Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Trance vs NRS

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9

    Trance vs NRS

    I'm in search of a good race bike and i have already decided to go for a 2005 NRS1. Since i heard yesterday about the new giant Trance...Will the Trance be a suitable race bike ? Should i stick with the NRS 1 ? And for those of you who test ride a trance, how does the ride compare with the ride of the NRS supension ?

  2. #2
    bang
    Reputation: Cyco-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,290
    its probably a little too early to tell; the NRS is a proven suspension design and its hardtail-like efficiency makes it ideal for racing. i'm pretty sure the NRS 1 uses a carbon frame for '05 too, so its probably lighter than the trance.

    if you do a lot of serious racing, i think i'd stick with the NRS rather than an unproven new frame.

  3. #3
    I just let one RIP
    Reputation: Jwiffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,136

    Stick with the NRS

    Quote Originally Posted by alternative
    I'm in search of a good race bike and i have already decided to go for a 2005 NRS1. Since i heard yesterday about the new giant Trance...Will the Trance be a suitable race bike ? Should i stick with the NRS 1 ? And for those of you who test ride a trance, how does the ride compare with the ride of the NRS supension ?
    Go with the NRS. From what I understand, the NRS is being kept strickly as a race bike, and its components will be geared toward racing. The Trance will take over as their all-day epic cross country frame. It provides a bit of a plusher ride than the NRS, and though I hear it pedals really well, so it probably could be used for racing, if you're really into racing, stick with the NRS because its components, weight, and geometry will benefit the racer more.

  4. #4
    Vagabond
    Reputation: Rich007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    54
    What about 4+ hour rides and an occasional 24-hour race, lots of climbing and descending on doubletracks and fireroads??? Would you guys think that Trance will be a better proposition???

    I currently have Rainier, well upgraded and I'm looking to upgrade a frame over this winter too, so I'm deciding between NRS and Trance... So far, Trance is slightly ahead but it might change depending on how much it'll cost... Still, I'd need to ride them too and see how I like it...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich007
    What about 4+ hour rides and an occasional 24-hour race, lots of climbing and descending on doubletracks and fireroads??? Would you guys think that Trance will be a better proposition???

    I currently have Rainier, well upgraded and I'm looking to upgrade a frame over this winter too, so I'm deciding between NRS and Trance... So far, Trance is slightly ahead but it might change depending on how much it'll cost... Still, I'd need to ride them too and see how I like it...
    Stick with the Trance fo rthe longer epic rides, I was on one for about 2 hours total time and it rides great. As for the first poster, if you are looking for a race bike, definatly stay with the NRS 1, the looks for the 05 are awesome.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ILxcMTNbiker
    Stick with the Trance fo rthe longer epic rides, I was on one for about 2 hours total time and it rides great. As for the first poster, if you are looking for a race bike, definatly stay with the NRS 1, the looks for the 05 are awesome.
    Thank you for your answer ! I'd probably stick with the NRS 1 with a carbon frame ! Still, can't wait to see how the Trance look and ride for real !

  7. #7
    Vagabond
    Reputation: Rich007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by ILxcMTNbiker
    Stick with the Trance fo rthe longer epic rides, I was on one for about 2 hours total time and it rides great.
    Thanks, that's what I'm also thinking...

  8. #8
    TEAM TOPEAK - ERGON
    Reputation: KERKOVEJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,039

    My 2 cents worth.....

    I have been on a new NRS Air for the last 3 years, and have found it to be a great race bike. I recently started to focus on endurance races and still race the NRS, but have opted for a 100mm Fox up front for a plusher ride. Next year, I will be trying to race a Trance. 4 inches of travel front and back is way better for solo 12/24 Hour racing. If you have specific questions feel free to e-mail me.

    Jeff

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24

    NRS1 vs Trance

    I would be interested in sharing more info on this topic as we learn more...

    I have a Ranier and plan to upgrade to a 2005 NRS Composite 1 or Trance before end of year.

    I often do 10-15 mile recreational / group rides (occasionaly extending to 25 miles) on hilly, hard-pack trails and fire-roads. Rocks on the more technical trails bump the crap out of me on my Ranier.

    I also occasionally race "beginner" class--again on hilly terrain here in North Georgia.

    I am somewhat conservative going downhill and I do not do large jumps.

    Due to all the hills that I ride (both in race AND recreation situations), low-weight and climbing efficiency appeal to me. From what I read, the NRS1 should weigh 24-25 lbs and the Trance a few more. However, I wouldn't mind having a more plush suspension (which I assume the Trance has over NRS) to make my "epic" rides more comfortable.

    At 180 lbs, (not including hydration and tools), I suspect I might be a little heavier than most bikers. I am not sure if this is a factor.
    Last edited by Mike Young; 11-13-2004 at 05:38 PM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24

    NRS vs Trance test ride

    I did a quick test ride on a Trance 3 and an NRS Composite 2 at my LBS. The Trance was setup for my weight, the NRS was not, so I will withold any comparisons. Several workers at the LBS (all NRS owners themselves) commented on how the Trance 3 suspension seemed to have a more than 4" of travel. They also said the Trance 3 felt really "light" and "quick".

    I plan to go back on Friday when I am off work and spend a few hours comparing the two bikes more thoroughly.

    Since I am new to the full suspension world, I wonder how comfortable the NRS is compared to the Trance (or any other "trail" bike) for fast riding on hardpack trails with occasional roots and rock gardens?

    Most of my knowledge of the NRS came from this board and I hear that the NRS has a pretty stiff suspension. Should I be concerned about NRS stiffness if I am NOT doing large drops or jumps? Is it the Trance worth the extra couple pounds for the extra plushness ??? (I occasionally race and I wouldn't mind using the nimbleness of the NRS to help ellevate myself in the beginner race standings! On the other hand, I was laid up this summer for a week after riding my hardtail 50 miles and infecting my prostate. I could use extra cushioning!)

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    13
    I have an NRS 2 and it is a firm eficent ride. If I need more comfort I add a suspension seat post with 1.5 inches of travel. I think it only weighs 1/2 pound more than my regular post. This works great for night riding where I hit some bumps and roots I never see. So I guess I have a 5.25 inch travel NRS that weighs less than a Trance. If I am doing a sprint sort of race I put the regular post back in. The post is good for little chop like roots and the NRS kicks in for bigger hits.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: goneskiian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdave
    I have an NRS 2 and it is a firm eficent ride. If I need more comfort I add a suspension seat post with 1.5 inches of travel. I think it only weighs 1/2 pound more than my regular post. This works great for night riding where I hit some bumps and roots I never see. So I guess I have a 5.25 inch travel NRS that weighs less than a Trance. If I am doing a sprint sort of race I put the regular post back in. The post is good for little chop like roots and the NRS kicks in for bigger hits.
    That sounds like a pretty good idea! Way to think out of the box. Personally I would never have thought of using a suspension post on a full suspension bike.

    I too am interested in how this all plays out as I've been eagerly awaiting a Trance but now that they're out I'm a bit dismayed at how heavy they are. I do like the sound of how they ride (haven't had a chance to test one yet) and that may just be the deciding factor over the weight. Then again I do plan on racing it...AAAARRRGGGHHHH! This is so confounding!

    Cheers!
    -Ian

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24

    I chose NRS over Trance

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdave
    I have an NRS 2 and it is a firm eficent ride. If I need more comfort I add a suspension seat post with 1.5 inches of travel. I think it only weighs 1/2 pound more than my regular post. This works great for night riding where I hit some bumps and roots I never see. So I guess I have a 5.25 inch travel NRS that weighs less than a Trance. If I am doing a sprint sort of race I put the regular post back in. The post is good for little chop like roots and the NRS kicks in for bigger hits.
    Good idea! I might have to try that one! I suppose since I already stole the pedals from my Ranier, I could also steal the Thudbuster seatpost and put it on my new NRS.

    I went to my LBS on Friday and purchased the NRS Composite 1 over the Trance. About 4 people at the shop have NRS as their personal bike. They use NRS for racing, recreational trail riding and epic rides without any regret. (I get the impression trails here in Georgia are very hilly, but not as demanding bump-wise as other trails in US). All of them were so happy with their NRS it was hard to think Trance.

    I took both the NRS and Trance on some test rides over some speed bumps and small jumps and I really couldn't tell the difference (I am a novice on full suspension, so take this comment with a grain of salt). However, I could feel how efficient the NRS was while standing up and pedaling. The Trance wasn't bad in this regard, but the NRS was noticeably efficient.

    My thinking is that I now have a proven bike (in the NRS) that can used for racing or recreational trail riding. After running a race last year in Geogia mountains with massive climbing, I knew I wanted a light bike. If I ever need a more plush feel for playing around or training, I am thinking I could always purchase a cheap, heavy, low-end Trance or Reign in future. The fear in the back of my mind was Giant may try to make the Trance lighter in future model years (there has been speculation to that effect on this board) and I would be stuck with the heavy first-year model.

    On the negative side, my new NRS handlbars are maybe ~5cm? lower than my seat and I am stretching a little more than I wanted to be. I'm not sure if the Trance would have been any better. Although my elbows are still bent, I suspect I need to mess around with some new stems, handlebars, and/or stem risers. This might be an apportunity to upgrade while improving the fit. I will leave the bike as-is and see how my neck feels after some long rides.
    Last edited by Mike Young; 12-18-2004 at 04:51 AM.

  14. #14
    Not Smart Enough to Quit
    Reputation: xray_ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    622

    Mike's new NRS

    Hey Mike, congrats on the new ride! I am facing the same delimma that you were regarding the Trance & NRS. I think my decision will be the same as yours. The trails I ride here in central Ala. are tight and twisty but not too bumpy. I'll also be racing it in the GAP series next year (sport 40s).

    Have you weighed the new bike? I'm rather curious about that because some of the parts (namely the RF Evolve stuff) don't seem to be top shelf. What do you think about those parts? Keep 'em? Swap em? Opinions anyone?

  15. #15
    richeyr
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    253

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Just in case you wanted to know!

    I test rode a prophet 600 and trance 3 today. The prophet was very plush with very little pedal bob and I weigh about 190. The trance was very plush with the rear shock set to 170. However when I stood to pedal there was no bobbing and the bike shot off like a gun. The bike is very quick and responsive. On the shop scale the bike hung at 31.5 lbs.

  16. #16
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    Here's what I tell customers that are looking at the NRS and Trance;

    The NRS is a very efficiant bike. In fact it is one of the only bikes that is truly bob-free when set up correctly. I explain that to set it up properly means no sag and that pedaling causes the shock to extend. With no sag there's no extetion and hence, no bobbing.

    This means that you have a harsher ride though because it is effectively oversprung for the travel. Ultra-efficiant, but sacrifices some ride qualities.

    With the Trance you have a parallel linkage system that lets the designers get the exact wheelpath they are looking for, while it's easy to lump parallel linkage bikes into catagories, the exact placement can cause very different results, like mimicing an FSR wheelpath, or VPP, or whatever they are trying to get out of it. The Trance is going to pedal great, AND it is going to be more active and suspend better due to it operating with a proper spring rate for the given amount of travel. A decent 3" travel bike may suspend better than the 3.75" NRS, and a 4" trance that uses sag like a normal bike is simply going to suspend better, so you get great pedaling and great suspension, although a tiny amount of bob may be possible.

    As I got to try and watch the Reign 1 today, I can attest that the pedaling claims of the meastro are pretty much true. No noticable bobbing, very "nuetral" suspension that doesn't seem to be affected much by your pedaling inputs. The rear suspension seems to live up to the hype, and as far as all-out suspension ability (ability to absorb the variations in the trail, bumps, etc) it is excellent.

    The NRS is a little lighter, and in all out efficiancy it's going to be hard to beat a system that tries to extend when there is no sag, but it sacrifices the ride and a 4" bike with 1" of sag is going to ride a lot nice and suspend nicer, which is what the Trance will do. IMO the tradeoff of the Trance is well worth it.

    I don't see too much advantage to running an NRS over a hardtail, let along a hardtail with a good suspension seatpost. An NRS is not going to excell in the real rough stuff, and it's going to be best where a hardtail would be best, so except for racing, I don't see much use for the NRS and while I wouldn't push a customer to not buy it, I'd definitely want him/her to be sure what they were getting it for.
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24

    NRS Composite 1 weight

    Quote Originally Posted by xray_ed
    Have you weighed the new bike?
    I estimated the NRS Composite 1 is ~25.5 lbs for the 20.5" frame (I was holding the bike on a decent digital bathroom scale and almost all of my readings were 25.5 after I subtracted my weight and my temporary 0.9 lb Shimano M515 pedals). We also weighed it at the shop, but dummy me didn't write it down. I will have to get it weighed again when I take it to the shop.

    Quote Originally Posted by xray_ed
    some of the parts (namely the RF Evolve stuff) don't seem to be top shelf. What do you think about those parts? Keep 'em? Swap em? Opinions anyone?
    I think the NRS seatpost, stem, handlebars, and cranks (all Race Face) are all one step down from the Race Face components on the Trance. At the Race Face website, I calculated the NRS Composite 1 components to be 258 grams (.56 lbs) heavier than the Trance 1 components. I have no clue what it would cost to upgrade.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Jm.
    IMO the tradeoff of the Trance is well worth it..
    What exactly do you think are the negative tradeoffs of going with Trance 1 over the NRS 1? I had it in my mind that if you go with the Trance (over the NRS), you lose a little bit of peddling efficiency but unfortunately gain a lot of weight (in my mind, I was thinking of ~2 pounds). Would you agree with this assessement? I know weights are hard to come by.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jm.
    I don't see too much advantage to running an NRS over a hardtail, let along a hardtail with a good suspension seatpost. An NRS is not going to excell in the real rough stuff, and it's going to be best where a hardtail would be best
    It might just be the type of trails that I ride...but I would have to disagree on this based on my experience. Up until a few days ago, I had been riding a hard-tail Ranier with a Thudbuster seatpost. I used to really get jarred out of my seat and annoyed when riding fast. I also found myself getting really tense in arms and shoulders while trying to hold on.

    After two days (and about 3 hours) on the trail on my new NRC Composite 1, I feel much more relaxed and I do feel MUCH better than I did on the Ranier with a Thudbuster seatpost. I no longer feel all the high-frequency jarring and things seemed to be smooth enough. During and after my usual ride, I felt very fresh and much less beat up--even though I was hammering the trail.

    Also, I wonder how much vibration/shock gets absorbs my the NRS carbon frame? Does the carbon make the 3.75"" feel a little larger or is the carbon mostly just a weight thing?

    Back to the weight tradeoff...
    I guess (from what I hear) I would feel less bumps on a Trance...but F=ma sticks in my head. Would the extra weight of Trance keep me from going fast up hills? Would the extra weight make it much harder to re-acclerate after tight turns on the twisty trails that I ride? It is a hard equation for me, but I suspect that less weight = more accleration = more speed = more fun (until I hit that big root and then I wish I had a Trance )
    Last edited by Mike Young; 12-19-2004 at 12:13 AM.

  19. #19
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Young
    What exactly do you think are the negative tradeoffs of going with Trance 1 over the NRS 1? I had it in my mind that if you go with the Trance (over the NRS), you lose a little bit of peddling efficiency but unfortunately gain a lot of weight (in my mind, I was thinking of ~2 pounds). Would you agree with this assessement? I know weights are hard to come by.

    There is almost no tradeoff in efficiancy. The Trance is much more active and uses it's travel much more effectively than the NRS. Remember, the Trance is going to operate with sag and is not over-sprung like the NRS. Going up nasty rocky sections in the NRS could be more difficult due to this, because it will break traction sooner. There is also a tradeoff in weight, and yes it is significant, but I'd rather have active suspension that is doing something for me rather than just locking out from pedal inputs.

    Any FS bike is usually going to feel better than a hardtail, but as far as advantage of an NRS I think it's marginal. I was being a little outlandish with the comparission, but compared to a fully active FS design that uses some sag and the proper spring rate, the NRS is going to ride very harshly for the same amount of travel.

    And yes, a significantly lighter bike will be faster uphill and on flats. There's no getting around that.
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24

    20" NRS Composite 1 weight

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Young
    I estimated the NRS Composite 1 is ~25.5 lbs for the 20.5" frame (I was holding the bike on a decent digital bathroom scale and almost all of my readings were 25.5 after I subtracted my weight and my temporary 0.9 lb Shimano M515 pedals).
    FYI: I weighed the bike at the bicycle shop, and the weight came out to be about the same as the bathroom scale: ~25.7 lbs (without pedals)

  21. #21
    2010 Glory custom FR
    Reputation: frango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,026

    actual rear wheel travel of Trance

    hey! what is actual travel of Trance frame/bike?
    I have just seen US Spring Collection 2005 catalogue (I don't know if it's already available in US, but I have it )... anyway, Giant says Trance has 4,2" rear wheel travel not 4"
    I know that 0,5cm of travel makes no difference, but can anybody confirm that?
    pozdro
    frango

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by frango
    hey! what is actual travel of Trance frame/bike?
    I have just seen US Spring Collection 2005 catalogue (I don't know if it's already available in US, but I have it )... anyway, Giant says Trance has 4,2" rear wheel travel not 4"
    I know that 0,5cm of travel makes no difference, but can anybody confirm that?
    All the Trances have 4" of rear wheel travel.

  23. #23
    2010 Glory custom FR
    Reputation: frango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,026
    danmtchl, pls believe me, I have the catalogue in front of my eyes and it's written Trances have 4,2"
    anyone measured it?
    pozdro
    frango

  24. #24
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,594
    Quote Originally Posted by frango
    danmtchl, pls believe me, I have the catalogue in front of my eyes and it's written Trances have 4,2"
    anyone measured it?
    Being that Dan happens to OWN a Trance1 and is a GIANT dealer I would think he might have a very good idea - don't you?

    The container that my T3 is in should "hopefully" be cleared today and I may have my bike by this afternoon

  25. #25
    mtbr remember
    Reputation: BikeSATORI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,257
    danmtchl, pls believe me, I have the catalogue in front of my eyes and it's written Trances have 4,2"
    Is it 4,2" or 4.2" ??? Does it show travel in millimeters?? Should be somewhere around 100 I would guess? or if it really is 4.2" something like 107mm??
    Does it change between the RP3 and the Float Rl's??
    Schralp it Heavy.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NRS Owners.... Questions.
    By CulBaire in forum Giant
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-20-2004, 09:28 AM
  2. 16.5" NRS sizing regrets?
    By pcheninhk in forum Giant
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-16-2004, 08:58 AM
  3. $1000 for a Giant '04 NRS 3
    By pcheninhk in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-05-2004, 10:13 AM
  4. Pushing Giant NRS
    By velco in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-09-2004, 06:03 AM
  5. Your thoughts on negative mag review
    By Muddy D in forum Iron Horse
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-26-2004, 04:45 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
  •