2015 and up giant reign owners thread!

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
2015 and up giant reign owners thread!
Author Message
flag cptmayhem
Posted: Apr 21, 2016 at 2:48 Quote
madstayen wrote:
cptmayhem wrote:
sayrius wrote:
Hi reign owners!

Short poll: what crank length do you use? (particulary, for ones with 5'10 (178sm) height)

I personaly ride stock 175mm Deores and find it too low on technical uphills as I strike the rocks regularly. However, no issues doing downhills.

When I upgrade cranks, I'm definitely going to go for 165's. I'm 1.8m tall on a large. Stock 175mm SLX at the moment, and my pedals are hating the low BB height. Yes, I know - get fitter and plan better and it's not that much of a problem, but still. 165's are going on as soon as I have enough to cover them.

Question : Shorter crank arms equals weaker leverage, thus greater energy exertion per revolution, right? Which means you'd have to be fitter to size down to 165mm anyways ;-)

Not to the level that you'd experience it. It's a 5.7% reduction in radius when compared to 175's. And there's loads of literature out there that explains that there's virtually zero difference in power requirements between the 2. If you went to 150's or 130's though, you'd have a problem...
flag AznKiDrew
Posted: Apr 21, 2016 at 8:06 Quote
cptmayhem wrote:
madstayen wrote:
cptmayhem wrote:


When I upgrade cranks, I'm definitely going to go for 165's. I'm 1.8m tall on a large. Stock 175mm SLX at the moment, and my pedals are hating the low BB height. Yes, I know - get fitter and plan better and it's not that much of a problem, but still. 165's are going on as soon as I have enough to cover them.

Question : Shorter crank arms equals weaker leverage, thus greater energy exertion per revolution, right? Which means you'd have to be fitter to size down to 165mm anyways ;-)

Not to the level that you'd experience it. It's a 5.7% reduction in radius when compared to 175's. And there's loads of literature out there that explains that there's virtually zero difference in power requirements between the 2. If you went to 150's or 130's though, you'd have a problem...

Another adjustment you may or may not have to make is raising your saddle height a little. Shorter cranks means shortening your foot reach so to get your optimum pedeliling extension might require you to raise your saddle raising your overall cog
flag stephogt
Posted: Apr 21, 2016 at 8:47 Quote
Maybee I heard from my Giant shop that the advance 1 will come with fox x2 shock

sebas241freerider wrote:
do you think the 2017 reign is going to come with the new metric shocks and is going to have the new reign dropper on the lower spec models ?
flag cck9
Posted: Apr 21, 2016 at 12:29 Quote
AznKiDrew wrote:
cptmayhem wrote:
madstayen wrote:


Question : Shorter crank arms equals weaker leverage, thus greater energy exertion per revolution, right? Which means you'd have to be fitter to size down to 165mm anyways ;-)

Not to the level that you'd experience it. It's a 5.7% reduction in radius when compared to 175's. And there's loads of literature out there that explains that there's virtually zero difference in power requirements between the 2. If you went to 150's or 130's though, you'd have a problem...

Another adjustment you may or may not have to make is raising your saddle height a little. Shorter cranks means shortening your foot reach so to get your optimum pedeliling extension might require you to raise your saddle raising your overall cog

I just went from 175 deore to 170 SLX on mine and it got rid of my rock striking problem Smile
flag fiftypercentsure
Posted: Apr 21, 2016 at 14:29 Quote
cptmayhem wrote:
madstayen wrote:
cptmayhem wrote:


When I upgrade cranks, I'm definitely going to go for 165's. I'm 1.8m tall on a large. Stock 175mm SLX at the moment, and my pedals are hating the low BB height. Yes, I know - get fitter and plan better and it's not that much of a problem, but still. 165's are going on as soon as I have enough to cover them.

Question : Shorter crank arms equals weaker leverage, thus greater energy exertion per revolution, right? Which means you'd have to be fitter to size down to 165mm anyways ;-)

Not to the level that you'd experience it. It's a 5.7% reduction in radius when compared to 175's. And there's loads of literature out there that explains that there's virtually zero difference in power requirements between the 2. If you went to 150's or 130's though, you'd have a problem...

Until you actually go out and buy a pair of 165's and put them on your bike and ride up a hill... then throw it off the side of a cliff because you spent real money time and labor, just to find out the theoretical info was horsesh$t. Wink

I've had a few sets of each. My strongly held opinions based on vague biased recollections:

170:
170's feel noticibly harder to pedal uphill than 175's. The better clearance does really makes a difference though. Spinning 170's feels totally natural, for me at least at 5'10" (1.8m). Spinning in smooth circles and maintaining traction is easier.

165:
165's feel like clown cranks on a trail bike. Spinning circles feels...off, and your easy climbing gearing is suddenly impossible. All is bleak when pointed uphill. Ground clearance however is awesome. 165's are *essential* if you need to pedal hard down rough terrain in a timed pure dh race. But imo useless everywhere else, always.

I whack my 175's non-stop on technical climbs too, never made contact yet on a descent though. When these wear out I'll get some 170's...or 175's again. Never again 165's on anything other than DH bike
flag madstayen
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 1:12 Quote
Mrbeau wrote:
cptmayhem wrote:
madstayen wrote:


Question : Shorter crank arms equals weaker leverage, thus greater energy exertion per revolution, right? Which means you'd have to be fitter to size down to 165mm anyways ;-)

Not to the level that you'd experience it. It's a 5.7% reduction in radius when compared to 175's. And there's loads of literature out there that explains that there's virtually zero difference in power requirements between the 2. If you went to 150's or 130's though, you'd have a problem...

Until you actually go out and buy a pair of 165's and put them on your bike and ride up a hill... then throw it off the side of a cliff because you spent real money time and labor, just to find out the theoretical info was horsesh$t. Wink

I've had a few sets of each. My strongly held opinions based on vague biased recollections:

170:
170's feel noticibly harder to pedal uphill than 175's. The better clearance does really makes a difference though. Spinning 170's feels totally natural, for me at least at 5'10" (1.8m). Spinning in smooth circles and maintaining traction is easier.

165:
165's feel like clown cranks on a trail bike. Spinning circles feels...off, and your easy climbing gearing is suddenly impossible. All is bleak when pointed uphill. Ground clearance however is awesome. 165's are *essential* if you need to pedal hard down rough terrain in a timed pure dh race. But imo useless everywhere else, always.

I whack my 175's non-stop on technical climbs too, never made contact yet on a descent though. When these wear out I'll get some 170's...or 175's again. Never again 165's on anything other than DH bike

I tend to agree with you on that. I bash my cranks constantly on the climbs, but it's easy enough pedaling wise. Going down I never hit them. And this isn't a piece of gold imo, if it wears through or fail completely, then just get new ones, maybe even a reason to go from my xt to xtr.
flag travo
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 3:14 Quote
I'm looking to swap out my dual position pikes on my reign for some 160mm lyriks.

I know a few have done similar but would like to know if anyone's noticed any negatives with regards to the change in offset? I personally really like the way the bike rides with the current fork just find myself wishing I had a solo air setup for the better suspension feel.

Also, does anyone know if you can change the travel of the 160mm lyriks upto 170/180 with a new air spring cartridge or are they like the fox 36's in the way that you can only change the 170 & 180's travel but not the 160's?

Cheers
flag chickenrunz
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 3:49 Quote
Mrbeau wrote:
cptmayhem wrote:
madstayen wrote:


Question : Shorter crank arms equals weaker leverage, thus greater energy exertion per revolution, right? Which means you'd have to be fitter to size down to 165mm anyways ;-)

Not to the level that you'd experience it. It's a 5.7% reduction in radius when compared to 175's. And there's loads of literature out there that explains that there's virtually zero difference in power requirements between the 2. If you went to 150's or 130's though, you'd have a problem...

Until you actually go out and buy a pair of 165's and put them on your bike and ride up a hill... then throw it off the side of a cliff because you spent real money time and labor, just to find out the theoretical info was horsesh$t. Wink

I've had a few sets of each. My strongly held opinions based on vague biased recollections:

170:
170's feel noticibly harder to pedal uphill than 175's. The better clearance does really makes a difference though. Spinning 170's feels totally natural, for me at least at 5'10" (1.8m). Spinning in smooth circles and maintaining traction is easier.

165:
165's feel like clown cranks on a trail bike. Spinning circles feels...off, and your easy climbing gearing is suddenly impossible. All is bleak when pointed uphill. Ground clearance however is awesome. 165's are *essential* if you need to pedal hard down rough terrain in a timed pure dh race. But imo useless everywhere else, always.

I whack my 175's non-stop on technical climbs too, never made contact yet on a descent though. When these wear out I'll get some 170's...or 175's again. Never again 165's on anything other than DH bike

I don't understand a lot of things, like how 10mm of a handlebar makes a world of difference to some people, but 5mm of crank either way and it's so bad?
flag sayrius
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 3:55 Quote
Mrbeau wrote:

I whack my 175's non-stop on technical climbs too, never made contact yet on a descent though. When these wear out I'll get some 170's...or 175's again. Never again 165's on anything other than DH bike

Thanx man. Really usefull comment. Will try it with 170 then. 165 is overkill for sure.
flag AznKiDrew
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 7:42 Quote
travo wrote:
I'm looking to swap out my dual position pikes on my reign for some 160mm lyriks.

I know a few have done similar but would like to know if anyone's noticed any negatives with regards to the change in offset? I personally really like the way the bike rides with the current fork just find myself wishing I had a solo air setup for the better suspension feel.

Also, does anyone know if you can change the travel of the 160mm lyriks upto 170/180 with a new air spring cartridge or are they like the fox 36's in the way that you can only change the 170 & 180's travel but not the 160's?

Cheers

I believe you have to do 170 or 180. I went 180 myself as to not shortside myself. No negative difference in feel with the offset change. If anythfing I prefer the way it handles now than with the custom offset
flag nzobust
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 8:10 Quote
stephogt wrote:
Maybee I heard from my Giant shop that the advance 1 will come with fox x2 shock

sebas241freerider wrote:
do you think the 2017 reign is going to come with the new metric shocks and is going to have the new reign dropper on the lower spec models ?

My Reign 2 2016 came with the new dropper post.
flag tiagofernandex
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 9:11 Quote
nzobust wrote:
stephogt wrote:
Maybee I heard from my Giant shop that the advance 1 will come with fox x2 shock

sebas241freerider wrote:
do you think the 2017 reign is going to come with the new metric shocks and is going to have the new reign dropper on the lower spec models ?

My Reign 2 2016 came with the new dropper post.

Reign 2 2016 - Old dropper

Reign 2 2016 LTD - New dropper
flag nzobust
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 9:31 Quote
tiagofernandex wrote:
nzobust wrote:
stephogt wrote:
Maybee I heard from my Giant shop that the advance 1 will come with fox x2 shock


My Reign 2 2016 came with the new dropper post.

Reign 2 2016 - Old dropper

Reign 2 2016 LTD - New dropper


Nope! USA no Reign 2 LTD just the standard Reign 2 with Deore Cranks, with the new dropper...
flag andymc06
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 9:40 Quote
Hi all.

Got back from my ride yesterday and found my 142x12 rear maxle had unwound itself! Back end had so much play I am surprised I hadn't noticed. I know it has been mentioned before but check everything regularly or locktite your rear end! :-)

2015 Reign 2 Ltd by the way.
flag Martinez242
Posted: Apr 22, 2016 at 12:16 Quote
andymc06 wrote:
Hi all.

Got back from my ride yesterday and found my 142x12 rear maxle had unwound itself! Back end had so much play I am surprised I hadn't noticed. I know it has been mentioned before but check everything regularly or locktite your rear end! :-)

2015 Reign 2 Ltd by the way.

I had a problem with my maxle also. I thought it came loose but it was just the end cap. The part that you use to remove the axle. Don't understand why dt would make it 'unscrewable' should have been one piece

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.018775
Mobile Version of Website