Not sure about the service history of the shock to be honest. One of the joys of buying off ebay ! All the adjustments seem to work i.e. propedal stiffens it up etc. But so far it’s just had a few shakedown runs (to make sure nothing falls off). I’ll hopefully get a proper ride on it over the weekend. If the geometry seems basically OK then I might get the shock serviced to see what difference that makes.

Cheers,

Andy

Well that was fun 🙂

I took the Orange on a two hour blast over and around Bennachie this morning. A route I’ve ridden a few times on the Trance. Nothing particularly technical, but some climbs, rocky bits, boggy bits etc.

Based on … well just on the way it looks really, I’d expected the Orange to be solid, dependable, maybe even agricultural. In fact the words that seemed to describe it best were, lively and fun. It’s a bike that just wants to play, which wasn’t really what I was expecting at all.

I started off with a gentle fire road climb (lockout & propedal on), which was uneventful. I had the forks wound down to 120mm. I then came to a steep loose climb (turn off lockout/propedal), which I’ve failed to get up the last few times on the Trance and got up it no problem, which was a pleasant surprise. Now I have cleared it on the Trance once or twice as well, so I may have just got lucky, or maybe the vegetation has died back a bit. It did seem easier to move the Orange around though and it felt more stable at low speed. On the steepest section there are two line choices. One is tough at the start (never cleared it) then easier, the other starts smoother then has bigger bumps. With the Orange I was able to start on one then pop across to the other line half way up, which I’ve never managed before. But, as I say, I may have just got lucky.

The next section is a drag up to the top, which is on the limit for me physically. I couldn’t ride all the way up a few months ago, but now I can, just. I left propedal off (because this is what I do on the Giant) and prepared to suffer. And suffer I did, but I still managed to ride all the way.

Once at the top I set the forks to 150mm and tackled a boggy and rocky section. This has lots of deep but narrow holes and I found the Orange a bit of a handful here. It was hard to keep on top of the front wheel and it felt a bit like riding a Bronco. It might just be a case of getting used to the feel with the longer travel, but I’d be tempted to leave it at 120mm for this section next time.

Riding across the top (rocky path) it felt great and again it was its ability to scramble up loose steep bits that really surprised me. A few time I rode up some obstacle before realizing that it was something that had given me problems in the past.

Coming down was fun, but I did feel that the back end was more flexible than the Trance. It wasn’t necessarily a bad thing and contributed to the general lively feeling of the ride, but it could be a problem if you really wanted to push it. I suspect that this extra flex was also a factor in the way it was able to get up steep technical stuff, with the back able to move around rocks a bit more.

As I said I’d expected the Orange to be the solid dependable one of the two. In fact the opposite is true. The Trance is totally dependable. It’s a real skill compensator, which is great if, like me, you have no skills. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve messed something up (either because I didn’t see it in time or just rode it badly) and have been left thinking “wow, how am I still upright”. The Trance is a great go anywhere, do anything bike that will never let you down and encourages you to keep on pushing it. The Orange is the fun bike that brings a big grin to my face, but I do wonder if one day it may get me in trouble (when the back steps out of line unexpectedly, for example).

I’d also expected that the Orange would be better going down but worse going up. In fact, the biggest surprise was how good the Orange was at going up stuff. It seemed no worse on fire road type climbs and much better on loose rocky climbs. Going down they were probably about the same, although I’ve ridden the Trance a lot more of course so have more confidence pushing it.

The two fork travel options were a bit of a surprise too. It was great having the choice and really made it feel like two bikes. I’m not sure why multi-travel options aren’t more popular really although I wish Rockshox had made the handlebar remote control the travel rather than the lockout. In general the Orange felt much better at 120mm than I’d expected but not as good (more of a handful) at 150mm as I’d hoped. I expected that I’d use the 120mm just for climbing and 150mm for everything else. In fact I think 120mm was better for climbs and for anything technical (rock gardens etc) with 150mm being better for smoother trails and going down.

Interestingly, I’d taken it for a quick spin around the block yesterday, to make sure nothing was going to break or fall off today and 150mm felt much better than 120mm on the roads. At 120mm it just felt too steep and like I was too far over the front wheel. But, as I say, it felt great once I hit the trails. I guess this shows how limited test rides around a car park are.

Of course the Trance doesn’t have multi-position forks, which brings us to the problems with this test. Leaving aside the fact that I knew which bike I was riding (which means there is so much potential for observer bias that any scientist would consider the results to be meaningless), there are more differences between these two bikes than just the frame. These include:

Rockshox Revelation RLT dual position (120/150) forks on the Orange and Fox F125RL forks on the Trance.

An old Fox RP23 shock (with unknown service history) on the Orange vs a new Fox RP2 shock on the Trance.

75mm stem and wider bars on the Orange vs 110mm stem and narrower bars on the Trance.

Hope Hoops with ZTR Flow EX rims running tubeless on the Orange vs Giant wheels with tubes on the Trance (both had Nobby Nic tyres running at 30psi though).

So, whether the differences I’ve noted are really down the frame or some combination of the above is open for debate.

The bottom line though, was that I really enjoyed riding the Orange. It may be six year old technology but really I couldn’t say that it’s any worse than the modern Trance, just different (more fun, better on technical climbs but less solid feeling). In fact, the only thing that I really missed from the Trance was the dropper post that I’ve installed (which wont fit in the 27.2mm seat tube of the Orange).

Cheers,

Andy

Thanks. Guess we’re all different as I really enjoyed the Five and can’t wait to ride it again.

I’m reluctant to drop the bars to make it better at 150mm in case it makes it worse at 120mm where is was really surprisingly good. But I guess it would be easy enough to move a spacer from under the stem and I could put it back on the trail if I didn’t like it.

There is also an issue that I forgot to mention with the size. The Trance is a Large (20″) where the Orange is 18″. I spent a long while trying to decide between M and L with the Trance and I’m still not sure if the Orange is the right size. Being smaller makes it easier to chuck around though.

The flex could have been in my head of course, but it didn’t feel as tight as the Trance.

Cheers

Andy

I’ve managed to twist my knee (putting the mockers on a test ride of a Rocket that I had lined up with the good folk at CycleWorld in Arbroath), so while I’m feeling sorry for myself I thought I’d conclude this comparison.

I’ve now ridden the Five on a range of routes; from 5 hour days in the Highlands to blue, red and black routes at some trail centres (Pitfichie, Balblair and Carbisdale) and I’ve come to the conclusion that the Five is better at the extremes and the Trance is better everywhere else. By which I mean that I can get up some steep technical climbs on the Five that I can’t manage on the Trance (or at least get up them more often) and I can ride down some stuff that I wimp out of on the Trance, but for 90% of the ride the Trance feels smoother and more solid. This actually makes it quite a hard call for me. I tend to define success on a ride by the toughest thing I’ve managed to ride up or down. Most of my routes contain bits that I can’t manage (which is what keeps bringing me back) and if I ever clear them there are plenty of tougher things waiting in the wings. So, for me, the Five wins. It may not be as refined most of the time, but it’s good enough.

Of course, you could equally well argue that you should choose a bike for the 90% of the ride and not the 10% and if I were mainly riding routes that were in my comfort zone I’d take the Trance (and hit them a bit harder).

Finally, the qualifier. This isn’t really a comparison between a Trance and a Five. The Trance is a stock 2012 X2 model, but the Five was put together from second hand bits (2006 frame etc). For example, the Five uses dual position 120/150mm forks (compared with the 125mm on the Trance). The Five also has a shorter stem and wider bars than the Trance (and is a smaller bike overall). It’s possible that putting a longer (or variable length) fork, shorter stem and wider bars on the Trance would result in a bike that beat the Five everywhere. But I’m actually quite taken with the old Five and will probably move the Trance on when it gets back from the shop. Still fancy trying something lower and slacker though (newer Five, Rocket) and I probably shouldn’t rule out bigger wheels just yet. Decisions, decisions…

Cheers,

Andy