First Ride: Revel Rascal V2

Feb 29, 2024
by Matt Beer  
Revel Rascal V2

With a name like the Rascal, you know that Revel Bikes designed their 130mm travel trail bike to be a sharp handling, playful bike. The Rascal V2 continues to use Canfield’s Balance Formula, dual-link suspension design and roll on 29” wheels. Shape-wise, it looks virtually identical, so what’s new?

Revel has updated the rear triangle for UDH compatibility, stretched the geometry, and shed frame weight while increasing stiffness. They’ve added a XXL frame size for riders up to 6'8" as well.

There’s no shortage of ways to build a Rascal. A bright metallic mustard or pinot purple are available with Fox and RockShox air suspension starting at $3,599 USD. Six complete packages start at $5,999 USD and break the five-figure price tag when SRAM's T-type wireless shifting and Revel’s own Fusion-Fiber carbon wheelset are added to the mix.

Rascal V2 Details
• Full carbon frame
• Wheel size: 29"
• 130mm rear travel, 140mm fork
• CBF dual-link suspension design
• 65.5° head angle
• 76° seat angle (MD)
• 436mm chainstays
• Weight: 14.2 kg / 31.30 lb
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL, XXL
• Price: $5,999 - $10,499 USD
revelbikes.com

Revel Rascal V2
Canfield's Balance Formula (CBF) uses a dual-link design.
Revel Rascal V2
Carbon links on the top and bottom.
Revel Rascal V2
This cable routing hasn't been an issue yet but is mildly concerning.

Revel Rascal V2
Titanium hardware all around.
Revel Rascal V2
The rear fender protects the lower link well.

Frame Details

On the outside, the Rascal V2 looks identical to the original, however, there are a ton of changes besides the UDH update and geometry alterations.

At 2,810g for a size medium frame, excluding the shock, the Rascal V2 saves 150g from its predecessor. Impressively, Revel states that the frame stiffness has been beefed up by an extra 20%. To go along with a stiffer chassis, the frame hardware and bearings are said to last longer too.

Small details to shed mud and reduce noise are always welcomed. A finned guard aims to keep flailing chains from causing a racket and fully-guided internal cable routing is finished with a secure clamp under the bottom bracket shell. A tiny fender hides etween the vertical braces in the rear triangle and a rock guard shields debris from entering the lower link as it articulates.

photo
photo
photo
photo

Suspension Design

CBF stands for Canfield Balance Formula, so before you make any judgements about how Revel bikes may look like a Canfield, they’ve licensed the dual suspension platform.

The bread and butter of CBF suspension is keeping the instant center rotating around the chainring, or center of curvature in this case, through 100% of its 130mm of travel. The Rascal's leverage ratio starts relatively high to give initial small sensitivity and ramps up gradually. The leverage ratio begins at 2.95 and moves down to roughly 2.35 in a smooth arcing line.

The anti-rise starts at 110% and dips to 90% at the end of the travel which should make the Rascal very neutral under braking, but possibly not the most sensitive. On the flip side, the forces induced by pedaling, the anti-squat value, begins at 140% and stays high throughout, barely dipping below 100% by the end of the travel.

Based on these values, it’s easy to see how Revel prioritizes the Rascal ability to be highly responsive and efficient on the trail.

photo

Geometry

The main talking point here is the addition of the fifth frame size, an XXL, which is directed at riders who tower at 6‘3“ to 6‘8“ tall. On the low end of the size range, the small frame is still aimed to fit riders anywhere from 5’1” to 5’6”.

This opens up choices for riders to size up or down with smaller jumps between frame sizes now. On top of the larger size, the rest of the geometry has been slightly tweaked as well.

Minor tweaks like a slacker, head angle and longer reach, should Increase the Rascal's downhill capabilities. Those numbers have only shifted by .5° now sitting at 65.5 and 471 versus 464mm, however, they’re welcome to changes.

The seat angle for the size large has also increased to 76° and the chain stay has been the lengthened to 436mm up from 433. The length doesn’t change per size, but the seat tube angle does get slightly steeper, rising up 0.5° incrementally on the next two frame sizes.

Revel Rascal V2
The two top Rascal models come with Revel's Fusion-Fiber carbon wheels.

Models and Pricing

The build we are testing is the top tier kit, which costs $10,499 USD. That includes SRAM XX Transmission shifting, Code RSC brakes, and a RockShox Ultimate Lyrik and Super Deluxe shock. It also features Revel's RW30 Fusion-Fiber carbon wheels. Those weigh 1850g, have 28 spokes per wheel and are laced to Industry Nine Hydra hubs, then wrapped in Continental Trail tires. Rounding out the cockpit components are carbon bars from "Tra1l", a 180mm Bike Yoke Revive post with a Wolf Tooth lever, and SDG Radar saddle.

Those wheels are also available on the next component level down for $8,199 USD. This package includes Fox 36 and Float X Factory series suspension, a full Shimano XT brakeset and drivetrain, plus the rest of the bits listed above.

Revel is still finalizing the exact build specifications on each price point, starting at $,5999 USD, but the Rascal is only available with carbon frame construction. That means the frame kits start at $3,599 with the Super Deluxe Ultimate shock and $3,749 with the Fox Float X Factory shock.

Revel Rascal V2
Revel Rascal V2

Revel Rascal V2
A 65.5-degree head tube angle, shorter 44mm-offset fork and 40mm-stem make for twitchy handling.

Ride Impressions

“Little bikes” are a hoot to blast around on less frequented singletrack and backyard jumps in the wintertime when the snow closes out more serious terrain. The Rascal fits in this category perfectly with peppy handling and dual 29-inch wheels to keep it rolling rapidly. Soon after the first ride, I started thinking of the Rascal as the dirt jumper's XC bike.

The Rascal can be summed up in three words: light, low, and short. The handling is particularly quick and great if that’s what you’re looking for, but at higher speeds and bouncing down steeper trails, it has its drawbacks. A lot of that comes down to what’s going on up front and when you look at the spec, it all makes sense.

First, there’s the 20mm rise bar and 40mm stem that are mounted to a short, 44mm offset fork. Typically that’s not too out of the ordinary, but when you pair that with a 65.5° head tube angle, it makes for some twitchy steering. After swapping out for 35mm rise bars and 50mm stem the handling settled down and became much more predictable.

I’ve had the most fun blasting low angle singletrack, and mellow jumps on the Rascal, always looking for side hits along the trail. Loading up the suspension and getting energy out of the bike is extremely rewarding.

It’s not just while descending that you feel like you’re on a live wire either, for better or worse. Climbing the Rascal is a breeze and it can change direction on a dime.

Since the Rascal is sticking around for a longer-term test, it’s tempting to extend the fork to 150mm travel and slacken it out another .5°, since that move is still within the frame's specifications. I imagine that's how most riders in my neck of the woods might set it up. That would then match the travel figures of Forbidden's Druid V2. Then we can see just how much further I can push the Rascal on the downhills because there's more muscle to tap into with the right setup.

Author Info:
mattbeer avatar

Member since Mar 16, 2001
363 articles

221 Comments
  • 83 10
 I'd take this over the new optic. Few pounds lighter as well.
  • 39 21
 optic has better geo imo
  • 8 9
 Absolutely. Seems like a much better option.
  • 71 2
 I’d take the old optic
  • 14 6
 @danielfloyd: yes but it also has an idler which makes this bike a much better option.
  • 2 0
 mostly in the wallet. They're both soooo expensive at the top end, but over 10K USD? Wow.
  • 8 1
 I hate to say this, but it's not innovative enough for me to spend msrp on it. ..Given the current market... With that said, I love Revel bikes tho.
  • 3 0
 @cpobanz: yup, not when there's all sorts of great deals for non brand new design models. Lots of great deals out there!
  • 2 0
 @Ryawesomerpm Different strokes for different folks. I have a Tilt which has slightly more aggressive geo and a little more travel, but I imagine similar ride characteristics. If you are in Colorado, which I am, and where Revel is based, this bike might make a little more sense for most folks. That being said... I want an Optic lol
  • 3 1
 I'd take a Tilt over this. Pink is nicer than Yellow anyway.
  • 7 3
 Still heavy AF. 3kg w/o damper for a trail frame?? thats almost 1/3 more than my Ibis.
  • 7 1
 Too heavy and too expensive in the same thread. Throw in cable routing and you’ll get PB comment bingo!
  • 6 1
 @tomfoolerybackground: that chain stay routing is the worst IMHO SMH LOLz
  • 7 1
 @cpobanz: I had a similar first reaction… but I’m genuinely interested > what kind of ‘innovation’ would help justify the price? I would also love to support Revel, they’re a cool small company with a really fantastic suspension design. And some of the nicest looking frames in the business IMO. Can a bike be so good at being ‘normal’ that it’s exceptional? (The market is also really screwy right now - big companies like Specialized can drop prices and clear inventory and weather the storm, and I don’t see a way for small companies like Revel to compete with those discounts… so folks who want small brands to exist may just have to spend more to make that happen)
__
I’ll add my list of requests here for reference:

1- a few basic geometry adjustments… my top request being a press in headset to allow for an angleset. Neutral HA at 65 with option to go 64 or 66. Second request would be adjustment to chainstay length and BB drop, which could also allow a mullet configuration.
2- clever frame storage- either in the frame or at a minimum some mounting points.
3- lighter weight… within reason. This is not a pure XC bike and a stout frame can really improve the feel and durability of a bike. But I’d be more drawn to this bike if it was 1-2lbs lighter, all else being equal.
4- cleaner cable routing at the BB area… but at least it doesn’t do the headset crimes.
5- ST angle still feels about 1 degree too slack since it’s measured at the stack point and not actual saddle height. I have long legs… this might not be an issue for most. They did improve the difference between actual and effective STA which I appreciate.
  • 2 0
 @xciscool: I think that's why they made a carbon fluid
  • 1 0
 @danielfloyd: agreed. I had hoped they had sorted their fit this time around but medium still too small and large not too long. Most ave. men are between 5'8" and 5'11" so why dont some manufacturers like Revel make a size that fits the majority of men?
  • 1 1
 @bigfittynon-sense: this happens when someone knows a little but not enough for resonable judgement.
  • 3 0
 @basic-ti-hardtail: Just run the Rascal with a 150mm fork, and there is a 65 HTA. I ride a similar CBF linkage bike, and can tell you. While it doesn't have the craziest geo, the numbers work and the bike is going to be a blast to ride. The rest of the stuff is nice, if you are chasing a spec list, but when it comes to how the bike will ride, CBF will blow the others away.
  • 63 3
 Interesting that anything with a 65.5° head angle could be considered "twitchy."
  • 18 0
 Its kind of a wild take considering how different the reception to the 0.5 degree slacker optic was. I guess other geo considerations could come in to play but seems a bit of a stretch. The blister review of this bike seems to understand the intention of the bike a bit better.
  • 42 1
 PB always exaggerates this lol
  • 12 14
 we're all used to 62 degree head angles now, our body motion isn't calibrated for such a steep ht angle
  • 8 1
 It depends what you want out of a bike. I’ve ridden all of revels bikes except this new one and twitchy is exactly how I describe them. They are agile and responsive, which at low speeds is a blast, they pop and bonk and change direction so easily that every trail obstacle becomes a feature, however the trade off is that at high speeds or when pointing down a long steep section full of holes and roots they feel nervous and that bounciness turns into instability when you just want to hold a line or stomp a big side hit. Twitchy doesn’t mean bad, you just have to be aware of the bikes intended purpose. They do climb really well, and if anything an even slacker head angle wouldn’t hold them back going uphill but would definitely help going down.
  • 2 0
 @matyk the geometry is almost identical to my Izzo Blaze, and I'd call that fast rather than twitchy - gets a bit rowdy when I wind it up to the sort of speeds or terrain I want the enduro bike for. Which is kind of the point of a bike like this. Now the Top Fuel I back to backed against the Izzo a couple of weeks ago, that certainly did feel twitchy!
  • 8 0
 Yeah... little confusing. 65-65.5 with 44 offset is A LOT of bikes. I mean you can get used to most anything, and I guess it's relative to whatever you're coming from
  • 3 0
 Wheelbase would have a lot to do with that.
  • 4 0
 @idontknowwhatiexpected: guessing you're feeling the shorter wheelbase. their bikes are pretty short for their size.
  • 2 24
flag MattQEkBp1 (Feb 29, 2024 at 17:04) (Below Threshold)
 @jwdenver: no amount of suspension know how can make up for outdated geometry, I wanna try one but the bikes have geo nobody wanted in 2009
  • 4 1
 @MattQEkBp1: so don’t. You’re welcome.
  • 1 13
flag MattQEkBp1 (Feb 29, 2024 at 19:39) (Below Threshold)
 @mariomtblt: but I wanna try one
  • 1 0
 @idontknowwhatiexpected: having ridden the previous Rascal (which in many ways is a dream trail bike) 100% agree. I'm 5'9" and preferred the large which is a little calmer to ride.
  • 46 2
 The CBF suspension is special. Especially on a trail bike with the way it pedals, climbs and tracks the ground. It's something to experience.
  • 18 1
 Only problem with cbf and small bikes is that it works well enough I question rather short travel bikes make as much sense when a long travel cbf bikes pedals and pops just as well.
  • 8 1
 @cougar797: I'm going to try and find that out this spring. I'm on a Canfield Tilt which is their 138mm bike, and picked up the One.2 Super Enduro build which is 190mm because I've heard it pedals so good. It'll be interesting to see how the two compare.
  • 5 0
 I’m still rocking a ‘17 Django 29 split pivot. I should really try one of these and see if it’s leap and bounds above. FWIW that split pivot rails and pops pretty good for only 120 rear travel.
  • 2 0
 @chriskneeland: I'd like to go to a balance or lithum (from the tilt) for the trail bike. I already have a jedi. I need to see if anyone wants to trade out one of those two "enduro" frames for the tilt trail frame.
  • 1 0
 @KNBikes: One of my good riding buddies still rides his Django and loves it. It is a fun bike.
  • 3 2
 @cougar797: I'm sold on the Tilt as a quintessential New England trail bike. Trails up her are slow, tight, and janky, which is where it shines. If you can find someone up this way in a Canfield Owners group who is looking to downsize from the longer travel Lithium I think you could have some good luck.
  • 1 0
 @chriskneeland: Never thought about the forum! I'll do that now.
  • 15 4
 Absolutely agree! I'd challenge any of these PB comment posers to actually spend time on a Revel and not find them amazing bikes. People are so caught up with geo numbers, weight and blah, blah, blah, that they criticize bikes that they've never/barely spent time on. Kudos to Revel for creating bikes they know work amazing and not following the trendy hype!
  • 2 0
 Got a lithium last year and that thing rips up and down!
  • 1 0
 I've heard that multiple times, about CBF....what makes it so good?
  • 3 6
 @RadBartTaylor: it’s got a cool name
  • 2 0
 @RadBartTaylor: You can read up above but the short and skinny from my experiences are that cbf bikes pedal forward really well throughout all the suspension travel stroke and it doesnt do weird things to the suspension while you pedal. AKA you can pedal well through rock gardens and roots nor do you have to really on super locked up feeling suspension to be efficient. The longer travel cbf bikes pedal better then they have any business doing so. Conversely braking really doesn't have any effect on suspension action either. Think thats why chris mentioned above about the tilt being such amazing NE bikes. They move ahead through jank amazingly.
  • 2 0
 @chriskneeland: I'm in MA and just picked up a Tilt. Haven't ridden it yet but opted for the 150 fork. Are you running 140 or 150?
  • 2 0
 @badsneakers: I'd say the tilt is pretty rowdy for a 138mm bike so I'd go burlier 150mm fork.
  • 3 0
 @cougar797: I'm running a Fox36 at 150mm and it's fantastic.
  • 5 0
 @RadBartTaylor: The two things that are most noticeable are the pedaling efficiency no matter where you sit in the travel and how composed it stays in technical climbs. There's never wasted energy, or that empty feeling that you get with other bikes as you weight and unweighted the suspension. The power transfer just feels like it's there at all times. I've never been a strong or skilled technical climber but I surprise myself almost every ride with the stuff I'm cleaning on it.
  • 2 0
 @badsneakers: I'm running a 150 Zeb, so a little bit longer axle-to-crown than a 150 Lyrik. I built it up to feel like a short travel enduro rig because I'm a hack and weigh 200lbs, but honestly it's over kill. It puts the HA at 64.2. If I were to build it again I would have gone with the 150 Lyrik and had the HA sit at 64.5 and be a little lighter in the front.
  • 2 0
 @cougar797: that’s an interesting point. Thanks for saving me $$. I’ll stick with my Rail 27
  • 2 0
 I’m just curious for the folks giving praise to CBF, have you ridden any DW (ibis or pivot) in recent years and how was your experience there? I rode a buddies lithium last fall and was blown away (my daily driver is a Ripmo v2).
  • 1 0
 @SherlockOoms: The only Dave Weagle suspension design I've ridden is Evil's Delta. I still own an Insurgent V1 that's been relegated to my wife's bike. I put a Push Eleven Six on it and it was actually a really good suspension platform, but the CBF still beats it by a lot. Things the DELTA couldn't do the CBF can, and the things the DELTA does well CBF does just as well, if not better.
  • 1 0
 @chriskneeland: Gotcha. I've got a fox36 set at 150. I'm going to leave it this way and see how I get along with it.

This is my only fs and my "big" bike.
  • 1 0
 @KNBikes: Shit that bike was a good bike! Just put a Works Components Angleset on it if you wanna try something more modern and maybe a newer shock too would morph that bike...if your on a budget. The old django was as long as some current bikes are so imo its still relevant.
  • 2 0
 @RadBartTaylor: I have the ranger, which also has CBF. I really don't know the science behind it, but I can confidently say it pedals and grips incredibly. All i know is that it's something to do with the center of curvature.
  • 1 0
 @Sardine-Vladu: sounds like I need to try one...
  • 30 10
 Am I a dolt or is this the same exact bike?
  • 2 0
 Perhaps it’s just me, but I’ve been waiting for Revel to… Release Robin!
  • 4 1
 Its pretty close, but the changes made seem significant, also with how well the Original Rascal Performs in this catagory why change it drastically. The Geo Changes are subtle, but seem to make it more efficent, and the hardware has hopefully made it compatible with all other new products for years to come.
  • 21 0
 As a V1 owner, the changes address just about everything I would want in an updated rascal...
ISCG tabs
Better bearings and hardware
Slightly slacker HTA (plus this gets slacker when you put a 150mm fork on it - how I preferred to run my V1)
Steaper STA
UDH compatibility

Maybe the only thing I'd like changed with V2 is to have frame mounts under the top tube but this is so, so minor
  • 9 1
 My Rascal is god damn best bike I ever rode, and I didn't pay even near full MSRP for it, so there is no placebo that comes with boutique brands purchases.

Why upgrade something that is already perfect? Big Grin
  • 5 0
 @mtbthe603: Fellow Rascal v1 owner here. Agree with everything you listed. I haven't run a 150mm fork yet, but would do so right out of the gate with the v2.

My v1 is such an awesome and playful bike, but that v2 is very very tempting... shit.
  • 1 0
 @mboom11: I love my v1 and run it 1ith a 150 pike. The one question I have that I can't find on the website or here is "Did the increase the rear tire clearance?" That is my main gripe about the v1. My dad's ranger has more clearance. Also, would love to see the green jean paint job come to the rascal.
  • 3 0
 @aspenglo: more clearance, up to 2.6" like the Ranger
  • 3 4
 @mtbthe603: That STA is still not steep enough! No decent trail bike should be under 77. (I live in the PNW)

Let the stoning begin!!!!
  • 4 0
 @mybaben: I am starting to think that CBF limits STA options. Look at Canfield bikes. That being said I have no issues climbing on my Rascal, it also climbs better than any bike I had before
  • 2 0
 @opetruzel: Been running a 150 fork on my V1 since day one. I like it.
  • 1 0
 @aspenglo: In FAQ on the product page they say 29 2.6. I can't remember if that's the same as the V1 (even though I own a V1). On the other points, I agree that they hit my main complaints, namely pivot hardware and ISCG. I won't switch from my V1 though until they have the Fall sales or whatever.
  • 2 0
 @hangdogr: relax man, take an anti FOMO pill, your bike is already awesome. There never gonna be sales as we saw this winter again Big Grin

I got my Rascal GX V1 for the price of a frame only, brand new, from bike store, with warranty and etc. Ain't no way I am paying 6k for it lol
  • 1 1
 @valrock: nobody ever went broke underestimating the lack of business acumen of the bike industry
  • 1 0
 @shredddr: we have no Rudolph the red nosed reindeer...
  • 22 2
 TLDR: Pinkbike completely lost sight on what a trailbike should be.
  • 1 7
flag valrock (Feb 29, 2024 at 9:12) (Below Threshold)
 educate us
  • 7 0
 ah nevermind, I actually read article and now see what you are talking about Big Grin Agreed, dude is testing trail bike but with expectations of it being super enduro lol
  • 6 8
 @valrock: @lauwe-pokoe This is still a First Ride article, not a full review. We're aiming to compare it against other trail bikes on the market with the same amount of rear-wheel travel.
  • 22 8
 @mattbeer If anything, shorter offset makes for less twitchy steering. Shorter offset is an equivalent of a slacker head angle, it extends the trail. It would be more twichy with longer offset ... Most probably the short stem and relatively steep HA made for this feeling, but certainly not the shorter offset.
  • 22 0
 Its also the ONLY offset rockshox makes in 29er forks now so seems pretty weird to point out.
  • 4 9
flag valrock (Feb 29, 2024 at 8:41) (Below Threshold)
 I though it's opposite - more offset = larger trail = more stable ( slower) steering
  • 3 0
 @lkubica: damn Big Grin Thx... I got it backwards and almost ordered 51mm fork thinking it's gonna be better for my DH setup. 44 in fact is a better choice Big Grin
  • 5 2
 @valrock: you're welcome. Pity that PB editors don't know this either
  • 11 3
 @lkubica: It's not that we don't know this, it's what I've experienced on the trail.
  • 4 3
 I think it's a sum of all ingredients. Usually the rule is that the stem shouldn't be longer than the offset. Riser bars do create a longer virtual stem length. I think offset affects how the wheel "carves" into the ground. Stem length and bar specs are deff. more directly related to how quick your steering feels...I've tried both and the both have plus and minuses....one might be better but there are so many variables at play...Too many people out there use a stem as a reach adjustment when it is more of a handling adjustment.
Also, if my memory serves me right, BOXXER and 40's have always been 51mm so that's probably why Matt pointed this out. Around 5mm of extra wheelbase is noticeable if you're an experienced rider...especially when it changes the 'dig curve' of the front tire while turning...
  • 1 0
 @plustiresaintdead: In the aftermarket this is true for Fox as well. However, bike manufacturers can order all kinds of options that are not available aftermarket, so i guess if they wanted they could spec a longer offset.
  • 13 0
 Lighter? Don't they know they are swimming against the tide of every other bike getting heavier?
  • 6 0
 Yep. I’m told radness doesn’t begin until 38 pounds these days.
  • 6 0
 "Since the Rascal is sticking around for a longer-term test, it’s tempting to extend the fork to 150mm travel and slacken it out another .5°, since that move is still within the frame's specifications"

For those of us who live in areas that lean more XCish but still want to occasionally travel to more mountainous regions a few times a year, this would be really good to know.
  • 5 0
 My friend has a V1 Rascal with a 150mm fork. He rallies the shit out of it. We don’t have trails here as burly as the PNW or BC But the Blacks and Double blacks here in Colorado like Sluce, Ore Chute, Lunch Loops, Grouse, Left Hand and everything we have ridden in Moab are all within this bikes capacity. As long as your skills are up to it. Granted he is quite talented on a bike. Yes he rode every bit of Portal and Jackson on it. I’ve ridden it a couple times and I don’t think it would hold me back on many trails here in Colorado. The rear suspension is fantastic in the rough. The cable routing hasn’t been an issue as long as he changes his shift cable and housing annually. There are a lot of very capable bikes out there these days the only thing that holds them back is the rider.
  • 4 0
 @Bikethrasher: My dail ride trail bike is a 130mm Stumpjumper with at 150mm fork. It can handled anything from XC to 'light endro'. Really fun bike.
  • 1 0
 go Ranger, real fast downcountry bike. You get more XC-oriented everything but that thing still rips on big mountains. If your riding 90% XC-ish, you will benefit from Ranger more

(someone who owns Rascal, but rode Ranger and Rail)
  • 3 0
 @valrock: I stepped up from a Spur to a Rascal precisely because the "Downcountry" geo simply couldn't handle most of the western trails in the U.S. It was a ton of fun for everything on the East Coast, and maybe Arkansas. But, it really came up short on everything west of there. IMO, the 130/140 Rascal has worked out much better as a happy medium in both environments. The spur was simply too sketch in a ton of scenarios. You had to be 100% dialed at all times. Any poor line choice was completely unforgiving, and therefore scary as hell. I know a lot of that comes down to rider skill, but I'll readily admit that I'm just not skilled enough to really enjoy burly trails on a "downcountry" rig.

For that reason, I wouldn't recommend the Spur or Ranger for anyone who has just one bike and plans to take trips to burlier trails in the real mountains. As a second bike alongside an Enduro bike for all the trips? Absolutely. Otherwise, no.
  • 2 0
 @opetruzel: oh gotcha, exactly the reason I got Rascal is because I wanted one bike to do it all ( and I cannot afford to have Ranger and Rail ahahahaha ). For everything else I have a Session Big Grin
  • 6 0
 Interesting that Matt claims the wheelbase increased 20mm, when in fact according to the geo chart he shared this new Rascal is actually shorter than V1 at the small and medium sizes, a couple mm longer on the large only 9mm longer on the XL, so the bike should still have the relatively same nimbleness as the V1. It's not a big deal but just wanted to point out that this specific info wasn't accurate and hopefully this wheelbase isn't something that scare anyone off from trying out the bike. I absolutely LOVE my V1 Rascal and have been eagerly awaiting a v2. Stoked that about the ISCG tabs, slightly slacker head angle, adjustable chainstay length, and UDH! Also LOVING the new color options!
  • 2 0
 @alex966 That was incorrect and has been updated now, thanks.
  • 7 0
 Very cool to see Revel specking out Trail 1 Components which is newish USA based component brand that gives back to the MTB community.
  • 1 0
 Probably because worldwide cyclery, the parent company of Trail One, is likely Revel's largest dealer
  • 8 3
 If you're falling off the back of the back on a 76° STA bike, your positioning is wrong. How did anyone get up a techy climb before 2018? And the typical drivel of lets criticize a bike for not being adept at handling terrain it wasn't designed to excel at.
  • 8 4
 Don't see in frame storage so expect that to be a negative for this short travel ripper. As non-HP Optic owner, these short travel bikes are great for ripping around and I think my C3 Optic is a little lighter but I have carbon hoops on it. Looks like a great bike!
  • 8 1
 Nice! They finally made room for 2.6" tires. They got back on the bikes-to-consider list.
  • 5 14
flag valrock (Feb 29, 2024 at 8:48) (Below Threshold)
 but if you actually learn how to bike you won't need the assistance of 2.6 tires and get faster roll Big Grin
  • 3 1
 @valrock: Personally I draw the line of being a dick about it at larger than 2.6 tires. 2.6 can be a reasonable tire size in particular climates, such as the desert, and for more moderate riders. Not everyone is shredding the gnar bro, and 2.6 is a very nice capable size for some.

But ya, bigger than 2.6, get some skillzzzz.
  • 1 7
flag valrock (Feb 29, 2024 at 9:39) (Below Threshold)
 @tgent: I was just pocking @Explodo with his comment. I am pretty sure Revel poped bottle of champagne after hearing he is considering one of their bikes lol
  • 4 0
 This bike makes sense for a lot of California riding (and I assume many. many other places) where you often have to climb a long ways to ride techy, tight descents. A light/shorter bike is favorable in those situations. Not everyone has access to wide-open high speed downhill trails.
  • 5 2
 I want to complain about the geometry because it isn't great for where I live, and I'd like to own a Revel. But I know that geometry works well for other areas, and it's good those people have options too. So keep doing your thing Revel.
  • 8 2
 Let’s go Rascal!!!! Great looking rig
  • 5 3
 Where the downtube connects to the bb looks extremely long. Being carbon seems like the perfect place to smash it to bits. One good rock and that plastic frame protector won’t do shit. Revel and Ibis look so similar. I’d go with Revel if they would ditch the carbon.
  • 17 0
 Sounds like you want a Canfield, aluminum and no bulge
  • 2 9
flag avg-roadie (Feb 29, 2024 at 7:02) (Below Threshold)
 @Genewich: and no water bottle in the frame with outdated hardware and other spec
  • 3 0
 @avg-roadie: I have no issue with my Tilt. I run a fidlock bottle under the downtube and forget that I'm even supposed to complain about "no water in triangle waaahhhh". Aluminum and simple hardware isn't a bad thing at all. I do run an angle headset to rake it out a bit.
  • 4 1
 @avg-roadie: If you want a water bottle, you get the bulge
  • 1 3
 @Genewich: that’s what I said…
  • 5 2
 Anyone had a bike they needed to tweak the setup on to make it feel right for you? C'mon Pinkbike. The review from bike mag is much better than this one. www.bikemag.com/gear/tested-revel-announces-rascal-v2
  • 5 1
 From that article:

Partial build weight (complete bike without wheels, tires, rotors, or cassette): 21.06 lbs (9.55 kg)

Yes, I go riding without my wheels, tyres, brakes, or cassette. I find this is what makes it so easy to climb. What in tarnation is the point of an incomplete bike weight?
  • 3 0
 @handynzl: They're thinking these are things people often upgrade or change from stock? Weird though.
  • 2 0
 Love it.
Especially happy for the XXL frame size!

Previous owner of a Ranger XL and eventually sold it. Loved that bike, but wished it was a tiny bit bigger, and had more support from the rear suspension (very high spring rate reqd for my fat ass, so a me problem rather than the bike).

Very much a fan of what Revel are doing.
  • 6 1
 looks sick glad they come with contis
  • 6 10
flag lkubica (Feb 29, 2024 at 6:06) (Below Threshold)
 Trail Endurance on the front? WTF Smile Contis are great, but DH soft/supersoft.
  • 1 2
 @lkubica: for production it comes with trail soft up front
  • 24 0
 Ask your doctor if Xynotal is right for you.
  • 4 0
 @mattdawg: do you know when the trail soft will be released? thanks
  • 3 0
 Thought the Contis, bikeyolk dropper and wolf tooth remote were all nice touches.
  • 2 0
 @lkubica: DH Supersoft on a quick, twitchy 130mm bike? WTF?
Enduro Soft on the front would be nice, though.

@mattdawg There is no trail soft in the Conti lineup. Are you sure they are doing a special OEM version for Revel?
  • 1 1
 @Ttimer and @lkubica Conti may not have publicly released the Trail Soft yet, but Revel has them
  • 1 0
 @Ttimer: I see white labels, I assume that means there's an OE construction going on. When you order high enough volume for OE, you can spec a lot of funky options. There's a good chance Conti is more flexible on this than Maxxis and Schwalbe since they're trying to capture more market share.
  • 14 9
 That BB cable routing….
  • 14 2
 It's in the same zone as your chainring. How often are you bashing or snagging your chainring on a 130/140mm bike?
  • 5 1
 WAO do it on their arrival frames. From what I've heard there hasn't been too many, if any, issues with it
  • 3 1
 @Gregmurray50: same as on my 2018 RM Altitude - never once been a problem.
  • 1 0
 I don't know about the Rascal but the under BB routing been a problem on my Ns Define. It's a mess if you don't leave enough "play" for when the suspension is compressing. My drivetrain didn't work properly when I didn't have enough cable play under the BB, it kept pulling on the cable sleeve and messing with the derailleur wire tension...

Butit looks like on the rascal only the brake hose goes under the bb.
  • 7 0
 I put 4500 miles on the V1 Rascal...I was initially so worried about the routing but it never was an issue (I live in Sedona and Bellingham). My complaints with V1 (not many since I held onto it for a couple of years) were that there was no ISCG tabs and the lower pivot bearing and hardware needed a lot of maintenance. Good to see both of these have been addressed for V2.

Also, Matt is spot on about wanting to run a 150mm fork on this bike. I did this and preferred this setup.
  • 1 0
 My old Marin had der cable routed around BB and it was awful. Ended up going with the old external/tywrap method. I’m thinking the loop they left addresses the issue which was tension build up.
  • 3 0
 I’ve had 4 revels all with the same routing. Never had an issue with the cables under the bb
  • 2 0
 @mtbthe603: dream locations to live!
  • 2 0
 Never been a problem on my Rail 29, if you leave enough room (its in the owner manual) you are fine.
  • 1 1
 @jubs17: statistically, probably remote chance, but I ride a lot of trails with tree limbs on the ground during the winter months. Had one fly up a scrape my leg just below the knee the other day. Be pretty easy for one to get in that gap between the BB and the cable. Remote, but I try to avoid that design. My luck...
  • 1 0
 @gmoss: Yes, there is always a chance. But its extra small because unlike your leg, the chainring and cables have your crank arms guarding them. Often our feet are not perfectly level, and consequently our pedals are lower and closer to objects than the bottom of our chainrings.
  • 1 1
 @jubs17: yep, but I have had limbs getting in all kind of places on my bike this winter. Had lots of wind and hard rain this winter so the limbs have been more frequent. Just can't get past it. I have limbs get into that area pretty easy actually. Nice looking bike though.
  • 2 1
 Does anybody know what is the definition of "center of curvature" in suspension design is? Is it the path of traced intersections of lines connecting the instant center of rotation and the axle? Does it have any significant meaning? To me, from what I see on the image, it seems that it could be the intersection of the axle - instant center with the chain (usually used for determining anti squat characteristics). But why would it be called "center of curvature" then?
  • 5 0
 Yeah, think about a single IC point. ICC refers to adding every IC from start to finish of the wheel stroke and showing all of the points where the IC vectors converge. What they mean is that because the ICC is at the point of the chainring and also dissects the main pivot IC through the center, it doesn't put any moments or torque on the linkage. Thats the whole point of cbf, there are still the same chain and weight shift forces, but because the vector goes through the pivot in such a way to prevent any moments, it has negligible effect on the suspension movement reacting to terrain or other force inputs.
  • 1 0
 @Breeconay: "points where the IC vectors converge" could you please explain this? What vectors are we talking about? Looking at the trajectory of the IC, it can't be where motion vectors of the IC converge.
  • 2 0
 Good explanation from Chris Canfield here:

youtu.be/do4isvmVCpM?si=h8wzcnOZD5l4f644&t=654
  • 2 0
 I definitely enjoy the fact they made a 140/130 travel bike wit burley components and design. I have a 5010 which is awesome, this just completes in a few areas that makes the package
  • 4 0
 The v1 is the best trail bike I have ever ridden. Can't wait to try this update!
  • 4 0
 Pretty sick to see continental tires being speced. Competition is good.
  • 1 1
 Figured a reason why the bike is so heavy. It is the termo set carbon they use. It makes for a 7.2 pounds frame with a light reservoir shock, a weight that is good for an enduro bike, and very heavy, 500 gram rim. The wheels are probably close to 2Kg despite being "carbon"
  • 4 3
 maybe its just me, but Revels have always "looked" to have a very slack seat angle. aside from the quoted STA, I can't confirm or deny. Being leggy, this has put them in the No category for me
  • 3 4
 I haven't visited their site lately, but they used to "fudge" their blueprints (frame spec drawings). By that I mean the way they measure their STA is not legit looking at how and where they drew their angle lines. It make the angles seem steeper than they really are. Their STA are VERY slack IMO. They're are a def NO for me here in the PNW.
  • 5 1
 lets see those legs
  • 2 0
 V1 rascal actual seat tube angle was crazy slack. Even though the effective sta is only slightly steeper now, the actual is much steeper so hopefully that means less variance for rider saddle height. I have a v1 rascal in large and the only thing i dislike about the bike is my cog is well over the rear axle while climbing. Im 5'9 with a 33 inch inseam so my sta feels very slack at correct saddle height. So much so that i run my saddle a little low to compensate
  • 2 0
 This is what a shorter travel trail bike should be-a fun tool optimized for playful riding on moderate terrain. Not an idler equipped sled.
  • 6 4
 > carbon bars from "Tra1l"

This is Trail One Components: trailone.bike
  • 7 2
 Isn't that the inhouse brand for worldwide cyclery?
  • 3 0
 @adrennan: it’s not a house brand but they have ownership. Well designed parts from what I’ve seen locally
  • 2 0
 @adrennan: Yes it's their company. They seem to be pretty good friends with the Revel guys.
  • 1 0
 @adrennan: I thought it was BKXCs brand.
  • 2 0
 @Hectorres2001: he’s one of the partial owners as well.
  • 2 0
 @avg-roadie: now I’m curious, what would make it an in-house brand? If only they (WWC) sold it?
  • 2 1
 @Hectorres2001: guy who e-begs for patreon money is a part owner of a bike parts company? Shii....
  • 5 2
 Seems ok but those prices are just ludicrous.
  • 4 3
 built my stumpy for a few thousand $ less yet the revel weighs 4 pounds more. ludicrous indeed
  • 5 2
 That’s not a high pivot…
  • 9 0
 no dh casings either....unrideable for sure.
  • 9 0
 Really gonna miss lubing the chain every 5 minutes
  • 12 0
 @falltricky:sorry, can't hear you over my drivetrain
  • 3 0
 The color is really nice! It reminds me of my son's 2013 Focus ST.
  • 6 4
 All carbon frame, carbon wheels, titanium hardware, and still it weighs over 31 pounds. CBF = Cankles Be Fun ?
  • 4 0
 Looks like a YT
  • 2 0
 Exactly my thoughts. Looks like a Jeffsy.
  • 3 0
 looks sick! Matt Beer didn't like it but who cares about that
  • 2 3
 @mariomtblt I very much enjoy riding this bike, but the handling took some time to get used to.
  • 1 0
 They should do a light build with Fox 34 Grip2, New fox float single can, lighter tires; It would easily get sub 30lbs. And a Lunch Ride build with a 150 36.
  • 1 0
 Reminds me of my main bike, my 2016 Hightower. I’ve paired it with a 160mm fork and slackened it out. The street trials riders mountain bike.
  • 3 1
 My old Transition Sentinel (160/150) weighed as much as this bike…
  • 1 2
 Cool?
  • 6 0
 @MillerReid: it’s not a flex that bike was light. I’m legitimately confused how this little trail bike weights 31.5lbs
  • 4 1
 @oceanforsurf: still 2 lbs lighter than that Optic haha
  • 1 0
 My V1 sentinel and V1 Rascal weighed within .2 lbs of each other, the difference is my carbon Sentinel frame cracked around the bearings after 500 miles and my Rascal looks brand new after 1000.
  • 2 0
 Finally, iscg mount on the frame.
  • 1 0
 Or you can pick up an full XT Ripmo for under $5,500. $1,500 more for the Rascal? No, no, no.
  • 1 0
 Wow, they really beefed up the antisquat.
  • 2 0
 Rad bike!
  • 2 5
 Finally a human powered vehicle instead of a motor-bicycle! Pedal!!!!!

All looks and seems good. But the frame is very heavy. If it is not a typo 2,810 Kg/6.2 pounds without shock for a 130 travel frame is porky and it partly explains the close to 32 pounds weight. a 140/130 bike at $10,000 plus must be below 30 pounds.
  • 2 2
 I get what the suspension design does..... but still it's too much shit for 130mm of travel.
  • 1 0
 why don't they specify chainring and rear cog size combo for anti squat?!
  • 1 2
 Looks like that bottom bracket height increase might be slightly too much, especially with 150mm fork. It's higher than most others in the category.
  • 2 1
 Good to see bikes companies put out bikes with reasonable reach numbers.
  • 1 0
 Looks a bit like the YT jeffsy
  • 3 4
 For 10k you could build a blinged 31 lb enduro bike? What am I missing?
  • 1 0
 the fact that not all folks want an enduro bike?? Personally, I prefer something with a bit more travel then this but if someone wants a bike skewed towards faster/snappier handling Im not going to argue with them
  • 4 0
 The fact that enduro bikes tend to be boring
  • 1 1
 For $10k I could pick different but lighter components and come out 2.5lb less.
  • 2 0
 @matyk: thats a valid point if you don't have the proper terrain for it, but that doesn't mean a short travel carbon everything bike should weigh as much as an enduro bike.
  • 1 2
 The seat tube on the XL is too long!
  • 5 2
 That's because you should be riding a large. Size down from what companies are telling you to ride, 2022 and onwards. Everything has been growing so long in reach.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.121883
Mobile Version of Website