You are hereForums / General Discussion / NoBMoB Chat / Giant Trance X range
Giant Trance X range
Hey all. I know there's been a shedload of talk about the Trance range and other similar bikes on the site lately, so i hope i don't tip people over the edge with another query. I know people's opinion of a bike is largely personal to the point where some consider the X0 to be xc/trail and others would call it all mountain, but what's going on with these AMB reviews?...
I was stoked to see the Trance X2 reviewed last issue, just as I was to see the X0 reviewed Oct/Nov 07. But now I'm a little confused. The X2 got an 8.1 rating and wasn't considered much good for all-mountain riding. However they gave the X0 9.5 and thought it could definitely do all-mountain, even a touch of freeride! What's going on, especially since AMB thought geometry was a bummer for the X2?! They're the same frame right?
By the way, I'm actually considering buying one of the Giant range in the near future so I would be very interested in your response, I'm not just being a bandit.
Seeing as i probably won't get a clear cut result from this question, here's a more direct one: I am eyeing off the Giant Trance X1 and Reign 1 - practically the same price, either would suit the trails i ride - which one is better value for money?
Thanks (and feel free to put me in my right place if i've missed something along the way here).
- Login to post comments
- Bookmark & share
The Trance X has more rear suspension travel than the stock Trance. The more travel, the bigger the hits the bike will take. Although I don't agree that a bike like that can be used for "all-mountain" - not in my opinion anyway. I would question whether the Trance frame is up to hucking it off jumps and rocks. Once or twice maybe, but hundreds of times?? But as you say, each to their own. There is the easy side of all-mountain, and the narly side of all-mountain. I prefer the rougher side of narly.
I guess i can narrow the topic even further actually...after some thought i feel the Trance X1 is the bike for me (i probably don't need all the travel of a Reign) but it bothers me that AMB said in a recent review "if only the geometry was slightly more trail friendly". How did a Trance X0 get the all-mountain title in their Oct/Nov 07 issue then??
All the Trance X models should have the same geometry as they are all the same frame and same fork (various levels of the same Fox F120). I'd say it is probably a case of two different people doing the two reviews.
I would also agree with Liam is saying that is is closer to XC than all mountain given the build kit. eg skinny XC tyres, lightweight rims, forks, saddles etc.
The head angle of the Trance X is slightly slacker than the Trance as it has a longer fork. I haven't ridden the two bikes back to back so I can't say how much difference it makes.
Having said all that, I'm happy with my Trance X. It's a nice lightweight bike that can handle everything I do (mainly XC riding) with the odd small drop here and there.
I think AMB just got too excited with the X0 and decided to qualify it as an AM bike
It's definitely not an AM bike, it's a "trail" bike 
By the way the stock Trance has not surprisingly been discountinued - it's not in the 2009 catalogue anymore. The Anthem X has entirely taken over the XC race category.
I just saw the 2009 X1 - not a fantastic paint job IMO...seems so they've decided that for 2009 people need to see the name GIANT on the frame
In the end if you want the 2008 model you may have to get it at the first Sydney store that still has one...good luck !
Tom
If you are thinking you will be riding on all types of terrain, going really fast downhills without needing to bother picking your line and protecting your rims from rock damage, hucking it off up to 5 footers and everything in between, and not overly concerned about blasting a top speed in a race, I think the Reign is a better fit than a Trance. Probably the Yeti 575 is a better fit than a Trance. The Trance is quite lightweight and fast. I hope that gives you more to think about. Possibly it makes your decision easier if you think about what your preferred riding style is?
Well seems the 2009 Giant range is on the website. Holy crap the X0 is expensive now! But it does now come with a Talas fork and a full XTR drivetrain. Very blingy.
Also most of the Trance X range now has the QR15 axles. Supposedly stiffer and better steering but you'll have to ask Rob about that.
But yeah as Liam says, if you plan on jumping off stuff regularly then the Trance X probably isn't the go. A Reign would work nicely and it's pretty light too.
If your a light dude who rides with finesse, take the Trance X. If your a solid dude who lands a bike hard, go the reign. I would not be confident to lend my X0 to a heavy dude who has the skill to ride off large drops. It just seems too light and fragile to handle that kind of abuse.
Does anyone know where i can find the stock weight of the bikes in the Trance (XO,XI,X2,X3) and Reign (X0,X1,0,1) 2009 ranges?
Let me tell you about these two great bikes. I have a 2007 reign and my girlfriend has a 2008 trance x.
They are both great bikes. It's all about how you want to ride and how long you want the frame to last before it snaps. As others have stated, the reign is a tougher product, and will last longer. I'm talking in the lots of years category because I've not heard of any giant frame breaking when used within it's design parameters. Don't be overly concerned with the extra travel in the reign or geometry numbers. Ultimately all maestro bikes ride the same with some slight differences associated with spec, build and overall travel.
Go to your favourite shop and get a test ride. Remember that final set up may take a while to sort out, personal things like pedals, seat, grips, suspension settings, stem length, tyres and the like. These things are hard to determine immediately.
The bottom line is this, and it echoes Noel. If you have only one bike for off road, enjoy leaping of things, are large in size and generally give your gear a hiding, buy a reign. If you are a light weight, ride with finesse, and have another bike for all your freeride antics, go the trance x.
Remember, it's the botched landings that breaks bikes, not the size of the jump. Well, within reason...
I'm with delicious-p I have a Reign 2006 to which I have fitted a set of 454 Rock Shox PIKES (forks) I take it off 4+ foot jumps; I have proof
and compete with it on 100km cross country races. After a lot of homework I bought it for that reason and as noted above, the Giant Reign does it all. No need for two bikes.
Pikey
-------------------------------------------
Salad is what food eats
-------------------------------------------
Hey thanks everyone for all the great advice on this topic. Much appreciated. I ended up buying a Reign 1 on the weekend and totally feel like i made the right decision. (No, i didn't make my mind up in the short time since my top post - the last few weeks have actually been the final stage of about two years of contemplation!).
My advice now for anyone making the same decision... i found out that the trance and reign are very very similar bikes, so i just went for the 0.5 degree slacker head angle and slighlty tougher build. this makes me more confident trying a wider range of trails and since i don't compete or watch the clock when i ride the minimal extra weight (< 1 kg) doesn't bother me one bit.
Awesome, post pic of your new bike pls (upload as photo)! That's the bronze model yah?
It must be the 2008 Bronze one because I don't think the Giant 2009 catalogue has arrived in stores yet (anyone know when it will?).
I've been wondering if one day I want an AM bike to 'play' with, would it be a bit silly yo get the Reign when I have a Trance X? It is *almost* the same frame (just a little bit thicker and a higher head) or is it actually a good thing so that the transition between the two is smooth? Mind you I've always also been drooling on Yeti's 575
Tom
I picked mine up from my local store on the weekend. It's out there, go get it.
cool which one did you get? Photos you too please
Tom
Sorry Tom, I meant i picked up the 2009 Giant catalogue. The 09 bikes will hit the stores in about 6 weeks and i am planning on getting a Reign 1 (RRP $3295). Giant have adjusted the geometry (head angle) for the 09 model, looks good.
I'm curious to know what the stem length on the Reign is?
I really like the Reign 0 but I find it strange they don't put better shifters than X9's (hate them with no indicators) or even have a Talas RLC instead of RL. For the top bike of the range they ought to
Tom
Oh Tom, you make me laugh. Eyeing up another bike to purchase? You'll have a houseful of bikes if you're not careful. I fully endorse this, of course.
Now, onto some important matters.
Stem length should be frame size specific, so I'll talk about the medium size frame as it's the size I use and thus have some experience.
The 2007 Reign had a 90mm stem. I changed it for a 70mm. I did this because the 2006 bike reportedly had a 70mm and felt better. Mine immediately felt better, giving a more freeride feel and upright seated position, and doesn't feel cramped. It climbs nicely and has more snap off the lip of a drop or jump.
I understand that 2008 models also feature the 90mm stem and I'd say a swap to 70mm would be beneficial. I stand 183cm tall without shoes which puts me into the intended demographic of my frame size.
Both 2007 and 2008 bikes feature a 69 degree head angle. 2006 bikes have a 69.5 head angle. For 2009 they go to 68. See the pattern?
What all this means is that the bike will be more stable overall yet due to the unchanged 73.5 degree seat angle it'll still climb as well as...your Trance X...
Which brings me to forks. The bike quite simply has the wrong fork. This may well be bold statement on my part. After all I'm a cuisinier. I spend most of my day cooking food for the good citizens of our city and I'm no engineer nor a bike company product manager. Nor have I had a go at the 2009 model. I just feel that a 160mm fork, like a Fox 36, would suit this bike best, using a 70mm stem. This is because the bike is promoted as having six inches of travel which is 152mm and the OEM fork is 140mm. The longer fork would balance the bike nicely, and slacken the geometry a little further. With careful set up the bike would still climb very well, and overall this bike would handle all terrain presented to it.
On my Reign I tend to use all the fork travel to bottom out. And often. In the rear I tend to use all the travel with only the occasional bottom out. This tells me the rear travel is adequate and the front is not. I think Giants' spec choice is based on price which is odd because the dearest Reign is $4295 and the dearest Trance X is $5495. Surely an up spec version could be made available with not just a whole lot of bling, but a more suitable fork.
The RRP of Fox 36 forks is $150 to $350 more than 32 forks depending on the model and Giant certainly wouldn't pay Australian dollar retail nor supply after market product so the motive of all this is cloudy.
Now many of you will point out that the Reign X features the very fork I speak of. This is true. However the Reign X is quite a different beast and that bike too is underforked and deserves something like a Totem. Yet that is another story...
As for shifters with indicators...
Look at the trail ahead, not your shift window. I prefer Shimano anyhow. XTR has no shift window and the other groups have a removable one. Best idea in shifting since indexing...
By popular demand, I have uploaded a few photos of my brand spanking new Reign (see image gallery). Majura Pines was a dream introduction to my new ride.
I look forward to meet you on a ride in the future so we can compare with my Trance X1
hopefully under the guidance of delicious-p who seems to know so much about Giant bikes!
Tom
I feel a ride posting coming on...