Giant's Prototype Trance X 29er - Video

 That thing is so ugly it makes blind kids cry.

 Looks like a clown bike. And yes I've riden several 29ers. There's a reason the roadie shops push sales of 29ers .. it gives the roadie crowd something to ride with approximately the same size wheels.

 Agreed, blind kids weep at the thought of this

 a 650b is closer to a road bike wheel diameter.

Why do people keep commenting on 29ers? If you don't like them, don't buy them. They will then go away. If its only the odd road bike rider buying them, they won't meet sales targets.

 @willie1... its because the fringe always has to comment on things they aren't a part of. Even if EVERY single member of pinkbike was exclusively a DH/FR/DJ/DS/4X rider and they all bought new bikes with only 24" and 26" wheels each season, above the level of department store models, they'd still only represent 0.1% of the total bicycle marketplace. I live in ottawa... we have within 2 1/2 hours drive FOUR lift-accessed ski hills with major summer mtb programs and in the ottawa-gatineau region alone, with a million people, and something like twenty real bike stores... maybe only a couple hundred bikes of the above five categories sold each year. Meanwhile there are thousands upon thousands of 29ers being sold just to XC trail riders.

 its so ugly the picture needs venetian blinds

 Anyone buying a bike for "looks" cracks me up. Get out and ride man!! Better yet, stay home polishing your sweet looking rig so me and my "ugly" 29er can have the trails to myself. And for the record, I'm one of those guys that hated the idea of 29" wheels until I tried them..............I'm not going back, they fly!

 Wick, drink bleach, 29ers just dont shred too well neither do they make good huck bikes. Why would i be interested. Giants bikes do look fugly...just look at Felts on the other post, they are purdy, giants are not. 29ers dont have to look so weird. Just saying...

 Sorry Pabail, could only find fabric softener. Didn't kill me, just made my farts smell fresh. Anyways, I'm just saying until I find a way to rip singletrack staring at my perty little bike, I'm purchasing based on feel, not looks! Peace brother.

 "neither do they make good huck bikes" yea, because the bike in this article is even remotely meant to be a "huck" bike.
If you want a huck bike, go buy an early 2k's Karpy with some monsters.

And talking about "purdy" this, and purdy that... do you have a murse, matching skinny pants shoes, t shirt, and f*ggoty trucker hat with a poser early 90's volleyball/roadbiker bill? If you want to talk about looks... talk about girls or something, not some piece of machinery that gives you enjoyment. The only people I know who bitch about looks dealing with machines that bring enjoyment are girls and f*gs talking about the latest sex toy on the market. Lmao

 Yeah, I agree. Also don't understand why I can't get this in Carbon. I think I'd rather have a tallboy

 The over drive headtube on this is tapered and the 1/4 must be a typo? I ride a 2010 reign X2 with tapered headtube and maxle thru axle in the back and love it, why they didnt incorporate it on this bike is beyond me.

 Not a typo. The overdrive is Giant's new headset standard of tapered 1-1/4" to 1-1/2". I am generally not one to bash new standards, but I'm really not sure about this one.

 not a typo lol its there new overdrive 2 crap no one makes any stems for it apart from giant

 That's not true. There are a few component manufacturers (like FSA and PRO to name a few) that are jumping on the 1.25" ship.

 hey kwdog, i can vouch for the tallboy- the bike kicks ass! i've had mine for only 3 months, but every ride my smile widens and i wonder how/if i could ever go back to the small wheels!!

 if you dont want overdrive 2 just bash out the headset cups and install whatever size you want, you'll need a new fork as well, the frame is standard sized according to the review of overdrive2 that PB did.

But as the majority of giant, i imagine, are sold as complete bikes i cant see it being an issue or do you all change the forks as soon as you by a brand new bike?

 the overdrive ht.. klein was doing all this including press fit bbs 20 years ago.

 I actually ended up buying one of these 11/4 forks second hand unknowingly.. It was hell to find a stem and headset and there is no noticeable difference! There isn't much place for it I don't think.

 Cannondale did 1.25" steer tubes back in the 90's too.

 Straight 1.25 steerer forks were invented by gary fisher 25 years ago and called evolution size. They were done to solve a rash of one inch steerer failures on fisher bikes. Gary claimed that mountain bikers were going faster and doing more aggressive riding and exceeding the strength of standard steerers. In reality, fisher bikes had ordered a lot of cheaply made forks with hi-ten steel steerers. No other brand had any steerer issues that year, and in fact many kept using one inch steerers into the mid 90s. But a lot of brands jumped on the evolution size band wagon and a lot of component makers made stems for them, including threadless stems. All of them will now spike in demand again and value thanks to giant.

 my honda CRF450 moto only has 1 inch steerer. These steerer sizes for mtb are ridiculous.

 69' headtube angle no thanks thats way to steep even for a trail bike, it should be like 66',

 Have a look at this bike, its designed by Patrick Morewood of Morewood bikes who started a new company. It has most of what you are looking for, rear thru axle, tapered headtube and nice short chainstays (440mm)... www.pygaindustries.com/pyga-bikes/oneten29

 66 would be a dh'ers trail bike. And it would be ridiculously slow to steer. Personally I think 69 is fine for trail.

 @wildwood - sounds like you need a Lenz Lunchbox ;-)

 a 29er will need approx 2 degrees steeper at the head tube compared to a 26er for the same feel. This bike will ride like a 67deg 26er. People THINK they need slack angles. It is just the manufacturers way of selling new bikes, just like 29ers LOL. All the kids complaining the like the 26" wheels because they are funner, negate the 26" wheel experience by slacking them out so they are easier to ride, reducing rider skill required. Its too funny.

 Exactly... 20 years ago, riders screamed down major ski hill fire access roads (which made full 4x4 trucks bounce along even at slow speeds), on bikes with minimal suspension, skinny single-ply tires, rim brakes, and head angles of 70 degrees or steeper, at speeds approaching (if not exceeding) 62 miles per hour (that's 100kph for the metric only folks). Yet to the kids today, if its not slack its twitchy and unrideable. Uh huh.

 The clamor for 142mm thru-axle rears is being driven by ignorant e-riders with little to no mechanical facility.

You can get thru-axle 10mm Hadley or King hubs that will work on your std dropout 135mm rear end and will feel exactly the same as the "improved 142mm standard" rear end.

So, to all you e-riding wannabes who pushed the industry for this new "improved" standard, thanks for another great new thing that is nothing more than a new expense and a new way to sell a bike that isn't really improved.

You know, like your insistence on 15mm axles in forks because you were convinced the extra 45gm in a 20mm format might make you lose that XC race you imagine doing 3 years from now when you finally start riding with some regularity.

 Would you like me to call the Wambulance?

 Novatec and DT Swiss also have 10x135mm thru-axle rear hubs, and Hope as well as I recall.

 Icculus, no.

Instead, you should call your Frat Brothers and do a circle jerk of mutual congratulation for your witty internet put-down. Flatbillin' it HUGE, broheem!

Don't forget to congratulate yourself on expensive new "standards" that you can afford with your swanky new job selling vapor to eedjits!

 They've been selling us 12x150 and 12x142 axles because they're supposedly so much stiffer while spesh dh team riders use a 12x135 axle for the additional clearance, without any loss in stiffness... I have a 10x135 on my DH bike and a 12x142 on my AM bike and honestly, I can't feel the difference at all. The bullshit they feed us, I swear...

 That slack seat tube will be a total nightmare for taller riders (i.e. the target market for this bike). As someone who's owned a few slack seat tube bikes I can say with confidence that I will never buy one again (unless it's a DH bike).

 @alexsin....i could not agree more.

 I think that might be part of their "clever packaging" or whatever they called it to accommodate the longer travel with the big wheels.

 Bring on the 36ers - I am SURE I will need one.

 the s curved down tube is to accommodate the 29er wheel size. specially when the fork is compressed and you're doing a turn, this curve will come in handy to prevent any toe overlap aka your shoes hitting the tires.

 Kona has the Satori at 130mm of travel without a crappy seat tube angle, Santacruz has the Tall Boy LT. This bike will be hard to climb while seated that is for sure. The more I look at it the crazier that sea tube angle looks. Any bike I classify as a trail bike, needs to pedal and climb well with the seat at full extension. Otherwise it is a free ride bike. Any bike I have thrown a leg over with seat tube angles like this have not ridden well. Feels like you are riding a bike that is to small, and throws the handling off, by not having any weight over the front wheel. I see they tried to compensate by having a short head tube, but who wants a road bike 15cm drop from the seat to the bars?

 The only reason there is an artificial demand for 650B (I mean, how many consumers have actually ridden one at this point enough to make a call) is because of poorly designed 29ers over the years. I'd agree that you're correct when you say "I dont think that 75% of pinkbike users (riders) will be on 29ers", though. It's growing, but not nearly as fast as the number of average xc/trail riders who are picking up 29'' wheeled bikes.

 Pinkbike users are more gravity, DJ, slope style orientated though in general. I would agree we won't see 74% of PB users on 29ers but we are a small piece of a big pie. I wouldn't be surpassed to see 75% of theoberal MTB crowd riding 29er or 650 in 5 years though.

 Mike--The reason many people are interested in 650b (even if we don't have any time on one) is because on paper it does offer something that we are looking for. The rolling benefits of my 29er SS are undeniable, and I would go with a 29er for anything under 120mm of travel. But, I've tried several of the "long" travel 29ers (i.e. 120mm ish) and am not convinced that they are better than a 140mm 26" bike. Even if they are "faster" in test loops, that doesn't make them more fun. And even ignoring the apparent engineering problems, I think the downsides of a 29er become more apparent as the travel gets longer. Soooo, what everyone is looking for is something that will give them some of the benefits of a 29er that they feel when the ride a hardtail when placed into a longer travel package.

 I totally agree with the 75% thing for normal MTBers. In my area the LBS does not even try to sell 26ers, they push a 29er down eveyones throat no matter how tall you are. I've ment riders that have never ridden a 26er and to be honest my state is filled with punters starting with the kids that want to look the part on their DJ looking bikes and can't bunny hop a curb. Everyone is scared to break a finger nail here. Lets suppose they did, the limited DH terrain in many states dictates a trail bike more then any type of gravity oriented rig.
I live 1.5, 2, and 3hrs from lift access parks and I think I'm the only person in my state that owns a DH bike.You literally can't buy a single part for a AM to DH bike without special ordering and that incudes flat pedals.

 where do you live because it sounds like MN and that is where I am at for the time being! Major bummer and then people bash on you for not supporting your LBS! Cary the stuff I need and want and I will! as for 29ers 75%.. I hope not but probly will be the case! bummer

 @DrthVadr: Sounds like Chattanooga. Lot's of riding around here, but the mindset is XC and 29's. The problem here is that there is plenty of terrain that will allow for some gravity oriented stuff, but how do you get through that haze of BS pushed out by the shops?

@katmai: Just to add to what you're saying..... on paper, the negatives of a 29 (it's effect on other parts of the system / unsprung weight being just one issue) are undeniable. The 650b sounds like a reasonable compromise. You gain some in the area of small obstacle demolition, but don't have anywhere near as great an effect unsprung weight, gyroscopic effect, or wheelbase increase to accommodate 6 (for AM bikes) to 8+ inches of travel.

29's are cool, but they're trail bikes!

 For most mtbr's I know they make sense. I think about inline skates. I skated half pipe and needed low center of gravity little wheeled fat boots, but most people on skates are little kids or fitness buffs doing laps around the park. 26 is becoming the niche. Sad since prices will go up but it is bound to happen.

 I go for a 90 min ride and for 2-3 mins of down my 26" trance X is marginally better than my 29" stumpy on the same loop. I'm not going back, those little wheels get hung up on everything. I love the way the 29er rolls and with a bit of time in the saddle I think it is better 95% of the time
If you want flick-ability get a bmx bike

 @BDKR dealing with the same issues here in MN there are areas to ride gravity and gravity riding is growing but the problem around here is all the bike shops are owned by roadies and roadie mentality spills into XC/mtb too much around here. I've been to 3 shops in the last week to find a part and only saw 2 26inch bikes, one was a used one and it was a Giant Anthem so an xc bike and the other was some lower end sport mtb bike. I asked why no 26inch trail bikes 120+ travel they said no one wants them anymore! One shop did have a spec stumpy evo 29er, it looked cool but I'll stick with my 26er for now,

@skiwenric- flick-ability doesn't just apply to jumps! you need that for tight fast corners and rock gardens! a good bike always needs a quick rear end- IMO

 @skiwenric: I noticed the only times wheels get hung up is when you're going slow or you for some reason have decided to hang 50% of your weight over the front of the bar. I guess if you like going slow over things that are easier going fast, a 29 makes sense.

Flick-ability is possible on 26's and 29's both, but it seems that a lot of bike guys are afraid to steer using some muscle. Road racing 400lb motorcycles, we steered rather aggressively if we wanted to to go real fast. I steer the same way on an MTB and have done so on 26's and 29's. It's not the bike.

 Mike Levy, I have a 650b mojo SL conversion. It REALLY IS that good. If I didn't have several sets of carbon wheels already, I would switch all the trail bikes to 650b for my family. I like the 29er for fire roads, riding the gravel back roads near my acreage. I don't see much point to 26" any more. I am even looking at converting my DH bike to 650b, once I can source some tires that will work. Rims are not an issue, there are several excellent models available for all disciplines.

 @Willie1... Kirk Pacenti has his new dual-ply MegaMoto 2.4 available already. Or you can wait a few months for the new Schwalbe 2.35 Hans Damphs to hit these shores.

 Deelight, thanx for the heads up. I really like Schwalbe tires, so that is what I'll wait for.

 @skiwenric: I noticed the only times wheels get hung up is when you're going slow or you for some reason have decided to hang 50% of your weight over the front of the bar. I guess if you like going slow over things that are easier going fast, a 29 makes sense.

"Flick-ability is possible on 26's and 29's both, but it seems that a lot of bike guys are afraid to steer using some muscle. Road racing 400lb motorcycles, we steered rather aggressively if we wanted to to go real fast. I steer the same way on an MTB and have done so on 26's and 29's. It's not the bike."

@BDKR when you use these big wheels for competing any advantage you can get is good. trail riding and hucking probably not so much. 80% of the top ten in last years XC WC liked them though.
If you like to pedal until you are hypoxic, those are the ones

 @skiwenric: "If you like to pedal until you are hypoxic, those are the ones"

Agreed!

 And one more thing, of those ten Giants I have owned, guess how many I have kept the original stem and bars on?

Zero!

I've owned and ridden a lot of bikes and I think Giants are equal to anything on the market. And then I compare the price and it is an easy decision to make. Frames are great. Components are great. Cockpit sucks. And when they introduced the 1.25" steerer tube I had to get a fellow Pinkbiker to source me a stem from the States (thank you whattheheel) which really ticked me off.

Kevin Dana, call a bunch of your riders and ask them what stem and bars they are running and put that combo as OEM. We are not roadies - we do not need a 90mm stem on a 6" bike.

 Sorry, on a roll...

Pinkbikers beware that Giant's warranty just changed - if you race your bike, you void your warranty.

Good thing I don't race

 So giant won't be getting any semipro racers using their bikes. Stupid.

 Giant warranty in Canada is junk. They don't warranty broken linkage on Reigns. They claim it's not part of the frame and a consumable part. I'm still bitter.

 wooooow. void a warranty on one of the the things you should be doing on your bike? lameeeeeeee.

 +1, do we really need to make stuff more complicated than it really is?

also, wtf is up with that old ass standard QR in the rear Giant? That solely alone is enough for me to never even think about purchasing it.

 they could've just gone for straight 1.5 head tubes like cannondale. and i heard from bikerumor.com, the fox forks will come in 32mm instead of the 34mm. this and that classic 9mm rear skewer doesn't sound appealing to me.

 @mountguitars... The rear axle is 10mm... not 9. Nothing but BMX bikes have ever used smaller than a 10mm diameter rear axle in the past forty years. And even then its only the axle ends that are 10mm. Many hubs use larger diameter axles than that with 10mm end caps. There is nothing wrong with the standard QR format rear axle setup still being used. Unless you get into the 12 by something spacing thru-axles, there's no guarantee that a thru-axle rear hub will really lead to any increase in stiffness in either the wheel or the rear of the frame.

 i had no problem with 9mm QR, until i bent one. then i vowed never to buy anything with a 9mm QR again, that was enough to scare me and teach me never to buy 9mm qr ever again. it was only on my dj too, not like i was bombing some mountains and doing AM/FR. a friend or two has has the same problem as i as well...

and no, no guarantee that it will make your bike stiffer... but, it should, if its a well designed product. i noticed when i upgraded to 15mm qr right away. at this point in time, im just waiting for the 9mm to die off.

 I have been waiting for this bike for 2 years since i got my Trance X2 ..They are great to ride but when i saw the 1st pics i was really disapointed with the looks.OK,i know its not the one thing to look for when buying a bike but i dont think i could love something that ugly.Waiting to see one in the shops before i say any more but man the TT,BT and HT junction is ugly

 i completely agree, although i didn't really like the 2011+ models because of the strait TT. but its what ever, one persons opinion isn't going to change giants views on this bike. they should have just given it a whole new name because it doesnt look like the old ones at all.

 Yeah i have the same thoughts now on the TT after 2 years of riding lol.....I must say though that they ride really well and make this unco , fat old dude ride a little better than i actually can....I am in a position now to buy a new frame with a pretty good budget but I just cant find anything that does it for me like the Maestro system.However at this point i doubt very much if it will be a Trance 29er.

 +1!

 Santa Cruz has easily created the greatest trail bikes!

 Wow, people have ridden and compared this bike to others, and it is just a prototype!!! Damn you people are connected to be able to have tested this bike to see how good it is. I personally ride bikes, not spec sheets LOL!!

 Agree

 I threw up a little

 As long as it rides and pedal like crazy...I don't give a damn what it looks like.

 I have way too manyspare 26 inch wheels and tires to change over to 29ers!

 Lol...actuwhat?!

 Five's all the way!

 The plural would be "Fives", Gary.

 Well looks are the most important thing when choosing a new bike.

 Was I too hard on the looks?

 no I was just being a jerk. You make a valid point, but I was just commenting on how people buy a bike because of the looks.

 It's funny because Craig's bike has a regular tapered Fox 29 120mm fork as per the picture, as I believe PRO isn't making that particular stem for 1 1/4" steerers. Like you said, you can run whatever fork you want. It's really not a big deal, Giant is shoving anything down your throat to really no more degree than you typically get when you purchase a complete bike.

 not a fan of the headtube /downtube/toptube join area... please children might see this!!!!

 At the Hood River Enduro in Oregon this past weekend the mens podium was all 26". A light 140-150mm 26" is the way to go for those trails.

 Hood river enduro (not super d) is tech enough to hopefully keep 29r's off the podium. The fact that big wheels were winning super d's says that he changes needed tone made to the format in Oregon

 Eh? Tech is where the 29'ers real benefit is. Those trails in Hood River were great fun but tech they aren't!

 I guess I mean the kind of tech involving hard turns and sharp handling.

 Then you should be looking at steep angle bikes to make them handle sharper, rather than the trend to slack which equals slower handling. The market should demand 70deg HAs rather than the 64-66 HAs.Does it matter wether the stability comes from the larger wheels or the geometry? According to PB armchair engineers, they need low and slack 26ers so they can be quicker handling than the steeper angled 29ers. Two different ways of getting to the same place in handling.

 Except steep angles make for bad tracking down steep hills leading to unsteady handling. You can have a slack angle and still keep a shorter wheelbase than a 29er on a smaller wheeled bike so while you do lose some handling, you don't lose as much as you would from a steep angle. there is a reason DH isn't done on 29ers despite the extremely techy conditions. Slack tracks better and to be as slack with a bigwheel you'd need much longer sled that wouldn't turn very tight. The trade-offs work best in certain environments. Some trails call for big wheels and some call for small. In my mind the ideal enduro track requires enough handling to give the edge to a 26er.

 @Willie1:
"According to PB armchair engineers, they need low and slack 26ers so they can be quicker handling than the steeper angled 29ers. Two different ways of getting to the same place in handling."

But that's a confusion between turn in responsiveness (29) and stability once leaned over (26). It's not really an accurate comparison.

A 29" can get away with a steeper head angle (which it kind of needs anyway) when the additional rotational mass will bring some stability back to the table.

@jcinv: I've been hearing the benefit of 29 is a shallower AOA for roots and rocks so they roll over them better. Cool! That makes all the sense in the world, but the increased unsprung weight and rotational mass means the suspension has to work that much harder to get the wheel back on the ground to maintain traction. In a fast downhill sweeper with small steps in the middle of it, a 26" will do better because the suspension can react faster (get it's wheel back on the ground faster) then a 29. You could make the 29 react as quickly, but you've just added size and weight to the suspension system to achieve that.

Oooops!

 A lower, slacker 26er will NOT be quicker handling -- at all. Low and slack = slower handling, bigger stability at speed, floppier when slow. The opposite of quick handling. A 26er doesn't have improved stability --compared to a 29er-- once leaned over. I've owned and ridden many bikes of both 26 and 29 format, hardtails and FS alike. 29 format bikes that aren't designed like pig-barges (which admittedly many were as recently as 3 years ago) are surprisingly stable when compared to 26 format bikes with the same relative CS length and same frame angles. They also corner with a much more stable and carvy feel compared to 26 bikes.

The 26 wheel is nimbler, accelerates quicker. But falls deeper into holes. For a plow rider it's inferior. For a rider who works the terrain it's more fun because its tendency to drop into more holes and drop deeper into holes gives the rider more chances to work the terrain for speed. But if the rider doesn't have the skill to work the terrain that way, a 29 format bike is the better choice, he'll hold more momentum through the same rough patches that the 26 rider has to work smart to go fast. A skilled rider can work the terrain with a 29 bike just as he would on the 26 bike, and can take crazier lines while doing so. But 29 bikes have a different feel that doesn't appeal to all riders.

For sure 29 bikes can run steeper HA than 26 bikes and have the same general feel of stability in steep parts and at speed. Seems to me they feel the same with about a 2deg HA difference, a 70 in 29 format feels like a 68 in 26 format.

As to the bike PB presents here, I think Adam Craig would beat 99.8% of PB viewers in a Super D or DH no matter what bike he's on, but it's interesting to see what he prefers and what he's developed with Giant.

 Foxtrot, The only problem I see with what you say is this: "A lower, slacker 26er will NOT be quicker handling -- at all."

On tight fast descents a slacker head allows for a tighter turn without throwing the weight out front and to the side. This translates to better tracking when descending and therefore better handling. The sloppiness at low speed diesn't come into it. Everyone knows the benefits of stability from big wheels but the same force that causes that stability makes them struggle to change direction at speed. They just can't hit the same handling extremes as smaller wheels any more than a dj rig can tail wip like a BMx.

 The bike featured above would probably corner much quicker than almost any DH bike. You cannot compare apples to oranges.

Taletotell, you are confusing gemoetry and corresponding handling traits. Slacker = more stability, steeper = quicker turning. Slack = faster in the rough sections making up for the deficit in tight corners.

Center of gravity, wheelbase, front center, rear center and trail all impact handling characteristics. Reciprocating mass will affect direction change and handling traits. BB drop, stem length, handlebar width, and Q factor have impacts on handling as well. I could explain the pros and cons of changing each of them in different direction, but since you missed the basics, it is too much trouble. You will likely argue anyway.

 I read about how Steve jobs was a jerk but it was okay because he was smart. Maybe you adhere to he same philosophy. On a steep descent a slacker head angle puts you closer to perpendicular to the source of gravity providing for better handling. A long wheelbase. Not slacker geo provides stability at speed. Try spinning your bar around backwards so your effect head angle is over 90. Hen give your bike a push. As bill Nye will tell you it doesn't fall over! Crotch rockets illustrate this point with very steep head angles for stability at high speeds while choppers universally suck

 A constant or maxim if you will is that stability comes at the expense of maneuverability and vice versa of course. This is consistent with crotch rockets, fighter planes, and cars as well.

There's a logical conclusion there but let's move on.

Within the minds of car and motorcycle racers, many corners if not all are broken down into multiple stages. How many is up to you of course, but I see it as approach, entry, mid corner, and exit. Some, but not many vehicles are stellar at every single phase. Normally however, some are better at some parts then others.

In the case of a steep angled 29 vs a slack angled 26 with a lot of travel, the 29 has the potential to be far better during turn in. However, what makes it good at turn in limits it's potential to carry speed mid corner, which is exactly where a 26" AM or DH bikes will have an advantage.

That said, these are apples and oranges. What would be awesome is compare a long travel 29 to a long travel 26. Instead of a short travel trail bike to dh bikes.

 I'll accept that and shut my trap.

 The mid corner feel of a 29er can be tweaked with front center, trail, bb drop, and head angle. The speed the chassis changes the angle of attack of the front wheel can be manipulated to be more like a 26er. This would result in tradeoffs in other areas though. People buy 29ers because they ride different from 26ers. You cannot make such broad generalizations. Handling is tuned by numerous overlapping variables. Measure the trail on a chopper. Aside from the weird weight balance, and un-tuned chassis, this is the variable that gives the weirdest influence on a chopper.

 "The mid corner feel of a 29er can be tweaked with front center, trail, bb drop, and head angle. The speed the chassis changes the angle of attack of the front wheel can be manipulated to be more like a 26er. This would result in tradeoffs in other areas though."

Completely agree!!!!

"You cannot make such broad generalizations. Handling is tuned by numerous overlapping variables."

I agree, but there are some generalizations that act as basics to work from. The details do matter but in win or lose racing or dog fighting, these basics still apply.

Case in point? Mass centralization, which I argue Kawasaki started when some of their racers used pretty aggressive steering head angles but with longer swing arms to aid stability. It was the packaging that allowed them to apply some basics in a unique way.

I really think we're all just talking past each other and there's a lot more agreement then we realize. LOL

 I agree too. I strongly believe the biggest reason DH bikes haven't experiemnted more with different wheel sizes, is the market is to small to develop new tire lines, and wheel lines. The development costs outweigh the potential benefits. Racing is, and always will be advertising. People think they need what the pros run.

 Taletotell:

"On tight fast descents a slacker head allows for a tighter turn without throwing the weight out front and to the side."

You need to explain that better. It seems like you are saying a slower-handling, slower-steering bike actually is quicker handling. Which would be a necessary internal inconsistency.

Quicker handling is the opposite of stable at speed. The very opposite. No matter what you are arguing here, you can't get around that.

Unless you choose to re-define "quicker" in some new way. And that's what it looks like you're doing. Looks like to you, "quicker" is being used as a synonym for "stable at speed."

Which, as I said, is not true.

 @Willie1: "People think they need what the pros run."

Ain't that the truth. Most of the people I come across aren't riding their bikes to 50% of their potential.

 50% would be very, very generous. Very generous indeed.

The truth is, most riders don't know how to handle a bicycle, and expect the bike to do everything for them while they passively sit on the saddle and hold the grips. That's why we see people buying 6" + 6" bikes for trails that are 4-foot-wide dirt sidewalks. They think they're riding "all mountain" because they have an "all mountain" bike. Just like people who drive a Hummer imagine they're rugged and outdoorsy because they drive a stupid gas-guzzler on pristine asphalt in some dorky suburb.

 @CFOxtrot: "The truth is, most riders don't know how to handle a bicycle, and expect the bike to do everything for them while they passively sit on the saddle and hold the grips."

Yeah... A lot of people don't seem to realize that to get the best out of these things you need to put in a little effort. :-)

 What? you mean it doesn't work like my couch? Dang.

 LOL

 I don't make out with my bikes. That is just weird.

 Two hour XC race? Get yourself an XTC 29er - yes, a hardtail.

It's not fun to ride but you would have been on the podium. I ride for a team and we all have XTC 29ers and at least one of Giant's FS bikes and we all have proven that the XTC 29er is the fastest on an XC loop. I had to get one as I was letting the team down (I was already the oldest and slowest).

 "I am a Giant Trance X UAL". Like that?

 Sure we did., If it wasn't for brands developing new things, we'd all be riding rigid fork 1" steerer mountain bikes still.

 I guess three standard headset diameters were enough... so i wonder is that fork a 1.25 x 1.5 or are they shimming a 1 1/8 or tapered steerer fork?

either way, a 1 1/4 upper crown isnt going to be any stiffer or better than a 1 1/2 or lighter than a 1 1/8.

Its still a 29er and is considered a trail bike, so tapered or 1.125 is still sufficient, unless the headtube is made of playdoh...

 First off, almost all the giant mountain bikes are going to overdrive 2 front ends, they simply started with the models due for makeovers. Giant was also one of the first brands to implement zerostack headsets and now most every major brand uses them. The fork steerer tapers from a one point five lower to a one and a quarter upper diameter. Giant road bikes adopted a 1.25 to 1.125 taper standard that others are using too now. They are the largest bicycle maker in the world and they don't do things just to be difficult. They were the first to bring the 1.5 to 1.125 taper steerer forks to the market also.

 One of the ugliest bikes I've ever seen.

 Good on ya "MChardman"

 If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I love Maestro.

 no...when they have their own patented design that works, why would they deviate to something that doesn't work ?

 Did i say anthing was wrong with it ? no.

 So, robc10, it's just about the LOOKS of the linkages, in your mind?

How do you imagine engineering a suspension system would go, rob? Do you think they do a Napoleon Dynamite, invent a Liger, and then create a Liger Optimized Suspension System ("LOSS") based on how they wanted it to LOOK?

In case you haven't been paying really close attention, designing and selling based on LOOKS rather than function is why Crank Brothers parts fail early and fail often... while having what many consider great LOOKS.

 What is it with people who have to go over the top to a reply to a simple comment ?

 what is it with people trolling this thread, provoking discussion and then acting "surprised" when people respond to the provocative comment?

gosh!

I heard brits had a good sense of humor, dry but sharp. what happened here?

 The irony is too much

 So you know precisely what's going on in my mind, and you imagine you've trapped me in your comic sandpit here?

I'd say look in the mirror when talking about irony!

There's that fabled UK humor sense! Bang-on, Jeeves! Right-o!

 Not at all, im not the type to argue, nor to take the piss out of people

 Yeah, that's more of that humor! Chav it up, bro-heem! Flat-bill that shiznit!

 cos they have enough sense not to believe all the industry bollocks

 Maybe kashima doesn't do anything cept look shiny until it rubs off.

 Because Kashima adds to the price tag and doesn't do enough to justify the expense on an already well working bike. Same reason why many brands don't spec the 34 stanchion 29er model fox forks. They cost more and the improvement in the steering isn't that much that many riders would even notice it, if they weren't like MAGAZINE EDITORS who are literally riding dozens of different bikes each year.

 hooray for fanbois.

 Guess Giant is behind because they are too busy making bikes for other people:

www.canadiancyclist.com/reviews.php?id=23253

Click on the Photo Gallery too!

 Test the best, innovate or die, the brain, s-works, future shock... Gimmicky company!!!! I can say that because I worked for them. Giant made specialized bikes for a long time until Merida bought a pc of Specialized and now Merida makes Specialized bikes. Mike Sinyard is a douche bag! Giant started out engineering and manufacturing bikes, its their bread and butter and its what they do best. They do things right!

 It doesn't matter who makes the bike as long the quality and durability is adequate. If the geometry, suspension and specs of the frame are a year or two behind the competition it's a useless product. The best product guys are what makes the best bikes. If you can't see why this bike is a year or two behind a Stumpjumper there is little point arguing because it's obvious.

 they have not put any on the reign so they wont put any on a trance

 the bottom link on the older reigns had to be cut away to fit around the tabs that they had and this created a weak spot in the bottom link resulting in alot of waranty replaced bottom links on reigns. maybe thats why the new ones haven't got them

 my bb mounted guide is so close to the bottom links on my trance x

 Just remember a large part of he population is gettin old

 Its the newer riders who don't have a pre-conceived bias that are buying the 29ers. The sales pitch is easy: better rolling, smoother, better traction. Disadvantage- not as good at the bike park or in expert level terrain. Average rider: I don't ride the bike park anyway. I just want to get out with my friends/family and have some fun.

 I mentioned elsewhere that most people who rollerblade want big wheels for fast rolling fitness and smooth rides. Only some want tiny wheels for skate park pleasure. This is the same idea. That is why conceivably the majority will switch over to big wheels as time goes by. They just want to roll over forest paths.

 ahahaha nice, like the Giant Transexual