First Look: Revel Ranger Gets Updated With UDH
The version 2 Revel Ranger Downcountry bike has the same front triangle as the original, but a new rear end. The main change is the introduction of SRAM's Universal Derailleur Hanger (UDH) standard, which allows the bike to make use of SRAM Eagle Transmission drivetrains (and also makes hanger swaps easier if you build one without SRAM's latest drivetrain.)
In addition, Revel says the new rear triangle has an "improved carbon layup that achieves 20% more stiffness with no added weight", along with new links and pivot hardware, including titanium shock mounting hardware. Tire and chainring clearance has also been improved, one of the pivots uses larger bearings and a debris guard is now included.
But while all that may be a nice bonus, it seems to me that the switch to UDH is the main story. It's certainly interesting that Revel announced this so soon after the introduction of SRAM Transmission. Perhaps we'll see more brands who haven't already jumped aboard the UDH bandwagon doing so soon.
There are currently two build options for the new frame, both of which make use of SRAM Transmission. They cost $8,499 and &11,499 USD, respectively.
If that's too pricey, Revel is still selling the V1 Ranger, starting at $4,639 USD, or you can get a V2 frame for $3,599.
Revel doesn't sell the V2 rear triangle on its own; apparently, it's not backwards-compatible with the Ranger V1.
For more information, head to revelbikes.com
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
"Revel doesn't sell the V2 rear triangle on its own; apparently, it's not backwards-compatible with the Ranger V1."
So it doesn't use the same front triangle as the original...
Having the same geometry does not make it the same.
Counterpoint- given the capabilities of CBF suspension even in this travel bracket, paired with the added weight compared to single pivot frames, I would have loved to see 1 degree shaved from the HA and 1 degree added to the STA for this V2. That and they are SO close to fitting two proper water bottles on the LG and XL which riders in this segment value. But I haven’t ridden one, so take this with a grain of salt. Folks I know who own this bike love this bike.
Revel statement:
To that end, we are committed to having the most environmentally-sustainable business we possibly can. We recycle all inbound cardboard and plastic that comes to our office, and we don’t use plastic and paper ware in our office break room. Adding to that, we choose to work with a manufacturer that abides to these principles too. They are committed to recycling scrap carbon, minimizing or eliminating the use of harsh chemicals in the manufacturing process and recycling and disposing of shop items responsibly.
Not a particularly intelligent decision.
If this is the depth of your environmental initiative....it's pretty shallow.
If you don't own your manufacturing (most brands don't), then you can only buy what the factory will sell. Most of these factories won't sell rear ends unless they're paired with a front triangle. Some won't sell frames at all, only complete bikes, doing basic assembly in-house.
Guerrilla Gravity has always made frames in the USA. They are one of two companies (the other being Ibis) making mass-produced carbon frames in the USA.
I’m guessing some sort of “new releases will become available.
I miss the days when being a corporate shill was seen as bad.
If you are doing useless shit like recycling cardboard but requiring users to buy a new bike so the frame is compatible with a new derail then you are not a sustainable company. Simple as that. They can use the "it's a busines" excuse if they want but then they should not pretend to be sustainable.
I agree they should offer it, but I would expect really low sales. I also think this is bust on a V2 (similar to Ripmo). The entirety of the V2 in both cases is to add the UDH to bikes that are already long in the tooth and in need of a refresh.
Well done Revel for not burning your cardboard on a big bonfire, I suppose.
Something is better than nothing right.
Ponder for a moment if EVs caught on before ICEs (yes they were around back then), and we mass produced hundreds of millions of them. We would be suffering from some unfortunate negative consequence(s) and hating on EVs.
It’s not the ICE that’s the problem, it’s the over consumption.
So what the hell do they cost so much for?
If we want to compare another brand that manufactures in Taiwan, Canyon just shat on Revel's front door in Taichung. Ibis too manufactures in Taiwan AND licenses DW Link while still offering better value. It seems like trendiness runs a value these days...
I also want to add Revel makes a big ol' stinking point of "designing" and "being based in" the U.S. for a company that actually doesn't do anything unique compared to any other brand based here. Hence my misconception that they, at one point, made bikes here too. Search "domestic manufacture mountain bikes" and Revel is the second result, touting their "Mountain bikes designed in Carbondale, Colorado".
But re bike brands, you listed I call BS on that!!!
DeVinci Django Carbon XT - 8600 CAD ( and it is 140/120mm bike), you can get Revel in a similar build for similar money
Reeb - same story - SST AIR GX $6,395.00 USD ( 140/120mm bike, similar build)
GG doesn't have anything in their lineup with 120mm, but SHRED DOGG is 5900 USD with XT build and it is 32 lbs bike ( Ranger is I think around 26 lbs) with 130mm travel
So my point is:
1. I see no better value
2. None of the brands have Ranger-like (XC\downcountry) bikes in their lineup
3. If you want back up your claim - compare apples to apples at least
The YT Izzo is in the same category, a pound or two more, and thousands less. A Canyon Lux Trail weighs less, has a sweet spec, and costs less. Ibis' Ripley v4 also beats the Revel on the scales and on the wallet.
No one buys Ranger because they want a "mountain bike". Ranger is a purposely built downcountry bike that climbs like a goat yet can handle trails that are pointing down better than any XC bike. I do not see the point arguing with someone who thinks 160 mm travel bike is better than a 140mm because " morerrer is betterer"
Try to find and demo one... but be aware - it will hurt your wallet cuz you will buy one
These issues need to be talked about as often as possible. People are going to spend $10k on a bicycle with inexcusable design flaws (that also creaks).
Also, my very minor creaking issue was fixed by the updated hardware, and adding grease to the shock pivot 1-2x/year.
I'm 130kg and ride it on everything from singletrack to bikepark jumps.. Zero issues with too much rear flex.
Granted this was a bike in their demo fleet that had been through a full season of demos, but I talked to the Revel team member about it and his words were. "Yeah we hear that from a lot of heavier riders. We're looking at upgrading the hardware, but were prioritizing lighter components."
Just ride your current bike till the frame breaks and use your old drivetrain till then. There is no necessity of upgrading to Transmission.
but! there are going to be a crap ton of people that just us UDH as an excuse to buy a new bike because they want the new shiny thing.....
As always. Sram is the Microsoft of the MTB world.
Wait two years and buy the Shimano version that has been in testing for five years and is now perfect.
they work great. don't know what to tell you otherwise.
I thought it was sweet that I could go to a local bike shop no matter where I was and they'd most likely have a hanger on hand since so many bikes would use the same one. Having the foresight to get an extra derailleur hanger and carry it all the time, especially after using my spare, has caught me out before
Not sure why everyone is so worked up that there is another option out there. This new transmission system literally changes nothing to what your riding now. Mechanical drivetrains are going nowhere.
Wait it out a few years and see how many bikes get mangled. Doubt a lot of the frame manufacturers would have went this route if they were going to have to warranty a shit load of frames.
I meant "trojan horse" in the sense that as someone who doesn't have OEM or media insight and no knowledge of the prior direct mount derailleurs, I would have never seen this coming and I felt like a chump for thinking UDH was for altruistic reasons
Just the opinion of someone running a 2015 Sram 11-speed drivetrain on their 2019 Enduro bike in the year 2023. 8 years down the road, the whole drivetrain is running in its original state (except chain), and the bike still goes plenty fast. I actually broke the Eagle 12-speed that I had originally on the bike and downgraded to this NX I had in my parts bin.
@cmi85: The people who worry about UDH taking over already have a Zeb/38, Super-mega-ultra-boost, DUB, (insert very marginal change) offset fork, trunnion mounted shocks, whatever else. Stop being upset at the industry for feeding you apparently exactly what you want, some new standard to spend money on. By exaggerating the crisis of new standards you're just rationalizing buying it for yourself.
Bikes are so expensive now, that people don’t care about the latest and greatest, it’s all about what’s on sale and what’s being discontinued for a discount…
For perspective, the direct mount Shimano Saint mechs (2004 to 2007) bolted directly to the axle, but there were many variations. For 10mm axles, for 12mm axles, for horizontal dropouts and for vertical dropouts. Then you had their Hone mechs (2005 until SLX was introduced) which bolted directly to the axle. I think you could replace your Deore or XT qr axle by the longer Hone axle and bolt-on their mech so it may not have been very proprietary, but you would need a loose-ball cup-and-cone hub so it wouldn't work with all hubs. So with that in perspective, I think the UDH could serve as quite a nice standard.
SRAM tries to standardize it to make it easier. People complain still. Just no winning according to pink bike.
IMHO, integrated headsets are just as unnecessary trash as headset cable routing.
Currently on two high pivot bikes and love the hovercraft feel, but miss the playfulness of short travel bikes like the ranger etc.
Everyone's large and XL bikes designed for anything more than XC use should be able to fit long travel droppers, have a decent STA, not effective STA, and have a low enough insertion for that to actually work. anything else is engineering laziness at this point.
I wonder if we'll see price decreases as a result as they were initially the justification for the price increases. (lol we won't)
See below..
@hughbm: Oh, we absolutely won't. That being said, I expect to pay a premium at a small company like Revel. If I'm shopping boutique, I should expect to pay accordingly. Brands like Specialized and Trek sticking it to the customer is what really grinds my gears.
This is what I meant.
They ostensibly raised the prices due to shipping container (I think in some cases it was 10x) but have not adjusted back down.
But it is supply and demand. I am no longer demanding a bike at these price levels. Especially when Shimano and SRAM pricing is also down and they are not 'demanding' huge orders with payment in advance with no set time table to deliver those parts. I do recognize that those were expenses and stressors that needed to be accounted for in terms of a companies outlook and guidance but those factors are all gone now.
But hey it is easier to present your opinion as a fact and cry about how expensive shit is than do the research right?
edit:// I base this on zero research and or facts.
That being said due to sales and prices going down in my group of friends almost EVERYONE got a new bike this spring. And they didn't upgrade from 2010 clapped-out bikes
Honestly though, given the state of the used market and so on, a 8k+ bike like this .. i predict.. will not sell and they'll have to figure something out.
A fact is that you are wrong
Fuel EX Gen 5 - 2021 4699
Fuel EX Gen 5 - 2022 4879
Fuel EX Gen 5 - 2023 4879 (no change in price to reflect decreased costs
Fuel EX Gen 6 - 2023 5299$ - WORSE SPEC on cranks (SLX to Deore) and Brakes (SLX to m610)
Yes, there is going to massive savings because no one is going to believe all these reasons they jacked prices anymore.
That did take more than 2 mins. But worth it.
You can get 120 bikes in a 20ft container, so if it was $4000 before and went to $16k they would need to add $100 per bike to cover it
If you put up the price of $8k bikes by $800 to cover container increase that would mean they make an additional profit of $84k per container.
So as you can see, total nonsense.
There's a lot of hands in the mix, and they all need to be greased. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there was some incentive to get as much profit as possible. It is a business after all. I'm not excusing any gouging that went on I'm just saying that it wasn't ALL gouging.
So you saw a 40% increase in costs but think going from $25-35 a bike to $800 a bike for shipping is realistic?
At least accept that suggesting $800 to ship a bike by container was complete nonsense, no?
As I show above they would have added approx $100 per bike (that's assuming a $16k 20ft container) for shipping - a huge 4 x increase in previous costs.
Smaller "rider-owned" brands can command the price premium of the increased mold/SKU count. This is why I look to brands like Transition, Yeti, and YT when shopping for my next frame. Not only do they offer a greater range of sizes, they also multiple rear triangles to match.
Asking riders to actually control their weight distribution by moving themselves is too much. What is this, a sport or something?
"The Following just wants to pop."
Fixed it for you.
The V1 has a GX build that is discounted to $4639. All the V1's are discounted right now. The equivalent X0 build on the V1 is discounted from $7299 to $5839.
Still over a $1k difference between the equivalent V1 and V2 build.
How are they going to sell these things with the CoVID bike boom over?
"How are they going to sell these things with the CoVID bike boom over?"
They aren't. The latency in ordering, manufacturing, shipping, assembling and selling is rearing it's ugly head in all of retail.
Many will be forced to sell at or below cost. Sellers and consumers acted as if the party would never end. They're quite wrong.
Threaded bb
Udh hanger
Standard mount chainrings
Standard axel width
Standard cassette body
But they will do it incrementally, selling each one as a feature. Bastards.
No one is thinking "too cool i m gonna be able to switch my front triangle with my previous one if i break it "
Beyond stupid BS
But which is it!? lol honestly these labels for bikes are solidly unhelpful if they cannot be defined.
A PNW downcountry bike is a Bentonville trail bike. Back to my original statement, if the Ranger frame was light it would be an XC bike, given it's travel. But it's heavy so it gets bumped to downcountry/light trail bike duty based on your terrain.
But I'd agree, it's a downcountry bike.
You said "Weight is absolutely a factor for those looking to buy a XC bike to race and be competitive on."
So what? That doesn't mean that a heavy xc bike isn't an xc bike. A shitty DH bike is still a DH bike. A heavy XC bike is still an XC bike. Go tell Chromag or Stif or Stanton or that their XC bikes aren't XC bikes because they're heavy. Weight is not a defining characteristic of any bike category. You get heavy and light bikes in all categories of bike.
V3...
It works just like every derailleur hanger in the past. I think you're referring to the new Sram Transmission derailleur that simply eliminates the hanger.
You have the choice to use the UDH and a standard derailleur or the Transmission style without the hanger.
No real downside here.
Yeti, Ibis and now Revel released new updates to frames so it’s compatible with the new SRAM transmission, not so people can run UDH.
There is literally no issue here other than resale value of old frames, and given the industry's history with axles, BBs, etc you're a fool if you're counting on forward compatibility to keep your resale value high.
It also may put Shimano out of the MTB game. They didn’t respond to AXS, and I don’t expect them to respond to the Transmission. They are hardly offered on complete builds now… what if your options are AXS Transmission, “Manual” Transmission, or UDH XT?
Here is a quick peak at what they may have coming down the pipe: www.bikeradar.com/news/shimano-derailleur-hanger-patent
Out of MTB? Shimano? Really?
1) There is no patent problem. In fact, a couple weeks ago, PB had an article that showed Shimano had been testing out their own version of "Transmission", a direct mounted derailleur, for years now.
2) AXS was Sram's late entry into electronic shifting, basically them responding to Shimano's Di2, not the other way around. Shimano chose not to use Di2 for 12sp because their manual 12sp was substantially superior to AXS. I doubt very much that a cable actuated Transmission will be superior to Shimano's 12sp. Shimano's 12sp has allowed shifting under power since it's inception. Transmission is Sram's attempt to catch up.
3) Sram has not established a "new frame standard". It's still just frames made to accept UDH. Sram simply built a derailleur that worked with the UDH interface. Shimano, and anyone else, can continue to do the same, develop a direct frame mounted derailleur, if they feel the juice is worth the squeeze.
Every bike manufacturer has been in on it.
OK, back from crazy-town.
UDH is a UNIVERSAL standard. That means the frame interface that bolts to it is also a UNIVERSAL standard.
Sram, and anyone else, is free to use that UNIVERSAL interface to create a direct mounted derailleur.
No hidden plot, no secret back-channel deals. It's simply technology. Available to everyone.
www.pinkbike.com/news/shimano-patent-shows-direct-mount-electronic-derailleur.html
It's pretty much accepted that, 12sp-wise, Shimano blew Sram out of the water when they introduced theirs.
XTR is still the king of XC.
Saint is still the gold standard of DH. There's a reason it's virtually unchanged since it came out.
Brakes? - I KNOW you don't want to go there.
Sram gets a lot of OEM business due to one thing - price. They spit that shit out cheap to OEMs. There's a reason on a given bike model, the Shimano spec is generally higher $ than the equivalent level Sram Spec. Because it's worth it.
Sram will always be first to the marketplace, and then deal with the issues as they come (and they do come).
Shimano will test, refine, and test more. They'll never be first, but usually best.
Shimano has fine stuff, but it is becoming “after market” in the MTB world… similar to TRP or Hope… fine stuff, but Sram is now approaching a monopoly on OEM equipment.
No doubt this has impacted the percentage of the OEM market they own, but your claims that cable actuated T-Type would end Shimano or that there is some sort of patent issue is simply not true.
I like Shimano's philosophy of test, refine, test, refine, test, test, test and THEN sell, rather than "Rush out to market and then improve it next year".
I've also been in the industry (Owned a bike shop for 5 years) and are good friends with many shop owners. It's somewhat known that, regarding retail bike sales, the Shimano spec options (when available) are generally preferred to the Sram ones by experienced buyers, despite usually being more expensive.
As far as I know, only Santa Cruz and Specialized are Sram-spec only brands. Ironically, both of those are kinda known as profit-above-all brands.
Pivot, Ibis, Revel, Transition, Canyon, Trek, Norco, Giant, Kona (just a few I checked) all offer Shimano spec options.