Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

161 - 180 of 198 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,771 Posts
May pick one of these up next week but it's a bit of a drive. I'll sit on it but wondering if any other folks in here have long legs? The look of that seat tube angle make me nervous. I'm 5'10 with a 33 inch inseam. Will likely get a large. I have an issue with almost every size medium bike ive owned where the saddle hangs way off the back and it's way up above the bar height.

Are my long legged friends cool with the seated climbing position? I have a lot of tight rolling trails and need a solid seated position.
I'm 5-8 with average length legs and could ride a large if I had too. At 5-10, a Large will fit you fine. I didn't end up getting one but it's a great bike. I said it before, if I could only have ONE bike, this would be it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
I'm 5-8 with average length legs and could ride a large if I had too. At 5-10, a Large will fit you fine. I didn't end up getting one but it's a great bike. I said it before, if I could only have ONE bike, this would be it.
Nice! Yeah I'm really looking forward to riding it. Geo looks conservative but that's probably what I want for an all purpose trail bike. I actually was trying to avoid going nuts on the reach since my legs are long so the bikes I've been looking at I've been trying to land somewhere at the 460-470 range.

Overall fit looks like it should be great but just because of my long legs, it means my effective seat tube angle is a lot slacker than someone who has shorter legs. Less of a fit issue and more of a where is my body hanging on the climbs issue. Only fit issue I'm worried about is stack height but I can always mess with risers etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
6’2” height, 73” arm span. 33” pants inseam, 36” standover.

I got the gx build spec with upgraded shock/fork and also changed to 170mm cranks. Cockpit fit was spot on out of the box with several spacers on the stem, and I moved the seat forward on rails almost to the stops limit.
I have the same body dimensions and was also considering this same bike. My concern was with the seat angle. After riding it for a few months, what are your thoughts? Do you feel like your hanging off the back or is it fine? I feel like I'm falling off the back of my current bike, even with the seat slammed forward, and I don't want a repeat. Thanks!
 

·
mosstrooper
Joined
·
107 Posts
I have the same body dimensions and was also considering this same bike. My concern was with the seat angle. After riding it for a few months, what are your thoughts? Do you feel like your hanging off the back or is it fine? I feel like I'm falling off the back of my current bike, even with the seat slammed forward, and I don't want a repeat. Thanks!
I think the 75-degree claimed STA is a little deceptive -- because of the way CBF suspension behaves under pedaling power, you'll find that the seat angle feels steeper than it would on other bikes (especially four-bar/Horst Link bikes) that have the same claimed STA. I find that the seat angle feels slackest when I just sit on the bike and sag it, since as soon as I start pedaling the bike wants to stand up in the travel more, which puts me in a comfortable, upright pedaling position.

That said, if you do want a bike with super-modern geo, the Rascal is definitely not the one -- it's the ideal bike for someone who wants a more "modern-conservative" feel that is more agile and energetic than some of the longer wheelbase, slacker HTA, steeper STA bikes in its class. Revel didn't design a mid-travel trail bike with the sole focus of rallying through gnarly descents at high speeds; the Rascal is phenomenal on slower-speed tech and carries great speed on rolling, pedally sections.

At 189cm (194cm armspan) on the XL I am running a 60mm stem to compensate for what feels like a slightly cramped cockpit, but the extra stem length isn't a problem -- it's awesome for weaving through techy climbs and doesn't interfere with high-speed steering paired with a 140mm fork at 51mm offset.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Really torn between the Rascal and the Ripmo V2. I know this is a Rascal thread, so I am prepared for bias, but I am guessing I am not alone being stuck on this choice now or in the recent past if you are reading this thread. My riding is mostly tight, twisty, technical singletrack- average speeds of only 4-5 mph. Short punchy ups and downs, natural rollers, rocks with more rocks on top of them. I get maybe a half dozen days a year of lift service at places like Killington and Thunder Mountain. I am not a double black jump line guy, but enjoy the black diamond singletrack. While the Ripmo probably has more travel than I need 95% of the time, from what I have read about the pedaling platform and weight, there is little if no penalty for having it along for the ride. Possible downside of Ripmo V2 is the slackened head tube. I have not heard of many reviewers complaining about this however, there is mostly just love for the V2/AF geometry out there. It is only 18mm longer than the Rascal, so not a tank in comparison. Rascal is a tad light on travel, but many have described it as bottomless in the back and the front can always be bumped up to 150. Downside to forking up being making a relatively conservative stock STA even more conservative. The STA is one of my primary gripes on my current Trance Advance 27.5.

TL;DR If you have experience with either (or both) the Rimpo V2/AF or the Rascal in lower speed, punchy tech, please weigh in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Really torn between the Rascal and the Ripmo V2. I know this is a Rascal thread, so I am prepared for bias, but I am guessing I am not alone being stuck on this choice now or in the recent past if you are reading this thread. My riding is mostly tight, twisty, technical singletrack- average speeds of only 4-5 mph. Short punchy ups and downs, natural rollers, rocks with more rocks on top of them. I get maybe a half dozen days a year of lift service at places like Killington and Thunder Mountain. I am not a double black jump line guy, but enjoy the black diamond singletrack. While the Ripmo probably has more travel than I need 95% of the time, from what I have read about the pedaling platform and weight, there is little if no penalty for having it along for the ride. Possible downside of Ripmo V2 is the slackened head tube. I have not heard of many reviewers complaining about this however, there is mostly just love for the V2/AF geometry out there. It is only 18mm longer than the Rascal, so not a tank in comparison. Rascal is a tad light on travel, but many have described it as bottomless in the back and the front can always be bumped up to 150. Downside to forking up being making a relatively conservative stock STA even more conservative. The STA is one of my primary gripes on my current Trance Advance 27.5.

TL;DR If you have experience with either (or both) the Rimpo V2/AF or the Rascal in lower speed, punchy tech, please weigh in.
I think I may have already commented on one of your posts on facebook but I live in Massachusetts and own a rascal I got recently. Only a handful of rides but I'm very happy with it. I originally had my eyes on the ripmo af, banshee prime, and knollys warden lt. I ended up with the rascal because I found a good deal on one in stock and also felt like at least on paper it suited new England trail riding better than anything else. I do feel like it's suited VERY well to the trails except the 800mm bars which I like the feel of so I may not change.

So far I've ridden it at Vietnam, goat hill,and pine hills if you're familiar with any of those. I haven't ridden a lot of full sus bikes tbh. I did ride a ripmo v2 around the parking lot and at least just goofing around on flat land, the two feel pretty similar tbh.

Also, don't be fooled by the 66 hta. At least to my feel, it almost feels slacker than other bikes with the same hta when pointed down. Idk what it is but it's just a much better descender than you might think. It does not totally mute the trail, but I feel very well supported while riding. I wouldn't say it feels like a long travel bike but it does feel like it has more travel than my partner's orbea occam. I'd say it climbs slightly worse on smooth steady climbs than that bike, but has a clear advantage to any bike I've ridden on tight techy climbs which is why I feel like it's the perfect new England bike. Lmk if you have any specific questions. Where in new England are you?
 

·
mosstrooper
Joined
·
107 Posts
My riding is mostly tight, twisty, technical singletrack- average speeds of only 4-5 mph. Short punchy ups and downs, natural rollers, rocks with more rocks on top of them. I get maybe a half dozen days a year of lift service at places like Killington and Thunder Mountain.
TL;DR If you have experience with either (or both) the Rimpo V2/AF or the Rascal in lower speed, punchy tech, please weigh in.
If you're spending your bike park days at Killington and Thunder, and your home trails have that old-school "slow tech" feel, you must be a New Englander on the hunt for the elusive New England trail bike! It's a difficult quest, especially given that so many highly-lauded, boutique American frame manufacturers are based either in the Rockies, California, and the PNW -- all places with bigger elevation gain/loss and riding cultures that focus more on sustained descents, high speeds, and relatively smooth, flowy terrain. Despite the influx of machine-built trail building in VT and NH the past 5-10 years I still find myself riding a lot of slower, techier stuff, which is why I ended up on a Rascal -- my current choice as the perfect "New England trail bike."

re. Ripmo: I only have a few hours on the Ripmo v2, but I rode the Ripmo v1 with a Float X2 quite extensively, and I thought it was an impressively speedy and efficient all-rounder, though with a noted weakness for that sort of awkward, physical, slow riding that seems endemic to our region. The way Ibis has been tuning their DW-Link in the past few years, it feels absolutely incredible -- so fast, so smooth -- when pedaling hard and pumping through berms and high-speed features, but the traction is really limited at slower speeds when trying to finesse the bike instead of gunning it. When If anything, I found that the added progressivity of the v2 Ripmo over the v1 made it even more difficult to keep the rear wheel planted when climbing jumbled, techy stuff.

The Rascal, on the other hand... I can't say enough good things about the way the bike picks apart janky, weird, off-camber trails where traction is at a minimum, both ascending and descending. It was a fun challenge this past fall to try and find a situation in my usual riding (which sounds a lot like yours) that exposed a weakness in the bike's design. I was cleaning climbs with relative ease that I thought reserved for a sub-25lb. XC bike, but also finding extra momentum and plushness on descents I usually avoided. And, unlike with most modern trail/all-mountain bikes that tend to flail and flop on slow-speed tech, I never have to avoid those tight, old-school, relatively flat trails that I'd otherwise find frustrating on a bike like the Ripmo. The Rascal wants to slice its way through flat corners and pick up speed with just a couple pedalling jabs. At some point I'm going to start sounding like a broken record about this, but I believe that the way Revel has tuned the CBF suspension system to work with the Rascal puts it above and beyond other linkage designs as fast as plushness, traction, pedaling platform and small-bump compliance.

I wouldn't mind having a bit more travel on the Rascal -- at this point I'm actively hoping that Revel's new 2021 bike will be a long(er)-travel 29er -- but I also wouldn't want to dull the bike and make it lose that blend of sharp cornering and mid-stroke plushness. With it set up at 130/140 with a DPX2 and a Fox 36 Grip 2, I've never found myself wishing for more travel on handbuilt, techy trails. The bike's only limiting point is going full-speed into successive big hits where a longer wheelbase and lower BB would keep it more planted. And given what you're saying about your home trails, I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of assuming that "more travel is better." You may find that the Rascal's shorter travel makes the bike a bit more responsive, agile and quick to maneuver. Even if you were to run the same fork on the Rascal and the Ripmo, that extra 20mm of travel isn't always in your favor -- especially when you're constantly lifting and squashing the front wheel through roots and rocks. Personally, I don't want a super long, low and slack bike, no matter how far the industry may go in that direction.

I think your question well exemplifies one of the big conflicts/divides we see in bike design today -- how does a product manager/frame engineer in northern California effectively understand what a bike needs to function well in a totally different environment? I love the wide gamut of trails in NorCal (they're arguably some of the most fun trails anywhere), and I love the local trails near my house, but they're not all that similar. In fact, you might even say they're pretty dissimilar when you consider that different trails demand different suspension tuning and kinematics choices, alongside more obvious geometry differences. The Rascal might feel a little muted at high speeds ripping down 3rd Divide in Downieville, and the Ripmo feels clunky and hesitant in technical, low-speed terrain that we have in abundance in the northeast.

I think my bigger bias point in recommending the Rascal for your riding isn't that I own a Rascal, it's that I have a strong aversion to the modern MTB cultural attitude that seems to think one bike could work for all sorts of riders in all sorts of different locations. If you want the optimal bike, it has to be optimal for YOUR terrain. While the Ripmo is hardly a bad bike, it's a far cry from the exceptionally nimble, flat-corner-dissecting feel of the Rascal. Coming out of CO, you wouldn't expect Revel to make fantastic bikes for old-school New England riding... yet they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,010 Posts
I don't have a Rascal, but owned a Riot. Also, never rode a Ripmo, but had every version of the Ripley.
Owned a bunch of other suspension designs as well.
CBF is the only one I like better than Ibis DW-Link.
 

·
Registered
Revel Rascal,Scott Spark Rc900 wc
Joined
·
27 Posts
Really torn between the Rascal and the Ripmo V2. I know this is a Rascal thread, so I am prepared for bias, but I am guessing I am not alone being stuck on this choice now or in the recent past if you are reading this thread. My riding is mostly tight, twisty, technical singletrack- average speeds of only 4-5 mph. Short punchy ups and downs, natural rollers, rocks with more rocks on top of them. I get maybe a half dozen days a year of lift service at places like Killington and Thunder Mountain. I am not a double black jump line guy, but enjoy the black diamond singletrack. While the Ripmo probably has more travel than I need 95% of the time, from what I have read about the pedaling platform and weight, there is little if no penalty for having it along for the ride. Possible downside of Ripmo V2 is the slackened head tube. I have not heard of many reviewers complaining about this however, there is mostly just love for the V2/AF geometry out there. It is only 18mm longer than the Rascal, so not a tank in comparison. Rascal is a tad light on travel, but many have described it as bottomless in the back and the front can always be bumped up to 150. Downside to forking up being making a relatively conservative stock STA even more conservative. The STA is one of my primary gripes on my current Trance Advance 27.5.

TL;DR If you have experience with either (or both) the Rimpo V2/AF or the Rascal in lower speed, punchy tech, please weigh in.
It sounds like for the majority of your riding the Rascal will be a better fit than a Ripmo. The Ripmo pedals very well to the point that it hides its travel. However the Rascal climbs better. For everyday riding the Rascal will be a better all around bike. It really excels in technical riding because of the 66 degree HA and the CBF platform. At the end of the day it comes down to if you want a trail or enduro bike. The Ripmo will be better in the bike park but the Rascal is more well rounded for what you ride most of the time.
(I was in the same situation. I went with a Rascal)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Really torn between the Rascal and the Ripmo V2. I know this is a Rascal thread, so I am prepared for bias, but I am guessing I am not alone being stuck on this choice now or in the recent past if you are reading this thread. My riding is mostly tight, twisty, technical singletrack- average speeds of only 4-5 mph. Short punchy ups and downs, natural rollers, rocks with more rocks on top of them. I get maybe a half dozen days a year of lift service at places like Killington and Thunder Mountain. I am not a double black jump line guy, but enjoy the black diamond singletrack. While the Ripmo probably has more travel than I need 95% of the time, from what I have read about the pedaling platform and weight, there is little if no penalty for having it along for the ride. Possible downside of Ripmo V2 is the slackened head tube. I have not heard of many reviewers complaining about this however, there is mostly just love for the V2/AF geometry out there. It is only 18mm longer than the Rascal, so not a tank in comparison. Rascal is a tad light on travel, but many have described it as bottomless in the back and the front can always be bumped up to 150. Downside to forking up being making a relatively conservative stock STA even more conservative. The STA is one of my primary gripes on my current Trance Advance 27.5.

TL;DR If you have experience with either (or both) the Rimpo V2/AF or the Rascal in lower speed, punchy tech, please weigh in.
I demoed a Rascal and a Ranger one day this fall on a tight and techy Colorado trail. Then I demoed a V1 Ripmo the next day on a not quite so techy but steeper trail. The Ripmo felt vague and lifeless until it woke up at high speed. Rascal felt much more agile, precise, and 'fun' at most speeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I think I may have already commented on one of your posts on facebook but I live in Massachusetts and own a rascal I got recently. Only a handful of rides but I'm very happy with it. I originally had my eyes on the ripmo af, banshee prime, and knollys warden lt. I ended up with the rascal because I found a good deal on one in stock and also felt like at least on paper it suited new England trail riding better than anything else. I do feel like it's suited VERY well to the trails except the 800mm bars which I like the feel of so I may not change.

So far I've ridden it at Vietnam, goat hill,and pine hills if you're familiar with any of those. I haven't ridden a lot of full sus bikes tbh. I did ride a ripmo v2 around the parking lot and at least just goofing around on flat land, the two feel pretty similar tbh.

Also, don't be fooled by the 66 hta. At least to my feel, it almost feels slacker than other bikes with the same hta when pointed down. Idk what it is but it's just a much better descender than you might think. It does not totally mute the trail, but I feel very well supported while riding. I wouldn't say it feels like a long travel bike but it does feel like it has more travel than my partner's orbea occam. I'd say it climbs slightly worse on smooth steady climbs than that bike, but has a clear advantage to any bike I've ridden on tight techy climbs which is why I feel like it's the perfect new England bike. Lmk if you have any specific questions. Where in new England are you?
Thanks for weighing in. I am about 95% on the Rascal train. Looking for nimble and poppy, decent climber, but still deep enough travel to hang on DH days. Waiting to hear back from my local shop on availability. I am in North Central CT. I have not yet been to Vietnam, but from what I have seen on youtube, it looks like it would be my jam. I also try to hit up Kingdom a few times a year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
Thanks for weighing in. I am about 95% on the Rascal train. Looking for nimble and poppy, decent climber, but still deep enough travel to hang on DH days. Waiting to hear back from my local shop on availability. I am in North Central CT. I have not yet been to Vietnam, but from what I have seen on youtube, it looks like it would be my jam. I also try to hit up Kingdom a few times a year.
If I only had 3 descriptors for the Rascal, it would be nimble, poppy and descent climber.

I can hit pretty much everything I normally do on my Warden on DH tracks/ bike parks, but with only 140mm up front, it does beat the crap out of me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,771 Posts
I owned a Ripmo V1 and though it was a great all around bike. It climbed great and better than the Rascal for me out her in the West. However, even though it has more travel, I preferred the Rascal going down, especially on DH's with repeated hits and chatter. That CBF suspension design is the best I've ever ridden going down. I've also ridden my friends Rail a few times. I ended up with a V4 Ripley because it climbs better than the Rascal for me (much snappier) but if my main concern was going down or how the rear suspension reacts, I would have gone with the Rascal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Thought I'd finally chime in as I own both a Ripmo V2 and just finished my Rascal build. Didn't plan on getting my Rascal for a few more months, but to my great surprise, it showed up WAY earlier than they told me. And I only have two rides on the Rascal, so some things I'm about to say may change.

First off, I may take some slack for this, but the Rascal is a bit of a porker. It's virtually the same build as my Ripmo V2, nearly all carbon, SRAM X01 cranks, eagle drivetrain, Enve bars, except the Ripmo has a Zeb fork and Onyx hubs and the Rascal has a 150mm Lyrik and CK hubs, and even with the slightly lighter fork and hubs, the Rascal is almost two pounds heavier. And it's pretty much the same weight as the Riot I had before. Not what I was expecting nor really wanted, but when I'm riding the Rascal, I don't find the extra weight annoying at all, at least not yet.

Second, one thing I found interesting is that I'm 6'5" tall, so on XL frames, and while on paper the Ripmo has like 11mm more reach, I'm actually running a shorter stem on the Rascal. So 50mm stem on Rascal and 60mm stem on Ripmo. The Rascal felt really stretched out with a 60mm stem.

Guess before I go any further, I'll add that my most previous bikes have been Knolly Warden, Banshee Prime and Canfield Riot. Also owned a Niner WFO and Knolly Chilcotin. I mention this because the Rascal is everything I had really wanted from the Riot (with the one exception of not being any lighter, which I'm still trying to wrap my head around) but the Rascal is even more fun to ride.

My first ride on the Rascal was in really tight singletrack with lots of quick turns, roots, quick up and downs with a bit of prolonged logging road climbs. As some have mentioned in previous posts, I found the Rascal wallowed a bit with the stock RS shock, but I'd planned on swapping it out anyway with the new CC Kitsuma b/c my Riot came with CCDBA and Canfield's new long travel 29ers are specced with CC shocks. The Kitsuma is leaps and bounds better. Also, first ride I had an older Pike with a Vorsprung coil conversion set at 140mm, but it was too heavy and put the bike over 35lbs, so I put on a Lyrik set at 150. Really like the addition 10mm up front, and doesn't feel any less stable and maybe just a tad bit more wobbly on climbs, and I'll probably keep it there for now.

Second ride on Rascal was gnarly, rocky, technical riding that I normally only take my big travel 27.5 bike on, but it was the only place dry enough to ride. I was super impressed with how well the Rascal pedals with the new shock, zero wallowing, as well as how well it took the chunk. In my opinion thus far, the Rascal is a much better climber in technical, chunky stuff. It's solid and stays glued to the trail the entire time, kinda reminds me of how my old Knollys climbed and better than the Riot. The Ripmo on the other hand just doesn't stay nearly as planted, like if I don't keep my speed up, I find myself getting bounced off on chunky climbs. The Rascal is also plenty fun on the downs, too. I didn't find the 130mm to be harsh or lacking in any way, but it definitely does not have the bottomless floaty feeling that 147mm of travel on the Ripmo gives me on the downs.

I guess lastly I'll mention that unlike some folks' comments about the Rascal's rear end being a little flimsy, I did not find that to be the case and I'm a clyde at the upper end of the curve. I found it to be super solid, and the carbon feels thicker than Ibis's carbon, which makes sense since it weighs more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
990 Posts
Really torn between the Rascal and the Ripmo V2. I know this is a Rascal thread, so I am prepared for bias, but I am guessing I am not alone being stuck on this choice now or in the recent past if you are reading this thread. My riding is mostly tight, twisty, technical singletrack- average speeds of only 4-5 mph. Short punchy ups and downs, natural rollers, rocks with more rocks on top of them. I get maybe a half dozen days a year of lift service at places like Killington and Thunder Mountain. I am not a double black jump line guy, but enjoy the black diamond singletrack. While the Ripmo probably has more travel than I need 95% of the time, from what I have read about the pedaling platform and weight, there is little if no penalty for having it along for the ride. Possible downside of Ripmo V2 is the slackened head tube. I have not heard of many reviewers complaining about this however, there is mostly just love for the V2/AF geometry out there. It is only 18mm longer than the Rascal, so not a tank in comparison. Rascal is a tad light on travel, but many have described it as bottomless in the back and the front can always be bumped up to 150. Downside to forking up being making a relatively conservative stock STA even more conservative. The STA is one of my primary gripes on my current Trance Advance 27.5.

TL;DR If you have experience with either (or both) the Rimpo V2/AF or the Rascal in lower speed, punchy tech, please weigh in.
I'm in central Texas where it's mostly tight switchbacks in very rocky limestone terrain @ 3-7mph with short punchy climbs. Previous bike was a V1 Following. I have not ridden a Ripmo, but I can say that my Rascal is much better for the terrain I ride than my Following was. Not saying the Following wasn't a good bike but the Rascal outperforms it where I ride, which sounds similar to the terrain you would be riding. My Rascal is no light weight @ 32# being two pounds heavier than my Following was. The crazy thing is the Rascal actually feels lighter than the Following did it pedals much better and maintains momentum much better also. Have not had a chance to get it to the local bike park here but I think it will be excellent in that environment as well. I have mine set up with a 150mm 44offset Diamond up front and it pairs extremely well with the CBF suspension. The higher stack from the fork at 150 slackens the STA a bit but it still climbs fine and the front end doesn't wander on climbs like my Following did. At 150 the fork slackens my head angle to 65.5* which feels really good to me. The Rascal climbs like a goat especially out of the saddle it doesn't get hung up on roots and ledges like my Following did. The Rascal doesn't wallow at any point in the suspension. When you start to climb out of the saddle the rear suspension will settle in a bit but then the suspension stays stable with almost no pedal bob. Pointing down the Rascal is very confidence inspiring, it's stable at speed and when it's fast and chunky it eats up the chunk extremely well. So far I'm loving my Rascal. I'll add this, I bought my Rascal sight unseen with no demo ride and I am extremely pleased with the bike in all aspects. The fit and finish of the frame is very nice the internal tubes for cable routing make building the bike easy and extremely quite on the trail. Long writeup but I hope it helps. Good luck in your choice and I don't think you'll regret either bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Well, local shop is saying no Rascal availability in my size and color until the end of 2021. Ripmo V2 is still in contention, also looking at the Esker Rowl (not available until spring). Evil Offering V2 looks interesting, but might not be in my budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Well, local shop is saying no Rascal availability in my size and color until the end of 2021. Ripmo V2 is still in contention, also looking at the Esker Rowl (not available until spring). Evil Offering V2 looks interesting, but might not be in my budget.
That esker looks real nice. Didn't even know that thing was announced. I'd honestly strongly consider that. The deore is a great value for a carbon bike and I've heard amazing things about orion. You could also look into the canfield tilt which is aluminum and ships in April. Also cbf
 

·
Registered
Revel Rascal,Scott Spark Rc900 wc
Joined
·
27 Posts
Well, local shop is saying no Rascal availability in my size and color until the end of 2021. Ripmo V2 is still in contention, also looking at the Esker Rowl (not available until spring). Evil Offering V2 looks interesting, but might not be in my budget.
I would look used. I found my Rascal with an xo1 axs build for less than the gx build new. And it is essentialy brand new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Well, local shop is saying no Rascal availability in my size and color until the end of 2021. Ripmo V2 is still in contention, also looking at the Esker Rowl (not available until spring). Evil Offering V2 looks interesting, but might not be in my budget.
I'm also trying to decide between the Rascal and the Offering. Fortunately my shop has a Rascal GX on order in my size that I could claim and I also have a pre-order in for a GX Offering. Now to just decide based off of what I've read on the internet 😆

my friend has a Ripmo AF that I tried out. It definitely pedaled well but I didn't ride it enough for an opinion. I cant get past the looks though. Not a fan, no matter how good it is!
 
161 - 180 of 198 Posts
Top