GIANT Trance CHAINSTAY Specification

[MinusPrevious]

Gents

Just curious what your thoughts are on these very long CS's on our Trance's? When I bought the Trance i didnt even know what the CS length specification was. After researching this beast now for 2 months, i find that 470mm is quite the length & makes for a very lazy handling bike

Ive got approx 300kms on this machine, so far, & can certainly attest to the Trance liking that straight line stability & resistance to tight turns. Climbs well!

Appreciate your comments / Cheers, Joe

 

[ThePete]

Same. My trance is definitely not as agile as my acoustic hard tail which is 438mm. I was looking into the same thing a while ago. Theres some good stuff in here
Long Chainstays on E-MTBs: Why?- Mtbr.com

 

[Rusty]

Personally, I think much of the noise around chainstay length is just fluff.
If someone wants a bike that is agile and nippy then they should not be on an eMTB and should be on a bike with 26" wheels.

There are so many factors to take into account - that road bike geometry pic misses out everywhere.
The reality is that full suspension bikes MUST have longer chainstays to give clearance when the suspension compresses.
27.5" requires more than 26"
27.5+ requires more length than 27"
29" requires more than 27.5" - about the same as 27.5+
The more suspension travel you incorporate into a design the longer the stays required.

In every design there are compromises made. A quick example is these two 29er hardtails
The Gary Fisher Rig was a much more efficient climber than the Surly Karate Monkey due to slightly longer chainstays. The Surly, even being a sligtly larger bike was more flickable in the air and had a sharp feel - but with the steeper steering angle the Rig was actually a better cornering bike.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

some people just want it all

I'd say the CS on the Trance is pretty close to the goldilocks for me! I love the straight 'point and shoot' stability but can still slash and slide the bike around without much input.

 

[MinusPrevious]

Same. My trance is definitely not as agile as my acoustic hard tail which is 438mm. I was looking into the same thing a while ago. Theres some good stuff in here
Long Chainstays on E-MTBs: Why?- Mtbr.com

Thanks / Yes, i had reviewed that thread, as well, prior to posting here

 

[sambonator]

For me its a trade-off. I can't manual this bike yet and it does feel sluggish through turns, but I enjoy the plush ride and straight line stability that the longer CS and Longer wheelbase provides. An ideal eBike would be one where CS and even head-tube angle are adjustable. On-the-fly adjustability would be awesome Along with magnetorheological dampers!
Magnetorheological damper - Wikipedia

 

[ThePete]

For me its a trade-off. I can't manual this bike yet and it does feel sluggish through turns, but I enjoy the plush ride and straight line stability that the longer CS and Longer wheelbase provides. An ideal eBike would be one where CS and even head-tube angle are adjustable. On-the-fly adjustability would be awesome Along with magnetorheological dampers!
Magnetorheological damper - Wikipedia

I can’t manual on any bike. I quit practicing when my wife installed security cameras out front. ?‍?

 

[GrandPaBrogan]

Here's 'my take' on the Evolution of the modern eMTB.
(I could be wrong and I'm OK with that).

Longer chain stays are a byproduct of the industry changing over to larger diameter wheels, and that's across the board - but most especially on eBikes because of the motor casing. If you look at the Trance's lower suspension linkages and the back side of the motor, the engineers have already gone as short as they can possibly go. Unless motor manufacturers design units where the BB axle centreline is smack at the back of the motor casing - or Giant drops the Maestro linkage system for a high single pivot design (with no lower linkages)... that's as short as our chain stay lengths can ever be. This is the same story for most other brands. It'll be longer still for 29ners with the same motor/suspension configuration.

I suspect this is the reason why modern MTB geometry have migrated to longer wheelbases. The industry had no choice, they had to - in order to maintain the ideal centre of gravity proportions between the front and rear wheel. And what's the result of that? Well, in order to keep the cockpit where it should be - the bikes ended up with slacker head tube angles (to bring the bars back). Possibly also why stock factory stems are real short these days. Then seat tube angles had to be made steeper (to bring it forward) so that the 'larger diameter' rear tyre doesn't whack into the saddle (or the seat tube itself) during full rear travel depression.

But the conundrum doesn't end there. Motor and battery combos placed an additional weight of 10kg +/- which is a huge factor no matter which way you look at it (they will be getting smaller and lighter) but still. So bike designers have to take this into account and make the frames stronger, reinforce larger stanchion forks and suspension linkages, spec 203mm brakes so as not to burn the rotors, and use 4 piston callipers to stop the heavy beasts. The previous 2.25" wide tyres won't be enough to maintain traction so fatter tyres had to be used - and so therefore wider rims. The accumulated added weight of all of that is going to render any suspension travel of <100mm to be almost useless, so longer travel had to be introduced into the equation.

You put all of that together and what have you got? We end up with bike that has DH or Enduro DNA by default. I've always wondered why all eMTBs are produced and marketed as Enduro bikes. Lighter Trail or XC eBikes won't make much sense yet - until motor/battery units get smaller and much lighter.

This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. In fact, I'm very dubious of any marketing hype the bike industry gives as an explanation as to why chain stays and wheelbases these days are so long.