Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 129
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardtailrider2013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    175

    Is Giant Trance considered an all mountain bike?

    And if there are some owners feel free to tell me how you like the bike!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    143
    Not by today standards, but the chainstay is very well built and with proper wheels and fork it can take a lot of abuse. Great bike I just wish I had gone with the Large top tube is sort of short and Iīm starting to like longer top tube with a very short stem.

  3. #3
    Huffy Rider
    Reputation: motochick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,363
    No, but I built a Reign, which I love.

  4. #4
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,499
    A Trance X? I'd wager to say yes, or at least on the edge, whereas the reign overlaps and edges towards freeride/park/SS/mini DH more.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  5. #5
    Clueless genius
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    253
    2013 and earlier, probably not, but certainly tougher than your average XC bike. However, the 2014's would most certainly be "all mountain"; especially the trance SX.
    2009 GT Sanction 2.0
    2007 C'dale Prophet 5
    1994 C'dale M400

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardtailrider2013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    175
    Thanks guys!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,594
    Why do I hate this f%$#ing question?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardtailrider2013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    175
    I don't know..

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ColinL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Why do I hate this f%$#ing question?
    1. Bikes shouldn't be pigeonholed

    2. what exactly is the difference between trail and all-mountain... if you point down for more than 10 seconds at a time, it has to be AM and not trail.. right?


  10. #10
    perpetual pucker factor
    Reputation: charging_rhinos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,241
    Really? Do we have to define every aspect of riding to that level??

    I have a friend that pounds his Trance (not Trance X mind you) harder than most people ride their Nomads/Mojos, and it's holding up completely fine. He just rides with a lot of finesse, rather than blindly ham-fisting/plowing his way through everything. 2+ years later and the bike is still in excellent shape. It's most definitely an AM bike, albeit leaning to the lighter, more climbey side. Is the Trance as capable as a Nomad? No. But is is capable of handling 95% of the trails the average 'AM' rider would ever want to ride? Most definitely. So you decide if that fits the internet's definition of an AM bike or not. I think it does.


    Extra Credit Early Morning And I'm Grumpy Rant:

    Here's the problem with pigeonholing every bike and style of riding into a category: People LOVE to downgrade any bike that's even slightly less burly than their bike. As soon as 6" overtook 5" in popularity, the 5" bike was instantly a feeble, incapable machine. It was downgraded to trail, heavy-duty-xc, or whatever marketing term it is stuck with now. "No, that bike couldn't handle what my new burly bike of radness can handle." Of course bikes do have actual limitations, but most riders don't come close to pushing them. Does artificially limiting a 'lesser' bike's potential prove that they and their bike are so much more hardcore or something? Well if we go along those lines, then guess what peeps? I have a Canfield One, so you're all screwed. It has more travel than your so-called AM bikes, it can handle every terrain feature on earth, and has a sweet metal skull logo on the front. I'm the pimp sauce and you're all WAY less All-Mountain than I am. Don't follow me or your wimpy bikes will all break. Boom.

    It's largely the rider and their technique that determines if a bike can handle certain terrain or not.
    tangaroo: What electrolytes do chicken and turkey have again?
    rck18: All of them, because they're meat.

  11. #11
    Inspector Gadget
    Reputation: abeckstead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    497
    I don't really think it's an AM bike as currently categorized by manufactures. I think consensus would say it falls into more of a trail bike category. Even that's all subjective anyhow, people do things on bikes that aren't supposedly made for a certain type of terrain all the time. I think the better question you could have asked is: I want to do X,Y,Z will this bike handle it?

    I ride a '11 Trance X and what Rhino said is pretty much spot on. You won't be plowing tech blindly, you will have to finesse your way through bigger stuff. I ride with a few bud's on 6"+ bikes and I just can't plow some of the lines I see them take. I think it's a good climber... I've made some really steep climbs that left bud's saying "how the hell did you make that"... When it's steep and tight, not super techy... is where I think the Trance X shines... it's efficient enough and pretty agile. May be riding style, maybe bike... whatever. I hit some jumps when I see them. I do tend to just roll and pump most of them though. I don't have a super confident feeling once airborne, so I only hit stuff with smooth transitions. Jumps to flat landings are pretty sketchy IMO.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    408
    ^^ nailed it! Very well said, sir.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Many bikes can slide either way. You can build them up with burly parts and big tires or go the other way and make them more lightweight XC bikes. My bike started out at 27 pounds when I bought it and I've got it up to 30 pounds now. It's got a 150mm Rockshox Pike on it, massive 2.35 Schwalbe Hans Dampfs, dropper post, wide bars/short stem, bashguard, etc. I could have gone the next bike up, but why? If you NEED 160-180mm travel for "all mountain" riding, you're doing something wrong. Maybe it's nice to have, but it's not necessary. It's never held me back. That's pretty much bike park and freeride territory and overkill for 95% of trails out there.

    Are there certain tools better for certain jobs? Yes. But that is down to your intended use, which was not specified.

    Though I loathe bike labels and pigeonholing bikes for all the fore-mentioned reasons, I'm more stoked on this "enduro" category of bikes than I ever was on "all mountain bikes" with the endless desire for more travel! more travel! Not because of the label itself, but because the bikes in this new category are truly amazing machines and they really define a "jack of all trades" design philosophy. Bikes that can bomb downhill fast but still climb efficiently...yeah, that sounds more like what we all need. Sounds like a "mountain bike" to me.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    Though I loathe bike labels and pigeonholing bikes for all the fore-mentioned reasons, I'm more stoked on this "enduro" category of bikes than I ever was on "all mountain bikes" with the endless desire for more travel! more travel! Not because of the label itself, but because the bikes in this new category are truly amazing machines and they really define a "jack of all trades" design philosophy. Bikes that can bomb downhill fast but still climb efficiently...yeah, that sounds more like what we all need. Sounds like a "mountain bike" to me.
    Couldn't agree more. A lot of riders aren't realistic with what they need a bike to be capable of. If you're riding DH or bike parks all the time, then by all means get a bike for that, but riding a DH bike on mellow trails and only going to lift access trails once a year is silly IMO. I ride a 140mm travel bike on the same trails guys are riding 180mm travel bikes (and even some riding 8 inch travel DH bikes) on and I have no issues whatsoever. Some of those guys absolutely shred on those bikes, but I can smoke them on climbs. If anything, I would rather have a bike that I have to finesse a little than being able to blast over everything in sight. It makes riding more fun, to me.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTB Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    97
    2011 Giant Trance X3.....200+ lbs rider. Always handles what I throw at it and I have a blast. I love my bike! I never question my bike on where I'm taking it to, I have full confidence that I will always enjoy my ride and not feel like I don't have enough bike.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardtailrider2013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    175
    Wow thanks a lot guys! The trance is the perfect bike for me!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    1. Bikes shouldn't be pigeonholed

    2. what exactly is the difference between trail and all-mountain... if you point down for more than 10 seconds at a time, it has to be AM and not trail.. right?

    1. It's not pigeonholing. It's establishing recommended boundaries and classifying intended usage.

    2. All-mountain includes stunts and features you may find at a bike park. Trail bikes are not built to withstand that abuse on a consistent basis. It isn't a conspiracy to confuse you, and it isn't rocket science.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by charging_rhinos View Post
    But is is capable of handling 95% of the trails the average 'AM' rider would ever want to ride? Most definitely.

    It's largely the rider and their technique that determines if a bike can handle certain terrain or not.
    If it only handles 95% of what a rider will likely throw at it, then it isn't "all" mountain. There's a major distinction in that 5%. It helps if you're a smooth rider, but gravity is gravity. A 200 pound rider hitting a 10 foot drop will punish his bike whether he's smooth or not. If you do that on a consistent basis, you should get a bike designed to handle it. Just because some pro trials riders ride small cross-country bikes, doesn't mean that they don't run a major risk. I'm sure they replace components and frames on a fairly consistent basis.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ColinL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    If it only handles 95% of what a rider will likely throw at it, then it isn't "all" mountain. There's a major distinction in that 5%. It helps if you're a smooth rider, but gravity is gravity. A 200 pound rider hitting a 10 foot drop will punish his bike whether he's smooth or not. If you do that on a consistent basis, you should get a bike designed to handle it.
    Gravity is gravity, but not every rider takes the double black / pro level trails that have the 10 foot drops and necessitate a DH or FR bike.

    Intermediate and advanced trails with zero big air jumps / drops are still gravity. Those trails can easily be ridden on bikes with 4-6" travel. Twenty years ago they were ridden with rigid bikes.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    Gravity is gravity, but not every rider takes the double black / pro level trails that have the 10 foot drops and necessitate a DH or FR bike.

    Intermediate and advanced trails with zero big air jumps / drops are still gravity. Those trails can easily be ridden on bikes with 4-6" travel. Twenty years ago they were ridden with rigid bikes.
    Yeah, and those trails without the big air are best ridden on a trail bike like the Trance. All-mountain is meant for bigger things than what people rode with their rigid bikes. People can ride what they want where they want, but there's a reason why bikes are classified, or "pigeonholed". People would be happiest on the proper bike. Why drag around more weight and travel if you don't need it, and why risk destroying your bike by using it in ways it wasn't intended to be? I think I might agree with you on that one...

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lew242's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    491
    It's mostly down to tire choice and weight IMO. If you put 2.5 Minions on a Trance it would be more capable and more like an AM bike. But it climbs so well why bother? I used to have a 6 inch travel bike weighing a heft running heavy tubes and thick slow rolling knobblies. Yes better on the downs, but getting destroyed by roadies and guys on XC bikes uphill and on the flat fire-trails and roads who are much less fit than me wore pretty thin after a while. These days I shove a fast XC tire on the back and a 2.35 knobby (not soft compound) on the front of my pretty lightweight 5 inch air sprung rig and can have my cake and eat it. Fast everywhere and some air and gnarl too. If I had lots of money I might plum for a carbon or alu lightweight 6 inch bike, but I really don't want to bother with anything over 30lbs if I'm riding up or on the flat.

    May get a 2nd hand coil sprung Freeride monster for other duties, also maybe not.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    If it only handles 95% of what a rider will likely throw at it, then it isn't "all" mountain. There's a major distinction in that 5%. It helps if you're a smooth rider, but gravity is gravity. A 200 pound rider hitting a 10 foot drop will punish his bike whether he's smooth or not. If you do that on a consistent basis, you should get a bike designed to handle it. Just because some pro trials riders ride small cross-country bikes, doesn't mean that they don't run a major risk. I'm sure they replace components and frames on a fairly consistent basis.
    Haha. A 10 foot drop is not all mountain. That's free ride if you want to get technical, since you're defining bikes and all.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    Haha. A 10 foot drop is not all mountain. That's free ride if you want to get technical, since you're defining bikes and all.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
    I consider a 10 foot drop to a transition all-mountain. A true all-mountain bike should be able to handle that. If it can't, it's a trail bike. Freeride is bigger than that. Often much bigger. Freeride should be able to handle anything you would consider putting your body through, if you want to get technical and all.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    I consider a 10 foot drop to a transition all-mountain. A true all-mountain bike should be able to handle that. If it can't, it's a trail bike. Freeride is bigger than that. Often much bigger. Freeride should be able to handle anything you would consider putting your body through, if you want to get technical and all.
    I don't think you are in sync with the industry definitions.

  25. #25
    perpetual pucker factor
    Reputation: charging_rhinos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    I consider a 10 foot drop to a transition all-mountain. A true all-mountain bike should be able to handle that. If it can't, it's a trail bike. Freeride is bigger than that. Often much bigger. Freeride should be able to handle anything you would consider putting your body through, if you want to get technical and all.
    This is exactly the problem I was mentioning earlier. So to further the issue, I consider all mountain to be 20 foot drops to a transition. Since you only do 10 foot drops, you should be on a trail bike. US more hardcore people will stick with our 18" travel am bikes and do true all mountain riding.
    tangaroo: What electrolytes do chicken and turkey have again?
    rck18: All of them, because they're meat.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-02-2013, 10:23 PM
  2. Would this be considered all mountain?
    By cm_ls1 in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-06-2012, 11:10 AM
  3. Next Bike: Trek Fuel EX 9.9 or Giant Trance SL 0
    By surfstar1 in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-13-2012, 08:05 PM
  4. Giant Trance or Rocky Mountain Altitude
    By DannyHuynh in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-03-2012, 09:04 PM
  5. first FS bike -giant trance
    By kikoraa in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-19-2012, 06:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •