Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    The dark side is quicker
    Reputation: evilbullit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    81

    Anthem X or Trance X for XC and Endurance events?

    I currently have a 2 Scott 29ers; a Spark 910 and a Scale Pro. My Spark may be cracking at the BB, so after warranty replacement, I'm looking at something else. I'm honestly not impressed with the Spark suspension. I have narrowed the choice down to Giant (I get a great team discount), and maybe an Ibis or Niner?

    I do race XC and I like doing 12/24 hours events. But, I also ride for fun and the trails around here can be pretty rocky and blown out. I'm 6'4", 215 lbs geared up.

    Question is Anthem or Trance? I would be looking at frame/shock only.

    I know the Anthem is the more traditional "race bike" and I read that I can add a 120mm fork to the Anthem. Will the rear suspension keep up with the extra travel in front, or will it feel unbalanced.

    What about racing a Trance? I have some light components/wheels to throw at it, so weight isn't the issue.

    I'm by no means a "Pro" racer, or have any aspirations to be one. But, I don't want to handicap myself with the wrong bike...I'm still competitive. I'm also not the aggressive AM/FR/DH guy I was 10+ years ago.

    Any comments, opinions are appreciated.
    "The Truth is Absolution."

  2. #2
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by evilbullit View Post
    I currently have a 2 Scott 29ers; a Spark 910 and a Scale Pro. My Spark may be cracking at the BB, so after warranty replacement, I'm looking at something else. I'm honestly not impressed with the Spark suspension. I have narrowed the choice down to Giant (I get a great team discount), and maybe an Ibis or Niner?

    I do race XC and I like doing 12/24 hours events. But, I also ride for fun and the trails around here can be pretty rocky and blown out. I'm 6'4", 215 lbs geared up.

    Question is Anthem or Trance? I would be looking at frame/shock only.

    I know the Anthem is the more traditional "race bike" and I read that I can add a 120mm fork to the Anthem. Will the rear suspension keep up with the extra travel in front, or will it feel unbalanced.

    What about racing a Trance? I have some light components/wheels to throw at it, so weight isn't the issue.

    I'm by no means a "Pro" racer, or have any aspirations to be one. But, I don't want to handicap myself with the wrong bike...I'm still competitive. I'm also not the aggressive AM/FR/DH guy I was 10+ years ago.

    Any comments, opinions are appreciated.
    You sound quite a bit like me, just a couple inches taller and a couple lbs heavier (not that much though, I'm 6'1" and 190).

    Not pro, but take my results seriously... etc.

    I chose the Anthem. I live in CO, in a pretty rocky-chunky area. I have had a couple 5x5 full-suspension 29ers in a row. The Anthem is my first step down in travel since 2010. I have a blast riding it, haven't come into a situation where I felt like it was holding me back, at least in terms of having fun in tech terrain.

    I'm quite sure it's quicker climbing than probably any bike I've had. Maestro is the most sophisticated linkage I've had on a bike though. I have no idea whether a Maestro Trance would be a handicap. A little heavier, but would it be really a noticeably slower climber?

    Basically, I'm really pleased with my Anthem. I think it's helping my endurance season. I like riding it. I feel like it's totally efficient and comfortable to ride.

    The only reservation I have is that I'm currently riding a 2012 frame because my 2013 frame broke. Giant was super quick with warranty replacement, but 2012 frames were what they had available. It broke after less than 1500 miles, no crashes. Not much super aggressive riding really either (I hurt myself several times last season so I've been riding a little conservatively). The failure was in the top tube, just in front of the weld to the seat tube. Right where the top tube is tapered down. I assume it was an anomaly. If I break another frame, I'll be done. Might try a Trance, might sell out and go to a whole different brand.

    But I really hope that doesn't happen, because the bike suits my needs very well at present.

    I only mention this because you're not a tiny little greyhound and you do more than race on smooth courses. YMMV.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  3. #3
    The dark side is quicker
    Reputation: evilbullit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    81
    Thanks for the reply.
    I'm in Albuquerque, but I moved here from Centennial, CO. So, I'm pretty familiar with CO conditions. Were a little bit drier though.
    "The Truth is Absolution."

  4. #4
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,808
    The Anthem was made for what you are wanting to do.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PerthMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    440
    I have both. My Anthem is a 29er and my Trance 26.

    I use the Anthem for races and all day epic rides of fire-road type terrain. It's improved my race times, and for aggressive riding on not so technical terrain it can't be beat!

    However, for technical trails, jumps, rocky descents, winding between the trees, and generally where its about fun rather than speed, I find my Trance more capable. Also, my body takes more of a beating on the Anthem, as the geometry and suspension on the Trance is more forgiving.

    I can't honestly say which I would choose if I had to pick only one - maybe the Trance because its more of an all round bike, but then I know my race times would suffer.

    Sorry, I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but IMHO there's no real do-it-all bike, they each have their pros & cons, and its good to have a choice.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cotharyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,456
    I have yet to find a place that I consider "XC/Enduro" that my Anthem doesn't feel up to. I'm 6'3" and about 210, so I'm right with you size and weight wise. As far as putting a 120 fork on the Anthem, I would be more concerned about how that might affect climbing than anything else. Plus, I'm just not certain it needs the 120 for anything that wouldn't void the warranty.

  7. #7
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,438
    Tom, the Anthem was initially recalled for failure sin this area and the problem was supposed to have been addressed, if you do a search I'm sure you'll find info on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    ...........The only reservation I have is that I'm currently riding a 2012 frame because my 2013 frame broke. Giant was super quick with warranty replacement, but 2012 frames were what they had available. It broke after less than 1500 miles, no crashes. Not much super aggressive riding really either (I hurt myself several times last season so I've been riding a little conservatively). The failure was in the top tube, just in front of the weld to the seat tube. Right where the top tube is tapered down. I assume it was an anomaly. If I break another frame, I'll be done. Might try a Trance, might sell out and go to a whole different brand.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  8. #8
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Tom, the Anthem was initially recalled for failure sin this area and the problem was supposed to have been addressed, if you do a search I'm sure you'll find info on that.
    I recall reading about that in a thread here about Anthem frame failure. I did just look up the press release from late 2010. That recall was 2011 Anthem X 29 frames. Mine was a 2013. Bought just before New Year's Eve in 2012. Broke at the end of April.

    Doesn't boost my confidence. My frame failure was exactly what was described in the press release (as you say). Seems like maybe it hasn't been resolved, two model years later?
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikensand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    I recall reading about that in a thread here about Anthem frame failure. I did just look up the press release from late 2010. That recall was 2011 Anthem X 29 frames. Mine was a 2013. Bought just before New Year's Eve in 2012. Broke at the end of April.

    Doesn't boost my confidence. My frame failure was exactly what was described in the press release (as you say). Seems like maybe it hasn't been resolved, two model years later?
    I just broke mine in the same spot a few weeks ago, consequently with about the same mileage as yours. I took the opportunity to upgrade to the Advanced frame. It is much more substantial looking at that top tube/seat tube junction.

    To the OP's original question, I own both bikes but if I could only have one, it would be the Anthem. However, it would be interesting to build a TX29 with a lightweight component spec, maybe keep the rear suspension in "C" mode for races, and compare to the AX29.

    To compare the speed of the two bikes on a XC course, my 24# AX29 runs 2-3 min faster than my 29# TX29 with the same effort on a 13 mile lap on my home race course (57ish min vs 59ish min; about 3-5%)

  10. #10
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by bikensand View Post
    I just broke mine in the same spot a few weeks ago, consequently with about the same mileage as yours...
    Yikes.

    2013? The black and yellow one?
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikensand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    Yikes.

    2013? The black and yellow one?
    2012 Anthem XO Grey and blue

  12. #12
    The dark side is quicker
    Reputation: evilbullit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    81
    Thanks for all the comments. Tough decision!
    I like to think I can always fall back to my hard tail for smoother, shorter races...although I did race my HT at the 24 Hours Nats last weekend (my FS may be cracked?) and it actually felt pretty good. It was a fairly smooth course however.

    Saying that, having a little more squish in the back would also have been very welcome after 80 miles. Maybe I just need to realize I need 3 or 4 bikes instead of just 2. LOL, the wife will love that.
    "The Truth is Absolution."

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PerthMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    440
    Ok, here's something I've been thinking about for a while now, in fact since I broke my first frame about six months ago. I'm not aiming this at any particular manufacturer or person in this thread - just throwing it out there as it seems to have some relevance here...

    I think we sometimes forget that any frame is a compromise of strength versus lightness. The Anthem is classified by Giant as a "Competition/XC" bike and is targeted at people wanting a fast and light bike that's not given too much abuse - just look at some of the threads on here where people obsess about shaving the last few grams off their Anthem builds - you'd think they were talking about a road bike! But in order to get this, inevitably you sacrifice a bit of strength.

    Meanwhile, Giant categorises the Trance as a "Trail" bike, and the Reign "All Mountain". Their frames will naturally be built tougher to cope with the use they are expected to be put to - but as a result will be heavier.

    To illustrate this, take a look at one of the weakest spots on a frame - the top tube/seat tube junction, on each of the three different bikes:-

    Anthem

    Name:  Anthem.JPG
Views: 836
Size:  11.1 KB

    Trance

    Name:  Trance.JPG
Views: 831
Size:  11.4 KB

    Reign

    Name:  Reign.JPG
Views: 839
Size:  13.5 KB

    Quite a difference, but each is designed for the purpose intended.

    All good so far.

    But then the problem comes when we consumers buy the lightest and fastest bike, but still expect it to take anything we throw at it. It's like buying a Ferrari and driving it off-road. Something's gonna give!

    I'm not saying all frame failures are as a result of bikes being used for purposes beyond what they were designed for, some are certainly design weaknesses, or manufacturing defects. But in years of reading forums like these I've noticed a definite trend towards people wanting lighter and lighter bikes, while the trails we use them on become more challenging and therefore punishing for the bike.

    And go into any bike shop on a typical Saturday afternoon and listen to the conversations - how many times do you hear someone asking for the toughest bike, versus the lightest? I'll wager its mostly the latter. And there seems to be this belief that the more money you throw at a bike the lighter it will be, but with no compromise on strength. Now with advances in design, manufacturing and materials, that is true to an extent, but there's physical limits you inevitably come up against. Manufacturers know this, but don't want to be at a disadvantage to their competitors, so give us what we're demanding - lighter bikes. Unfortunately this means more of them will fail. It's a trade-off most manufacturers seem willing to make in order to keep the cash tills ringing, and that's why you'll find most of them replace broken frames without batting an eyelid these days - they just treat it as a cost of doing business.

    Bottom line - if you're on the heavy side, an aggressive rider, and you want a bike to be able to take anything you can throw at it, don't buy a lightweight racing greyhound. Or if you do, then don't be surprised if it breaks! The good news is that the industry is complicit in this 'trend' and most manufacturers will just replace the frame without question, even if you are throwing your short travel XC race bike down a downhill run!

  14. #14
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by PerthMTB View Post
    ...
    Bottom line - if you're on the heavy side, an aggressive rider, and you want a bike to be able to take anything you can throw at it, don't buy a lightweight racing greyhound. Or if you do, then don't be surprised if it breaks! The good news is that the industry is complicit in this 'trend' and most manufacturers will just replace the frame without question, even if you are throwing your short travel XC race bike down a downhill run!
    Yes, I agree. And I don't mean to be argumentative.

    But.

    I got my new Anthem right after Christmas. I was training for the 24 hours in the old pueblo. I rode 200 miles on that course, a warmup lap Friday and then ~185 miles during the event in mid-February. For those who haven't been there, the OP course is smooth flowy singletrack. Prior to the event I was training in the winter in central CO. From the time I got the bike until the event I probably put 700-800 miles on it. The high chunky technical trails around here weren't open. I bet I did 300-400 of those pre-event training miles on dirt road. The rest on relatively smooth low-country singletrack.

    When I got back to CO after the old pueblo, I rode much of the same smooth low-country singletrack and did a couple gravel grinders. I put about 300-400 miles on it before the end of April when it broke. The failure happened during an 80 mile gravel grinder by the way.

    And, I've been not riding aggressively in general this season for the most part because I did two ribcage injuries and a shoulder injury last season. So I'm a little gunshy about pushing the envelope.

    All I'm saying is, in the 4 months it took me to break this frame, my riding was exclusively on terrain as tame or more tame than what a lightweight XC bike is intended for.

    I worked at a shop for 8 years. I know about how people tend to buy weight-weenie stuff then complain when they break it. In my case I just don't think that was what happened. Yes I'm 6'1" and weight 190 and often ride with a pack (not at all during OP). But I haven't seen anything in the description of this bike that says a person of relatively modest weight on the frame size appropriate for his height is too big to ride an Anthem.

    Since all these frame failures tend to be in exactly the same place? I'd call that a design flaw. If this lightweight frame was designed perfectly given its intended purpose, but was built to be lightweight, the failures should happen at any of the typical places: downtube just below the head tube junction, around the BB, around the pivot welds... but they don't. It seems that they all happen at the narrow point of an aggressively tapered top tube.

    Giant have now had two model seasons since the recall to beef up the place where failures happen. Why haven't they?
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PerthMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    440
    Yeah, I wasn't having a go at you personally, and sorry if it seemed that way. In fact it was more a case of reflecting on my own broken frame experience, and thinking about how that related to general trends in the marketplace.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BacDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    560
    TomP is right!

    Since the Anthem 29 came out there have been failures at this location. For the record, I have owned and ridden 3 Anthem 29s with no issue but 2 of them have been carbon.

    Perth is right!

    These light FS XC/trail bikes are pretty friggin lite and quest for lightness is testing limits of frame integrity. The OP was looking for new ride due to frame failure of a Scott, kind of supporting Perths point.

    Anthem 29 is one of the lightest frames out there and I think they could reinforce that junction without adding much weight.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PerthMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    440
    Concerning that seat tube/top tube join on the Anthem specifically, I agree its obviously not up to the task.

    As to why they haven't done something about it... well we've gotta remember that a company like Giant are working at least a year ahead of what we see in the shops - the design, testing, tooling, manufacture, stockpiling, and shipping cycle takes that long! So, by the time feedback was coming in about the 2011 models failing, it was probably already too late to do much about 2012 models except issue instructions to the fabricators to increase the weld area around that joint, and I believe that's exactly what they did.

    Could they have re-designed that joint for the 2013 models - probably yes. But with the completely re-vamped line-up of 650B Anthems due to hit the stores this September, they would have already been working on them from about this time last summer. So, it becomes a toss-up whether modifications are fed into that process instead of patching up an 'old' model. And if the leaked bikes we've seen already are anything to go by, Giant have indeed re-designed that joint for the 2014 Anthems, and even gone back to the kinked top tube like the current Trances.

    Again, all comes back to economics. Re-design and re-tool for an old model in its final year, or switch development effort to the new model, and just accept a larger than usual warranty rate on the old one?

    That's my reading of it anyway...

  18. #18
    The dark side is quicker
    Reputation: evilbullit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    81
    Pulled the trigger on a Trance X, frame only.
    I have everything except fork and front derailleur already...almost ready to build!

    Questions though, what model/type of front derailleur do I need? Looking at an XT (until the X0-11 comes out) I cant seem to find it in the manual or web.
    "The Truth is Absolution."

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PerthMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    440
    Questions though, what model/type of front derailleur do I need? Looking at an XT
    Good question, FDs are a bit of a minefield - there's so many different choices.

    First question is whether your frame is a Trance X 29 or Trance X 26? The 29er takes a direct mount FD, ie. there's an interface on the frame it bolts directly onto. The 26" model has the more usual arrangement of a band that clamps round the seat tube, but then there are two different versions of this - top swing where the clamp is below the cage, and conventional where it is above. The Trance 26" takes the top swing one.

    Then it depends if you're running 2x10 or 3x10 as there are different models of FD for each. There's also different models for 9sp versus 10sp but we'll keep it simple for the moment and assume as its a new build that you're going 10sp.

    So...

    1. Trance X 29er, 2x10 = FD-M786-D
    2. Trance X 29er, 3x10 = FD-M781-D
    3. Trance X 26", 2x10 = FD-M785
    4. Trance X 26", 3x10 = FD-M780
    Last edited by PerthMTB; 06-21-2013 at 09:43 PM.

  20. #20
    The dark side is quicker
    Reputation: evilbullit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    81
    Thank you, once again!

    It is the 29er and I knew it was some sort of direct mount, but not having another other bikes with that style I was a little confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by PerthMTB View Post
    Good question, FDs are a bit of a minefield - there's so many different choices.

    First question is whether your frame is a Trance X 29 or Trance X 26? The 29er takes a direct mount FD, ie. there's an interface on the frame it bolts directly onto. The 26" model has the more usual arrangement of a band that clamps round the seat tube, but then there are two different versions of this - top swing where the clamp is below the cage, and conventional where it is above. The Trance 26" takes the top swing one.

    Then it depends if you're running 2x10 or 3x10 as there are different models of FD for each. There's also different models for 9sp versus 10sp but we'll keep it simple for the moment and assume as its a new build that you're going 10sp.

    So...

    1. Trance X 29er, 2x10 = FD-M786-D
    2. Trance X 29er, 3x10 = FD-M781-D
    3. Trance X 26", 2x10 = FD-M785
    4. Trance X 26", 3x10 = FD-M780
    "The Truth is Absolution."

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by PerthMTB View Post
    Concerning that se
    As to why they haven't done something about it... SNIP

    Absolutely my reading too about this.

    I ride my Anthem x 26 inch o9 model even in bikeparks, do 3 feet drops very often. And I am 190 lbs too.
    Ride xc, Am, bikeparks. I know the frame is to light, but it survives while a few others in the same series cracked. So i ride on, and hope the best. (for years now)
    But always the feeling is there that I am doing something stupid
    If I knew it beforehand, I would have gone the Trance x way.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    19
    I bought the Trance X2 29er and added light weight components. I'm 5'11 210 LBS and chose the Trance for the "do all" bike. I race it in XC races also with guys on Anthems and actually do well. I chose XT brakes with all X7 components until I upgrade to XT all the way around. I went with DTswiss wheels with Hope Pro 2 Evo hubs, Thompson seat post, and Race Face bars. I have a pretty light bike and one that holds up to the abuse I put it through on race days and riding 3-4 times weekly. The RS fork and rear shock really surprised me on their function and I probably will not upgrade to Fox when they wear out. You'll be pleased with the bike especially when you lighten the weight for race day and you don't have to worry about the frame cracking as much. The bike is FUN to ride also. Just my 2 cents. Hope you enjoy your bike.

  23. #23
    The dark side is quicker
    Reputation: evilbullit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    81
    My build should be complete this weekend. Just waiting on some new cables.

    XL Trance X 29 frame with a X-Fusion "Trace" fork.
    Roval Control Trail SL wheelset (carbon), Carbon Haven bars, Thomson seatpost and stem, everything else XT or XTR. Should turn out fairly light, for what it is.

    I toyed with the idea of building it up with XX1, but decided not yet.

    I'll post pics once its finished.
    "The Truth is Absolution."

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by PerthMTB View Post
    Good question, FDs are a bit of a minefield - there's so many different choices.

    First question is whether your frame is a Trance X 29 or Trance X 26? The 29er takes a direct mount FD, ie. there's an interface on the frame it bolts directly onto. The 26" model has the more usual arrangement of a band that clamps round the seat tube, but then there are two different versions of this - top swing where the clamp is below the cage, and conventional where it is above. The Trance 26" takes the top swing one.

    Then it depends if you're running 2x10 or 3x10 as there are different models of FD for each. There's also different models for 9sp versus 10sp but we'll keep it simple for the moment and assume as its a new build that you're going 10sp.

    So...

    1. Trance X 29er, 2x10 = FD-M786-D
    2. Trance X 29er, 3x10 = FD-M781-D
    3. Trance X 26", 2x10 = FD-M785
    4. Trance X 26", 3x10 = FD-M780
    Hi, I have a question regarding Trance X 26" and FD`s. I have a spare FD-M785-E2 without the BB mounting pate, and I was wondering if it will fit fine on the Trance X 26" with the BB plate, or are there other options like an adapter so that I can clamp it around the seat tube. Or are my options to buy a new FD?

    Thanks in advance.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PerthMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    440
    Hi, I have a question regarding Trance X 26" and FD`s. I have a spare FD-M785-E2 without the BB mounting pate, and I was wondering if it will fit fine on the Trance X 26" with the BB plate, or are there other options like an adapter so that I can clamp it around the seat tube. Or are my options to buy a new FD?
    The Trance X 26" doesn't have the tabs to mount an E2 type FD. Also, as it has a push-fit BB you can't mount a plate behind the BB cup to attach the E2 FD. And, I haven't seen a band clamp adapter to be able to mount E2 type FDs to a 'normal' seat tube - though that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist - I just haven't come across one. So, I believe your only option is to buy a new FD.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trance X 29 vs Anthem X 29
    By Jaymorr in forum Giant
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 04-18-2014, 01:52 PM
  2. used '06 Anthem 2 v 2012 Trance x4 new
    By gribble in forum Giant
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-06-2012, 06:41 AM
  3. Trance X1 or Anthem X1
    By Avalanchis in forum Giant
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-18-2012, 12:03 AM
  4. Trance vs. Anthem 29er
    By Pock in forum Giant
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-10-2011, 07:41 PM
  5. Anthem X vs. Trance X?!?
    By Darkallusion in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-06-2011, 06:50 AM

Posting Permissions

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