Powered by Outside

First Look: Revel Ranger Gets Updated With UDH

Apr 11, 2023
by Seb Stott  
photo


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.)

photo

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.

photo

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



photo


Author Info:
seb-stott avatar

Member since Dec 29, 2014
314 articles

252 Comments
  • 164 1
 "The version 2 Revel Ranger Downcountry bike has the same front triangle as the original, but a new rear end."

"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...
  • 24 2
 This totally confused me too. It makes no sense that the V2 rear end would not work with the V1 front end.
  • 43 0
 @Offrhodes: Probably has to do with the new hardware and larger bearings. Same front triangle in terms of geo. Different parts to assemble.
  • 13 1
 Maybe they have changed the linkage parts or the shock yolk. Seems confusing that it isn’t backwards compatible though
  • 16 0
 Can't they sell the rear triangle with the new hardware and links then?
  • 10 0
 @kmayotte: AKA, not the same front triangle as the original.
Having the same geometry does not make it the same.
  • 3 0
 @nickfranko: Comeon Wolftooth!
  • 3 15
flag RedBurn (Apr 11, 2023 at 11:32) (Below Threshold)
 Nobody cares?
  • 22 0
 It's commercially not compatible
  • 3 0
 Sounds like the links and hardware are different, and they don’t want to color match and sell that whole package. Considering the performance is virtually identical and a lot of folks won’t care about / need Transmission… this sounds like a strange way to communicate a reasonable strategy.

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.
  • 1 0
 @basic-ti-hardtail: Then they should do like Commencal and sell aftermarket linkages or triangles in just black maybe?
  • 1 0
 It's a spacing issue with the hardware.
  • 40 2
 Disappointing IMO. I love Revel and this would be an opportunity to engineer a replacement rear triangle to support sustainability AND sell components.

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.
  • 31 4
 You mean....committed to making money first then maybe the environment down the road?
  • 25 10
 @Oldfatslowrider71: I mean it is a business. You can't protect the environment from bankruptcy court.
  • 23 3
 @Struggleteam: the oil companies could
  • 21 3
 @Struggleteam: And it's a business that could have sold rear ends to existing customers to make more money, which would have also fostered brand loyalty. Instead, now they have to try to convince current customers that they aren't a*shole and that they should buy this half-new bike.
Not a particularly intelligent decision.
  • 24 3
 @dockboy: Sure, but that's not what we are talking about here. I own a heavy civil construction company. We build roads and infrastructure, While businesses like mine are needed, what we do doesn't always feel good. To combat this, we have focused the business heavily on urban renewal, repurposing and water quality projects vs developing raw land. Does this make what I do for a living green? No it doesn't but we make a conscious effort to lessen our impact through our focus. A small business like revel (which I don't believe has been bought out yet) is attempting to do the same thing. However, priority number one is to make great bikes and keep the lights on.
  • 5 4
 @nickfranko: We are talking about 2 different things here. Environmental impacts and parts compatibility. Maybe there was an engineering issue that required front triangle tweaks to make the udh rear end work? While I'm not running out to buy the sram "tranny". I am unboard with adopting the udh. More universal parts that work between frames is a green move and is ultimately better for the customer.
  • 8 2
 From the company that moved all their frame manufacturing overseas this year. I have no qualms with a Taiwan-made frame but it seemed like a big selling point of Revel's was domestic manufacture, especially given the environmental impact of shipping all your frames all the way across the Pacific.
  • 4 1
 @ryanandrewrogers: I did not know this about revel. That's a bummer. Hopefully they wont sell out like KONA and so many other have. My next frame will be made either in the US or Canada.
  • 24 2
 "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."

If this is the depth of your environmental initiative....it's pretty shallow.
  • 7 0
 @ryanandrewrogers: At what point in time did Revel manufacturer frames in the US?
  • 13 4
 @ryanandrewrogers: Revel has never made a bike in the USA aside from the 3D printed DH bike they released a month or two back. And that's just fine, there are advanced manufacturing capabilities offered by Asian factories that nobody in America can touch. Buying local is great but there is a massive brain drain in manufacturing in the USA that isn't ever going away.

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.
  • 5 0
 @Struggleteam: I'm really wondering if they saw the opportunity to make minimal changes to alleviate some warranty/strength/assembly issues with their hardware. This would make it incompatible with the V1 front triangle, but maybe they will see less warranty/strength/assembly issues than if they made it compatible with the V1 triangle. This would make a compelling reason to improve things for the purchasers of the V2 frames even if its at the expense of the V1 folks.
  • 5 0
 Revel never made frames in the USA.

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.
  • 3 0
 They could’ve done a new rear with an updated hanger. Sold updated frames and rear triangles. Scott has done this plenty of times, it just isn’t common knowledge. It wouldn’t make any sense for them to do it this way.
I’m guessing some sort of “new releases will become available.
  • 14 3
 @Struggleteam: ah yes the good old copout of "it's a business" to explain every move. "Oh they were giving people cancer to people in cancer alley in luisiana but it's a business and you can't not give people cancer from bankruptcy court".

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.
  • 5 3
 @Struggleteam: so is your logic that small companies can polute since the goal is keeping the lights on? Then they should not pretend to be sustainable. Also I need to tell my GF who ran a sustainable fashion company. Stupid her making a small company profitable and sustainable when she could have said "screw it, let the big guys be green, we will produce jackets out of tar and uranium"
  • 4 0
 @nickfranko: Would you pay $1000 for a new rear triangle of which the only benefit is to allow the use a $1600-$2100 transmission? That’s like paying $2600-$3100 for the transmission!

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.
  • 3 1
 @ckcost: Yeah, it's pretty much the bare minimum. I get that Revel isn't exactly Shell or BP, but considering that our sport relies on the environment, I feel as though bike companies should be doing much more than simply recycling their cardboard.

Well done Revel for not burning your cardboard on a big bonfire, I suppose.
  • 4 1
 @Danquo: Recycling… it’s really an empty promise. Only a small percentage of what we submit for recycling actually gets recycled. And that take fossil fuel energy to do so. Similar to electric cars… no one takes the time to research how much energy goes into making them, how much energy is spent in mining battery elements… they just feel like they are doing the right thing… damn conditioning! Thirty years from now, they will all drop their jaws in disbelief of the damage they’ve done. Really the only right thing is to stop/minimize consuming… no “new” product is ever going to be good for the environment.
  • 4 0
 @nickfranko: I don’t think anyone at revel expects their existing customers to throw their existing bikes in a dumpster because it doesn’t work with udh. The new sram stuff is a selling feature on new bikes, hence the choice to update with udh, but it’s not like everyone with existing drivetrains can no longer ride their bikes. Ride what you have, and when it’s time for something new you now have the option to buy a ranger with Transmission. Nobody is an a*shole in this situation.
  • 4 1
 @spaced: you sir are a man of extremes
  • 4 0
 @b1k35c13nt15t: OK, so the company not selling the rear end on its own is environmentally unfriendly. But a consumer wanting to buy a whole new rear end (or whole new frame) just to get to use the fanciest and shiniest new derailleur / whole drive train is OK. Seems to me like no one in this scenario really gives a F about waste and consumption. Which is kinda the norm these days so…
  • 4 0
 @MonsterTruck: It's so much more fun to just complain about other people's shortcomings.
  • 1 0
 @ryanandrewrogers: wonder if they'll be moving them back here real soon...
  • 3 1
 @Baller7756: EVs- new technology is only marginally better than the best of what can be done after 100ish years of burning fossil fuels for energy. OK. Let’s give up and not try since effort 1 or 2 on EVs is only a little better than effort 1000000000000 on international combustion. Progress is incremental gains.
  • 4 0
 @Struggleteam: Good on you for making a decision on what work you chase. I too work in civil, so full appreciate that you're technically making your life harder going down that path.
Something is better than nothing right.
  • 4 1
 @MonsterTruck: I’m just saying that you cannot consume in mass extremes and not have negative impact.

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.
  • 4 1
 The funniest thing is that most of those who bitches here has no Revel and would not buy new rear either way... they here just to bitch Big Grin
  • 1 0
 Yet their phot of the frame in the snow has a derailleur hanger on it, ah well.
  • 1 0
 @PHeller: Oh, I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the Utah facility they mention used to be their manufacturing site, apparently it has always just been prototyping.

So what the hell do they cost so much for?
  • 1 0
 @ryanandrewrogers: so much compared to what? Ranger is a few hundred bucks more then Spur, that prob comes from Revel needing to pay Canfield for licensing suspension.
  • 4 1
 @valrock: Compared to a GG, a DeVinci, or even a Reeb. Which are all made on this side of the Pacific. All 3 offer trail bikes that are less expensive or better value, and review very well.

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".
  • 1 0
 @ryanandrewrogers: I get your hate on a fake " USA" made part.

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
  • 1 2
 @valrock: Uh, the bikes you mentioned were cheaper, were they not? Perhaps not the same spec or precisely the same category, but aren't apples to apples anyway: apples to apples would compare this to another "downcountry" bike produced overseas.

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.
  • 2 0
 @ryanandrewrogers: of those, only the Ripley is a fair comparison. both the YT and the Canyon are DTC and use non-licensed suspension designs that are IMO, inferior.
  • 2 0
 @ryanandrewrogers: are you 10 or something? Let's compare Huffy from walmart then as well... it is cheaper, right? Made in Asia as well and OH BOY!!!!! It has 2 freaking wheels

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" Big Grin
  • 1 1
 @valrock: None of the bikes mentioned have more the 130mm rear travel. You sound like you don't know the bikes we're talking about. Nothing new for you, you just come out swinging aimlessly every time in these comments.
  • 28 0
 I can't believe they rolled out the same geo from 2019, while not making the new rear triangle backwards compatible. Revel must have the laziest product managers.
  • 4 12
flag valrock (Apr 11, 2023 at 13:31) (Below Threshold)
 or they just made a perfect bike in 2019 and there is simply no need to upgrade anything Big Grin

Try to find and demo one... but be aware - it will hurt your wallet cuz you will buy one
  • 3 0
 @valrock: if it's perfect then it should be backwards compatible with old front triangles
  • 4 0
 @valrock: demoed one a little over a year ago. Didn’t buy it…
  • 24 0
 I've had a Ranger for 2 years now. Also have an Epic evo (as a direct comparitor) in the household and various other bikes I ride, but I still ride the Ranger 95% of the time in Tahoe and Bay Area. I really really like this bike and am considering the new one despite the problems I'm about to share, that I know exist with others, and I know Revel has known for over a year. My opinion on the update: UDH was a nice upgrade/excuse to hide the main upgrade of a very poorly designed rear triangle. They used carefully crafted wording to make it seem like it was all in the name of performance, but based on all the comments above, everyone has already realized you are not gaining anything here. And to be fair, I don't think the bike needs any upgrades. The V1 rear triangle has zero clearance with the chain/chain ring. The bolt heads are inaccesable, and if they come loose even a little bit, they are impossible to tighten on the trail without removing the crankset, and use very weak t25 torx bolts that will strip at a necesarrily higher torque spec. Everything tighted to spec, my chain still gouged a scratch in the rear triangle from normal flex. I even spaced it out an additional half a mm with a slightly larger SRAM DUB BB spacer before I contacted Revel. They confirmed they knew about it and that I did exactly what they recommend, but told me the problem would still persist. Going as far as to suggest I put 3m protective tape to prevent it from eating the carbon and replace it as it wears through. The additional fix they offered was a new bolt with a higher torque spec and and a 10mm hex instead of a t25 torx to help squeeze it all together. I got this, and the problem still persisted. Eventually the flex increased and the paint is completely worn through around the entire chainring. My frame still works completely fine, I love it, but resale is just about zero. I'm very supporting of the brand, love the bike, would/may buy another (and already have a Rail 27.5), and am accepting I bought a first model year bike.
  • 7 2
 The chainring clearance issue is utterly inexplicable. What kind of bush league design is this? And I see they didn't address it on this v2.

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).
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: They...didn't fix this in V2? I assumed this is exactly what they fixed in the V2. I've flipped back and forth between images and obviously can't tell if there is more clearance, but can see that they addressed the accessability of the main bolt near the BB.
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: Oh, and the creak is likely your shock mount bolt when under lateral or twisting tortion. That...was amazing when I found that out. Needs a little grease every so often, but no big deal.
  • 4 0
 Sounds nightmarish.
  • 4 1
 @JohanG: Do at least the smallest amount of research before making claims like this. Bike Rumor did a first look, and they mention a redesign of the pivots, strengthening of the rear triangle and adding clearance around the chainring.

Also, my very minor creaking issue was fixed by the updated hardware, and adding grease to the shock pivot 1-2x/year.
  • 4 0
 @XJBaylor: Iiiinteresting. These are the reasons I didn't buy one. The back end was just too flexy for my weight.
  • 2 1
 @Gerryantics: ever heard of the Stockholm syndrome?
  • 1 1
 @gilpinmtbq: how heavy are you?
I'm 130kg and ride it on everything from singletrack to bikepark jumps.. Zero issues with too much rear flex.
  • 1 0
 How would you compare it to the EE? I was considering both and went with the EE so just curious
  • 4 0
 @p0rtal00: Ha, the bike is good, what can I say.
  • 1 0
 @sykkel-martin: No complaints about it being too flexy. Complaints about it not having the clearance for the flex.
  • 2 0
 @Mattcon20: There was a review a couple years back on here that was just about spot on. EE is a better bike in just about all ways, but I'd rather have the Revel. Its more fun. Its like the Clarkson quote: this is brilliant, but I like this.
  • 2 0
 @sykkel-martin: I'm 124,5kg. I found the back end extremely flexy under power and the pivots were making a loud cracking sound. I really loved how the bike rode on the downhill and in a straight line, but throwing it hard into corners and sprinting I could feel it flexing.

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."
  • 1 0
 @Gerryantics: I agree with this. It wouldn't be my first choice for racing, other bikes climb better, many descend better, but I have so much fun on the Ranger, and can't find a bike I'd prefer for most of my riding.
  • 2 0
 @XJBaylor: ah, I just saw the Bikerumor article. Very good. I stand corrected. But this is mostly Pinkbike's fault for their shoddy reporting.
  • 1 0
 @gilpinmtbq: yeah, this is my experience too. If you are a heavier rider, and like CBF, check out Canfield. They sacrificed the inside the triangle water bottle for a stiffer rear end, IMO.
  • 28 10
 This whole UDH thing is going to create a massive gluttony of Used frames pretty soon. Sure would be nice if mftr's offered a cheap way for a current frame owner to just swap out triangles.
  • 37 0
 its gotta hurry up. I cant wait to grab a frame for under 1000
  • 85 0
 you think so?
Just ride your current bike till the frame breaks and use your old drivetrain till then. There is no necessity of upgrading to Transmission.
  • 19 1
 Is UDH considered a must have by many?
  • 30 0
 @bashhard: correct. Sram will still make normally mounted mechs for many more years, and so will shimano.

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.....
  • 13 22
flag az-shredder3 (Apr 11, 2023 at 6:40) (Below Threshold)
 @Mtbdialed: I just rode a SRAM transmission. It shifts under load but sounds like garbage. There's no way it'll last
  • 15 16
 @az-shredder3: sram just relying on the early adopters to test their products for them
  • 8 1
 Like guerilla gravity
  • 20 13
 @adrennan: "sram just relying on the early adopters to test their products for them"

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.
  • 7 6
 Just don't buy a sram electric derailleur
  • 3 0
 Despite being an ebiker (booo) that this new stuff would benefit, shifting under power etc, I literally have no interest in it at all.
  • 3 2
 @Caddz: had mine for 3 years, and 2.5 years respectively. literally perfect.

they work great. don't know what to tell you otherwise.
  • 1 1
 Isn't it kinda similar to the transition of IS brake mount to PM? Only when pretty much all brake calipers were offered in the PM variation did the fork manufacturers only start to offer PM type fork lowers. PM tabs on frames still aren't commonplace on all bikes. I can imagine if there will even be a transition, it will be like that.
  • 8 0
 @bashhard: Exactly. I’m not in any big fat hurry to buy Transmission. Not at those prices. Plus the price of a new frame. The regular old derailleur will do fine.
  • 6 2
 @IntoTheEverflow: I was very happy about it before I knew it was a trojan horse for the new transmission models.

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
  • 1 0
 Agree with the triangle. Don't think used frames change that much. Sure, the prices will drop a little due to the new standard, but transmission is still an added MSRP of 1600-2700 on top of the new bike. In comparison a non-AXS XX1 tops out at 1200 cheaper. Most likely better deals on used builds and non-transmission dts which will help seeing pricing is insane at this point.
  • 9 1
 @sjma: but it still works with standard derailleurs? What Trojan horse is there? Sram isnt forcing you to switch over. You can still use a mechanical drivetrain. You also can still go buy the hanger at any shop.

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.
  • 6 0
 I always find it fascinating that some people think everyone else thinks like they do. While I agree standardizing the derail hanger is a good thing and to be honest, should have been done at least a decade ago, it certainly won't be disrupting or effecting the sales or value of non-UDH bikes anytime soon. I can't think of 1 person who is rushing to sell their bike because they feel they need to have a UDH frame. A properly setup bike today works amazing well.
  • 2 2
 @Bm1117: Except if it tweaks your rear end.
  • 2 0
 @nickfranko: allegedly... just like when carbon bikes were coming along and everyone was saying they were gonna break them cause they ripped so hard. Here we are.

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.
  • 2 1
 @Bm1117: my intention didn't come across correctly in my comment - I'm still very happy that there is a "universal" hanger and I'm fine with transmission being its own thing for now - it seems very well made and maybe I'll get it one day.

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
  • 4 0
 @bashhard: People get so moist for a new drivetrain as if we weren't all grinding up the hill on a 32t:36t ratio less than 10 years ago. Why does anyone "need" UDH retrofitted to an older frame?

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.
  • 3 1
 @mcozzy: just use XT, in can shift smoothly under full load on my ebike and the derailleur costs around US $98!
  • 2 0
 @BetterRide: FTR, the shifting performance of shimano hyperglide is not in the mech, it is in the chain and cassette. You kind of have to have an XT cassette or higher and ideally an XTR chain to really get the goods from it.
  • 1 0
 @IntoTheEverflow: ive wondered this at my age im not fast enough for any performance advantage anyone comes up with and can afford to smash hangers and mechs because at what point do 100 buck rear mechs equal a new frame purchase 30-40?
  • 1 0
 I don't think this will happen, so many users are content with 1x10 and 1x11 setups, and short of their frames breaking, will continue to use them. It's also been easier to find parts again. I think this will be an issue for a small percentage of users who like the latest and greatest/sponsored athletes?
  • 1 0
 @NuckaMan: I agree. I won't get ride of any of my bikes for not having a UDH. I also won't buy a new bike unless it has a UDH. One derailleur hanger to keep around is enough benefit even without the new SRAM stuff (that I won't buy until it's a LOT cheaper).
  • 1 0
 @bashhard: so true. Love how the consensus of modern mountain bikes are that they are all good (which they are), yet the second the newest shiniest thing comes out all of a sudden makes the sick bike that you had yesterday, a piece of shit today.
  • 1 0
 I don’t think UDH and the transmission is that big of a deal. Mountain bikers are so worn out with all the bs (.”marketing”) micro standards of the last decade that we really don’t care anymore. The new stuff costs twice as much for a very, very small improvement.

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…
  • 1 0
 @Mtbdialed: if you use a Garbaruk Cassette there is a massive difference in shifting with an xt mech to a deore mech, the xt one also holds up more than 5 rides without going sloppy.
  • 1 0
 @sjma: Well, it is still good that there is an universal mech hanger available, isn't there? If most "old standard" mechs fit the hanger and the mount of the hanger is standardized so that anyone can make a direct mount mech too, nothing is lost is there? At most, certain/many frames won't work with the new direct mount mechs but that's only a loss for the makers of these direct mount mechs. A consumer won't get in trouble unless they already have a direct mount mech and buy a new frame without this standard and they want to fit it there. But I doubt there will be many with this issue. More likely, you buy a new frame with this standard and want to fit your old parts on it. There often already were a few parts which wouldn't be compatible but at least you can fit your old rear mech.

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.
  • 1 0
 @Bm1117: people just want to complain. People complain when every manufacture has their own BB, own hanger, etc.

SRAM tries to standardize it to make it easier. People complain still. Just no winning according to pink bike.
  • 21 6
 That’s it? After three years?
  • 23 13
 Apparently they don't want to mess with perfection!
  • 10 1
 Kinda have to agree bit. Was really hoping they'd slack the HTA a degree or so. This frame was high on my list but the HTA and integrated headset kept me away. Buddy has a rascal and it's a great bike.
  • 4 0
 @ATXZJ: They have some pretty good deals right now on the V1, kind of tempting tbh!
  • 1 2
 @ATXZJ: add a angleset/longer travel fork if you really care about hta. if i could have one change it would be the sta and how slack it is comparative to most trail/enduro bikes.
  • 8 0
 @radbikr: I have a works angleset on all four of our bikes. You can't add an angleset to bikes with an integrated headset without raising stack height. If you then lengthen the fork travel, you are also further raising stack and BB height while slacking STA out. A proper ZS angle adjust headset actually drops the bb and steepens the sta when you slack it out. Then adding a longer fork just puts your BB back to stock height. It's really a win win.

IMHO, integrated headsets are just as unnecessary trash as headset cable routing.
  • 3 0
 @withdignityifnotalacrity: Crazy thing is, that sale price is basically what MSRP was before 2023.
  • 3 0
 @ATXZJ: agree there, good point!
  • 3 0
 @ATXZJ: I have a V1 with a 130mm pike, push micro eleven6 and a 9.8 angleset (-1.5 degrees) and it’s an amazing bike!
  • 3 0
 @Toryt7: I think the bike is rad. For me, just wished they'd at a minimum, ditch those integrated headsets.

Currently on two high pivot bikes and love the hovercraft feel, but miss the playfulness of short travel bikes like the ranger etc.
  • 3 1
 @ATXZJ: Inflation is a thing, unfortunately.
  • 2 0
 @withdignityifnotalacrity: so they keep telling us
  • 3 4
 Their geo is too dated too.
  • 3 3
 @ATXZJ: I can live with the HTA, it's those STA's that are killing me on their bikes.
  • 17 3
 Seat angle is slacker than head angle. No thanks!!!
  • 9 3
 first thing i checked was to see if they steepened the STA a little. The revel rascal would be high on my list if the sta was steeper. After riding bikes with 76°+ sta, it's uncomfortable going back to slacker sta's.
  • 5 4
 Yep. Deal killer for me too.
  • 8 5
 @11six: On a bike with this little travel, you don't need to be that steep in the static geometry. What matters is where you end up at sag. Less travel = less STA change between static and sagged geometries
  • 7 6
 lmao, you guys don't know anything about bikes hahah, its hilarious how sure you are. Complaining about this number with no context.
  • 7 3
 Steep sta aren't for flatlander pedaly bikes like this. Ibis ripley makes this mistake, puts way too much pressure on my hands. sta is fine.
  • 4 5
 @11six: Agreed! Revel's STA are outdated!
  • 1 0
 @pmhobson: That's fair. This bike is tiny, so 75.3 might be okay. If the rest of the geo changed to a more modern design, then it would suck.
  • 6 1
 @mariomtblt: try being 6'3" and riding one of these up a logging road. It's a total joke.
  • 5 2
 @zmums: But Revel is very clear this wasn't built for PNW trails, there are a TON of bikes for that. As a 5'10" rider on a L Revel Ranger I can tell you that it is basically perfect for rolling trails in NWA. The cool thing about bikes is there are a lot of options, and not all of them have to be designed for one style of riding.
  • 5 3
 @XJBaylor: bruh. show me where revel says their bikes don't work in the pnw. I'm just saying that a STA like this just doesnt fly for tall people if they climb moderate hills. Anyone who's tall and tried a bike with a decent STA back to back with one of these will agree with me. I've ridden lots and lots of bikes in different places. It's not a riding style issue, it's just a bad design.

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.
  • 1 0
 @zmums: Why do you think that you tall people, who represent a small minority, are entitled to special geo?
  • 2 0
 @JohanG: we’re not entitled to anything, but if manufacturers want to sell bikes to tall people (who are well represented in the people who buy bikes category) they should make geo that works. The point of this site is to tell manufacturers what we want. I’m saying tall people want reasonable STA’s and that we’ve known that for a few years now. A manufacturer can do whatever they want, I just won’t buy that bike and neither should other tall peeps that want a comfortable climb.
  • 1 0
 @zmums: ... bro the manufacturers dont give a fck what we think
  • 1 0
 @mariomtblt: insert basic market economics lecture here.
  • 1 0
 @zmums: if you're speaking with your wallet, not bitching on some thread on pinkbike.com, cmon now
  • 10 4
 Next thing we may see is companies changing their pricing schemes to reflect that transportation costs are back to pre-pandemic levels and knock that extra 10% off that they placed on. Just kidding. I have easy money 20k sitting around for a new bike so I am good.
  • 4 5
 You think a bike company added $800 to a $8000 bike because of the increase in shipping costs?
  • 5 3
 @justanotherusername: Yes, because the price of a shipping a sea container quadrupled. It sucks, but it is what it is.
  • 6 1
 Container prices are now down to pre-pandemic levels.
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)
  • 1 1
 @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.
  • 1 0
 @hughbm: exactly
  • 1 0
 @hughbm: YT dropped their prices and then put bikes on sale even further.
  • 2 1
 @justanotherusername:

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.
  • 1 1
 @cameronbikes: it takes about 2 min of internet search... but both Trek and SPesh dropped their prices, + on top of that there is Trek spring sale and etc. There are amazing deals on 2022 models from RM and the rest.

But hey it is easier to present your opinion as a fact and cry about how expensive shit is than do the research right?
  • 2 0
 @valrock: You're right, they are dropping their prices. Only because the industry as a whole is hemorrhaging money. They aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.


edit:// I base this on zero research and or facts.
  • 1 0
 @grnmachine02: I didn't claim the price drop is happening because business bros decided it is time to make shit more affordable for me and you. My comment was about you claiming prices never came down even tho global market expenses did

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 Big Grin So it is def working in favor of the bike industry!!!
  • 1 0
 @hughbm: if people buy theres no reason for prices to go down. prices aren't based on the minimum possible to serve customers. its based on whatever customers are willing to pay.

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.
  • 1 1
 @valrock:

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.
  • 3 0
 @grnmachine02: Absolute bullshit.

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.
  • 2 0
 @justanotherusername: All I can tell you is that I work in an industry directly affected by shipping and importing prices. Our costs skyrocketed, In some cases by more than 40% in less than six months. If we wanted the doors to remain open, we had to adjust pricing accordingly. It wasn't just the container that went up. The company that gets the goods to the container went up, the company that puts the goods in the container went up, the company that you have to pay to get the container on the boat went up, the guy at the port in the US that tells you your shipment has arrived went up, and the warehouse that your goods go in after being offloaded also went up.

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.
  • 2 1
 @grnmachine02:

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.
  • 8 0
 I got a feeling a new Rascal is going to get released soon. I received an email for a big discount on remaining Rascal stock.
  • 4 4
 Nice! I hope they fix the STA!
  • 6 1
 I don't mind updated standards, which are better and progress the bike world. But with the price of bikes now, it is really hard to sell your old bike and afford to upgrade. I would need to drop an additional 5k plus sell my current bike that's similar spec but a couple of years old to afford a 9k bike.
  • 2 0
 but if everyone was selling their 1-year-old bike for 9k you would be complaining here how expensive is secondary market wouldn't ya? Big Grin
  • 7 2
 I'm mainly bummed they didn't add size-specific rear triangles to this model if they were already revamping the rear end. I get that it increases SKU count, but brands are basically saying they care more about margins than rider experience if they use the same rear triangle for on a bike for someone who is 5'1" and another who is 6'7". Short travel trail bikes are fun, nimble, and playful for the M/L demographic, but XS/S, XL, XXL need a specific rear end to maintain the same characteristics. 436mm chainstays with a sub-70 degree *actual* STA usually means I feel like I'm riding with my tailbone over the rear axle. Sorry Revel, I'd like my front tire to stay on the ground when I pedal a cross-country-focused trail bike up a steep grade.

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.
  • 2 3
 I have an extra long friend that rides XL Ranger and an extra short friend that rides S Ranger... both are claiming this bike is the best. So I think Revel engineers know more about geo than we are
  • 2 2
 @valrock: Nah man, the PB hivemind has gotten to him. The job of an MTB is to keep your weight perfectly centered while you lazily pedal up hills or drag your brakes to descend down them. Doesn't matter that a long wheelbase bike is less nimble and less responsive to rider input.

Asking riders to actually control their weight distribution by moving themselves is too much. What is this, a sport or something?
  • 10 5
 Ignoring price, its a really nice bike. Probably one of the most capable bikes out there. I've rode one, it feels amazing on jumps, and its really nice on enduro.
  • 2 2
 I did ride it for awhile untill I was reasonabally used to it, but it comapres to like a izzo on enduro and it has a dirt jumper feel on jumps.
  • 3 0
 I rode the Ranger back-to-back with an Evil Following. The Ranger is a good bike but the Evil was miles better on jumps, IMO. The Following just wants to pop off literally everything.
  • 2 0
 @vitaflo:

"The Following just wants to pop."

Fixed it for you. Smile
  • 2 4
 @vitaflo: cuz you were comparing downcountry park bike vs downcountry racing bike.. different tools for different jobs
  • 5 0
 @valrock: “down country park bike” he says
  • 5 1
 I feel like they missed the mark with the competitors with frame weight. I was hoping to see this get a bit lighter with the refresh but oh well.
  • 5 1
 Am I reading this correctly: I can get a V1 for 4600 or a V2 for 8500 and the only difference is a UDH? That can't be right???
  • 3 0
 They don't have any lower end builds for the v2. Just X0 and XX.

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?
  • 4 0
 @gilpinmtbq: everyone in newbury park is gonna buy one
  • 2 1
 @gilpinmtbq:

"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.
  • 1 0
 In about 5 years time bike manufacturers might eventually get back to making bikes with standardized parts again:
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.
  • 10 9
 I'm all for CBF but these are built terrible....hence when they marketed the hardware update...I'll leave it there. Almost bought one, then I worked on one and realized how cheaply made they are...almost as bad as ibis.
  • 4 0
 I would not be entirely surprised if Revel and Ibis utilize the same manufacturers in Vietnam.
  • 2 0
 Just out of curiosity, what issues were you running into with Ibis? I only ask because my Ripley AF has been problem free for the two years I've owned it. Just want to know what I'm looking forward to
  • 1 1
 You ticked off the dads with the ibis comment looks like.
  • 1 0
 @mm732: If I have kids, I sure as hell don't know about them
  • 3 0
 I can hear it creaking through my screen. This is a great win for people who want 30lb 115mm bikes.
  • 1 0
 Are they shifting, no pun intended, to a 55mm chain line? I wonder if that accounts for 20% strength increase. It's just a 3mm wider frame/bearing width near lower main pivot.
  • 1 0
 Whats the point of this supposed compatibility ???

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 Dead Horse
  • 1 0
 They prob want to put a new rear triangle on their bikes to fix the chainring clearance issue.
  • 3 0
 I’m going to get the V2 and build it up with SLX, XT and Saint brakes.
  • 7 0
 Saints on a bike with a SID is my favorite kind of overkill
  • 1 0
 Saints?
  • 1 0
 Looks like any brand slow to adopt udh will be quickly doing the same , not being able to run the new fangled component will be a deal breaker for many .
  • 2 0
 Will probably more so be a deal breaker with SRAM who then will stop supplying them with drivetrains, and make OE supply of suspension products more expensive too
  • 4 1
 I thought the front triangle was what people were complaining about?
  • 1 0
 I wonder if all the damaged carbon rear triangles will make the light of day from the new UDH standard? But wait that wouldn’t be good for marketing!
  • 1 0
 They didn’t succumb to the pressure to make another down-country bike. Good on them.
  • 10 0
 115mm travel isn't downcountry?
  • 7 6
 @redrook: 115 is kinda treading the line. Idd say 120- 130 is, but im also making all this up so idk.
  • 4 1
 @Themanicguy: I'd say that's into the "trail" spectrum (but I'd also say that downcountry is completely ill-defined).
  • 7 6
 @redrook: In my option, down country is just whatever is kinda fast but still fun. Climbs like a XC bike and descends like an enduro bike. With a BMX background.
  • 2 1
 @Themanicguy: Probably one of the best descriptions of "Downcountry" I've heard. Big Grin
  • 1 1
 @bman33: yea, i think people thought i was serious though lmao.
  • 5 2
 Ranger is solidly downcountry/trail bike... Part of the Ranger's issue is it's a 115mm frame with 150mm frame weight. Needs a lighter frame to be competitive in the XC race category.
  • 3 1
 @btjenki: "downcountry/trail"

But which is it!? lol honestly these labels for bikes are solidly unhelpful if they cannot be defined.
  • 2 0
 @Themanicguy: probably...it's Pinkbike... folks truly enjoy getting butthurt feelings here. haha Big Grin
  • 4 6
 It has a 67.5 degree head tube angle. Not many consider that to be down country. Needs to be 65 or less. And the effective seat tube angle is only 75.3 degrees, not steep enough. It remains an XC or short travel trail bike, not down country.
  • 1 4
 @OBI-wahn: Revel's STA in general are lame. Too old school.
  • 3 0
 To paraphrase the great Mike Levy, "Downcountry is an XC bike that isn't trying to kill you."
  • 1 1
 @redrook: That was my point in saying downcountry/trail together. They've very similar and will mean different things to different people but are effectively similar bikes. That said, a "TRAIL bike" could really be anything between 120-150 for most people based on where you ride. Whereas a 'downcountry' bike will almost always be 110-120mm and 'raceable' in an XC race if needed.
  • 3 0
 @btjenki: But since you've just clearly defined them why did you use both terms? By your own definition it would be firmly a downcountry bike.
  • 1 1
 @redrook: Should have said downcountry/light trail.
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.
  • 2 0
 @btjenki: I'm not sure weight is a factor tbh, you could conceivably have a steel framed xc bike which would weigh more. It may not be a race competitive xc bike, but competitiveness isn't really a defining factor of any bike's category. Plenty of undeniable DH bikes out there which aren't going to win any WCs.
But I'd agree, it's a downcountry bike.
  • 3 2
 @redrook: "Competitiveness isn't really a defining factor of any bikes category"? Weight is absolutely a factor for those looking to buy a XC bike to race and be competitive on. That's one of the hallmarks of a good XC race bike. The Ranger has modern XC geo and good pedaling efficiency. The only thing keeping it from being a bike for elite XC racing is the trailbike frame weight. ... If you want to analogize it to DH bikes... Weight to a XC race bike would be as important as rear travel to a DH bike. To a competitive racer, a 7lb XC bike frame would be as 'bad' as a 160mm DH bike.
  • 1 0
 You can put a 190x40mm shock on it, xc tires, bam you have a downcountry bike.
  • 2 0
 @btjenki: Uh huh, none of that prevents the existence of a bike designed for xc which is also heavy. There are plenty of steel framed xc bikes which would obviously never be used in racing at the elite level. There are also plenty of DH and enduro bikes which wouldn't stand a chance in the WC or EWS, but the fact that a bike couldn't compete at the top level of racing doesn't mean that it isn't a xc/dh/enduro etc. bike.
  • 2 0
 @JohanG: So you don't think it's a already a downcountry bike?
  • 2 0
 @btjenki: redrook said "Competitiveness isn't really a defining factor of any bikes category"?

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.
  • 1 0
 Just askin'...then why didn't they leave the rear mech cable hole (and dropper) out of the frame?!
V3...
  • 2 1
 I would ride it, i like the way the downtube and toptube look
  • 1 0
 HAHAHA 8.5K and 11.5K price tags?
  • 1 0
 Loving my American made steel Reeb SST no complaints Smile
  • 1 0
 didn't the V1s have all kinds of problems with links breaking?
  • 1 0
 Still not great.
  • 1 0
 What's a derailleur?
  • 2 3
 Drop AT LEAST 1k on the price and I would actually make this my next bike!
  • 3 4
 counterpoint, i say raise the price 1k. It would benefit nobody, but its more likely than them lowering the price. Greedflation hits hard.
  • 2 4
 Transmission takeover is nigh
  • 4 0
 Median income consumers disagree.
  • 3 6
 UDH is bad bad timing. The MTB Industry is hurting. It destroys any non UDH new or used bike.
  • 3 0
 It doesn't. 99% of the groups on the market will fit every other frame out there. UDH has been in the works for 5+ years, brands could have gotten on board but it really won't kill other options.
  • 2 0
 How so? One of my current bikes is UDH compatible, but it has a "standard' derr mount on it currently and I have a back up XO1 cable derr once the current one dies. My other bike has a regular mount, XT, will have another XT derr once that one dies. Keep riding what you have.
  • 3 0
 I don't see how this is an issue. Just slap in the normal derailleur compatible UDH insert and run reasonably affordable cable actuated components.
  • 3 4
 It 100% is hurting sales. D hangers will be a relic in a few years. Especially when Shimano brings their stuff out.
  • 2 3
 @CamNeelyCantWheelie: all brands are changing over to UDH. I don’t see a future with d hangers
  • 4 0
 @Ck7lOi: UDH is a derailleur hanger, its just universal instead of bike manufacturer specific. So you can get a hanger anywhere instead of having to order one from the manufacturer of your bike.
  • 4 0
 @Ck7lOi: I don't think you understand what UDH is. It's a Universal Derailleur Hanger.
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.
  • 2 3
 @roxtar: I know what it is.

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.
  • 2 1
 @FaahkEet: correct…you think Revel released a new frame update for UDH? It’s for the new SRAM t type
  • 3 0
 @Ck7lOi: who cares if bike companies are putting it on there for Transmission? If you don't want transmission you just slap a hanger on there and run Cuse / Microshift / 11 speed GX / whatever you want.

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.
  • 1 0
 @Ck7lOi: of course its so the frame is compatible with the sram transmission. But it still works with the UDH and any rear derailleur that uses a hanger. It just gives customers an option for traditional RDs on a hanger or the SRAM transmission.
  • 1 0
 @Ck7lOi: But all of them would have added UDH to their next release anyway. Also, what is this about bad timing, I had a UDH bike in 2020.
  • 1 1
 This is a little pre mature. Let Sram make an affordable (perhaps cable actuated) version of the Transmission and now your claim will come true.

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?
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: Highly doubt it. Shimano is much larger than SRAM. They will be just fine
  • 1 1
 @bman33: I didn’t say out of business… I said out of MTB. I would say Shimano is less than 25% of MTB already… and IF Sram offers a cable version of the transmission… it’s game over. Sram has established a frame standard! That’s huge from a future market share perspective. Shimano will have to wait out the patent to compete. Shimano will be relegated to legacy products.
  • 3 0
 @Baller7756: Shimano has a gigantic OEM footprint globably. Has SRAM chipped away at this over the last few COVID years in the North American and Western Europe market for high end MTB? Sure. That said, How would a cable versions of Transmission (which we will not see for some time since it would canibalise the new AXS versions) be game over? UDH was intended from day one to be just that....Universal. SRAM's take on it with their Derr is unique, but the frame are being made to accept any version of mounting on the frame itself. Shimano isn't going anywhere with MTB. They will be fine...

Here is a quick peak at what they may have coming down the pipe: www.bikeradar.com/news/shimano-derailleur-hanger-patent
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: Where are you getting this from?

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.
  • 2 0
 @Ck7lOi: Yea, UDH has been out there for a couple years now but it's all just been a plot to help Sram gain MTB world domination.
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.
  • 1 1
 @roxtar: The only thing that i know and maybe means something is that most top riders at XC and almost all Gravity oriented are using SRAM.... these days shimano is known as shit in terms of durability. But who knows.... maybe ive had bad luck with shimano RD's...
  • 1 0
 @Ignaciosc22: "Shiano is known as shit ...durabilty" ummm in what world? yes, more SRAM out there since SRAM is throwing the sponsorship $$ out. That is the overwhelmigly primary reason sponsored riders ride/race SRAM or any other product........the are 'sponsored'. Individual results may vary, but in the aggregate Sram has not reliablity leverage over Shimao at all, esepcially considering Sram's tension issue on the RD's
  • 2 0
 @Ignaciosc22: Between you and Baller, where are you getting your info from?!
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.
  • 1 1
 @roxtar: I’m just offering an objective view of what is transpiring. You are clearly a Shimano Bro… you have see your own biases here.

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.
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: This has little to nothing to do with UDH or any other advancements in technology. SRAM owns Rockshox, and offers huge discounts to bike manufacturers to drive their purchasing decisions. This simply makes it more profitable for OEMs to use SRAM components at certain price points, especially on models where the end user doesn't have much of a preference.

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.
  • 1 0
 @XJBaylor: It is the “Sram UDH”… only time will tell how things turn out. I appreciate your opinion.
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: Yes, I'm now a Shimano Bro but only became one when their 11sp Di2 and later, 12sp, proved to be so much better than anything Sram was building/selling. They've always built the best brakes.

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.
  • 4 7
 Very 2016 looking, no thanks.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.074417
Mobile Version of Website