First Look: Revel's New Rail 29

Mar 1, 2022 at 16:55
by Sarah Moore  


Revel launched their brand three years ago with two bikes, the do-it-all short travel 29er Rascal and the longer-travelled 27.5" Rail. Today, the Colorado-based company has released a 29er version of the Rail with 155mm of travel. Revel says that the Rail 29 will be right at home on the top of any enduro race track, the bike park, or all day epics in the hills.

The Rail 29 continues to use the Canfield Balance Formula (CBF) suspension design, but has bigger bearings, beefier hardware, ISCG-05 tabs, a universal derailleur hanger, and extra seat post insertion room for longer droppers on all sizes compared to its 27.5" sibling, which will remain in the line. The Rail 29 can run any coil shock thanks to a smaller yoke at the lower shock mount.

Revel Rail Details

• Wheelsize: 29"
• Rear travel: 155mm / 160mm fork
• Carbon frame
• 65° head angle
• Sizes: S / M / L / XL
• Chainstay length: 436mm
• Reach: 427mm / 447mm / 469mm / 494mm
• From $5,999 to $10,999 USD
• Two Frame Colours
revelbikes.com

The Rail in four builds, starting at $5,999 USD and as a frameset, which will set you back $3,499 USD and in two colours - "Lead King" and "Shred Velvet Cake".


Frame Details

The Rail has completely redesigned linkage hardware so that you only need one tool, a 6mm wrench, for pivot maintenance. Keeping with that ease of maintenance theme, Revel says that you can disassemble the entire linkage without taking your cranks off. There are also now bigger bearings for increased durability, better seals, and only one row of bearings needed.

All sizes have extra seat post insertion room for longer droppers and are compatible with all coil shock options thanks to a smaller yoke at the lower shock mount.

You can fit up to a 29" x 2.4" tire in the rear, there's a threaded bottom bracket, and room for two water bottles (on the top and bottom of the downtube).

The Rail 29 is Revel's first bike with ISCG-05 tabs and a universal derailleur hanger (UDH).



Geometry



The geometry on the Revel 29 mirrors that of its 27.5" sibling. The head tube angle is exactly the same at 65°, and although the chainstays have grown by 6mm on the 29er to 436mm, the reach is a touch shorter.

The 27.5" Rail has a 430mm reach on the size small, 450mm on the size medium, 470mm on the size large, and 495mm on the size XL, while the current version has a 427mm reach on the size small, 447mm on the size medium, 469mm on the size large, and 494mm on the XL. The Rail 29's geometry numbers are on the more conservative side for a bike with this amount of travel, a little steeper and shorter than what has become the norm.

The effective seat tube angle is a degree steeper on the Rail 29 compared to the 27.5" version at 76°.

The Rail 29 comes in four sizes, Small through XL.



Suspension Design

The bike uses the same very distinctive Canfield Balance Formula (CBF) suspension design that the Rail 27.5" does, which Revel licensed from Canfield. Revel says that CBF focuses on designing rear suspension around the Center of Curvature (CC) instead of on the instant center.

CBF points the chainline and corresponding drive forces around the top of the chainring through 100-percent of the travel which Revel says results in maximum pedaling efficiency, regardless of where you are in the travel and what terrain you are on. This allows the suspension to do its job completely independent of drivetrain and braking forces.


Models and Pricing

The Revel Rail in Velvet Shred Cake.
The Revel Rail in Lead King.

There are four models of the Revel, each of which is available in two colourways. The SRAM GX model is $5,999 USD, the Shimano XT model is $7,299 USD, the SRAM X01 model is $8,299, and the SRAM XX1 AXS complete $10,999 USD. You can also get a frame for $3499 USD. Bikes will start shipping in the spring.


319 Comments

  • 248 13
 LETS F****** PARTY!
  • 87 7
 You can use that same comment in any article on PB and Id upvote you every time
  • 16 37
flag TheColoradoKid (Mar 2, 2022 at 16:54) (Below Threshold)
 Pump the brakes buddy, heard it rides like an XC bike.
  • 29 2
 Real talk… How many dudes can I pick up with this thing?
  • 46 0
 In the midnight hour, she cried more , more ,more.. With the Revel Rail,she cried more, more,more….MORE-MORE-MORE!!
YEEEEAAAOOOW!!
  • 2 3
 @scary1: Cult RULES
  • 2 0
 @scary1: you and Billy get me
  • 7 5
 @TheColoradoKid: It's geo numbers are those of an enduro bike from 5-6 to years ago. It's a long travel trail bike. The higher bottom bracket, steeper than most enduro-realm bikes head angle and shorter reach are not my thing. It seems like it's aimed at people that want a Rascal with a sneeze "more". That said, I think you could put a 27.5 wheel on it, along with a -1 angleset and have something that would push it into modern enduro rig territory. Or you could just get something else. IMHO, if Canfield's had mounts for a water bottle inside the front triangle they'd be hard to argue against.
  • 8 1
 @hellbelly: geometry preference is completely subjective. I’ve seen plenty of good riders do a lot more with less.
  • 4 0
 @hellbelly: some of us prefer the older geometries over the current crop of bikes. I'd give anything to go back to my '14 Slash
  • 2 0
 @mattsavage: Then it appears you're in luck outside of the Rail's pesky steeper seat angle. Ha! That said, there are tons of riders who dig older "style" bikes and think new stuff is nonsense. Ride whatever turns you on.
  • 78 5
 Love it. Surprised by how many Revels I've seen here on the East Coast. Seems that anyone who rides one loves it. The geo for me is spot on for an all-mountain bike. Seems a few brands have back off from going full slack and to me that is a happy development.
  • 24 0
 Sixes Pit outside of Atlanta is one of Revel's biggest dealers. They pump them out.
  • 62 1
 That canfied linkage is one of the best suspension platforms on the market
  • 17 2
 I've got a Rascal and couldn't be happier with it, CBF feels like it has far more travel than it does and Revel absolutely nailed the geometry for what I use it for, bit on the conservative side compared to some brands but it just works extremely well. If I was in the market for a bigger bike this would be at the top of my list.
  • 17 3
 Yeah this looks awesome. I just built up a v2 Ripmo and this looks very similar in geo, travel, and design. Should be an awesome all mountain bike. But so much for d2c pricing. Frame is same cost as a Ripmo.
  • 9 1
 @adrennan: That's actually what they claim on their website. And Trek claims the same thing too. I'm just wondering when they are going to arm wrestle for the title.
  • 32 2
 Canfield's CBF suspension seems ideal for pedaling over chunk, which is a big deal on the East Coast
  • 8 4
 My 27.5 Rail was awesome, I have the 29'er pre ordered and by all accounts it will exceed the prior version.
  • 9 0
 @chrod: exactly. And the geo being a bit less slack makes it better for maneuvering through the tight, no flow, hiking trails we have around here.
  • 1 0
 @adrennan: too bad they didn't license the layout as well as the linkage
  • 5 1
 CBF FTW! You can ride just about anything on a mountain bike, but then you can ride it even better with CBF. Rider and bike harmony that enables ultimate trail annihilation!
  • 1 0
 @adrennan: Well said!
  • 5 2
 Bet they'll update the seat tube angle on the Rascal now... I'd have bought one if it had a steeper STA. (cause I wanted to over fork and angleset it)

Hefty frame only price for D2C...
  • 24 0
 @chrod: This needs to be a new review metric. I don't really care at all if a given suspension saves 2.5 watts or 3 seconds on a 2 minute fire-road climb. I care if it maintains traction and momentum up chunky and punchy climbs, because spinning out or stalling out and restarting is going to burn way more energy than the marginal gains of being "efficient" on smooth shit.
  • 3 2
 @foggnm: If Trek loses, Revel gets to produce a frame called the Session. Wink
  • 7 0
 @chrod: I thought the coast was mostly sand and seashells?
  • 16 4
 @chrod: This was my biggest takeaway after getting a Rascal coming from a VPP bike. The CBF doesn't hang up on square edged stuff climbing like the VPP bike did. Another thimg that people need to be aware of, the CBF was designed around a 32 front ring Deviating from this has huge impact on how the suspension works. I ran a 30t for the first few rides and the tire broke traction under power while climbing pretty easy like my old Horst link bike. With a 32t it climbs noticeably better.
  • 9 2
 @OnTheRivet: excellent points; I rode a horst link bike and a VPP bike in my decade on the east coast and always had to increase travel, run a coil, use sticky tires (Nevegals at the time), and learn actual body english in order to get the traction I wanted over new england's brutal tech landscape.
With the advent of 1x drivetrains we like to think we've avoided pedaling issues due to chainring size, but there's still sensitivity to chainring size for some platforms. good to know about the CBF, where the instant center is relatively close to the BB (as opposed to a Horst).

just like @justinfoil said, if reviewers could take into account where in the world a bike's suspension and geo would be most or least ideal based on common riding conditions, it would help consumers choose more wisely. Many reviews say X bike or suspension is great for Y terrain but that assessment is often limited to where they rode it. Imagine if every PB write-up included tests in 5 global locations @notoutsideceo make it happen!
  • 3 2
 @OnTheRivet: Good to know. I run a 28T and 11sp XT cass that goes to 46... Seems I'd have to jump to 12sp to get the gearing I need. (I need a super granny for my local laps)
  • 1 0
 @OnTheRivet:
PS I think we ran into each other a few months ago at La Costa! I was gawking at your Rascal while riding my GG.
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: the impossible climb?
  • 4 2
 @Funkylicious: hell ya brother!! This bike comes in metal too on Canfield's website...for when you wanna turn trails inside out and upside down!!!
  • 2 0
 @jsobrie: not the way it's been done, as just "levy got this far on this bike, and that far on that bike". Need more analysis: "this bike seems to get hung up when powering up square edges, that one didn't track over roots and slipped a lot". Stuff like that.
  • 1 0
 @jsobrie: and as part of regular reviews, not just a special as part of the field trips
  • 4 3
 @OnTheRivet: I didn't know it was so sensitive to chainring size. I need my 30-51 gear on the steep sustained stuff. 32-51 is tough on long stuff. How does an oval chainring impact things?
  • 3 0
 @OnTheRivet: those 30t results help show how more anti-squat is not always the best thing. It might make a bike stand up and "feel fast" on the power on smooth ground, but it also can sacrifice traction on the power on rough stuff, as you experienced.

I had the same experience reducing chainring size on Meta SX: a 32t gave just under 100% anti-squat (IIRC) in climbing gears near sag, but a 30t sent the AS through the roof and killed traction on chunky climbs.
  • 5 1
 @OnTheRivet: The chain ring size is a small price to pay for suspension that isn't affected by sag.
  • 4 0
 @sngltrkmnd: Suntour makes an 11-50 cassette for 11 speed, but you need to run a long cage SGS der.
I’ve heard good things about the quality, weight isn’t much higher than XT, and price is $100
  • 9 0
 @chrod: I agree with your sentiment that different terrain suits different suspension characteristics, and you make a good observation that sprocket combinations change suspension characteristics. The location of the rider's centre of mass also has a significant effect, which is why a small rider may experience more "crisp" pedaling and a tall rider may experience more squat while pedaling if the bike doesn't use Size-Specific Kinematics (which very few bikes do). It's definitely not a "one design fits all" solution!

One clarification:

Whether a design uses a twin-short-link (ex. VPP, Maestro, CBF, dw, etc.), one-long-one-short (ex. Horst), or two-long (ex. Lawwill), any of these designs can have a high instant-centre, low instant-centre, or anything in between. The IC could be near the BB or infinitely far from it. The location of the IC is not intrinsic to the length of the links, it's located where the designer chooses to locate it. Shorter links give the designer the option to make sharp kinks in the suspension parameter curves (ex. the famous S-bend in dw*link curves), while long links enable the designer to create more consistent curves.
  • 3 0
 @sngltrkmnd: garbaruk 11- 50 works perfectly with the longcage shimano xt 11 speed.
  • 2 0
 @AndrewFleming: Their black lit anodized parts case is my favorite thing ever.
  • 2 1
 @WasatchEnduro: Frame also includes fox 36 factory fork and shock...
  • 1 0
 @Exp: Nope. $3,500 is frame and shock, no fork. Check the website again.
  • 3 1
 @muumuu: An oval will be approx +2T under the power stroke and -2T in between, so a 30T oval should pedal a lot like a 32T, since the power stroke is when you have the max acceleration, weight transfer, and chain tension.
That said, I'm skeptical of this sensitivity to chainring diameter. Most anti-squat behavior comes from the geometry of weight transfer, not from chain interaction - it should be a very subtle difference if noticeable at all for a single jump in chainring size, even on a short-link 4 bar. More likely, the difference is a combo of good day vs bad day, placebo affect, and the reality that if you're in a higher gear at the same cadence, you're carrying more speed and momentum through the section, and are putting down less torque. I clean my most technical climbs in the middle of my cogset, not my granny. In granny, I'll stall out, get hug up, and/or spin.
  • 4 0
 @ohio: You're partially correct that an oval chainring behaves more like the +2T size, since that's its effective diameter under power. It's more complicated, though, because the oval profile exaggerates the naturally uneven power input curve, which exaggerates the inertial effects and can amplify any resonant effects in the system. In other words, the oval profile may work better with our bodies (I'm not convinced it does - certainly not universally so), but almost certainly worse our suspension.

The median change in a bike's anti-squat between 30T and 32T 4.5%.
  • 1 0
 @optimumnotmaximum: Cool thanks! Never heard of that company before. Funny to see that the cassette is $244USD… and shipping to the US is free for products over $250USD. That gives me a groan and a chuckle at the same time.
  • 2 0
 @sngltrkmnd: got it here for 189€, not that bad for eu made from a solid block and really light. Still expensive ? Yes. But i wanted to go shimano 11 speed 11- 50 and the deore cadsette was 80,€ 600+ grams and out of stock. Garbaruk was an ukrainian racing shop which moved to poland about 3 years ago. Probably not the worst decision.
  • 1 1
 @ohio: "Most anti-squat behavior comes from the geometry of weight transfer, not from chain interaction"

Yes and no. I recall hearing Dave Weagle mention this as part of the magic of DW-link, the acceleration force pushing the wheel forward relative to the frame (the cause of the weight transfer) causing a suspension extending force, and and it makes sense. However, all the measurements I've ever seen (including PB's Behind the Numbers) derive anti-squat exclusively using the chainline as a factor. So while the geometry of acceleration forces is a factor in actual anti-squat forces, it's not a factor in the AS number people are usually talking about.

But I think you're right in an oval having minimum effect on any anti-squat factor. Because it's continually variable, it's a different situation than a set change in chainline or acceleration force that a different tooth count would bring. The whole point of ovals is to smooth the power transfer, and though I don't like ovals for regular riding*, I think they feel amazing traction-wise on sloppy and/or rough climb: it felt like I had a crazy low pressure in the rear tire, that I could keep turning up the power but didn't have to worry at all about accidentally pushing too hard and spinning out, which equates to smooth power to the ground, which equates to smooth anti-squat forces. Yeah, an oval probably isn't going to mess up anti-squat feeling, might even help.

* Ovals make me tend to use a higher cadence, and get tired faster because then I'm hitting the power stroke more often than I would at my normal cadence.
  • 2 0
 @WasatchEnduro: Was just thinking those angles look very similar to my Ripmo. Slightly more travel but on paper it looks like a very similar tool. Should be a blast to ride.
  • 2 0
 @sngltrkmnd: I run a Grabaruk 10-48 on my AXS gravel bike and it has been faultless. Quality is first rate, better than SRAM.
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: I think you may be misinterpreting the behind the numbers. Here's @dan-roberts' piece, and he is calculating antisquat correctly - as a combination of CoG, pivot geometry and chainline: www.pinkbike.com/news/definitions-what-is-anti-squat.html. It's the pivot/IC geometric component that factors in mass transfer from the CoG. Put another way, the anti-squat calc inherently factors in both chain forces and mass transfer.
And yeah, to both your and @R-M-R's comments, I haven't seen any calcs or tests on oval ring behavior, so I'm speculating there, but my gut says on a bike with ~100% anti-squat at *climbing* sag, an oval ring shouldn't give you noticeably worse behavior unless you're a rare human with very very consistent circular cadence, because most riders just aren't pushing that hard enough between strokes to have much effect on the suspension. Even road cyclists are generally right around zero Tq with their second leg, right as they are finishing at zero with their first leg: www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2014/04/torque-effectiveness-and-pedal-smoothness. You're carrying momentum, not accelerating, between strokes.
  • 1 0
 @nyhc00: what happened to the rail?
  • 1 0
 @chasecanbike: sold it.
  • 48 4
 Didn't see it mentioned, but ...

Canfield sells a long travel 29er called the Lithium, it's less expensive, made of aluminum, has room for a 29 x 2.5-2.6, has shorter chain stays (430 vs 436), and it has a long stroke option (165mm). The only issue I have with the Lithium has no place for a water bottle, but I ride with a pack so it's a non issue.

I really like my Lithium, so smooth, pedals well up, handles tech as well as any bike I've ridden, and it very capable on the downs.

Frames run $1850 plus shock.
  • 13 0
 Love my Canfield Lithium! Stoked to see another CBF bike on the market, and think it's cool that they are still unique beyond frame material ... travel, geo, etc. Glad to see it's a totally different bike and not just a carbon copy (pun intended) of the Lithium.
  • 13 0
 Toyota vs. Lexus
  • 3 1
 CBF is the real deal. I have a V2 Balance that I think I might swap for a current one. It's a fantastic bike.
  • 5 0
 @BlackVR: the term CBF always makes my balls creep in , gont know why.
  • 2 0
 @nurseben shhh don't let the word out
  • 3 0
 Agree completely. The Lithium is the best do it all bike I have ever owned. I replaced a Yeti SB5.5 with it and haven't looked back. Jump lines where I used to grit my teeth because the Yeti felt a bit out of its element, the Lithium just smiles. Climbs, the Yeti was definitely lighter with the current build but the Lithium just hooks up and keeps chugging. It really is an incredible machine!
  • 6 0
 There is SO much more to suspension performance than which family of architectures it uses (e.g. CBF, VPP, DW, Horst), that I would not expect these two bikes to be anything alike. Geometry and compression rate are by far the most critical factors, then anti-squat, kickback and anti-rise behavior. Suspension architecture is sorta just a toolkit to achieve what you want from those other things. Put another way, a Horst Link bike with the same geo and compression curve as the Canfield will feel nearly indistinguishable in the first half of the travel, and neither will feel anything like the Revel.
  • 3 0
 @ohio: THANK YOU. Yes, I've designed Horst bikes, which I'll call "L-S" for "long-short" to describe the two main links in a more generic way, and S-S bikes with nearly identical kinematic properties, and I've designed other L-S and S-S bikes with completely different parameters. Some S-S bikes have kinematics properties with nearly linear curves, while others have curves with dramatic inflection points and rapid changes in curvature. And, as you said, the spring and damping curves of the shock are entirely separate parameters, not to mention the dimensions and stiffness of the chassis.

There's a lot more to fit, handling, and suspension feel than just looking at the linkage configuration!
  • 42 3
 Pissed it’s not a tandem…
  • 6 0
 I hear they have that launch scheduled for early next month!
  • 40 6
 Looks good. Geo Chart looks good. But limited to 2.4" tire width? 2.5" is a pretty common tire size these days...
  • 25 74
flag Explodo (Mar 2, 2022 at 8:06) (Below Threshold)
 Yeah...Any bike that won't take a 2.6 is an automatic NO.
  • 20 5
 @Explodo: lol
  • 34 0
 I personally think a 2.4" in the rear is fine, but I'd like to see clearance for a bigger tire so you know you won't have issues with tire rub when you break a spoke. Maybe there's sufficient lateral clearance but not radial due to the suspension design?
  • 36 7
 @Explodo: Do people really like squirmy 2.6's out back?
  • 18 7
 @Mntneer: lol to what? Common sense.

Possibility to put 2.6 rear tire doesnt mean that you must have 2.6 on the rear but you have much more room for mud when you have 2.4 or 2.5 tire on back.

Also those cables under BB looks fugly
  • 15 0
 The Rascal also says 2.4" max but plenty of people, myself included, clear a 2.6 with no problem.
  • 7 1
 @DaneL: There is a lot of clearance on this bike. 2.4 is pretty conservative.
  • 4 19
flag Explodo (Mar 2, 2022 at 8:43) (Below Threshold)
 @ridingsteeps: Tire width is not one-size-fits-all. What tires work for you depend on where you ride, how you ride, rim width, weight of rider, and probably more things. Weight of rider and rim width are very important factors. Light riders don't need bigger tires unless it's for specialty stuff. Heavier riders can get quite an advantage from wider tires. A 160lb rider probably gets a shit ride from a 3.0, whereas a 210 lb rider can enjoy them nicely(assuming proper setup).
  • 3 1
 Revel says the same for the 27.5 Rail. I have that bike and have been running a 2.5" since day one with no issues.
  • 9 1
 Look at the most popular rear tires for long travel bikes. Maxxis DHRII and Dissector, both are 2.4" and winning everything there is to win.
  • 5 3
 @ridingsteeps: Maybe you just need better 2.6s. I run DoubleDown or ApexProtection style tires in the back as a rule, not squirmy even at 23psi at 100 kilos, and around here we have lots of off-camber granite (including landings, too) to really work a tire. If I can't find DD or similar I'll run a CushCore-style (sidewall-supporting) insert for similar performance.
  • 7 0
 i run a 6.9. the fatter the better
  • 6 1
 @ridingsteeps: Yes, I absolutely love it. The problem isn't the width of the tire, it's that few rims are wide enough to stabilize the wider tire, and even fewer people mount a wide(ish) tire on a sufficiently wide rim. Additional problems are caused by tread patterns that aren't designed for the profile of the tire on a sufficiently wide rim.

I agree with you that a typical 2.6" set-up - usually on a 30 mm wide rim - has problems. My point is that it can work - and work better - but only with a few, very specific combinations of current products. This will change in time, so don't write off wide tires yet, only the current implementation!
  • 6 2
 @Explodo: maybe learn to ride with better technique?
  • 2 1
 @R-M-R: what is a "typical setup" and what is wrong with "the current implementation"? It's also very much a factor of bike, rider, and terrain, because I know lots of people that dig 2.5-2.6 tires (with the proper casing and/or insert for the terrain and ride style) on 30-35 rims.
  • 5 0
 I've run 2.4 - 2.8 at varying times over the past 5-6 years and there are uses for all of them to the right person at the right time on the right rim and bike. Currently I have one bike with 2.4f/r and another with 2.5f/r. You can setup your suspension however you want, but if you're one of those people who likes to "mute" the trail chatter it doesn't get much better than a 2.8 at 15psi. However if you're a ripper and you take that down a bike park trail you can probably blow that tire off the rim in the first berm if you want. That's why for me personally I've landed on the 2.4 for the faster XC bike and 2.5's on my all-mountain bike.
  • 5 0
 @justinfoil: Currently, the most common rim inner width is 30 mm, which is used for a variety of tire widths. Hopefully, we can agree rim width should be proportionate to tire width, all else being equal. I'm not sure exactly what the proportionality should be, but there is clearly a correlation. If people are using 30 mm rims with 2.3", 2.4", 2.5", 2.6", even 2.8" tires, some of these combinations have to be less than ideal. Maybe all of these combinations are less than ideal, in which case some are further from ideal than others.

The problem with the current implementation is many people experience excessive lateral deflection of wide tires on typical rims. Solutions can include stiffer casings, highly supportive inserts, and/or wider rims. The rim option usually adds the least weight, particularly with carbon rims, which concentrate most of their mass at the bead lips and have light central spans. Therefore, wider rims - especially carbon rims - enable riders to get the traction, comfort, and rolling resistance benefits of wider tires without the unwanted lateral deflection and with minimal extra mass.

In the past few years, most of my testing has involved 2.4" - 2.65" on the rear (limited by my frame) and 2.4" - 2.85" on the front (limited by my fork) on 30 mm - 45 mm rims. (These are actual widths; nominal widths are often way off the mark.) Lateral stability and ride quality kept improving with increasing rim with, but 45 mm is the widest decent rim I can find and the tread profiles of many tires became unsafe with extremely wide rims. My main set-up is 2.6" rear on a 36 mm rim and 2.6" - 2.85" front with the same rim or slightly wider. There's room for improvement, but it would definitely require a different tread profile and probably a different casing stiffness profile.
  • 2 2
 @gspottickles918: hey guys there’s nothing wrong with girthy rubber in the rear!!
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: a bit late to this but also, alot of 2.6 tires aren't true 2.6. my specialized 2.6 black diamond eliminator and butcher (I'm butcher f and r for the wet and mixed conditions, mix of both for others and eliminator front and back for dry. They are insane. Plus lower psi and fit perfectly on 30id rims
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: which 2.6" tire on what rim? My blockhead extrapolation from dhr II 2.3" on 27mm Reserve goes to 2.4/30 (dhr II/xm481), 2.5/33 and 2.6/36, but I have not used the second two pairings. 'Soil' here is dry sandy crunchy chunk and won't reliably support higher lean angles, so these pairings favor a squarer profile which engages the inner face of the shoulder knob more quickly at 25psi for a 175lb rider....

@makripper: I read that latest Eliminator 2.3" are more like 2.4. Spesh puts these on 30mm id rims
  • 3 0
 @makripper: Yes, nominal sizing is all over the place. I have an older Specialized Purgatory 2.6" and a Vee Flow Snap 2.6" that both measure 2.4" on a 36 mm rim, while the IRC Tanken measures nearly 2.7" on the same rim. (All measurements are across the casing, not the lugs.) The Tanken is only a little smaller than a Maxxis and Bontrager 3.0", each of which measure 2.85".

@ceecee: My favourite rear tire has been the 2.6" Kenda Nevegal2 on a 35 - 40 mm rim. The Nevegal2 and Hellkat have more tread wrap than anything else I've tested, so they can handle wide rims. Still undecided on my favourite front. The widest I can fit is a 3" Minion or Bontrager XR4/SE4 on a very wide rim. I wanted to see if this was way too much tire ... and I think I like it. Maybe. It's a lighter set-up than a 2.5" Double Down and the lateral stability is good at pressures low enough to work properly with the volume, so the downsides of such an extreme set-up are less than I expected. It has a bit of the "fat bike" handling feel, but my head-tube angle isn't super slack, so those factors somewhat offset each other with respect to steering agility. For anyone who thinks they don't like larger tires, I might recommend a Kenda Hellkat 2.6" on 40 mm rim for good casing performance with excellent lateral stability (since that tread pattern can handle the wide rim), but Kenda's DTC rubber compound is only average. My ideal front tire doesn't exist ... yet.

Soil here is dry and ranges from hardpack to sharp limestone scree. Compared to what people might be familiar with seeing from our neighbours in British Columbia, our trail speeds are typically higher and gradients are less steep. Imagine something halfway between Colorado high country and BC interior.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: funny how little has changed since July 2018, where Structure-Ryan says: 'I'm interested to know what would happen if a 2.8" or 3" tire's tread was put on a 2.5" casing, then mounted on a 40 mm or 50 mm rim. Might be a disaster or it might be the only way to get a wide footprint with a light casing that doesn't suffer lateral collapse.' --https://www.pinkbike.com/news/rim-widths-comparison-test-mountain-bike.html

If the tread wrap on a Nevegal.2 2.2" is proportional to that of 2.6, putting the 2.2 on a comparatively wide 27mm iw ought to provide more of the wide rim experience without me having to shell out for new rims. I want to see if this is way too little tread. Hellkat lugs look fun too-a less hyperactive Vigilante. Thanks for the infos
  • 1 0
 @ceecee: Aww, you remembered! Flattering to know I have a fan club! Fab

Yep, it remains a back burner project. Tires are a high capital, low margin product, hence the concentration of products among a small number of vertically-integrated companies, plus a few major OEs that work with CST/Maxxis, Hutchinson, and, recently, a few other factories. In other words, a tough game to break into with lots of downside and little upside, so I continue to screw around with off-the-shelf options, occasionally cutting some lugs to mildly reshape a tread. Haven't even bothered to try cutting an existing tread and gluing it onto an existing casing. Existing projects are just so much more straightforward - and profitable.

Anyway, the relationship isn't linear and the tread pattern usually changes between sizes, so I don't think the 2.2" on a 27 mm rim will be equivalent to a 2.6". Plus, there's a lot more to it than just the aspect ratio - if it was just about the aspect ratio, we might as well put a 33 mm cyclocross tire on a 23 mm rim! Also, I'm not sure the tread wrap is proportionate; some people have said the wrap on Kenda's 2.4" tires isn't above average, while the 2.6" Nevegal2 and Hellkat definitely have more than average.

A 2.2" tire on a decently wide rim will have sufficient lateral stability at low pressure, but that low pressure stability isn't very useful when there's insufficient casing height to protect from bottoming out - and maybe a shallower tread? You could use a very stiff casing or an insert, but if you're going to add that kind of weight and stiffness, you might as well use a larger tire on a larger rim. It's about finding the optimal balance of limiting factors between lateral stability, bottom-out protection, handling, weight, rebound energy management, and - particularly for rear tires - casing shear collapse. 2.2" is definitely too small (limiting factor: bottom-out) and 4" is definitely too large (rebound energy, weight, and maybe handling, though maybe that could be addressed addressed via reduced steering trail). Still trying to figure out where the optimum lies between those bounds, but, as you've noticed, I've found some moderate improvements to typical set-ups and I'm not trying that hard to push beyond off-the-shelf solutions.
  • 33 4
 Thanks revel, for making a bike that doesn't lean heavily into LONG, LOW, SLACK. Sweet spot on the geo imo
  • 27 9
 I realize Revel likes conservative geometry, but it really seems like they're making an effort to not make their existing models seem dated. That said, this seems like it would be a comfortable bike for doing all day epics rather than just being as fast as possible in a straight line on the downhills.
  • 13 1
 I think there are few brands whose baseline starting point is 'it pedals well'. I know I've heard Revel's founder guy say that they want really well pedaling bikes, so probably lends to being on the more conservative end of geometry, even if it's a long travel bike. May just see some of that bifrication in the industry where some brands really push their bikes toward downhill bias (Transition) and other brands focus on the long pedaling days (Pivot).
  • 13 7
 Not being on the bleeding edge of geometry development ≠ conservative.

I'm not a fan of this bike for a number of reasons, but at least the geo numbers seem perfectly reasonable and relatively contemporary.
  • 21 19
 Nah, these 63 degree bikes with 490 reach in a size M are only thought to be advantageous by people who make up for lack of talent with geometry. Look at Richie, Jack, Florian, etc. They're all on bikes that Pinkbike commenters would say are "too small." I think that geo is spot on for a race bike, although I would put a -1 degree angle headset in there.
  • 6 1
 yeah it’s ‘all mountain’ and not enduroAF. That being said I imagine it’d be gnarly with a coil and 170 up front.
  • 4 0
 I think it makes sense to differentiate from the market, instead of going "me too" long, low, slack like every other brand that's trying to play catchup to Transition and Commencal.
  • 10 1
 65 degree HTA is fine, but that seat tube is a bit long for each size. Shorter seat tubes, I think, should be everywhere and independent of geometry preference/style.
  • 7 1
 I'm really interested in Revel and can at least sorta understand the idea behind a 65 HTA and some of the other numbers, but I'd probably go with an XL and the 435 rear center is tough to accept with so many other companies offering options that will give me a much more balanced bike. At we least we got ISCG-05 tabs and better hardware.
  • 5 0
 Well, aren't there more riders just going out and riding everything, than riders just going "as fast as possible in a straight line on the downhills"? Kinda makes sense if you only have a few models that they'd be more generalized vs trying to cater to a much smaller niche market.
  • 2 0
 @FMHUM: Pedaling is affected by soooo much more than just angles and reach (which I'm assuming is what people are calling conservative). They picked CBF and those effective-top-tube sizes for pedaling, they picked those reach and angles for general ride feel.
  • 8 0
 @withdignityifnotalacrity: It's quite ironic as even Commencal themselves apparently felt like Reach numbers are getting way out of hand. The new Meta SX has a 15 mm shorter Reach across the entire range compared to the Meta AM.
  • 7 2
 @fullendurbro: Well it's also marketing that convinces people they need these super slack and long bikes.. In reality most ppl would barely notice the difference if at all between a 1 degree head angle and 10mm reach difference... If you are good at riding, you can pretty much ride any bike regardless of geometry.
  • 2 1
 @fullendurbro: if I was 20-25 years younger and racing in Europe I’d still be on a large instead of XL. But I’m not, so I’m not.
  • 9 6
 This geo is absolutely spot on. The brand is following rider feedback rather than forum comments
  • 6 14
flag Linc (Mar 2, 2022 at 13:41) (Below Threshold)
 @fullendurbro: completely agree. Long slack bikes only feel good to bad riders.
  • 3 2
 Agreed. I was pretty surprised to the numbers. It is pretty conservative to be honest... Okay for an all around trail bike I guess.
  • 3 3
 @Muscovir: "perfectly reasonable and relatively contemporary." for a trail bike IMO. Which is fine, if that's what someone needs.
  • 3 3
 @hamncheez: And I'd still like another degree steeper on the STA too...
  • 2 0
 @FMHUM: Correct, but it’s also based on the terrain. Pivot rides AZ trails which are aren’t that flowy nor fast. Rocky and techy similar to East coast. Long and slack simply doesn't work as well as balanced.
  • 7 0
 @Muscovir: Some brands are forever chasing trends, other brands actually innovate based on what works for the kind of riding they're aiming for.
  • 4 1
 @mybaben: One thing to remember is that CBF suspension is efficient pedaling. So that 76* probably sits like your average horst link bike with a 77* STA when your pedaling.
  • 4 0
 @yupstate: can confirm. My giant reign 29, which is a degree steeper than this bike, got stolen late 2020 when the pandemic was in full swing. I replaced it with a 27.5 rail (75 degree sa) as it was the best option available to me at the time given the lack of inventory. I thought it was going to be a slog uphill but I am just as fast and comfortable uphill on the CBF as I was on the giant.
  • 2 0
 @diegosk: Makes sense. I own two Pivot's and neither of them have much more than a 74-74.5*STA and while they aren't "steep enough" still by current standards they are still fairly decent because again its probably more similar to 75-76* bikes that go deeper into the travel when pedaling.
  • 1 0
 @yupstate: That's a fair point!
  • 2 0
 @SvenNorske: That's interesting, and makes sense. I live in the PNW and demoed a size large Mach 5.5 once. When the trails got steep I felt like I was falling off the bike. I don't like having to do gymnastics just to climb. Wink
  • 1 0
 @withdignityifnotalacrity: Exactly. Although, I gotta say I rather like Commencal bikes (in theory). It was just that I had to send my Meta AM back, because I couldn't get used to the length. Rode it for seven days, trying to love it but eventually I hated it as much on day seven as I did on day one. It was just too damn big, even though I sized it according to Commencals recommendations. HUGE drawback of buying D2C.
  • 1 0
 @Muscovir: yeah, I've had a bad experience riding wheelbases that are jus too long for local trails, despite the size recommendations.
  • 22 3
 Actual STA is going to be petty slack for us tall folk.
  • 11 4
 It's as if so many of these designers have been hibernating past 3 years.
  • 5 9
flag kokofosho (Mar 2, 2022 at 10:08) (Below Threshold)
 @jrocksdh: how many XL's do they sell vs M?
  • 7 1
 @jrocksdh: they did say they started designing it 3 years ago. Maybe they started at the seat tube and never changed it…
  • 2 0
 @Vlad-Putin: it’s not like most tall people are looking for a reach under 500 in a XL. I think you’re right, seat tube angle and estimate top tube parameters never got changed. They tried really hard to keep the shock yoke as short as possible and basically designed a size medium and just scaled it up to call it a L or XL. Some weird choices in there.

+30mm reach
+10mm yoke
-20mm front shock mount extension
+2 degrees actual seat tube angle
(All nicely rounded bs numbers but you get the idea)
  • 2 2
 The actual seat tube number is the same pretty much every other popular brand
  • 3 0
 Some brands just seem to be more conservative. Intense has been like that too.
  • 24 12
 These guys must not know any 6'7" guys. An XL with 494mm reach and a 77' ESTA will fit up to about 6'3" max. A guy with a 35+" inseam will hit his knees on the handlebars on a bike this size. Good to know they didn't test this before stating it on their geo table. I wonder what other obvious things they didn't test?
And that's not to mention the same length chainstay on every size, which is weak.
  • 19 5
 Agreed. 6'5 rider here. This XL is laughably small. Short reach and short top tube. There are trail bikes from 2018 that would be a better fit for anyone taller than 6'1.
  • 22 1
 At your height there are a few really good XXLs out there. Plus custom if you're not happy with how big those are.

At your height (mine too, I'm taller than you), you can't complain about everything not fitting you. Pants, shoes, cars, bikes, nothing is built for us. Support the brands that do care about us and don't stress about the ones that don't.
  • 7 0
 495 reach and suggested height of 6’7” is pretty laughable. What dimensions do you think are required at 6’7” and who does a decent XXL? Santa Cruz and Spesh?
  • 2 0
 @Vlad-Putin: Transition, YT, and Canyon are the only people making decent XXLs. The Santa Cruz XXL is basically a long XL with a short head tube that doesn't fit well for tall guys by the time you bring the bars up.
  • 2 0
 @Vlad-Putin: The new XXL Transition Spire or the grandaddy of properly proportioned big bikes, the Geometron G1. GT and YT are not.
  • 6 1
 @GTscoob: That's all good. But they shouldn't lie. There is no way a 6'7" person can ride an XL and they shouldn't be allowed to say that.
  • 4 0
 @alexsin: Agreed. I ride an XL transition as a trail bike and a nicolai geometron for enduro (haha which used to be yours, actually!). The newer XXL transitions and new S6 specialized bikes are really the only thing that come close to what Nicolai offers.
  • 14 4
 @Vlad-Putin: @Vlad-Putin: Hey, I know you're not you, but if you were you, I like to speak on behalf of the entire world right now and give you a big Fudk YOU! But since you're not actually you, have a nice day.
  • 5 4
 I have a 39” inseam and ride a 470 reach bike. Not everyone likes a plow machine.
  • 4 1
 y'all mutants just throw some 120mm steam and shut up Big Grin
  • 6 3
 @Linc: likewise not everyone wants to ride a clown bike.
  • 4 8
flag Linc (Mar 2, 2022 at 15:30) (Below Threshold)
 @TheSlayer99: True, only the fast and technically competent ones
  • 4 3
 @Linc: Spoken like someone that’s not yet tried a new school rig. If you’re fast and technically competent, you just go faster on these modern bikes. And who doesn’t wanna go faster?
  • 4 3
 @TheColoradoKid: I guess Jack Moir, Richie, Sam Hill the whole pivot team all don't want to go fast on their short bikes.
  • 3 2
 @Linc: there’s a difference between comically small and downsizing for maneuverability. A bike that is comically small is slower but the clowns that ride those bikes don’t understand that.
  • 3 2
 @TheSlayer99: Bike sizing and speed is also a function of the kinds of trails your skill level allows you to enjoy. Your typical weekend enduro warrior with a long bike loves the #blueflow, because they don't have skill to ride and enjoy steep janky tech. So, they buy a nice long mellow bike that allows them to go fast on straight, groomed out trails - but also compounds their inability to ride tech.... It's the circle of MTB poo poo life.
  • 4 1
 @Linc: people who ride bikes with 200mm+ dropper posts with 200mm+ of post extended ride clown bikes. There’s no reason to ride a bike that small. I know pros and other guys who are podium contenders in their class week in and week out who ride massive bikes because they have the cornering skills to make up for the lack of maneuverability. It all comes down to what people value in bike handling. Beginners generally will value the stability so they will ride an appropriately sized bike or go up a size. More advanced riders will tend to downsize to have a more maneuverable bike because they have the skills to deal with the lack of stability. To your point about racers, the pivot team (specifically Eddie and Bernard) across multiple interviews have said they size down on the Firebird to make it match the feel of the Phoenix because the Phoenix runs small. Richie could easily ride the large sb150, but the sb150 is more balanced in the medium than the large. Jack Moir said on multiple occasions he prefers a longer bike in Australia because he knows the trails and it’s better for it, but a smaller bike in Europe when the trails are tighter and e doesn’t know them as well. And finally in his own words, Sam Hill is a medium sized guy, so he rides a medium and the medium is appropriately sized for him.
  • 5 0
 @hotpotato: yeah - the name was funny a while ago. Not so good now and should prob be retired.
  • 11 2
 I like how the pricing of the frame only is reasonable. Unlike everyone else who felt compelled to raise the prices of their carbon frames from ~$3500 to over $4000. If I ever am in the market for another bike, I'll get a Revel.
  • 14 0
 Yeah seriously. An sb150 is $4700!!!! What the heck
  • 14 3
 Idk that I would call $3500 reasonable.. maybe compared to other brands but overall bike prices are astronomically high
  • 2 0
 @stumphumper92: Well, reasonable relative to anything else. I'd love a new good carbon frame with the right geo and kinematics for a lot less than $3500. But we all know that isn't happening. Maybe ever.
  • 10 1
 I think Revel bikes seem great, and it seems like an awesome company, but this statement on the front page of the company really bothers me:

"we are the only company using the mostly unheard of, yet legendary CBF suspension design".

That's not true, the CB literally stands for Canfield Brothers, and Canfield Brothers Bikes also employ the CBF. It makes it sound like they're trying to take all the credit.
  • 9 1
 Couple of clarifications: CBF stands for Canfield Balance Formula, not Canfield Brothers anything. 'Canfield Brothers' split up a couple of years ago, with Lance running the bike operation (now just Canfield Bikes) and Chris doing the suspension thing.

Weird that they'd use the "only company" verbiage, but from what I've seen/heard, Revel has a pretty good relationship with the Canfield dudes - I doubt it's intentional.
  • 12 2
 Let’s revel in that beautiful color, shall we?
  • 6 0
 Revel's colors are always so spot on. Excited to see these in person
  • 7 1
 Current rascal owner on the east coast and wondering if it's worth it to sell the rascal and buy a rail29 for a little extra comfort at the bike park. I like some of the incremental updates, but was maybe hoping for a longer reach/shorter top tube. Or just a size that puts 5'9" folks in the middle because my biggest issue with the rascal is that a med felt small so I went with the large which has a very long feeling top tube. this is a little better with the sta, but I'm not sure if just one degree will help.

Also not sure how I feel about the domain on the gx build for a 6k dollar bike, but I wasn't expecting a great "value" from a more boutique brand like this anyway. There's always the 2.1 damper upgrade. Also interesting how conservative the numbers still are. I think that makes this seem like it could be a great "aggressive trail" bike, but compared to a lot of enduro bikes on the market, it does feel conservative, which does make it a good pick for someone like me that just wants a good trail bike that can cover me when I write checks my skills are not able to cover. FWIW I do love my rascal and have absolutely drank the CBF kool-aid.
  • 4 4
 The Domain is more than fine for 95% of riders. If you aren't the type of person to be adjusting your high and low speed compression independently dependent on course or temperature, Domain will more than do the trick.
  • 2 2
 If you're looking for something to cover your checks, a bike with a bit more stable, high speed geometry is probably going to be more forgiving....no matter what the travel length.
  • 10 0
 The red color really should be called “Shred Velvet”.
  • 4 0
 @plustiresaintdead: Oh looks like it was a typo, earlier it was "Velvet Shred Cake"
  • 8 0
 @poleczechy: That's not a "typo", that's a plain old "mistake".
  • 10 2
 Nice bike, but does it really need a Zeb? To me it looks like a capable trail bike and could do with a Lyrik or 36.
  • 5 0
 My son has been racing a Rail for both Enduro and DH for the last 18 months. Equally at home in both. Took both his DH bike and Rail to a DH race on a blown out rocky track last weekend, tested both in practice, opted for the Rail and ate the track up. It also pedals ridiculously, and has been the perfect enduro race bike. I’m preaching to the choir for any Revel owners out there.
  • 9 0
 ISCG Tabs for the Win!
  • 8 1
 Seeing these everywhere these days...kinda weird but maybe goes to show 'conservative' geo is what a lot of people want.
  • 7 5
 You talking about "a lot of people" who just go out and ride for fun?

Are you telling me not everyone races for a living all-day every-day? That straight-line speed, plow-ability, and fire-road "efficiency" aren't the only things that matter? Doesn't everyone want only the newest, non-"dated" shit even when it's not ideal? What-evs, boomer. Long and slack AF, or bust!
  • 5 0
 Demoed a 27.5 Rail two years ago and was super stoked on it. Was eagerly anticipating this release but it came a bit late for me and I have already bought the LT 29er of my desire. Good luck Revel, I'm sure it slays!
  • 4 0
 "The Rail has completely redesigned linkage hardware so that you only need one tool, a 6mm wrench, for pivot maintenance."

I can't decide if this should be touted, or wonder why it wasn't that way already... I mean, it's definitely a nice change, but it's not uncommon anymore, kinda the status quo.
  • 7 1
 Did they fire the person responsible for that Sedona color aka dogsh*t burnt baby diaper? These colors are beeeeautiful!
  • 5 0
 Finally! Love what Revel has done with their other bikes and never understood why they did not have a long travel 29er yet. Happy to see this come out
  • 8 2
 And nobody is mad about the price. I guess pivot just gets the short stick when it comes to pinkbike commenters
  • 6 0
 Nice to see the XT build actually has a full line up of XT parts unlike some other brands I know. # Swivel.
  • 4 0
 Pretty impressive that Revel keeps pumping out all these new product launches with the industry wide supply chain issues. The Rail 27 is the best bike I’ve ever owned.. stoked for this 29
  • 3 1
 On the rear sus. can rocks and stuff get into the front part of the linkage? It is hard to tell from the pics, but I can only see the suspension compressed deep a stone flying up to land perfectly as the travel goes back and catches the pebble in between and crunch. But maybe I'm just paranoid.
  • 4 0
 on my rascal, rocks getting caught hasn't been a huge issue, but it's definitely not the most mud friendly linkage ever. If you can at least do a quick hose down after a ride in sticky stuff, it's not the end of the world. this linkage is obviously reworked for the rail29 though
  • 3 0
 The space between the link and BB shell gets larger as the suspension compresses which allows anything in there to fall away before returning to top out.
  • 1 0
 Rocks getting stuck isn't an issue after 2+ years. Some mud buildup but I feel that will be the case for all but the most simple single pivot suspension platforms
  • 4 1
 Why advertise two water bottle holder when I have never seen anyone really use the under the downtube. Would have rather seen two mount holes for a b-rad mount to hold the essentials for a ride.
  • 7 0
 But a B-rad uses a water bottle mount.
  • 7 0
 well, I pre-ordered one
  • 6 1
 Good to see; CBF shines the longer the travel.
  • 4 0
 Seems like a great daily driver for riding in the mountains. This travel/geometry combination is just about bang-on to me.
  • 2 1
 I'm not a huge fan of the geo of this bike on paper (obviously you can't tell everything from a geo sheet), but it's nice to see some more variance in geometry from bike brands. There's a lot of people who will want this amount of travel and not a 63 degree head angle and 440+mm stays.
  • 4 3
 Around my parts Revel’s are what people ride when their local shop has no juice to get them an Ibis/Evil/Pivot/Yeti. To their credit, Revel seems to be very good about going in to shops that don’t have a relationship with one of the giant brands and getting them product to sell. People seem happy with the bikes too.
  • 5 1
 How are people not complaining about the price?? 5999 for a Domain fork?? Couldn’t at least upgrade to a Zeb??
  • 3 0
 I love the changes to the linkage, thank you! Servicing my rascal is a pain I gotta tell you
  • 2 0
 Can someone tell me what tire provides a 379mm radius on a 29" wheel? It seems like the BB height + drop number is increasing with each year.
  • 5 1
 Room for a bottle on the bottom of the down tube does not count.
  • 1 0
 As a person who is 6'2.5", the xl has a very long seattube length, given its reach. The reach would be good for someone my height and the seattube length would be good for someone like 6'5". What gives?
  • 3 0
 Shut up and take my mo... Oh wait, I don't think I'll ever have $6k to spend on a bike...
  • 3 0
 Kind of disappointed in the lack of tire clearance out back. Personally I usually run a 2.5 or 2.6" tire for maximum float.
  • 3 0
 What a beauty!!! Turn it up to 11 baby!!!!
  • 3 0
 That color is awesome. Is it more bronze or green?
  • 4 0
 yes
  • 7 5
 bike looks great but hard pass on the geo..... Im sure someone else will like it
  • 2 2
 Here's a podcast with the owner of Revel Adam Miller talking about this bike. Go to 1 hour 22 minutes:

outofpodcast.com/2022/03/01/out-of-bounds-e189-revel-bikes-new-bike-drop-%f0%9f%91%80-jackie-paaso-on-arctic-12
  • 3 0
 I am officially renaming this bike the Rail'er
  • 3 0
 I Shred Velvet Caked my trousers once
  • 4 1
 Amazing company in general. Normal people who love to shred!
  • 3 2
 Perfect east coast geo. Need travel for big hits but can’t be enormous and slacked to hell with all the tight twisty shit we have.
  • 2 1
 What east coast do you live on where this is perfect?
  • 1 0
 You can add $180 to getting DD or similar casing tires.. Why can't companies put beefy casing tires on bikes with 160+ travel?
  • 2 0
 I'm in love and need a bit more travel for out West.... anyone want to buy my Spur?
  • 2 0
 The reach on medium is smaller than my medium ranger which doesn’t make a lot of sense
  • 1 0
 Just going to leave this here... Revel Rail 29 Tailored Protection Kit
  • 5 6
 This bike looks sweet, my only gripe is the reach on a Large. I love the 480 on my large Spur and like it even a little longer on longer travel bike. My S4 enduro is 487 I think.
  • 8 18
flag pmhobson (Mar 2, 2022 at 8:13) (Below Threshold)
 Reach alone is pretty meaningless without the effective top tube though
  • 2 2
 @pmhobson: True. The ETT is the same as the Spur which would be great for pedaling around, it's 14mm shorter than the Enduro which isn't tremendous. But for longer travel bikes on really gnarly trails, I've really grown to love the long reach. I rode some EWS courses last year and I loved having the front end really out in front of me when out of the saddle.
  • 3 2
 @matmattmatthew: Fair. Horses for courses. I'm 5'10" and proportionally more leg than torso. I love a 470 mm reach with a seat angle that gives my preferred ETT for pedaling. This bike's 469 mm reach seems great to me. Bikes can't be everything to everyone. Glad this one's (potentially) for me.
  • 12 11
 Generally seems already dated so it would be a hard sell unless something special happened on a demo ride.
  • 7 1
 That's where they get you. These bikes feel amazing
  • 5 2
 Define something special.
  • 3 1
 @AndrewFleming: spesh enduro.
Dh makes up for dated seat angle.
  • 3 1
 @jrocksdh: that doesn't sound very special
  • 2 0
 agreed
  • 2 0
 @AndrewFleming: I guess something like the difference I felt between my own Spech Enduro 29 ( which seems similar to this bike) and the new Enduro 29. When I demoed that bike It climbed the same or better and absolutely destroyed the descents.
  • 3 0
 That red one is gorgeous
  • 2 2
 The 27.5 rail doesn’t have iscg tabs and the cable routing goes under the bb. Those were the reasons I cancelled my order, if they changed those two things I’m in!
  • 2 1
 You can buy an iscg adapter/spacer from MRP and add tabs to bikes that don't come with them. I ran one for a yearish on an RSD Wildcat. Agree about the cables under the BB though...
  • 1 0
 I'm all for mid travel bikes with thick station forks. makes the bike feel much stabler and smoother over the choppy stuff
  • 2 0
 Yes!
  • 6 5
 A yes, the BB cable loop...
  • 5 4
 I noticed that too. Not a fan.
  • 6 0
 They have the cables running in the same place on my Rascal. I'm not sure why they appear so "loopy" in the pictures but mine are much tighter to the frame and I've never had an issue after 2 years of riding
  • 2 1
 @mtbthe603: You're a lucky one. Everyone I know with that routing eventually has to pull the cable back up the downtube. We think the suspension movement pulls the housing down and makes the loop grow over time. However, even with that loop, haven't seen them getting overly damaged like many people think might happen.
  • 3 0
 @justinfoil: hmmm maybe they're using a different size cable or not tightening down the clamp? You could also always throw a zip tie or some tape at the very top of the cable to keep it from pulling down. I've done that for other bikes in the past. It was a fear of mine at first for sure but I have never had any issues so jsut don't think about it now.
  • 1 0
 @mtbthe603: yeah, could be a suboptimal clamp, since I've seen it on OEM cables. For sure on tape trick, I did it on a frame with un-sleeeved over the BB internal routing just to keep it taut and minimize rattling (will never get a frame without full sleeves ever again), just stinks that the OEMs will still do internal routing that rattles or grows loops, just so they can say they have internal routing.
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: So you're assuming, your comments aren't based on actually having a Revel?
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: I don't have any issues with rattling. These bikes are really well thought out. I worried about not having ISCG tabs on my Rascal and that turned out to not be an issue. Just got to trust them.
  • 1 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: I'm assuming based on the loop in the pictures and other bikes I've experienced that form the same loop. Not saying Revel did it wrong, just extrapolating from experience: with under BB routing and loose housing clamps (or no clamps and just friction fit) there will be a loop, hence if there is under BB routing and a loop, it points to there being loose clamps.
  • 1 0
 @mtbthe603: I don't trust anyone who doesn't provide a way to mount a bash-guard of some sort, they are very needed where I ride. Doesn't necessarily have to come stock with one, but frames should have either tabs, a way to add tabs (like Ibis' sleeve thingy), or a 104 BCD crank (or I suppose Wolf Tooth's CAMO BashSpider, but then you're limited to their rings). If I see a loop under the BB that is bigger than it should be, either they did a terrible job setting up the press bike, or they have an issue with the clamps slipping, both of which are not ideal.
  • 4 0
 @justinfoil: Don't assume what you see on a PB article is the way something is supposed to be.
Wasn't it not to long ago that PB had pictures with the chain run through the RD wrong? They fixed for the ride, but used the pictures anyway.
I'm the first to say I hate under the BB routing, but having had a ton of different bikes, it was something I was willing to deal with for the performance of CBF.
I have a Ranger and seen a few Rascal out on the trails, none have loops that big.
The Rascal if I'm not mistaken has a clamp for the cables, they don't get pulled out.
Ranger is short enough travel a clamp isn't needed. Going to assume the Rail has a clamp as well based on the travel numbers. So again cables being pulled out is not an issue.
  • 1 0
 @justinfoil: You can mount a bash guard with an ISCG adaptor plate if it is a real deal-breaker. I thought about doing this but then just road it as it and it has been 100% fine
  • 1 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Correct, there is a clamp on the Rascal
  • 1 0
 @mtbthe603: Adapter plate as in squeezed in behind a threaded BB like an e-type mech adapter? Doesn't count.

Or Ibis-style where they have a splined piece that optionally slips onto the BB shell? That's ok, and actually counts as having [optional] tabs, IMO.

Bashless isn't be 100% fine for me, I know from experience of buying a bike without a bash, and the repeatedly fixing chains that got plates crimped together by unavoidable rocks so they didn't articulate anymore. Promptly got a crank that could mount a bash-ring and proceeded to beat that up instead of chains.
  • 3 2
 Looks like... an old Tallboy
  • 4 3
 Brake cable loop under BB is killing me.
  • 1 0
 It is the shifter cable, and according to Revel is required to have that big of a loop to function properly.
  • 1 0
 Clean rig! I like other than the shock mount style
  • 1 0
 How much do the builds weigh?
  • 1 1
 31-33lbs roughly
  • 1 0
 That frame is probably insanely heavy
  • 7 6
 Come on Revel even Salsa’s geo numbers are more progressive than this
  • 1 0
 the geometry seems so well on the point!
  • 16 17
 Looks sweet but I'd throw a 1 degree angleset in it off the bat. 65 is too steep for an "enduro" bike.
  • 3 2
 Running it 170mm would slacken it out as well. Geo is for a 160mm fork so I figure enduro riders/racers will opt for a 170mm
  • 5 6
 Modern bikes need to be adjustable ala spesh.
  • 4 4
 @mtbthe603: even with a 170 I’d still want an angleset on this.
  • 3 2
 You put the quotes in the wrong place. "too steep" is relative, and it's just one number. Front-center and BB-drop relative to the front wheel also have a large impact on the feel of the front wheel. 65 might be too steep for "your" enduro bike, but not "an" enduro bike period.
  • 5 4
 Yeah, the geo is pretty conservative to be honest... Okay for an all around trail bike I guess.
  • 6 6
 an Intense Primer for hipsters that miss 2018 geo
  • 5 7
 Conservative geo: check, cable routing under the bb: check and expensive: check
Looks like they hit it out of the ballpark again...
  • 6 0
 We had 12 Revel demo bikes last year, ridden hundreds of days across the western US. Know how many times we had issues with the cables under the BB? Zero.
  • 2 2
 My buddy has one these in 120mm of travel he says it rides like a Session
  • 2 4
 I'm curious as to why there is an EXO+ DHF in the front but a EXO DHRII in the rear?
  • 2 0
 I think Tire Spec is something we all have to agree to disagree, Especially right now when they take forever to get.
  • 3 0
 That's a typo. Has EXO+ front and rear.
  • 1 1
 If it was an OG EXO+, it makes sense, those were paper tires.
  • 2 1
 Be happy they aren't veetireco
  • 2 3
 They had me, then lost me with the 450mm seattube on a size large.
  • 2 0
 Among all "downcountry", trail, all-mountain, enduro, and super-enduro bikes introduced in 2021, the mean average seat-tube length for a size Large is 450.4 mm. Creating a trendline for the same categories from 2014 - present, the predicted average is 449.3 mm. Revel is certainly on trend.

How tall are you and what's your preferred seat-tube length?
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: 6’ even and 410-430. At 430mm I’d just about be able to ride a 200mm dropper slammed.
  • 1 0
 @TheSlayer99: Thanks for the reply.

I'm the same height, with average proportions, and I'd be max'd out with a 185 mm dropper on a 470 mm seat-tube, providing I use a low-profile saddle and 170 mm cranks, so I should be able to fit a 200 mm dropper on a 455 mm seat-tube. Let's call it 450 mm to be safe.

Are you using long cranks, a high-profile saddle, or maybe you like a lower than typical saddle height for your inseam?
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: I ride 170mm cranks, and I run the deity speed trap saddle. I also have short legs, I wear 30” inseam pants and they usually cut right below my ankles.

Regardless of that, including most existing models and new releases for 2022 this is on the longer side for seattube lengths on a size large. It takes away the ability to upsize for people who want to, and on a bike like this you definitely need to. The math just ain’t mathing on your average numbers and the trend, I’ll believe it when I see an excel chart.
  • 3 0
 @TheSlayer99: My numbers came from my own Excel chart, in which I've entered or calculated 128,170 cells of data by hand - no web scraping tools. I'm not comfortable posting the whole thing, as this dataset is proprietary. I design bikes and my data-driven approach is one of the things that makes my services unique over my competitors. If you go through my photos, you can see a screenshot of a heavily filtered data selection I sent to ninjatarian to help him with a specific search request, which gives an idea of what about 400 cells looks like.

Do you ride flat pedals? Flat pedal users often prefer a lower saddle height. Combined with your shorter legs, we may have found the explanation for our discrepancy.
  • 4 5
 so it's basically a ripmo?
  • 14 3
 I'll take CBF over DW any day.
  • 1 3
 @DCS1138: Why? For me, the older DW wasn't amazing on the chunkiest climbs. I couldn't smash my Mojo's rear wheel into things while keeping the power on full or it would hang up a bit more than something more active (less anti-squat) like a Stumpy or Scout.
  • 2 4
 Why is the shock o-ring off the shaft?! Put it back before you take press photos!
  • 2 4
 I don't understand why you would guide the cables below the bottom bracket. Lots of fun when you rip them off.
  • 3 4
 So basically they made a 2019 Santa cruz hightower lt...
  • 2 3
 yep. thats a bike
  • 1 4
 Wtf is the spacing, 12 x 177????
  • 2 0
 That's the axle length, not the hub OLD spacing.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: well whats the hub spacing then?
  • 1 0
 @rogue28: In the spirit of "teach a person to fish": click on the link Pinkbike provides in this article, which goes straight to the product page, and scroll down a bit.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: thanks mam, don’t smoke herb anymore but still gave my moments
Below threshold threads are hidden





You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2023. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.042696
Mobile Version of Website