Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am 5"5" tall, 170 lbs and I ride the trails in SOCAL. I am an experienced trail/XC rider but not a racer.

I am thinking about buying a Trance 2 but I am nervous about the weight of the bike as well as it's ability to climb. Also how does it compare to the SC Blur XC?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,083 Posts
Weight, what weight??

Trance doesn't weigh anything unless you get off it and try to lift it up :D Very serious that's the only time you notice that it's betwen 27-32lbs depending on the build. Climbs like a damn mountain goat, just read through these here threads in this forum for reassurance on these facts.
 

·
Weekend Warrior
Joined
·
138 Posts
Haven't tried the Blur, but I'll concur with LyNx, the Trance climbs much better than my old hardtail. I know it weighs in a little heavy, but because a lot of the weight is kept low around the bb it feels incredibly stable and great going up or down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,083 Posts
SC Blur??

Forgot about that part of the question. Well this is the GIANT forum and most here don't have or feel to spend that sort of coin for a pretty decent bike, so we spend a lot less and get great bikes :D Seriously you can't really compare them to each other price wise, but as far as I've seen and read you ain't really getting anything extra for the extra cash you dole out for the SC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
I'm now experience in both areas :)

I just built up a 2007 Trance frame. The complete bike with a Pike, Magura FR brakes,
20 mm thru axle and Kenda 2.35 Nevagals is somewhere around 32 lbs. but as others have said, you really don't notice the weight. On Saturday I did a long technical ride with lots of climbing and I never had any problems related to bike weight. The Trance is very balanced.

I spend a good deal of time on the Blur XC riding in Norcal (East Bay - Pleasanton Ridge) last October and the two bikes are very similiar. Having narrowed my bike (frame) choices to a Blur XC, Intense 5.5 and Trance, I went with the Trance because the geometry was very close to the other two while it beat them on price by a significant margin.

For the kind of East Coast riding I do, the Trance is an excellent choice as we face lots of rocks, roots and small climbs and drops. I.E. your typical Eastern woods riding. I never had any problem with the 4.2" of rear travel. It always seemed to be enough and I neve came close to bottoming out. I am also very impressed with the new Fox RP23 and how easy it is to set up.

Enjoy the bike and don't worry about the weight.
REV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Rev Bubba,
Why are you running 2.35 tires on a 4" bike? If you went to a 2.1 your Trance would pedal a whole lot easier, epecially a 2.1 tubless. Strange setup dude...2.35 belongs on the Reign not the trance.
 

·
Weekend Warrior
Joined
·
138 Posts
Cause it's a Heavy Duty Trance

I have 2.35s on my Trance and love it. For general trail riding, jumps and technical descents I find that 2.35s give you more stability. Of course, there's little more rolling resistance, but I don't mind putting in a little more effort.
If you had a look at Rev Bubba's description you'd see that he's running a Pike with a 20mm through axel - definately a heavy duty trance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,083 Posts
Oooopps I missed the memo about this...

Ooops I to must have missed the memo saying the Trance is sposed to be an XC only bike :rolleyes: Got mine setup for aggressiveXC/AM/Whatever and have some 2.3" and 2.4" tyres I use on occassion. If I had more tech DHs I'd use the 2.4's on a regular basis, but since I don't the 2.1" Nevegal works fine for general stuff but the 2.4's just roll over anything and make the DH's so much more fun/fast - especially the rutted ones..

motoxer913 said:
Rev Bubba,
Why are you running 2.35 tires on a 4" bike? If you went to a 2.1 your Trance would pedal a whole lot easier, epecially a 2.1 tubless. Strange setup dude...2.35 belongs on the Reign not the trance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
Stability

I find the Trance works very well with the 2.35" tires on the rocky terrain I usually ride. The wider tires allow me to run 28 psi without pinch flats which help me roll through rock gardens much easier than on a narrower tire and, yes, they are slower but when I'm in the woods, the trails I ride don't really lend themselves to speed.

I use the 2.1" Nevagals or Python Air Lites (I switch depending on conditions) on my hardtail when I ride easier trails and am more concerned with speed over stability in rocks.

As a reference on where I'm coming from, the parts on my Trance came from my Chameleon where I was running a 2.5" front, 2.35" rear on a hardtail. The wider tires certainly added a nice bit of suspension.

I've discussed the changes over the past twenty years of mountain biking with a couple other old [email protected] and we all seem to agree that wider, softer, tires may be one of, if not the most, significant improvement in regards to riding technical trails. I can ride some really nasty stuff on a hardtail if my tires are wide enough while a narrow tire on a FS still limits my ability. I'm not talking flat out speed though but being able to climb rocks, roots, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Forks for the Trance

Bubba's comment about the Pike made me think -- how big are people going with their Trance forks without creating a disturbing front/rear balance or adding too much height/slack to the front? Coming from a 5.7" Nixon front on a 6" travel bike, the 4" Reba is a little small for my liking, even if I'm just 150 lbs. What can I say -- the added travel was comfortable and instilled confidence. The Pike is 5", right? Anyone else riding 5" or bigger forks? My Nixon would be too much, but maybe a 4.5-4.75" fork would be perfect. What's that? Revelation u-turns are 85-130mm, but what else is there? Fox makes noting between 3.9 and 5.1". Marchozzi seems to make lots of 85-130mm forks. What about Manitou's Minute forks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Rev Bubba said:
I find the Trance works very well with the 2.35" tires on the rocky terrain I usually ride. The wider tires allow me to run 28 psi without pinch flats which help me roll through rock gardens much easier than on a narrower tire and, yes, they are slower but when I'm in the woods, the trails I ride don't really lend themselves to speed.

I use the 2.1" Nevagals or Python Air Lites (I switch depending on conditions) on my hardtail when I ride easier trails and am more concerned with speed over stability in rocks.

As a reference on where I'm coming from, the parts on my Trance came from my Chameleon where I was running a 2.5" front, 2.35" rear on a hardtail. The wider tires certainly added a nice bit of suspension.

I've discussed the changes over the past twenty years of mountain biking with a couple other old [email protected] and we all seem to agree that wider, softer, tires may be one of, if not the most, significant improvement in regards to riding technical trails. I can ride some really nasty stuff on a hardtail if my tires are wide enough while a narrow tire on a FS still limits my ability. I'm not talking flat out speed though but being able to climb rocks, roots, etc.
Dude you are so on the money with those comments about the newer bigger tyres being one of the biggest improvements. So much less punctures for me now as well as better comfort, better grip running something like a decent (i.e. not Hutchinson buldogs!) 2.2 or bigger tyre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Trance set up and weight

I have played around with my 05 Trance 1 and I feel that I have it pretty well dialed in for a trail bike (other than the fact that I would like to increase the rear travel to 5-5.5"). Here are the mods I made from the stock spec 05 Trance 1. XO rear derailler and XO Grip shift, Fox Float 130 RL, Easton Monkey Lite riser bar and 100mm EA70 stem, Kenda Nevegal DTC 2.3 front and Nevegal DTC 2.1 rear tires on the Cross Max SL tubless with Stans rim strip and sealant. This bike is a 16", weights around 26.5 lbs and kicks ass!! It climbs harder and steeper terrain (if I have the gas to give it) than any bike I have ridden yet Including my Kona Hot which climbed like a bottle rocket. As for tuning, I weight 140 lbs. and I run 125 lbs in the rear RP3, 6 clicks in on the rebound and mostly in the middle pro pedal spot. In the fork, I run 65 lbs and 5 clicks in on rebound. Check it out and let me know if you have any questions about my set up.

Thanks,
Allan
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
Trance 1 set up and weight

Thanks 101! It sure rides well and I find that it can do most everything marathon rides, technical riding and moderate free rides, definitly a pinner. Like I said in my post if I can figure out the linkage/ shock setup I will change the rear travel to 5+ inches, I will either have the lnks made for me or wit until some aftermarket links come along for the Trance.

The Giant Maestro bikes rock!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
NJ-XC-Justin said:
Bubba's comment about the Pike made me think -- how big are people going with their Trance forks without creating a disturbing front/rear balance or adding too much height/slack to the front? Coming from a 5.7" Nixon front on a 6" travel bike, the 4" Reba is a little small for my liking, even if I'm just 150 lbs. What can I say -- the added travel was comfortable and instilled confidence. The Pike is 5", right? Anyone else riding 5" or bigger forks? My Nixon would be too much, but maybe a 4.5-4.75" fork would be perfect. What's that? Revelation u-turns are 85-130mm, but what else is there? Fox makes noting between 3.9 and 5.1". Marchozzi seems to make lots of 85-130mm forks. What about Manitou's Minute forks?
The Nixon isn't too much. I put a 20mm axle Nixon on my wifes Trance before she got her bigger bike. It worked very well as an all-mountain sort of ride. It had 2.375" tires (Schwable Fat Alberts but the barely fit past the V-brake bosses on the rear triangle), a different wheelset, bashgaurd and a 60mm stem. It climbed very well, handled nicely and weighed about 31.5 pounds (16 inch frame). I recently put XC parts back on the frame and now it climbs like a rocket but is not as good on the rough, technical trails we have here in BC. It makes a great crosscountry trail bike and weighs about 26 pounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I think most people miss the XC racer memo with the trance...I'm about to put an azonic outlaw wheelset on my trance and i know some of the weight weenies and people that think 4 inch travel bikes should only be used for light xc riding are going to freak out. I love the trance set up as an all mountain ride and i could care less about the weight really
 

·
May contain nuts
Joined
·
2,413 Posts
manitou2200 said:
Kenda Nevegal DTC 2.3 front and Nevegal DTC 2.1 rear tires on the Cross Max SL tubless with Stans rim strip and sealant.
Why the rim strips? Got a hole in your Crossmax rims?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
I'd rather have a 32lb Reign

TampaTrailRider said:
I think most people miss the XC racer memo with the trance...I'm about to put an azonic outlaw wheelset on my trance and i know some of the weight weenies and people that think 4 inch travel bikes should only be used for light xc riding are going to freak out. I love the trance set up as an all mountain ride and i could care less about the weight really
than a 32lb Trance!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
This thread is ancient but I just happened to come across it again and now that I own a Trance X0 and have experimented a ton with tires I had to post again.
2.35 nevegal in the front and a 2.1 in the rear....both tubeless...best of both worlds!! I love this setup! The 2.35 up front is amazing for both braking traction and cornering, it's a huge improvement over a 2.1. 2.1 in the rear keeps the weight and resistance down so the bike still pedals good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
NJ-XC-Justin said:
Bubba's comment about the Pike made me think -- how big are people going with their Trance forks without creating a disturbing front/rear balance or adding too much height/slack to the front? Coming from a 5.7" Nixon front on a 6" travel bike, the 4" Reba is a little small for my liking, even if I'm just 150 lbs. What can I say -- the added travel was comfortable and instilled confidence. The Pike is 5", right? Anyone else riding 5" or bigger forks? My Nixon would be too much, but maybe a 4.5-4.75" fork would be perfect. What's that? Revelation u-turns are 85-130mm, but what else is there? Fox makes noting between 3.9 and 5.1". Marchozzi seems to make lots of 85-130mm forks. What about Manitou's Minute forks?
I'm running a 6" Maverick Duc 32 on my 06 Trance. I find its works great* with the bike. With a 28mm sag, the Mav feels a lot more like a 5" travel fork. I also found that slack in the front hasn't changed much either.

One thing to mention is that I've lost on climbing. Seems that the front tends to wonder alittle bit (or maybe its just me!). But then, my stem is pretty short. For fork has a 4" setting for climbing which is a huge help though!

I find that the Trance, with equal front and rear travel, has seriously amazing climbing performance. Its pretty much about the rider's preference when the travel up front is increased.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top