2013 Giant Trance X 29er - 5" Big Wheeler

[morgman]

Giant's rolling out the Trance X 29er, and Stuart Kernaghan got the chance to ride it in the Chilcotins.

Tech, specs, and ride report here...

[jmal]

Great review Stuart. Can I ask what height your are. Im reading alot about the need to get a frame size smaller on the Trance X29 than normal 29er's (Even compaired to the Anthem X29). Think this is mostly due to the top tube lenght. Just interested to know your height. Im 6'4 long leg'd guy and did not think I would get away with the Large size with my very high saddle. Would be getting close to the seatpost limit. Most of your "cons" with this bike I could live with but the problem with the front lifting uphill seems like this could be a big issue. Have you heard this issue with anyone else.

[bogey]

Nice review! I'm a similar height to you and I've noticed the same issue with these 29ers (and some 26ers) and have curved seat tubes to keep a shorter chainstay length. I've ridden a bunch of 29ers that tend to get very light up front and make me feel like I'm pedaling from too far back on the bike. Unfortunately this is due to the designers focusing on the numbers on paper instead of riding the bikes. The slack seat tube angles put too much weight on the back end causing the shock to sag too much when climbing and causing steering to get light and vague.
I'll take a proper seat tube angle and slightly longer chainstays any day.

[stuart@nsmb.com]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the props. Glad to hear that you liked the write-up. I'm 6'4", with about a 35" inseam.

jmal - I suspect you're right with the seatpost concern. I wasn't the only journalist at the launch who found that the front end wandered on the bike. (See James Huang's review here: http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/ca...9er-0-13-46476). I would need to spend more time on the bike to see whether it was something that could be addressed with a shorter stem. Ideally, I'd run this bike with a 70 or 75mm stem.

bogey - good points. There are issues at play with size L and XL bikes that I'm not certain are factored in to the overall design. Taller rider = longer seatpost = further back from bottom bracket (as a reference point) than someone who is shorter. Is that adequately addressed, by have a steeper seat angle for larger frames to keep the rider weight in a relatively similar position than it would be on a size S or M frame? I kind of doubt it. Can't see to find the spec sheet, but I doubt that the seat angle changes for different models.

There were definitely things to like about this bike, but things that I didn't love. I'd need to play with the set-up to decide if it was just an odd parts choice or whether there was a short-coming in design.

[jmal]

Thanks Stuart. Can i ask putting aside the light front end where would you rate the TranceX29 against other long travel 29ers... Like the SantacruzLT or Yeti95. And what are the limits of the TranceX29? Trail or all mountain. As a big guy with a background in road racing I love the feel of a 29er. But i am looking for something i can used to follow the guys on their 140mm travel 26" all mountain bikes. Is the Trance x29 up to the job?

[FullMonty]

reverb would eliminate the layback post? probably help anyway.

[stuart@nsmb.com]

jmal - I haven't ridden either of those bikes. I have spent considerable time on the Rocky Element 950 (review pending - short version, liked the bike, didn't love the spec) and I own a custom spec Norco Shinobi 29er.

It's hard to really speak about limits or abilities after one ride on the Trance X 29er, but I'd say that this could be a very capable bike with the right tweaks for your riding area and style. I'm not certain how it would handle Shore XC riding (AM riding in most places), but the slacker head angle and longer wheelbase SHOULD make it very competent on AM rides.

For my riding style, I'd start by swapping the bars (which have a really weird feel to them), stem and seatpost. Yes, a Reberb would help deal with the offset of the Contact post, and give more travel. I have the Nobby Nic tires on my personal bike, so those would stay.

There's no reason why the Trance X 29er shouldn't be able to keep up to people on AM 26ers, and I suspect you'd actually be able to make up ground on them in certain sections of the trail.

[FlipFantasia]

wouldn't a shorter stem exacerbate the light front end problem for taller folks?

[stuart@nsmb.com]

Originally Posted by FlipFantasia

wouldn't a shorter stem exacerbate the light front end problem for taller folks?

I found it hard to get far enough forward on the saddle on steep seated climbs, possibly in part because of the long stem. I'm thinking that a shorter stem would make that easier. That would allow me to get in a better position over the bike, and climb more effectively.

Tall person doesn't always mean long stem, either. I run a 75mm stem on my bikes, with the exception of the bike I used for BCBR.

It's all kind of speculation at this point, though, Todd. I just know that something wasn't right about the bike the way it was. And it's much easier to change the stem length than the seat angle.

[FlipFantasia]

Originally Posted by stuart@nsmb.com

I found it hard to get far enough forward on the saddle on steep seated climbs, possibly in part because of the long stem. I'm thinking that a shorter stem would make that easier. That would allow me to get in a better position over the bike, and climb more effectively.

Tall person doesn't always mean long stem, either. I run a 75mm stem on my bikes, with the exception of the bike I used for BCBR.

It's all kind of speculation at this point, though, Todd. I just know that something wasn't right about the bike the way it was. And it's much easier to change the stem length than the seat angle.

hahaha, yeah....I got a reign this year and find that the setback seatpost of the crankbrothers definitely doesn't help things...when it blew up and I put a normal straight up post on it, it felt MUCH better, definitely takes some fine tuning to make it feel 'right' though...

[boomforeal]

the tendency among bike designers seems to be, if anything, to put slacker seat tubes on larger sizes of frame. i guess this increases the cockpit length beyond what can be accomplished simply by lengthening the top tube... but as stuart notes and many have found, it ends up putting taller riders further over the back wheel because they generally run more seatpost extension too, and compromising handling, esp. on climbs, for larger frame sizes. add in "virtual seat tube angles" and this becomes an even bigger mess.

ragley bikes in the uk was actually going in the opposite direction with their sta, giving bigger frames steeper seat tubes to keep taller riders in a good climbing position. i also noticed that specialized stumpjumpers have slightly steeper actual seat tube angles on their frames as the size increases - but list the same effective seat tube angle throughout the range... smart!

[Oldfart]

To a certain extent seat tube angle is irrelevant because most people set the saddle position relative to the bb such that their knee is more or less over the pedal spindle when the crank is at 3:00. For me a 73 sa is perfect and allows me to run a zero offset post with the saddle close to all the way back. Stuart, a long stem should make it easier to slide forward on the saddle because you have more cockpit room to do so.

I like to think of things like this in reference to the triangle of balance. I just made that term up. What I mean is you have a front and rear contact patch and the persons center of gravity which is around your belly button. Those three points form the triangle of balance. If that center of gravity is situated on top of that rear point of the triangle like on a steep climb, you can see how the front contact patch becomes light. Or on a downhill, if that center of gravity is too forward over the front contact it becomes too easy to go over the bars. So you slide back or forward or lower the saddle to keep the center of gravity in a good place.

So its not the seat angle perse but the too short chain stays combined with long femurs that can make the front feel like it's coming up.

[NoahColorado]

It's unfortunate that the stem selection will be so limited and if you don't care for the fork it's resale value is limited - both due to Overdrive 2. Needs a regular tapered steerer and ISCG tabs and then it'd get a second look from me.

[syngltrkmnd]

I just took a size XL 29er out to the woods for a three day adventure in the Cascades at elevation. My experience was much the same as yours: the bike worked ok but it won't replace my 26" whip anytime soon. Biggest issue that might be related is that the 2x10 XT gearing was far too tall for my taste, even though I am fairly fit, and at 6'5", and long of leg, I have a lot of crank arm leverage. The 38T chainring was all but unusable. Crazy for a supposed all-day bike. Why such a tall ratio? I loped along in the 26T all weekend. I suppose some weighting of the front end issues could be related to the additional torque the rider is applying to keep moving up a steep pitch. Then add the SP angle, layback post that Stuart had, plus a shorter than stock stem and it is no wonder the front end wandered like a drunken journo at Interbike.
The XT drivetrain further convinced me that I am satisfied with the ratios of a 22-34 double with bash and a 12-34

[JCL]

Seatpost and stem tweaks to make a bike climb are a bit desperate. Sounds (and looks) to me like the effective seat angle is far to slack and the front centre is too short. Have you still got the bike? If would be interesting to put a straight edge from the BB to your saddle height seatpost centre and take an angle measurement.