Poised to blow the socks off of the latest crop of ten-thousand-dollar showpiece enduro racers, the 2017 Meta AM V4.2 Race Eagle 650B is not pasted tip to toe with super parts and mega-carbon, and it doesn't have a suspension configured to challenge the scientific community. Instead, Commencal gave its most important trail bike two simple weapons with which to slay its rivals: awesome performance and an affordable MSRP. The Meta AM V4.2 Race Eagle has everything a powerful, talented and aggressive rider would need: a sturdy chassis, low and long, with gobs of just-right suspension travel; a 12-speed SRAM drivetrain; modern, rider-forward geometry; gravity-verified wheels and tires; and one of the better fitting cockpits we've thrown a leg over - all for an MSRP of $4449 USD ($3999 for customers who pre-order).Details:• Purpose: freeride, trail, enduro
• Chassis: Welded aluminum frame, 27/5" wheels, 160 mm-travel, single-pivot-swingarm, linkage-driven suspension, rider-forward geometry, ISCG 05 tabs
• Fork: RockShox Lyrik RCT3 Solo Air, 170 mm stroke ,Boost-width axle
• Shock RockShox Super Deluxe RC3
• Bottom bracket: BB92 press-fit
• Drivetrain: SRAM Eagle X01 with Eagle X1 aluminum crankset 34t
• Brakes: SRAM Guide RS, Rotors - 180 mm R, 200 mm F
• Five-year limited warranty
• Sizes: small, medium, large, X-large
• Weight; Medium size, actual - 31 pounds (14.05 kg)
• MSRP: $4449 USD
• Contact:
Commencal / @COMMENCALbicycles About the Meta AM V4.2 Race EagleAluminum is Commencal's material of choice, and the AM V4.2's entire chassis is beautifully welded together from an assortment of forged fittings and butted tubes - most of which have been curved, flattened or manipulated to serve a higher purpose. The AM V4.2's profile resembles its predecessor (the Meta V4), with a single-pivot swingarm driving a top-tube mounted shock that is tucked into a concave recession in its underside, but most of the 2017 frame is completely new, and its rear-wheel travel is bumped up, from 150 to 160 millimeters.
The sealed ball bearings that its suspension pivots upon are the same items found on the earlier Meta V4, but the bearings in the main frame have been moved outboard into the swingarm and rocker assemblies. The reason is to facilitate replacing the bearings when that day arrives, and also to improve manufacturing tolerances. The large forged centerpiece in the top tube has been replaced by a more attractive and lighter weight two-piece hydro-formed tube, which also provides more clearance for a longer and bulkier metric shock. And, like its predecessor, the V4.2's cables and hoses are intelligently internalized where it makes sense.
Moving to the rear of the Meta, Commencal's designers switched to Boost hub spacing and moved the seat tube junction well forward of the bottom bracket - two features that free up much needed room for tire and mud clearance. There was space to play tennis around its 2.4-inch Maxxis Minion DHR tire. While we are on that subject, there is no provision for a front derailleur, which further sanitizes the look of the bottom bracket area.
British sympathizers might take umbrage with Commencal's decision to forego threads, but the Meta's BB92 press-fit bottom bracket is the best and most reliable of the genre, so I won't be flying the Union Jack at half-mast for this review. Chin up, though. Unlike
other enduro bikes, there is a proper ISCG 05 flange on the drive-side, should its owner need a DH chain guide or a bash. Continuing the Meta tradition, there is a lot of silencing rubber on the right chainstay and on the left, the rear brake caliper mount is inboard of the frame to protect it from harm.
GeometryBy its numbers, Commencal's new V4.2 is on the vanguard of long-travel all-mountain design, but does not broach into the experimental realm. Paired with a 170-millimeter-travel fork and a 65.5-degree head tube angle, the front axle is pretty far north of the rider. Its 74-degree seat tube angle is steep enough to properly weight the front tire and also to optimize pedaling ergonomics for tough climbs. Top tubes are lengthened, but not so long that riders with short torsos or arms will suffer greatly. Four sizes are offered, all with excellent stand-over clearance, so all but the tallest riders can simply buy up a size to obtain massive front/center values. Our medium-sized test bike had a 23.35-inch (59.3 cm) top tube with a 16.73-inch (42.5 cm) reach. Chainstay length was 17.2 inches (43.7 cm) and all tallied, the wheelbase measured 47 inches, while the published wheelbase is 46.46 inches (118 cm). To put that into perspective, PB test riders ranging from five-foot, ten inches to five-foot, seven inches (177 to 170 cm) could ride a medium.
Race Eagle BuildOur test bike, the $4449 Meta AM V4.2 Race Eagle is second from the top of Commencal's five build options, all sharing the same chassis, with the least expensive AM V4.2 Origin priced at $2449 USD and the flagship AM V4.2 World Cup priced at $5199 USD. Our V4.2 Race Eagle is arguably the best value in the range because Commencal outfits it with the most critical components of its more expensive brother - the same fork, shock, brakes and dropper post - and still manages to spec a 12-speed SRAM Eagle X01 transmission at a considerable savings. Those savings, apparently, are hidden in Commencal's Ride Alpha house-brand components and a custom wheel build - none of which left us wanting during the review process.
Specifications
|
Release Date
|
2017 |
|
Price
|
$4449 |
|
Travel |
160mm |
|
Rear Shock |
RockShox SuperDeluxe RC3, 230x60 |
|
Fork |
RockShox Lyrik RCT3, 170mm, Solo Air, Boost |
|
Headset |
CANE CREEK 40 Series |
|
Cassette |
SRAM XG, 10 x 50, 12-speed |
|
Crankarms |
SRAM X1 Eagle 34t 170mm arms |
|
Chainguide |
NA |
|
Bottom Bracket |
SRAM GXP Press Fit BB92 |
|
Pedals |
NA |
|
Rear Derailleur |
SRAM Eagle X01 12-speed |
|
Chain |
SRAM eagle X01 |
|
Front Derailleur |
NA |
|
Shifter Pods |
SRAM Eagle X01 12-speed |
|
Handlebar |
Ride Alpha, 7075 aluminum, 30 mm rise, 780 mm width,31,8mm clamp |
|
Stem |
Ride Alpha, 50mm aluminum, 31.8 clamp |
|
Grips |
Ride Alpha, ergonomic, one lock, super soft compound |
|
Brakes |
SRAM Guide RS, 200mm / 180mm |
|
Wheelset |
27.5" Commencal build |
|
Hubs |
Formula 32 hole |
|
Spokes |
Pillar stainless, steel, 2mm, locking nipples |
|
Rim |
Mavic 427 aluminum, 27mm inner width, tubeless ready |
|
Tires |
Maxxis High Roller II 2.4." EXO (F), DHRII 2.4" EXO (R) |
|
Seat |
Ride Alpha, chromoly rails |
|
Seatpost |
RockShox Reverb Stealth, 31,6mm, 125mm on S/M, 150mm on L/XL. |
|
| |
FOUR QUESTIONS: Nicolas Ménard - Commencal R&DRC: Exactly what were the changes in the V4.2's suspension's kinematics?Nico Ménard: The kinematic is more progressive compared to Meta V4. It's quite a big difference in fact. We have been working with suspension manufacturers to get the right feeling we wanted with metric shocks.
RC: Are the bearings in the main pivots larger than last year's Meta?Nico: All the bearings are the same as the Meta V4. The only thing that changed is the bearing assembly between the rocker and the frame. They used to be inside the frame. They are now located in the linkage. This is easier to do the maintenance and it's more stable to produce.
RC: The bottom bracket feels very low. Is that why the test bike has a shorter, 170-millimeter crankarm?Nico: The bottom bracket is at the
right height. We like the feeling of a low BB. We have different crank arms length [170mm on small/medium and 175mm on large/X-large frames] because of the morphology of small and tall riders. You wouldn't put 175 millimeter cranks on a 20-inch kids bike.
RC: Was eliminating the forged section in the top tube done to save weight?Nico: By eliminating the forged parts, we slightly reduce weight, the finish is nicer, and we have a wider top tube that allows riders to also go to a Float X2 shock.
We all want to see Meta vs. Capra vs. Enduro vs. Patrol vs. Remedy/Slash vs. Nomad/Bronson vs etc, etc.
I totally agree that different bikes suit different people, but that doesn't make a grouptest pointless, I think rides can be compared in a way that allows people to judge their differences for themselves. Even with bikes being better than they ever have been most bikes are a compromise of some sort. With no bike store or demo centre able to stock all of the best rides, we rely on the guys at PB for our info.
I'm not asking for a ranking of best to worst, just a comparison. Pinkbike makes it's money advertising to us, the least we can expect in return is some objective comparisons!
I think that @catfish9797 has a good point in saying that the differences are pretty minimal, and that you should pick what fits your fancy and get on riding. As long as PB doesn't specifically degrade a particular product, but rather focuses on ranking by category (best climber, best for jumping, best dh, best cornering, etc), I don't see why it would be a problem from a business angle. That said, I don't work at PB and know what their relationships are like or what their revenue figures are so free advice is worth what you pay for it, I guess.
ie. is the new spec enduro that much better than the old one or is it mostly marketing fluff?
They could even go back a few generations to tell a better story about the progression of the sport and the trajectory of the bike design.
Something along these lines but with trail impressions etc:
www.pinkbike.com/news/the-evolution-of-the-specialized-enduro-2016.html
At least you can find a comparison to the nomad in the Last capra pro review here : -) and many people in the patrol thread have had some of the other mentioned bikes before. So there is a possibility to get some good comparisons ;-)
It's just silly that in half of the group tests, the bigger brands are just tossing ENVE wheels on, and that affects every subjective area of performance.
enduro-mtb.com/en/get-better-9-high-end-enduro-bikes-comparison
Dangerously pretty ????
Even after he called you Brits out, you still had to make the comment... lol! Lets make this clear though, I live in the PNW, I don't disagree with you...
www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/trying-to-build-a-personal-stargate-isnt-normanl-but-on-meth-it-is-375x500.jpg
Due to hip issues, I installed 165 mm cranks on all my bikes to decrease my hip angle at the top of the pedal stroke. I assumed, as most do, that this would adversely affect my climbing, but I was at the point that I just wanted to be able to ride comfortably. I was surprised to find that I was actually climbing faster, on road and off.
I'd love to see Pinkbike do an article on commonly held assumptions like this one. I'm sure there are many other things that we as MTBers haves assumed forever that are flat out false.
I use 34t x 11-40, if I use longer cranks I need easier gears.
This is a good summary, and the actual study is linked to at the end.
1. they focus on power. For proper mtb climbs, power is nowhere near as important as torque. And, for any given chainring size, a longer crank = more torque. If you have more torque available, you can flatten out your torque application to avoid peaks that will result in loss of traction. Having a mix of 170 and 175 cranks available, and running them on the same bike, I can confirm this is indeed the case- longer cranks give you better traction. It is the same principal at work behind oval chain rings.
2. Longer cranks need fewer pedal strokes to cover the same distance. Since a FS bike loses energy on every actuation of the suspension, the fewer strokes the better. If, on the same section of trail, you can comfortable cruise at 80 rpm on 175 cranks and 85 rpm on 170 cranks, you will be more efficient on the 175s.
www.sheldonbrown.com/gear-calc.html
I think if it's complicated when seated (and I believe it is) then when standing everything goes out the window. When pedalling a fs mtb up a "mountain" the rider is so dynamic, the terrain so random that it becomes difficult to measure anything. These days the majority of us climb from the saddle since bikes have been adapted specifically to allow us to do that, only short sharp power moves are done out of the saddle (even then I'm still sat down 90% of the time) but there I can understand the merits of a longer crank. Though speaking for myself it's not worth sacrificing the efficiency of a shorter crank and I may even pedal better on those power moves with my shorties, I dunno...usually all I'm thinking in those moments is "you are not beating me you f@cking smelly a$$ tw@t hill". I just think short cranks have more benefits than simply providing more clearance which is usually the only reason people will consider them.
exactly what the industry needs, a good slap in the face !!
Maybe you should consider being faster...
They also said your car lights are on.
even with my employee discount i couldn't beat commi's pricing.
Maybe less time on gravel roads with speedwalking grandparents .
Thanks for making my point for me.
Good day.
Also, I hate climbing but you cant get to the downhills with out it,dont ride enough to stay in climbing shape,this gearing/bike combo is what ive been waiting for, for years so, you or anyone elses preferences mean nothing and, I hate climbing, this helps keep me from hating riding altogether. I hate climbing.
Hey @thenotoriousmic - do you even pull on the upstroke bro?
Thanks for your insights on my life
So far its the most capable/fun bike ive owned in 20 years and the suspension isnt even dialed right,yet.
I don't think strava works anyway. I went faster on limestone in the dark in the rain on a track that was covered in wet slimey leaves on a hardtail than I did during the middle of summer on a downhill bike last week.
@scary1 - that is not a surprise. People boiling bikes down to wheel size are morons. When 29ers were coming in strong in 2009, in the same way 275 was coming in 2013, the people who were bitching most were the dumb part of downhillers. They were saying that these bikes are freight trains that are hard to manouver, that handle like cows, that their wheels are made for bulldozing over rocks for people who can't ride over rocks... ekhem! EXCUSE ME! A question! Is there a single one bike type that is less manouverable, heavier and riding over rocks easier than a DH bike? NO! ok ok another one... is there a single bike type that is absolutely useless anywhere outside lift/shuttle assisted steep trail? NO!
29ers have gone a quite a long way since the hype of 2009 (and all the painful preceding years) and the latest breed of long travel ones, are now generally, the fastest, most multipurpose mountain bikes out there and the only downside is that it is harder (but defo not impossible) to look stylish when riding and jumping them, and they plow so well that it is hard to motivate lifting the wheels off the ground. I mean, you have to go REALLY fast to make them shine in style department.
Wheels are far more important than drivetrain IMO
I had a v3 SX and it was a stonking bike, the ONLY thing that let it down was the BB creaking every 3 months (or less in wet seasons). It might be an old record but why oh why do they insist on using push fit BBs still?!
For that money though, that's a pretty well stocked array of kit on it.
I noticed that Andys height is 5'11" - how did he feel on the medium sized bike?
I am also 5'11" and I have been considering a v4.2, and would be curious to hear any thoughts.
there's a reason they are direct sales only now and its because no distributor in their right mind wants anything to do with them.
That would be bad enough, except I couldn't buy a new rear triangle to replace the one that was damaged (I really did like that bike) as Commencal didn't stock them. They don't keep a stock of 650B Meta SX framesets either. So they offered me a 'discount'. They offered me a Meta V4 frameset for 783 Euro. That's 34 Euro more than the same frameset costs on their website:
www.commencal-store.co.uk/meta-am-v4-c102x3044347
Or I could get a V3 for a 'discounted' price of 714 Euro, which is 'only' 15 quid more than it was offered on their website:
www.commencal-store.co.uk/frame-meta-am-v3-650b-yellow-2015-c2x14582262
I wish I was making this up, I really do but that's what happened. In this case I don't think Commencal did anything right, whether it was standing by the quality of their product, supporting their customer or offering a reasonable resolution. Just be aware to expect the same if you buy in to their BS.
www.chainreactioncycles.com/mobile/ie/en/commencal-meta-sx-essential-suspension-bike-2015/rp-prod123523
Soooo a more intelligent suspension design doesn't give bikes awesome performance or allow them to slay rivals? Well f*ck... Back to hardtails I guess.... They have the least intelligent rear triangle, can come with long travel forks and are even more affordable...
www.pinkbike.com/news/radon-swoop-170-9-1x11-review-2016.html
I ran 180mm profile's for years on my T1 Barcode!
@COMMENCALbicycles
enduro-mtb.com/en/pro-bike-check-cecile-ravanels-commencal-meta-v4-2
I found the question so unbelievable as it was clearly stated, he probably did not bother yo read, so i fabricated a story.
And while new isn't always better, companies don't put out a new bike because it's worse than the older version.
Bikes shops going out of business? Not in BC.
On a dh track where races are won or lost by less than a second and 3 bikes is huge.
@Sontator Wheel size isn't just personal preference at all - the distinction between wheel sizes creates vastly different characteristics in a bike. Yes, someone may find a certain size wheel on a certain bike to be the best, but that is most likely due to the environment around them. If I lived in SoCal, where [as far as I know] the riding is fast and technical, than I would want a 29er enduro bike, like a hightower or scout - they roll faster over/through rock gardens, and the turning disadvantage won't play a huge role. I live on the east coast, where the riding is turnier - so I ride a 27.5" bike.