[Closed] Whyte C120 v Giant Trance

Whyte S-120 you mean...?

Not ridden either (yet), Guy Kesteven has reviewed both for Bikeradar in the last year or so, and rated the S-120 as his bike of the year and he was a bit meh about the Trance which surprised me!

Yeah, I meant the S120 C.

Replying as a book Mark

But my reading suggests that the Trance isn't really aimed at the pedaling a longish route market.

I used to have an NRS (which I replaced with an 80 mm Anthem that I still have) and have tried a couple of older Trances. The NRS was an XC race bike aimed at hardtail riders who just wanted a little bit of suspension. The Trance was a much plusher bike, much easier to ride on rough terrain. From what I gather, the newer Trances are much longer travel again. If you like the NRS, maybe it's worth test riding an Anthem, the newer ones are probably more like the old Trances I tried.

Chatting to the chap in the lbs the current anthem is more of a marathon all day bike, unfortunately those days are long gone. I am more of a trail rider, which is why I'm looking at a longer travel bike.

I found the S120 to be a bit too long for my liking - compared to other similar bikes the front end is waaay out there. Trance was confidence inspiring but the Canyon Neuron was a bit more playful.

The Trance 29er sounds like what you want if your riding is geared more towards trail riding. Really fun, balanced bikes. I also find newer Whyte bikes to be far too long. Giant are usually better speced for the money too.

S120. The trance is decent but the Whyte is a better ride. Better descender and while a bit heavier, a better climber too. The Trance tends to wallow a bit more and the geometry is pretty conservative. Whyte will also be much easier to live with, lifetime warranty on the bearings, properly thought out frame and no stupid press fit bb

I also find newer Whyte bikes to be far too long. Giant are usually better speced for the money too.

Buy the size to fit you, don't just believe you are a medium regardless...

I'm 5ft10, and though I could ride the Large Whyte S-120 happily, I'd buy the medium. If I was getting the Giant Trance, I'd firmly be on the Large, which sizes about the same as the medium Whyte.

Rode the S120 a week or so ago.

I wanted to love it but... I simply didn't.

What people call conservative geometry now days strikes me as the best geo for most riders.

The S120 has Enduro bike geo with 120mm of travel at the back. Kinda pointless. I found it was good in a straightish line with gravity onside but apart from that it was generally hard work.

You could argue it was quick, I was riding winter conditions and still recorded some top 20 times for the year on trails with 3000 riders on them.

But I had to throttle the thing half to death and was shattered, it don't ride light.

Now because I didn't love it I've gone and ordered a Ripley frame and as such am a grand or so worse off.

The Ripley is mint.

Of the 2 you mentioned, Whyte if you are a fit as speed freak that has the strength to wring it's elongated neck. Giant for an all round more accessible ride.

I know it's not always easy but being honest about your own ability is key.

^ refreshing view!

What people call conservative geometry now days strikes me as the best geo for most riders.

This to a T.

My take on the ultra long, low, slack geometry is that it is pushed heavily on to people who really would be better off with one of these more "conservative" bikes. Pictures of riders railing berms, doing massive drop-offs and straightlining gnarly rock gardens at speed make good copy on bike websites and in bike mags. Its the riding many people aspire to do, regardless of the kind of riding they actually do.

The Whyte bearing thing seems like a bit of a swizz, many on the FB owners page say the bearings supplied are crap so you still end up paying labour on a regular basis if you don't DIY. Branded SKF etc are meant to be a lot better for those that have switched out their own pocket.