Advice - Fox Float 32RL v Rockshox Revelation RLT

BigAirNig

Hi

Anyone got direct knowledge on the difference in ride quality between the Fox Float 32RL 140mm and the new Rockshox Revelation RLT 150mm ?? 15mm thru axle version 1 1/8 steerer

Is one stiffer than the other (to any noticeable degree)?

Better damping ? Smoothness etc

Cheers
Nig

supersonic

The Rockshox RLT gets a fully adjustable compression damper (open to lock, and anywhere in between), plus adjustable blow off force for the lockout. The Float RL is lock or unlocked, with no inbewteen - only the RLC can compare really. I also think the Rev is stiffer in use.

BigAirNig

Forgive me - what's adjustable blow off force for the lockout ?

That said - if it's only lock out related - I've never bothered using it before !

Cheers

Nig

stubs

From experience of both companies forks I find the Fox are plusher when you do a bounce test but blow through all there travel more easily. Rockshox feel stiffer initially but for me personally feel better when the fork is working hard. I think a lighter rider would get more out of the Fox and a heavier rider more out of the Rockshox. For 2 forks of equal cost I would always go for the Rockshox as they seem to be as good as Fox that cost £100 more. Of course a Fox sticker is worth at least £100

supersonic

BigAirNig wrote:

Forgive me - what's adjustable blow off force for the lockout ?

That said - if it's only lock out related - I've never bothered using it before !

Cheers

Nig

You can set the compression damper to momentarily open up if you hit something too hard and have the damping too high (or locked).

BigAirNig

OK thanks ...

andy_welch

My experience is the opposite of stubs'

I find my Rev RLT very linear and much more likely to blow through its travel than my Fox RL, which is very progressive.

However, my Rev is a 2011 single air dual-position job, so may differ considerably from the newer models. My Fox fork also had the issue with oil migrating into the air spring, which makes it even more progressive, but that's fixed now.

Thewaylander

And from my experience, Fox shox have the worst small bump compliance imaginable.

bigcoose

Thewaylander wrote:

And from my experience, Fox shox have the worst small bump compliance imaginable.

I will second that.

Briggo

Thewaylander wrote:

And from my experience, Fox shox have the worst small bump compliance imaginable.

Old man, who cares about the small ones its the bigguns you want to worry about.

chick0

Briggo wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

And from my experience, Fox shox have the worst small bump compliance imaginable.

Old man, who cares about the small ones its the bigguns you want to worry about.

I have to agree, this whole small bump fascination that people seem to have is nonsense.

supersonic

Over long rides it can be fatiguing if bumps are continuously getting through. Sure you may not mind that, but is preference, not 'nonsense'. I like my forks to have a very soft start to them, I also find it adds traction.

chick0

supersonic wrote:

Over long rides it can be fatiguing if bumps are continuously getting through. Sure you may not mind that, but is preference, not 'nonsense'. I like my forks to have a very soft start to them, I also find it adds traction.

I personally have found that every fork i have ridden when set up for small bump sensitivity will perform badly when ridden hard. This small bump zone that people talk off just becomes a sloppy uncontrolled zone in the travel once the fork is working during fast riding.

Also, no decent fork i have ridden that's setup correctly has ever caused fatigue over small bumps, as tyres take the out any sting. Its the medium to big bumps that can put fatigue on me, but each to there own i guess..

Northwind

Small bump compliance + good damping = grip.

cooldad

Especially for those of us who spend most of their time with wheels on the ground.

supersonic

chick0 wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Over long rides it can be fatiguing if bumps are continuously getting through. Sure you may not mind that, but is preference, not 'nonsense'. I like my forks to have a very soft start to them, I also find it adds traction.

I personally have found that every fork i have ridden when set up for small bump sensitivity will perform badly when ridden hard. This small bump zone that people talk off just becomes a sloppy uncontrolled zone in the travel once the fork is working during fast riding.

Also, no decent fork i have ridden that's setup correctly has ever caused fatigue over small bumps, as tyres take the out any sting. Its the medium to big bumps that can put fatigue on me, but each to there own i guess..

If the damping is good, then is no problem. Unfortunately the damping in the Fox RL is poor. Not so in the Reba Rev RLT. it was even better when the forks had dual air.

chick0

supersonic wrote:

chick0 wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Over long rides it can be fatiguing if bumps are continuously getting through. Sure you may not mind that, but is preference, not 'nonsense'. I like my forks to have a very soft start to them, I also find it adds traction.

I personally have found that every fork i have ridden when set up for small bump sensitivity will perform badly when ridden hard. This small bump zone that people talk off just becomes a sloppy uncontrolled zone in the travel once the fork is working during fast riding.

Also, no decent fork i have ridden that's setup correctly has ever caused fatigue over small bumps, as tyres take the out any sting. Its the medium to big bumps that can put fatigue on me, but each to there own i guess..

If the damping is good, then is no problem. Unfortunately the damping in the Fox RL is poor. Not so in the Reba Rev RLT. it was even better when the forks had dual air.

Not saying that your not correct, but what's your basis for saying the Fox RL's dampening is so poor ? I have never had much time on an RL, but i have on an RLC with open bath, and remember contemporary reviews saying RL's characteristics being 'purer' then the RLC of the same time.

Do you know of any reviews backed up by scientific evidence that show the RL's poor ability's?

bennett_346

chick0 wrote:

I have never had much time on an RL, but i have on an RLC with open bath, and remember contemporary reviews saying RL's characteristics being 'purer' then the RLC of the same time.

I'm not even going to ask what the fark that means...

supersonic

The RL has no adjustable compression damper. The RLT has a fully adjustable damper with adjustable blow off valve, which lets you set it up a multitude of ways. Also has a dual flow rebound chamber which copes very well with the big stuff, not packing down as much as older forks.

You don't need damping curves to show this (and don't think I have ever seen a magazine or website publish any for any fork ever!). Just riding them is enough, the RL dives like mad under braking, and there is nothing you can do to stop it unless you have the damper upgraded or tuned. With the RLT it is two dials.

Fox RLC is much better than RL for adjustability with a performance like that of the RLT damper.

supersonic

I found this info from PUSH industries, but may not cover the latest forks (which dive just as much to me!):

R forks (Shimmed Compression/Shimmed Rebound)- Solid top cap with a shimmed base valve. All compression is handled by the lower valve during rod displacement, no external adjustment. Shimmed rebound with adjustable bleed port via red dial on top of fork.

RL forks (NO Compression/Shimmed Rebound) - Hollow damping rod to direct oil displaced from the rod on compression into the lockout mechanism. Free flowing oil (no compression) on compression stroke when lockout lever in "open" position. In "locked" position, free flow oil is shut off and oil is directed to the bottom of the cartridge in order to "blow off" if a big impact occurs as to not damage the fork. Shimmed rebound with adjustable bleed port via red dial on top of fork.

RLC forks - (Shimmed Compression Adjustable/Preloaded Compression Adjustable/Shimmed Rebound) Hollow damping rod and adjustable preload base valve allowing oil to travel into the top cap valve, or into base valve. At lower speed, compression fluid flows into the top cap area and through the bypass port (external compression adjustment) as well as through the shimmed top cap valve (again, compression damping). Higher speed impacts force the base valve open allowing an increase in fluid dump on compression. In "locked" position, oil flow into top cap is shut off and oil is directed to the bottom of the cartridge through the base valve. Shimmed rebound with adjustable bleed port via red dial on top of fork.

So no compression damping whatsoever in RL!!!

Northwind

I didn't keep my RLs for very long as they weren't very good and I had a set of Rev Teams which are. But yes, divey as ****, insufficient compression damping as standard and no way to alter it without rebuilding. I guess "divey as ****" translates to "lovely and plush" for some people but for me it meant "Overinflate the fork so you don't die when things get a little bit lairy"

Wasn't that the fork was bad though, it was just poorly specced.

chick0

supersonic wrote:

The RL has no adjustable compression damper. The RLT has a fully adjustable damper with adjustable blow off valve, which lets you set it up a multitude of ways. Also has a dual flow rebound chamber which copes very well with the big stuff, not packing down as much as older forks.

You don't need damping curves to show this (and don't think I have ever seen a magazine or website publish any for any fork ever!). Just riding them is enough, the RL dives like mad under braking, and there is nothing you can do to stop it unless you have the damper upgraded or tuned. With the RLT it is two dials.

Fox RLC is much better than RL for adjustability with a performance like that of the RLT damper.

Cool, i was just wondering what your opinions are based around.

You should check out the German Magazine Bike-Magazin. If you don't read German you could give a translator a try on there website - http://www.bike-magazin.de/.

They publish laboratory test results figures and graphs when testing forks and shocks ( they also do thorough laboratory frame stiffness tests etc). It makes a nice change to read real facts, as the UK Mags reviews are largely based around personal opinions.

supersonic

Ah, forgot about them, they do some useful testing of stiffness and the like. However can't beat a good test ride, often the numbers don't seem to translate to the trail!

Northwind

chick0 wrote:

They publish laboratory test results figures and graphs when testing forks and shocks ( they also do thorough laboratory frame stiffness tests etc). It makes a nice change to read real facts, as the UK Mags reviews are largely based around personal opinions.

Aren't they the same mag that melted a Shimano ice-tech rotor and claimed their test was useful, even though nobody's ever done it on a bike? So now every time Teh Internetz has a conversation about the rotors someone says "hurp durp everyone know they melts dur."

Lab testing's nice as long as it's relevant and comprehensible, but it's not always that useful

BigAirNig

Well - I went for some Revelation RLT 2013 and they are now on.... hoping to ride tomorrow night.

I guess they'll take some run-in to give of their best ... but I look forward to seeing what differences/improvements I notice.