Pike 20mm lowers on a Revelation 140mm- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928

    Pike 20mm lowers on a Revelation 140mm

    Okay, so I have followed a few threads on this topic. I had always just planned on swapping/upgrading my QR Revelation 140mm to Pike 20mm lowers. A couple of threads here on MTBR pass along a lot of 2nd hand info.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...evelation+20mm
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...evelation+20mm

    I ended up picking up an older pike. Probably 2007 model year. It was about the same price to get that whole fork as to try and locate the 20mm lowers and maxle by themselves. At any rate, I did the swap last night. Here are my observations:

    - Pike lowers bolt up to revelation uppers just fine. 140mm of exposed stancion and full travel. No real surprise there.
    - A-C dimension was about 520mm, so right where it should be IIRC.
    - Revelation stancions are not the same length as the pikes. Can't remember which were longer ( I think the pikes were about 1/4in longer)
    - When you bolt up the revelation qr lowers to pike uppers you end up with about 535a-c dimension. So I think to run a QR revelation lower on pike uppers you need to reduce the travel down by about 15-20mm, otherwise you may not have enough bushing overlap.
    - weight of rev with pike lowers 1940g (inc. maxle), up about 200g from stock weight (which didn't include the skewer), and about 300g lighter than the stock pike w/ steel steerer tube.

    I probably should have taken more measurements and photos. At any rate, just wanted to post up some feedback here for others who are thinking of this conversion.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  2. #2
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Okay, just a follow-up. I ran reduced the travel of the revelation lowers on pike uppers by 20mm using a RS all-travel spacer. The result is pictured below. Exposed stancions are 140mm. Travel reduced to 120mm. A-C is approx 515mm.

    Not that many are going to put revelation lowers on a pike, figured it was worth documenting for MTBR
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  3. #3
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Following up on the follow up (if anyone besides me actually cares)

    I measured the stanchions from crown to seal head end:
    Pike: 300mm
    Revelation QR: 287mm

    Difference in damper length (according to Push):
    Pike: 6"
    Revelation QR: 5.5"
    that is measured from the seal head to the end of the main shaft at full extension

    So, from the numbers it looks like you could get away running the QR lowers on a pike and only lowering the travel by about 10-12mm. That would give the normal bushing overlap on the stanchions. Of course it would be tall for a 130mm travel fork.

    Darren (of Push) brought up the offset as a potential issue. I can't say that I noticed any difference in steering. If anything I liked the feel of the swapped out forks better than stock.

    I have since unmixed my forks. All are back to normal. There was no issue forcing the exchange, I just wanted to run a 110mm fork on my hardtail and the rev/pikeQR fork would have been too tall. Hopefully this information is helpful to someone. I think the main information to be gleaned would be that upgrading a Revelation QR with Pike lowers is a simple thing. The other tidbit is that Revelation QR lowers on a Pike has some limitations to be worked around due to the extra 20-25mm of stanchion and damper length.

    Oh, one last item for the peanut gallery. The pike damper works fine in the revelation despite being 1/2in longer. I didn't find that the oil level needed to be reduced, guess it just starts with some oil under the rebound damper. Either way, no issues with performance.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,061
    Thanks for posting the update. (Just wanted to let you know that someone is reading your thread...)

  5. #5
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,886
    I just got it, but great post!!

    Thanks for sharing!

    Not really surprising as the Rev and Pike shared part numbers for 2009 at least... but nevertheless, it's great to have first hand assurance than just a wild guessing.

    OTOH... what about the 2010 150mm Rev lowers on a Pike? From your measurements, the Rev was probably lengthened at the stanchions by 10mm and that you'd end up with a Pike at 140mm for the same lowers on the Rev 150.

    Again, a wild guess until someone actually puts a set of 150mm lowers on a Pike.

    Yep, we're paying attention!
    Check my Site

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rollertoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,176
    Great thread. I have a 08 ( I think) revelation with bent lowers and I was considering trying this. Want to sell your old pike parts?
    Team _________

  7. #7
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    No can do rollertoaster, Pike got Push'd to go on the Heckler and the Revelation was lowered to go onto my Rockhopper. FWIW it is usually cheaper to just buy a used Pike than to get the lowers and maxle independently, that is what started me down this path in the first place

    Warp, I too have to wonder about the 2010 and compatibility. The 2009 was basically a pike 454 with a maxle light. Unless they got really wacky cross compatability is a definite possibility. I am going to run the Pike I have for another year, but might just pick up a 2010 Rev in the end.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  8. #8
    Spice
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    685
    Just wondering....How did you lower the revelation?
    And were there any noticeable differences with the revelation uppers and pike lowers?
    Cheers

  9. #9
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected]
    Just wondering....How did you lower the revelation?
    And were there any noticeable differences with the revelation uppers and pike lowers?
    Cheers
    Lowered with All-Travel spacers, same as any modern RS air fork.

    Differences? Ride-wise I didn't notice a significant reduction in stiffness. Without doing a scientific test though it is just a guess. I couldn't perceive any additional flex with Rev uppers on the Pike lowers. Of course it was way stiffer than the stock Rev QR, on and off the bike you could tell.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  10. #10
    Spice
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by AL29er
    Lowered with All-Travel spacers, same as any modern RS air fork.

    Differences? Ride-wise I didn't notice a significant reduction in stiffness. Without doing a scientific test though it is just a guess. I couldn't perceive any additional flex with Rev uppers on the Pike lowers. Of course it was way stiffer than the stock Rev QR, on and off the bike you could tell.
    Aha sorry forgot about the spacers!
    I might get round to doing it when I upgrade the hub to something that can take the bigger axle, if I can find some pike lowers cheap! Thanks for the help

  11. #11
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    No problem. The catalyst to all this for me was that it was cheaper to buy a Pike than to buy the lowers and maxle on their own
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shapirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by AL29er
    I think the main information to be gleaned would be that upgrading a Revelation QR with Pike lowers is a simple thing.
    What model year Revelation was that, 08 or 09?
    I'm considering replacing my '09 Rev 426 Dual Air 9mm QR lowers with Pike lowers in order to upgrade to the 20mm axle. Trying to understand whether this combination is going to work.

  13. #13
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Shapirus,
    The Rev 140mm was a 2009 model and was the DA version with QR lowers, so I think we are talking all apples here as far as comparison. Basically when the rev went to 140mm the stanchions lengthened by enough to accommodate the longer pike lowers. The swap is a no-go for the shorter travel 2007/2008 130mm revs.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shapirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by AL29er
    Shapirus,
    The Rev 140mm was a 2009 model and was the DA version with QR lowers, so I think we are talking all apples here as far as comparison. Basically when the rev went to 140mm the stanchions lengthened by enough to accommodate the longer pike lowers. The swap is a no-go for the shorter travel 2007/2008 130mm revs.
    One thing that I'm concerned about is what happens when the fork bottoms out when it's fully compressed? Won't the crown hit the wipers before the stanchions hit the bottom-out bumpers?
    If this isn't gonna be a problem, then I think I'll be ordering a set of Pike lowers (11.4015.228.000) and a Maxle lite soon. Initially I wanted to buy a new fork, but everything is either ridiculously expensive (like the 2011 RS forks) or already sold out or has a weird design like the Manitous with their reverse arch.

    By the way, have you weighed the lowers by chance? It's curious what's the difference between the two.

  15. #15
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    I am a bit too far removed from this to bust out the math on this stuff. I can say that many have done the conversion without issue.

    By my gram scale the pike lowers and standard maxle added 165g to my revelation.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shapirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    488
    Thanks. I think I'll give it a try

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shapirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    488
    Received a set of new Pike lowers today.
    First of all I need to say that they are NOT compatible out of the box with the 2009 Revelation 140 mm QR uppers due to the difference in the lowers' tubes length: the Pike's are about 13 mm longer.




    This means that in a bottom-out situation the crown will crush the wipers before the stanchions hit the bottom-out bumpers and stop:




    The solution here is to add more bumpers at the bottom of the lower legs so that the stanchions stop at them before the crown hits the wipers (as they would with all the original parts).
    I already had 3 sets of original bumpers, but this wasn't enough. I ended up making some extra shims from thick leather.
    Here's what I put inside each leg:





    This set a proper bottoming out height, almost the same as it was with the old lowers:




    Axle-to-crown is now about 520 mm (almost unchanged I guess).




    Actual travel: about 135 mm. Note that this was measured with 70 psi in the positive chamber and 0 psi in the negative.


    Worth noting that real life travel will always be slightly less (probably due to the compressible top-out bumber or something else in the negative chamber). After I pumped the air spring to 80 psi + / 65 psi -, the actual travel dropped to 129-130 mm (the fork does extend fully with a typical bump in the end).

    Axle by axle lowers comparison: Pike vs Revelation 140 mm QR. Pike's are 4-5 mm longer.




    Negative chamber valve stem. Noticeably less usable length than with the original lowers, but still working fine with the pump which came with the Rev.




    Also, per my calculations, the ends of the stanchions are positioned 5-10 mm above the lower edges of the bushings (when unsagged). I wonder if it can cause any problems. I think it shouldn't -- I can't think of any reason for that.

    So basically the swap is possible, but it requires some modifications.

    Improvements over the old lowers: 1) 20mm axle; 2) significantly better tire clearance, which is cool, because I can now use the Neoguard with any tire that I have . With the old lowers, some higher volume tires would interfere with the Neoguard's straps.

    This swap has pretty much made my search for a new fork over. With the new lowers I got everything I would want from a new fork . I have yet to see how it performs though.

  18. #18
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Interesting. Thanks for posting back. Another data point is always useful. I am curious why yours didn't work out quite right. I suppose you could be on the outside edge of the bell curve for tolerance. IIRC RS has a +/-3mm on travel. I do recall that the seals did go all the way to the crown @ bottom-out on my fork, so if you had a fork on the high end of travel and a biased tolerance stack it could crash before BO. You are the first person I have heard of with this issue on the conversion though.

    I think your solution is the correct way to handle the problem The other solution is to put in Pike parts. IIRC the Pike damper and air rods stick out .5in farther from the bottom of the stanchion. That would get you back to full travel, but you could end up with about 5-6mm taller a-c dimension.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  19. #19
    Spice
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    685
    So how did the change feel? Big difference in stiffness?
    Also, could someone measure the amount of exposed stanchion on their revelations (09)... mine are showing about 155mm (a bit too much for a 140mm fork!?)

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shapirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    So how did the change feel? Big difference in stiffness?
    The biggest advantage over the QR is very easy and trouble-free changing of wheels with repeatable results in terms of alignment of rotor vs brake pads: it is finally constant almost every time .

    I haven't really had a chance to do a back-to-back test, so I can't say how much of improvement this was ride-wise. But anyway it now feels safer and more contollable in difficult sections with ruts, etc.

  21. #21
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by shapirus View Post
    The biggest advantage over the QR is very easy and trouble-free changing of wheels with repeatable results in terms of alignment of rotor vs brake pads: it is finally constant almost every time .

    I haven't really had a chance to do a back-to-back test, so I can't say how much of improvement this was ride-wise. But anyway it now feels safer and more contollable in difficult sections with ruts, etc.
    I agree on the advantage and the feel
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.