pedal issues, b/c if it did:

    The first think you notice about a bike is how it looks. Revel kills it with both the Rascal and the Rail. There is attention to detail in the builds and I didn't notice any chips on the demo bikes; the bikes just look really great. Also, the XL doesn't look ridiculous...which is important to me.

    So looks are important...but how the bike rides is importantist. I immediately noticed that the Rascal TAKES OFF. It was incredibly easy to get moving...fast. It was easier to get up to speed than the SB130 I tried just before it. The Revel people said it was ~30#; about average for a 140/130 bike, but it felt much lighter than that when riding. The bars were too wide for W.V. (but that's an easy fix), but the speed, balance, and agility made it easy to rail through some of the tighter and flowy stuff. The bike is well balanced and pretty easy to get air on.

    The next thing I noticed right away was how quiet it was. There was almost no noise from the entire package...the only sound was the clunk when changing gears...or the terrible pedal strike noise.

    I've never ridden a Canfield before, but I will say, based on the Rascal, the hype is real. The CBF suspension is fantastic. Over the weekend I felt 3 platforms out-shined others: Switch Infinity (I'm a sucker for SI and I generally compare everything to it), Esker's Orion (I think it's the best Weagle yet...better than DW-link and Split Pivot), and the CBF. On the Rascal, there was that perfect feeling of efficient and supportive when going up, but cush when going down.

    I did say rocks, right? When climbing, I never noticed the rear get hung up on anything and the front just rolled over rocks and roots. Descending, the Rascal had no issues smashing through stuff in its way. It's easy to pick lines when slowly climbing or while bombing down...but it was also able to go through things if you chose wrong.

    All-in-all, I thought the bike was unique in that it felt light and quick, but could smash through things...it was really good climber, but cushy descending. It really is a bike I could ride all day every day...EXCEPT: those pedal strikes.

    Other similar bikes I've tried are the Pivot SB, Stumpjumper ST, Smuggler and FollowingMB (I guess they're kinda similar), Salsa Horsethief, Norco Sight, and prolly a couple I forget. I would gladly take the Rascal over any of those...a no-brainer really (except the pedal strikes).

    This is a close competitor to the SB130 for my dollars in that both felt like bikes I could ride all day. The SB130 felt more planted and enduro-ey, while the Rascal felt more flickable and speedy (don't read this as unstable...b/c it certainly wasn't). All-in-all, it's a "pick 'em" btwn the two, but if it Rascal rode the same at 25% sag and I could live with 170 cranks, the choice would be more clear. Revel should sell a ton of these.
    smartyiak-
    Stoked you liked it. It took a long time dialing it in.

    One of the best aspects of my CBF suspension is that it's not sag dependent. No matter where you end up on your sag, the suspension is targeting the Instant Center perfectly. It will feel no different at 20-25-30-35%.

    Cheers
    Chris

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    865
    Quote Originally Posted by cSquared View Post
    smartyiak-
    Stoked you liked it. It took a long time dialing it in.

    One of the best aspects of my CBF suspension is that it's not sag dependent. No matter where you end up on your sag, the suspension is targeting the Instant Center perfectly. It will feel no different at 20-25-30-35%.

    Cheers
    Chris
    I thought it was fantastic...really well done!

    Could you say how changing sag will affect the bikes handling or characteristics? Not trying to be argumentative, but changing it has to have some effect...otherwise, why not run it at 0%...or 100%.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1
    Just weighing on the Revel Rascal. I bought one on faith and have yet to build it. Took a demo ride on a Rascal in Pisgah 7/20/19. Short ride including Sycamore, Thrift Cove and lower Black, for those of you who might be familiar. Currently riding a first gen Bronson so this is my reference . The Rascal accelerated nicely and is very poppy. Climbing is very efficient. Just as they claim, the suspension remains very active when climbing as well as under braking. As indicated by others the frames are beautiful the Ansel Adams(black) and the Alaska (blue) look so good it makes for a tough decision. One thing I did notice were the pedal strikes. These are trails Iím very familiar with and a pedal for me is rare. The Rascal is specíd with 175 crank arms soI am considering 170s on my build. Sag was set at 30% as recommended. When comparing to the Bronson I certainly noticed the difference in the travel in the chunky stuff in spite of the 29Ē wheels. Unfortunately did not have time to ride the Rail. The feedback that I was hearing for both bikes was very positive.
    Last edited by fmwylie; 07-21-2019 at 03:43 PM. Reason: Misspell

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    8

    Revel Rail Review (250 miles)

    2020 Revel Rail review (27.5Ē wheels, 165mm travel, Rock Shox Super Deluxe):

    https://www.revelbikes.com/our-bikes/revel-rail/

    The Revel Rail has been my primary bike for the last month and a half (250-300 miles). Overall, I am very impressed with the ride characteristics, design, and build quality of the frame. I haven't seen much in terms of reviews other than some "first impressions," so I figured I would post my experience and compare some pros and cons relative to recent/similar bikes in this category. Firstly, I just want to state that I am not affiliated with Revel and was not asked to post this review. Whether you are new to MTB, or have a lot of experience riding different bikes and are considering the Rail as a replacement, I will echo the best advice you will hear: Make every effort to test ride as many bikes as you can on terrain you will ride most often. Bike geometry and suspension characteristics can be quite subjective to different riding styles and body types.

    About me (tester): Born in WV in 1985, east coast trails have been my home since mountain biking became my main hobby around 1999. I'm 6'1" tall and weigh 180 lbs without gear (1.85m / 81.6 kg) with a 33.5" inseam. I have long legs & arms with a short torso relative to the average person. Initially, XC riding was my focus, but that quickly transitioned to enduro (or all-mountain riding as they called it back then). Flow trails are fun, but generally I end up seeking out the roughest terrain (up and down the mountain) to challenge and improve bike handling skills. BMX, dirt jumping, and road riding has been mixed in over the years, but never overtook MTB.

    Fit & Geometry: The Large size is very comfortable on all types of terrain, including steep climbs, descents, and everything in between. I have settled on about 25mm of spacers under my stem and am a 50mm stem (build kits mostly come with 40mm). If I were any taller or lived out west where trails are a bit more open with less tight switchback sections, I might consider the XL size. Full geo and suspension charts can be found on Revels website. The 470mm reach, 65 deg head tube, and 75 deg seat tube combined with short chain stays and low BB gives me a very centered & stable feeling between the front and rear wheel with plenty of room to adjust body position over big obstacles or maximizing traction in the corners. An Evil Insurgent was my prior long-term bike which had a slightly more conservative geo: 450mm reach, 65.6 deg heat tube, 74.3 deg seat tube ridden in the higher setting. The additional 20mm on reach, 30mm on wheelbase, and 9mm lower BB are all welcome changes. I did not experience excessive pedal strikes running 170mm cranks. **Note- My longer legs dictated that I kept my Evil in the higher position to maintain a comfortable pedaling position. The seat tube was a very slack 73.4 deg in the lowest setting which would put my body quite far over the rear axle. For clarity- The Rail does not have a flip chip.

    Suspension feel (Rear): Revel has licensed their rear suspension design (CBF) from Canfield Brothers which feels different than anything Iíve ridden in the past (VPP/DWlink/Delta/Infinity-link/etc). The key design focus is to direct any forces from pedaling at the top of the chain ring to effectively limit pedal-bob and separate impacts or inputs from the trail (regardless of where you are on the rear cassette). Another thing that is noticeable on this bike compared to some other designs is that the bike stays more composed and active under rear braking. The Delta design (linkage driven single pivot) for example had a tendency to send the rider forward over the front end when under hard rear braking. This has been my favorite bike to pedal uphill in the 150-170mm travel category. It is supportive and efficient under power and active when tracking the ground in the slow speed tech. The bike has plenty of pop to boost off small trail features comparable to others in this category. I have settled on 180 psi & 3 tokens in the rear shock to match my body weight which gives me about 28% sag. The CBF design provides a fairly progressive leverage curve and is very confidence inspiring on bigger hits at the expense of slightly less small bump sensitivity compared to other designs used with an air shock.

    Other notes / observations: Compared to My Evil insurgent specíed with the amazing Push Eleven Six coil the relative lack of small bump sensitivity is noticeable, however & unexpectedly... this has not translated into slower times on my local DH or enduro segments. In fact, the opposite is true, however I think itís important when comparing times to look at the bike as a complete system. I think a good analogy here could be to F1 racing.. Cars can look ultra-smooth from the helicopter camera high above the track, but when watching POV footage itís obvious the ride is quite harsh during the bumpy sections which is necessary to go as fast as possible. My point beingÖ At high speeds, the level of comfort added by small bump compliance is sometimes initially perceived as confidence inspiring which one would think translates into faster times. My times have been faster all around on the Rail, and to be clear.. the bike is not uncomfortable in any way.. just slightly more feedback from the rear end compared to a $1200 custom tuned coil shock. For those with longer legs who are at the upper range of L size or into XL.. My seat is positioned relatively far forward on the rails. It would be interesting to try this bike with a steeper seat tube and slightly longer reach (maybe 76/77 deg and slightly longer reach). This is coming from someone who really values agility over super long & stable. Lastly, I added some Scotch 2228 rubber mastic tape to quite some chain slap.

    Build Spec: This also seems like a good time to note that this bike is custom build with some parts transferred over from my old bike to ensure the main variable is the frame & shock:

    ē Ibis 741 wheelset - 35mm inner width rims & I9 torch hubs
    ē 2.5 Minion DHF EXO/ 2.4 DHR EXO+ with Cushcore
    ē X01 driveterrain - 11 speed
    ē OneUP dropper (210mm)
    ē Code RSC brakes (200mm rotors F&R)
    ē 170mm 2019 Fox 36 Performance Elite fork, Grip 2 - 70psi with 2 tokens
    ē Weight = 31.0 lbs without pedals. EXO F / EXO+ R with Cushcore. Includes bottle cage, custom Wahoo mount, Oi bell

    Pros:

    ē Value (frame only) Ė Includes Cane Creek 40 headset, Rear Axle, and choice of Rock Shox Super Deluxe or Fox X2 = $2799
    ē Geometry: Modern, Low and slack, but not too extreme. Short seat tube length allows for long droppers. Low BB makes bike very stable and confidence inspiring, and no excessive pedal strikes with 170mm cranks.
    ē CBF suspension design: Efficient, playful, and progressive. Rewards a smooth pedal stroke
    ē Attention to detail:
    o Finish seems reasonably durable, however I should note that I covered high impact areas with AMS frame guard during the build process.
    o Custom frame-specific protection is available from Revel
    o Internal cable routing with internal carbon guides/sheaths made install a breeze and keeps things quiet
    o Chain guide is OEM spec, lightweight, and have yet to drop a chain
    o Rear linkage design shields bearings/pivots from the elements well. No creaks thus far, but more ride time is needed before passing judgment here

    Cons:

    ē Rear Brake routing: The rear brake cable exits the underside of the downtube just in front of the bottom bracket and re-enters the underside of the chain stay. Personally, I havenít had any issues with this design, but I know other riders who have sliced a line contacting a rock which requires re-routing a replacement hose and a fresh bleed. Seems like it wouldnít be that difficult to route the hose over the BB and into the top of the chainstay protected from potential impacts.
    ē CBF suspension design: Small bump sensitivity is average compared to Infinity link or some other suspension designs that allow for coil shock option
    o Coil Shock officially not recommended: The inherent flex in the rear linkage and yoke design puts a lot of stress on the smaller diameter shaft compared to air shocks and can cause reliability issues with the shock.
    ē Bash guard incompatible: Would be nice to see some type of bash guard mount, however Iím told there was a conscious decision to avoid using the IG05 standard which has the potential to transmits a lot of force to carbon frames on hard impacts. Alternative options are available, but none that Iím willing to pursue.
    ē Chain slap: Minor amount of noise was noticeable from chain slap. A slightly bigger molded chainstay guard would be welcome, but this is a very minor issue remedied by some inexpensive Scotch 2228 Rubber Mastic tape.

    Who this bike is for: Someone who enjoys the agility of 27.5 wheels and wants a versatile bike for all day adventures but would prefer to sacrifice some climbing efficiency related to slack angles for balanced & confidence inspiring downhill capabilities. Keeping in mind the Rail fits pretty squarely into the endure bike category... I think it can easily handle both 35 mile all-day epics and bike park days.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Revel Bikes Reviews-pm-drop-mtbr.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-rail-taco-mtbr.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-windrock-redbull-drop.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-p1000564-mtbr.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-20190526_074948-mtbr.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-20190623_171208-mtbr.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-main-mtbr.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-p1000563-mtbr.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-20190806_141603-mtbr.jpg  

    Revel Bikes Reviews-20190806_141631-mtbr.jpg  

    Last edited by Dylanbike1; 08-07-2019 at 11:49 AM. Reason: spelling

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rollmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    187
    Dylan- who makes your top tube Garmin mount? Any thoughts on the 1up 35mm bars at 250 miles?

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by rollmonkey View Post
    Dylan- who makes your top tube Garmin mount? Any thoughts on the 1up 35mm bars at 250 miles?
    The mount is custom. Two pieces screwed together.. I purchased the circular replacement Wahoo (same as garmin) mount for $5 from Amazon. Separately, I took a Dremel tool to an adhesive gopro mount making the top flat and then very carefully pre-drillled and screwed on the Wahoo mount before sticking on the top tube. Rock solid thus far.

    The OneUp bars are very nice, but I didn't do any on-trail back to back testing. Being totally honest.. I don't notice the extra compliance or any less fatigue even on long 10-15 min downhill segments. Having said that... I haven't done a full day in the bike park yet where the compliance could be more noticeable at the end of a long day. Personally, I wouldn't go out and replace existing carbon bars with these, but they are very nice if upgrading from an aluminum setup or doing a new build.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rollmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    187
    I may try to replicate your DIY mount, no one is bringing one to market and I'm tired of waiting.

    I'm surprised by your review of the 1up bars. Going from aluminum to renthal fatbar was night and day for me. That said, I have to run a 35mm stem on new bike and 1up still looks like best option, so probably going to run it. A little worried it's not as good as renthal.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by rollmonkey View Post
    I may try to replicate your DIY mount, no one is bringing one to market and I'm tired of waiting.

    I'm surprised by your review of the 1up bars. Going from aluminum to renthal fatbar was night and day for me. That said, I have to run a 35mm stem on new bike and 1up still looks like best option, so probably going to run it. A little worried it's not as good as renthal.
    Yea, same here. Was tired of waiting for a top tube option to avoid damage when crashing if mounted on the handlebars. One thing to note... Depending on which cycling computer you have.. You will have to run a few steer tube spacers to avoid contact with the bars if/when they spin around. I'm running approx 25mm and the bars clear my Wahoo Element Bolt by about 5-7mm.

    Regarding the OneUp bar.. I should have been more clear. I didn't notice much difference going from my old setup that was 35mm RaceFace SixC carbon bar. I haven't ridden aluminum bars in a few years, but I think going from al to this new OneUp bar would be a nice improvement.

  43. #43
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,202
    Revel Rascal... 210 x 50 shock. Which leads to the question - how much room/clearance is there at bottom out?

    ie: would a 210x55 fit? That would be 143mm rear travel and put the Rascal on par with a Ripmo.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    36

    Maiden voyage today!

    Revel Bikes Reviews-37cd052d-7c93-4be0-b99b-bb7e27798d3e.jpg

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Revel Rascal... 210 x 50 shock. Which leads to the question - how much room/clearance is there at bottom out?

    ie: would a 210x55 fit? That would be 143mm rear travel and put the Rascal on par with a Ripmo.
    It would fit but on a severe bottom out you might have tire to seat tube contact.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,278
    Quote Originally Posted by autosmith View Post
    It would fit but on a severe bottom out you might have tire to seat tube contact.
    Sorry, but wouldnít the longer stroke length ensure that it is harder to bottom out? With my limited understanding of suspensions, I think that due to the longer stroke length, the shock requires more effort to reach bottom out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow4eva View Post
    Sorry, but wouldnít the longer stroke length ensure that it is harder to bottom out? With my limited understanding of suspensions, I think that due to the longer stroke length, the shock requires more effort to reach bottom out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Not necessarily, it has more to do with shock setup. With a bunch of volume spacers a 100mm bike can be much harder to bottom than a 165mm bike with no spacers when both are set at proper sag.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,278
    Quote Originally Posted by autosmith View Post
    Not necessarily, it has more to do with shock setup. With a bunch of volume spacers a 100mm bike can be much harder to bottom than a 165mm bike with no spacers when both are set at proper sag.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Thanks for the info. But assuming both the 210x50mm and 210x55mm shock have the same setup (sag and amt of volume spacers) - what would be the outcome?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    After a couple months of failed demo attempts, Iím struggling not to buy a Rascal on faith. Have one sitting in my shopping cart, without even a parking lot test.

    Can anyone compare it to a Spot Mayhem?

    That was my other choice, but I find it a bit harsh (lacks small bump suppleness), a little long in the chain stay (manualing thru rough requires more effort than Iíd like), and the wider top tube is something my active knees had trouble adapting to (banging on leans and corners). Not total deal breakers tho.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bigdrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,393
    Getting close to ordering a Rascal myself. Is the DPX2 $200 better than the Super Delux?

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdrunk View Post
    Getting close to ordering a Rascal myself. Is the DPX2 $200 better than the Super Delux?
    If youíre not one to fiddle, then no. Otherwise it does have better adjustments to fine tune.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    36

    Dpx2?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdrunk View Post
    Getting close to ordering a Rascal myself. Is the DPX2 $200 better than the Super Delux?
    If youíre not one to fiddle, then no. Otherwise it does have better adjustments to fine tune.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Broads72 View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	37CD052D-7C93-4BE0-B99B-BB7E27798D3E.jpg 
Views:	356 
Size:	359.6 KB 
ID:	1270503
    Is that Bryce? Was just out there with my Rascal.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Broads72 View Post
    If youíre not one to fiddle, then no. Otherwise it does have better adjustments to fine tune.
    I agree. I've had the DPX2 on a previous frame. It was really good. But, the stock RS shock on my Rascal is excellent. Really happy with its performance.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    Revel Bikes Reviews-a17107d7-a6cc-4004-b4f8-bd6c8b1052d5.jpg

    Finished the build last night, sunrise ride this morning...

    First impressions, well climbing still sucks, but traction is good with the Ďswitchí turned off. Iíd put it on par with most other offerings in itís class.

    My biggest reservations about 29íers is that they are not exactly Ďtrail scalpelsí. They tend to deaden the trail a bit. Hooking up multiple turns, and popping off little hits typically take a lot for me on the bigger wheels.

    I only had one descent, lots of berms, little doubles, flowy. I can say this bike is super fun. Very active, and rewards a only semi aggressive stance.

    Heading to Crested Butte tomorrow, with a Monarch Crest stop en route. I see this as the perfect bike to bring, however I cant imagine it will be my first choice when riding North Vancouver/ Squamish/ Whistler.

    Still need to dial in the suspension a bit, but Iím really happy so far.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,237
    I see you were on grn mt - so the DH you reference was probably the Rooney reroute?

    This bike is on my list to demo - just rode there yesterday myself and bummed i didn't cross paths. Good looking bike and curious to know when you flog it down Apex - please post a review after!!

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    Ya, Rooney. My usual test route is Box oí Rocks first (top part is best for judging small bump compliance), then back up to Rooney, but was short on time.

    After testing Spot Ryve & Mayhem, Pivot Switchblade, & SB130 on Green Mtn, the Rascal edged out the SB130 for pure fun. It carved and popped really well. I usually do not have the fasted time, but I do like to be fairly active on the trail.

    Iíll get some high speed straight line & Ďplowí moments this weekend and report back.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    83
    Any give a comparison to say something like a new version SB140 or Bronson compared to the Rail? (better/worse/etc)

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    Ya, Rooney. My usual test route is Box oí Rocks first (top part is best for judging small bump compliance), then back up to Rooney, but was short on time.

    After testing Spot Ryve & Mayhem, Pivot Switchblade, & SB130 on Green Mtn, the Rascal edged out the SB130 for pure fun. It carved and popped really well. I usually do not have the fasted time, but I do like to be fairly active on the trail.

    Iíll get some high speed straight line & Ďplowí moments this weekend and report back.
    Thanks for your comprehensive posts NS-NV. For almost 2 years I have been riding a Mayhem and believe that it offers the best compromise of super efficient climbing with good descending characteristics. Recognizing your limited Rascal rides, does the Rascal give up much in climbing efficiency to the Mayhem?

    Also, the cable routing under the bottom bracket seems like it would present some real-time exposure to the cables when clearing taller rock ledges...any issues?

    Thanks and enjoy

    Thanks

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    No issues with the cables below. Not my preferred route, but it seems a few Engineers have thought about this, as it shows up on a few different brands.

    Climbing vs the Mayhem? Ya, on smooth stuff I think it gives up a bit, but I prefer the traction on tech climbs, and less harsh on loose, baseball sized rocks

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    No issues with the cables below. Not my preferred route, but it seems a few Engineers have thought about this, as it shows up on a few different brands.

    Climbing vs the Mayhem? Ya, on smooth stuff I think it gives up a bit, but I prefer the traction on tech climbs, and less harsh on loose, baseball sized rocks
    Thanks NS-NV. The nice feature with the Mayhem is the bike/shock can be ridden wide open almost all of the time. I am sure flipping the firm mode switch on the Rascal is no problemo. I hoping to demo a Rascal in Sedona soon.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cSquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    I thought it was fantastic...really well done!

    Could you say how changing sag will affect the bikes handling or characteristics? Not trying to be argumentative, but changing it has to have some effect...otherwise, why not run it at 0%...or 100%.
    The effect of running less sag?- well, it would then be stiffer. Harder to bottom out.

    The real beauty of it is- No one has their sag set perfectly. 30% of travel... or 30% of shock stroke.... Totally different. Plus you have springs. They come in 50 lbs internals. So no one is going to come up perfectly on sag.

    So having the sag setting be at perfect pedal anywhere in the travel is rad. Same for the effect of climbing and descending. More weight on the rear on steep climbs and less going down. So, sag is going to change depending on the weight transfer.

    There is so much more to handling with this question, but that would take all night.
    I hope this helps.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by tktaylor View Post
    Finally got my new Revel Rail frame built with all my favorite bits and out for the first ride this weekend. First impression - this one is definitely a keeper! Previous bike was 2015 YT Capra and other bike is 2018 Intense Primer so I have great comparisons. Andy at Revel was very helpful with fit and build questions since the purchase was sight unseen. The build was easy as there is nothing to press and cable routing is very clean. The finish on the frame is fantastic. The trails consists of climbs with switchbacks and some tech. The downs are flowy with rock gardens and plenty of opportunity for air for those that want it. The ride finished off with a double black gnar decent. I have a little fork tuning to do but otherwise the Rail was brilliant in every area. I was initially worried in my ďdriveway testĒ after build finish that there was some rear suspension bob but didnít notice anything on the trail. The suspension absorbed every little bump going up and offered some nice squish going down. While I wonít say the Rail is as light and agile as the Primer I was surprised how close it was. I was never totally pleased with the fit of the Capra but the Rail is spot on. For me it positions pretty neutral and ready for whatever I want from it. Loving the Rail so far.

    Revel Rail Medium
    Fox 36 Grip2 170mm travel fork
    Fox X2 165mm travel shock
    Fox Transfer 175mm
    Sram X0 Eagle drivetrain
    XTR Trail brakes and Centerlock rotors 203F, 180R
    LB Recon Pro Carbon 36mm wheelset w/DT240 hubs
    Renthal Carbon Lite bars and Apex 40mm stem
    Koobi PRS saddle
    Maxxis Minion DHF 2.5/DHR 2.4 tires
    Wolf Tooth axles and seat post clamp
    Oury Lock on grips
    29.5 lbs w/o pedals
    I have a 2017 primer with 150mm fork. How does the rail compare to the Primer? Did you consider a rascal?

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    517
    Anyone with one compared how it pedals compared to a tallboy, or Ripley?

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    I just finished the iceman cometh xc race (32 mile and about 2000ft climbing) in northern MI on my Rascal. It was more bike than the race called for but its my favorite bike so I took it anyway. The conditions were horrible, mud nearly the whole way. I could feel the weight of the bike but never felt the suspension was bobbing too much or stealing power. My overall time was much slower than past years but so was everyone elseís, the conditions were just so bad. I ended up 500 positions ahead of my last result and 10 ahead in my age group so I canít be too upset. It was a blast in the Singletracks to pass dozens of people in the mud and fly past others on the fast downhills. If I improve my cardio next year Iím sure itíll end even better.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Pretty great video on Revel and the CBF suspension:
    https://www.worldwidecyclery.com/blo...form-explained

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by autosmith View Post
    I just finished the iceman cometh xc race (32 mile and about 2000ft climbing) in northern MI on my Rascal. It was more bike than the race called for but its my favorite bike so I took it anyway. The conditions were horrible, mud nearly the whole way. I could feel the weight of the bike but never felt the suspension was bobbing too much or stealing power. My overall time was much slower than past years but so was everyone elseís, the conditions were just so bad. I ended up 500 positions ahead of my last result and 10 ahead in my age group so I canít be too upset. It was a blast in the Singletracks to pass dozens of people in the mud and fly past others on the fast downhills. If I improve my cardio next year Iím sure itíll end even better.
    How do you like the Helm fork on it?

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    830
    I just demoed a Revel Rail yesterday because it was the only medium sized 27.5 demo bike I could find that wasn't on sale for the end of the season. I was very impressed by it so I searched MTBR for posts about this bike...

    I'm coming from four different Transition bikes (Suppressor and some Scouts) in medium and large. Prior to that I had a '15 Giant Trance (which sucked) and a '13 Giant Reign X0, both in large.

    The effective top tube on this bike is smack in the middle between Transition's med and large. It fit me well. The reach is shorter than the TR. Again, I didn't know any of this going into the demo. I sat on it and was relieved it fit well.

    I was surprised at how well it pedaled in the open position; and the shock only has two positions, open and locked. I only rocked it locked out on fire roads. It's easy to flip the switch, you just look down between your legs and there it is. On the Scout you have three positions and you can't see the knob, so you have to memorize it. Somehow after three years I still forget all the time.

    Parking lot test I would have thought it was a mid travel bike, if it didn't say 165mm on the side. Easy to lift the front wheel up.

    Hit dirt jumps first, it was a bit more squish going up the take off but boy did it make casing painless. I did better on my first warm up lap than I usually do half a session in. I got more aggressive than usual once I realized casing wasn't gonna hurt much.

    After that a muddy, wet root switchback climb. Had trouble keeping the front wheel down, and when I leaned forward my rear wheel would slip on the roots. I moved the seat forward half an inch and tried to work on getting a more even balance it got a bit better. Still prefer the SBG Scout for this duty, but I could live with it.

    Next a fire road climb that didn't really suck any more than it does on the Scout, then Mohawk, which is a single black jump trail. I've never cleared more than a few jumps on this trail and now I did better, on an unfamiliar bike on a trail covered with snow and mud. Again, the bike is just confidence inspiring.

    I rode an old school rutted fall line trail, some mixed jump/gnar and I forget what else. Had a pretty bad case that I went and didn't hesitate to try again cuz I just wasn't get bucked bad like I'm used to.

    So pretty stoked, only two things I didn't like:
    1) I miss is the steering feel of the SBG Scout. The Rail felt twitchy in comparison
    2) My wrists were pretty sore. I think this means I've got too much weight on them, but I just recently recovered from tendonitis in both wrists, so that could be making it worse than it would be normally.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by scot45 View Post
    How do you like the Helm fork on it?
    I love the Helm. Itís better the faster you go. Great support and holds ground around rough corners and over roots. It is not as plush as some others at low speeds but that might be my setup too.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by fitek View Post
    I just demoed a Revel Rail yesterday because it was the only medium sized 27.5 demo bike I could find that wasn't on sale for the end of the season. I was very impressed by it so I searched MTBR for posts about this bike...

    I'm coming from four different Transition bikes (Suppressor and some Scouts) in medium and large. Prior to that I had a '15 Giant Trance (which sucked) and a '13 Giant Reign X0, both in large.

    The effective top tube on this bike is smack in the middle between Transition's med and large. It fit me well. The reach is shorter than the TR. Again, I didn't know any of this going into the demo. I sat on it and was relieved it fit well.

    I was surprised at how well it pedaled in the open position; and the shock only has two positions, open and locked. I only rocked it locked out on fire roads. It's easy to flip the switch, you just look down between your legs and there it is. On the Scout you have three positions and you can't see the knob, so you have to memorize it. Somehow after three years I still forget all the time.

    Parking lot test I would have thought it was a mid travel bike, if it didn't say 165mm on the side. Easy to lift the front wheel up.

    Hit dirt jumps first, it was a bit more squish going up the take off but boy did it make casing painless. I did better on my first warm up lap than I usually do half a session in. I got more aggressive than usual once I realized casing wasn't gonna hurt much.

    After that a muddy, wet root switchback climb. Had trouble keeping the front wheel down, and when I leaned forward my rear wheel would slip on the roots. I moved the seat forward half an inch and tried to work on getting a more even balance it got a bit better. Still prefer the SBG Scout for this duty, but I could live with it.

    Next a fire road climb that didn't really suck any more than it does on the Scout, then Mohawk, which is a single black jump trail. I've never cleared more than a few jumps on this trail and now I did better, on an unfamiliar bike on a trail covered with snow and mud. Again, the bike is just confidence inspiring.

    I rode an old school rutted fall line trail, some mixed jump/gnar and I forget what else. Had a pretty bad case that I went and didn't hesitate to try again cuz I just wasn't get bucked bad like I'm used to.

    So pretty stoked, only two things I didn't like:
    1) I miss is the steering feel of the SBG Scout. The Rail felt twitchy in comparison
    2) My wrists were pretty sore. I think this means I've got too much weight on them, but I just recently recovered from tendonitis in both wrists, so that could be making it worse than it would be normally.
    Buddy in our group has a Rail and absolutely loves it. He is 64 and rides only once a week but does fine. I took it down one of our gnarliest drop ins at our local trails and it was the plushest suspension I've ever ridden. I'll be demo'ing the Rail, Ibis HD5 and Yeti 140 in early 2020 to pick my next 27.5 bike which will be my gnarly terrain, park, Whistler trip and shuttle type ride bike.
    Carpe Diem!!

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by k2rider1964 View Post
    Buddy in our group has a Rail and absolutely loves it. He is 64 and rides only once a week but does fine. I took it down one of our gnarliest drop ins at our local trails and it was the plushest suspension I've ever ridden. I'll be demo'ing the Rail, Ibis HD5 and Yeti 140 in early 2020 to pick my next 27.5 bike which will be my gnarly terrain, park, Whistler trip and shuttle type ride bike.
    I'm going to demo the large size rail.

    I rode my large size TR Scout. It climbs better IMO and jumps just as well, but the gnarlier trails weren't as much fun. I think I'd trade some climbing ability for more fun going down in all situations.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by fitek View Post
    I'm going to demo the large size rail.

    I rode my large size TR Scout. It climbs better IMO and jumps just as well, but the gnarlier trails weren't as much fun. I think I'd trade some climbing ability for more fun going down in all situations.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GGEC8ztzuU
    Carpe Diem!!

  73. #73
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Pretty interested in building a Rascal - such a clean-looking frame with good geo. But I'd run a Fox36 and DPX2 Factory to make this as burly as possible.

    Is anyone running their fork at 150mm on the Rascal? I know it knocks the HA down .5 degree (or so) then of course the seat tube slackens, etc...

    I hate to mess with geo but wonder who is running it at 150mm and has feedback?

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,237
    I wonder if removing the shock spacer that limits to the 50mm stroke and opens up the extra 5mm, combined w 150mm front fork would deliver a near Long travel Rascal - prob in the 140-145 rear with that stroke config? If rear tire clearance would allow??

    Im simply hypothesizing and frankly don't know Revel would honor warranty at that point!!

    You gotta believe someone in their back room has tried this ??!!

  75. #75
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by kamper11 View Post
    I wonder if removing the shock spacer that limits to the 50mm stroke and opens up the extra 5mm, combined w 150mm front fork would deliver a near Long travel Rascal - prob in the 140-145 rear with that stroke config? If rear tire clearance would allow??

    Im simply hypothesizing and frankly don't know Revel would honor warranty at that point!!

    You gotta believe someone in their back room has tried this ??!!
    Iíd love to know as well. I may even ask them and see if I can squeeze a response out of them.

    If they build a 140/150-160 29, Iím in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    --------------------------
    mtxbraking.com
    Innovative ceramic brake pads for the mtb industry.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    In the past, Iíd be first in line to tinker and modify to alter a designís performance.

    I think the science behind bike design and execution (with certain brands) has evolved to the point that where it is better to leave it alone. Modifying the original intent would most likely take away from what makes the Rascal special.

    If the amount of travel is what makes the Rascal inappropriate for your riding, then itís probably not the right bike for you.

  77. #77
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    In the past, Iíd be first in line to tinker and modify to alter a designís performance.

    I think the science behind bike design and execution (with certain brands) has evolved to the point that where it is better to leave it alone. Modifying the original intent would most likely take away from what makes the Rascal special.

    If the amount of travel is what makes the Rascal inappropriate for your riding, then itís probably not the right bike for you.
    Yep contrary to what I said above I totally agree and had that thought as well. Engineers put their time in and set the points in place for a reason and Iím sure comments against their numbers are a bit insulting. Agreed. But I still want a 140/160 Rascal.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    --------------------------
    mtxbraking.com
    Innovative ceramic brake pads for the mtb industry.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    It may be frame size dependent but I measured it out on mine size large and thereís still room between the seat tube and tire... I donít know what theyíd say for warrantee.

  79. #79
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Also worth noting: I watched a WWC youtube vid on Revel and one of the Canfield bros said they designed their linkage for *3* Revel bikes, one of which they can't talk about yet.

    Hopefully thats a long-er-travel 29.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by KGAmoto View Post
    Also worth noting: I watched a WWC youtube vid on Revel and one of the Canfield bros said they designed their linkage for *3* Revel bikes, one of which they can't talk about yet.

    Hopefully thats a long-er-travel 29.
    Revel also just posted a pic on instagram of a photo-shoot asking what you thought it was. It showed only part of the rear tire. Hopefully itíll be announced soon.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,237
    spidey senses all tingling and I'm guessing a 145 to 150mm rear travel 29er will be forthcoming. That seems a real hotspot in the market these days and the only real "gap" in their offering

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by tktaylor View Post
    Finally got my new Revel Rail frame built with all my favorite bits and out for the first ride this weekend. First impression - this one is definitely a keeper! Previous bike was 2015 YT Capra and other bike is 2018 Intense Primer so I have great comparisons. Andy at Revel was very helpful with fit and build questions since the purchase was sight unseen. The build was easy as there is nothing to press and cable routing is very clean. The finish on the frame is fantastic. The trails consists of climbs with switchbacks and some tech. The downs are flowy with rock gardens and plenty of opportunity for air for those that want it. The ride finished off with a double black gnar decent. I have a little fork tuning to do but otherwise the Rail was brilliant in every area. I was initially worried in my ďdriveway testĒ after build finish that there was some rear suspension bob but didnít notice anything on the trail. The suspension absorbed every little bump going up and offered some nice squish going down. While I wonít say the Rail is as light and agile as the Primer I was surprised how close it was. I was never totally pleased with the fit of the Capra but the Rail is spot on. For me it positions pretty neutral and ready for whatever I want from it. Loving the Rail so far.

    Revel Rail Medium
    Fox 36 Grip2 170mm travel fork
    Fox X2 165mm travel shock
    Fox Transfer 175mm
    Sram X0 Eagle drivetrain
    XTR Trail brakes and Centerlock rotors 203F, 180R
    LB Recon Pro Carbon 36mm wheelset w/DT240 hubs
    Renthal Carbon Lite bars and Apex 40mm stem
    Koobi PRS saddle
    Maxxis Minion DHF 2.5/DHR 2.4 tires
    Wolf Tooth axles and seat post clamp
    Oury Lock on grips
    29.5 lbs w/o pedals
    hey boss, I'm running the same size bike with the same suspension...if you don't mind me asking - what are your float x2 setting?

  83. #83
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    In the past, Iíd be first in line to tinker and modify to alter a designís performance.

    I think the science behind bike design and execution (with certain brands) has evolved to the point that where it is better to leave it alone. Modifying the original intent would most likely take away from what makes the Rascal special.

    If the amount of travel is what makes the Rascal inappropriate for your riding, then itís probably not the right bike for you.
    Talked to one of the guys at Revel today and asked this question: they have a few guys in their shop using 150mm on the Rascal. Just an FYI to anyone wondering. Obviously its an easy switch but if they're doing it...seems legit (but this is referring only to 150mm fork, not long-shocking the stroke).

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by autosmith View Post
    Revel also just posted a pic on instagram of a photo-shoot asking what you thought it was. It showed only part of the rear tire. Hopefully itíll be announced soon.
    They have said to stand by for an announcement on Monday, January 20th.
    Carpe Diem!!

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by k2rider1964 View Post
    They have said to stand by for an announcement on Monday, January 20th.
    Where does it say that?

  86. #86
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by k2rider1964 View Post
    They have said to stand by for an announcement on Monday, January 20th.
    Looks like all it is, is a new silver color for the Rascal. Thatís it. Looks great but not what I was hoping for.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    --------------------------
    mtxbraking.com
    Innovative ceramic brake pads for the mtb industry.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    That new silver is definitely nice looking!
    Kind of surprised they're ditching the black option though.... it's badass too!

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    3
    hm I did notice Revel bikes instagram is also following RevelWheels which is only followed by revel and why cycles...could they be doin up carbon wheels with guidance from envy?

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_berries View Post
    hm I did notice Revel bikes instagram is also following RevelWheels which is only followed by revel and why cycles...could they be doin up carbon wheels with guidance from envy?
    Nice sleuthing. Sounds like you nailed it

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryano4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    68
    Anyone demo'd a Tallboy 4 vs the Rascal? Just wondering what your thoughts would be.
    2020 Revel Rascal
    2019 Santa Cruz Chameleon
    2019 Canyon Ultimate

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by CWnSWCO View Post
    Where does it say that?
    Sorry, I don't check this often but it was either on their FB or IG account.
    Carpe Diem!!

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    175
    https://youtu.be/auw8Q_VH9gI
    These look interesting. A bit on the pricey side though.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,742
    I had the opportunity to ride my buddies Revel Rail (27.5 170/165) out at Greer Ranch yesterday. The old cliche "the bike climbs well for what it is....a long travel bike" fits well here. I think bikes are just so good that it's hard to go completely wrong nowadays. I actually PR'd the 2 mile climb up to the towers which surprised me. I knew the climb felt smooth but it didn't feel especially fast. The rear suspension design produces great traction. Going down is where the bike really shines of course as it soaks up everything. It's one of the plushest suspensions I've never ridden. Since it's a 27.5 and I'm 5-8, it rails corners like you would expect and I like how you can dive deeper into corners where on a 29er, you sweep the corners. Both fun but it' one of the reasons I still enjoy 27.5 bikes. It's built up with a Fox 36 Grip2 and Factory X2 rear shock which didn't hurt matters.

    Fast forward 24 hours and I took out the 29er Revel Rascal on a demo from Pro Bike Supply. It obviously has the same suspension design but with only 140mm travel up front (a RS Lyrik on this build) and 130 in the back (RTS Super Deluxe) andNOBL 36 wheels. I had never ridden either and this was only set up for my weight so I'm sure they could both get better but I was surprised how much more *plush* the Rail was and yeah I know it has more travel. Anyway, climbing through Whiting and up to the Luge was uneventful and it felt that a 29er for sure; after demo'ing the new Yeti 140 27.5 with 2.6 tires last week, the Rascal was a dream. However, I could definitely tell it was heavier than @pperrelle's 27.5 lb Ripley that I rode on Tuesday and wasn't as snappy but the build was much beefier. Anyway, going down the Rascal really stepped up and shined. While it's wasn't plush like the Rail, there is only one word for the rear suspension....AMAZING!!! It essentially soaked up the chatter and brake bumps like no bike I've ever ridden.

    I can sum up the Rascal as simply as this....if you told me I could only have ONE bike right now, I think I'd take a Rascal.
    Carpe Diem!!

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    15
    Great review!
    I'm looking to replace my OG SC Hightower frame and the Rascal is at the top of my list because I could transfer all my parts over. But I have no way of demoing so it's a bit risky.
    Anyone happen to ride the OG Hightower and the Rascal?
    Also how is the fit? I am a bit over 6'1" so I could go L or XL. Leaning XL

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,330
    I almost purchased a Rascal. Love everything about the company, the looks, etc. Then the price went up and I snagged a factory Ripley V4 for hundreds less new. I wanted a better climbing trail bike and feel the Ripley is the best for my needs and trails. BIKE Mag loved the Revel 27.5 but didn't feel the 29er climbed as well, and I agree. But on the descents the design works brilliantly.

    Having said that, I feel the ultimate combo of the Ripley climbing and the Rascal descending (which I put on par with the likes of Evil's Offering) is Esker's suspension Orion (a Dave Weagle design for those who don't know). Finally demo'd their 27.5. I'll leave my short test ride comments be for now, but in my opinion - if the 29er doesn't feel any less of a climber like the Revel's 29er does compared to their 27.5 - the Esker could be MY ultimate bike for climbing AND descending. Up until now I've found every good frame, including my beloved Ripley or an Offering or Rascal, et al, gives up something for something. Not the Esker. Fingers crossed they deliver by April as hoped.

  96. #96
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Look at the numbers - the Rascal is not very "progressive" with its reach, etc. Fit is so subjective, its hard to give suggestions - its so different for each person.

    For example, I'm 5'9", and if I get a Rascal (pretty likely), I will get a Large without-a-doubt. Super-personal, but their Large is fairly close to Mediums from other brands (like the new Ripmo V2 for example - it is very close in reach, stack and wheelbase - almost within a millimeter).



    Quote Originally Posted by babooski92 View Post
    Great review!
    I'm looking to replace my OG SC Hightower frame and the Rascal is at the top of my list because I could transfer all my parts over. But I have no way of demoing so it's a bit risky.
    Anyone happen to ride the OG Hightower and the Rascal?
    Also how is the fit? I am a bit over 6'1" so I could go L or XL. Leaning XL
    --------------------------
    mtxbraking.com
    Innovative ceramic brake pads for the mtb industry.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by KGAmoto View Post
    Look at the numbers - the Rascal is not very "progressive" with its reach, etc. Fit is so subjective, its hard to give suggestions - its so different for each person.

    For example, I'm 5'9", and if I get a Rascal (pretty likely), I will get a Large without-a-doubt. Super-personal, but their Large is fairly close to Mediums from other brands (like the new Ripmo V2 for example - it is very close in reach, stack and wheelbase - almost within a millimeter).
    Just to confuse things, I too am 5í9Ē and got a M Rascal.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    I'm 6'1'' and very happy with a large Rascal.

  99. #99
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    Just to confuse things, I too am 5í9Ē and got a M Rascal.
    Well according to their sizing charts, we are supposed to be on a Medium. Iím the one that would be confusing things. I always feel cramped on most mediums and go back and forth from M to L depending on the numbers.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    --------------------------
    mtxbraking.com
    Innovative ceramic brake pads for the mtb industry.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by KGAmoto View Post
    Well according to their sizing charts, we are supposed to be on a Medium. Iím the one that would be confusing things. I always feel cramped on most mediums and go back and forth from M to L depending on the numbers.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think you have to measure your legs and arms. Search these forums for ape index. Figure out what range of ETT (seated) and reach (for descents) you are comfortable with. I know I like about 625 for ETT, 615 is the shortest I'd do (medium Rail). Only figured that out by sitting on a six or seven different models in M and L.

    I want to demo the large rail, the ETT looks a bit long for me though...

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    73
    So the Rascal caught my attention but was wondering if anyone has tried different fork length or fork offset. I know all the rave right now is in 44mm offsets and this bike still comes with a 51mm.. Also has anyone taken it up to 150mm? Reason I'm asking is because i'd do a frame up build and trying to see what parts in my stock I could or couldn't use.

    Cheers!

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by 8bitMarlon View Post
    So the Rascal caught my attention but was wondering if anyone has tried different fork length or fork offset. I know all the rave right now is in 44mm offsets and this bike still comes with a 51mm.. Also has anyone taken it up to 150mm? Reason I'm asking is because i'd do a frame up build and trying to see what parts in my stock I could or couldn't use.

    Cheers!
    So I haven't tried it with a Rascal but I've swapped fork offsets on two Transition bikes (did an extra 10mm travel too)... It's a slightly different feel but I don't see why you couldn't. I emailed Revel the same Q but they never responded.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  103. #103
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by 8bitMarlon View Post
    So the Rascal caught my attention but was wondering if anyone has tried different fork length or fork offset. I know all the rave right now is in 44mm offsets and this bike still comes with a 51mm.. Also has anyone taken it up to 150mm? Reason I'm asking is because i'd do a frame up build and trying to see what parts in my stock I could or couldn't use.

    Cheers!
    For what itís worth, if I end up with one (frame up as well), I will be installing a 44 offset Fox 36 at 150mm. Iím just going to do it and not worry about it. I talked to someone at Revel and a few of their guys are running 150 on the Rascal, but didnít ask about offset. Youíre fine; just run it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    --------------------------
    mtxbraking.com
    Innovative ceramic brake pads for the mtb industry.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by fitek View Post
    So I haven't tried it with a Rascal but I've swapped fork offsets on two Transition bikes (did an extra 10mm travel too)... It's a slightly different feel but I don't see why you couldn't. I emailed Revel the same Q but they never responded.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Im running a 150 pike 44mm and the bike rides great.

  105. #105
    KVV
    KVV is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KGAmoto View Post
    Well according to their sizing charts, we are supposed to be on a Medium. Iím the one that would be confusing things. I always feel cramped on most mediums and go back and forth from M to L depending on the numbers.
    I'm also 5.9 and demoed M Rascal and it felt just right.

    The only thing I didn't like is missing ISCG mount and a BB slightly lower than I'd prefer, even with 170mm cranks and med-slim flats. Otherwise it's the best FS bike I've ever ridden.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: The STIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    I am 5-10 and bought a size large Rascal. Also have long arms 74-1/4" wingspan for my height. Coming from a medium following mb which I could never make friends with unfortunately, seated or climbing because of the cramped cockpit. I only have a short shakedown ride and 1 - 20 mile, 3500ft elevation, great dh sections, ride on it, but I can tell right off the bat that this bike does climb great. No more fighting to keep the front end down while climbing. Great bike, super happy with it and the large.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,432
    Has anybody heard rumors of a long travel 29er?

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by OldHouseMan View Post
    Has anybody heard rumors of a long travel 29er?
    I'm confident they are working on one, Revel's engineers have dropped some hints in videos, etc, I hope its released sometime soon. A long travel CBF 29er would be amazing.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rom3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by OldHouseMan View Post
    Has anybody heard rumors of a long travel 29er?
    I was told no. A new bike is in the works but not a longer travel 29".

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    503
    I just pulled the trigger on a Rascal... hopefully shipping next week or so to my shop.

    Has anyone ridden one that was bumped up w/ a 150mm front end vs the 140mm Pike? If so, did you notice any significant changes to it's uphill performance? And..in researching bikes there was a bunch of info over on the Santa Cruz Hightower V2 thread about removing a 2.5 or 5mm travel limiting spacer from the rear shock. It was the same shock and size as the Rascals' unit 210mmx50mm. It allowed you to bump the actual stroke up to 52.5mm or even 55mm from the stock 50mm stroke. Could be a free way to bump up the rear travel slightly to maybe 140mm or so out back....
    Last edited by Alta825; 04-23-2020 at 05:04 PM.

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by KGAmoto View Post
    For what itís worth, if I end up with one (frame up as well), I will be installing a 44 offset Fox 36 at 150mm. Iím just going to do it and not worry about it. I talked to someone at Revel and a few of their guys are running 150 on the Rascal, but didnít ask about offset. Youíre fine; just run it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I can confirm they responded with the use of 150mm travel and some of their employees run it that way. Prob slackens STA about 1/2 degree so will effect climbing a little.
    Iím considering one and would move my Fox 36 grip2 over to it. May swap to a 140mm air shaft to keep STA for climbs.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    14
    Anyone here coming off a Rocky Mountain Instinct as a comparison? Thatís my current bike but interested in the Rascal, especially in the climbing capability.
    Thanks

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryano4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Alta825 View Post
    I just pulled the trigger on a Rascal... hopefully shipping next week or so to my shop.

    Has anyone ridden one that was bumped up w/ a 150mm front end vs the 140mm Pike? If so, did you notice any significant changes to it's uphill performance? And..in researching bikes there was a bunch of info over on the Santa Cruz Hightower V2 thread about removing a 2.5 or 5mm travel limiting spacer from the rear shock. It was the same shock and size as the Rascals' unit 210mmx50mm. It allowed you to bump the actual stroke up to 52.5mm or even 55mm from the stock 50mm stroke. Could be a free way to bump up the rear travel slightly to maybe 140mm or so out back....

    I had a 150 pike on my Rascal and now have a 150 Lyrik about to put on. Never tried it with a 140 so I don't know but the 150 is great! Climbs fine and descends amazing. Really nice and plush ride.
    2020 Revel Rascal
    2019 Santa Cruz Chameleon
    2019 Canyon Ultimate

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    137
    Revel Bikes Reviews-6ff68e14-375c-4796-8fd6-fea84d8b4df6.jpg

    Best bikes in the biz!

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    137
    Revel Bikes Reviews-63f64713-144d-4c05-bfcb-d6d99d67eb0f.jpg

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    137
    Revel Bikes Reviews-b2d26662-520a-4b43-8290-1dbf050ca4f5.jpg

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    503
    OK, who'll be the 1st to rock a Push 11-6 rear shock now that they sorted out details on it?

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Alta825 View Post
    OK, who'll be the 1st to rock a Push 11-6 rear shock now that they sorted out details on it?
    is it available an upgrade at revel ?

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    503
    Not directly from Revel I believe, but PUSH just added it to their offerings and had it posted up on their Insta the other day

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    19
    This may be a little out of left field, but has anyone considered short stroking the revel rail? Iíve been looking for a 150mm travel 275 bike with more moderate geo with a reach of around 470. Surprisingly not many bikes like this are out there. I tried the new hd5 but I found it difficult to weight the front end down with its 64degree headangle. I have a 230x60 shock and using that should reduce the travel to 153mm. Iíd run a 160 fork which would lower the bb by like 3mm and steepen the angles by .5 degrees. Can someone tell me if/why this is a bad idea?

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,408
    How does the STA feel?
    I do like steep and wanted STA around 76-77*. I have some pretty steep hills in my area (Laguna, CA).
    Also, could anyone who has some time on HD5 or Ripmo v2 compare it to the Rail?
    I might be selling my long shocked TB4, since I found 140mm in the front no it to be enough for my riding and might be going back to longer bike. Not sure if 27.5 (Still own coiled Nomad 3) or 29 yet. I am 5.8 and 140lbs.

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    503
    Building up the new Rascal this weekend - question on Chainring spacing/setup.... HAve a Boost XO Crankset w/ their 32T 3mm Boost offset ring and the SRAM DUB bottombracket - But I'm having issues getting the chainring and the Revel Guide to line up and not rub in thel ower 2 climbing gears. What setup are you all running to keep it centered and running quiet? Thanks! and I'll probably call Revel CS tomorrow but hoping to hit the trail today with the drivetrain running smooth

  123. #123
    dirt surfer
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    29
    Alta, my rascal came with 2, 2mm spacers for the chain guide and Iím running an Absolute Black oval chainring, 3mm offset. I ended up replacing the rear 2mm spacer with a 1mm and 0.5mm spacer, nice and quiet.

    And the Rascal rips!!! I was on multiple Pivot bikes the past 10 years and when I test rode the Rascal last summer, I was hooked! Just hit the 1000 mile mark this past weekend and still blown away by how good this bike rides. I always used the climb switch while riding my Pivotís for those nice long uphills here in Colorado, with the Rascal, I quickly found out that I donít use the climb switch anymore. The bike continues to want to drive as long as you can keep the pedals moving with minimal pedal bob. I did experience more than usual pedal strikes in the beginning, but also found the 2020 Pike Ultimate sat at about 132mm once the wheels were on the ground with no rider weight. I changed out to the new Debonair C1 air shaft and bumped it up to 150mm, no more pedal strikes! This bike will climb whatever you want and then just rips on the downhill!! Add in the fact that theyíre out of Carbondale and the diversity, experience, and knowledge of their team is bad ass! Their love of bikes is truly apparent and their customer service is top notch!!
    Cheers to the Revel crew for making such sweet bikes!

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryano4u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    68
    I'd like to see if anyone else has noticed significant rear flex with the Rascal. All pivots are to spec and so is the rear axle. Rear wheel is a SC reserve 30 - Hydra hub and its fine. I can hand push the wheel to touch the side of the swing arm. Tire is a 2.3 Minion SS. so nothing huge.. Kinda boggled with it..
    2020 Revel Rascal
    2019 Santa Cruz Chameleon
    2019 Canyon Ultimate

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    137
    Iíve Been able to do that with every bike Iíve owned. Itís the wheel flexing not the frame in my case.

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: The STIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Alta825 View Post
    Building up the new Rascal this weekend - question on Chainring spacing/setup.... HAve a Boost XO Crankset w/ their 32T 3mm Boost offset ring and the SRAM DUB bottombracket - But I'm having issues getting the chainring and the Revel Guide to line up and not rub in thel ower 2 climbing gears. What setup are you all running to keep it centered and running quiet? Thanks! and I'll probably call Revel CS tomorrow but hoping to hit the trail today with the drivetrain running smooth
    I run a sram decendant crank, dub bb, shimano 11 speed. spacer per revel is 4.5 mm on drive side. start there and adjust for your setup?

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Alta825 View Post
    OK, who'll be the 1st to rock a Push 11-6 rear shock now that they sorted out details on it?
    Thatíll be me. Ordering it within the week. Iíll gladly be the guinea pig!!!

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by cpolism View Post
    Thatíll be me. Ordering it within the week. Iíll gladly be the guinea pig!!!
    You've got a Rascal, right? They can make an 11-6 to fit a Rascal??

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cpolism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by CWnSWCO View Post
    You've got a Rascal, right? They can make an 11-6 to fit a Rascal??
    Yep, sure do! As for the 11-6, Push announced either last week or the week before that they now support the Rail and Rascal. I think the bike does just fine with the super deluxe but since I do a good bit of park riding, Iíve just been waiting patiently for Push to support the Revel lineup.

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    503
    Damn. This thing rips! Built it up last weekend and have gotten a few rides on it so far. Still dialing in the suspension... running a 150mm Pike Ultimate with the new '21 Fox DPX2 rear....

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1
    I think of this type of product line for my car. Does anyone use it?

    https://www.bestautoproducts.com/pos...ck-hitch-mount

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,408
    Any new reviews guys?
    I am thinking to sell my TB4 and go back to long travel 27.5, I also own a coiled Nomad 3. Rail is at the top of my list at the moment,but still want to try a longer travel 29, most likely Ripmo2.
    I will also demo a Rascal soon. No Rail demos in my area though.
    How do you find the not so steep ST?

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    Any new reviews guys?


    I am thinking to sell my TB4 and go back to long travel 27.5, I also own a coiled Nomad 3. Rail is at the top of my list at the moment,but still want to try a longer travel 29, most likely Ripmo2.
    I will also demo a Rascal soon. No Rail demos in my area though.
    How do you find the not so steep ST?
    I owned a TB3, Rascal, and Rail.

    Sold the first two and kept the Rail. I freaking love it. Itís built up super light and itís the perfect do it all trail bike.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    36

    Not good with current top tubes.

    Quote Originally Posted by kobike86 View Post
    I think of this type of product line for my car. Does anyone use it?

    https://www.bestautoproducts.com/pos...ck-hitch-mount
    Due to the angled top tubes of most of todayís bikes, the clamp system doesnít hold the bikes securely. Iíve had two bikes fall off the rack until I realized what was going on.

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Gratefulone View Post
    I owned a TB3, Rascal, and Rail.

    Sold the first two and kept the Rail. I freaking love it. Itís built up super light and itís the perfect do it all trail bike.

    Why the rail and not the rascal? Travel difference or something else?

  136. #136
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    On the phone with the Revel sales office about Rascal frame availability last week... sounds like the wait is at least 2 months. On the other hand... The sales guy did mention that they have a new bike in the pipeline... and he didn't correct me when I said I hoped it was "a downcountry bike with CBF"... so I think we've got that to look forward to! Adam Miller (the founder) had this photo on his instagram, too: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBiyHy-l2wR/
    The forks on the two new bikes are blacked out, but I'm going to guess (given the black stanchions) that we're looking at the new Sid 35 in the 120mm travel. (Could be a Pike, but that would overlap with the Rascal more.) So, a 120/120 bike? Competitor to the Top Fuel, Ryve, HeiHei, Scalpel SE, new Epic Evo?! Dang, "downcountry" is a happening segment....

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by CWnSWCO View Post
    I'm 6'1'' and very happy with a large Rascal.
    Reallly?!? I'm 6'1", and rode around the parking lot on a large rascal. I've never ridden any other size. It felt cramped, and my shop guy says I need an XL. I have 60 reach arms, and according to him, a long torso. I'm just nervous that an XL will feel good in the parking lot, but not on the trail. What size stem do you run? 60??

    FYI my shop guy is 5'10" and is riding a large rascal, said it's the only brand he rides large. Maybe Revel bikes fit small?

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    503
    5'10 - 33" inseam here and the LG fits perfectly... 35mm stem

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdcominacha View Post
    Reallly?!? I'm 6'1", and rode around the parking lot on a large rascal. I've never ridden any other size. It felt cramped, and my shop guy says I need an XL. I have 60 reach arms, and according to him, a long torso. I'm just nervous that an XL will feel good in the parking lot, but not on the trail. What size stem do you run? 60??

    FYI my shop guy is 5'10" and is riding a large rascal, said it's the only brand he rides large. Maybe Revel bikes fit small?
    6'1" with 40mm stem. Yep, I am very happy with the large Rascal. But, I don't geek out or freak out on sizing as much as many others do. If I had gotten the XL, I'd probably be happy with that too.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by cpolism View Post
    Yep, sure do! As for the 11-6, Push announced either last week or the week before that they now support the Rail and Rascal. I think the bike does just fine with the super deluxe but since I do a good bit of park riding, Iíve just been waiting patiently for Push to support the Revel lineup.
    Did you get your 11-6 for the Rascal? How's it riding?

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    899
    https://m.pinkbike.com/news/revel-bi...rail-bike.html


    Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    2
    I have been trying to locate a large Rascal frame or complete build. Does anyone know of any retailers/dealers with one in-stock? Current lead time direct from Revel is September.

  143. #143
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    OK, so it will be the RANGER ... maybe pairs well with a Ford truck?!? Being a Toyota guy myself, maybe it's fitting that the Pinkbike announcement lost my attention as soon as it bragged that the frame was "over a pound lighter" than the Rascal frame... which is to say, ONLY a pound (ish) lighter than a fairly heavy (6.5lb) frame!! I am psyched about a short-travel CBF platform, but I like the idea of building a light Rascal with a 130mm MRP Ribbon SL, 1600g wheels, 2.4 Rekons, and a 150mm dropper as an all-day rocket ship for technical east coast rides. The Ranger I think is going to fall into that weird middle category between an XC-race-inspired, fast-pedalling bike that's been over forked and has knobby rubber on it (I think that's what the kids are calling "downcountry") and a heavy-hitting 120/130 trail bike, like a Trail 429, Ripley or an older SB4.5 or v3 Tallboy. Except...all those frames are/were lighter than the Ranger frame.... eesh! That said, I will for sure ride the Ranger when it's available for demo and hopefully I'll be a Revel owner someday...just need to decide which bike!

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,408
    How heavy is the Rail?

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by gubbinalia View Post
    OK, so it will be the RANGER ... maybe pairs well with a Ford truck?!? Being a Toyota guy myself, maybe it's fitting that the Pinkbike announcement lost my attention as soon as it bragged that the frame was "over a pound lighter" than the Rascal frame... which is to say, ONLY a pound (ish) lighter than a fairly heavy (6.5lb) frame!! I am psyched about a short-travel CBF platform, but I like the idea of building a light Rascal with a 130mm MRP Ribbon SL, 1600g wheels, 2.4 Rekons, and a 150mm dropper as an all-day rocket ship for technical east coast rides. The Ranger I think is going to fall into that weird middle category between an XC-race-inspired, fast-pedalling bike that's been over forked and has knobby rubber on it (I think that's what the kids are calling "downcountry") and a heavy-hitting 120/130 trail bike, like a Trail 429, Ripley or an older SB4.5 or v3 Tallboy. Except...all those frames are/were lighter than the Ranger frame.... eesh! That said, I will for sure ride the Ranger when it's available for demo and hopefully I'll be a Revel owner someday...just need to decide which bike!
    What makes the Ďmoderní short travel bike like the Ranger/ SB100/ Ryve great, also leads to the requirement of needing them to be beefier. These bikes are so much more capable than the 4Ē bikes of the past, so they will spend a lot of their time punching above their weight class.

    I think manufacturers are gravitating to performance over weight in their designs, to avoid the ĎCrackNfailí type monikers of the past.

    Eventhough I am a recovering weight weenie, I still am conscious of it, but the reality is, a pound on this type of bike for even an above average rider makes no difference in how much pain you will endure.

  146. #146
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    What makes the Ďmoderní short travel bike like the Ranger/ SB100/ Ryve great, also leads to the requirement of needing them to be beefier. These bikes are so much more capable than the 4Ē bikes of the past, so they will spend a lot of their time punching above their weight class.

    I think manufacturers are gravitating to performance over weight in their designs, to avoid the ĎCrackNfailí type monikers of the past.

    Eventhough I am a recovering weight weenie, I still am conscious of it, but the reality is, a pound on this type of bike for even an above average rider makes no difference in how much pain you will endure.
    Completely agree that the Ranger frame should be compared to the SB100 in terms of weight, given that they're both angling toward the trail/"downcountry" end of the traditional XC-bike spectrum (what we used to call XC bikes, anyhow). In the terms of that comparison I bet the Ranger is more than light enough, especially given the advantages of CBF -- my sense is that 115mm of CBF-equipped travel will feel more than capable relative to many 120-130mm travel trail bikes of the recent past. (The SB100 generated some similar "rides-like-more-than-100mm" comments, but Switch Infinity is a different beast...)

    Question is, how does that extra pound of weight translate into different spec/build decisions for that "above average" rider who wants to suffer through some 100k/100mile NUE events, or stage races like Breck Epic, BCBR, Transylvania, etc., but also use the bike as something of a daily driver/trail bike? That's where the confusion comes in -- and I think the potential downside. The specs on a midlevel build for a bike like the Ranger are really drifting into trail-bike territory with 900g tires, four-piston brakes, 30mm iD wheels, etc. Which is awesome for riding fast on technical trails, but not really a "race" setup for anyone who wants to pedal fast uphill and survive the downs -- i.e. marathon racing in a nutshell.

    You could run superlight XC wheels and change over some other components on the Ranger and make it race-ready, but that would mean you're not getting the same advantages that make the frame heavier to begin with. Personally, I'd rather have two different bikes (something like a Rascal as a daily driver, and then a true 100mm XC bike) instead of trying to make the Ranger pull double duty. That way you get the full advantages of a trail bike (plush suspension, more durable components, longer/slacker geo) for all-around technical riding; and the benefits of a sub-25lb, race-ready whip with stiff suspension and quick handling for XC riding.

    Of course, if you only wanted to own one bike, the Ranger would be tough to beat.....

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    31
    I think your last sentence is accurate. Only own one bike that is tough to beat. That is a market I think companies and riders are going for. It is getting more like skis with different models, but when we are talking expensive bikes I am not sure that many people can afford 2 or have time to ride 2 different bikes. If a person works full time and rides 3-4 days a week... I feel a lot of people are way over biked as far as big travel and heavier bikes and riding them on XC style trails. I think when they upgrade to their next bike they will opt for these 24-26 pound models that are still super fun to ride on most trails. Plus they will be new and cool and the shops will be telling them how light and capable they are etc...
    To conclude I would like to test ride the Ranger.

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    7

    Hd5 vs revel rail

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    How does the STA feel?
    I do like steep and wanted STA around 76-77*. I have some pretty steep hills in my area (Laguna, CA).
    Also, could anyone who has some time on HD5 or Ripmo v2 compare it to the Rail?
    I might be selling my long shocked TB4, since I found 140mm in the front no it to be enough for my riding and might be going back to longer bike. Not sure if 27.5 (Still own coiled Nomad 3) or 29 yet. I am 5.8 and 140lbs.
    I rode and hd5 for about 2 months sold it and got a revel rail. I am very happy with my decision. The bottom bracket of the HD5 is way too higher, donít understand why no one mentions that in the reviews. It is 353mm vs 337 for the rail. The lower center of gravity in the rail results in much better position to carve turns and a gives you more confidence riding down at speed. The rear suspension of the rail is more forgiving and climbing, both bikes are very good climbers. The hd5 is lighter; but I would rather carry an extra pound or two climbing in exchange of the confidence I get going down with the rail.

  149. #149
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by angryoldman View Post
    I think your last sentence is accurate. Only own one bike that is tough to beat. That is a market I think companies and riders are going for. It is getting more like skis with different models, but when we are talking expensive bikes I am not sure that many people can afford 2 or have time to ride 2 different bikes. If a person works full time and rides 3-4 days a week... I feel a lot of people are way over biked as far as big travel and heavier bikes and riding them on XC style trails. I think when they upgrade to their next bike they will opt for these 24-26 pound models that are still super fun to ride on most trails. Plus they will be new and cool and the shops will be telling them how light and capable they are etc...
    To conclude I would like to test ride the Ranger.
    I don't know, I think a lot of people (especially in flatter areas of the country) have always gone for the two-bike quiver, with the everyday bike being a lighter XC bike or hardtail and then a big smashy rig for those vacations to Moab, Pisgah, the PNW, or wherever. That's less true here in the mountainous Northeast where almost everyone gravitated toward a "quiver of one" that's around the 130-150 range in the past few years, now that bikes like the SB130, RipMo, Switchblade, etc. can pedal really well and descend more confidently. (The Rascal is in this category but isn't common around here, yet.) Whether those sorts of riders will be seduced by a lighter, shorter travel bike remains to be seen. I think that bike retail will definitely do a better job selling short travel bikes to less-knowledgeable customers now that options like the Ranger are on the market. And, it can't be denied that owning a short travel bike might be becoming "cool" again with shreddy brands like Transition putting out models. The Tallboy 4, Following and Ripley are already popular around here so it wouldn't be crazy to see folks dropping another 2-3lbs from their trail bikes with a Ranger.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    899
    Just saw an ad for this on pinkbike:

    https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...ail-7/p/30914/

    WTF trek?

    Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    Guessing Trek didnít have the name registered first, and itís not worth it for Revel to pursue.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    Guessing Trek didnít have the name registered first, and itís not worth it for Revel to pursue.
    Yeah, just a d-bag move on treks part to steal the name from a small company.

    Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

  153. #153
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65

    Revel Ranger 2021

    Finally pulled the trigger and put down a deposit a Ranger frame in the "De la Coal" graphite/black color. Got over my initial worry about the frame weight and learned to embrace the downcountry bike....hahah. Planning on building it as an allrounder not an XC race bike, since I want a CBF trail bike but don't need/want the longer travel and slacker geo of the Rascal for my local trails. So 120mm Fox 34 SC, XT/XTR drivetrain, carbon cranks, XT 4piston brakes, and likely Nox Farlow rims on I9 Hydra hubs. Schwalbe Hans Dampf/Magic Mary 2.35 which is a suprisingly light combo. I'll be interested to see how much it weighs in the end, and more importantly how well it pedals. 27lbs would be completely reasonable for a chunk-gobbling tech climber and snappy descender. My current bike (Ripley) is a hair under 29lbs with a Pike and mostly alloy components, so some lighter parts are in order if I want to shed weight. The frames are about the same weight between the two bikes but I just can't get along with the almost enduro style geo on the Ripley.

    Wondering if anyone else is considering this bike amidst the flood of new downcountry rigs hitting the market. Fanatik Bike did a comparison of the Ranger with the Transition Spur (which seems like it's going to be super popular) and then there's the racier Specialized, Cannondale, Orbea, etc. models. The Ranger looks like the sweet spot to me.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    302
    Thinking hard about ordering one, but scared to do so without some more input and actual rider experiences...primarily due to fit and sizing. At 5' 10" I seem to be right on the edge between medium and large. Looking at the numbers, and currently riding "large" (19.5) Trek Stache and Top Fuel, I was really leaning towards a large. But then the Ranger reach numbers are somewhat longer than other brands, and an inquiry to the guys at Revel didn't really instill confidence in my tentative direction. They pretty much just reiterated that I was right on the edge between the 2 sizes. I've also been at this long enough, had enough different bikes over the years, to know that comparing the numbers and geo charts of different bikes often don't give the logical and full answers. So...what size did you order?

  155. #155
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Seems like this thread (the "reviews" thread) is starting to stall out a bit, and there are also Rascal/Ranger build threads in the 29er Forum. But I figured I'd throw up a "ride review" of the Rascal for those curious about the bike (which is hardly new, but has been hard to demo this year with Covid). My LBS (Ranch Camp in Stowe, VT) just got a size run of Rascals to demo and I've gotten four days of riding on the XL thus far, in the "Sedona" orange-ish colorway. Still haven't gotten to demo the Ranger -- I'm sold on getting a Revel, just unsure which bike to build, ultimately -- so hoping to do that soon.

    Background on me -- 6'3" 185lbs, riding MTBs about 15yrs, taking it more seriously in the last 4-5 with lots of time spent trail riding in the Northeastern US, mostly VT/NH and southern Quebec. Enthusiastic but not particularly talented; love tech trails but don't ride fast or aggressively; love climbing and big days of pedaling. I generally ride 4-5 days a week during our May-October riding season and also do a handful of XC races, as well as training for 2-3 marathon NUE races per season (Hampshire 100, Wilderness 101, Carrabasset 100k, Shenandoah) on the east coast. I'd say about 60% of my lifetime mileage is on hardtails (geared or singlespeed) with the remainder split evenly between 100mm XC full suspension bikes and 120-140mm trail bikes. Most recent trail bikes I've owned/rode prior to the Rascal have been a 2016 Trek Top Fuel (120/130), Ibis Ripley v2 and Ripley v4, Rocky Mtn Instinct 140/150, Transition Sentinel, Santa Cruz Tallboy, and Spec Stumpjumper ST (in no particular order). Of those, my favorite was definitely the Ripley v2, hands down.

    I just sold my Ripley v4, so I demo'ed the Rascal for three days and took it through a gamut of my favorite rides in northern VT. First was a 2.5hr Friday night hammerfest with some friends on a local "XC"-ish trail system with lots of natural terrain, hard pedaling and chunky corners. First impression was that the XL bike still felt quick and nimble on climbs without too much body english required to squeeze it through corners. Despite the weight (33.4 lbs with the stock wheels and tires: Ind9 Enduro wheels, 30.5iD w/ Aggressor 2.3 DC + DHF 2.5 3C) it translated power really well from slow speeds to acceleration, and when stomping on the pedals the bike felt super responsive under power. On mellow climbs the bike had an almost XC-bike efficiency under hard pedaling, and on tech climbs the suspension made short rock crawl sections and tech moves quite simple. (The tech climbs didn't go as FAST as they would on a Ripley or an XC bike, but they were easy to clean, especially shorter ones.) Descending, the bike felt stable and planted, like it was really hugging the ground, and was very smooth engaging into and out of turns. I was impressed by my ability to carry speed through rock gardens really without trying; the bike just floated on through with minimal effort. I finished the ride feeling more tired than I would have on a lighter/shorter travel bike, but the Strava of the ride suggested I'd done it just as fast, if not faster, than before.

    The second day, I took the Rascal out for a long solo morning ride at a more moderate pace, looping a mix of tech and flow trails near home with a few big (600-1000') climbs. Ended up being 28mi, +4200' done at a moderate pace, with a few stops. Timing-wise, I ended up about 20min behind what I could do on a more aggressive pace on my 25lb XC bike, but I was amazed by how fresh I felt, especially on descents. While I couldn't open up on the high-speed descending like on the Sentinel (a bike I found interesting, but hated to pedal, and sold after 2months of riding), the Rascal was super forgiving and let me stay at speed with less effort. I also changed the suspension settings to run less compression in the Pike Select+ fork up front, and run the Super Deluxe at higher pressure to give me more support when popping up and over things. This made the bike a lot more playful and upped the nimbleness factor on rolling and descending terrain.

    On the final day, I did an easy Sunday group ride with friends and then a quick time trial loop on my own. I wanted to give the bike a solid effort and get some timing data before I gave it back, so I swapped the stock wheels/tires to a set of carbon rims with a Rekon 2.4 out back and Forekaster 2.6 up front. This brought the total bike weight down to 31.7lbs (1.65lbs less) which was mostly noticeable on smooth switchbacks and dirt roads, not so much tech climbs. The loop I chose is about 12.5mi with 1850' of climbing and descending (two big climbs, one long descent, one short descent, a road section) and a good mix of bench cut climbing, moderate tech, some flow, and a couple big rock gardens on the descent. I've done it in 1:23 on an SS hardtail while training, but usually it's a 1:45-2:00 loop at a moderate pace. On the Rascal I was comfortable pedaling at a "fun hard" pace and making up time on the descents by taking some inside lines and carrying speed well, and I came through the loop in 1:29. I was honestly surprised that I could be in striking distance of my PR on a bike that is literally 11lbs heavier, but again, the descending just felt easy and smooth and I was able to recover well on the downs.

    After those three days of riding (plus a fourth ride a few weeks later) I really can't say anything negative about this bike. It climbs efficiently, it descends confidently; it's not an XC bike or an enduro bike, but just an exemplary modern trail bike that can do everything I would want it to. My only hangup on buying one is that I think the Ranger might be able to descend almost as well, but climb/pedal a bit better. The Rascal pedals phenomenally for a 130/140 bike (light years ahead of an SB130 or an older 135mm Switchblade), and I didn't notice the weight too much, but it's got the "enduro" rider in mind with geo and setup. I had to run the stem almost slammed and the bars rolled super far back to get enough saddle to bar drop to be in a power position on climbs, and keep the front wheel weighted on flat corners. I have deposits down on both bikes but I'd love to demo the Ranger before I make a final call.

    The TL;DR of all this? CBF is the real deal - not just for big technical descents, but for pedaling/XC riding as well. I actually think it's underrated for hard pedaling since it doesn't need a lockout/firm-out to have a great pedaling platform. Go try it if you haven't already ;-)

    Revel Bikes Reviews-img_1097.jpg

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    187
    great review, cant wait to here what you think of the ranger when you get it. I am really thinking hard on the ranger also and there is not a whole lot of info out there although there is some. One very nice thing about the ranger it can take any size 2.6 - 29 on the rear or even a plus 27 on the rear. mullets bikes are super fun somtetimes nice to have that option. not seeing that on the other down country bikes, that I know of.

    when is your bike expected in??

    did you consider any other bikes??

  157. #157
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Mac View Post
    great review, cant wait to here what you think of the ranger when you get it. I am really thinking hard on the ranger also and there is not a whole lot of info out there although there is some. One very nice thing about the ranger it can take any size 2.6 - 29 on the rear or even a plus 27 on the rear. mullets bikes are super fun somtetimes nice to have that option. not seeing that on the other down country bikes, that I know of.

    when is your bike expected in??

    did you consider any other bikes??
    Thanks dude, glad you didn't fall asleep midway through reading my ramblings, hahah. I'm pretty confident that I'll like the Ranger just as much, if not more, but I could be surprised. A Ranger with a 130mm Pike up front would overlap quite a bit with the Rascal both in travel and geo. Even with the 120mm fork, they've got nearly identical seat tube angles (75.3 vs 75.0, and with slightly less sag), headtube angles within a degree (accounting for sag) of eachother, wheelbase/reach/ETT all very close as well.

    That's interesting you mention the tire clearance, I'm not totally sure if 2.6" will clear on the Ranger. That's the claimed clearance on their site but, when you look at photos, the stock 2.4" Rekon doesn't look like it has boatloads of space on either side of it. Maybe in CO dry/dusty conditions the 2.6" would clear the chainstays, but in New England mud/wet I might stick with the smaller tires. On the Rascal, my personal 2.4" Rekon on a 30iD rim in the back would have for sure caused some scratching on the frame in wet conditions, but that one is listed as having only 2.5" clearance to begin with.

    I'm not a 27.5+/650B+ advocate myself, but it's cool Revel is offering the option. They do have a couple bikepack racers on their sponsored athlete team (Liz Sampey, who has the CR on the AZT, and Jefe Branham, who has won the Tour Divide and CTR many times) so the plus option might be aimed at the bikepacking market. Personally I think 2.4" is pretty cushy and grippy as is, coming from a decade+ of 2.1-2.25" tires.

    If you're looking for some early info on the Ranger, the Worldwide Cyclery social media channels have some photos and details on it. They put in a big preorder for medium/large sizes supposedly and are really staking themselves as Revel's main online retailer. Unfortunately, they're only offering the 3 Revel stock builds, not a custom build program a la Fanatik. So I'm just gonna go frame-up.

    XL frame is supposed to ship in late Sept/early Oct. Not sure how much riding I'll get on it before the end of the season, sadly, but I do love staring at a new bike all winter :-) I also try to make it south to Stokesville and Rothrock in the corner seasons and the Ranger could be the perfect bike for those zones (lots of long rides with moderate chunk). I don't make it to Pisgah every year but I think the Rascal would be the better Pisgah weapon. Those "gaps" are gnar.

    Other bikes I considered, relative to the Rascal: SB130; Pivot Switchblade (new and old); Norco Optic (haven't test-rode); Evil Offering. None of them pedalled as well as the Rascal, not even close. Meanwhile, with the Ranger, it's kind of in a category of its own: somewhat conservative geo numbers relative to, say, the Transition Spur; much more traction than a single-pivot Epic Evo; longer reach than a SB100/115. Pretty much nails everything I'm looking for.

    I'll be stoked to see how folks are liking their Rangers as the mediums/larges start to ship. Patiently waiting!!

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by gubbinalia View Post
    Thanks dude, glad you didn't fall asleep midway through reading my ramblings, hahah. I'm pretty confident that I'll like the Ranger just as much, if not more, but I could be surprised. A Ranger with a 130mm Pike up front would overlap quite a bit with the Rascal both in travel and geo. Even with the 120mm fork, they've got nearly identical seat tube angles (75.3 vs 75.0, and with slightly less sag), headtube angles within a degree (accounting for sag) of eachother, wheelbase/reach/ETT all very close as well.

    That's interesting you mention the tire clearance, I'm not totally sure if 2.6" will clear on the Ranger. That's the claimed clearance on their site but, when you look at photos, the stock 2.4" Rekon doesn't look like it has boatloads of space on either side of it. Maybe in CO dry/dusty conditions the 2.6" would clear the chainstays, but in New England mud/wet I might stick with the smaller tires. On the Rascal, my personal 2.4" Rekon on a 30iD rim in the back would have for sure caused some scratching on the frame in wet conditions, but that one is listed as having only 2.5" clearance to begin with.

    I'm not a 27.5+/650B+ advocate myself, but it's cool Revel is offering the option. They do have a couple bikepack racers on their sponsored athlete team (Liz Sampey, who has the CR on the AZT, and Jefe Branham, who has won the Tour Divide and CTR many times) so the plus option might be aimed at the bikepacking market. Personally I think 2.4" is pretty cushy and grippy as is, coming from a decade+ of 2.1-2.25" tires.

    If you're looking for some early info on the Ranger, the Worldwide Cyclery social media channels have some photos and details on it. They put in a big preorder for medium/large sizes supposedly and are really staking themselves as Revel's main online retailer. Unfortunately, they're only offering the 3 Revel stock builds, not a custom build program a la Fanatik. So I'm just gonna go frame-up.

    XL frame is supposed to ship in late Sept/early Oct. Not sure how much riding I'll get on it before the end of the season, sadly, but I do love staring at a new bike all winter :-) I also try to make it south to Stokesville and Rothrock in the corner seasons and the Ranger could be the perfect bike for those zones (lots of long rides with moderate chunk). I don't make it to Pisgah every year but I think the Rascal would be the better Pisgah weapon. Those "gaps" are gnar.

    Other bikes I considered, relative to the Rascal: SB130; Pivot Switchblade (new and old); Norco Optic (haven't test-rode); Evil Offering. None of them pedalled as well as the Rascal, not even close. Meanwhile, with the Ranger, it's kind of in a category of its own: somewhat conservative geo numbers relative to, say, the Transition Spur; much more traction than a single-pivot Epic Evo; longer reach than a SB100/115. Pretty much nails everything I'm looking for.

    I'll be stoked to see how folks are liking their Rangers as the mediums/larges start to ship. Patiently waiting!!
    Iím nearly the same height and weight as you Gubbinalia. Sounds like the Rascal fit you well and was confidence inspiring. Curious the Stem length you ended up with? Saddle position? Iíve got very long arms and almost never need to slam a stem on a mtn bike. Usually I gotta go riser bar.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  159. #159
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Rideon View Post
    Iím nearly the same height and weight as you Gubbinalia. Sounds like the Rascal fit you well and was confidence inspiring. Curious the Stem length you ended up with? Saddle position? Iíve got very long arms and almost never need to slam a stem on a mtn bike. Usually I gotta go riser bar.
    The XL frame was definitely a good fit for me -- actually might have felt a little short in the reach, but I have a -2" arm span relative to my height. I had the seat just about centered on the rails and the stock cockpit (50mm stem w/ 800mm Descendant 20mm riser bar) worked just fine once I rolled the bars back to flatten out the rise. I did swap to my personal 65mm stem with a 770 width, 5mm rise bar for the last ride of that weekend and liked the feel a little more on flat corners, but the shorter stem/wider bar was more stable on steeps. The Ranger has I think 7mm more reach, so probably a negligible change in fit. Let us know what you think when you get on a Revel!

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    187
    here is a great article on the ranger compared to the spur, I am sure most searching have seen it but just in case I figured I would post it here https://www.fanatikbike.com/blogs/en...d-and-compared

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by CWnSWCO View Post
    I'm 6'1'' and very happy with a large Rascal.
    Hi there - Iím 6,1Ē neat & always been between sizes . Just noticed your comment that you feel a large is spot on . Just wondering if you put a stem on & if so what reach .
    thx

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashmtber View Post
    Hi there - Iím 6,1Ē neat & always been between sizes . Just noticed your comment that you feel a large is spot on . Just wondering if you put a stem on & if so what reach .
    thx
    I use a 35mm stem on my Large Rascal.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by gubbinalia View Post
    Finally pulled the trigger So 120mm Fox 34 SC, XT/XTR drivetrain, carbon cranks, XT 4piston brakes, and likely Nox Farlow rims on I9 Hydra hubs. Schwalbe Hans Dampf/Magic Mary 2.35 which is a suprisingly light combo. I'll be interested to see how much it weighs in the end, and more importantly how well it pedals. 27lbs

    sounds like you have it planned out well, I am starting to look at new bikes in this category and this bike has really gotten my attention. Trying to start my parts list,

    Was hoping to ask you a few questions that may help me decide on my build because like you I am going to build from ground up, I do want a light bike, compared to the 31 pounder I ride now, I am hoping for a 26 lbs build with a large frame.

    So couple quick questions for you, I love the fox suspension, but what made you go with that over the new Rockshox since that could of been a great deal ???

    Also I am starting to search cranks, I currently have xtr, but I here there are carbon options lighter which ones are you going with??

    thanks man looking forward to seeing your finished rig

  164. #164
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Mac View Post
    sounds like you have it planned out well, I am starting to look at new bikes in this category and this bike has really gotten my attention. Trying to start my parts list,

    Was hoping to ask you a few questions that may help me decide on my build because like you I am going to build from ground up, I do want a light bike, compared to the 31 pounder I ride now, I am hoping for a 26 lbs build with a large frame.

    So couple quick questions for you, I love the fox suspension, but what made you go with that over the new Rockshox since that could of been a great deal ???

    Also I am starting to search cranks, I currently have xtr, but I here there are carbon options lighter which ones are you going with??

    thanks man looking forward to seeing your finished rig
    Sure thing Dave, happy to share my thoughts, and there's also a "Building a Revel Ranger" thread in the 29er Forum with some weight debates, some constructive, some not-so-constructive.

    If you do want to build up the Large frame at 26lbs, you'll essentially need it to be lighter than the X01 build (PinkBike's Large X01 test rig was 26.2lbs). There's nothing crazy on that build kit, just full X01 w/carbon cranks, some 1800g carbon wheels, the standard Rekon/Dissector 3C tire combo (1725g for the pair), and other niceties. One obvious way to shed weight out of that build would be to run lighter wheels and tires, say, DT XR1700s (25 internal alloy rims, around 1680g wheelset) with 2.35 Nobby Nics (1530g for the set). That would shed about 350g total from the X01 build and take you well into the 25lb range. However, that might mute some of the aggression of the bike and take away the confident traction feel that the suspension can give you.

    Another way to shave that 300g is to run XTR 11spd with XX1 or Next SL cranks, and shave some weight out of the contact points (carbon saddle, ESI grips, XTR pedals, etc). That would allow you to keep the wheels and tires closer to stock.

    Suspension is interesting, there's not a huge difference in weight between the Sid Ultimate and the 34 Stepcast Factory (I think 65g as measured in the real world?) The new SidLuxe is a bit lighter than the DPS Evol (not sure by how much) but at the cost of some tuneability and perhaps not as reliable given the early reports of bushing play. So I think it comes down more to what you like and personal preference. For me the Open Mode Adjust on the 34 Stepcast Grip2 works really well for the moderate tuning needed on a lightweight trail bike (no need for the extra Fit4 tuning). I also just really like the feel of the 34 SC once it's dialed in, I tend to run 86-88psi and 4 volume tokens, which works great on everything from my singlespeed hardtail to an XC race bike, or I'll run 3 volume tokens and 78psi for a more plush "trail" feel.

    I do have the new Sid 35 on order from Pro Bike Supply and will be throwing it on a hardtail build (Why S7 29er build) in the next few weeks, so we'll see how it feels. My concern is that it will feel much like RS's other forks in the 100-140mm range -- the older Sid and the Pike -- always have: plush off the top but without as much midstroke support or progressivity. My issue with the Pike has always been that it feels great with no compression damping but as soon as you turn the damping up it feels incredibly mushy when cornering or weighting the front end into hard compressions. The new airshaft has helped somewhat but it's still not at the Fox level of sportiness. Similarly the older Sid had awesome small bump but was pretty sketchy on bigger hits, with 32mm stanchions and not much progressivity.

    But who knows, maybe the Sid 35 will surprise me and I'll end up putting it on the Ranger build. I trust Revel's judgment on spec, but it is noteworthy that the founder Adam Miller is already running full Fox on his bike. My suspicion is always that bike companies get better package pricing on a full SRAM/RS build and so they go that way to save $$, which is understandable for a smaller company.

    I personally love the XTR cranks, the fit and finish is exceptional, and they're pretty much indestructible. But yeah the RF NextSL or the XX1 cranks will shave off grams for sure. I would rather take the weight penalty and be sure my cranks will not snap after repeated rock strikes.

    I guess the ultimate question, which is always lurking with bikes of the "down country" genre, is whether you want a trail bike that is 28-30lbs but ready to smash through anything, or a 24-26lb XC rig just with more progressive angles. Given how well CBF pedals I'm not hesitant to throw on an extra pound or two and keep a true XC bike for marathon racing. To my thinking it's doing a disservice to the Ranger's design work to run it with 650g tires, just as it's doing a disservice to an XC bike's primary intent to run it with Minions.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    187
    thanks for the feed back Gubbinalla, much appreciated, yea I do have some good wheels already on my current rig I plan on switching over my M630 and they come in at a touch over 1500.

    that is very telling about About Adam the founder of the company running fox on his rig, I did not know that, I have fox now and just really prefer it over the Rockshox stuff I have had in years past. Great info man

    Man 25-26 pounds I think would be great, I love riding longer rides on the weekends 40-50 miles single track and I think the weight savings will help out a lot, and hoping for a more zippy bike then my current 31 pound 130-140 travel bike.

    thanks

  166. #166
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Mac View Post
    thanks for the feed back Gubbinalla, much appreciated, yea I do have some good wheels already on my current rig I plan on switching over my M630 and they come in at a touch over 1500.

    that is very telling about About Adam the founder of the company running fox on his rig, I did not know that, I have fox now and just really prefer it over the Rockshox stuff I have had in years past. Great info man

    Man 25-26 pounds I think would be great, I love riding longer rides on the weekends 40-50 miles single track and I think the weight savings will help out a lot, and hoping for a more zippy bike then my current 31 pound 130-140 travel bike.

    thanks
    Nice, the M630s are pretty sweet. What are you going to run for tires?

    No matter how much the finished bike weighs, I think you'll love how CBF pedals for those big days. Never thought I would agree to buy a bike without a lockout switch but this is the one to make me do it. Even the 130mm Rascal has no need for one.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    187
    Rekon 2.6 in rear thats what I currently run, but I may switch a 2.4 I here a lot of people say it just pedals better. So I will throw a 2.4 Rekon on my current rig soon and see for myself. That is one reason I like the ranger its the only one that accepts the 2.6 tires, maybe the ripley does also I think. BUt I may be off the 2.6 tires if the 2.4
    pedal better

    Forecaster 2.6 on front really like this front tire

  168. #168
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Mac View Post
    Rekon 2.6 in rear thats what I currently run, but I may switch a 2.4 I here a lot of people say it just pedals better. So I will throw a 2.4 Rekon on my current rig soon and see for myself. That is one reason I like the ranger its the only one that accepts the 2.6 tires, maybe the ripley does also I think. BUt I may be off the 2.6 tires if the 2.4
    pedal better

    Forecaster 2.6 on front really like this front tire
    Huh, so 2.4 Rekon rear/2.6 Forekaster front? Sounds like a good combo. I like the Forekaster for my XC bikes, especially during wetter spring/fall stretches here in the NE, but on a trail bike, I like something a little taller knob/stickier rubber up front to stick to rocks and roots. I think the Dissector up front and Rekon in the rear (as comes stock on the Ranger and Spur both) seems like a great combo, though if I went with Maxxis I might go Dissector rear and DHR II Maxterra 2.4 in the front. Personally I love the Schwalbe combo of Hans Dampf rear/Magic Mary front, both in the Addix Soft casing. Still decently light (1850g total), but all the tire you could ever need for my level of riding. I've used that pairing on everything from 8hr rides to bike park days and just about everything in between. I've always wanted to run the Rock Razor in the rear and shave 150g but semi slicks are rarely a great idea in the Northeast. It's just not that dry!

    Oh and as for Rekon 2.4 vs. 2.6, I'm pretty sure they weigh within 50g of one another, so if you like the shape of the 2.6 on your rims you might as well stick with that. Possible that Maxxis just glued the same tread to a bigger casing, or something like that.

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    187
    good info, yea I was wondering about the rekon 2.4 and 2.6 and how they were so close in weight, they are nice and light. I will keep some of those tires you mentioned in mind.

    did you ride the forekaster in the back at all?? I have been wondering about how it would roll compared to the Rekon, probally a little slower is my guess?

  170. #170
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Mac View Post
    good info, yea I was wondering about the rekon 2.4 and 2.6 and how they were so close in weight, they are nice and light. I will keep some of those tires you mentioned in mind.

    did you ride the forekaster in the back at all?? I have been wondering about how it would roll compared to the Rekon, probally a little slower is my guess?
    Just checked the two Rekons I have sitting in storage -- the 2.4 3C is 803g, while the 2.6 DC is 857g. So about 60g/two ounces difference, which isn't nothing, but it means the added volume of the 2.6 doesn't come at a big weight penalty (although the 3C version might add another 20-30 grams, not sure.)

    As for Forekaster in the rear, yes, I ran the 2.35 both front and rear for a weekend of really wet racing last year. I flatted the rear tire twice in the last hour of the Sunday race, I think just from rolling the tire off the rim, so I never ran it in the rear again. The sidewall on that tire seems really thin and pliable for whatever reason. I've stuck with either an Ikon or Ardent Race (or more recently, Rekon Race) in the back since then. I didn't notice a ton of drag with the Forekaster, though, just that it gripped a lot more in corners than a traditional XC race tire. I think the center knobs are pretty fast rolling.

    Maybe the 2.6 3C Forekaster's casing would give you better results in the rear. I have seen folks riding in wet conditions with the WTB Vigilante front and rear, which is decently similar to the Forekaster but with a stiffer casing and more 'enduro' intentions. Probably the key is running a wide enough rim, maybe 35mm internal, to support that big of a tire at low pressures. I'm pretty sold on the 25-27mm rim although I might go up to a 29-30mm rim for the Ranger. Curious about the Revel 'fusion' wheels, hmm....

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    95
    Found a place in New England that has a large Rail demo. Iím tired of my Pivot Mach 6 always creaking and I want to ride one before I make a decision. How have these held up for people that have had them for over a year now? Would love to hear any issues that some may have had. Thanks.

  172. #172
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by paul c View Post
    Found a place in New England that has a large Rail demo. Iím tired of my Pivot Mach 6 always creaking and I want to ride one before I make a decision. How have these held up for people that have had them for over a year now? Would love to hear any issues that some may have had. Thanks.
    Curious where you found in NE that's demo'ing Revels -- what shop is this? I know of a place in Claremont NH and one in Stowe VT. Are there dealers in southern NE, MA/CT area?

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    95
    There is one in Connecticut east of Hartford

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    45
    So I got a demo revel rail. Going to be taking it out today. If anyone was curious about weight on a size small gx build, the one I am demoing with flat pedals and tubes is 32.17lbs on my scale. Very excited to test this bike out.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    95
    Iíll be taking one out this Friday as well.

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BossLog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    99

    Please post your thoughts.

    Down to a Rail, Patrol or Warden for my next bike. Patrol is the only bike I've been able to even parking lot peddle in these crazy times.

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    45
    Well boys got back from my demo with the rail. Absolutely incredible bike but Iíll get into that. For reference Iím 5í6Ē (5í7Ēish with my riding shoes) so Iím right in between small and medium. 160ish lbs with gear. I demoíd a small rail with a gx build(32.17lbs with flat pedals, no lockout on the select shock). I have demoíd a new tallboy, Hightower, Ripley, and rascal. Currently on a medium yeti sb95 that Iím borrowing till I get a new bike because I sold my yeti sb5.5 to get a new bike and I think Iíve found it.

    So today on my demo I did an 17.85 mile ride with 2,552ft of gain with a mix of different terrain. I do most of my demos on these same trails or similar variation and I feel itís a good test for my average rides in my local trails. I also did this exact same loop on my sb95 yesterday with a buddy of mine so I thought my legs wouldnít feel at 100%.

    Not that I really care about PRs but somehow on a 165mm 27.5 bike I PRíd almost everything up and down by a large margin. That suspension is some voodoo magic trick, not sure whatís going on back there. If you taped over that 165 I wouldnít have known I was climbing that big of a bike. Then on the downs it was so smooth and fast. I also forgot how much fun 27.5 wheels are, I havenít had them since my old transition covert. It was an absolute blast, super fun jumping and messing around. This is the first bike Iíve tried that really ďwowídĒ me and Iíve tried a lot of pretty cool bikes this year. Maybe just because I didnít know a bike like this could be such a great all around rig, not sure. I even had to ask my shop guy if anyone else has this as a daily driver because I wanted it so bad for my one bike(wifey wonít let me get more than one these days). Anyways, hope this helps anyone who might be on the fence about the revel bikes. Now I just need to figure out how I want to build one up!

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    Has anyone spent a bunch of time on both the Rascal and the Rail?

    For CO, I love my Rascal, but I am moving back to BC, and its not the best choice for what I ride there. Before I go, Iím looking to replace the Rascal with an 11-6íd Rail without testing.

    Iím going from 3-4 hour rides on flowy up/ down single track, to 45min steep climbs with 25 min harrowing descents.

    Climbing sucks regardless, but does the Rail give up much on the Rascal? One of my favorite characteristics of the Rascal is that it is more of a trail scalpel, and not a plow. Does the Rail share this?

    Iím not looking for a 165mm bike that is great for long backcountry rides (Long travel trail bike). I want it for park and your typical NorthShore/. Squamish/ Whistler stuff.

    Hard to explain, but not all manufacturers make an awesome 130mm 29íer trail bike, and 165mm 27.5 shredder. Did Revel nail both?

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    137
    I owned both. They nailed both. I preferred the rail.

    It kills everything. The only hesitation I make based on your request, is it does have phenomenal trail manners. I didnít use it as a park bike. And Iím not sure I if I can push the top end of a bike like you can. So that would be my only caution. Id try to demo at a downhill park if I were you. Or even consider buying a size up.

    But otherwise, this bike kills everywhere and you will not be disappointed.

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    thanks for the feedback.

    I probably should have not led with Park, I guess more appropriately 'Enduro Style' fits the bill.

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    45
    Not sure if Iím the only one, but I thought the rail climbed better than the rascal. I think a faster rolling tire choice might have helped that but with the same tire setup I preferred the rail. I also thought it descends better and felt more stable/plush without losing too much playfulness. I think maybe if you are the edge of sizing you could size up and it would be perfect. Iím going to be ordering a medium and using it as my one bike for local trails(long climbs into long downhills) and bike park trips.

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    137
    Last bit of feed back. I agree with comments above me. Also, I originally planned to keep both, but I found them too similar. So I sold the rascal.

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by gubbinalia View Post
    I just sold my Ripley v4, so I demo'ed the Rascal for three days and took it through a gamut of my favorite rides in northern VT. First was a 2.5hr Friday night hammerfest with some friends on a local "XC"-ish trail system with lots of natural terrain, hard pedaling and chunky corners. First impression was that the XL bike still felt quick and nimble on climbs without too much body english required to squeeze it through corners. Despite the weight (33.4 lbs with the stock wheels and tires: Ind9 Enduro wheels, 30.5iD w/ Aggressor 2.3 DC + DHF 2.5 3C) it translated power really well from slow speeds to acceleration, and when stomping on the pedals the bike felt super responsive under power. On mellow climbs the bike had an almost XC-bike efficiency under hard pedaling, and on tech climbs the suspension made short rock crawl sections and tech moves quite simple. (The tech climbs didn't go as FAST as they would on a Ripley or an XC bike, but they were easy to clean, especially shorter ones.) Descending, the bike felt stable and planted, like it was really hugging the ground, and was very smooth engaging into and out of turns. I was impressed by my ability to carry speed through rock gardens really without trying; the bike just floated on through with minimal effort. I finished the ride feeling more tired than I would have on a lighter/shorter travel bike, but the Strava of the ride suggested I'd done it just as fast, if not faster, than before.

    I'm currently on a V1 Sentinel, and looking at the Rascal for Northern VT riding. I've riding the Rascal on smoother terrain, and the playfulness really blew me away. How does the bike feel on chunkier terrain compared to the Sentinel. Looking to downsize in travel and for a bit more playful bike.

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    95
    I got to demo a rail yesterday and what a fun bike. It climbs similar to my pivot mach 6 but feels better descending. Rode 10.5 miles and climbed 1300í on a trail system Iíve rode before. The nice thing is the bike felt so solid and was very quiet. I did notice though when I grabbed the top of the rear tire and moved it sis to side there is a bit of flex, anyone else notice that?

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rngspnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    944
    Currently looking to replace my Following V1 with a Rascal. Wondering what sizes people are riding. I'm 5'9-1/2" with a 30" inseam riding a large V1 Following. According to Revel sizing I can ride either L or M. My local trails are lots of pedaling rocky tech with many tight switchbacks. The Large Rascal is almost 2' longer wheelbase, 25mm more reach, 1mm more standover than my Following. The medium is 1.26" longer wheelbase, 7mm more reach, 17mm shorter standover. Any input is welcome. Thanks.
    2016 Evil Following V1
    2016 Dartmoor Primal+

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    571
    Iím 5í9Ē 32 inseam. Med is perfect for me (and could be perfect for you

  187. #187
    Australia
    Reputation: bataleon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by Rngspnr View Post
    Currently looking to replace my Following V1 with a Rascal. Wondering what sizes people are riding. I'm 5'9-1/2" with a 30" inseam riding a large V1 Following. According to Revel sizing I can ride either L or M. My local trails are lots of pedaling rocky tech with many tight switchbacks. The Large Rascal is almost 2' longer wheelbase, 25mm more reach, 1mm more standover than my Following. The medium is 1.26" longer wheelbase, 7mm more reach, 17mm shorter standover. Any input is welcome. Thanks.
    In a recent post on Jared Grave's instagram (pro tip tuesday regarding bike sizing), he recommended that if you are between sizes, to seriously consider going with the smaller of the two.
    2019 Stache 9.7
    ̶2̶0̶1̶6̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶c̶h̶e̶ ̶7̶

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    79
    Did anyone ride both the Rail and a Yeti SB165 and could compare those two?
    Thanks a lot.

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rngspnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    944
    Thanks for the responses guys. The medium seems like it would be the right size aside from the fit of the large being closer to my current bike. I'm gonna contact Revel Monday to get some more input.
    2016 Evil Following V1
    2016 Dartmoor Primal+

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BossLog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    99
    Down to a Rail, Transition Patrol or Knolly Warden for my next bike. Anyone have enough time on these to compare? Hoping demos (and bikes) return soon.

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rngspnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    944
    Revel contacted me by phone. Talked with Matt and came to the conclusion that a med is the best choice for my size and where I ride. Should have my frame late October early November. Thanks for the input! Can't wait to experience the CBF.
    2016 Evil Following V1
    2016 Dartmoor Primal+

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cSquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Rngspnr View Post
    Revel contacted me by phone. Talked with Matt and came to the conclusion that a med is the best choice for my size and where I ride. Should have my frame late October early November. Thanks for the input! Can't wait to experience the CBF.
    YEAH Rngspnr! CBF will shock and awe!

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Rngspnr View Post
    Revel contacted me by phone. Talked with Matt and came to the conclusion that a med is the best choice for my size and where I ride. Should have my frame late October early November. Thanks for the input! Can't wait to experience the CBF.
    I'm 5'9" and just rode the Rascal on Monday, and Medium was the way to go. Going to order one as well.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rngspnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by cSquared View Post
    YEAH Rngspnr! CBF will shock and awe!
    Thanks! Looking forward to it. Have you ridden any Evil bikes? Asking because curious as to how these two platforms differ. My Following has a high antisquat but also a fair amount of brake jack. I like how my Evil feels through fast rocky chunk when off the brakes but the rear end is a bit nervous over fast brake bumps and chunk under braking.
    2016 Evil Following V1
    2016 Dartmoor Primal+

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rngspnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by habitrap View Post
    I'm 5'9" and just rode the Rascal on Monday, and Medium was the way to go. Going to order one as well.
    Nice! Which color did you go with? I went with the T1000. I like the Sedona also but here in central TX people would think I bought the bike due to it being UT color. Not a football fan.
    2016 Evil Following V1
    2016 Dartmoor Primal+

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cSquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Rngspnr View Post
    Thanks! Looking forward to it. Have you ridden any Evil bikes? Asking because curious as to how these two platforms differ. My Following has a high antisquat but also a fair amount of brake jack. I like how my Evil feels through fast rocky chunk when off the brakes but the rear end is a bit nervous over fast brake bumps and chunk under braking.
    Yeah= I don't comment on how other bikes ride....
    But single pivots and upper links that hang down.... love that brake JACK!

  197. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Rngspnr View Post
    Nice! Which color did you go with? I went with the T1000. I like the Sedona also but here in central TX people would think I bought the bike due to it being UT color. Not a football fan.
    I went with the Sedona color, and it definitely matches the UT orange. The CBF is for real, kept the bike stable and controlled through the chunk and roots up in here in Vermont.

  198. #198
    mosstrooper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by habitrap View Post
    I went with the Sedona color, and it definitely matches the UT orange. The CBF is for real, kept the bike stable and controlled through the chunk and roots up in here in Vermont.
    Could not agree more. I think CBF is the perfect suspension system for the unique riding in central/northern VT. Lots of small chattery bumps with fewer big compressions and plenty of off-camber means that suspension systems tuned for wide-open flow trails (cough, DWLink, Switch Infinity) don't work as well. The traction that CBF has at low speeds and when carving through off camber corners is pretty incredible, and it pairs well with the Rascal's progressive, but not super-modern geo. The BB is a hair too low by my lights but the STA/HTA/Reach are dead-on.

    Habitrap, are you ordering direct from Revel or going through a local dealer? My Rascal frame is on order through Ranch Camp in Stowe.

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by gubbinalia View Post
    Could not agree more. I think CBF is the perfect suspension system for the unique riding in central/northern VT. Lots of small chattery bumps with fewer big compressions and plenty of off-camber means that suspension systems tuned for wide-open flow trails (cough, DWLink, Switch Infinity) don't work as well. The traction that CBF has at low speeds and when carving through off camber corners is pretty incredible, and it pairs well with the Rascal's progressive, but not super-modern geo. The BB is a hair too low by my lights but the STA/HTA/Reach are dead-on.

    Habitrap, are you ordering direct from Revel or going through a local dealer? My Rascal frame is on order through Ranch Camp in Stowe.
    I felt the same way after owning a DWLink, and the geo is spot on for this area, especially on the flat tight corners where I find some of the more progressive higher travel bikes feel sluggish. I am probably going to order a build through them as well.

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skibum1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    332

    wow

    wow thats a beautiful ride

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Giant Revel 1 vs Revel 0
    By Joey Jiggles in forum Giant
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 11-09-2012, 10:36 AM
  2. Revel 3 Disk (£325) or Revel 1 (£399)
    By Notsoseriousbiker in forum Giant
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-06-2012, 12:43 PM
  3. 2011 Revel 1 MUCH lighter than 2012 Revel 1
    By Gorky_Park in forum Giant
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 06:46 PM
  4. Coerced reviews or bribing for good reviews ?
    By le_buzz in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-14-2011, 07:14 PM
  5. Scott Aspect, Giant Revel, GT Avalanche?
    By juancho142 in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-21-2011, 08:20 AM

Members who have read this thread: 409

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.