Giant Trance X

PB Forum :: Giant
Giant Trance X
Author Message
Posted: Jul 8, 2021 at 20:15 Quote
Starsky686 wrote:
WY228 wrote:
Eviljarv wrote:
I understand, was just trying to be really specific since I owned both and also didn't realize that they bumped the travel out front to 170, when it came out it was a 160/146 and that's a better match for that bike imo. I completely agree that if most of his trails are blue then the Trance X would be the perfect bike. With some fast tires and in the high seeing would be a perfect trail weapon and if he wants to hit parks or stepper terrain then swap a set of grippy tires and low mode and go have fun

No worries! Your input is honestly better since you've owned both lol

Yeah I was surprised Giant just overforked the 2021 Reigns. I guess it was just a cheap and easy way to try and keep up with the industry without a frame redesign, especially since the 29er is only on its second year. Agree that 160 up front sounds like it'd be more balanced with the rear.


It was also a way to shoehorn the “latest and greatest” new 38mm stantion fork into their line up and add $800 to the respective MSRP’s in the lineup. But also widens the gap between it and the TranceX making your previous assessment a little more apt.

Agree, having owned a Reign 29 Advanced last year I can say that a 38mm 170 fork out front is definitely going to outrun the rear for sure, I liked it better as a light long travel bike than a heavy enduro bike, to me is the best bike to compete against the Ripmo imo

Posted: Jul 8, 2021 at 22:17 Quote
Starsky686 wrote:
WY228 wrote:
Starsky686 wrote:
Have you ridden the Reign29? It’s not the Reign.

It pedals appreciably better than the last Trance SX 27.5

I haven't ridden the Reign 29 but have ridden similar long travel enduro 29ers. If most of someone's riding is mellow blue trails an enduro 29er will be overkill. The Reign 29 might only be 146mm in the rear but its still aimed at big terrain.

And I wouldn't really say that's an applicable comparison because the current Trance X 29 and the old Trance SX 27.5 are not similar bikes.

Your parameters of what makes a similar bike must be incredibly narrow. All the bikes we’re talking about are quite similar, same suspension design and close angles and mm. The company that engineers and sells them place them on top of each other in their line up.

The Reign 29 climbs incredibly well. The Trance X 29 and Reign 29 are increments of the same design.


Reign is older geometry. A ride off the back downhiller.

Trance X is a ride from the middle and weight the front end in hard corners.

The difference is more to do with geometry than with travel.

Posted: Jul 9, 2021 at 14:54 Quote
Snake-Plisskin wrote:
Starsky686 wrote:
WY228 wrote:


I haven't ridden the Reign 29 but have ridden similar long travel enduro 29ers. If most of someone's riding is mellow blue trails an enduro 29er will be overkill. The Reign 29 might only be 146mm in the rear but its still aimed at big terrain.

And I wouldn't really say that's an applicable comparison because the current Trance X 29 and the old Trance SX 27.5 are not similar bikes.

Your parameters of what makes a similar bike must be incredibly narrow. All the bikes we’re talking about are quite similar, same suspension design and close angles and mm. The company that engineers and sells them place them on top of each other in their line up.

The Reign 29 climbs incredibly well. The Trance X 29 and Reign 29 are increments of the same design.


Reign is older geometry. A ride off the back downhiller.

Trance X is a ride from the middle and weight the front end in hard corners.

The difference is more to do with geometry than with travel.

How is 64.5° HTA, 76.5° STA and 439mm CS old geometry? They are pretty much inline with every other manufacturer out there, just wondering

O+
Posted: Jul 9, 2021 at 15:50 Quote
Eviljarv wrote:
Snake-Plisskin wrote:
Starsky686 wrote:


Your parameters of what makes a similar bike must be incredibly narrow. All the bikes we’re talking about are quite similar, same suspension design and close angles and mm. The company that engineers and sells them place them on top of each other in their line up.

The Reign 29 climbs incredibly well. The Trance X 29 and Reign 29 are increments of the same design.


Reign is older geometry. A ride off the back downhiller.

Trance X is a ride from the middle and weight the front end in hard corners.

The difference is more to do with geometry than with travel.

How is 64.5° HTA, 76.5° STA and 439mm CS old geometry? They are pretty much inline with every other manufacturer out there, just wondering

It’s not old geometry, it’s another Internet know-it-all referencing the wrong bike.

Posted: Jul 10, 2021 at 2:31 Quote
Also posted this in the Reign 29 thread where I asked a similar question...

I was able to find and carpark test a L Trance X Adv 1 and a M Reign29 Adv 1 (2020 model with the 160mm 36 not the 170mm 3Cool at shops in a larger town today and I think there was more difference in feel from being different sizes than different bikes! Obviously there is only a limited amount you can tell in a carpark, but they really are quite similar in that trim.

It did confirm that M would be the right size for me (at 5'10"), the L Trance X just felt a bit too long and unwieldy.

The Trance X suspension did feel slightly more supportive, but may have had a bit more pressure in the fork and shock. The Reign still felt like it had good pop and response bunnyhopping etc in the carpark, there wasn't a huge difference.

The slacker head angle of the Reign felt like it might flop a bit more at low speed.

I think my conclusion is that the Trance X would suit my riding a little better, but they are close enough that I'd be quite happy with either so I'll keep both in mind as options and see what deals come up.

Posted: Jul 10, 2021 at 2:47 Quote
Looking at a geometry comparison shows why they feel quite similar...

| Trance X 29 | Reign 29
| 2021: M Low | 2020: M

Reach | 456 | 455
Stack | 621 | 619
Top Tube (effective) | 597 | 600
Seat Tube C-T | 430 | 431
Head Angle | 65.5 | 65
Seat Angle | 77.2 | 76.8
Head Tube | 100 | 110
Chainstay | 438 | 439
Wheelbase | 1205 | 1215
Standover | 729 | 751
BB Drop | 40 | 30
Fork Rake / Offset | 44 | 44
Trail | 125.1 | 128.9
Stem Length | 40 | 40
Crank Length | 170 | 170
Front Travel | 150 | 160
Rear Travel | 135 | 146

Posted: Jul 10, 2021 at 8:28 Quote
Giant lists the reach on the 2021 Reign M as 451mm. The Trance X 2021 in the low setting has a reach of 456mm.
Both are specced with 40mm stems.
I'm just over 5.9 and went with the Trance X M, changed to a 50mm stem.
I increased the travel to 160mm (air spring change required on the Fox 36) and that really made the bike perform ideally on some of the steeper, rockier trails I enjoy!
I didn't have the opportunity to test ride a large Trance X.
My previous bike was a Reign 2015 M, which felt too small for me. I had a lot of seatpost outside the frame which biased my weight back for seated climbing.

Posted: Jul 10, 2021 at 17:00 Quote
Swampmonster wrote:
Giant lists the reach on the 2021 Reign M as 451mm. The Trance X 2021 in the low setting has a reach of 456mm.
Both are specced with 40mm stems.
I'm just over 5.9 and went with the Trance X M, changed to a 50mm stem.
I increased the travel to 160mm (air spring change required on the Fox 36) and that really made the bike perform ideally on some of the steeper, rockier trails I enjoy!
I didn't have the opportunity to test ride a large Trance X.
My previous bike was a Reign 2015 M, which felt too small for me. I had a lot of seatpost outside the frame which biased my weight back for seated climbing.

I think its the 170 fork on the 2021 Reign 29 that effectively shortens the reach by a few mm (and increases stack by a few mm) from the 2020 model with 160mm. You would have shortened the reach on your Trance X by a similar amount by going from 150 to 160mm fork.

The old 2015 27.5" Reign had a 444 reach in M and 73° seat angle, so it makes sense that your seated weight would have been much further back than the 77.2° or 76.8° seat angles on the Trance X or Reign 29.

Posted: Jul 10, 2021 at 17:28 Quote
Gravelben wrote:
Also posted this in the Reign 29 thread where I asked a similar question...

I was able to find and carpark test a L Trance X Adv 1 and a M Reign29 Adv 1 (2020 model with the 160mm 36 not the 170mm 3Cool at shops in a larger town today and I think there was more difference in feel from being different sizes than different bikes! Obviously there is only a limited amount you can tell in a carpark, but they really are quite similar in that trim.

It did confirm that M would be the right size for me (at 5'10"), the L Trance X just felt a bit too long and unwieldy.

The Trance X suspension did feel slightly more supportive, but may have had a bit more pressure in the fork and shock. The Reign still felt like it had good pop and response bunnyhopping etc in the carpark, there wasn't a huge difference.

The slacker head angle of the Reign felt like it might flop a bit more at low speed.

I think my conclusion is that the Trance X would suit my riding a little better, but they are close enough that I'd be quite happy with either so I'll keep both in mind as options and see what deals come up.

Yeah, like I said earlier, they are very similar depending on build kit, I would say Trance X is 50/50 climb/descend and Reign 29 40/60 climb descend, the feel is more of a long travel trail bike than full enduro imo

Posted: Jul 11, 2021 at 4:08 Quote
Gravelben wrote:

I think its the 170 fork on the 2021 Reign 29 that effectively shortens the reach by a few mm (and increases stack by a few mm) from the 2020 model with 160mm. You would have shortened the reach on your Trance X by a similar amount by going from 150 to 160mm fork.

The old 2015 27.5" Reign had a 444 reach in M and 73° seat angle, so it makes sense that your seated weight would have been much further back than the 77.2° or 76.8° seat angles on the Trance X or Reign 29.

Exactly right, thanks Gravelben!

I ended up slamming the stem and changed to a 38mm riser bar, rolled to my preference and that felt just right!
The Trance X is a very competent technical climber.
The 10mm travel increase also lifted the BB slightly, I haven't noticed any negative riding characteristics, just a few less pedal strikes maybe.

In the high setting the Trance X has a reach of 464mm but I haven't bothered to try that just yet.
The gap between M (low setting) and L (low setting) reach is 30mm, might leave riders of my height in between sizes.
My personal preference would be no flip chip, same geo as the low setting except for a little more reach (which would extend the wheelbase a little too) for the M size Trance X!

Posted: Jul 11, 2021 at 9:16 Quote
Swampmonster wrote:
The gap between M (low setting) and L (low setting) reach is 30mm, might leave riders of my height in between sizes.

This was the exact problem I had. I'm 5'10" and fell right between M and L. Luckily shop had both to test but I could've gone either way. Seems to be the trend with Giant bikes, if you're around the ~5'10" mark there's a huge gap between M and L sizes on most models. Which is odd considering that's the average adult male height.

I ended up going with the L because the M felt a tiny bit cramped. The L with a 40mm stem, seatpost close to slammed and the saddle slid a bit forward fits me well. I'm a +2" on the ape index too so the longer reach feels better out of the saddle. I sometimes wonder if the M would've felt a little more flickable but I love how stable the L feels at speed.

Posted: Jul 11, 2021 at 15:40 Quote
What have/would you upgrade on the X 3 in order? I’ve already went to a GX shifter and derailleur. I’m torn on upgrading the suspension, brakes, or going to lighter wheels first. All areas I feel could use improvement.

Posted: Jul 11, 2021 at 16:10 Quote
Swampmonster wrote:
I ended up slamming the stem and changed to a 38mm riser bar, rolled to my preference and that felt just right!

Funny enough that's quite similar to how I have my Trance 29 set up (though at 442mm its a bit shorter in the reach than the X).

Size M, swapped to 50mm stem, 40mm rise Renthal Fatbar and dropped the stem a couple of spacers lower than I had the original bar (I worked out that 10mm of stem spacers affects reach by about 4mm, so using a riser instead of spacers keeps a bit more reach - sounds like you had the same conclusion).

I'm about 5'10" but with relatively longer legs and shorter torso and pretty neutral ape index - I'm more likely to complain about low stack than shorter reach.

For comparison I rented a L Remedy for a day at a bike park and didn't like it much, 455mm reach was fine but sub-600mm stack was not for me. Felt like I was getting pitched forward a lot and had to squat really low on the pedals to stay balanced.

Posted: Jul 11, 2021 at 20:32 Quote
dextercolvin323 wrote:
What have/would you upgrade on the X 3 in order? I’ve already went to a GX shifter and derailleur. I’m torn on upgrading the suspension, brakes, or going to lighter wheels first. All areas I feel could use improvement.

IMO if I had the X 3 my upgrade order would be:

1. replace SX derailleur with GX, which you've already done tup
2. wheels - could also use this as chance to get XD driver and upgrade cassette. GX is 178g lighter than NX/SX, and X01 is a whopping 257g lighter, that's just over half a pound! This combined could shave off some serious weight but wheels alone are a massive improvement.
3. fork - lots of options here, most anything would be an improvement over the RS 35. If on a budget consider a Marzocchi Bomber Z1 with the GRIP damper (essentially the same fork as the 36 Rhythm that comes on the X 2)
4. dropper - mine kept acting up. If yours is fine then skip this and keep it
5. shock - personal preference, I just think the DPS is a little too light duty for this bike's capability
6. brakes - not really needed, the 4-piston non-series shimanos are probably fine. Run metallic pads if compatible.

Posted: Jul 12, 2021 at 10:54 Quote
Gravelben wrote:
I'm considering a Trance X or Reign 29 as options for longer travel replacement for my Trance 29 (not in any rush but probably in the next year or so).

I like my Trance 29 (alloy Trance 1), its great fun but my 100+ kg can blow through the short travel a bit on drops etc and I think more travel might help me keep progressing and hit bigger features. But I also don't want to lose too much fun/playfulness on easier trails - a lot of my riding is still relatively mellow blue trail fun.

By the numbers the Trance X and Reign 29 are fairly close so I thought it would be easy to find comparisons between the two, but it seems not! There are plenty of reviews of each on their own, but hardly anything comparing the difference in ride between them.

Has anyone here spent a bit of time riding both to compare how they feel?

I can guess at differences based on the geo etc, but you know what they say about assumptions... Wink

I was in the same boat. Trance X or Reign or RIPMO AF, or, or, or, or...........

I am 6'3 and 210lbs. I went with the Trance X pro advance 2. Couldn't be happier. I have ridden it on some of the roghest trails in the Canadian Rockies and the bike can haul butt uphill and down. I even had the bike at Silverstar mountain last week for some lift riding, and it performed flawlessly. Blowing through travel isn't much of a problem, even on 3 foot drops. The bike is super responsive and "pops" easily when you want it to. Longer wheelbase is a bit of a hindrance on really tight stuff, but I am getting used to it. Despite what some reviews said about pedal strikes, I have had zero issues.

You just can't beat the pricepoint on this bike, and the build you get for the price is bang-on.


 
Copyright © 2000 - 2022. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.007128
Mobile Version of Website