First Ride: 2020 Giant Reign Advanced 29

Aug 6, 2019 at 17:18
by Mike Kazimer  



The Giant Reign has been in existence for 15 years, evolving every few seasons to keep up with mountain biking's ongoing evolution. The latest version now rolls on 29” wheels, which shouldn't come as a massive surprise, but it is still slightly humorous to look back at the images that Giant once published to promote 27.5” wheels as the one wheel size to rule them all...

Of course, that ended when the short travel Trance 29 was released last year, and now the focus is on the new Reign 29. It was designed to meet the needs of the Giant Factory Off-Road team's Enduro World Series racers, or anyone whose trail preference trends towards the gnarlier side of things.

Giant Reign Advanced 29 Details

• Wheel size: 29"
• Travel: 146mm / 160mm fork
• Carbon frame
• 65° head angle
• 439mm chainstays
• PF92 bottom bracket
• Alloy models available
• Price: $3,000 - $9,000 USD
www.giant-bicycles.com
The 27.5” Reign had 160mm of travel, but the new Reign 29 has a bit less – 146mm to be precise. That's paired up with a 160mm fork up front, which gives the bike a 65-degree head angle.

There are three carbon models of the Reign 29, with prices ranging from $4,000 to $9,000 USD. Aluminum models start at $3,000, and there's also an alloy SX model that gets a coil-sprung shock and a 170mm fork.

Giant Reign Advanced Pro 29 0 Launch in Revelstoke British Columbia
Giant Reign Advanced Pro 29 0 Launch in Revelstoke British Columbia

Frame Details & Suspension Design

The Reign Advanced models are carbon from tip to tail, except for the aluminum lower link. The overall shape is quite similar to the Trance 29, especially the swingarm, which is braced on the non-drive side. Giant's Maestro suspension design is in place, which uses two co-rotating links to attach the swingarm to the shock.

There's a stubby little seat mast that extends above the top tube with a two bolt seatpost clamp. Thankfully, the advent of dropper posts means that those bolts won't need to be adjusted much, but I'm not sure why they didn't just go with a simple single bolt design. On the topic of dropper posts, the size large and XL bikes get posts with 150mm of drop, but the smaller sizes only have 125mm; it'd be nice to more drop for all sizes, especially now that there are a number of worthy 175 and even 200mm options on the market.

MRP chainguides with bash guards are installed on all models, which is a nice touch. Dropped chains are relatively rare these days, but rocks haven't gotten any less solid, so it's nice to have a little extra protection in order to avoid trashing a chainring or mangling a chain.

Giant Reign Advanced Pro 29 0 Launch in Revelstoke British Columbia

Giant tested three versions of the Reign 29 during the development process. The first iteration had a shorter stroke shock, and slightly less travel, but that didn't end up giving them the ride feel they were looking for. The next version was closer to what they wanted, but Giant's designers ended up tweaking the kinematics a bit more before settling on a shock with a 60mm stroke shock. The frame has a 16.6% leverage rate progression, which should allow it to work with either an air or coil-sprung shock.


Giant Reign Advanced Pro 29 0 Launch in Revelstoke British Columbia
The Reign's upper link is made from molded carbon fiber, and the lower link is aluminum.


Giant Reign 29

Geometry

The Reign 29 has a 65-degree head angle, which would have been considered slack a few years ago, but is now fairly typical for bikes in this travel bracket. The seat angle has been steepened considerably compared to the 27.5” Reign, and now sits at 76.8-degrees for all sizes.

It's the Reign's reach numbers where things get a little interesting. A small measures 428mm, a medium measures 455mm, and then there's a whopping 38mm jump up to the size large that checks in at a sprawling 493mm, followed by the XL at 515mm. I'll get back to that sizing jump in a bit, but it does mean that some riders could find themselves scratching their heads when trying to figure out what size to go with.


Giant Reign 29
Reign 29 Advanced Pro 0


Models

I spent two days on the Reign 29 Advanced Pro 0 model, which retails for $9,000. That hefty chunk of change gets you SRAM's X01 Eagle 12-speed drivetrain, Code RSC brakes, Factory-series Fox 36 Float fork and X2 shock, along with Giant's TRX-0 carbon wheels and EXO+ casing Maxxis Minion DHF and DHR II tires.

Giant Reign 29
Reign Advance Pro 29 1

• Reign Advance Pro 29 1: This is the model that caught my eye, and not just because of the carbon frame's sparkly black and grey paint scheme. There's a SRAM GX 12-speed drivetrain, Code R brakes, Fox 36 Performance Elite fork and X2 shock, plus Giant's alloy TR-1 alloy wheels with a 2.5" Maxxis DHF EXO+ and a 2.4" DHR II EXO+. $5,000.



Giant Reign 29
Reign Advanced Pro 29 2


• Reign Advanced Pro 29 2: Carbon frame, SRAM NX, RockShox Lyric Select+, RockShox Deluxe Select, Shimano MT520 brakes. $4,000.



Giant Reign 29
Reign 29 2:


• Reign 29 2: Alloy frame, SRAM NX drivetrain, Shimano MT520 brakes, RockShox Yari RC, RockShox Deluxe Select+. $3,000.


Giant Reign 29
Reign 29 SX:

• Reign 29 SX: Alloy frame, SRAM NX drivetrain, Code R brakes, 170mm Fox 36 Performance Elite, DHX2 Performance Elite. $4,000.




Revelstoke, British Columbia, served as the launching pad for the new Reign 29, a location with no shortage of incredible mountain views and long, rugged descents.

The Reign 29's steeper seat tube angle is a welcome change compared to the 27.5” version. In addition to creating a more comfortable climbing position, it also plays a role in reducing the amount of suspension movement – there's less leverage on the shock when your weight is situated above, rather than behind it. Seat angle aside, even when standing out of the saddle the Reign 29 is a calm climber, and I never needed to flip the Float X2's compression lever to the firmer position.

There was one issue that surfaced on some of the bikes at the launch – under hard pedaling, typically in the easier gears used for climbing, the rear brake rotor would contact the pads with a subtle 'thwing' noise. The frame didn't feel overly-flexy at all while riding, and the super-scientific "grab the rear wheel and pull it back and forth" stiffness test didn't reveal anything out of the ordinary, but it's something that's worth further investigation.

Giant Reign Advanced Pro 29 0 Launch in Revelstoke British Columbia

At 5'11” (180cm), I typically prefer bikes with a reach somewhere in the 460 – 480mm range. Top tube length also plays into the equation, but reach is a good place to start when it comes to modern bike sizing. With the Reign 29, I'm in right in between sizes – the seated pedaling position of the medium felt a little cramped, and on the large I had moments where it felt like the long front end made cornering and slower speed maneuvering more difficult than necessary.

Now, I don't mind a long wheelbase, especially on a gravity-oriented bike, but if more stability was the goal I think it would have been better to get that by slackening the head angle rather than stretching out the reach even further. That being said, the bike's sizing looks more typical for the small, medium, and XL sizes, so riders taller and shorter than myself will probably have a much easier time than I did.

Giant Reign Advanced Pro 29 0 Launch in Revelstoke British Columbia

The long reach aside, the Reign hasn't lost any of its ability to devour bumps and plow through natural hallways filled with roots and rocks. The Float X2 and Fox 36 combo is a formidable suspension package, and while 146mm isn't the most common amount of travel, I never had any harsh bottom outs or moments where I felt like I wanted a few millimeters more squish.

It's easy to see how the Reign would make a good enduro race bike – despite its length it doesn't feel sluggish once it's up to speed, and it'll reward an aggressive rider who can push it at a higher pace. There are a few quirks that are worth looking into, though; we'll get one in to see how it fares in a long term test.







286 Comments

  • 151 9
 Parts bike companies desperately need to stop putting on bikes over $2,500:

1. DT Swiss 370 Hubs [they are a dumpster fire and pop constantly].
2. Guide R brakes [they slow you down only because you are afraid to go fast].
3. Fancier derailleurs with shitty cassettes and shifters [the cassette has all the weight, and the shifter creates the accuracy... the derailleur doesn't matter and is just there to get ripped off].
  • 7 4
 Don't care much about point 1 since i haven't used them yet (I had Superstars for like forever, since ~2010 to 2015, I'm on my second set of XM1501s since then, so 240s for me, on a 54T ratchet since february even), but...

_SO_ _MUCH_ _YES_ for points 2 and 3. I went for an X01 build with my current bike because i also got the X01 cassette. If it was the der. and shifter from X01 and a GX cassette in the X01 kit, i'd go GX, no question about it. I don't care about the derailleur and shifter, give me the fancy cassette where it actually does cause a difference.

And yeah, allt he moaning about Guides is, i think, caused by Guide Rs. RS and RSC models don't seem to be an issue.
  • 24 0
 The DT Swiss 350 hubs are pretty good. Easily serviced, rebuildable, and multiple axle options.
  • 21 0
 @tacklingdummy: Yes, the DT Swiss 350's are great. 370's, not so much.
  • 4 20
flag jbeanbuyer (Aug 7, 2019 at 8:28) (Below Threshold)
 @Primoz: Being that the GX mech is the weakest part of the chainset, I disagree.
GX cassette & shifter with an X01 mech is the best price / performance combo.
  • 14 3
 @jbeanbuyer: yea gx/nd/sx mechs are the real dumpster fire.

Despite the lack of praise the dt370s seem to be receiving here, they are one of the few hubs that come in 12 sp shimano micro spline config. Why anyone would spec eagle nx over 12sp slx is beyond me.
  • 4 0
 Where are you seeing DT 370 hubs?
  • 4 1
 Yes, I was going to say, that SX version looked great, until you realize that all that suppleness of the coil will be lost by the boat anchor of a cassette. How do we have bikes over $4k spec'ed with what is the new x5 and slx?
  • 1 8
flag jorgeposada (Aug 7, 2019 at 10:20) (Below Threshold)
 Great job destroying the Reign franchise.
  • 9 0
 @mfoga: I should read more carefully. The original comment to which we are all replying started off ranting about 370 hubs, guide r brakes, and econo cassettes. In my absent minded state I had assumed the most up-rated comment would be related to the article it was posted to.
  • 8 0
 Yep. Customers would be better served with a GX derailleur and an X01 cassette.
  • 7 0
 Id say those parts are about right in the $2500- $3500 range my issue is when you see bikes $4000-$6000 with these parts at the price point you shouldnt be getting any entry level stuff
  • 4 0
 Yup- current ride is GX derailluer- XO1 Cassette and Shifter/ Chain, GX cranks- rides like a dream and I'm not worried about ripping the RD off or bashing my crank arms- can't tell the difference when shifting between a GX and an XO1 RD in my opinion. I'm a SRAM fanboy because they make this kind of customization so straight forward and easy- and I've never been let down by my Code RSCs.
  • 8 0
 Aren't the 370 hubs on the E1900 wheels?
I have two of those wheelsets and they are great and pretty sturdy.
  • 4 0
 Life is too short for cheap rear hubs.
  • 1 0
 point 1 i agree with, we need hubs that have real engagement
  • 1 0
 Yes yes yes, completely agree on all of this.
  • 3 0
 @OneTrustMan: They are yeah. The Star Ratchet, used on 350 and 240 series of hubs, is much better though. The wheelset itself might be more sturdy, but i'd really, REALLY want at least a 1700 series wheelset that upgrades the 370 hubs to 350 hubs (and keeps the same rims).

Regarding GX dumpster fire and the like, mine worked really well for a year. What seems to be the issue since i heard this comment quite a few times already.
  • 1 0
 @Primoz: you can if you have access to the tools pretty easily convert 370 to star ratchet. Swap the inside splined nut from a pawl to star ratchet one.
  • 2 0
 I'm confused, all models mentioned here use Codes or Shimano M520s. Why are you going on about Guide brakes?
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: My Dartmoor hub is pretty cheap compared to 240s, Hopes and Chris king. Looks to be a rebadged novatec with upgraded bearings and pawls. Splines a little soft being aluminium but it's light and engages well, plus it's petrol so super bling. Bit loud coming from shimano and DT swiss but not obnoxious.
  • 2 0
 @mfoga: Buying the tools it costs like 150 to 200 € to do the conversion (over 50 € for the tools if i'm not mistaken, ~50 € for the star ratchet and ~70 € for a new freehub). And you can't sell the old parts.

Easily but expensively. Get a better wheelset and sell the old one, it will cost you about the same and give you a better product overall.
  • 2 5
 @Garethccc: it's a general observation of the industry. And Code R is about as bad as Guide R. Stronger, yeah, but i wouldn't be surprised if Guide RS has more power than Code R due to the Swinglink.
  • 3 0
 @Primoz: have you used them before? I have code R and RSC brakes and both have equal power. The only difference is with one i can change the bite point. Not a huge loss on a trail bike
  • 4 2
 @Primoz: Guides across the board have less power. Swinglink is more about lever feel/modulation. Codes have about a third more fluid volume, bigger calipers, better heat dissipation, etc. Guides aren't meant to have as much power as codes regardless of pad compound/model

What's really bad is the wooden (but consistent) lever feel of the Guide T's, which are on too many fast&cheap trailbikes from '19+

I'd happily put code R levers on a bike that came stock with a guide system though. Extra fluid, better lever feel, more time between bleeds
  • 3 3
 Luckily i haven't used either Codes or Guides in the R guise for any actual riding. As for the same power and swing link being there for feel and modulation, i don't buy it. It's there to have a fast piston travel in the caliper when you pull on the lever, but to have slow/low travel for the same amount of lever throw when the pads contact the rotor. Which means more power. It's in essence a regressive (swing link) vs. linear leverage ratio. Where is it easier to bottom out your shock, on the regressive or linear suspension layout?

As for more volume and the like, yeah, it's true, the Codes have more volume, better heat dissipation, etc. But at first pull the heat dissipation is not needed where the system is cold. And the extra volume does squat there as well. The mechanical advantage, the ratio of areas between the pistons, is where you gain the power.

Guides are supposedly running 13 and 14 mm pistons. The Codes 15 and 16 mm. That means Codes have ~33 % more surface area. If the master cylinder piston diameter is the same for both, it would mean 33 % more power (surface area wise alone) for the Codes. The swing link should bring that closer, but in the end, yeah, the Codes should still be more powerful. With the same sized master cylinder piston. I would however say the Codes have a slightly larger piston to move more fluid so you get the same piston movement. Or a different lever geometry to move the piston more, in both cases negating the caliper piston surface area advantage.

I'm basing my comments regarding the shittines of R brakes on the fact that _SO_ _MANY_ people have issues with them, either failing or just not having enough power. And i don't think i've heard anyone have issues (bar the swollen pistons in the lever) for the RS and RSC models. With the swing link being the differentiator here.

I mean a friend on 200/200 rotors and ~110 kg has no issues stopping on Guide RSCs, while a friend of mine with ~60 kg and 200/180 rotors says the Guide Rs are lacking in power. And i'm thinking about getting some RSC levers to try out the theory here if it is actually the swing link.
  • 3 3
 @Primoz: in documented lab tests 45kmh-0, code R is 0.3 seconds faster to stop than the guide ultimates. Code RSC is about 3.5 seconds faster to stop. Different platforms and construction, but speaking in a general sense codes across the board will have more stopping power and need bleeds less frequently. I have a decent amount of experience working with all the brakes in SRAM’s lineup, and lots of ride time on multiple code and guide models. My RSC’s had sticking issues, so there’s one person for you - I had three customers with slow RSC levers as well.

In terms of SwingLink, the main purpose is to get a precise, modulated bite point while speeding up the initial piston travel - to get more space between the pads and the rotor. Does slowing down the amount the pads move for the amount the lever moves really increase braking power? Come on
  • 6 4
 @parkourfan: So Guide Ultimate is roughly in the same ballpark as a Code R. I was trying to make a point with 'Guide RSC more powerful than Code R' by throwing things around, but honestly i'm not surprised it's that close.

Yes, the Code range will be higher than the Guide range. But that obviously doesn't mean ANY Code brake will be significantly higher than ANY Guide brake. The ranges just about overlap. And yes, it's down to the Swinglink, what else? It's the only differnetiator between Code RSC and Code R and is one of the benefits of Guide ultimate with smaller pistons and everything else being the negative of the Guide. What else could make that big of a difference?

And does it really increase braking power? Of course. You can bet your ass it does.

I hope you're familiar with hydraulic systems. Having two different connected syringes, pressing with force X on the smaller one will cause the larger one to rise half as much but with a force of 2X, if the surface area of the second one is twice as large (~1,4 times bigger diameter). The flow volume will be the same.

So, if you use larger pistons on the Codes, you will be moving the pistons less with the same master cylinder and get more power, or use a bigger MC and move the pistons the same amount as on the Guides. The first will give you more power, the second will give you the same power, so no net gain. If you want the best of both worlds, you need a longer master cylinder piston throw. You do that by altering the leverage ratio between the finger and the piston. But the finger is the one constant here, you have X amount of throw and Y amount of force, basically Z amount of energy available for braking. And that last part is the key here.

Given a finger, you can have only so much power. You can go out of this world with the power, but the brake pads will not move and you will get draggy brakes. So if you want pad travel AND power, you need something to get the best of both worlds. Enter swing link. You have a bad leverage ratio at start, giving you almost no force, but lots of piston movement (because no force is needed at all). When the pads contact, you change the leverage ratio to small movement and high force. So you get lots of braking power AND modulation, since a relatively large movement of the finger on the lever itself gives a small movement of the master cylinder piston.

So yes, YES, the swing link does REALLY increase power. It's simple physics and logic.

And here come the downvotes.
  • 4 1
 @Primoz: yeah thats a load of crap. Code r are way stronger than any guide. Maybe you should actually try them? RSC are only better because of bite point adjustment. That's literally it. Same power. I've used almost every brake out there except the newer magura brakes. Saints are more inconsistent on long runs then codes. Older saints were similar power but more off on and less modulation but overall more reliable but heavier than the new ones.
  • 2 0
 @Primoz: if you have a larger piston with a larger master cylinder the force will be the same but spread over a larger surface area and ultimatley with braking power the surface area is where the friction is occuring so they will not have more force but will be have more friction meaning you need to use less force to stop
  • 1 0
 I'm super stoked that more companies are specing 370 hubs, far better quality than any of the renamed Formula junk or the Novatec junk, that I've seen speced on bikes over $5K in years previous. Really surprised that more of you don't know that you can, with some dollars, turn your 370 into a 350, and not get a whole new wheel...
  • 4 3
 @endurogan: Same force spread over a larger surface area means less pressure. Friction is supposedly (given the simple physics equations) dependant only on the coefficient of friction and the perpendicular force, not the surface area. So in essence, X braking force, X power. Regardless of the surface area.

Try again.

@makripper: Let me quote parkourfan's post: " in documented lab tests 45kmh-0, code R is 0.3 seconds faster to stop than the guide ultimates. Code RSC is about 3.5 seconds faster to stop." So 'the same power' is between a Code R and a Guide Ultimate (RSC). Which part is a load of crap again?

I mean, if you call out my comments for a load of crap, please do so with an explanation as to why you a) think that is so, b) use logic that actually is logical to support your argument. I have clearly written out why i think it is so and everything is very clear and easily explainable to anyone with basic knowledge of physics. And even people calling me out for talking shit have basically supported my argument, see the parkourfan quoted post above for example. It's a DIRECT confirmation that the swing-link does what i say it does.
  • 2 1
 @parkourfan:

"Does slowing down the amount the pads move for the amount the lever moves really increase braking power? Come on"

Yes, that is exactly the effect that it has.
  • 4 3
 @Primoz:

Average braking torque, or forces, measured in NM at the caliper DOES NOT directly correlate with more deceleration power. Staying in the SRAM family with consumer-available testing, the level ultimate's 45-0kmh deceleration got a 9.7 at 62.1nm. The Guide ultimate (RSC, carbon blade), a 12.2 at 71.7nm. The guide T (jack shit for special technologies), 10.2 at 55.1. Doesn't mean that the guide ultimates are worse of a brake than the others in the guide lineup, or that you should throw level ultimate's on your DH bike.

The Code R generated 69.2nm. The Code RSC, 70.6nm, with the RSC providing faster deceleration force. Unfortunately, between the confounding factors and the lack of extra consumer information, you won't be able to tell if that's statistically significant, or if the swinglink actually makes a difference in applied torque. There are a TON of confounding factors when it comes to dyno testing brakes - bleed quality, bearings vs. bushings, lever material, pad/backing compounds between brakes, temperature control...you're seeing multiple confounds even testing the Codes in different guises back to back. Interesting results nonetheless.

Like I said before, SRAM's *primary* utility for swinglink, from what has been shown through STU, tech-only seminars and webinars, (as well as consumer marketing) is modulation, with power benefits rarely being mentioned.

To skim some of your other paragraphs, your argument has been sloppy and you started out with an anecdotal fallacy, saying "hurr well one of my friends says RSC's are great and another says the R's suck", and it devolved from there. Swing link was not a differentiation in the warranty claims for the guide series of brakes. The production dates for the affected models of guide are clearly defined, and included plenty of RS's and RSC's. Without working in SRAM's warranty department, you have NO base in which to say "R's are less reliable" without using purely anecdotal evidence. Naturally, there are more R's on the market than any other option. Naturally, there would be more issues out there to speak of.

You don't even know the correct piston sizes of a guide brake, yet base your "logical" arguments on it. Without much more information, you won't be able to armchair engineer yourself into proving that "the ranges (i.e. guide and code) just about overlap", which of course is you going back on your original statement, involving you not being surprised if the Guide RS would have more power than the Code R's.

Which is partially why I didn't bother responding after a certain point, since you can't argue with stupid - and I don't like e-peening industry experience on PB - since it's a bad look. That being said, if you're not a SRAM tech, haven't worked UCI sanctioned events as a mechanic, haven't been the lead tech at global race series (that one may be a straight e-peen claim, as the only hydraulic systems I had to rebuild were magura and shimano in that series, but I digress), don't have bulk SRAM workshop boxes of guide/code internals in your toolbox, let alone haven't had applicable shop experience (for the wild claims about not seeing any issues with the RS and RSC vs. the R), your armchair engineering based off misinformation and limited experience hardly lends itself to you throwing paragraph responses at anyone who replies to this thread.
  • 2 2
 @AgrAde: I was speaking in a facetious way regarding swinglink in the guides vs. the comparatively different platform of the codes here. I see what I wrote wasn't worded well, although the "come on" was there.

I understand that in terms of brakes, a low leverage ratio favors fast pad travel over power. As leverage ratio increases, pad travel for lever movement decreases, but power goes up.

And, not to get into an ill worded flame war with you as well, the bell curve of sizing for a company that wants to sell a whole lot of bikes should probably be centered around the global average of 5'9, with a medium fitting someone within a few inches of that, which is what giant's medium size does, more or less. Source: I sell a metric shitton of men's medium giant bikes, and rarely do I have someone truly between sizes. It might be a big jump up in terms of reach, but that way you can get people a few standard deviations from the mean, instead of having specific small, medium, and large microsizes based around 5'8-5'11. Giant's made the most bikes in the world for quite some time. Personally, I'd trust their sizing chart and frame molds for industry average height joe schmo a lot more over you claiming their sizing is "spectacularly stupid"
  • 1 1
 @parkourfan: Yeah, worded badly then.

My issue isn't with the bikes not being centred around the global average height. Though I disagree that a medium should match a 5'9" rider when there's only four sizes. A medium should match a 5'9" rider when there's 5 sizes, as it's the middle size. When there's only four sizes, the average height rider should be between the two middle sizes.

What I think is stupid is the spacing of the sizes. The gap between medium and large is massive, but the gap between the small/medium and large/XL is much smaller. personally, I think the gap is large enough that there is going to be a good amount of people who can either read a geometry chart, or think that they can read a geometry chart, or get advice from someone who can read a geometry chart, that will believe that neither is a good fit and buy something else.

I've found that the best measure of standing fit is the measurement between bb and bar. If I'm just looking at the frames, between the bb and the top of the headset. I.e. the combination of the reach and stack. The four sizes in mm are 752.6/768.2/798.4/819.8. The differences between these sizes is 15.6mm, then 30.2mm, then 21.4mm. The gap between M and L is twice the gap between S and M. Why?
  • 3 2
 Of course bike companies design frames around the average rider, it makes all the sense to. You cover say 90 % of the people with one design and make the remaining 10 % somehow fit. That's how you get horribly fitting XL frames (I have personal experiences here with Giant being one of the culprits) and only a select few bikes that work for XL riders on the market. But it's basic economics. To make properly sized fitted bikes the geometries should look nothing alike between the sizes, the suspension systems should be different (different antisquat values and the like to cater to different CoG heights), etc. But that would be jolly expensive.

As for the BB to bar length, for a bike that gets pedalled (sitting down) that will mask a ton of details. Seated fit is very important since it's the position where the majority of time will be spent. So seat tube angle, effective top tube length and the resulting reach values are important as well. Not so much for a medium and a large frame (because you fall into the 90 % segment of well fitted bikes), but more so at the extremes of the sizes (which is a personal pain of mine, so i know the area quite well).
  • 2 3
 @parkourfan: If the braking torque at the caliper (or rotor) doesn't directly correlate to more braking power, what the hell does then?? Magical pixie dust?
The numbers you provided are, if correct, for some reason skewed. You posted either maximum torque values with the average being lower or something else was wrong. An average torque number will, for a given rider, bike, wheel size, etc., with everything but the brake system being the same, generated a given average braking force at the tyre patch. The system (rider plus bike) will require a set amount of energy to be input into the system to bring it to a halt. With the equation of E = F*s, energy being the product of force and distance, for the same energy at a higher average force, the distance will get lowered. So a shorter braking distance will be the product. This is a direct correlation to average (average!) torque. If someone provided you with a high peak value of an organic pad, during the braking event the pads might heat up and the torque might drop off so the average will be lower in the end. Again, simple physics. Just like you can't push a big block by pushing directly on to it, but can easily move it by using a crowbar as a lever. Leverage ratio, can't beat physics.

As for confounding factors, those need to be eliminated. Ideally you'd have a spec rotor (same for all the brakes), spec brake pad (same material, same pad contact area) to eliminate those variable, but you need to disregard the bleed quality and the bushings, because that is a part of the tested system. Everything that you could do is test 20 or 30 randomly selected samples of each brake (22 is the minimum amount of samples for statistics to get at least somewhat reliable) and then look at the distribution of each model. You might fin that on average a certain model performs well, but you are very likely to find a bad sample with a low performance. Which is not good of course). Besides the spec rotor and the pad you would also have to test it using the factory provided pads (in all types available by the original manufacturer) and rotors (in a single size only) to check for that as well. And compare it to the spec rotor/pad in order to see how much of the performance is brought by the braking system itself and how much from the friction interfacing parts.
The results you provided might be interesting, but there is nowhere near enough data to do any conclusions on it, apart from using them to further you (general your) own point (we both did that, first me by using your stopping time distance and now you by providing the 'average torque' values as well). A source for example with some more data would be nice.

Of course they won't mention power since they want all the brakes to look powerful. Everybody wants more power, most people don't know what modulation even is. Even when you explain it to them. Marketing at its best...

Yes, it started out as an anecdote, but the internet (and real people) is full of people moaning about the lack of power on Guide R and other direct link Sram brakes, while there are much less people commenting about that for the swing-link equipped brakes. Sure, the sample size is important here, but still, patterns can emerge. At least they can be used for a further, proper analysis. And if you look at my first 'anecdotal fallacy', i specifically wrote that i THINK the Guide Rs are a problem due to people having issues. It's my feeling. Can't deny the fact that the swing-link, geometrically and mechanically, does something power wise (more about that lower down). It's not there just for looks.

Agreed about making statements regarding reliability and it being anecdotal, but again, like i mentioned, i wrote *i think*. Which means it wasn't a fact, it was a personal, emotional observation. Not a numbers supported fact. Something of which you are guilty as well, might i add.

I might not be surprised if the Guide RS was more powerful, just like i'm not surprised it's not. Again, thinking stuff, emotional observations, made with a lack of data. Call it gut feeling or something else. You'd be surprised at how many discussions and developments start on that basis. After all, how else will you make something better but on a gut feeling something might be better?

How will being a Sram tech (not a developer/design engineer i suppose) or a mechanic or a 'tech at a global race series', whatever that means, or having a ton of Sram spare parts help me understand the basics of physics, levers and hydraulic systems? What you're saying is a car mechanic 'you're an engineer, you can't put apart and back together an engine, what the hell do you know about stuff, i reassemble engines all the time" to someone who designs certain aspects of said engines. Aspects that the mechanic won't even be able to grasp, yet is telling the engineer that he has no clue about? Not saying that that is the case with you, but i'm kind of getting that feeling, sorry.

As for industry e-peen, flaunt it. It's a good reference in some cases. You being a mechanic for brakes, trying to convince that i have no clue about physics and the like, does nothing sadly. At least not in this case. But i love to hear details about the industry from people related to it, since i don't have much experience. Sadly. What i do have experience with is mechanical engineering (i have a masters degree from it, so much for e-peening) and i work at an automotive supplier testing and validating both the performance and the lifetime of products in development, mostly actuators for cars for a plethora of different uses (both cabin mounted actuators and drivetrain mounted actuators with insane vibrational and temperature requirements). I know a thing or two about how to test things and how to interpret data. We have done a fair share of interpretation on missing data as well.

As for armchair engineering, i'll throw this out. Provide the brakes (anything you want) and the funding and i will put together a test bench for the brakes. Pneumatics actuated brake lever with a force sensor on it to ensure constant 'finger force' on all tested brakes, an adequate, stiff frame to mount the lever, rotor and caliper to (to not invalidate the results this way), a representative inertial load to stop and an adequate torque cell measuring the torque output of the system. Everything will be recorded in real time and analysed so we can determine the 'time to stop' on an equal footing. We might even be able to do the 'spec rotor and pad' thing if you're interested besides the factory things. The braking force and the starting energy ('speed of the rider' if you will) will be measurably constant, so only the performance of the brakes will be at play here. I'm happy to do it if a news outlet provides the funding, just take care of it. I'd provide the funding myself, but i'm sadly not insanely rich. Which is the reason i don't have pistons of different Sram brakes lying around here to measure so i have to rely on the internet (which is the reason for the 14/13 mm Guide piston size). I'd happily measure them myself.

Ballparking, the test bench could probably be made for a few thousand euros, i'd need to check some prices first though.



As for my final try, regarding the effects of the swing link, think of it this way (which i have already tried to explain). You have a certain force available from your finger. And a certain range of motion (stroke). The force and stroke give you a finite amount of energy available to be input into the system. With cars you have the addition of the brake booster muddying things. With bikes you don't have this, so it's a much more pure system. A 'what you see is what you get' kind of deal.

Now, disregard the swing links, piston sizes, etc. The energy is (mostly) conserved, so let's say all of it goes into the clamping force of the brake pads. The more you move the brake pads, the less force you will have for the set amount of energy. SO you can make an insanely powerful brake, but it will move the pads just ever so slightly. With the industry moving towards more pad clearance to give you quiet brakes even with bent rotors, that is not much of an option. So you're mostly stuck with a set braking force. You can increase the output power with a bigger rotor (same force, longer lever, more torque), but we're disregarding that too, since we're using the same rotor size for all brakes to keep things consistent.

Now, with a given output force at the caliper, this means the pistons and the brake lever mechanical advantage (stroke at finger vs. stroke at piston) will also be largely the same. What you can do is, instead of a constant force through the travel for a given energy input, vary the force through the stroke. The 'average force' or the total energy input into the system will be the same. But the bit that interests you, the actual force value (the braking force) at the end of the stroke, will be higher (or lower, depending on the design).

Isn't a variation in the force through the stroke exactly what a swing link (or servo wave actuation) system does opposed to a directly linked system? Isn't it logical then for the swing link to provide more power?

As for modulation, modulation is the amount of lever movement (since humans can move finger for a given amount quite well, but can't specify the force of the finger really well) and the change in force that movement causes. With a direct link the change in force for a small movement will be large. For the swing link (with the lever trying to in essence move past the cam), the lever will move a lot for the cam and the piston to move a little. Giving you small changes in the force output (with it being high, mind you) for a large lever throw.

That's why it both increases modulation and the power. And increased power is mentioned sometimes as well. And is clearly shown in the (incomplete) data you have provided.
  • 3 2
 @Primoz:
If “everybody” wants more braking power, swinglink creating measurably massive amounts more power (torque, which wasn’t shown in testing values) then it absolutely would be shouted from the rooftops. Which it isn’t. Shimano’s servowave is pretty widely discussed in reviews as boosting power and pad clearance.

The average torque data I provided was from a review with a hope dyno with a constant 40nm force at the bar, and was done to a decent extent if you believe the review. It’s the most “complete” data on the internet. It’s not hard to find, but for someone who can’t google what piston size guides are, it could take you a little bit I suppose.

Being a SRAM tech gives me access to the reps, warranty department, and I’d tend to think the people who designed the brakes will know which ones generate more power vs. ONE person’s “feel” about what has more power, i.e. guide RS over codes. If one of your friends says saints don’t have a lot of power and another says Altus have a ton of power, this doesn’t mean anything, and yet this is the kind of fallacy you jumped into right off the bat.

You can’t even use google correctly to figure out piston size, and immediately started throwing out numbers to support your theories based on it. That worries me. After a quick search in your other comments, you claim you’ve “replaced pistons and the like” on guide RS. Not that you need to know remember piston sizes offhand, but that info is readily available.

So I’m just saying, what you have is a bunch of wild conjecture admittedly not based off using the different models of brakes, not working on the brakes, and not believing other customers who’ve used more than one of the relevant systems, press releases, reviews, whatever, that the codes are a stronger brake (15% more power than the guides is a tagline which gets ferried around a lot)...I can’t help ya there. I did find it interesting that you’re the only person I’ve seen say anything along the lines of not being surprised if guide RS have more power than the codes.

What isn’t expensive and doesn’t involve trying to create a test bench with 10k+ in brakes to create statistical significance would be to get a set of better levers from the same family and strap them to your bike, whatever system you have. Far from a statistical test, but that alone would give you a better idea of braking power generated (or lost) from the swinglink. And not that you’d particularly care about my anecdotal experience, but I’ve done that lever test, and didn’t feel anything that would make me believe that the guides are stronger than the codes. And, directly gone from full guide RS systems to putting code R levers on the same system. And, unfortunately putting guide RS levers on a code caliper on my current bike for a week when it was down.

And for what it’s worth, I appreciate you only implying that you think I’m a dumb shit.
  • 2 2
 @AgrAde:
Road bikes which for giant have a ML size in giant (56ish) for people who are 5’11, but high end mountain bikes tend to leave out that specific size and instead straddle it in terms of recommended sizing.

Rarely do I have a customer go outside the size that the company recommends, though out of people who actually ride, though I have had a 5’6 guy genuinely claim he needed/rode a size large CX bike and a 5’0 woman say she *needed* a small women’s bike (when there was an XS readily available) because her tri coach told her so. Plenty of people out there who think they know how to read a size chart and don’t, unfortunately. Yet, the average customer can’t even get seat height on a road bike in the right ballpark on their own.

Market research on sizing isn’t my area, and I don’t claim to be a fit guru on mountain bikes. What I can say I’ve heard in the past from different companies product line reps on sizing jumps and overall size choices, specifically mountain bikes, is that there’s more leeway than road since the rider is more dynamic standing up (duh). On having such a big jump, I can’t speak specifically for this model yet, but what I’ve heard in the past is that there’s only so short they want to go in terms of reach on a small in order to have “balanced” handling front to back.

Of course, it’s a reps job to drink the kool aid so I don’t particularly put much stock in that. BB to top of the headset is a good measurement, but what sucks there is that giant specifically generally sticks a massive headtube on a large, and often times the same length one on a small and a medium, which may play a part in the stack measurement for you.

If you’d honestly like a canned answer from a giant rep on the sizing considerations for this particular model, shoot me a PM to remind me, and I’ll give you one if you don’t have a local dealer you’d bother asking
  • 2 1
 @parkourfan: I review bikes so I'm drowning in kool-aid from reps, don't worry.
  • 3 1
 @parkourfan: The Code is the more powerful brake, you can't have massive differences in the Guide lineup. It wouldn't look good. At least that's how i imagine marketing works.

So you say servowave is discussed as boosting power and pad clearance? Pad clearance is exactly what the swing link does as well ("Thanks to a special cam shape that requires less lever throw to push the pads toward the rotor the Swinglink provides increased control while minimizing deadband,"). Why wouldn't it boost power as well then?

Ask the guys who have designed the brakes then. Not the reps, not the warranty department, the engineers in Colorado actually doing the design. And it's not ONE person. I was giving a specific example as an example. I'm sure you can find loads of comments all over the world about Guide Rs having little power.

Yes, i have changed the pistons on my RSs, all of them, caliper and master cylinder pistons. But you don't need to know the size, just order the correct part number kit. Talk about going back on saying something before hand (aiming at your comments that you have tons of Sram part number kits available). Or do you have a huge bag of pistons where you take out one after another and measure them with the calipers to find the correct sized one?
As for Googling, Enduro-Mtb has (still has) the 13/14 mm size for the Guides posted in their Code R review. Sorry for trusting the site that has one of the most detailed and number supported brake tests on the internet to be correct about it and not double check it. Sadly Sram doesn't provide numbers. And yes, i checked.

It's not expensive, but the problem is i ran Guide RS on the bike i sold already and now run Code RSCs. I'm not going to buy a set of R levers, but i have been thinking about getting someone to lend me a set of Rs. And i've been thinking about putting the light friend with Rs on a set of RSC levers (with the original R caliper to boot). But who knows when that will happen and for me buying Rs, i mentioned i'm not doing it since i'll happily run my more powerful swing-link brakes. You can of course provide me with a set of Rs. You say you have tons of parts available, surely you can spare a set to prove someone on the internet wrong?

As for all the 'can't do googling' comments, don't worry, generally my googling is very good. What worries me is your use of 'nm' (i suppose you meant Nm), a measure of torque, to describe the force. And i now see which test you meant (i've seen it before, don't worry), and looking at it, the performance of Guide T is better (10,2 s) than Code R's. So in that regard the Guide family is more powerful than the Code family (which is basically what you were saying before). And given how much variation there is in regards to effective torque vs. stopping time in a test that should be as impartial and controlled as possible, i'm afraid there were some issues. Average braking torque over a given time period gives you the energy the brake produced while braking. And the energy, if everything is right, should in this test be a constant given the effective 100 kg rider simulated by a dyno and a constant 40 N force on the brake lever.

This will be my last post in this thread as i've tried to explain simple physics principles and used too many analogies and examples to still be called an idiot that can't Google while trying to explain high school pyhsics to someone who either likes to say to me how wrong i am and make me fight windmills (hope you understand this reference) or really can't grasp the physics and prefers the words of marketers (who are well known to omit facts and bend the truth to make a product look better). Game, set and match in the mechanic telling an engineer how stupid he is.
  • 2 1
 @parkourfan: Here's me eating my own foot about it being the last post... I just saw that the 13/14 mm piston size for the Guide review is the exact same review you use to try to make your point regarding stopping times and the likes. So you're saying i can't google because i used data from an article that you also use data from. Which means if my data is bad, yours is as well. Now what?

Over and out.
  • 3 1
 @Primoz:
The last thing I’m gonna do is ship $150 of levers to Slovenia. I will, however show off the toolbox and and travel kit on here at some point if that’s your issue.

In that test, the code r’s STILL put out more braking torque and a faster 30-15mph.

In that test, back to back, there’s a negligible difference in average torque output between the r and rsc. As I’ve said multiple times (and you’ve ignored), swinglink is modulation first. So, do take the time to explain the obvious stopping power difference in the code RSC and the code R. Pixie dust? Terrible testing methodology? You’re supposed to be the career engineer here.

And do tell me the difference between the “original r caliper” and the caliper that comes on an RSC - riddle me that one. I’ve been using, rebuilding, and servicing these calipers and different levers since the XO trails.

SRAM parts packages will tell you what size the pistons are, so you should remember the sizing. I definitely remember the size of seals, pistons, torx sizes and torque (I suppose if I forget to capitalize my nm on my phone you’ll have a stroke) across different brands of brakes - and I rarely have to change pistons in the caliper. It doesn’t take a genius to google “sram piston kit” and double check the size. Any site that carries the rebuild kit will have the correct measurement. So, if there’s anything I can logically prove to you here it’s that you can’t find a part size using the entire internet. Take a step back instead of making excuses.

Sorry you think you’re in the engineering Illuminati since you have a master’s - I apologize for stopping at a BS and taking a few years off to enjoy being a race tech and manage a shop instead of spreading misinformation and math based on improper parts. Appealing to authority is always a weak fallacy at best when you can’t prove your point, or have no applicable experience. Another classic case of an engineer thinking they’re hot shit. There’s plenty of technical/training documents from both SRAM and shimano out there that I’m forced to read, watch, and pass to get certified, which explain in tons of detail how these systems work. Too bad you still have ZERO personal experience across the systems you’re discussing, and try to hide behind what you THINK the design should do on paper - clearly, without knowing basic info on these brakes - and not even being able to use google to even pretend that you’re an expert.
  • 2 1
 @AgrAde: YouTube? Online? Not calling you out, I’m always happy to bookmark another review source. And, see what you say about sizing jumps from other companies if applicable.
  • 2 1
 @Primoz:

I appreciate that foot eating, but I know off the top of my head what size they are. I don’t need a reviewer to tell me, and if you google “sram guide piston” you’ll find a rebuild kit, which will tell you the sizes. Just a helpful little hint of how to, you know, use google.

I gave you what I said was the best consumer available test, as nobody else has a test with a bench like that. I created no argument past saying that this is what’s available to you, explain where the massive difference that you say there is stemming from the swinglink. I certainly didn’t say it was good or that they did their homework correctly. There comes a point where reviewers should realize that they’re there for subjective info, not trying to make a reliable test method.
  • 2 0
 @parkourfan: he's just trolling I'm pretty sure.
  • 50 1
 Im somewhat impartial to the whole Shimano vs SRAM debate, but why the hell does no one spec the new SLX or XT drivetrains on 2020 bikes?

On the lower end models you sometimes see Shimano 5xx brakes, and I think Commencal has some on their 2020 bikes but that’s about it.

Does SRAM really have such low OEM prices?
  • 6 0
 Orbea also speced their 2020 models with shimano slx/xt. Also giant has, but not the reign 29, apparently.
  • 6 0
 Yeah kinda interesting, especially given Shimano sponsors the factory Giant team. Yeti being another example. And then neither has Shimano anywhere near the top specs available.
  • 16 0
 But those 520 are the 4 piston ones, probably the most sensible budget option right now
  • 20 2
 Yes, they do. Shimano doesn't really give breaks to manufacturers like SRAM does. And it sucks. I think tons of people would be thrilled with SLX and XT builds over GX. Only real shimano builds for brands are XTR and cost 10k. Guess that's not too much more since this one is 9k.
  • 15 4
 Sram does have ridiculously low OEM prices, especially for NX crap. Shimano SLX must be more expensive than NX, but a lot better too. But they also force the manufacturers to buy brakes, transmission and suspension in bulk.
  • 12 0
 @Ktron: I think you will see all their bikes in shimano next year you have to remember these bikes have been planned and sorted long before shimano even had there new groupsets
  • 11 0
 It's bound to have something to do with Shimano's micospline 12 speed freehub, for which a limited number of wheel manufacturers have patents. That's going to impact on how many brands spec it at OEM given that it gives them a narrow choice of wheels.
  • 6 0
 Giant wheels are dt wheels so they would have the option I’m pretty sure @wohwee:
  • 9 0
 It might be that Shimano hasn't really ramped up production of the new 12 speed drivetrains yet. Keep in mind that product managers need to make sure that component makers supply them with enough product to get all their bikes out the door. If that is the case, we will see a lot more shimano stuff on next year's bikes.
  • 7 0
 @Whipperman: It's less that Sram "forces" manufacturers to buy brakes, drivetrain, and suspension and more that they "encourage" it through offering better discounts when a manufacturer buys all three from them. Yes, at a certain point, Sram says you need to buy this minimum amount in order to spec a bike but then again so does Shimano. Sram's advantage ultimately comes down to being a one-stop-shop for braking, drive train, suspension, and accessory needs. Without a suspension division, Shimano will always be at a disadvantage here.
  • 9 1
 Codes are the dh brake, they're actually good
  • 13 0
 Rocky's 2020 Lineup is FULL of SLX/XT/XTR builds...
  • 7 0
 Pinkbike had an article awhile back that made note of how far in advance the design teams have to commit to the parts spec. Its possible that once SLX/XT was announced it was too late to make it for this particular model year.

Another thing worth considering is the major lag between XTR being announced and it being readily available due to production issues. I'm sure large companies don't want to make that sort of commitment and then have no parts available.
  • 3 0
 SRAM is easier to get in a short notice than Shimano apparently. For a manufacturer it can be a big deal. Shimano is a big ship to turn, they need a lots of time to fill an order where SRAM is apparently way quicker, especially for a big guy like Giant!
  • 4 0
 @Ktron: All 2020 Yeti models have a full XT build option as the T1 build kit .
  • 9 9
 What bugs me is when companies spec Shimano brakes with SRAM drivetrain or vice versa. I don't like the mismatch. Keep brakes and drivetrain the same because the companies made them to integrate well together on the handlebar.
  • 2 0
 @poolboy1-0:

Checked them out, man they look good. Excited to see what the new Slayer will bring.
  • 3 0
 @thelastrun: I agree, the releases in the coming months/year will likely see Shimano 12 as one or more option. It was definitely worth waiting for!
  • 11 0
 I don't care how far out they have to plan their builds, I'll take a 2015 SLX over this NX garbage any day of the week.
  • 4 1
 @lwkwafi: great point. My Trance 27.5 has full SLX (last series), transmission and brakes and it’s rock solid, and the brakes are easy to bleed. Proper reliable workhorse groupset. Previous bike had GX and Guide R’s, the SLX is so much better.
  • 8 0
 @hamncheez: I'm still trying to figure out how an affordable and reliable 11-speed 11-46 SLX is so inferior to all this new 12 speed garbage...
  • 3 1
 @lwkwafi: is it so much that shimano doesn't give breaks to oems, or rather sram that gouges consumers?
  • 7 0
 Shimano is hell to deal with on the OEM side, they're so big they literally don't care- and SRAM is much quicker to move the needle and be a business partner. That's what I see anyway.
  • 7 0
 @hamncheez: and the really odd thing is if you're just shopping groupsets on ebay (or wherever) SLX comes in way cheaper than NX Eagle. The OEM package discount must be massive. But I guess when affordable 12 speed stuff is out there it's tough for bike companies to resist putting it on new bikes, vs that "old" 11 speed group.

Still though... what do people hate so much about NX / SX, aside from the weight? Recently got an SX equipped bike for the wife, figuring if it sucked that bad it's $200 for a SLX 11-46 setup. So far shifting is great though, and I'm sure SunRace will have a cheaper, lighter cassette option in a year or two.

But maybe my standards are just low... I'm still spending most of my time on 10 speed 11-42 setups (X9 & Deore). Neither have given me any trouble.
  • 3 0
 SRAM owns Rockshox. SRAM can offer you a bundle on suspension, brakes, drive train and dropper post. Unless Shimano starts making suspension expect SRAM to continue to basically dominate the OEM market. Shimano doesn't care though, road bikes don't have suspension.... yet.
  • 4 0
 Cost. Sram is cheaper to buy wholesale if you are a bike manufacturer than shimano. Markup on sram is much higher and makes oem bikes looks expensive. NX group is not even close to slx in terms of quality and reliability.
  • 2 0
 It sucks that it will be more like late 2020 models with Shimano products.
  • 1 0
 (Sarcasm font) It sounds to me that shimano has a harder time mass producing "quality products" as well as sram does.???? .
  • 1 0
 Yeti does on the T1 build kit for the new SB145
  • 2 0
 i just read somewhere on mtb-news, that if a manufacturer specs his bike with e.g. a Pike he has to use the complete SRAM drivetrain, cause then it's much cheaper. Maybe this would be an explanation, why we don't see any SLX/XT Drivetrains on Rock Shox Suspension Bikes?
  • 1 0
 @ka-brap: this makes sense, but then they spec Fox suspension...
  • 4 0
 Shimano is notorious for slow production. Talking with my Giant reps, they say they get tired of waiting for Shimano parts to show up, in effect delaying product release and shipment. Remember how long it took Shimano to get 12-speed XTR to the masses? Now, imagine how that affects the bike manufacturers.
  • 1 8
flag Andresjb (Aug 8, 2019 at 8:04) (Below Threshold)
 @gillyske: Shimano owns Fox suspensions.
  • 3 0
 @Andresjb: False.
  • 1 0
 @plorwax: The NX group isn't even designed to go up against SLX though, it's meant to go up against deore.

If we look at just mtb.
SRAM: sx, nx, gx, xo1, xx1
Shimano: atlus, acera, alivio, deore, slx, xt, xtr

Basically everything in shimano's line up to deore in mtb is irrelevant to marketing trends and would be embarrassing to spec on your bike in 2019.
The issue we are facing is that shimano either can't compete or won't compete with SRAM in the 1x12 space below slx. Now it might possibly be too late as even people like yourself, regardless of whether you believe the performance is on par or not associate NX with SLX. It isn't all about cost, its about SRAM being able to deliver a new product that the average ride wants at a price point that the average rider can afford. Whereas shimano wants you to buy a 10sp that'll last forever and be reliable under the legs of a pro, SRAM is offering the same thing to the average joe who probably won't do anything taxing to a SX or NX.
  • 1 0
 @gillyske: SLX is cheaper than nx, and I would much rather have an 11 speed SLX or Deore than 12 speed nx or sx boat anchor cassettes.

All things being equal, 12 speeds shift worse than 11 speed, are less efficient because of the larger drive line offset, are heavier, more expensive, and more sensitive to improper setup and/or bumps from use.
  • 32 3
 so basically if you're 5'11" your reign is over???
  • 8 4
 Yes, they've reigned on your parade. If only they'd reigned in the reach a little.
  • 4 1
 Huge gap between M & L, reach numbers.
  • 28 3
 The sizing is spectacularly stupid. People's height follows a bell curve and they've made a gap right in the middle where most of the people are. Giving the most amount of people the least amount of choice doesn't seem like a very good decision to me.
  • 5 3
 Yip. You'd have to be a freak to fit this bike. I'm 5'10" but with 6'3" arm span and long legs. The only way I can get the size Large bike to work for me with the weight split taken into account is to put a 60mm stem on it. That would make it a bit uncomfortable to ride though. Bikes these days are getting out of control with the front centre length especially on the L and XL frame sizes. Forbidden Bike co are one of the few who seem to have it worked out. I find a lot of reviewers saying that they are trying to change their riding styles to try and weight the front tyres. Geometry has got a lot better but I think it is on the cusp of going too far. Chainstays need to grow as the front centre grows.
  • 16 9
 @AgrAde: Giant's lack of experience in the cycling game is showing here.
  • 26 2
 @MTBgeometryguru: I’m confused, how can someone 5’10 comment on the reach of L and XL bikes? If they’re too big, maybe you’re a medium?
  • 7 0
 @BenPea: I smell a sneaky bit of sarcasm in your comment.
  • 8 0
 @tobiusmaximum: 455 to 493 jump in reach. If you're like 5'10-6'0 (very common height range) you have a choice between too short and too long. They need a size in between, jump is too big.
  • 3 3
 @MTBgeometryguru: the M is perfectly fine for 175-180cm. Im 180cm myself and anything over 450/460mm Reach just doesnt feel right.

And I have long arms and legs too.
  • 6 0
 @tobiusmaximum: and despite your signpost, a couple of punters have walked right into it.
  • 1 0
 @tom666: right, I get ya. Not the bike for them, then. Plenty of fish..
  • 3 1
 @NotNamed: I'm 180 cm and I find 460mm feels a tad too short, 470mm feels just right. Different strokes!
  • 4 0
 @gnarnaimo @NotNamed : Reach doesn't say much without stack. Your "just right" 470mm will feel dramatically different if the bike has 580mm stack vs 640mm.

Annoyingly, the jump in reach between M and L on the Reign is exacerbated by a jump in stack between those two sizes.
  • 7 3
 @tom666: I'm 5'10" and my bikes are 408mm reach and 445mm reach, both a good few years old. I regularly ride both of them and have fun. I'm certain I could ride the small, medium or large and still have a good time. When riding this bike i definitely wouldnt be worrying about the large being 19mm to long or the Medium 19mm to short! Folk read in to the geometry to much, it seems like it has become the deciding factor to whether you going to have fun riding your bike or not.
  • 1 0
 @Ttimer: My Megatower has virtually the same stack (as the reigns large) at 470mm, my last bike had almost 30mm lower stack with 461mm reach and I feel so much better now.. My personal "just right". The sizing on this reign is seriously very bad..
  • 2 4
 I'm 5' 10" and usually ride large frames but I bought a medium Reign last year and it still felt too long. The bike just felt weird and I sold it.

But the worst part about the bike was the rear suspension. Felt semi-active when descending, but lots of movement on the climbs. Severely outdated and inferior suspension design.
  • 3 1
 @Laymo: At 175cm, 5'9", the dead average male height for the USA, 480mm reach on my low stack hard tail is perfect; 460mm on my higher stack enduro bike is barely too short.

For those doubting the benefits of a longer reach paired with a steeper STA, you really need to give it an honest try, and long enough to adjust (and make sure you have a short stem). It really is a lot better.

And at least for the USA market, as has been said before, height distribution is a bell curve, and Giant literally made a pothole at the most commonly needed size.
  • 2 0
 @MTBgeometryguru: Agreed, that reach is very long on the large, and I'm 6'. Also that wheelbase won't even fit on my bike rack! And I just bought an expensive Kuat tail hitch rack. Frown
  • 5 0
 @Laymo: seriously?? you must have had your setup very wrong!! sounds like too much compression and not enough air pressure to me. mine floats like buttah and rarely bottoms out. may have also been a bad shock??
  • 3 0
 @mybaben: I wouldn't be küat dead with one of those racks. Everyone would think I’m a kuat.



I’ll show myself out.
  • 2 0
 @SacAssassin: LMAO!! Yes, please do!! ;P
  • 1 0
 @mybaben: That sucks. It's a nicer rack that the Thule T2 Pro but the pro will go to almost 52"
  • 1 0
 @tobiusmaximum: Yes I could ride the M but it would take a bit of adjustment with a 60mm stem and 40mm riser bars. I have a Large 275 Trek Slash. Very similar Geo as the M Reign but it is too small for me. Forget about height. It doesn't mean too much, it is just an easy way for bike companies to suggest a bike size for people to ride. It's about the height of your shoulder and the length of your arms and legs.
  • 1 0
 @tobiusmaximum: I'm old and I've ridden a lot of bikes. Perfect for me is 635 stack and 505 reach depending on chainstay/ wheelbase to get the weight split right. Yes I can ride the medium but it is the same as what I've got now and my bike is too small. If I had shorter arms the M would be great. Most bikes seem to be optimised for my height with normal arm span as this is the average height of most of the potential bike buyers.Tall guys have got it tough and guys with long arms or really short arms.
  • 3 0
 @MTBgeometryguru: I would also speculate that those who need a smaller bike than their height would suggest also have trouble finding a big enough helmet. Am I on the right track?
  • 1 0
 @NotNamed: What is your arm span though? Mine is 190cm. Depends what you ride too. It's not as simple as just working on a reach number. Stack is just as important as is your arm length. Reach on its own means nothing. The lower the stack height the longer the bike will feel. If you have been riding Trek, Giant Spec etc they have traditionally been very low in the front end. Look at Evil, Devinci etc and they are very high stack heights and they will feel a lot shorter for the same reach number. I know this as two of my kids have devinci's and the Large 29er Spartan is way too small for me.
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: I think it would be fair to say you lost me there actually!
  • 1 0
 Dont be ashamed to run 70mm stem. Richie runs 60mm too.
  • 1 1
 @lifted-d: I did some experimenting but never found a good trade off where it felt good on the downhill and the climbs. The bike wasn't a super inefficient at pedaling but it had a quick little tug in every pedal stroke that made it annoying. Had the DVO shock, and the rear suspension didn't feel as active as the Santa Cruz and Specialized bikes I've owned. Its a awful suspension design with that solid rear triangle, needs to be freed up to be more active.

I think part of the reason the handling felt weird is because it has short chainstays, and for some reason the head angle seemed steeper than 65, the bike did not like steep downhills.
  • 1 1
 I don't get the issue with reach tbh. The write of the artical states the he likes a 460-480 reach. I'm very close to the same height as him. He needs a medium. Giant has a size chart on their website as well to make more sense of things. I think most people are on the longer is better train right now and they don't understand that there's a tipping point.
  • 1 2
 @tom666: lol wtf. If you are 5'10 you get a medium if you are 6ft you get a medium or large. Pretty cut and dry.
  • 1 0
 @AgrAde: they may add an M/L in the future would be my guess.
  • 2 1
 @MTBgeometryguru: I agree with. Way to much time in the ready position on parts of the trail. you should be able to be neutral on the bike conserving energy In smoother sections. I love to attack the trail when need be but it is also nice to stand taller on mellower parts of the trail and rest for the next bit of gnar.
  • 2 0
 @StraightLineJoe: Great that you have fun on all your bikes. I also have had a lot of fun on bikes that don't fit me at all. The thing is though, sizing does impact things like how comfortable and stable the bike is on steeps, how it maneuvers and how comfortable it is to ride all day.

I've ridden a lot of bikes and 465-480mm reach is where my preference is. That's a nice balance of something that feels long enough that I don't feel I'm going to go over the bars on steeps but also maneuvers well but is also comfortable all day. If I'm going to spend £2k on a frame it's going to be the right size for me. I couldn't really buy this Reign frame because 455 is too short and 493 is super long. I guess I'd have to get the 493 reach and fit a super short stem.
  • 23 5
 I really don't understand the fuss about a 1.5" difference in reach between two sizes. That's one and a half thumb widths and were talking about a mountain bike, not a trekking bike that has you sitting in one place for weeks straight. I think most people would be able to ride both around the shop and come away with a clear preference, and if you can't make one of them fit with a stem swap or saddle adjustment you are the princess in 'Princess and the Pea.'
  • 20 8
 Have Giant not now come full circle with the 27.5/29 wheel debate.

I thought I could remember them saying 29 would be the size, but then changed to 27.5 as mentioned, and now back to 29ers.

I look forward to getting my old 26er frames and forks out of the shed in a couple of years.
  • 13 10
 There seem to be less and less 27.5 bikes coming out these days. A dying breed?

I'm still on a 26" but I'd rather have a 27.5 than 29er for my next bike, but the choices are more limited.
  • 5 0
 All depends who they were making bikes for at that time ,
  • 5 2
 Spe did the same at one point. No one seems to hold any grudges against them.
  • 7 6
 @Jacquers: I am not even remotely contemplating on 29ers. For a city hardtail I would go 29, anything else wouls be 650B tops
  • 3 2
 Was easier to push the 650B agenda...make 26 obsolete without putting in the effort to make a sorted 29er (getting the stays short enough with maestro an issue).

They got left behind and are playing catch up now.

Bike looks good though.
  • 17 1
 They're a company supplying what the market demands. Unthinkable.
  • 16 0
 whats wrong with a company changing with the times.
It would be far more concerning if they stuck their head in the sand and carried on with a ‘thats the way we’ve always done it attitude’.
  • 7 1
 @FrEeZa: I thought the same until I started demoing some of the latest 29ers.
  • 3 16
flag chriskneeland (Aug 7, 2019 at 5:37) (Below Threshold)
 @mnorris122: Yeah, there are more Jerry Jinglhiemers out there crawling around on their trash-niners than there are real mountain bikers. Which is fine. We need the Jerry's of the world to buy the handicap bikes to make the sport viable. I just wish more companies would offer real mountain bikes for those of us who know how to ride them them. So props to Yeti for not selling out. Now if I didn't have to sell my first born to get one.
  • 4 0
 It's simple - the ideal wheel size is whatever size you don't have yet. Maybe 26" could also return in the future with a slight twist - you'd still have to buy something.
  • 3 1
 @Whipperman: Specialized either resisted or initially got left behind on 27.5, depending on whether you happened to be drinking the Kool Aid. They claimed they couldn't see enough benefit to switch their smaller wheels from 26”. I often wonder if that was true and they were right.

What Specialized didn’t do was wholesale adopt what was at the time a fringe wheelsize, forever changing the bike industry and dropping the bottom out of the used bike market. That's why people hold a grudge against Giant for their 27.5” agenda.
  • 2 1
 Going with such a long reach for the large is strange. If its too long at a place like Revelstoke, then I'd say its too long period (since most of us don't ride at place like Revelstoke).
  • 2 1
 @SlodownU: You can always buy a medium.
  • 4 3
 @Whipperman: Wrong. Specialized thought 650b was a waste of time and it looks like they were right,
  • 5 1
 @Jacquers: 29 geo gas changed dramatically In the last few years. If you havnt tried one recently on an actual trail I recommend you try it.
  • 2 0
 Does this mean we can look forward to a return of the Giant overdrive steerer? One can only hope!
  • 1 0
 @jclnv: They first said it was crap, then released 650b because they sold quite well
  • 3 0
 @Whipperman: No the decision was consumer driven. Pressure on dealers by consumers.
  • 1 0
 @chriskneeland: Medium ain't quite long enough, and large is way too long.
  • 2 0
 still rocking a 2012 Reign 0, 26 that is !!!
  • 12 0
 2 seat clamp bolts spreads load better, meaning less risk of dropper posts not working great from being over-torqued...
  • 6 3
 Funnily enough, when correctly torqued to factory spec the 2-bolt giant seat clamps are actually way too tight for a lot of droppers to work properly.
  • 6 0
 @sam264: like anything - if it's too tight, loosen it. Viewing torque spec as a maximum helps.
  • 1 0
 @heinous: that's wrong. Sure, it might be max but on a lot of components it's minimum too. A float x straight up won't work unless you torque the internal lock out bolt to 2.5nm. no more no less.
  • 1 0
 @j-t-g: definitively don’t put the float x internal lock out bolt in the seat clamp at 5nm then.
  • 1 0
 @heinous:
I'm aware of that, my regular torque wrench barely registers the correct torque (maybe 3nm?), luckily my internal torque wrench is fairly well calibrated Wink
  • 13 4
 i always loved the reign, but this does not impress me. basically no bike for someone around 1.8m (5.11) and 146mm reartravel. i know 29 inch wheels compensate but now that i am back on 160mm of travel i realise that thats not true for the big hits, i would have hoped they give the new reign at least 160mm.
  • 11 2
 No, 29inch wheel dost not compensate for travel, believe me.What 29inch wheel does is keeping momentum and rolls over *small* stuff better, but hit a proper chunky line and the suspension takes over.
  • 7 1
 It's like a jacked up trance. We need more separation btw the Glory and the Trance. I miss my 167mm Reign flying passed the moon and back then pedalling up some ridiculous steep section.
  • 13 0
 Bring back the Faith! 170mm 29er yes please...
  • 2 1
 The L would be fine for someone 1.8m when run with a 30mm stem. Heck I'd say the XL would be fine for a person 1.8m tall too if the seat tube length wasn't so long. I do agree that the lack of 160mm rear travel is disappointing.
  • 3 0
 So maybe you can run 205x65 shock and get full 160 (158mm) of rear travel? That will make sense. 146/160 for allaround setup, 160/170 for charge.
  • 2 0
 At 1.85 I'd probably go with a L with a 30mm stem, which I already use with a 480mm reach bike. If I was 1.8 I think I'd go with an M with a 50mm stem. But yeah, I think that a sweet spot for reach that all brands should include in their lineup is 470mm. It fits a hell of a lot of riders. It's one I wouldn't mind trying as well.
  • 3 0
 @SintraFreeride: not all jumped the longer is better bandwagon.i have tried longer bikes and they dont work for me, i have gone up by 3cm in reach since 2014 though.
  • 4 1
 @optimumnotmaximum: I have gone up 90mm in reach since 2014. I won't ride a bike with under 500mm of reach and I'm 1.8m. Each to their own though.
  • 11 1
 The new Reign 29 is designed under similar criteria of almost all other competitive 29 inch enduro bikes. Ripmo-145mm, SB150-150mm, Force 29-150mm, Slash 29-150mm, Process 29-153mm, Mega 290-150mm, etc etc. Everyone looses their mind over an Ibis or a Yeti and the Reign squares up with tidy lines and a linkage that will last longer than ten minutes. If you really need 160mm in a 29er, hunker down on the climbing gems of the endurbro bike world, the Megatower or Meta AM29. New Reign looks like one of the more usable bigish bikes on the 2020 market.
  • 9 1
 Wow. Tariffs are real. Or Giant decided to claw back a few points. This isn’t such an amazing deal like Giants have been in the past at retail. If you can get shop cost on the other hand...
  • 4 0
 Tarrifs for REAL. The bike's are still good deals up here, a few Giant models have actually gone down a little in price for 2020!
  • 5 2
 The tarrifs 100% are real and they suck. Raw material prices are higher and contrary to what has been spewed, the consumer eats the cost, not the manufacturer.

Shop price is always better but even they are higher. Unfortunately Giant doesn’t care to make the profit margins bigger for the shop. Lower-end bikes always have better margins than top-tier models.
  • 3 0
 The Adv 0 is $2000 USD cheaper in NZ, and the other ones are about $500 cheaper.
  • 11 4
 We'll I'm a 6'2" Montana boy.... And I bought the XL 2020 SX model sight unseen after test riding the 2019.... This is my second Giant bike.... All I can say for Giant is it is one of the best "Bang" for your buck companies out there..... If we all get down to the basics, most of the frames follow the same geometry!!!!! So it's down to the few moving parts.... And I don't need to pay an extra $1000 because some "good" part is screwed to an up charged frame... And any relatively good bike, can probably out preform most riders!!!!!! To bad they don't sell a bigger set of "balls" with some of these bikes!!!!! Still, I love me a Giant!!!!
  • 8 1
 My 2018 Canyon Spectral AL 6.0 was $2400. It has full GX Eagle, Guide R brakes, DT Swiss M1900 w/ DT370 wheels and Pike RC. Since I'm not yet an experienced rider, the brakes and wheels are more than enough for me, even the geometry.
Bike prices have become absurd when these NX and SX Eagle came out. I miss the days when GX was the lowest spec.
  • 3 0
 Agreed. When NX and SX came out I was hoping that it would just be this tech trickling down to lower tier bikes. Instead NX is just being spec'd at the same price points GX was which is disappointing.
  • 4 0
 I am a (very, too) experienced rider. I find that almost all modern components work extremely well. Fading brakes are inversely proportional to appreciate-beauty-breaks. My Ripmo has a pretty basic build, but does the job.

However, despite or because of my years (in the saddle and on the planet), large mass, and taste for challenging terrain, I think I ride more gently and slowly than most PB commentators. The Ripmo is great at full-stop maneuvers. I wonder if the Reign, with the long reach, is similar. Old men, such as myself, love these modern long-travel 29ers, they are so comfortable and easy to ride. I take the same lines as when I was young and crazy.
  • 4 0
 We can look at the sizing gap this way: The Pole Machine in size M is basically the same as this bike in L, with an extra 25mm of spacers over the head tube, or an extra 10mm travel on the fork + 15mm of spacers. This reduces the reach by 10mm and increases the stack by 23mm, making their front end almost exactly identical. The size M Machine is recommended for 170-180 cm riders. So there! If your height fits into that interval you can either be old school with an M or cutting-edge modern with an L.
  • 4 0
 Have enjoyed my 2015 Reign Advanced 0 and had to adjust some riding techniques because the frame was so different from past bikes. After adapting, e.g., avoiding pedal strikes, it’s been a true joy to shred on the Reign! After reading all these comments about the new Reign it would discourage me from buying one, but all the bikes I’ve owned have received some sort of negative feedback, but I’m thankful, encouraged and content with being healthy and being able to ride a bike. Honestly, getting on the MTB trails and escaping the disappointments of life has been enough for me, don’t care about the brand as long as it is mid-level to high-end components, tuned and lubed. Most of the modern bikes are being built at near the same level of performance and since I’m not a racer or pro I enjoy riding single track trails anywhere near my home. For what it’s worth my current Reign is the best bike I’ve ever owned and it makes me a better rider. However, I’m not loyal to any brand only the sport, so my next bike will be different brand.
  • 10 5
 So now, the Trance 29er is the XC bike, while the Reign 29 is the trail bike.
  • 3 1
 Does it take integrated or normal headsets? Hard to tell from photos and Giant's site isn't live for this yet.

Anyway if it's possible to run an angleset you could do so which would do two great things for those stuck in the weird sizing for a large; reduce the reach and also get a slacker HA. Slacker HA is maybe polarizing but after spending time on a SJ Evo and owning a SB150 a slacker HA is only a good thing for this type of bike and when the SA is appropriately steep.

Cool bike though.
  • 3 0
 That Reign SX fits the bill for what I,m looking for. Coil sprung trail pounder for the local Fiver races. Too bad I don,t deal with the local dealer. Time too shop around an arrange a test ride.
  • 2 0
 Theres a Giant store in Langley.
  • 1 0
 @Tmackstab: Yup , also have a connection direct as well. Bike is very promising , solid foundation to build off.
  • 3 1
 A reduction in rear travel from 160mm to 146mm - I'm out. As an owner of a 2015 Reign advanced 0, I was really looking forward to this new model. They have been improving year on year.

This bull about 1.5" larger diameter wheel (0.75" on the radius) being able to compensate for a reduction in travel is bull. All this says to me is, they couldn't get the design right. Other manufacturers of 29ers have 160mm and greater! It's been said elsewhere, a bigger wheel is not going to help me for big drops.

Also, the price of the Reign has grown exponentially year on year since their 2015 model when they adopted essentially this shape. The advanced Reign 0 with arguably equivalent spec was £5400 ($6500) now £7400 ($9000) That's a cost increase of 37% in 4 years! I wish I could get that return on my pension / savings etc!

O well maybe 2021.....
  • 6 1
 Finally ,the updated reign
  • 3 0
 They're both (USD)$4,000, you have a choice between a Reign Advanced Pro 29 2 or Reign 29 SX. Which one do you choose and why?
  • 5 0
 Depends if you want the better suspension, or you want the carbon frame. I'm going the SX with new wheels and XT 12sp.
  • 7 0
 Really nice that Giant is producing high-spec alu builds. I'd go with the SX all the way (or then the Pro 29 1). Overall just a really appealing bike, definitely high up on my list when looking into a new bike next year.
  • 7 1
 SX, definitely. Better suspension and better brakes are more important than carbon. Especially because Giants aluminium frames tend to be very light already.
  • 8 0
 @Clarkeh: yeah disappointing on the NX drivetrain. Should be GX at least
  • 5 4
 Whichever one isn't made from carbon. Metal bikes every time
  • 4 0
 @Ktron: Eh, they spent the money on the suspension instead which I am a fan of. It's not too much more to upgrade to a better drive train, personally I'd just get the GX/XO shifter and wait for the mech to die.
  • 4 0
 @IllestT:

The carbon bike has a 2 years no questions asked free crash replacement program, which turns to you pay 25% of msrp if you break it within 4 years, 50% within 6, etc.

That was a big reason why I went with the carbon over the aluminum SX model for park use last year. I’m sure it’s stronger, and if I do have a problem they’ll throw a free bike at me
  • 5 0
 Seems like a typo in the geo chart for the XL wheelbase
  • 3 0
 It's been a long time since I have even looked at Giant, but I am really liking this one. The hobgoblin green is also a plus.
  • 4 0
 At last they steepened the seat tube angle! 73 degrees is way too slack on the 27.5 models.
  • 2 1
 effective angle. if you're tall or have a long inseam, it's going to be slacker than claimed...
  • 2 1
 my previous bike was a 26" wheeled Reign, (and the bike before that a trance) it was an monster of a machine. Saved my bacon numberous times, climbed rock gardens like a tarmaced path.

On the third round of replacing the bearings though (10 of) i decided my next bike would be a single pivot.

Back then the TWO 29er trail bike options were Orange 5-29, or the Santa Cruz Blur LT. Everything else was an XC whip.

That top bike looks incredible. The metalic green, the travel spec (150mm is more than enough on the back end for me) I I would normally avoid a fox fork, but i dont think it would bother me on that. Awesome.

Still got 10 bearings to look after though, and they dont look any bigger.
Why dont bike companies suck up a few grams in the weight and spec proper bearings in the pivots?!
  • 1 0
 What bearings did you replace them with each time? I changed mine a decade ago and they haven't budged. I am light, but I also push the bike's limits.
  • 2 0
 Bigger bearings won't help much.. The problem is that bearings are designed to spin, not rotate back and forth over the course of a few degrees...
  • 2 1
 @lumpy873: It is way more complex. Issue is that manufacturers spec sealed cartridge ball bearings. Cheap. Small. Light. Generic. Easy to install. Easy to replace. So far so good? Not really. Ability to withstand twisting forces (sideload on chainstays) - terrible. Longevity at limited movement/static load - really shit. Resistance to ingress of dust/mud/degreasers/cleaning solutions/pressured water - even in double rubber seal variety it ain't nothing to write home about.

I wonder which upmarket brand will finally introduce massive, properly sealed tapered roller bearings that simply outperform those puny ball bearings in every aspect - with real lifetime warranty. When they start adding external rubber covers on them. Or when someone goes "fcuk ball bearings, plain bearings with grease ports it is" and bad weather riders will finally rejoice.
  • 2 0
 I had a 2011 ReignX for 4yrs and only changed the bearings once. Put some well packed full-complement bearings in and they last for yonks. Way better bearing longevity than my Ibis bikes... I miss that
  • 2 0
 I've heard plenty about pivot hardware walking out and bearing issues and seen one giant (an old model anthem, no less) in the last two years come in missing hardware. I've had zero issues with any of the new stuff, and I never had issues with my 08 reignX which had no bearings replaced for the better part of a decade except for one bearing getting a bit of a crunchy squeak to it.

I think the stiffness of the new carbon links and better QC has left those problems in the past.
And, the new fox forks have a pretty long service interval to them, which is a nice upside.
  • 3 1
 Interesting to see the reach on these. Giant has always played it safe with standard sizing. They seem to be taking a progressive approach with the longer reach. I am definitely going to demo one
  • 3 0
 The 2015 Reign was out in front in the long and low geometry push, low BB, pretty short stays when that was the push and the 65* head tube back then was very slack! That bike did not play it safe with sizing at all...

Now they did sit on their Asses and not update that geo for EVER... the 73* seat angle was questionable in 2015, but just stupid that they stuck with it for so many years... If the largest bicycle manufacturer in the world can't afford to update it's molds every couple of years than just stop making carbon frames...???
  • 5 0
 Fawk I love that green n black!
  • 3 2
 Already reading complaints about the new rear carbon triangle flexing and causing break rub issues. I’m sure the engineers will get it fixed, but I personally like the rear being aluminum on my current 2015 Reign 0. Mine weighs 28.5 lbs. Guess I’m old school, but I still like bikes and components made from metal; however, looks like they are far and few between so carbon will suffice. However, the Pole bikes are very appealing and a Stamina 140 or Evolink might be my next sled.
  • 3 2
 Hopefully the carbon will take the hits better than the 27.5.
I've just cracked my 2nd Reign Adv and Giant UK have refused warranty because it was due to impact (even though they warrantied the first one for exactly the same reason). I'd understand if I was abusive to my bikes and if it wasn't designed to be ridden on big terrain.
Won't be recommending Giant carbon to anyone in the UK... unless they adopt the Composite Confidence as Giant US have.

The bike has been incredible otherwise, but I'm massively concerned how easily mine have broken.
  • 2 1
 Same here in Germany and the Reign Advanced ´18- one of my ISCG-tabs broke off without any major impact. They refused to warranty it as "broke due to impact"...well it´s meant to hold a bash guard ffs?!

Alu Reign ´15: Only thing ever happened was a bent Bash guard, tabs stayed strong for the whole 4 years.
  • 4 2
 "I spent two days on the Reign 29 Advanced Pro 1 model, which retails for $9,000" Wasn't it the Pro 0 ?, thats what matches with the pics above
  • 3 2
 Long(ish) reach and short chain stays, going to be an interesting one for balance. Would of thought they'd be out at 445

Seat angle is a big improvement, old Reign you were swinging off the back if you were long legged.
  • 2 2
 I don’t know if it’s just me... but I have a 2016 Reign size large. And that reach is too much for me (I’m 6 foot). I’m trying to sell it because of that issue. Maybe I like shorter reached bikes. But man oh man these new ones are even longer. No thanks for me.
  • 1 0
 do you have a short stem on and a zero offset post? I rode a large for a 'test ride shuttle' for about 3 hours and it was fine though naturally too long for my 5'8" maybe the seat angle comes into effect at higher extension? maybe the new reigns steeper seat angle would fix your issue
  • 1 2
 I sold my reign 2016 xl because I nearly sat on my rear axle (me: 190 cm and 93 cm legs) and going uphill was painful.
Reach was fine, stack too low.
Hope this works better with the new models.

146 mm rear travel is a no go, especially in my region. I used every mil of the old reign's travel.
  • 2 0
 @Buddler: Have you ridden a 29er?? Serious question!!
  • 2 1
 @cheetamike: currently I am riding a capra 29.
  • 1 0
 @Buddler: You must ride at DH/Park speeds. I ride a 150/120mm 29er and am mostly single track type trails. If I saw more DH/Park speed I would want maximum travel as well.
  • 1 1
 Giant never comments on their BB height, cuz it's low and then they spec it with a 170 crank to try and get around this. Terrible. And a 439 chainstay length isn't ground breaking by any stretch. It's still gonna feel loose with that.
  • 1 0
 All modern brands spec 170mm cranks on enduro bikes! Specialized even... Transition, Yeti, Santa Cruz, Commencal, NukeProof etc. Sounds like you are behind ion the current trends and specs. Sam Hill uses 165mm cranks.
  • 2 2
 Giant’s customer service and parts Dept are not good at all. Even the LBS’s that carry the brand can’t get parts or returned calls sometimes. Wait... Make that most of the time. Sorry Giant. You’re not getting any more of my cash. Giant is a prime example of how to not take care of the customer after sales. Sorry everybody. Not trying to bash at all, just my experience over the past few years. Don’t want to see anyone else go through the same.
  • 1 0
 Seems opposite of what most USA customers say. Giant is the most generous brand out there. Now they offer 2 years no fault replacement for FREE!! No brand does this. FYI- Warranty is manufacturer's defects not consumers mishaps.
  • 2 1
 What’s the deal with Giant and offering at least some builds with DVO suspension? I’ve become quite fond of my DVO Diamond and Topaz combo.
  • 4 0
 DVO could not keep up with the OEM demands. They do well for aftermarket in low volumes but could not handle large scale sales. There was quite a sigh of relief when Giant announced end of cooperation with DVO.. I liked it too, don't get me wrong..
  • 2 0
 @i-am-lp: They also didn't or couldn't produce any efficient XC equipment for the factory race team, which also played in heavily.
  • 3 0
 This bike looks alive in green!
  • 2 1
 ....146mm of travel does not roll off one's tongue as nice as 150mm does. I guess they really could not Reign on an extra 4mm.
  • 1 0
 Appears to be 5¾", because why not hey?
  • 2 0
 long stroke shock is a complete 180 for Giant. Ripmo runs a 55 for same travel versus 60 on this. very cool.
  • 2 0
 they need to bring back the ML size for this. holy sh1t. 40mm jump in reach between M and L?! wow
  • 2 3
 I'm riding a 2017 Reign Advanced 1 and I love it. I was planning to get the new Reign early next year....I guess not any more.

How a $9000 bike is not spec'd with full XTR or perhaps some Saint components is beyond me....and I fully refuse to ride SRAM.

The Reign had been consistently improving since 2015...I mean, did a new manager come into the Giant Reign department and F everything up or something???

and of course I'm also 5' 11"
  • 2 0
 trump tarrifs
  • 2 3
 First, best full model line up paint/graphics I've seen from Giant in like FOREVER.... the frame only is killer!

But, 115mm "Trance", 146mm "Reign"...? Did somebody get their spreadsheet offset by one line and they've been naming all the bikes wrong? Smile Surely this only rates a TranceX moniker at best? Smile

I totally do not get the 146mm instead of 145mm?

At this point I think most of us assume current Maestro design and long travel 29er just aren't playing well together?? (which for all the people who say Giant stole the tech from DW should make it obvious that somethings not the same?) So, no 160mm, no 150mm; OK. But is that extra 1mm of travel supposed to make us feel like the bike is more capable than a Sentinel or Smash, etc.? Weird. IDK, but it "seems" like Giant is letting Marketing make too many Production decisions...???

Honestly I kind of thought the 115mm Trance was going to be a "one off" oddball model just so they had a new 29er to market quick when all the 29er interest was back again. I assumed the next 29er to come from Giant would have some kind of updated Super Maestro thingamagigy that got them back to travel norms. (or close enough)

At any rate, this looks to be another great quiver killer...
  • 3 1
 Bold move Giant using press-fit bottom brackets...
  • 3 0
 very nice.
  • 1 0
 Holy reach Batman. Is that number right? That is a huge increase in reach from a M to L.
  • 4 2
 Reign in blood
  • 2 0
 That's hot.
  • 2 3
 The Advanced 0 and 1 paint jobs are sex. Dropper travel is Bs though! 125mm size L and below. Worthy of an XC bike but not for what this is intended.
  • 3 5
 What's the difference between this Reign frame and the Trance?
Obviously the complete bikes have different components, but the frames look extremely similar, at least on paper
  • 4 0
 The trance 29 has a waaay shorter reach (462 on the Trance, 493 on the Reign both in L), a 1.5 degree steer HA and 30mm less travel. They are definitely in different classes.
  • 2 1
 are the geo numbers right? the difference bewteen M and L is so big.
  • 3 2
 Can we talk about a $9000 Giant with X01 and Giant Carbon ????????
  • 3 0
 SRAM x01 which is a good 1k+ groupset and lighter than comparable shimano OEM groups?

Or giant which manufactures the most bikes in the world and has the best carbon warranty on a bike frame on the market?
  • 1 0
 No desire to upgrade from my 2017 SX. That’s good for my wallet!
  • 3 2
 How high is the bottom bracket? Most reigns drag on the ground
  • 1 0
 Sorry Mike, size large is way too big for you. 1258 mm wheelbase!
  • 1 1
 Yeah, this geo is weird... I'm 6' and feel like that reach would be huge. Also, the damn thing literally won't fit on my bike rack with that wheelbase... Frown
  • 3 0
 @mybaben: I have a cheap AF Sportrack rack, and my Pole Evolink fits with room to spare.
  • 1 0
 @bishopsmike: What brand is that?? I'd like to look into them. Thanks,
  • 1 0
 @bishopsmike: Thanks for the link!
  • 5 3
 $9k lol
  • 1 0
 a 431 mm seat tube lenght for size small.... too high for short people...
  • 1 3
 No mention of any axle standards and why the rear looks like it has some kind of a flip chip? But as long as we go into detail on the stubby seatpost clamp....
  • 2 0
 If it were super boost, they’d mention that. Beyond that, what do you want them to say about axle standard? You think it might be a 142mm axle? It’s not.
  • 1 2
 @BrambleLee: What do I want them to say? How about anything... considering they touch on much duller points throughout the article, mentioning something that can either make or break your $3,000 wheelset with compatibility is a bit more important than a seat clamp.
  • 2 4
 I stopped reading at 125mm dropper on s-m sizes. The bent seat tube design really limits the dropper length. Terrible design.
  • 1 1
 Yeah, I have a newer Embolden in the garage and getting a proper dropper to fit sucked because of the seat kink. Had to go very short. Their kinked seat tubes should be called out here. Its garbage design that sucks for taller guys too when the seat is fully extended, thus the actual STA kicks in, wheel lift happens...and obviously for getting a long dropper in. Sure its rideable but a flaw plain and simple. Pass. There are just too many great bikes in this range already.
  • 1 0
 I have a 150 mm post on an older Anthem and Trance. I'd be surprised if you couldn't get one onto these new bikes, though, I'm not sure why they don't spec it that way from the factory.
  • 1 0
 Welcome to
  • 2 0
 Welcome to modern 29ers from companies who wanna keep chainstays shorter than maybe they should. Gotta let that wheel go somewhere.
  • 2 0
 @Svinyard: get f.ex. a OneUp Dropper, they´re short
  • 1 0
 These are bikes to fit a wide variety of people. You can use whatever length you want. All 29er bikes with extreme drop seatpost are trendy right now. Guess what?....if it is too much drop, you just buzz your junk or butt on steep drops or chutes. How low is too low?
  • 4 4
 SRAM everywhere. Too bad.
  • 2 1
 No mo DVO?
  • 1 1
 They didn't fix the seat angle on the 27.5 Reign though?
  • 1 0
 @mrtoodles I looked had the 2020 27.5 models also, and do not seem to have any changes at all - disappointing Frown
  • 1 1
 That stand over though. Ouch!
  • 1 3
 as a happy owner of a Reign LTD 2016 and a 27.5 lover I say
29er? no
146mm? no
colors? ugly
so now I am looking to a 2018 or 2019 Reign frameset.
  • 5 6
 Isn't this under embargo???? @mikekazimer
  • 4 0
 Well it technically was privately released for Aus/NZ today, guess North America got public release.
  • 3 0
 Embargo ended today
  • 7 0
 @PetrolHead209: Not yet it doesn't. 5pm UK. This story bust the embargo by a full 8 hours.
  • 2 0
 @PetrolHead209: Definitely didn't
  • 5 8
 Why would anyone ever consider paying $9,000 for a Giant??
  • 3 4
 and therein lies the rub: for 9k you can get a lot of bikes that are not Giant, and a lot of bikes for less than 9k that are better than Giant, so it seems like the only folks buy a Giant would be looking at an LBS only versus looking more broadly at a range of options in a category.

The review was not that positive, so I'm thinking it was a repackaging with a nice blingy paint job, hoping to sell eye candy versus a decent bike for a realistic price.
  • 2 1
 Not me. My Giant broke clean in half.
  • 5 0
 @Kramz: Which never happened to any bike before EVER and I'm sure you were just riding along on the green way and NEVER took it off any sweet jumps...
  • 1 0
 @stiingya: My friend bought a Giant Reign, and it's freaking sweet, so I don't know. I just wouldn't buy from them again personally, bad omen. It's a prominent feature in my life, I owned two Norcos that were bullet proof. Soooo, can't really say I'm being unfair.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.062729
Mobile Version of Website