The Giant Reign has been in existence for 15 years, evolving every few seasons to keep up with mountain biking's ongoing evolution. The latest version now rolls on 29” wheels, which shouldn't come as a massive surprise, but it is still slightly humorous to look back at the images that Giant once published to promote 27.5” wheels as the one wheel size to rule them all...
Of course, that ended when the short travel
Trance 29 was released last year, and now the focus is on the new Reign 29. It was designed to meet the needs of the Giant Factory Off-Road team's Enduro World Series racers, or anyone whose trail preference trends towards the gnarlier side of things.
Giant Reign Advanced 29 Details• Wheel size: 29"
• Travel: 146mm / 160mm fork
• Carbon frame
• 65° head angle
• 439mm chainstays
• PF92 bottom bracket
• Alloy models available
• Price: $3,000 - $9,000 USD
•
www.giant-bicycles.com The 27.5” Reign had 160mm of travel, but the new Reign 29 has a bit less – 146mm to be precise. That's paired up with a 160mm fork up front, which gives the bike a 65-degree head angle.
There are three carbon models of the Reign 29, with prices ranging from $4,000 to $9,000 USD. Aluminum models start at $3,000, and there's also an alloy SX model that gets a coil-sprung shock and a 170mm fork.
Frame Details & Suspension Design The Reign Advanced models are carbon from tip to tail, except for the aluminum lower link. The overall shape is quite similar to the Trance 29, especially the swingarm, which is braced on the non-drive side. Giant's Maestro suspension design is in place, which uses two co-rotating links to attach the swingarm to the shock.
There's a stubby little seat mast that extends above the top tube with a two bolt seatpost clamp. Thankfully, the advent of dropper posts means that those bolts won't need to be adjusted much, but I'm not sure why they didn't just go with a simple single bolt design. On the topic of dropper posts, the size large and XL bikes get posts with 150mm of drop, but the smaller sizes only have 125mm; it'd be nice to more drop for all sizes, especially now that there are a number of worthy 175 and even 200mm options on the market.
MRP chainguides with bash guards are installed on all models, which is a nice touch. Dropped chains are relatively rare these days, but rocks haven't gotten any less solid, so it's nice to have a little extra protection in order to avoid trashing a chainring or mangling a chain.
Giant tested three versions of the Reign 29 during the development process. The first iteration had a shorter stroke shock, and slightly less travel, but that didn't end up giving them the ride feel they were looking for. The next version was closer to what they wanted, but Giant's designers ended up tweaking the kinematics a bit more before settling on a shock with a 60mm stroke shock. The frame has a 16.6% leverage rate progression, which should allow it to work with either an air or coil-sprung shock.
Geometry The Reign 29 has a 65-degree head angle, which would have been considered slack a few years ago, but is now fairly typical for bikes in this travel bracket. The seat angle has been steepened considerably compared to the 27.5” Reign, and now sits at 76.8-degrees for all sizes.
It's the Reign's reach numbers where things get a little interesting. A small measures 428mm, a medium measures 455mm, and then there's a whopping 38mm jump up to the size large that checks in at a sprawling 493mm, followed by the XL at 515mm. I'll get back to that sizing jump in a bit, but it does mean that some riders could find themselves scratching their heads when trying to figure out what size to go with.
Models I spent two days on the Reign 29 Advanced Pro 0 model, which retails for $9,000. That hefty chunk of change gets you SRAM's X01 Eagle 12-speed drivetrain, Code RSC brakes, Factory-series Fox 36 Float fork and X2 shock, along with Giant's TRX-0 carbon wheels and EXO+ casing Maxxis Minion DHF and DHR II tires.
• Reign Advance Pro 29 1: This is the model that caught my eye, and not just because of the carbon frame's sparkly black and grey paint scheme. There's a SRAM GX 12-speed drivetrain, Code R brakes, Fox 36 Performance Elite fork and X2 shock, plus Giant's alloy TR-1 alloy wheels with a 2.5" Maxxis DHF EXO+ and a 2.4" DHR II EXO+. $5,000.
• Reign Advanced Pro 29 2: Carbon frame, SRAM NX, RockShox Lyric Select+, RockShox Deluxe Select, Shimano MT520 brakes. $4,000.
• Reign 29 2: Alloy frame, SRAM NX drivetrain, Shimano MT520 brakes, RockShox Yari RC, RockShox Deluxe Select+. $3,000.
• Reign 29 SX: Alloy frame, SRAM NX drivetrain, Code R brakes, 170mm Fox 36 Performance Elite, DHX2 Performance Elite. $4,000.
Revelstoke, British Columbia, served as the launching pad for the new Reign 29, a location with no shortage of incredible mountain views and long, rugged descents.
The Reign 29's steeper seat tube angle is a welcome change compared to the 27.5” version. In addition to creating a more comfortable climbing position, it also plays a role in reducing the amount of suspension movement – there's less leverage on the shock when your weight is situated above, rather than behind it. Seat angle aside, even when standing out of the saddle the Reign 29 is a calm climber, and I never needed to flip the Float X2's compression lever to the firmer position.
There was one issue that surfaced on some of the bikes at the launch – under hard pedaling, typically in the easier gears used for climbing, the rear brake rotor would contact the pads with a subtle 'thwing' noise. The frame didn't feel overly-flexy at all while riding, and the super-scientific "grab the rear wheel and pull it back and forth" stiffness test didn't reveal anything out of the ordinary, but it's something that's worth further investigation.
At 5'11” (180cm), I typically prefer bikes with a reach somewhere in the 460 – 480mm range. Top tube length also plays into the equation, but reach is a good place to start when it comes to modern bike sizing. With the Reign 29, I'm in right in between sizes – the seated pedaling position of the medium felt a little cramped, and on the large I had moments where it felt like the long front end made cornering and slower speed maneuvering more difficult than necessary.
Now, I don't mind a long wheelbase, especially on a gravity-oriented bike, but if more stability was the goal I think it would have been better to get that by slackening the head angle rather than stretching out the reach even further. That being said, the bike's sizing looks more typical for the small, medium, and XL sizes, so riders taller and shorter than myself will probably have a much easier time than I did.
The long reach aside, the Reign hasn't lost any of its ability to devour bumps and plow through natural hallways filled with roots and rocks. The Float X2 and Fox 36 combo is a formidable suspension package, and while 146mm isn't the most common amount of travel, I never had any harsh bottom outs or moments where I felt like I wanted a few millimeters more squish.
It's easy to see how the Reign would make a good enduro race bike – despite its length it doesn't feel sluggish once it's up to speed, and it'll reward an aggressive rider who can push it at a higher pace. There are a few quirks that are worth looking into, though; we'll get one in to see how it fares in a long term test.
1. DT Swiss 370 Hubs [they are a dumpster fire and pop constantly].
2. Guide R brakes [they slow you down only because you are afraid to go fast].
3. Fancier derailleurs with shitty cassettes and shifters [the cassette has all the weight, and the shifter creates the accuracy... the derailleur doesn't matter and is just there to get ripped off].
_SO_ _MUCH_ _YES_ for points 2 and 3. I went for an X01 build with my current bike because i also got the X01 cassette. If it was the der. and shifter from X01 and a GX cassette in the X01 kit, i'd go GX, no question about it. I don't care about the derailleur and shifter, give me the fancy cassette where it actually does cause a difference.
And yeah, allt he moaning about Guides is, i think, caused by Guide Rs. RS and RSC models don't seem to be an issue.
GX cassette & shifter with an X01 mech is the best price / performance combo.
Despite the lack of praise the dt370s seem to be receiving here, they are one of the few hubs that come in 12 sp shimano micro spline config. Why anyone would spec eagle nx over 12sp slx is beyond me.
I have two of those wheelsets and they are great and pretty sturdy.
Regarding GX dumpster fire and the like, mine worked really well for a year. What seems to be the issue since i heard this comment quite a few times already.
Easily but expensively. Get a better wheelset and sell the old one, it will cost you about the same and give you a better product overall.
What's really bad is the wooden (but consistent) lever feel of the Guide T's, which are on too many fast&cheap trailbikes from '19+
I'd happily put code R levers on a bike that came stock with a guide system though. Extra fluid, better lever feel, more time between bleeds
As for more volume and the like, yeah, it's true, the Codes have more volume, better heat dissipation, etc. But at first pull the heat dissipation is not needed where the system is cold. And the extra volume does squat there as well. The mechanical advantage, the ratio of areas between the pistons, is where you gain the power.
Guides are supposedly running 13 and 14 mm pistons. The Codes 15 and 16 mm. That means Codes have ~33 % more surface area. If the master cylinder piston diameter is the same for both, it would mean 33 % more power (surface area wise alone) for the Codes. The swing link should bring that closer, but in the end, yeah, the Codes should still be more powerful. With the same sized master cylinder piston. I would however say the Codes have a slightly larger piston to move more fluid so you get the same piston movement. Or a different lever geometry to move the piston more, in both cases negating the caliper piston surface area advantage.
I'm basing my comments regarding the shittines of R brakes on the fact that _SO_ _MANY_ people have issues with them, either failing or just not having enough power. And i don't think i've heard anyone have issues (bar the swollen pistons in the lever) for the RS and RSC models. With the swing link being the differentiator here.
I mean a friend on 200/200 rotors and ~110 kg has no issues stopping on Guide RSCs, while a friend of mine with ~60 kg and 200/180 rotors says the Guide Rs are lacking in power. And i'm thinking about getting some RSC levers to try out the theory here if it is actually the swing link.
In terms of SwingLink, the main purpose is to get a precise, modulated bite point while speeding up the initial piston travel - to get more space between the pads and the rotor. Does slowing down the amount the pads move for the amount the lever moves really increase braking power? Come on
Yes, the Code range will be higher than the Guide range. But that obviously doesn't mean ANY Code brake will be significantly higher than ANY Guide brake. The ranges just about overlap. And yes, it's down to the Swinglink, what else? It's the only differnetiator between Code RSC and Code R and is one of the benefits of Guide ultimate with smaller pistons and everything else being the negative of the Guide. What else could make that big of a difference?
And does it really increase braking power? Of course. You can bet your ass it does.
I hope you're familiar with hydraulic systems. Having two different connected syringes, pressing with force X on the smaller one will cause the larger one to rise half as much but with a force of 2X, if the surface area of the second one is twice as large (~1,4 times bigger diameter). The flow volume will be the same.
So, if you use larger pistons on the Codes, you will be moving the pistons less with the same master cylinder and get more power, or use a bigger MC and move the pistons the same amount as on the Guides. The first will give you more power, the second will give you the same power, so no net gain. If you want the best of both worlds, you need a longer master cylinder piston throw. You do that by altering the leverage ratio between the finger and the piston. But the finger is the one constant here, you have X amount of throw and Y amount of force, basically Z amount of energy available for braking. And that last part is the key here.
Given a finger, you can have only so much power. You can go out of this world with the power, but the brake pads will not move and you will get draggy brakes. So if you want pad travel AND power, you need something to get the best of both worlds. Enter swing link. You have a bad leverage ratio at start, giving you almost no force, but lots of piston movement (because no force is needed at all). When the pads contact, you change the leverage ratio to small movement and high force. So you get lots of braking power AND modulation, since a relatively large movement of the finger on the lever itself gives a small movement of the master cylinder piston.
So yes, YES, the swing link does REALLY increase power. It's simple physics and logic.
And here come the downvotes.
Try again.
@makripper: Let me quote parkourfan's post: " in documented lab tests 45kmh-0, code R is 0.3 seconds faster to stop than the guide ultimates. Code RSC is about 3.5 seconds faster to stop." So 'the same power' is between a Code R and a Guide Ultimate (RSC). Which part is a load of crap again?
I mean, if you call out my comments for a load of crap, please do so with an explanation as to why you a) think that is so, b) use logic that actually is logical to support your argument. I have clearly written out why i think it is so and everything is very clear and easily explainable to anyone with basic knowledge of physics. And even people calling me out for talking shit have basically supported my argument, see the parkourfan quoted post above for example. It's a DIRECT confirmation that the swing-link does what i say it does.
"Does slowing down the amount the pads move for the amount the lever moves really increase braking power? Come on"
Yes, that is exactly the effect that it has.
Average braking torque, or forces, measured in NM at the caliper DOES NOT directly correlate with more deceleration power. Staying in the SRAM family with consumer-available testing, the level ultimate's 45-0kmh deceleration got a 9.7 at 62.1nm. The Guide ultimate (RSC, carbon blade), a 12.2 at 71.7nm. The guide T (jack shit for special technologies), 10.2 at 55.1. Doesn't mean that the guide ultimates are worse of a brake than the others in the guide lineup, or that you should throw level ultimate's on your DH bike.
The Code R generated 69.2nm. The Code RSC, 70.6nm, with the RSC providing faster deceleration force. Unfortunately, between the confounding factors and the lack of extra consumer information, you won't be able to tell if that's statistically significant, or if the swinglink actually makes a difference in applied torque. There are a TON of confounding factors when it comes to dyno testing brakes - bleed quality, bearings vs. bushings, lever material, pad/backing compounds between brakes, temperature control...you're seeing multiple confounds even testing the Codes in different guises back to back. Interesting results nonetheless.
Like I said before, SRAM's *primary* utility for swinglink, from what has been shown through STU, tech-only seminars and webinars, (as well as consumer marketing) is modulation, with power benefits rarely being mentioned.
To skim some of your other paragraphs, your argument has been sloppy and you started out with an anecdotal fallacy, saying "hurr well one of my friends says RSC's are great and another says the R's suck", and it devolved from there. Swing link was not a differentiation in the warranty claims for the guide series of brakes. The production dates for the affected models of guide are clearly defined, and included plenty of RS's and RSC's. Without working in SRAM's warranty department, you have NO base in which to say "R's are less reliable" without using purely anecdotal evidence. Naturally, there are more R's on the market than any other option. Naturally, there would be more issues out there to speak of.
You don't even know the correct piston sizes of a guide brake, yet base your "logical" arguments on it. Without much more information, you won't be able to armchair engineer yourself into proving that "the ranges (i.e. guide and code) just about overlap", which of course is you going back on your original statement, involving you not being surprised if the Guide RS would have more power than the Code R's.
Which is partially why I didn't bother responding after a certain point, since you can't argue with stupid - and I don't like e-peening industry experience on PB - since it's a bad look. That being said, if you're not a SRAM tech, haven't worked UCI sanctioned events as a mechanic, haven't been the lead tech at global race series (that one may be a straight e-peen claim, as the only hydraulic systems I had to rebuild were magura and shimano in that series, but I digress), don't have bulk SRAM workshop boxes of guide/code internals in your toolbox, let alone haven't had applicable shop experience (for the wild claims about not seeing any issues with the RS and RSC vs. the R), your armchair engineering based off misinformation and limited experience hardly lends itself to you throwing paragraph responses at anyone who replies to this thread.
I understand that in terms of brakes, a low leverage ratio favors fast pad travel over power. As leverage ratio increases, pad travel for lever movement decreases, but power goes up.
And, not to get into an ill worded flame war with you as well, the bell curve of sizing for a company that wants to sell a whole lot of bikes should probably be centered around the global average of 5'9, with a medium fitting someone within a few inches of that, which is what giant's medium size does, more or less. Source: I sell a metric shitton of men's medium giant bikes, and rarely do I have someone truly between sizes. It might be a big jump up in terms of reach, but that way you can get people a few standard deviations from the mean, instead of having specific small, medium, and large microsizes based around 5'8-5'11. Giant's made the most bikes in the world for quite some time. Personally, I'd trust their sizing chart and frame molds for industry average height joe schmo a lot more over you claiming their sizing is "spectacularly stupid"
My issue isn't with the bikes not being centred around the global average height. Though I disagree that a medium should match a 5'9" rider when there's only four sizes. A medium should match a 5'9" rider when there's 5 sizes, as it's the middle size. When there's only four sizes, the average height rider should be between the two middle sizes.
What I think is stupid is the spacing of the sizes. The gap between medium and large is massive, but the gap between the small/medium and large/XL is much smaller. personally, I think the gap is large enough that there is going to be a good amount of people who can either read a geometry chart, or think that they can read a geometry chart, or get advice from someone who can read a geometry chart, that will believe that neither is a good fit and buy something else.
I've found that the best measure of standing fit is the measurement between bb and bar. If I'm just looking at the frames, between the bb and the top of the headset. I.e. the combination of the reach and stack. The four sizes in mm are 752.6/768.2/798.4/819.8. The differences between these sizes is 15.6mm, then 30.2mm, then 21.4mm. The gap between M and L is twice the gap between S and M. Why?
As for the BB to bar length, for a bike that gets pedalled (sitting down) that will mask a ton of details. Seated fit is very important since it's the position where the majority of time will be spent. So seat tube angle, effective top tube length and the resulting reach values are important as well. Not so much for a medium and a large frame (because you fall into the 90 % segment of well fitted bikes), but more so at the extremes of the sizes (which is a personal pain of mine, so i know the area quite well).
The numbers you provided are, if correct, for some reason skewed. You posted either maximum torque values with the average being lower or something else was wrong. An average torque number will, for a given rider, bike, wheel size, etc., with everything but the brake system being the same, generated a given average braking force at the tyre patch. The system (rider plus bike) will require a set amount of energy to be input into the system to bring it to a halt. With the equation of E = F*s, energy being the product of force and distance, for the same energy at a higher average force, the distance will get lowered. So a shorter braking distance will be the product. This is a direct correlation to average (average!) torque. If someone provided you with a high peak value of an organic pad, during the braking event the pads might heat up and the torque might drop off so the average will be lower in the end. Again, simple physics. Just like you can't push a big block by pushing directly on to it, but can easily move it by using a crowbar as a lever. Leverage ratio, can't beat physics.
As for confounding factors, those need to be eliminated. Ideally you'd have a spec rotor (same for all the brakes), spec brake pad (same material, same pad contact area) to eliminate those variable, but you need to disregard the bleed quality and the bushings, because that is a part of the tested system. Everything that you could do is test 20 or 30 randomly selected samples of each brake (22 is the minimum amount of samples for statistics to get at least somewhat reliable) and then look at the distribution of each model. You might fin that on average a certain model performs well, but you are very likely to find a bad sample with a low performance. Which is not good of course). Besides the spec rotor and the pad you would also have to test it using the factory provided pads (in all types available by the original manufacturer) and rotors (in a single size only) to check for that as well. And compare it to the spec rotor/pad in order to see how much of the performance is brought by the braking system itself and how much from the friction interfacing parts.
The results you provided might be interesting, but there is nowhere near enough data to do any conclusions on it, apart from using them to further you (general your) own point (we both did that, first me by using your stopping time distance and now you by providing the 'average torque' values as well). A source for example with some more data would be nice.
Of course they won't mention power since they want all the brakes to look powerful. Everybody wants more power, most people don't know what modulation even is. Even when you explain it to them. Marketing at its best...
Yes, it started out as an anecdote, but the internet (and real people) is full of people moaning about the lack of power on Guide R and other direct link Sram brakes, while there are much less people commenting about that for the swing-link equipped brakes. Sure, the sample size is important here, but still, patterns can emerge. At least they can be used for a further, proper analysis. And if you look at my first 'anecdotal fallacy', i specifically wrote that i THINK the Guide Rs are a problem due to people having issues. It's my feeling. Can't deny the fact that the swing-link, geometrically and mechanically, does something power wise (more about that lower down). It's not there just for looks.
Agreed about making statements regarding reliability and it being anecdotal, but again, like i mentioned, i wrote *i think*. Which means it wasn't a fact, it was a personal, emotional observation. Not a numbers supported fact. Something of which you are guilty as well, might i add.
I might not be surprised if the Guide RS was more powerful, just like i'm not surprised it's not. Again, thinking stuff, emotional observations, made with a lack of data. Call it gut feeling or something else. You'd be surprised at how many discussions and developments start on that basis. After all, how else will you make something better but on a gut feeling something might be better?
How will being a Sram tech (not a developer/design engineer i suppose) or a mechanic or a 'tech at a global race series', whatever that means, or having a ton of Sram spare parts help me understand the basics of physics, levers and hydraulic systems? What you're saying is a car mechanic 'you're an engineer, you can't put apart and back together an engine, what the hell do you know about stuff, i reassemble engines all the time" to someone who designs certain aspects of said engines. Aspects that the mechanic won't even be able to grasp, yet is telling the engineer that he has no clue about? Not saying that that is the case with you, but i'm kind of getting that feeling, sorry.
As for industry e-peen, flaunt it. It's a good reference in some cases. You being a mechanic for brakes, trying to convince that i have no clue about physics and the like, does nothing sadly. At least not in this case. But i love to hear details about the industry from people related to it, since i don't have much experience. Sadly. What i do have experience with is mechanical engineering (i have a masters degree from it, so much for e-peening) and i work at an automotive supplier testing and validating both the performance and the lifetime of products in development, mostly actuators for cars for a plethora of different uses (both cabin mounted actuators and drivetrain mounted actuators with insane vibrational and temperature requirements). I know a thing or two about how to test things and how to interpret data. We have done a fair share of interpretation on missing data as well.
As for armchair engineering, i'll throw this out. Provide the brakes (anything you want) and the funding and i will put together a test bench for the brakes. Pneumatics actuated brake lever with a force sensor on it to ensure constant 'finger force' on all tested brakes, an adequate, stiff frame to mount the lever, rotor and caliper to (to not invalidate the results this way), a representative inertial load to stop and an adequate torque cell measuring the torque output of the system. Everything will be recorded in real time and analysed so we can determine the 'time to stop' on an equal footing. We might even be able to do the 'spec rotor and pad' thing if you're interested besides the factory things. The braking force and the starting energy ('speed of the rider' if you will) will be measurably constant, so only the performance of the brakes will be at play here. I'm happy to do it if a news outlet provides the funding, just take care of it. I'd provide the funding myself, but i'm sadly not insanely rich. Which is the reason i don't have pistons of different Sram brakes lying around here to measure so i have to rely on the internet (which is the reason for the 14/13 mm Guide piston size). I'd happily measure them myself.
Ballparking, the test bench could probably be made for a few thousand euros, i'd need to check some prices first though.
As for my final try, regarding the effects of the swing link, think of it this way (which i have already tried to explain). You have a certain force available from your finger. And a certain range of motion (stroke). The force and stroke give you a finite amount of energy available to be input into the system. With cars you have the addition of the brake booster muddying things. With bikes you don't have this, so it's a much more pure system. A 'what you see is what you get' kind of deal.
Now, disregard the swing links, piston sizes, etc. The energy is (mostly) conserved, so let's say all of it goes into the clamping force of the brake pads. The more you move the brake pads, the less force you will have for the set amount of energy. SO you can make an insanely powerful brake, but it will move the pads just ever so slightly. With the industry moving towards more pad clearance to give you quiet brakes even with bent rotors, that is not much of an option. So you're mostly stuck with a set braking force. You can increase the output power with a bigger rotor (same force, longer lever, more torque), but we're disregarding that too, since we're using the same rotor size for all brakes to keep things consistent.
Now, with a given output force at the caliper, this means the pistons and the brake lever mechanical advantage (stroke at finger vs. stroke at piston) will also be largely the same. What you can do is, instead of a constant force through the travel for a given energy input, vary the force through the stroke. The 'average force' or the total energy input into the system will be the same. But the bit that interests you, the actual force value (the braking force) at the end of the stroke, will be higher (or lower, depending on the design).
Isn't a variation in the force through the stroke exactly what a swing link (or servo wave actuation) system does opposed to a directly linked system? Isn't it logical then for the swing link to provide more power?
As for modulation, modulation is the amount of lever movement (since humans can move finger for a given amount quite well, but can't specify the force of the finger really well) and the change in force that movement causes. With a direct link the change in force for a small movement will be large. For the swing link (with the lever trying to in essence move past the cam), the lever will move a lot for the cam and the piston to move a little. Giving you small changes in the force output (with it being high, mind you) for a large lever throw.
That's why it both increases modulation and the power. And increased power is mentioned sometimes as well. And is clearly shown in the (incomplete) data you have provided.
If “everybody” wants more braking power, swinglink creating measurably massive amounts more power (torque, which wasn’t shown in testing values) then it absolutely would be shouted from the rooftops. Which it isn’t. Shimano’s servowave is pretty widely discussed in reviews as boosting power and pad clearance.
The average torque data I provided was from a review with a hope dyno with a constant 40nm force at the bar, and was done to a decent extent if you believe the review. It’s the most “complete” data on the internet. It’s not hard to find, but for someone who can’t google what piston size guides are, it could take you a little bit I suppose.
Being a SRAM tech gives me access to the reps, warranty department, and I’d tend to think the people who designed the brakes will know which ones generate more power vs. ONE person’s “feel” about what has more power, i.e. guide RS over codes. If one of your friends says saints don’t have a lot of power and another says Altus have a ton of power, this doesn’t mean anything, and yet this is the kind of fallacy you jumped into right off the bat.
You can’t even use google correctly to figure out piston size, and immediately started throwing out numbers to support your theories based on it. That worries me. After a quick search in your other comments, you claim you’ve “replaced pistons and the like” on guide RS. Not that you need to know remember piston sizes offhand, but that info is readily available.
So I’m just saying, what you have is a bunch of wild conjecture admittedly not based off using the different models of brakes, not working on the brakes, and not believing other customers who’ve used more than one of the relevant systems, press releases, reviews, whatever, that the codes are a stronger brake (15% more power than the guides is a tagline which gets ferried around a lot)...I can’t help ya there. I did find it interesting that you’re the only person I’ve seen say anything along the lines of not being surprised if guide RS have more power than the codes.
What isn’t expensive and doesn’t involve trying to create a test bench with 10k+ in brakes to create statistical significance would be to get a set of better levers from the same family and strap them to your bike, whatever system you have. Far from a statistical test, but that alone would give you a better idea of braking power generated (or lost) from the swinglink. And not that you’d particularly care about my anecdotal experience, but I’ve done that lever test, and didn’t feel anything that would make me believe that the guides are stronger than the codes. And, directly gone from full guide RS systems to putting code R levers on the same system. And, unfortunately putting guide RS levers on a code caliper on my current bike for a week when it was down.
And for what it’s worth, I appreciate you only implying that you think I’m a dumb shit.
Road bikes which for giant have a ML size in giant (56ish) for people who are 5’11, but high end mountain bikes tend to leave out that specific size and instead straddle it in terms of recommended sizing.
Rarely do I have a customer go outside the size that the company recommends, though out of people who actually ride, though I have had a 5’6 guy genuinely claim he needed/rode a size large CX bike and a 5’0 woman say she *needed* a small women’s bike (when there was an XS readily available) because her tri coach told her so. Plenty of people out there who think they know how to read a size chart and don’t, unfortunately. Yet, the average customer can’t even get seat height on a road bike in the right ballpark on their own.
Market research on sizing isn’t my area, and I don’t claim to be a fit guru on mountain bikes. What I can say I’ve heard in the past from different companies product line reps on sizing jumps and overall size choices, specifically mountain bikes, is that there’s more leeway than road since the rider is more dynamic standing up (duh). On having such a big jump, I can’t speak specifically for this model yet, but what I’ve heard in the past is that there’s only so short they want to go in terms of reach on a small in order to have “balanced” handling front to back.
Of course, it’s a reps job to drink the kool aid so I don’t particularly put much stock in that. BB to top of the headset is a good measurement, but what sucks there is that giant specifically generally sticks a massive headtube on a large, and often times the same length one on a small and a medium, which may play a part in the stack measurement for you.
If you’d honestly like a canned answer from a giant rep on the sizing considerations for this particular model, shoot me a PM to remind me, and I’ll give you one if you don’t have a local dealer you’d bother asking
So you say servowave is discussed as boosting power and pad clearance? Pad clearance is exactly what the swing link does as well ("Thanks to a special cam shape that requires less lever throw to push the pads toward the rotor the Swinglink provides increased control while minimizing deadband,"). Why wouldn't it boost power as well then?
Ask the guys who have designed the brakes then. Not the reps, not the warranty department, the engineers in Colorado actually doing the design. And it's not ONE person. I was giving a specific example as an example. I'm sure you can find loads of comments all over the world about Guide Rs having little power.
Yes, i have changed the pistons on my RSs, all of them, caliper and master cylinder pistons. But you don't need to know the size, just order the correct part number kit. Talk about going back on saying something before hand (aiming at your comments that you have tons of Sram part number kits available). Or do you have a huge bag of pistons where you take out one after another and measure them with the calipers to find the correct sized one?
As for Googling, Enduro-Mtb has (still has) the 13/14 mm size for the Guides posted in their Code R review. Sorry for trusting the site that has one of the most detailed and number supported brake tests on the internet to be correct about it and not double check it. Sadly Sram doesn't provide numbers. And yes, i checked.
It's not expensive, but the problem is i ran Guide RS on the bike i sold already and now run Code RSCs. I'm not going to buy a set of R levers, but i have been thinking about getting someone to lend me a set of Rs. And i've been thinking about putting the light friend with Rs on a set of RSC levers (with the original R caliper to boot). But who knows when that will happen and for me buying Rs, i mentioned i'm not doing it since i'll happily run my more powerful swing-link brakes. You can of course provide me with a set of Rs. You say you have tons of parts available, surely you can spare a set to prove someone on the internet wrong?
As for all the 'can't do googling' comments, don't worry, generally my googling is very good. What worries me is your use of 'nm' (i suppose you meant Nm), a measure of torque, to describe the force. And i now see which test you meant (i've seen it before, don't worry), and looking at it, the performance of Guide T is better (10,2 s) than Code R's. So in that regard the Guide family is more powerful than the Code family (which is basically what you were saying before). And given how much variation there is in regards to effective torque vs. stopping time in a test that should be as impartial and controlled as possible, i'm afraid there were some issues. Average braking torque over a given time period gives you the energy the brake produced while braking. And the energy, if everything is right, should in this test be a constant given the effective 100 kg rider simulated by a dyno and a constant 40 N force on the brake lever.
This will be my last post in this thread as i've tried to explain simple physics principles and used too many analogies and examples to still be called an idiot that can't Google while trying to explain high school pyhsics to someone who either likes to say to me how wrong i am and make me fight windmills (hope you understand this reference) or really can't grasp the physics and prefers the words of marketers (who are well known to omit facts and bend the truth to make a product look better). Game, set and match in the mechanic telling an engineer how stupid he is.
Over and out.
The last thing I’m gonna do is ship $150 of levers to Slovenia. I will, however show off the toolbox and and travel kit on here at some point if that’s your issue.
In that test, the code r’s STILL put out more braking torque and a faster 30-15mph.
In that test, back to back, there’s a negligible difference in average torque output between the r and rsc. As I’ve said multiple times (and you’ve ignored), swinglink is modulation first. So, do take the time to explain the obvious stopping power difference in the code RSC and the code R. Pixie dust? Terrible testing methodology? You’re supposed to be the career engineer here.
And do tell me the difference between the “original r caliper” and the caliper that comes on an RSC - riddle me that one. I’ve been using, rebuilding, and servicing these calipers and different levers since the XO trails.
SRAM parts packages will tell you what size the pistons are, so you should remember the sizing. I definitely remember the size of seals, pistons, torx sizes and torque (I suppose if I forget to capitalize my nm on my phone you’ll have a stroke) across different brands of brakes - and I rarely have to change pistons in the caliper. It doesn’t take a genius to google “sram piston kit” and double check the size. Any site that carries the rebuild kit will have the correct measurement. So, if there’s anything I can logically prove to you here it’s that you can’t find a part size using the entire internet. Take a step back instead of making excuses.
Sorry you think you’re in the engineering Illuminati since you have a master’s - I apologize for stopping at a BS and taking a few years off to enjoy being a race tech and manage a shop instead of spreading misinformation and math based on improper parts. Appealing to authority is always a weak fallacy at best when you can’t prove your point, or have no applicable experience. Another classic case of an engineer thinking they’re hot shit. There’s plenty of technical/training documents from both SRAM and shimano out there that I’m forced to read, watch, and pass to get certified, which explain in tons of detail how these systems work. Too bad you still have ZERO personal experience across the systems you’re discussing, and try to hide behind what you THINK the design should do on paper - clearly, without knowing basic info on these brakes - and not even being able to use google to even pretend that you’re an expert.
I appreciate that foot eating, but I know off the top of my head what size they are. I don’t need a reviewer to tell me, and if you google “sram guide piston” you’ll find a rebuild kit, which will tell you the sizes. Just a helpful little hint of how to, you know, use google.
I gave you what I said was the best consumer available test, as nobody else has a test with a bench like that. I created no argument past saying that this is what’s available to you, explain where the massive difference that you say there is stemming from the swinglink. I certainly didn’t say it was good or that they did their homework correctly. There comes a point where reviewers should realize that they’re there for subjective info, not trying to make a reliable test method.
On the lower end models you sometimes see Shimano 5xx brakes, and I think Commencal has some on their 2020 bikes but that’s about it.
Does SRAM really have such low OEM prices?
Another thing worth considering is the major lag between XTR being announced and it being readily available due to production issues. I'm sure large companies don't want to make that sort of commitment and then have no parts available.
Checked them out, man they look good. Excited to see what the new Slayer will bring.
Still though... what do people hate so much about NX / SX, aside from the weight? Recently got an SX equipped bike for the wife, figuring if it sucked that bad it's $200 for a SLX 11-46 setup. So far shifting is great though, and I'm sure SunRace will have a cheaper, lighter cassette option in a year or two.
But maybe my standards are just low... I'm still spending most of my time on 10 speed 11-42 setups (X9 & Deore). Neither have given me any trouble.
If we look at just mtb.
SRAM: sx, nx, gx, xo1, xx1
Shimano: atlus, acera, alivio, deore, slx, xt, xtr
Basically everything in shimano's line up to deore in mtb is irrelevant to marketing trends and would be embarrassing to spec on your bike in 2019.
The issue we are facing is that shimano either can't compete or won't compete with SRAM in the 1x12 space below slx. Now it might possibly be too late as even people like yourself, regardless of whether you believe the performance is on par or not associate NX with SLX. It isn't all about cost, its about SRAM being able to deliver a new product that the average ride wants at a price point that the average rider can afford. Whereas shimano wants you to buy a 10sp that'll last forever and be reliable under the legs of a pro, SRAM is offering the same thing to the average joe who probably won't do anything taxing to a SX or NX.
All things being equal, 12 speeds shift worse than 11 speed, are less efficient because of the larger drive line offset, are heavier, more expensive, and more sensitive to improper setup and/or bumps from use.
And I have long arms and legs too.
Annoyingly, the jump in reach between M and L on the Reign is exacerbated by a jump in stack between those two sizes.
But the worst part about the bike was the rear suspension. Felt semi-active when descending, but lots of movement on the climbs. Severely outdated and inferior suspension design.
For those doubting the benefits of a longer reach paired with a steeper STA, you really need to give it an honest try, and long enough to adjust (and make sure you have a short stem). It really is a lot better.
And at least for the USA market, as has been said before, height distribution is a bell curve, and Giant literally made a pothole at the most commonly needed size.
I’ll show myself out.
I think part of the reason the handling felt weird is because it has short chainstays, and for some reason the head angle seemed steeper than 65, the bike did not like steep downhills.
I've ridden a lot of bikes and 465-480mm reach is where my preference is. That's a nice balance of something that feels long enough that I don't feel I'm going to go over the bars on steeps but also maneuvers well but is also comfortable all day. If I'm going to spend £2k on a frame it's going to be the right size for me. I couldn't really buy this Reign frame because 455 is too short and 493 is super long. I guess I'd have to get the 493 reach and fit a super short stem.
I'm aware of that, my regular torque wrench barely registers the correct torque (maybe 3nm?), luckily my internal torque wrench is fairly well calibrated
I thought I could remember them saying 29 would be the size, but then changed to 27.5 as mentioned, and now back to 29ers.
I look forward to getting my old 26er frames and forks out of the shed in a couple of years.
I'm still on a 26" but I'd rather have a 27.5 than 29er for my next bike, but the choices are more limited.
They got left behind and are playing catch up now.
Bike looks good though.
It would be far more concerning if they stuck their head in the sand and carried on with a ‘thats the way we’ve always done it attitude’.
What Specialized didn’t do was wholesale adopt what was at the time a fringe wheelsize, forever changing the bike industry and dropping the bottom out of the used bike market. That's why people hold a grudge against Giant for their 27.5” agenda.
Bike prices have become absurd when these NX and SX Eagle came out. I miss the days when GX was the lowest spec.
However, despite or because of my years (in the saddle and on the planet), large mass, and taste for challenging terrain, I think I ride more gently and slowly than most PB commentators. The Ripmo is great at full-stop maneuvers. I wonder if the Reign, with the long reach, is similar. Old men, such as myself, love these modern long-travel 29ers, they are so comfortable and easy to ride. I take the same lines as when I was young and crazy.
Shop price is always better but even they are higher. Unfortunately Giant doesn’t care to make the profit margins bigger for the shop. Lower-end bikes always have better margins than top-tier models.
Anyway if it's possible to run an angleset you could do so which would do two great things for those stuck in the weird sizing for a large; reduce the reach and also get a slacker HA. Slacker HA is maybe polarizing but after spending time on a SJ Evo and owning a SB150 a slacker HA is only a good thing for this type of bike and when the SA is appropriately steep.
Cool bike though.
The carbon bike has a 2 years no questions asked free crash replacement program, which turns to you pay 25% of msrp if you break it within 4 years, 50% within 6, etc.
That was a big reason why I went with the carbon over the aluminum SX model for park use last year. I’m sure it’s stronger, and if I do have a problem they’ll throw a free bike at me
On the third round of replacing the bearings though (10 of) i decided my next bike would be a single pivot.
Back then the TWO 29er trail bike options were Orange 5-29, or the Santa Cruz Blur LT. Everything else was an XC whip.
That top bike looks incredible. The metalic green, the travel spec (150mm is more than enough on the back end for me) I I would normally avoid a fox fork, but i dont think it would bother me on that. Awesome.
Still got 10 bearings to look after though, and they dont look any bigger.
Why dont bike companies suck up a few grams in the weight and spec proper bearings in the pivots?!
I wonder which upmarket brand will finally introduce massive, properly sealed tapered roller bearings that simply outperform those puny ball bearings in every aspect - with real lifetime warranty. When they start adding external rubber covers on them. Or when someone goes "fcuk ball bearings, plain bearings with grease ports it is" and bad weather riders will finally rejoice.
I think the stiffness of the new carbon links and better QC has left those problems in the past.
And, the new fox forks have a pretty long service interval to them, which is a nice upside.
Now they did sit on their Asses and not update that geo for EVER... the 73* seat angle was questionable in 2015, but just stupid that they stuck with it for so many years... If the largest bicycle manufacturer in the world can't afford to update it's molds every couple of years than just stop making carbon frames...???
I've just cracked my 2nd Reign Adv and Giant UK have refused warranty because it was due to impact (even though they warrantied the first one for exactly the same reason). I'd understand if I was abusive to my bikes and if it wasn't designed to be ridden on big terrain.
Won't be recommending Giant carbon to anyone in the UK... unless they adopt the Composite Confidence as Giant US have.
The bike has been incredible otherwise, but I'm massively concerned how easily mine have broken.
Alu Reign ´15: Only thing ever happened was a bent Bash guard, tabs stayed strong for the whole 4 years.
This bull about 1.5" larger diameter wheel (0.75" on the radius) being able to compensate for a reduction in travel is bull. All this says to me is, they couldn't get the design right. Other manufacturers of 29ers have 160mm and greater! It's been said elsewhere, a bigger wheel is not going to help me for big drops.
Also, the price of the Reign has grown exponentially year on year since their 2015 model when they adopted essentially this shape. The advanced Reign 0 with arguably equivalent spec was £5400 ($6500) now £7400 ($9000) That's a cost increase of 37% in 4 years! I wish I could get that return on my pension / savings etc!
O well maybe 2021.....
The bike is amazing man! I've got myself SX in size large. I'm 180cm and sizing is so much better than my 2017 Reign. Don't get distracted by all the armchair engineers. Bike compared to my old one feels bottomless in regard of amount of travel. Deffo better bike than the old one. Don't get me wrong old one was awesome as well but this bike just takes it to the next level. It has that planted feeling and it rides so well you kinda forget about it and keep on pushing. I feel like I would repeat the reviews but it's really inspiring and all that mumbo jumbo. I find myself picking some different lines or doing some gaps I didn't commit before because of that great feeling.
Another thing is that this bike climbs sooo much better than the old one. Sitting position is miles better. Actually feels like more power is going to the wheel and it's almost enjoyable haha.
I made some calculation of how much travel you've got left after 30% SAG and its 102.2mm on this VS 112MM on the old one. And you've got 126mm travel left on 180mm bike. So hardly any difference. My pinky is 15mm wide so I think that puts it into perspective haha. People focus on numbers too often now a days which is sad.
So far I only had a handful of rides as the bike came like 2 weeks before the lockdown in UK but I already managed to top some persona best times on Strava. Main difference you'll feel is that you don't feel on the edge when riding at these speeds. Rode some flat out single tracks and some proper old school slow tech and been great on both. It'll certainly see more location after the outbreak.
Only changed tyres to Magic Marys as they work all year around in Wales and it came with EXO casing which is not enough for here.
Hope that helps, hit me up if you've got some questions.
I've had same hesitations with sizing knowing that 29er grew so much bit after riding this size is perfect.
Hmm, they do come with 40mm stem so you can always get 5mm shorter one and narrower bars say 780 rather than full 800mm. If you get an option to test one go for it. Don't forget that with seatpost angles being much steeper now they need to extend the reach therefore the bike feels good when pedaling and good and the descents as well. More centred between the front and back.
If I'm having a bigger ride I can do about 20km to 40km and about 700m too 1300m elevation. Don't know how that compares to what you do but I think it's alright for an dh orientated enduro sled.
Personally coming from dh background I'd prefer to have more dh capable bike. End of the day you can always do some dead lifts and squats etc. and you'll see massive improvement in climbs
Reach was fine, stack too low.
Hope this works better with the new models.
146 mm rear travel is a no go, especially in my region. I used every mil of the old reign's travel.
Seat angle is a big improvement, old Reign you were swinging off the back if you were long legged.
But, 115mm "Trance", 146mm "Reign"...? Did somebody get their spreadsheet offset by one line and they've been naming all the bikes wrong? Surely this only rates a TranceX moniker at best?
I totally do not get the 146mm instead of 145mm?
At this point I think most of us assume current Maestro design and long travel 29er just aren't playing well together?? (which for all the people who say Giant stole the tech from DW should make it obvious that somethings not the same?) So, no 160mm, no 150mm; OK. But is that extra 1mm of travel supposed to make us feel like the bike is more capable than a Sentinel or Smash, etc.? Weird. IDK, but it "seems" like Giant is letting Marketing make too many Production decisions...???
Honestly I kind of thought the 115mm Trance was going to be a "one off" oddball model just so they had a new 29er to market quick when all the 29er interest was back again. I assumed the next 29er to come from Giant would have some kind of updated Super Maestro thingamagigy that got them back to travel norms. (or close enough)
At any rate, this looks to be another great quiver killer...
How a $9000 bike is not spec'd with full XTR or perhaps some Saint components is beyond me....and I fully refuse to ride SRAM.
The Reign had been consistently improving since 2015...I mean, did a new manager come into the Giant Reign department and F everything up or something???
and of course I'm also 5' 11"
Or giant which manufactures the most bikes in the world and has the best carbon warranty on a bike frame on the market?
Obviously the complete bikes have different components, but the frames look extremely similar, at least on paper
29er? no
146mm? no
colors? ugly
so now I am looking to a 2018 or 2019 Reign frameset.
"There was one issue that surfaced on some of the bikes at the launch – under hard pedaling, typically in the easier gears used for climbing, the rear brake rotor would contact the pads with a subtle 'thwing' noise. The frame didn't feel overly-flexy at all while riding, and the super-scientific "grab the rear wheel and pull it back and forth" stiffness test didn't reveal anything out of the ordinary, but it's something that's worth further investigation."
The review was not that positive, so I'm thinking it was a repackaging with a nice blingy paint job, hoping to sell eye candy versus a decent bike for a realistic price.
Something like:
"At 5'11”, I typically prefer bikes with a reach somewhere in the 460 – 480mm range"
is a nightmare!
5’11” = 180.34cm.
Sincerely, Google.
>invented in the 90s