[Closed] Anyone running 160mm forks on a giant trance 27.5??

You can reduce the travel on RS forks, but you need to buy an new air assy, which is about £50 IIRC.

The 35mm stanchions will make the most difference, if you have a load of spacers under the stem, that add up to more than 20mm - then you'll get the same ride height, but more travel.

IF you don't - you *may* find it a bit high at the front end, but I seem to remember the BB is pretty low on the Trance anyway,

Thanks rickon. Never thought about spacers, I run with a full set of spacers so plenty of scope for adjustment.

I went with the middle ground and put some 150mm Revelations on mine, which are a vast improvement over the Fox 32s it came with. I'd have probably gone with some Pikes if I wanted to spend that much at the time.

Doesn't the Trance X come with 160mm forks on what is the same frame?

Sx is the long travel. Not so great going uphill with 160s unless you go for the dual position option.

Running 140mm 34s on mine matched with 140 at the back. It's spot on.

Good to hear that Mikey. I'm sure the sx is the same frame. Thought about 150mm but in for a penny in for a pound.

I suspect of you tried 150 and 160 you wouldn't really notice a discernible difference when climbing or on flat, perhaps on the downs. Like is a great fork so the uplift in performance is why you'll notice.

Go 160, if it's of no difference price-wise.

160 it is then. Anyone seen any good deals???

Look at Alltricks, and the other Euro-sites (bike24, bike-discount.de etc), : They seemed to be offering the best prices when I bought my Revs.

Sound like you are trying to turn the bike into something it's not. After owning a trance with 140mm and trying one with 160mm I came to the conclusion that 140 is the top end they should have. You can stick as much travel on the front as you want but it may be too capable for the rear. It's designed as a trail bike not half enduro half trail bike.

Isnt the SX 160 front and 140 rear ??

Infact Im sure that when I was looking into new forks for mine I was told Giant say max fork travel for the Trance is 160mm.

Go for it I say.

I believe the only reason the trance is 140 at the rear is because the shocks they come with are internally spaced to reduce the travel , whereas the X or SX have this spacer removed, allowing the full 160 travel.

I think the Trance will be fine with 160 forks. I barely noticed any difference in climbing ability when I swapped to 150 forks.

My mate is selling a set of Lyrics 160mm if your interested
Thinks he's after £300 for them

Nope, sx is 140mm travel at the back too.

The shock is spaced to stop the swing arm hitting the seat tube. Some people have put the longer travel shock on but have suffered so slight contact issues.

Otherwise it would be a light weight reign.

http://m.pinkbike.com/buysell/1981759/

I still think the spacer thing is true, as I've chatted to people who've fitted unspaced shocks, getting 160 rear travel.

Why do you think you need more travel? Or is it more about getting bigger stanchions.

So move to a 34/36 or a Pike with 140mm travel.

I dont think my trance needs anymore than 140mm travel and I ride Lakes/Peaks/Pennines all the time.

Im running my 2016 Trance 1 with a 160 air spring. Ran it at 140/150 and now 160 and have been for 4 or 5 months! Personally think it runs better with more travel as it slackens the front end out.

I've done numerous GE events and the Dyfi Enduro on it and can't fault it. Lock the front and rear out and it climbs very well too imo.

There's a long thread on Pinkbike about fitting a 200x57 shock to give around 160mm rear travel. Seems to depend on shock and frame size as to whether it contacts the frame at full compression.

Bible of Bike test's review seems to suggest it's way better with 160mm up front and that's how it should have been from the go.

Personally, 140/140 is perfect for me and more bike than that would be wasted on my skillset (ok, so 80mm would probs suit me, on a hardtail) but hey...

Lyrik's on a Trance? Too much fork IMHO.