Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 41 of 41
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    7,706
    Quote Originally Posted by daught View Post
    Well thanks for the input. Looks like I'm just going to stick with it as it is. At best I'll score a volume spacer. It's really not that bad.

    Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
    You could still just give some 170 cranks a try. They'll help a noticeable amount with clearance. And personally, I just like a shorter crank, regardless of bb height.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,338
    Will do. Maybe even go 165.

    Not sure I can enjoy the bike anymore, now that I know it's obsolete.

    So what's the view on Manitou? Mattoc and McLeod seem to have few but very good reviews. Nothing here Would building a modern frame with them be a good direction?

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,373
    165 are very hard to find unless you get heavy DH cranks. 170 is the new standard easy to find.

    Manitou is good. So is XFusion and MRP.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    147
    Switching from 175 to 165 would completely change your pedaling, imo, if you have spent years in the saddle. You'll have to relearn how to pedal. Would not recommend unless you are 5'-6" or under, or spin like a top.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    7,941
    Yeah, try some first. I'm not a fan of 170mm cranks.

    Also, if you go this route, do some research. Some cranks have a single arm length with different drilling, so you're not changing anything but the pedal position.
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Beer:30
    Posts
    5,856
    Quote Originally Posted by daught View Post
    Will do. Maybe even go 165.

    Not sure I can enjoy the bike anymore, now that I know it's obsolete.

    So what's the view on Manitou? Mattoc and McLeod seem to have few but very good reviews. Nothing here Would building a modern frame with them be a good direction?
    I had a Mattoc Pro (previous generation) on my old bike and a Fox 36 Grip2 on my new bike. I think the new Fox is a little better but the Mattoc was really, really good.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    A quick glance at the kinematics on the older occams shows a pretty goofy leverage ratio. Massively regressive for the first half of the travel followed by fairly progressive for the second half.

    (Link to leverage ratio. I take everything on that guy's blog with a grain of salt, but it's probably roughly accurate.) http://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/20...-2012.html?m=1

    Which would 1) explain why you find that the bike works best at 50% sag - that's the inflection point from regressive to progressive. And 2) answers my previous statement: the bike is shit. The shock is probably fine. Also, 3) given that the overall leverage ratio is slightly regressive, I think a coil shock is not the answer. It might make things worse. Same goes for any of the newer, higher volume air shocks.

    Which leads me to 4: get a different bike.
    Thanks for posting that link. I disagree, I think it will work just fine with a coil spring shock or a high volume air shock. The leverage ratio is plotted really whack on that page, its actually +/- 10% variation off of 1:2.35 - that's basically a constant ratio.

    If there are volume spacers, take them out. Decrease sag to 30%. Run the propedal knob wide open, and adjust rebound damping to suit pedaling style.
    Last edited by Jonny Snow; 11-27-2018 at 09:59 PM.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,338
    Seed was planted and it grew. I reflected on my big crash this season and I'm pretty sure I need to move to a newer geometry. I think a giant trance would be a great for what I ride.

    I might buy new or used. Depends what desks I find over winter. How's the previous generation trance vs current? I'm not sure if I should care about boost our not. I wouldn't use boost tires most of the year, but maybe for winter riding?

    Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Beer:30
    Posts
    5,856
    What do you mean by "previous generation?" It doesn't look like there have been any massive changes to the geometry since the Trance first went to 27.5 in 2014, but I don't keep on top of Giant's changes year to year. It looks like sizing has shifted a little, that's about it, angles are the same.

    "Boost" refers to the spacing on the axles/hub flanges, not to tire width. If you want the most future-proof bike, get a boost frame.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by daught View Post
    Seed was planted and it grew. I reflected on my big crash this season and I'm pretty sure I need to move to a newer geometry. I think a giant trance would be a great for what I ride.

    I might buy new or used. Depends what desks I find over winter. How's the previous generation trance vs current? I'm not sure if I should care about boost our not. I wouldn't use boost tires most of the year, but maybe for winter riding?

    Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
    So did you try tuning your shock properly yet?

    If you're getting too much tire skip, you need to experiment with tire volume and pressure.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,373
    No shock tuning is going to fix that Orbea. We already discussed it.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by simple View Post
    No shock tuning is going to fix that Orbea. We already discussed it.
    Like I said before, the discussion is wrong. +/- 10% on the leverage ratio is basically straight rate. It feels planted because anything feels planted if you run it at 50% sag.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,373
    Are you looking at the 2012 plot? It isn't a 2012, it is the older single pivot.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by simple View Post
    Are you looking at the 2012 plot? It isn't a 2012, it is the older single pivot.
    Yeah you're right. It's probably more of a falling rate. It's only 115mm travel. My setup tips still apply for trail riding without stunts - more pressure, less sag, no volume spacers, minimum possible compression damping, rebound tuned to pedaling. If he needs more rear small bump cush, he should try a (high volume) 26x2.35 maxxis ikon exo with a huck norris and tune tire pressure accordingly.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,338
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    What do you mean by "previous generation?" It doesn't look like there have been any massive changes to the geometry since the Trance first went to 27.5 in 2014, but I don't keep on top of Giant's changes year to year. It looks like sizing has shifted a little, that's about it, angles are the same.

    "Boost" refers to the spacing on the axles/hub flanges, not to tire width. If you want the most future-proof bike, get a boost frame.
    Shorter chainstay by 0.5cm on the new one. Dunno how much of a difference that makes. I was referring to the difference in 27.5 pre 2017 vs 2017+.

    RE boost, I was just referring to bigger tires as "boost" tires. Is there value in that for winter riding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Snow View Post
    Yeah you're right. It's probably more of a falling rate. It's only 115mm travel. My setup tips still apply for trail riding without stunts - more pressure, less sag, no volume spacers, minimum possible compression damping, rebound tuned to pedaling. If he needs more rear small bump cush, he should try a (high volume) 26x2.35 maxxis ikon exo with a huck norris and tune tire pressure accordingly.
    I have a 599bX2.34 rock razor. Fills the rear triangle. Tubeless with low pressure. I messed with the rear tire pressure and shock a lot. No volume spacer, it's a compromise between bottoming out (hard) on jumps and keeping the rear tire from bouncing.

    The bike is also twitchy on landings... see my "riding with full armor because I broke a vertebrae" thread

    Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    597
    Well, there's not a whole lot you can do with any 115mm travel bike in getting it to feel plush during normal trail riding and not bottom out on jumps.

Posting Permissions

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