2021 Giant Trance X E+ review

[1oldfart]

I have not tried running in low mode yet, probably will not either as I get quite a few rock and log rolls that strike the motor.

I am actually going to up the fork to 160 with an air shaft and leave the bike on high. This should then closely match the geometry of the standard bike on low, and hopefully help clear more log and rock rolls.

My trails can be tight and twisty and the added agility of high mode seems to suit these trails better.

I also ride in places where a high BB is a nice feature. I ordered one 2021 and plan tu use 2.8 tires and the highest position, maybe even a 3.0 in front. From my search the fork has plenty of room. I am supposed to get it in june.

 

[7869hodgy]

I picked mine up yesterday.

First Impressions:

It feels a bit lighter than it’s 2020 predecessor and a lot more chuckable.

For something that looks very similar with similar geometry the riding position seems slightly more upright...still need get seat right though.

Motor seems noisy when in high gears but it’s only done 23km.

Cable routing 100% better, battery protection 100% better and colour scheme 100% better.

Shifting is super slick as you’d expect on a new bike (XTR vs XT rear derailleur may help)

Picked up a few Strava PRs (by 10 secs on one) on my regular 23km circuit I’ve ridden 40/50 times and also a KOM.

Starting battery was 93% and finished at 64%. Same ride on the 2020 would have been 50% battery left from 100%.....albeit in colder conditions.

EDIT - battery came 93% charged, I managed 78km with 6% remaining. Mainly ECO/ECO+ but hit POWER a few times.

So far very chuffed. Hopefully it will be as reliable as the 2020 I did 2300km miles on. And it stayed clean after its maiden voyage

Out:

In:

 

[DrStupid]

I picked mine up yesterday.

First Impressions:

It feels a bit lighter than it’s 2020 predecessor and a lot more chuckable.

For something that looks very similar with similar geometry the riding position seems slightly more upright...still need get seat right though.

Motor seems noisy when in high gears but it’s only done 23km.

Cable routing 100% better, battery protection 100% better and colour scheme 100% better.

Shifting is super slick as you’d expect on a new bike (XTR vs XT rear derailleur may help)

Picked up a few Strava PRs (by 10 secs on one) on my regular 23km circuit I’ve ridden 40/50 times and also a KOM.

Starting battery was 93% and finished at 64%. Same ride on the 2020 would have been 50% battery left from 100%.....albeit in colder conditions.

So far very chuffed. Hopefully it will be as reliable as the 2020 I did 2300km miles on. And it stayed clean after its maiden voyage

Out:

View attachment 57641

In:

View attachment 57642
View attachment 57643
View attachment 57644
View attachment 57645
View attachment 57646

I've been too lazy to actually make a study of the geometry between the two bikes (in my case a trance19e and tranceXe), but it seems odd that the bike which offers the better cornering, is also the bike which suffers less from peddle-strikes, the longer bike is more playful, yet goes faster pretty much everywhere.

 

[DrStupid]

I picked mine up yesterday.

First Impressions:

It feels a bit lighter than it’s 2020 predecessor and a lot more chuckable.

For something that looks very similar with similar geometry the riding position seems slightly more upright...still need get seat right though.

Motor seems noisy when in high gears but it’s only done 23km.

Cable routing 100% better, battery protection 100% better and colour scheme 100% better.

Shifting is super slick as you’d expect on a new bike (XTR vs XT rear derailleur may help)

Picked up a few Strava PRs (by 10 secs on one) on my regular 23km circuit I’ve ridden 40/50 times and also a KOM.

Starting battery was 93% and finished at 64%. Same ride on the 2020 would have been 50% battery left from 100%.....albeit in colder conditions.

So far very chuffed. Hopefully it will be as reliable as the 2020 I did 2300km miles on. And it stayed clean after its maiden voyage

Out:

View attachment 57641

In:

View attachment 57642
View attachment 57643
View attachment 57644
View attachment 57645
View attachment 57646

Oh yeah. Congrats on the new bike!

 

[7869hodgy]

Update - 34km ride today from 47% battery. About 8 mins of full power on climbs the rest was ECO/ECO+. One full recharge so far.

 

[Kolskis]

Hi ROB, thank you for the work you are doing for us! For about two weeks I have been the owner of this bike in the PRO 2 version. I am 174cm tall and I bought a size M (how did it look for you during the test?). I wonder if you checked the flip-chip settings on HIGH? Because from what I saw you had it set to LOW. The bike came to me with the original settings on HIGH and so I drove about 300 km. However, I am thinking of switching to LOW which will shorten REACH, or rather, I need it with my height. Also in another group test "HIGH" was not recommended
By definition HIGH suits me better, but it's probably only in theory ... because the bike is generally big. But on LOW, the bike will be shorter and have a 10mm smaller REACH (and will come closer to my RAD).
Also on LOW, the bottom bracket will be 10mm lower and on HIGH I often had contact with the roots during climbs and turns. I will be grateful for your response. How do you see it, do you feel it, etc. What will be the benefit of seting to LOW? Is anyone ride this bike on LOW? (I add this comment on YT, I delete it after response) Greetings!

 

[1oldfart]

Hi ROB, thank you for the work you are doing for us! For about two weeks I have been the owner of this bike in the PRO 2 version. I am 174cm tall and I bought a size M (how did it look for you during the test?). I wonder if you checked the flip-chip settings on HIGH? Because from what I saw you had it set to LOW. The bike came to me with the original settings on HIGH and so I drove about 300 km. However, I am thinking of switching to LOW which will shorten REACH, or rather, I need it with my height. Also in another group test "HIGH" was not recommended
By definition HIGH suits me better, but it's probably only in theory ... because the bike is generally big. But on LOW, the bike will be shorter and have a 10mm smaller REACH (and will come closer to my RAD).
Also on LOW, the bottom bracket will be 10mm lower and on HIGH I often had contact with the roots during climbs and turns. I will be grateful for your response. How do you see it, do you feel it, etc. What will be the benefit of seting to LOW? Is anyone ride this bike on LOW? (I add this comment on YT, I delete it after response) Greetings!

I have crazy long legs. You can shorten just about any bike, i do. Pull your saddle forward, use a shorter stem. You can probably win some mm in 3 ways even if they are small they will add up. Try sliding your brakes levers closer together. First test than you might be able to cut your bar. For where i ride using low is not an option. Maybe a riser bar will suit you better?