Revel Bikes

The Ranger has nearly identical geo as my Process, which Kona pitched as short travel enduro. Revel put a Sid up front where Kona went with a Pike, so it must be aimed at XC. But if this is where XC is going, we’ll all be XC in a year or two.

if the frame and fork are stiff enough to handle well, this could be a really easy one-bike solution for most of us.

 

Maybe I am confused. I thought a 5" travel bike was short travel. 130mm like my Mojo3 is 5.1". The ranger is 115mm which is 4.5". That's not a lot of difference in the big picture. My only reservation with the Ranger is the SID suspension. Short travel is not nearly as demanding to ride as a hard tail, at all. When was the last time you rode a hardtail? It seems like you are projecting your personal riding experience on everyone else. Most people are not riding Laguna or anything like it on a daily basis. Most riders here are not riding more demanding trails on more demanding equipment. Most riders spend most of their time riding the xc trails that predominate here in Socal. So why would an xc bike like the Ranger or SB 100 or Intense Sniper not be ideal for those xc trails? For years now we have been fed bullshit by the bike industry that we need lower/longer/slacker and more aggressive bikes to ride the same trails we have always ridden. I don't think that is the case at all.

 

I don't disagree, but I am not sure why this is such a sore spot for you. Or maybe I just suck at trying to communicate what I am thinking/noticing. Underbiking seems to be a new anti-trend trend. While most of the industry is pushing longer, slacker, bigger travel bikes that people are gobbling up like the terrain they hope to ride, an offshoot of riders are going the other direction looking to less travel, no travel or gravel. A trend of anti-trend. Look at this site as an example. A year ago, it was all about club Hightower and club Smash. Now it's all about Club DV9, Les and such.

I never said the Ranger, the Process 111, the Jet, the SB 100 or the Spider were bad choices for anyone. Just trying to convey that I was surprised that a bike like the Ranger was Revel's next bike, and commenting that I see an anti-trend trend of going to shorter travel or no-travel bikes. I'll shut up now, because I seem to be making people mad.

Good thing I didn't mention e-bikes.

 

You would have see the alternate universe version of this on your last luge run if any of the hardtails on here were behind you.

#TwilightZone

 

I own a Spark RC. It is the right bike for most of the riding I do. It fit nicely in my 3 bike quiver (Ti HT, XC race fs, and, a 5” trail).

Modern XC bikes are very capable machines. The new Epic come with a 67.5 degree head angle. In the hands of a capable rider it would fly down the trail that I ride. It will take a little more focus, but the payback would be more endorphin.

 

Uh, you guys... Herzalot likes to ride a very specific type of trail. He doesn't regularly go out on long meandering forays into the forest. On the rare occasion he does, he sucks it up and isn't a bad climber... He only plays one on IMTB.

But I did see him pull over for a hardtail on a downhill. And he asked me to once, but I declined. It was more fun to make a memory having to ride the brakes. Only happens once in a great while.

With that, I'm tempted by the shorter travel bug. The Hightower is a pig.

 

Oh for F*** sakes people, I never said the machines weren't capable. Good lord. You are making my point for me. A segment of riders is enjoying shorter travel or no travel bikes. I can't say it more plainly than that.

But the picture of Brendog destroying the Spark's wheel is probably not the best way to convey how capable the Spark is!

 

Yes. I believe Tom the Bomb was on my wheel coming down Joplin (a trail and style of DH I am not familiar with) so I pulled over to let him pass. I also let everyone else go by, since I didn't want to hold anybody up, and I had heard stories of @rossage's prowess on the hardtail. I was then on the wheel of a certain hardtail the rest of the way, once I found my rhythm.

And yes again, I asked Steve to go by me on Boy Scout because I don't do well with exposure. Nothing to do with the bikes we were riding.

I am trying to convey the point that Steve is making for me - a certain smug satisfaction in riding short travel or no travel bikes better than us posers on EndurBro rigs.

 

Funny "argument" here. Short travel rigs becoming way more capable. Long travel rigs becoming better climbers. I'd like to try one of these short travel rigs just to see. But when I converted my 140/130 Pistola to a 160/145 Smash I instantly felt more comfortable everywhere, and started PRing stuff on mellow trails and long fire road slogs. I suppose as riders we just get on with what we get on with despite what the bike manufacturers tell us we need. I love my DV9, and am riding something today specifically because I want to ride that bike, and think this particular trail suits it perfectly. I didn't consider for a second taking it on the Cheese ride this past weekend, and had no trouble keeping up with the hard tail masses on the climbs. Conversely they could have left me for dead going down. If I could only have one bike it would absolutely be a Smash/Ripmo, or something of that ilk. Another country heard from.

 

I really don't think this under/over-biked thing is about sandbagging. My climbing buddies were hard as nails and would climb stuff in their tennies that I would struggle to do in my rock shoes. I don't see it differently. You do whatever is fun at a comfort level you like. It's sandbagging only when someone feels sandbagged. Riders have been enjoying a breadth of MTB bikes and experiences since the start. Same as now. Yes, a herd mentality exists and it's exploited by the industry.

Most of the industry wants us to keep speed as the holy grail of MTB riding. Kind of a racing thing, no doubt. Though my bike says I like goin' fast (not untrue), I like other aspects of cycling just as much. Each to her own, but I put speed lower on the importance scale than most riders. If it was my bike holy grail I probably wouldn't own a hardtail.

Have fun. Literally!

 

I’d have a Blur in my garage if finances allowed for it. There occasionally comes a ride where the Hightower is too much, but the SS makes for really tough climbing. A lightweight short travel rig would rock.

 

Was I not going fast enough down SJT for you?

 

No doubt...the very best riders will always be the best on whatever bike they ride. I'm sure Nino could ride a Megatower (or maybe his contract stipulates he ride a Ransom) and destroy everyone here on an XC race course. Conversely, Aaron Gwin could probably ride the new Revel at Laguna with the same results.

People should just ride whatever puts a smile on their face and not worry about what the MTB industry, their friends or STRAVA says. I had by far my best (as in funnest, felt great) ride all week in Durango on my 170/153 HD5 at Twin Buttes, a ride better suited for a Revel Ranger or hardtail type bike.

 

Most of the industry wants to keep N+1 as the holy grail.

Over and Underbiking as a discussion topic can be seen as a push back at this. If you’re only riding one bike, you’re guaranteed to be over or underbiked all the time, and it’s still fun...discuss.

 

Touché!

I love the looks I get with a piggyback coil shock on the paved bike path.

 

This logic doesn't help my finances. Looking at my two main bikes, I have one that is usually too little bike, and one that is way too much bike. There's a giant hole in the middle. F@ck.

 

Sounds like you might need to trade the high tower for the new tallboy......

 

I look at it this way..... Skillwise...I am way underbiked. I need all the help I can get. In reality, I could be overbiked because I struggle on spots that many could fly through on say, a rigid old school xc bike...

 

Ditch the SS and the gravel bike...

 

Yes you were, but you really tantalized my fancy on the Plunge last fall.

 

There's lots of stuff in your area that will accommodate the extra bike-age you have. You can dig a hole with a spoon, but why?

 

Cheater bikes* are real! So is being under-ridered. How do I know?... Cheater bikes helped me to up my skill and enjoy all the riding I do. Including hardtail riding.

*This nomenclature is just for fun. It is not meant to insinuate that anyone riding a plush FS bike is cheating, breaking any rules, doing something wrong or is a substandard rider in any way.

 

This discussion is currently occupying a lot of bandwidth in my brain (short travel trail bikes, not Revel). After spending a good deal of time over the last couple weeks on my hard tail in increasingly demanding terrain, I'm starting to wonder if my HT love affair was more tied to a terrain I was relegated to during rehab than the terrain I actually gravitate to. I find myself desirous of longer, semi technical rides. The HT seems to be doing a number on my already jacked up neck in the rough stuff, and the light weight and pedaling efficiency seems to be negated by having to use my legs as suspension. The Smash pedals great, and I could probably get everything I "need" for longer rides simply by having a second wheel set with more high mileage friendly tires than the 2.5 DHF/Aggressor combo. But a high quality wheel set, tires, cassette, and rotors is a lot of money to spend on not a whole bike. The argument on proverbial paper for one of these Alt. Country rigs grows more compelling.

 

Don’t you have a Trail Pistol too?

 

My Smash started life as a Pistola (140/130 version of a Pistol), but I sold the Pistol stays and shock once I converted to the Smash.

 

1) Lighter tires as you are thinking. 2) A light, stiff wheelset. 3) Optional, an inline air shock if you have a coil. 4) Super comfy cockpit setup. Voila – SmashCountry. (No swapping wheels MO, but a spare set is good sense.)

I think you could be surprised how good the bike rides with slightly less than cheater tires. Even just a light tire in back will make a huge difference, as I found. Not giving up a lot once you know your bike and what to expect of it. If a reasonable technical-difficulty margin, the lighter tires make longer rides more fun IMO. Not nudging you this way solely because that's what I'm doing, but that's what I'm doing.

 

For sure. In fact, I had the non-cheater tires on until recently, but I felt like the bike really came alive in the ways you would expect with the Aggressor/DHF, to the point that I don't want to give that up as a primary tire combo. From recollection it also pedals a good bit better than with the same front, but DHRII 2.4 on the rear. I'm already rocking a DPX2 as well. So it's either keep the HT and pony up for an additional wheel/tire set for the Smash, or add a lighter/longer duty trail bike at the expense of hard tail ownership. Or do nothing, and just keep pedaling the Smash as far as I can. I'm probably splitting hairs at this point anyway.

 

Just so long as you are not splitting hares. That could get messy.

 

Dicing up the quiver can be fun, but I like the do-nothing-plus idea. DHF can be good to have when you're tired and make a dumb mistake. Ride the heavy tires all the time and when a big event comes you'll rocket on the light ones.

Good times with first-world gnashing, eh???

 

Ha, that’s it. What did mountain bikers even do before the internet?