[Rngspnr]

NOTE:
Don't be fooled by the haters that think that a Single Pivot can match this. If they could, no one would ride a multi-link.
But, pedaling efficiency and braking efficiency are crap on Single pivots. (pedal bob and brake jack are real.) Just because the computer programs say so, doesn't mean the computer is right.
[/QUOTE]

This^^. Came off of what is considered by many to be a very efficient single pivot to a Rascal. There is no comparison between them. My single pivot had minimum pedal bob but was still noticeable. Brake jack is real I could always feel the seat rising when braking. Roll over with single pivot is not as good either. My Rascal is 2lbs heavier than my previous bike but pedals like it is much lighter. It maintains speed better and almost zero pedal bob. CBF is no joke!

 

[gubbinalia]

Well,
CBF doesn't care where you ride. It's good everywhere. No other system targets the Instant Center- throughout travel.
The good ones hit the "IC" on sag if they are setup perfect. But CBF ALWAYS points at the "IC". It does this by what is in the claims of the patent. The Center of Curvature being placed on the top of the chainring.

I know, I know. No one has a clue what the F any of the IC or CC stuff is.
Well-
Instant Center- is the balance point for pedaling.
Center of Curvature- the center of the wheel path (real pivot point)

Top of the chain- is your line of force. If it doesn't point at the "IC"- it will pull up are down on the shock. (anti-squat, pro-squat)

By bending or pivoting over the chain ring-(what is protected by CBF) It allows me to point the chain at the "IC"- which is moving up and down in front of the ring.

Picture a TEETOR-TOTTER
One side is the wheel. The other side is the "IC". The board is the chain- which pivots over the ring.

The beautiful thing is - the chain and suspension rotate in the same spot. So, they don't fight each other when the wheel moves thru travel. They move together in harmony.

NOTE:
Don't be fooled by the haters that think that a Single Pivot can match this. If they could, no one would ride a multi-link.
But, pedaling efficiency and braking efficiency are crap on Single pivots. (pedal bob and brake jack are real.) Just because the computer programs say so, doesn't mean the computer is right.

This is a terrific and well-condensed explanation, thanks Chris. Definitely helps explain some of the concepts that are used on the "CBF Explained" page on the Canfield site. Love getting into the details but don't have the technical background to understand it all -- clearly I need to go read more about suspension dynamics to understand more about just how good CBF is.

Dang, so rad that Revel is going to do a fourth model in 2021 -- speculation starts now! I will say that its current setup my Rascal performs far better on technical descents than any other mid/long-ish-travel bike I've rode (v1 Sentinel, Instinct BC, v1 Ripmo, v1 Switchblade), but I could see some room in the lineup for a longer-travel 29er that would also be a bit longer/slacker/more smashy than the Rascal.

 

[BossLog]

CBF does sound like it has a very unique and appealing ride characteristic. Rail is on the shortlist for next rowdy trail bike. Seen some talk of lacking get up/snap out of corners in a few reviews now. What's up with that? Review idiosyncracy or real trait?

 

[Jayem]

CBF does sound like it has a very unique and appealing ride characteristic. Rail is on the shortlist for next rowdy trail bike. Seen some talk of lacking get up/snap out of corners in a few reviews now. What's up with that? Review idiosyncracy or real trait?

Their kinematics are basically a flat sloping AS line with relatively normal (around 100%) AS, as opposed to say, older horst-links that have a dramatically sloping curve where it falls off very quickly. The thing about the Revel kinematics is that they are achievable with single pivot systems, due to the flat nature of the line. Quite a few SP bikes have this as well. The reason to go with a multi-linkage bike like the Revel is they tend to have better lateral rigidity if done well, which has significant benefits to maneuverability, handling, bump absorption, etc. But it can also be done poorly and SP can also be done better in this respect, so there's no net gain. When you see the kinematics of rear suspension designs, you see all kinds of wild stuff by lots of manufacturers, like Niner basically replicating horst links, or newer horst links that have flattened out their AS curve, or crazy jacked up AS amounts, low amounts, etc. The Revels are very similar to the old Canfields, nearly straight line, generally pretty high AS. If people are feeling dramatic differences in suspension and bumps, it's likely due to leverage curve tuning and the shock choice/tuning. The post at the top of the page about SP bikes is BS.

 

[gubbinalia]

CBF does sound like it has a very unique and appealing ride characteristic. Rail is on the shortlist for next rowdy trail bike. Seen some talk of lacking get up/snap out of corners in a few reviews now. What's up with that? Review idiosyncracy or real trait?

I haven't rode the Rail, but assuming the Rascal's suspension dynamics act quite similarly (as Mr. Canfield himself says), I'm not sure if I totally agree with that assessment. The frame stiffness on the Rascal coupled with the excellent traction means that the rear end likes to "snap" around in turns with good energy and peppy-ness. And you can stamp on the pedals out of cornersand get good responsiveness for sure.
I would say that a very efficiency-oriented DW-Link tune will give you more "zip" with cornering if we're just talking about smooth berms at higher speeds. But once you start talking about conserving momentum through chunky off-cambers rather than just hammering through big bike-park style corners and G-outs, the Rascal seems to find a significant advantage over other bikes with other suspension systems. And to some degree, you can replicate that "zip" with good shock tuning -- the Rascal is such a good bike that it demands dialing in compression for technical pedal-y trails vs bike park riding vs big hits, rather than just a "set it and forget it" mentality.

 

[RangerMTB]

After only a week of riding my new Ranger I already feel right a home with the geo and suspension. I dropped 21 seconds off my PR on a climb on my normal trail. I’ve been on this climb with an Intense, SB130 and SB100, Evil Following and a Banshee but just couldn’t beat my PR previously set on the SB100 until I got on the Ranger and set a new PR on my 4th ride up. I only weigh 140lbs and been riding for almost 2 years so my knowledge base for Geo and suspension is limited but one thing I do know is that the CBF platform just works on both the Up and most definitely the downs!

 

[Dave Mac]

After only a week of riding my new Ranger I already feel right a home with the geo and suspension. I dropped 21 seconds off my PR on a climb on my normal trail. I’ve been on this climb with an Intense, SB130 and SB100, Evil Following and a Banshee but just couldn’t beat my PR previously set on the SB100 until I got on the Ranger and set a new PR on my 4th ride up. I only weigh 140lbs and been riding for almost 2 years so my knowledge base for Geo and suspension is limited but one thing I do know is that the CBF platform just works on both the Up and most definitely the downs!

just curios which banshee did you have, my current ride is a banshee prime 2018, is why I ask

 

[RangerMTB]

just curios which banshee did you have, my current ride is a banshee prime 2018, is why I ask

It was the Phantom V3

 

[leejohnh22]

After only a week of riding my new Ranger I already feel right a home with the geo and suspension. I dropped 21 seconds off my PR on a climb on my normal trail. I’ve been on this climb with an Intense, SB130 and SB100, Evil Following and a Banshee but just couldn’t beat my PR previously set on the SB100 until I got on the Ranger and set a new PR on my 4th ride up. I only weigh 140lbs and been riding for almost 2 years so my knowledge base for Geo and suspension is limited but one thing I do know is that the CBF platform just works on both the Up and most definitely the downs!

How would you rate the descending capabilities to the other bikes mentioned? Is it comparable at all to say the Following or Phantom? I would imagine it may be in this order from least to most confident : SB100, Revel Ranger, Evil Following, Banshee Phantom, SB130.

 

[RangerMTB]

How would you rate the descending capabilities to the other bikes mentioned? Is it comparable at all to say the Following or Phantom? I would imagine it may be in this order from least to most confident : SB100, Revel Ranger, Evil Following, Banshee Phantom, SB130.

Full disclaimer: the SB130 Lunch ride was my first dream bike. But the owner of the bike shop lent me his sb100 while I was waiting for my SB130 Lunch ride and I got spoiled with how well it climb and nible it was on most the descends at our local (San Diego) trails. Where the SB100 lacked on the descents the SB130 nailed it with a noticeable weight penalty on the climbs (mostly because difference from Recon/dissector to Minnions). The Evil Following fell right in between the SB100 and SB130 on both the climbs and descending but just lack the fun factor in playfulness all around. I didn’t get enough seat time on the Banshee so not really fair to compare at this point. But overall for the local (Socal) trails, the short travel Revel Ranger is my Weapon of choice to do 15-20 mile rides and still smile when the trail gets rowdy. Plus it’s by far the best paint scheme and looking bike of the group.

 

[leejohnh22]

Full disclaimer: the SB130 Lunch ride was my first dream bike. But the owner of the bike shop lent me his sb100 while I was waiting for my SB130 Lunch ride and I got spoiled with how well it climb and nible it was on most the descends at our local (San Diego) trails. Where the SB100 lacked on the descents the SB130 nailed it with a noticeable weight penalty on the climbs (mostly because difference from Recon/dissector to Minnions). The Evil Following fell right in between the SB100 and SB130 on both the climbs and descending but just lack the fun factor in playfulness all around. I didn’t get enough seat time on the Banshee so not really fair to compare at this point. But overall for the local (Socal) trails, the short travel Revel Ranger is my choice of weapon to do 15-20 mile rides and still smile when the trail gets rowdy. Plus it’s by far the best paint scheme and looking bike of the group.

Thanks for the reply! Sounds like the Ranger is capable all around, but if you don't mind quantifying it a bit, how would you slot the Ranger exactly in both climbing and descending compared to the SB100 and SB130 and Following?

 

[coachxtaylor]

Thanks for the reply! Sounds like the Ranger is capable all around, but if you don't mind quantifying it a bit, how would you slot the Ranger exactly in both climbing and descending compared to the SB100 and SB130 and Following?

i would ride an sb130 at the bike park. i wouldn’t ride the ranger there. however the ranger can handle some pretty moderate chunk and steep stuff. in my area (laguna beach) most people are riding 150mm travel 29ers. the only stuff this bike gives anything away to is during fast sustained rough stuff and super janky steep technical stuff. i’ve sent it off some 4’ drops and cased some doubles on it and this new XC suspension is stout!

 

[RangerMTB]

Thanks for the reply! Sounds like the Ranger is capable all around, but if you don't mind quantifying it a bit, how would you slot the Ranger exactly in both climbing and descending compared to the SB100 and SB130 and Following?

Climbing:
1) Revel Ranger
2) SB100 (very close to the Ranger but ranger performed better on technical climbs where traction was limited)
3) SB130
4) Evil Following
Down Hill:
1) SB130 (hands down most capable)
2) Revel Ranger (very capable on 90% of the trails but line choice became critical on rock gardens, which adds to the fun factor)
3) Evil Following ( more capable on rock gardens but not as easy to pump thru corners)
4) SB 100 (got overwhelmed easier on rough/rocky technical terrain)
Overall ranking based on actual fun factor riding experience:
1) Revel Ranger
2) SB130
3) SB100
4) Evil Following
All of them are capable for my local trails but my personal enjoyment is based on ratio of 60:40 downhill:climbing. Hope this helps

 

[Mortsnarb]

Im just gonna throw this out there to mess with everyones head.

I demo'd the Ranger for a weekend, it pedals great. the rear is awesome for how little travel. however i didnt like the steep HA and compared to slacker bikes it did not ride over rough/chuckystuff/drops/rolls etc. very confidently but was still kinda fun.. step chucky stuff on a semi XC bike can get pretty interesting lol. I wouldn't put it over the Following for being a better descender.

 

[ticketchecker]

Im just gonna throw this out there to mess with everyones head.

I demo'd the Ranger for a weekend, it pedals great. the rear is awesome for how little travel. however i didnt like the steep HA and compared to slacker bikes it did not ride over rough/chuckystuff/drops/rolls etc. very confidently but was still kinda fun.. step chucky stuff on a semi XC bike can get pretty interesting lol. I wouldn't put it over the Following for being a better descender.

Interesting since it looks like the Following has a 67.2 or 67.9 HTA

 

[gubbinalia]

I demo'd the Ranger for a weekend, it pedals great. the rear is awesome for how little travel. however i didnt like the steep HA and compared to slacker bikes it did not ride over rough/chuckystuff/drops/rolls etc. very confidently but was still kinda fun.. step chucky stuff on a semi XC bike can get pretty interesting lol. I wouldn't put it over the Following for being a better descender.

Hmm, so your issue was that you felt as though the geo was holding the bike back? As in, the suspension tuning and shock operation was so effective that the angles themselves weren’t matched to the traction, plushness and bump sensitivity that CBF provided? I’m totally open to that argument, albeit it’s completely the opposite of what many folks say about short-travel bikes nowadays — that they’re so slack and long, the more XC-style suspension can’t keep up with what the bike is capable of, geometry-wise.

Personally I think if the Ranger were much slacker it would lose some of its accuracy and precision, especially at slower speeds. That’s kind of a focus of bikes in this category, whether we call them trail or XC or downcountry — picking apart tech climbs and non-obvious descending lines in less steep, lower-speed terrain. If you’re mostly riding higher-speed stuff with bigger hits, and don’t mind a more passive climbing position, then a slightly longer/lower/slacker bike (and probably a bit longer-travel, too) will work great. Something like a Tallboy, Optic, or Ripley.

The Following, though... gosh, I struggle to see the greatness of that bike. I had an Offering for a couple months as an employee demo bike when it first came out, and I think that it pedals just as well (or, as poorly!) as the Following (MB or v3) with a much, much more planted and confident demeanor on descents. And comparing Delta link to CBF— well, it isn’t even in the same universe for pedaling efficiency.

 

[ticketchecker]

Climbing:
1) Revel Ranger
2) SB100 (very close to the Ranger but ranger performed better on technical climbs where traction was limited)
3) SB130
4) Evil Following
Down Hill:
1) SB130 (hands down most capable)
2) Revel Ranger (very capable on 90% of the trails but line choice became critical on rock gardens, which adds to the fun factor)
3) Evil Following ( more capable on rock gardens but not as easy to pump thru corners)
4) SB 100 (got overwhelmed easier on rough/rocky technical terrain)
Overall ranking based on actual fun factor riding experience:
1) Revel Ranger
2) SB130
3) SB100
4) Evil Following
All of them are capable for my local trails but my personal enjoyment is based on ratio of 60:40 downhill:climbing. Hope this helps

What saddle do you have on your Ranger? I'm working on a similar red/silver/black thing as you did

 

[RangerMTB]

What saddle do you have on your Ranger? I'm working on a similar red/silver/black thing as you did

It’s a spank oozy saddle. It’s not the lightest but pretty comfortable and the red base looks great

 

[Mortsnarb]

Interesting since it looks like the Following has a 67.2 or 67.9 HTA

Interesting since it looks like you can run a 130mm fork on a following, and pike vs Sid. Perhaps why its better downhiller then the Ranger.

Hmm, so your issue was that you felt as though the geo was holding the bike back? blah blah blah

Yep, i dont think the front kept up with the back. You are right thu the slacker the HA you loose out on the "precise" feel. So if you value you that then its a great HA.

 

[gubbinalia]

Yep, i dont think the front kept up with the back. You are right thu the slacker the HA you loose out on the "precise" feel. So if you value you that then its a great HA.

I can believe that -- I almost feel that way slightly with the Rascal, given the 66deg. HTA. When I get to the upper end of what the bike is capable of in terms of carrying speed through successive larger hits, the rear end can stay planted long after the front end starts to get squirrely-ish (with a 51 offset fork at 140mm). But that's the trade-off that the designers at Revel decided on when they made the bike -- a little less planted-ness at super-high speeds, in favor of a much more nimble, agile, and precise feel at slower speeds. For me, that's a good trade-off since a precise-feeling bike correlates highly with 80% or more of my riding, at the expense of maybe 2-3%.

More to the point, you can't forget the overall direction of the market right now: so many brands are trying to be the most modern with the most progressive geo, and in the process ignoring the need for great bikes with more conservative, quick-handling geometry. (Not to mention that the "who can have the trail bike with the most progressive geometry?" contest is a bit of a race to the bottom, in my opinion.)

I'm sure the Rascal/Ranger would still be incredible bikes if they were slacker and longer, but then they'd be different bikes with different characteristics and capabilities. Roads not taken, and all that

As for the Ranger vs. Following discussion, the Sid vs. Pike distinction is definitely an important one. I've even seen some folks building the v3 Following with Fox 36s for the real "short-travel enduro" feel. But the fork difference is also indicative of some categorical space between the two bikes as well. While the Ranger is hardly a purpose-built XC race bike, there will be plenty of folks out there racing "XC"-ish events on it (I will probably take mine to Transylvania this spring, if it even happens) while the Evil customer is likely staying far away from the Lycra-wearing, Roctane-drinking, power-meter-observing crowd.

I'm realizing I may be becoming an evangelist for the CBF cause, but I'm happy to evangelize.