Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    76

    Trance X 120mm-140mm handling questions...

    just threw down the card for a 2008 x2.

    dont worry just yet, im going to ride it stock for a while so i can save up some money and

    solidify my decision. so here goes...

    for those that have swapped the f120 for a 140mm fork (like a pike) how was the handling

    change? was it drastic or more subtle? did you leave your stem/bar in the stock location or

    compensate (lower it) for the added fork height?

    also have another question: im really leaning toward a white brothers fluid (either 120 or

    140 both would have a 20mm front axle) but a co-worker is showing interest in a maverick

    for his bike and i had totaly forgotten about them until that point. i have zero ride time on a maverick or a white brothers.

    i just like to try new/different things. if you have experience with either of the forks (fluid 120/140, sc32/du32) please

    let me know which would be a better match to the Trace X. right now im really only looking for feedback from people

    who have ridden the forks, i could make assumptions on handling based off weight/technology/a2c, etc...all day long. i

    want to know the nitty gritty of the things thanks

    -redrider11-
    Last edited by redrider11; 04-24-2009 at 09:49 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,905
    the trance x has like a 50 foot long fork steerer and 6 thousand spacers stock if you dont like the height you can very easily drop the stem down.. a lot.

    i rode my stock trance (non x) at 100 for a while and it was ok.. put it at 115 and it was even better.. swapped out for 130 and it was much better.. at 140mm now and its great. adjustable travel forks are fantastic! the x model should give similar results. i love slack bikes though.

    i dropped about 10mm lower on the stem when changing to the 130.

  3. #3
    A Midwesterner in Europe
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    116
    I came off of a Giant Reign (2006) when I got my Trance X. So I had a few issues with the stability of the Trance with a 130 on it.

    I started out with a 130mm RS Revelation. I was not happy with the ride at all, it felt horrible to me. Meaning the fork travel length, not the brand or model of suspension fork. A Fox 140 RLC fell into my lap and the bike was much much better. It kicked the front end back just enough to make it right.

    My main issue was that on rock ledge drop offs, which I mainly will just roll down, the bike felt like it was getting stuck. The front wheel would drop and wouldn't push out and keep on going. My Reign didn't feel this way, on a small size rock drop off of about 12-18 inches I could roll down it and the bike could keep on going after the drop. The Trance seemed to get fudged up and wouldn't pop out.

    I could probably describe it better but that's what if felt like.

    With the 140 it's so much better.

    My position did change but that was due to be a fitting issue.

    I included some pictures of both setup's.

    First is 130mm fork with Thomson 110mm stem no rise. Second is Fox 140mm fork 90mm stem flipped to be a 6 degree decline. Plus in the second version the stem is slammed to the headset top cap. So down about 15mm of spacers.

    Hope that helped, any questions just reply.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    76
    thanks for the reply's guys.

    tom- i was thinking more about the actual fork travel and whether or not changing stem angle/length is needed. but thanks for the input on your trance. thats kinda how im feeling (im used to 66 degree's at the HA at the very steepest)

    j- thanks a lot for your description of the ride with both forks as well as some pics to show the different setups. thats kinda what i had in mind, go longer on the travel to slow the handling down, but keep the bars lower so im not in a "freeride" body position.

    now all i have to do is decide between the duc32 and the fluid 140. the duc is about 10mm longer in the axle to crown, but has the "climbing mode" that drops it to 4" of travel (cutting 50mm out of the a2c) but the fluid would only be about 27mm longer than the stock fork. essentially the fluid would get me around a 68.5 head angle, or the duc would be 68 for general riding around and downhill, and roughly 69 when dropped into "climbing mode"

    im starting to think the mav is the way to go. i still would love to hear comments from users of either fork.

    -redrider11-

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,163
    Quote Originally Posted by j.king
    I came off of a Giant Reign (2006) when I got my Trance X. So I had a few issues with the stability of the Trance with a 130 on it.

    I started out with a 130mm RS Revelation. I was not happy with the ride at all, it felt horrible to me. Meaning the fork travel length, not the brand or model of suspension fork. A Fox 140 RLC fell into my lap and the bike was much much better. It kicked the front end back just enough to make it right.

    My main issue was that on rock ledge drop offs, which I mainly will just roll down, the bike felt like it was getting stuck. The front wheel would drop and wouldn't push out and keep on going. My Reign didn't feel this way, on a small size rock drop off of about 12-18 inches I could roll down it and the bike could keep on going after the drop. The Trance seemed to get fudged up and wouldn't pop out.
    Curious. IMO, 10mm isn't going to change the feel and geo that much. I feel slacker is better but we are talking less than a half an inch. Whether by design or setup, It sounds more like the midstroke support and progressivity of the Fox was better than the Revelation. Thus diving less into the drop. I notice that same effect when I run my RC2X with no BO damping. If I increase BO, the fork ramps up quickly and the tire pushes through the drop instead of stalling.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    76
    actually, 10mm added of fork travel (and this isnt even taking into account the taller a2c of most longer travel forks) will add roughly .5 degrees to your HA, 5mm to your wheelbase
    (.19inches), and 3.5mm to the BB heigth. very miniscule changes, but the .5 degree to the HA should be noticable somewhat.

    not to mention that the forks im looking at would actually be changing the HA about 1 degree, adding almost a half inch to my W/B and about 1/3 of an inch to my BB heigth.

    i totaly understand where your coming from talking about the damping performance having a larger effect on the ride, but when i switched from my 150mm talas 36rc2 to my 160mm marzocchi am sl 1 on my enduro i noticed the bike felt much more stable in rougher sections but both forks felt the same as far as progressiveness/plushness (both would leave me with 1in of travel off a 2 ft drop and would soak up the smallest bump on the trail). so im lead to believe that at the very least that .5 to the HA does have a larger effect on a bike then most think.

    -redrider11-

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,163
    Quote Originally Posted by redrider11
    actually, 10mm added of fork travel (and this isnt even taking into account the taller a2c of most longer travel forks) will add roughly .5 degrees to your HA, 5mm to your wheelbase
    (.19inches), and 3.5mm to the BB heigth. very miniscule changes, but the .5 degree to the HA should be noticable somewhat.

    not to mention that the forks im looking at would actually be changing the HA about 1 degree, adding almost a half inch to my W/B and about 1/3 of an inch to my BB heigth.

    i totaly understand where your coming from talking about the damping performance having a larger effect on the ride, but when i switched from my 150mm talas 36rc2 to my 160mm marzocchi am sl 1 on my enduro i noticed the bike felt much more stable in rougher sections but both forks felt the same as far as progressiveness/plushness (both would leave me with 1in of travel off a 2 ft drop and would soak up the smallest bump on the trail). so im lead to believe that at the very least that .5 to the HA does have a larger effect on a bike then most think.

    -redrider11-

    RedRider11,
    I am not sure why you responded to my post. I was replying to another poster. I totally agree, all things being equal, that more travel and slacker geometry make a bike more stable. I wasn't contesting that but I stand by my original statement that 10mm is about 3/8th of an inch and that performance characteristics of the fork have more of an impact on the situation described by j.king than 10mm more of travel. Especially since the A2C of the REV130mm is only 2mm shorter than a 140mm 32 Fox. I base this on my experience with a 130mm Z1 Bomber, 115mm Reba, 140mm Pike, 140-180mm 66 SL ATA and a 66 RC2X, 888 RC2X.

    Keep in mind that A2C is not the same for forks with the same travel. eg. 140mm Fox 32 A@C is 510mm. 140mm Rockshox Pike is 518mm.

    For reference: 2006 150mm FOX 36 Talas A@C = 535mm, 2007 160mm Marz AM1 A2C = 551mm


    But for your particular original question, I would go with the biggest fork you are comfortable with. 150mm Fox Talas or 160mm Lyric coil u-turn would be interesting. I run a 180mm fork on my 6point. i
    Last edited by wormvine; 04-25-2009 at 09:58 PM.

  8. #8
    A Midwesterner in Europe
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    Curious. IMO, 10mm isn't going to change the feel and geo that much. I feel slacker is better but we are talking less than a half an inch. Whether by design or setup, It sounds more like the midstroke support and progressivity of the Fox was better than the Revelation. Thus diving less into the drop. I notice that same effect when I run my RC2X with no BO damping. If I increase BO, the fork ramps up quickly and the tire pushes through the drop instead of stalling.

    I would admit that the FOX fork was a huge performance difference over the RS so I'm sure you're correct about the midstroke support and progressivity of the FOX vs. the A2C height changing the geometry. Both my FOX fork and rear shock were dialed in for me by someone working at FOX. This also may have had a impact on the way my bike rode once it was properly setup.

    I was trying to keep my opinion of fork performance out of my post which is why I didn't mention the ride quality of either fork. I'm not sure what the A2C height is of either fork, but the bike felt different to me when I switched to the FOX. Maybe only 2 millimeters of difference but I would say that anyone who spends a decent amount of time on a bike will notice subtle changes to their own ride.


    As far as replying to the OP about recommending a fork. I haven't ridden any of the forks you mentioned. If it was me, I love the FOX I put on my Trance.

  9. #9
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,543
    I'll chime in here although I don't frequent this board much now....even back when the trance had 100mm travel people were using 115mm forks as standard and then you went up from there to as much as 140mm as some have said. The best plan is to purchase a travel adjust fork in the 100-140 range like the Pike, gain a 20mm TA andthe desired travel you want. When I had my trance I felt 115mm was about perfect for me since the fork wasn't adjustable, anymore and it would have required to much body english to climb.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gnatiAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    68

    140 = Good

    My trance x has a vanilla 140 on it. It feels much more plush and confident on the downs and going up it feels really good. I also have a thomson 50mm stem and my seat all the way back on the rails.

    I may have had to adjust the way I was climbing but it's been that way for so long I don't notice anymore. I like that I don't have to constantly flip levers and think "how much travel will I need for this downhill?" Just set rebound and compression and go.

    If your worried about HA and BB height just get a travel adjust for like the others have mentioned. Personally I like the TX with more travel. Let us know what you do and happy trails.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    196
    I am running a 2007 Fox Talas 36 (100/130/160) on my 09 Trance X2 and love it. I mostly run it in the 130 setting. It's a big improvement over the stock F120 RL...but I think the 20mm axle vs. QR15 might have more to do with that than an extra 10 mm of travel. The fork gives me much more confidence in the rough stuff.

    I run a 70 mm stem, but that's just my personal preference.


  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    76
    thanks for the responses guys, ive now owned the bike for 2 weeks and ridden it 3 times (one more lined up for tomorrow as well) its actually not too horrible stock, so if i do change to a different fork i think i might just stick with a 120mm fork. thats pretty much the reason i got the bike anyway (steeper angles than ALL my previous dual suspensions) and i dont want to try to make it something its not. plus ive been toying with the idea of getting a reign x...

    one problem however, im not getting full travel on the f120 (big surprise there huh? i guess i was hoping mine would for some reason not have the issue) so im gona play around with fluid levels tonight for my ride tomorrow. i might eventually get to the point of chopping 20mm as suggested numerous times in order to gain a larger air volume. but we'll see.

    thanks again for all of you who have responded. heres a pic of the first ride out (dont worry about the reflectors on the wheels, im just waiting for a front hub and some spokes to get my lightweight set on there)


    -redrider11-

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    40

    Nixon 130-160 too much

    Just a observation. I have a Nixon 130-160 and found that much above 145 the bike really doesn't track well on fast technical descents. The optimal height for me seems to be 130-140. I have ordered a 120mm Minute and am selling the Nixon, because the 160 setting just doesn't get used much.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHiEF_N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by bugger
    Just a observation. I have a Nixon 130-160 and found that much above 145 the bike really doesn't track well on fast technical descents. The optimal height for me seems to be 130-140. I have ordered a 120mm Minute and am selling the Nixon, because the 160 setting just doesn't get used much.
    Interesting. This is the 1st I've heard of a negative experience with 160mm on the TX, with regard to DH performance.

    Anyone else have any comments on running 160mm on the TX? I'm looking at a Talas 36 for mine to gear it more towards a light do-it-all AM rig and most def would be running it on DH courses at moderate speeds if I make the change. However, I won't be attempting to set any speed records on those DH trails and I'll probably opt out of some of the bigger drops. The extra travel would be primarily for 4-5 ft. drops with good trannys and for slacking the HA for steep technical rock drops and gardens.

    Windrock will be the DH I'm speaking of if anyone is familiar with the area. I've heard of others taking their TXs to Whistler, so it should do just fine with the extra travel, wider tires, beefier wheelset, shorter stem, wider bars and bash guard.

    Bugger - Is that Nixon a QR 9mm or 20mm? If it's 9mm then I can imagine that it wouldn't track well at 160mm, especially if you weigh around or more than 170lb.. All of the stellar reviews at 160mm have been based on the 20mm configuration.
    Last edited by CHiEF_N; 06-03-2009 at 10:18 AM.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12
    Thinking of the trance X frame, and have a 140mm Pike (dual air) which i'd like to keep - would it be alright - and might even improve the ride?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHiEF_N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    46
    Bike Bloke - There are several TX owners on here that are running the Pike and love it.

    The Fox 120mm that comes stock gives the TX a HA of 69.5 with an axle to crown of 491mm. The Pike at 140mm has an axle to crown of 520mm and should reduce the HA of the TX to around 68.3.

    If you've got the u-turn version you'll benefit from the versatility in HA by reducing the travel for the long fire road type climbs and then fully extending the travel for the long technical descents.

Posting Permissions

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