First Ride: 2021 Commencal Meta TR - Is Mini-Enduro a Thing?

Jun 11, 2020 at 13:34
by Mike Kazimer  

Commencal's Meta TR left us impressed with its trail-smashing capabilities when we reviewed it in Sedona, Arizona, a few months ago. Even with only 130mm of rear travel, that version fell into the burlier side of the trail bike category. Now, Commencal has pushed the 29” Meta TR even further into the gravity oriented realm, giving it 140mm of rear travel and longer and slacker geometry.

There are four complete bikes in the lineup, with prices ranging from $2,199 USD up to $4,799 for the Signature model that's shown here. Highlights of the Signature build kit include a 160mm Fox 36 fork, Float X2 shock, Shimano XT 12-speed drivetrain, and DT Swiss wheels.

Commencal Meta TR Details

• Wheel size: 29"
• Aluminum frame
• Travel: 140mm (r) / 160mm or 150mm fork
• 64.5-degree head angle
• 435mm chainstays
• Weight: 33.9 lb / 15.4 kg (size L)
• Sizes: S-XL
• Price: $2,199 - $4,799 USD
commencal.com

There's also a frame only option, which is priced at either $1,399 or $1,499 depending on the color.


What's New?

It's the Meta TR's geometry that's undergone the most significant revision. The head angle now sits at 64.5-degrees with a 160mm fork, and the effective seat tube angle measures 78.6-degrees, two degrees steeper than before. The reach has grown significantly as well – a size large now measures 490mm, a 15 millimeter increase over the prior version. Even the size small has a reach of 440mm, a number that used to be found on size large bikes not that long ago.

The overall look of the Meta TR's beefy aluminum frame has been altered slightly – the top tube no longer curves upwards to meet the seat tube, and the length of that 34.9mm diameter seat tube has been reduced to allow for the use of longer travel dropper posts.

Commencal say that the rear triangle is now more compact to keep it out of the way of feet and calves, although that difference seems fairly slight to me – it's still on the wider side of the spectrum.




Build Kit

The Signature version of the Meta TR is well spec'd for the price, with Fox's top-tier 36 fork and Float X2 shock, and Shimano's proven XT 12-speed drivetrain. Commencal's distaste for anything carbon is well known, so it's not surprising to see that all of the parts are aluminum.

I was a little surprised to see that Shimano's 2-piston XT brakes were spec'd rather than the 4-piston version, especially considering the fact that the smallest rear rotor size the frame can accept is 200mm. It's not as if weight was that much of a concern – as it is, the bike's pushing 34 pounds; I don't think a few more grams would be a deal breaker.

Maxxis' 2.4” Dissector tires are in place on both wheels; I'd imagine riders in wet climates may want something a little meatier up front (my hand is raised), but as a rear tire the Dissector is a great all-rounder.


The Meta TR Race comes with a RockShox Super Deluxe coil shock, Lyrik Ultimate fork, SRAM G2 brakes, and a GX 12-speed drivetrain for $3,999 USD.


Ride Impressions

Commencal bill the Meta TR as a 'mini-enduro' bike, and after a couple of rides on it I'd say that designation fits, although I'd probably take out the 'mini' part – there's no reason you couldn't roll up to a race with this bike and do just fine.

Some of those geometry numbers may seem intimidating on paper, but so far I'm really getting along with the bike's handling. It feels big but not too big – I can take it on slightly mellower local trails without feeling like it's overkill, and it can still hold its own on properly steep and rowdy trails as well. The new Fox Float X2 and 36 suspension combo has been impressive; I'm still dialing in my ideal settings, but so far things are off to a very, very good start.

I'll be putting the miles in on the new Meta TR over the next few months – stay tuned for a longer term review later this year.









378 Comments

  • 521 2
 Isn’t mini Enduro just going for a bike ride
  • 25 1
 underrated comment
  • 29 128
flag CM999 (Jun 15, 2020 at 9:54) (Below Threshold)
 Not when it weight 34lbs. That full dh bike territory
  • 93 14
 @CM999: Such a Boulder comment. How much weight do you save with your spandex?
  • 13 70
flag adamdigby (Jun 15, 2020 at 10:17) (Below Threshold)
 @CM999: DH bikes that are 34lbs ride like crap, they don't stay on the ground and are not stable enough for racing speeds.
  • 120 5
 @adamdigby, tell that to the Scott Gambler...
  • 57 14
 @CM999: My water bottle by itself weighs over a pound and a half. Can I feel a difference in the way the bike rides between when it's full and when it's empty? Nope. Do I think I'd actually notice that this bike is 3 pounds lighter than a carbon equivalent? Probably not.
  • 23 5
 Only if you wear full protection gear, take a stopwatch to your descents down every small hill and have an energy bar before each time you climb up a small hill. No seriously, I think that would be fitting for the "Mini Enduro" category, because when looking at the "Downcountry" category in parallel, I got the impression that it was more an appearence thing. More style than substance, more make believe than actually doing it. Basically like a SUV Crossover car. It is built to look like it sorta kinda could maybe go offroad for a bit under the right circumstances, but no one would actually take it offroad because that would be a miserable experience and you'd also probably break something. Same exact thing goes for those Cross Country bikes that someone decided it would be a good idea to stick a 120 mm fork onto and call it trail capable. It looks like you could take it on a trail, but if you did that in reality, you were to very quickly realize the limitations of weight weenie frames, short rear travel, steep head angles, flimsy components, narrow tires, etc.
Its all a big fallacy if you ask me.
  • 11 12
 @jb247708: why would you want to lug 5 lbs more uphill when a normal ride for us on enduro bike’s involves 25 miles and over 3000 ft of climbing
  • 9 2
 @Dhers90: really? I can. We are talking 5lbs here so 3 of your water bottles
  • 6 7
 i thought enduro was just going for a bike ride
  • 13 6
 @CM999: Get stronger.
  • 14 0
 There was enduro, then upduro (Down country), now there’s trailduro.
  • 8 1
 @kyle1812: looks like a sessio-Doh I mean a Sentinel
  • 2 0
 It is Up-Enduro or Down-Trail.
  • 10 1
 @CM999: There's more to bikes like this than just their weight, and their weight certainly isn't the only thing that affects how they ride.
My bike's about 39lb and it kinda feels it on steep climbs, but when gravity takes over and it gets rowdy on the way down there's something reasuring about knowing you're wheels/tires will handle hucking it into the middle of that rock garden, or that you won't have to warranty your frame if you take a spill. When I'm pointing my bike down it feels just as nimble as any lightweight bike, but doesn't get pinged around as much in the chunky stuff.
Maybe you're just not the target audience for this bike?
  • 6 9
 @CM999: My 40 pound bike handles 8000' days just fine. Add more if I need to carry extra water.
  • 2 0
 Talk about updates.before it was 2 years. Now it's just months.
  • 13 0
 That's why tems like "enduro" mean nothing apart from racing, most people who go "enduro" riding are just going on their trails or going for a normal bike ride, the word has lost its meaning.
  • 16 1
 Seriously, the marketing machine needs to stop with all these ridiculous names. I remember when it was called Mountain Biking and everyone loved it and had fun.
  • 11 0
 @metong: Your comment is already out of date.
  • 3 1
 @jb247708:
I’m from boulder and I approve of this message.
  • 3 0
 @Trudeez: blame @mikelevy ????
  • 1 0
 @JSTootell: Downhill or e-bike?
  • 3 4
 @Dhers90: I’m fine with alloy, but no question if notice a 3 pound difference. That’s massive.
  • 4 4
 @CM999: if you are only getting 3000' in 25 miles then your trails are pretty flat and you wouldn't want a bike like this anyway
  • 5 0
 @mikekazimer: Tell me more about the Schwalbe "Super Trail" tires on the Meta TR 29 Race model
  • 2 0
 @Waldon83: ...your comment about the other comment being out of date....is by now, out of date. lol
  • 2 0
 @kyle1812: I prefer Entrail myself.
  • 3 0
 @catweasel: Not necessarily. Some trails I ride that have less vertical elevation per mile, but are much tougher rides due to the steepness of the climbs and the downhills are much steeper as well. It is just that there are some miles that are rolling.
  • 2 0
 @Dhers90: Actually, yes, you would, especially in the long haul.
  • 1 0
 @tacklingdummy: I haven't ridden much around San Jose apart from demo forest. Usually the coastal hills have some great steeps, you must be doing a fair bit of flat in between to get an average like that. I guess I'm used to Colorado while not that steep elevation gain is very consistent. I would expect 3k to come in 15 miles or less here. Was supposed to be going to the Alps soon, there's a place with some proper long steeps, dam you Corona!
  • 188 2
 All mountain, trail, enduro, call it whatever you want. It looks like a fun mountain bike to me.
  • 47 4
 Show up to an autocross in a truck or minivan and no ones going to look at you sideways for running it. I've always found it odd how in the bike world, everything has to be part of this meaningless taxonomy for some reason (industry *cough, cough*)
  • 8 0
 Respect for the pricepoint, geo, and better rear end clearance. Frame weight?

I'd like to attend a demo day to see how it compares to my ripmoAF.
  • 41 16
 Why has the sub-30 lb MTB weight goal disappeared? Not everybody shuttles, or eMTBs, as is clear with all the haters on PinkBike. Sure is nice to have a capable bike that goes uphill as well as downhill.
  • 14 2
 @Geochemistry: I´ve owned two Meta AM, it´s heavy but I love it nonetheless. It´s no XC-racer and never will be, but it climbs absolutely fine. weight isn´t everything, not even while climbing
  • 34 4
 @Geochemistry: I would guess a few reasons:
1. Big wheels are heavier
2. Dropper posts were less in the picture when bikes were really light, and they add about a pound
3. People have realized that a couple of pounds don't matter that much for efficiency but can result in a sacrifice of durability and ride quality
4. Lighter parts still exist, and you can find them spec'd on ~100 - 120 mm bikes that are extremely capable and probably the choice if efficiency is a top priority
  • 22 1
 Is mini enduro 20% less enduro than full enduro or 20 percentage points less enduro than full enduro?
I know y'all struggle with 'rithmatic.
  • 10 12
 @Geochemistry: When you get up into 140mm rear travel I think companies assume you're pedaling up long climbs for long descents, not riding rolling XC type stuff. A 30lb bike or a 36lb bike, those 6lbs don't make a difference in deciding to go to the top 1 more time.
  • 7 0
 @coletrane-mtb: Not when I had a couple Red Baron pizzas for dinner and need a scapegoat for my lack of fitness
  • 3 2
 @Geochemistry: droppers and heavy ass tires
  • 9 2
 @HaggeredShins: Every autocross I've participated in had a rule that no trucks, SUV's, or other high center of gravity vehicles are allowed. So yeah, I think a lot of people would look at you sideways if you showed up with a truck or a minivan.
  • 7 0
 @DMal: I've got a 2016 Turner Sultan 29er with XT/XTR and a KS Lev dropper. Yeah, the tires are ONLY 2.35 Maxxis, but I'm right at 30 lbs with the 130mm DW link and 140MM Pike on my XL frame. The MBA review has the medium frame at sub-27 lbs. And this is aluminum, not a carbon frame.
  • 6 0
 We have to have a specific category otherwise it won't handle as well outside it's specified terrain.
  • 6 2
 @Geochemistry: Low weight, Low cost, or high strength. Pick any two, because you cannot have the third.
  • 1 2
 @srjacobs: You're quoting the SCCA rules, what individual clubs actually let you run varies greatly. Sorry if the spirit of my post escaped you mate--in my experience this crowd is super open to interesting vehicles, maybe you're just less lucky. If you don't believe me, let YouTube do the education!
  • 9 2
 @Geochemistry: I think the sub 30lb alum. bike goal came with a few too many warranty claims.
  • 5 4
 @CaptainSnappy: You've never owned a Turner. Low weight, high strength, low cost (relative to other similarly setup bikes). I'm >150kg, I ride very rocky desert terrain, and I maintain my bike. The latter seems to be the key to durability.
  • 10 0
 Downhill > Mini downhill > Free Ride > Enduro > Mini Enduro > All Mountain > Trail > Downcountry > XC > XC Race.

Categorizing bikes is pointless.
  • 2 0
 @tgent: Oh man, now you've done it. A whole new argument genre based on categorization, and a second argument on whether it's pointless or not.

I think I'll have a mental refreshment and watch the battle ensue. Good thing you didn't put eMTB in the mix.

Wink
  • 1 1
 nicktapias for president (or Prime Minister). This is the type of shit we need. Every bike is a wicked bike nowadays. A mid-travel bike with Slack this and reach that doesnt suck. What sucks is people complaining about bikes that ride like freckin space ships!!
  • 7 1
 @Geochemistry: 29er wheels, dropper posts, wider tires, heavier GX drivetrains and the move back to aluminum cranks that don’t snap will do it. My 27.5” Ibis HD3 weighed 28lbs. My current Ripmo weighs 31.5 lbs. However with the beefier parts it still climbs and rides better than the old HD3. A few extra pounds with better geo is just fine.
  • 1 0
 @shredb4dead: Sounds like you've dialed your rides. I'd love to get a Ripmo AF, but I think I bought my last bike in 2019, and after 40 years I'm going to hang up the bike helmet and Camelbak.

But to my original point, 30 lbs was the target weight, throw on a water bottle and seat rail pack and most bikes were more than that.

At what point is a burlier bike better? Bikes dropped from 35 lb clunkers to a 29 lb (claimed weight) of the first production Stumpjumper. Scott certainly keeps weight down with similar price-point spec'd Genius 910.
  • 2 0
 @Geochemistry: Sounds like your getting ready to pack it in with biking, how come?
  • 4 0
 @h82crash: I've had three shoulder surgeries to repair whitewater/MTB damage, I need a fourth on the right shoulder, my wrists both crack and pop painfully with any motion, both hips have severe wear and bone spurs, and my right knee needs replacement. I started MTBs in 1981 and have been addicted since then. There comes a time for every cowboy to recognize they need to hang up the spurs. I hope to keep riding through the summer, but May and June have been more pain days than pleasant days.

As someone who hates to crash, I bet you know more than you're letting on.
  • 3 0
 @Geochemistry: Sorry to hear that, I have had my share of hits going well back to my bmx days and do have my aches and pains but not as bad as what you describe. Sounds like you've had a good run though and hopefully not too many regrets.
  • 1 0
 @Geochemistry: Since geometry and more importantly kinematics and good linkages made MTBs more efficient. I Run Cush Cores or DD casing tires on everything because I don’t want flat tires, or broken rims. I don’t know that I can feel a difference between a few lbs?
  • 2 1
 @Geochemistry: Weight does not determine if bike is capable going uphill, at least not in the margins we are talking about. Even carbon enduro bikes weight more. Bikes changed, because people ride harder and faster. Lightweight bikes are just flexy. I know a guy who gave up Stumpjumper and bought a Meta because it destroyed the shock several times. 29er + fast = bye bye 30lb.
  • 6 3
 @lkubica: Bullshit. Show me any racer that says I want the heavy bike. Change 'flex' to 'compliant' in the ads and you'll buy it up like the rest of your sheeple flock.

Damn I miss Waki.
  • 4 1
 @Geochemistry: I give a sh*t about racers. Professional races ride on anything they get from companies. For them every millisecond matters. I do not care about ms or even seconds On uphill I do not care about minutes either.
Compliance is good, but it must be engineered so that bike will not break and will not cause rear sus to die prematurely.
You can have a perfect bike if you are willing to pay thousands on carbon stuff. But most of us will not. It is better to have a robust bike than a light bike that will break.
  • 3 3
 @lkubica: How many bikes do you break? You make a statement about weight not determining if a bike is capable, then you claim bikes are flexy, then you blame a bike for a 'friends' component failure.

So your tire flats and you throw out the wheels?

Then you further obfuscate the subject and your argument. How old are you and how many years have you ridden mountain bikes, not BMX, not road bikes? I think you're talking out your ass, just repeating crap you know nothing about. Go build your heavy ass bike and ride how you want.

BTW - I ride hard, not race. With the exception of a hardtail I custom made, all my bikes have been CrMo or aluminum and all have been less than 30 lbs in a size XL. That's with almost 40 years of MTB, not road, not BMX, not stingrays.
  • 1 1
 @lkubica: I know quite a lot of guys, including some of my friends, who ride 29" Yetis who weigh less than 30 lb with enduro setups (X2, DHF/DHR, Fox 36).
  • 3 0
 @lkubica: Or you can save your hard-earned cash to buy your carbon dream bike. Because you own an expensive (carbon) bike does not mean that you're rich. To each his own.
  • 2 0
 @Geochemistry: what happened to waki?
  • 3 4
 @cool3: But it is just a bike. It can brake, it can hit a rock, it is a disposable item really. Of course it's your money. I have a simple rule - never buy anything which you cannot loose and buy it again (this obviously does not apply to cars and houses, but those are necessary items, unlike carbon bikes).

@Riwajc: Waki was lynched, because of supposedly being a racist Smile Angry mob of rich white people with an average of $4k mtb bikes got him in order to protect color minorities.
  • 3 4
 @lkubica: yea well he deserved it for his pathetic attitude. And you sound awfully radcist yourself.
  • 1 0
 @lkubica: That is what really happened to Waki? Noticed his comments are not around anymore.
  • 1 0
 @tacklingdummy: Yes, there was an article here on PB relating to BLM and stuff.
Find it and read comments.
  • 1 0
 @Riwajc: Ah the baying mob - you sure you don't mean "Gaycist"?

Get a life and a spine.

#MisWaki

Yeah he was a character who rubbed people the wrong way but for me - he added a little spice to conversations.

Back to the "DubDuro" tm Rig - I'm sure with the right setup - it pedals fine.

@Geochemistry - sorry to hear about you hanging up the spurs. Me - I'm a late comer to serious MTBing (actually riding forests and DH tracks), had my time on horses, BMX, motorcycles but I do now enjoy exploring and seeking out good runs on my bike. Took to it to improve my motorcycling fitness and it took over. Such is life. I hope you don't walk away completely from it - maybe tone it down some and use it to just enjoy being outdoors.
  • 1 3
 @gnarterrorist: shut up you bloody third class bogan.
  • 72 7
 Size Small: 435mm chainstays, 440mm reach
Size Extra Large: 435mm chainstays, 515mm reach

That's ridiculous. Almost 20% longer reach with zero chainstay/rear-center change. Those bikes cannot and will not ride the same.

Tall rider gets easier manuals but has to work to weight the front wheel, and the short rider can more easily weight the front wheel but has to ride more off the back on steep descents.
  • 57 2
 I for one am glad to identify as 5''10 in this modern era
  • 30 4
 @anthonysjb: And be constantly between sizes? It's the worst!
  • 9 0
 @roma258: yeah man, it sucks ... at least they now start to make the seat tubes short so i can upsize
  • 7 1
 @Stokedonthis: truly the best modern geometry trend.
  • 10 1
 You're not wrong, but probably good to point out this comparison should be made with front centres instead of reach.

S: 769 FC, 435 CS (Ratio: 1.77)
XL: 849 FC, 435 CS (Ratio: 1.95)

Approximately 10% variance in front/rear centre balance between sizes, which don't get me wrong, is still huge.

Enduro MTB had a section on this in their latest shootout: enduro-mtb.com/en/best-budget-trail-bike-review
  • 6 6
 Yeah, it's the worst. And to boot, both sizes have the same headtube angle, fork offset and axle to crown. Imagine, both sizes have the same handlebar to front axle length AND the same BB to rear axle length! With only the middle part being different length!!! Proposterous!
  • 1 0
 @Primoz: Headtubes look like they vary slightly between sizes from 110mm on the small to 125mm on the large. It may still not be enough adjustment depending on Commencal's propensity to cut steerer tubes.
  • 1 1
 With the TR model I doubt commencal is fussing around much with rider balance/weight distribution. I think 435mm chainstays were about as short and fun as they could make them so thats how they decided to make them for all sizes. probably helps the price too.
  • 4 0
 I agree 100%! We need longer chainstays on bigger sized bikes! It’s all about cutting costs to so many companies. Much respect for some of the companies with size specific chainstays!
  • 2 0
 @roma258: I'll second that. Either too long seat tube or too short top tube/reach.
  • 3 0
 *Norco has entered the chat.
  • 2 0
 @roma258: You are thinking about it wrong. You aren’t stuck in between sizes, you get to choose your size. Other people that are squarely in the middle of a size may never now if they prefer a larger or smaller bike.
  • 1 0
 @ryanandrewrogers: then why not make the smaller sizes 27.5 to get an even shorter and funner chainstay? Shit, that's even less material so more profit!
  • 1 0
 @CaMKii: shhhh! I use reach because it's a number everyone talks about right now, and it makes the ratio difference bigger!
  • 2 1
 @CaMKii: That has a negligible effect on the handlebar to front axle ratio... Well, I'm lying, the effect of it is just over 0,5*difference in length. But a longer stem will have a bigger effect. And you have handlebar rise thrown in the mix as well. Regardless, it's chainstay this, chainstay that, but nobody talks about the handlebar to front axle ratio. Last I checked, I load my front wheel with my arms, not my legs (when dynamically loading it of course).

@stormracing if we're going custom between sizes, I'd then prefer completely different suspension layout. So, you know, everybody gets the same antisquat. Currently XL riders get much less antisquat than XS riders do. The kinematics should be adjusted to size as well.
  • 1 1
 @Primoz: try these names on for size:

out-front: handlebars to front axle
out-back: center of saddle to rear axle

maybe we can get those into the conversation. but probably impossible to get them into the Pinkbike sidebar, which still has just head angle and chainstay length (it is just stupid to only put those two)
  • 1 1
 @just6979: With the 'out-back' (hehe, Subaru Big Grin ) you really opened a pandora's box. It's influenced by the saddle height and the seat tube angle, both the virtual and the actual one. So another metric that wildly fluctuates between sizes and not in a good way. The larger the frame, the shorter this distance usually is. It's getting better lately with steeper seat tube angles, but the OK virtual medium angles still tend to fall apart once you go XL and 800+ mm of seat height from the BB.
  • 1 1
 @Primoz: yeah, anyone at the top of the height range for a size gets shafted with slack actual seat tube angles. ETT gets huge and out-back gets tiny (because seatpost maxed out). Or they go up a size (now at the bottom of the height range) and reach and front center get huge, but at least out-back grows and ETT comes back in (because seatpost slammed).

So if you're on the size fence: size up if seat tube actual is slack, size down if seat tube actual is steep
  • 1 1
 @just6979: I'd go the other way, your seat height will be the same, but sizing up will make the cockpit even longer, too long maybe even. But with a steep seat tube you won't be affected as much in the ETT area, so you can legit size up and get a longer reach bike with an OK cockpit length.

That's what I did, I went from a (too small) L 2015 Reign to an XL Bird AM9. The XL Reign was all kinds of weird (I was too stretched out), but the Bird is OK. The Giants were ETT 640 and 665 mm with a reach of 458 and 480 mm, but the Bird is 680 and 522. Yet because of the at-seat-height-actual seat tube angle of 75° vs. ~71 on my L, the cockpit length is similar between the L Reign and the XL Bird and was too long on the XL Reign. Even though, reach wise, I 'sized up' by three sizes (supposedly +20 mm in reach is a larger size).

The kicker? I wanna go steeper. Maybe a tad shorter on the ETT (or the same ETT with a steeper seat tube, so a bit shorter cockpit), but the reach should nevertheless stay at least the same or get a bit longer still.
  • 1 1
 @Primoz: "at-seat-height-actual seat tube" is not actual, that's effective. of course you want a steeper effective angle. "actual seat tube angle" is the angle of the post no matter the height. on some bikes it's quite slack, like 67 degrees. most size ranges cover about 5 inches of height, so let's say 2.5-3 inches of seat height adjustment. 60-75mm up and down on a really slack _actual_ seat tube is a pretty good fore-aft adjustment as well, a good 30mm. so if your post is slammed it's 30mm more forward than if it was at max height. the smaller size would need the max extension, thus stretching the ETT, and vice verse.
  • 1 0
 @just6979: actual at seat height as in the actual angle of the line between the BB and the seat rails, wherever you want to define it along the seat length.

I get what you're saying and I agree, except for the fact that 'I don't care' what the actual post angle is, as long as the seat is where I want it. Well, of course I care, because the post angle will have an influence on the post actuation and wear and will also have an effect on the position of the seat in the dropped position. And regarding the horizontal movement, I get that too. That's why the Reign fit so badly and the Bird fits well, because comparing the ETTs between the two bikes is useless, you get no info on the cockpit length. And this is also the reason why I'd go the other way, yeah, there is less adjustment within a size, but that's the key here, your sizing is much more controlled then.

But yeah, actual as in where the seat actually is. So ~810 mm above the BB with said length angled 75° to the horizontal. Don't worry about me understanding the angles and everything, I've got it covered Wink
  • 1 0
 @Primoz: I don't doubt you know what angle you yourself mean, but what you are describing has always been referred to as "Effective Seat-tube Angle", as in the seat height _effects it_. The _actual_ angle of the seat tube itself doesn't need a height, it just is the angle where the seat-post goes in

And what I'm saying by sizing up is that with a slack actual seat tube it's more likely that you end up with an ETT that is good when your seat post is lower into the seat tube, rather than a too long ETT if you have to extend the seat post a lot on the smaller size. I'm not saying to look for a slacker seat tube if you're short or tall or whatever, just if you're in between sizes, then size up if you care about seating position. size down if you really want the shorter wheelbase and/or need the shorter reach
  • 1 0
 @just6979: I know how it's used, but it's used as a general nomenclature when looking at bike geometries. When you have your own bike, set up for yourself, in the end it matters how it's put together. That's why I said the 'actual seat height angle' thing. Because the seat, relative to the BB, is at X distance and Y angle.

I disagree regarding the ETT since my case shows the opposite. An insanely long ETT and reach make a nicely fitting cockpit on a steep ('sized up') bike, a too long cockpit on a slacker bike and required 'sizing down' to make the cockpit fit OK. But that also meant riding over the rear axle.

Yeah, if you want a more playful bike, size down. But my opinion has always been size it properly for pedalling sitting down, if you need to pedal the bike. The amount of time pedalling sat down is just so mich higher than anything else it doesn't make sense to size for downhill performance. You'll suffer too much. Many people have tried to convince me otherwise, but the logic simply doesn't add up.
  • 1 0
 @Primoz: I said that: "then size up if you care about seating position"...
  • 35 7
 Looks cool but I seriously think Commencal is making a mistake if they don’t address a more short-mid travel market. All their bikes are pretty burly/big travel especially after this revision to the TR. some variety would be good
  • 11 2
 yes, and short travel bikes that actually are light & efficient and not burly enduro bikes with less travel are pretty scarce, especially affordable completes.
  • 8 1
 I feel like in the same way that Levy always argues that being underbiked is way more fun, I feel like being overbiked can be pretty fun too. Just because on a long travel bike you can go hammer-down breakneck speed on trails where you'd otherwise would have to be quite picky about line choice on smaller bikes. Nothing wrong with more travel.
  • 6 4
 @benmoosmann: being overbiked is awesome way to make every climb, flat and easy to moderate descent be either extremely sluggish or boring. Big bikes can sanitize some otherwise fun trails that would normally require skill
  • 8 0
 Bring back the Meta TR v4.2 (27.5)!
  • 1 0
 I agree, even though Commencal is a gravity focus mtb brand I think it's that they don't provide a versatile bike that you can take for a long ride through the mountains or hilly area. The 1st Meta tr use to be a good one.

Maybe a new bike is coming later this year, something more "downcountry"..
  • 3 1
 There´s definitely a hole in their line up. Some lighter XC/trail thingy in the 120mm range would be a good addition. Also the Meta TR is now well in enduro territory, there´s apparently a new AM coming next week, which would need to be a absolute monster of a bike to remain relevant besides the TR. As of now I would seriously consider switching to a TR instead of my current AM
  • 1 2
 @bridgermurray: so this means you only ride smooth flat trails on a fully rigid bike ? I guess if my rides are 15% rougher, I can use 160mm bike instead of 140mm and have as much fun, no ?
  • 2 2
 @juliopedro: Im talking about geo not travel. weight is also an important factor. I think people are really dumbing down their rides with these types of ultra slack 34lb bikes most of the time. They’re marketed toward people that want to be up on trends but don’t actually need ews travel. If you want a trail bike get something with more versatile geo. you’re limiting your fun to the most extreme trails with a 64 head angle and that reach, and you probably won’t even be able to ride those trails at full capacity due to the rear travel. Whats the point? Just buy an enduro bike. This is more enduro-poser than “mini-enduro” imo.
  • 3 1
 @bridgermurray: Same with geo. I just think the "buy what you need not what you want" dictate is wrong, or very, very relative at least. How do you know what makes my rides fun ? Except maybe for beginners, for any decent mtb rider there's no such thing as "needing" a certain geo or amount of travel. You want to learn technique ? Get a BMX. You want to ride trails and have fun ? Get a hardtail. Anything after that requires no justification, but don't fool yourself into thinking you needed it. Pick a cool bike and go ride.
  • 3 0
 @benmoosmann: You don't even have to hammer down. More travel doesn't mean you can't drift corners or pick perfect lines. But it you don't want to pick lines, or mess up, it is more forgiving. Miss the line on short travel and you have a smaller window to fix it.
  • 2 0
 @bridgermurray: _CAN_ being the operative word. Just because you have more suspension doesn't mean you are unable to hunt and pick the perfect line, or pump over small things that the suspension could can't if you let it. On a smaller bike you _have to_ pick the perfect line because if you miss you're more likely to be toast. You _have to_ pedal or pump all the time, because the suspension won't just soak up things and let you keep your momentum as much. A shorter travel bike is just less versatile, because nothing on the longer bike it stopping you from doing all the things that "normally require skill", however it also more easily does the "less skilled" things like plowing rock gardens at moderate speed and ripping nasty steeps or hunting out sick doubles.
  • 2 0
 @F22: Who is that for? XC Racers want 100mm and uber-light, don't care about durability beyond one or two races. Weekend warriors want the durability and forgiveness of a stronger (and heavier,but so what, more exercise, yay), 130-150mm trail bike, that can maybe even go to the park, if you choose, and not feel 100% sketch. Not many want a not-quite-a-race-whippet-so-you-think-that's-why-you're-stuck-in-cat2 bike that also still gets beat to hell and beats you to hell on trails any more intense than a groomy training loop.
  • 2 0
 @bridgermurray: Why does a slack head angle limit you to only "the most extreme trails"? It can't rip flat corners or schralp mad berms at the groomed trail center? It can't intentionally pick its way up nasty climbs? It can't pump roots and rollers and carry momentum on rolling trails?

Or you really actually want a bike that _forces_ you to pick the most perfect line on every descent, forces you to weave around on every techy climb, forces you to pedal out of every corner because you can't carry speed through without feeling like the front wheel is about to wash out? That's pretty limiting, but what-evs.
  • 1 0
 @just6979: not sure if it´s a thing everywhere but I see a lot of people who realized they didn´t need 140+mm of travel and DH tires to ride these flowtrails abominations that pop up at every corner and are now buying lighter bikes more suited to their type of riding. The People who currently buy a YT Izzo, an Evil the following or something along those lines. Absolutely not interested in racing anything but very interested to be on a bike the whole day, covering quite a bit of mileage and riding the mostly not so difficult trails and hiking paths their area offers. Or people like me who might own and race enduro bikes but would sometimes like to have something they can actually push to the edge of it´s abilities, even though that might only be Levy and I
  • 1 0
 @just6979: lol Im not talking about suspension Im talking about geo. And by steeper geo I don’t mean 68 HTA I mean 66-65 range for mid-long travel trail bikes. I don’t think you’ll need to be taking less tech lines with those numbers or risk washing out. With numbers like this Commencal has you’ll need to be on not only technical but very steep and fast terrain for the bikes steering to wake up. And when it does you won’t have the long travel to back it up. I’m not saying I don’t see the point of slack big travel bikes I’m saying why the hell would you buy this bike that weighs the same/will climb the same and won’t be more playful or poppy than an enduro bike but then omit the travel that makes planted/fast enduro bikes useful? I doesn’t make sense. Either but an actual enduro bike or buy something a little lighter and more traditional
  • 1 0
 @jzPV: my cheap and only slightly tweaked Large 2019 Marin Rift Zone weighs 30lbs.
  • 2 1
 @F22: you don't _need_ 140mm for those flow "abominations", but it doesn't hurt (and if you're absolutely not interested in racing, then weight should just not be a thing for the most part). If they're looking for adventure, why bring the shorter bike that makes the easy stuff just as easy but makes the hard stuff much harder? Rather bring the bigger bike than can deal with more and it just doesn't matter than it's a tiny insignificantly bit slower on the easy trails.

DH tires, well, i don't know who is putting DH tires a 140 bike unless they have a good reason...

Levy's idea of pushing to the edge is whack because he insists on 29er wheels, but then ruins their inherent traction with weak tires and little suspension. They discussed it in the podcast. Again, it's just a less flexible setup. More suspension and stronger tires on a 27.5 gives nice traction but is more forgiving in the rough (if you choose to not pick & choose perfect lines, which it can still do)
  • 2 1
 @bridgermurray: "you’ll need to be on not only technical but very steep and fast terrain for the bikes steering to wake up" i thought it was becoming more common knowledge that this is not true. bikes turn by leaning, not turning the front wheel. turning "awakeness" is more a factor of wheelbase and front-rear weight balance. a steep head tube means you need very small moves to counter steer out of the lean or steer further into the lean, which just makes it feel twitchy, doesn't actually make it turn faster.
  • 1 1
 @just6979: what... what type of bike do you even ride? Where do you ride? This stuff I’m talking about is pretty indisputable and common knowledge. You can have a different opinion about what kind of bike works for you but it’s objective that a longer slacker bike turns and reacts slower. You can try and explain away but unless you’ve actually ridden both an Xc type and enduro type bikes on varying terrain you probably wont understand.
  • 1 0
 @just6979: I'm that guy running 140mm with DH tires, a linear progression curve, and a sub 64 degree head angle. Full disclosure, I am strongly considering overstroking the bike to get 150+ mm of travel. As far as WHY goes, I grew up riding hardtails so I tend to prefer a firmish ride. I run little sag, so it is easy to lift the bike off the ground to skip over roots and rocks, and pumping terrain is a little more efficient. I also rarely have gaps larger than 20 feet, so suspension is mainly for rocks,

Essentially, firmer suspension makes the bike more engaging, while the slack angles gives better high speed stability and allows riders to put the front wheel down sooner when leaving the ground. I think these 140mm slack rigs make sense, but only for certain riding styles and terrain.
  • 1 0
 @bridgermurray: That might be the case for you, but only if you don't have the strengh or stamina to pedal a long travel bike fast...
  • 1 0
 @just6979: dude, I´m not in any way arguing against 140+ travel bikes. My main bike is Meta a AM. But there´s a place for shorter travel bikes and there are people buying them, that´s why I think leaving this segment open like that is a weird decision on Commencals side, especially considering how many bikes they have to chose from in the upper travel range
  • 1 0
 @bridgermurray: longer (wheelbase) turns slower. slacker reacts slower (reacts less per input size). they are separate.

I ride all around New England. My bikes in order are (and I have only ever had one single rideable mountain bike at once): steel rigid, alloy rigid, 80mm alloy HT, 120mm alloy HT, 125R/140F alloy FS, 140R/150F carbon FS, 160R/160F alloy FS, 130 alloy HT, 140R/150F carbon FS (with carbon wheels)
  • 1 0
 @F22: But if they don't ride or want those kind of bikes...?

They seem to make bikes they want to ride, and that their riders want to ride. Good on them for sticking to what they like.
  • 4 1
 @bridgermurray: "reacts slower" does not equal "turns slower", IMHO it's a myth/misconception. All that "reacts slower" means is it's not twitchy and won't unnecessarily react to unintentional movements or trail input, which is a good thing. The bike will still be perfectly capable of turning very very fast, but will need intentional, pronounced input from the rider to do that, which, again, is a good thing.

A slack bike can absolutely turn fast as well as being stable in fast straights. A steep bike feels worse in fast corners, fast straights and steep tech sections. The only thing it'll do well-ish is flat, slow-speed, super-tight hairpins. YMMV, but I feel like that's not the priority of a trailbike.

I agree that with suspension being so well sorted these days, there's not much benefit in short travel unless it comes with much lighter weight and/or you only ever ride smoother trails. If you visit a park or steeper trails even just a few times a year, you might as well have a more versatile bike. I wouldn't class this new Meta as "short travel" though since it's now 140/150-160 with big wheels. Seems to me like finally the right amount to back up how people were using the TR anyway and a positive update to the bike overall. I think I'd love riding this or the Nukeproof Reactor.

I wonder what they'll do with the Clash if the new Meta AM is even more of a bruiser than before with just 5/10mm less travel than Clash. 29" Meta for all-out speed and keep the 27.5" Clash shorter for flips and spins? Even more travel for the Clash? HSP Clash?
  • 1 0
 @bananowy: THIS! 100%
  • 30 10
 I agree, nothing mini about this. Seems massive, long, slack and heavy. Oh it has 140mm...I guess the question would be; Why?
  • 6 6
 Agreed. Why would. You want a mid travel bike with long and slack Geo. I wonder if someone will go past the 80 degree STA on their 2021 models lol.
  • 24 1
 @friendlyfoe: I think the Simpsons already did it...
  • 30 11
 Because contrary to popular belief, longer/slacker bikes are just better. More stable on descents, less likely to go OTB, significantly better on climbs due to more evenly distributed CG. The downside is that you need more practice around tight hairpins, but once we moved past 1200mm wheelbases 2 years ago, this was already something one had to get used to.

Even Jordi from Fox in one of the Dialed videos said that the longer front end with a steeper seat tube is the way to go. (Video Title "This bike dimension can completely change how you ride" if you want to go look it up). The PB reviews of Pole bikes like the Evolink 140 also highlighted the same effect for climbing.
  • 3 0
 @Dropthedebt: Excellent post! The Simpsons have done everything already, lol
  • 17 30
flag friendlyfoe (Jun 15, 2020 at 10:04) (Below Threshold)
 @phops: So longer bikes to make up for a lack of skill. Got it.
  • 28 6
 @friendlyfoe: oh jeez. And brakes, suspension, knobby tires, and gears to make up for our lock of skill too.
  • 10 4
 @phops: I simply couldn't agree with you more. Some people appear to equate instability at speed, and twitchy handling as equalling fun. I now live in Minnesota and the trails here are very different to those I grew up riding in Wales. The trails here, in the main, are very pedally and the downs are short and not too technical. Yet, I have a buddy here who just purchased a Cotic FlareMax which is far longer and slacker than most of the narrow bar XC bikes we see on the trails and he absolutely loves it. The confidence he now has on the descents is far greater than anything he had ridden before. Yes, it's more of a handful on the climbs but unless you're an Olympic XC racer, that is of zero importance. Longer, slacker bikes are faster AND safer for the vast majority of riders.
  • 12 3
 @friendlyfoe: I will get behind @phops statements. I love technical climbing and have an SJ Evo which is even longer and slacker than the Meta. It is an absolute weapon climbing tech and much better than my standard SJ. It takes about a month to adapt to the differences, but once you do everything is more fun.

If level of difficulty is really your main goal I would recommend a unicycle with a 12" wheel for your off road enjoyment.
  • 1 0
 @salespunk: I also have an SJ Evo Pro and love it. Long and slack is great fun!
  • 2 1
 @friendlyfoe: Because it's fun? Look at the Norco Optic, haven't seen a single review that had anything but praise for it.
  • 1 2
 @friendlyfoe: shorter bikes were harder to ride well, but longer bikes have a higher capability ceiling for the best riders.
  • 8 1
 @friendlyfoe: right on. That's why you see so many EWS and WC DH podium riders on these massive sleds. NOT.

Only us Joeys have to compensate lack of skills and finesse with geometry band-aids
  • 5 1
 @benmoosmann: youve not been looking hard enough. Outside of PB its had some less glowing reports
  • 4 2
 If I'm going to carry all that weight, I want a bike that justifies that weight with a big "get out of jail free" card's worth of travel. If I'm going shorter travel, it's for flatter trails that don't have gravity accelerating you out of every tight turn, so it cannot weigh 34lbs. Bikes like this seen the worst of both worlds.
  • 3 0
 @friendlyfoe:

Absolutely. Not everyone has the time or even access to trails to go get those skills, and bike park trips aren't long enough to learn those skills.

Besides, if a bike behaves better, why wouldn't you want it?
  • 5 1
 @Wheeeliemann:

EWS and WC DH athletes train most every day, and they can make use of a shorter wheelbase bike to extract more agility while compensating for stability.

In the same way, if you were to go out on a track in a trace car with no ABS and minimal stability control, you would probably crash even at moderate pace, versus a street legal race car with all the assists.

If you wanna flex with your skill, just remember that you aren't getting paid to send, so all you are doing is subjecting yourself to more risk in hopes of making yourself feel superior only in your own head.
  • 3 1
 @phops: the argument would be that it doesn't behave better overall. I just feel like 490mm reach on a large for most of us actually makes it harder to handle the bike, and at less than race pace is just a Band-Aid for less skilled riders (myself included) to be able to tuck behind the bars and hold on for dear life.

Granted what were talking about is 20-30mm of reach, not a night and day difference.
  • 2 1
 @friendlyfoe:

This is such a personal issue its not even worth mentioning. Different people have different body proportions and prefer different things as far as fit.

I was more referring to the wheelbase and head angle that is very enduro, but on a trail bike.
  • 5 0
 @phops: I’m not sure what you guys are on about, seems like I see just as many pros sizing up, using special headsets, custom chain stains, all in the name of longer bikes. Besides. All this just allows bigger people to finally ride a bike that fits. Just pick the length you like and enjoy! All of us could go up or down a size and be fine. We’re only taking an inch or two.
  • 2 2
 Agreed. Why not just buy a 160-170mm travel bike at this point
  • 2 0
 @BiNARYBiKE:

Agreed. It seems to be personal preference more than anything, as some pros do use smaller bikes than you’d initially think. But there are absolutely EWS pros on “slack sleds”.

Sam Hill rides a nukeproof mega 290, Richie Rude is on a Yeti SB150, Sam Blenkinsop rides the new Norco Sight, Cody Kelly is on the specialized enduro and Connor Fearon is on a Kona process 153 29, with custom lengthened chainstays, and an angleset to slacken it out as well as a 180mm fork on it.

Those are all pretty big/slack bikes imo.
  • 2 0
 Nobody made a fuss like this when Transition did it with the first gen Sentinel. In fact, it received alot of praise.
  • 3 0
 @gnarnaimo: in alloy, it was a lot of bike to push around for the amount of travel but there was no way around how fun that bike was. In carbon it was fine. I’d never been on a bike that was so reasonable while climbing and so capable on the way down. Although my belief is you might as well have at least 150-160 for a bike that slack and hefty. But of course you gotta save that extra 10mm for the next generation so there’s a reason to upgrade.

Maybe it’s just the terrain and style some people ride. But for me, I climb steep fire roads for 2000-4000 feet every ride, and then descend pretty burly downhill trails with solid sized jumps and drops at speed. For me, this generation of mid travel but aggressive geometry bikes has been a revelation. I descend like I used to only on DH bike, and feel no need to shuttle the ups.
  • 1 0
 @BiNARYBiKE: Fully agree, on all accounts
  • 2 0
 @phops: Couldn't agree more. For me, intentional instability is best suited to jet fighters planes, than to bikes meant to be ridden through the gnar.
  • 2 0
 @BiNARYBiKE: sounds like you've got ideal terrain for a bike that's got this sort of geometry - steep ups and downs. Given that most big towns and cities aren't next to a mountain range, there are lots of riders that need bikes that are fun where gravity doesn't drag a heavy bike out of the corners. And it seems that most trail bikes are as heavy as enduro bikes now, with geometry that favours steep (putting too much weight on the hands on flatter trails). And shorter travel bikes still tend to be more xc biased. I'm aware of, for example, the Optic, but that's really a mini-enduro bike too.
  • 13 0
 Wow, gorgeous bike. I really wonder about sizing. Without demoing, I would have no idea whether I should go with the small or the medium. Normally I ride mediums, but that's one long medium sized bike.
  • 5 0
 If you do a lot of seated pedaling, probably the medium. With that step of a seat angle you need more reach to get the desired seat to bar distance without a ridiculous stem length.
  • 2 0
 Stick with medium otherwise you gonna feel too cramped when seated
  • 4 0
 As seat tube angles keep getting steeper, always size up. The reach may SOUND long, but once your in climbing position its not that much once you account for the STA.
  • 6 0
 @ratedgg13: sure but how about descending?
  • 1 1
 @Fullsend2-13: If you care about going fast, then (reasonably) sizing up is probably a good idea anyways. Bigger frame size usually means longer wheel base, which improves stability at speed. But sizing up isn't great if you want a bike that feels jibby and flickable. Trust me, I bought a Meta TR 29 in size XL when I should maybe have bought a size L instead. The biggest drawback is that its quite hard to pull up to front wheel for a manual.
  • 3 0
 @benmoosmann: flickability is precisely what im concerned about.
  • 6 0
 @benmoosmann: seems like all new bikes are meant to smash instead of play
  • 12 0
 Regarding the 2 pot brakes maybe they built up the media bikes differently? On their website, it looks like they come with 4 pot XT's

www.commencalusa.com/meta-tr-29-signature-c2x30728117
  • 11 0
 Hmm, that's interesting. As far as I know they come with two piston brakes - other spec sheets I saw had that listed, but I'll follow up and see what they'll actually be shipping with.
  • 5 0
 That link shows 2 piston XTs, maybe a typo on the site and since fixed? Weird decision to go 203mm rotors and 2-pot brakes, but maybe cost or simply preference driven? Not sure it's a real issue in the grand scheme of things, still a crazy good deal on the bike, even if you had to sell the stock brakes and get something better.
  • 10 0
 Commencal confirmed that they'll be 2-piston brakes. Also, the dropper post on the size large Signature version will have a 175mm dropper post.
  • 1 0
 @Habaden in the photo and spec sheet you linked it shows 2 piston brakes...
  • 3 0
 @dinklecorn: Looks like you're right, when i posted it, the link said 4 pistons
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: sorry for diverting a little from the discussion but, this or the reactor rs?, which one felt to you more enduro-ish and which one felt more pedalable?, I'm asking because I've just made myself(less than 3 weeks ago) an aluminium (better than)'RS' and now I'm pondering if I should buy the tr frame and swap all the parts from my reactor. ????????????‍♂️
  • 2 1
 @mikekazimer: Yikes, they made everything on this "endurofied" and then one of the most important things, the brakes, they skimp on they keep at 2 pot. That makes ZERO sense given the geo, build and all around identity of this bike. WHY!?
  • 2 0
 @eugenux: Keep the reactor. If you feel like you need more room, then move to this frame. This one looks to be super long (when out of the saddle, as mike stated on the video).
  • 1 0
 @HopeFbn:

Om my Reactor I've put a 5mm reach 'enlargement' head-set(off-set); my previous bike was size L(27.5 Sanction) and I was ok with the Occam size L I had tested for a week. In the end I choose the Reactor due to the fact that I had parts around 1k "laying" around the house and I could not bring myself to spend extra money for nothing.
The bike is very good, the lyrik is fantastic(coming from a 180mm 36 factory) but 130mm rear end gets out of spoof a touch too fast. I can always derestrict the super dexluxe and make the Reactor a 150-140 bike...but, maybe I should just get this new meta.
  • 1 0
 Really nice looking bike, was very interested in the Essential model until I viewed the spec, the inclusion of 2 piston brakes, boat anchors for rims and not speccing exo+ casings or a better gripping front tyre, like the Assegai, leaves you with a very hefty upgrade bill straight off the bat
  • 2 0
 @ctd07:
Assegai is waaay too much tire for anything other than full DH, bike-park or, if you are fit/strong enough)l, enduro racing.

The better solution is to just buy the frame and swap for the parts you already have on your current bike.
  • 1 0
 @eugenux: have you ridden one? i ride 2.5" assegai front for trail, switched from a 2.3" dhf on the front, it didn't roll any slower at all
  • 1 0
 @ctd07:
Of course, or elese, I would't have said it.

My previous set-up was Assegai front, DHF back, both in 2.5 and now I run DHF-DHF. The difference can be felt easily. Before, any pedaly bit was like almost having a flat tire. Now, it feels like I just have grippy tires.
IMO, for anything less than dh and/or bikepark, assegai is too much. If I would have a dedicated dh or park bike, then for sure I'd put one in the front..maybe even on both wheels..but for enduro-am-trail bike..no matter how steep, rough, loose, whatever, those 30 seconds when I need the absolute best grip ever do not make up for the rest of time/ride when I feel like dragging an anchor after me.
  • 2 0
 @eugenux: I had a DHF-DHF combo for years, and then switched to Shorty up front until last year when I tried Assegai because it was easier to get, and I stuck with it. I agree there is a bit more rolling resistance ove the DHF, but in terms of grip and control, there is no comparison in all, but especially in serious, wet, slimy, shitty conditions which I prefer. Still, I need to prep the Assegai by removing transitional knobs, so it sheds mud better and bites deep and hard, and feels very much like thenShorty. .I run both tires DH casing, maxx Grip front. I ride a lot, 5-7 days a week, my tours are almost always longer than 1000vm, the tires roll just fine, but the grip and control outweighs any second (for which i couldnt care less) or Watt, lost on the uphill. I guess i I lived in some very dry, arid and hardpacked terrain, my choice would have been different.
  • 1 0
 @Pocair:

I also had DH casting on the assegai-dhf set-up but, now I downgraded a little to DD.

1000vm even 3 times per week is serious riding(not to mention 5). I live in the flats so, the "big" bike gets used some city park trails(with jumps, rocks and roots) and once in two weekes in the mountains. So, yeah, there is a big difference in ftiness between you and, probably, most of us. That is why for you the assegai seems more ok than for the average rider.
  • 12 2
 @mikekazimer please check the head angle / fork travel lengths you give in the article.
In usual Commencal fashion, the 64,5° HA shown on the geo chart is for a shorter fork than the one in the tested build (561mm, 150mm travel). The tested unit with a 160mm fork should be closer to a 64° HA
  • 35 0
 I did a quick check the other day with my digital angle finder and it was right at 64.5° as shown.
  • 12 1
 @mikekazimer: I heart this response. Of course you check the HA with your angle finder.

What bikes have you found that the HA didn't match the specs? I've heard that tolerances in that area can vary.
  • 5 2
 @mikekazimer: thanks for the feedback.
That just adds up to the fact that Commencal geo charts tend to be messed up.
It's not that 0,5° matters tho
  • 2 2
 @Arierep: There will be probably be 0.5 degree tolerance or more between frames from manufacturing with an aluminium frame.

I can’t remember the test but many frames show up some way off from geometry figures and as you say, 0.5 degree is almost irrelevant.
  • 8 2
 @justanotherusername: exactly.
That's the reason why I think it's a d!ck move from Ibis to list the Ripmo HA as 64,9°, they just wanted to have a fashionable "4" next to the "6"
  • 6 0
 @mikekazimer: God, these PB'ers always got something to nitpick huh?
  • 16 4
 Lets stop using the term Enduro to describe a bike. Enduro is a race format and there is no specific bike that can be the right bike for all courses.
  • 3 0
 I agree with you. That said, we need to let it go. It has been adopted. I still lament the slow extinction of All Mountain. I continue to use it cuz I’m a retro grouch haha.
  • 2 0
 @CircusMaximus: Kind of off topic a little bit. I just don't understand these bikes. We have 150-160mm travel bikes that are excellent at pedaling and climbing. Why would I give up 20-30mm travel have the bike weigh the same just to have something that the industry wants to push as a new category?
  • 4 0
 @dhrracer: Because the lower travel bike lets you sit slightly lower, feel more flickable and corner better. It also feels more poppy over jumps and obstacles. Trail bikes rightfully own this slight appeal over full enduro bikes.
  • 1 0
 @CircusMaximus:

I had some all mountain bikes. One was the spez pitch pro and the other was gt sanction 2.0. This bike, my nuke reactor and similar bikes are not that.
My reactor feels as fast as my prev. 180-165mm 27.5.., if not even faster. The only diff is the feel that you have less spoof in the back. The travel seems to end sooner rather than later. This meta has even more travel than reactor(160-140 vs 150-130), while also having a slightly dh oriented geometry(64 HA insetead of 65, longer wb, longer reach, etc)

Technically, you might call this an AM bike but, in reality, the feel is like an "enduro" class bike with lesser travel. In fact, not only in feel as the bike is as fast as my friend's 2019 mega 27.5. As for peddaling, despite having 130mm travel, with a lyrik, DD tires, flow mk3s and big dropper, it is still a bike that's 15.5 kgs. The suspension is slighly better to pedal than my former bike but, it is no downcountry xc bike.

I'll probably keep the reactor this season and, for the next one, I'll buy the frame and swap all the parts. Being 160-140 should cure most of the less travel feeling of my reactor.
  • 10 0
 This is my next bike. I could give 2 shits about carbon and having the most expensive bike on the trail. I want reliability and not to be concerned about every rock or ding I hit. This is a sweet looking bike!
  • 8 0
 It seems to me like 200mm rotors and 2-piston brakes would be more powerful than 160/180mm rotors on 4-pistons from a pure torque perspective. And with Shimano being known for a strong early bite point, this setup could make for a smoother transition when you want to ease onto the levers. I know 4-pistons are all the rage and that I would certainly spec them on a bike like this, but I'd be very curious to compare the setups I mentioned.

As a side note: I love the new Shimano 4-pistons. I had problems with my old M8000s, but I "upgraded" to the no-name Shimano 4-pistons (because who actually wants that free stroke adjustment?) and they have been extremely consistent and reliable.
  • 1 1
 i want to try tektros thicker rotors with my 4 pot xt's (saints) 200/180

i think that will help with heat dissipation
  • 4 0
 What are these "no name" shimano brakes you speak of???
  • 3 0
 @Domester101: probably Shimano MT501
  • 2 0
 @Domester101: @housem8d is right: MT501s. They're spec'd OEM on some bikes, but honestly, I'd rather use them than XTs at this point. The lever doesn't have the same texture as the fancier ones and you're missing both free stroke and quick adjust, but none of those mean much to me. Would highly recommend them for both value and overall performance.
  • 4 0
 @airdonut41: from a recent article:

Let’s begin with a lesson on Shimano’s nomenclature. The BL-MT501/BR-MT520 brakes are sold as a full brake with the BR MT520 caliper and the BL MT501 lever. After some research, it was confirmed by Shimano that the MT501 lever is identical to the M6000 lever, better known as “Deore,” which we’ve seen helping bring the price down on plenty of high-end bikes. Both are listed in the M6000 series page on Shimano’s website. Interesting.
  • 2 0
 @airdonut41: you are correct about the 501s. We had them on our demo ripmo, they were brilliant and felt much better than the xt 4 pots I have on my own ripmo!
  • 1 0
 The MT520 is technically an e-bike brake, just to charm the PB crowd... I don't have much of a reference point but with metallic pads installed, it far exceeds my needs, even at Thredbo. It just doesn't have much by the way of adjustment. Now that Deore has been updated, I assume it will be substituted out for series Deore parts before long, since that's basically what it was.
  • 1 0
 I have the BL-MT501/BR-MT520 combo on my DH bike, more than enough stopping power
  • 1 0
 @airdonut41 4 piston brakes deliver better modulation, with the smaller pistons contavting earlier than the larger set, 2 piston brakes have more of an on/off feel to them, total power is down to piston surface area and pad size, which could be the same if they wanted, the whole point of 4 pistons is to give greater braking control
  • 8 0
 Privateer is rumored to announce a 141mm travel (or thereabouts) trail bike this summer.

This Commencal looks like some serious competition For it already, both from a geo perspective, but also value. I just wish the Commencal had longer chainstays in the larger sizes.
  • 10 3
 I'm just wondering, my YT Capra from 2016 with just a carbon front triangle with 180mm 36 Fork, 170mm Float X2 shock and decent spec but nothing crazy, in size large was 14.5 kg . What happened on the way, bikes got heavier, and travel wise they just got shorter..
  • 6 1
 I was waiting for this comment. Seems really odd that this bike is over 33lbs. You could get a full enduro sled for that....
  • 3 0
 Even current aluminium Banshee weight is similar to most carbon bikes like Santa Cruz.
  • 2 0
 @pistol2ne: Well, it's Commencal. That's not their deal. Plus there's so much welding on that frame, might be a different story in carbon.
  • 4 0
 commencal has never really cared about weight, there is an article on Vital from a couple years back where Alex Commencal mentioned that weight is not their priority thats why they dont work with carbon frames.
  • 4 0
 What wheels, tires, and cassette are on that YT though? Longer reach frames are heavier, so that'll add a bit. 34.9mm droppers are quite heavy too. I think a lot of these mid priced bikes put all the money into the suspension and use heavy parts to bring the price down to a realistic level. Cheap 12 speed cassettes are super heavy as are low cost 29" wheels. There is probably over two pounds of weight just in wheel and tire on this Commencal over your 27.5 YT. YT's website shows Exo High Rollers as spec on the '16 Capra, which are probably quite a bit lighter than the tires on this Commencal.
  • 1 0
 @WheelNut: I had DT Swiss EX 1501 , 30 mm wide .DHF & DHR Exo Tyres. GX cassete 10-42 - around 400 grams if I remember 400 grams pedals. So it was decent, but nothing fancy weight wise
  • 7 0
 @mikekazimer: do you guys think seat angles are going a bit far?

My experience ha bern anything past 76 feelS like my knees to far out past the ball of my foot w/ cleats back, and if i go seat up on a fire road descent in a race feel like im litterly about to tip OTB.
  • 2 0
 I worry about the same thing. I currently have a 76.5 STA and my saddle is set back on the rails, so these steeper STA bikes will push my knees past the ball of my feet a lot more than I'm used to. Maybe it's time to bring back the offset seatpost?
  • 1 0
 @johnnyo5: you can buy one.... 9point8 I think?
  • 1 0
 @DHhack: Yeah, there are offset posts, but your options are limited.
  • 10 1
 No sick rap track in the video = not interested.
  • 6 1
 That's my first criteria too. That or Euro-techno so bad you need to panic reach for the volume control.

Then geo & spec.
  • 1 0
 @mobiller: what you think is euro-techno is not what you get on videos.
Trance, electro-house or something like that but not techno.
  • 12 6
 Eghh commencal dropping the ball in my book. Prices go up specs go down and this geo is ridicilous IMO. They don't have a trail bike anymore just 2 enduro slammers with 10/20 mm difference
  • 5 0
 Progressive geo is a huge plus for a lot of people, but you're right about the specs and the price.
  • 8 0
 This bike is the result of a Meta having unprotected sex with a Privateer 161.
Since when a 140mm 29" is a mini-enduro ?
  • 2 0
 @F22:

Since the current crop of 130-140mm 29ers with 65(or sub 65) ha, low st heights and looong wbs are as fast, if not faster than the 150-160mm 27.5 of yesterday who used to be called enduro-bikes.
  • 4 1
 Seems like a very capable bike, love the geometry changes. Looks pretty tough with those thick tubes and beefy suspension. Great that they steepend up the seat tube angle, which would have been the only criticism I had on my 2019 Meta TR 29. I'll probably end up buying one of these instead, if the Norco Optic isn't back in stock soon. Also, big plus for me is that Commencal sells framesets. Norco should start doing that too.
  • 3 0
 Is mini enduro a thing? Hell yes ... I ride my 17 Hightower on everything from mellow trail to bike parks. It's 135mm rear and 150mm front. It is the perfect rig, especially with how great suspension systems and design is these days.
  • 7 4
 "I can take it on slightly mellower local trails without feeling like it's overkill."

What is "overkill" really? Is it overkill if the fork O-ring didn't end up at the max travel? IF you didn't bottom a tire and feel a rim hit? Shit, I'd argue the 29er wheels are instantly overkill on any trail if you're not racing.

So what if you ride a trail that doesn't need you to use all 140mm of rear travel? Or never gets close to an unintended OTB. That doesn't mean the bike is overkill. It means you have a little cushion to either push it, or to keep in reserve for when you get tired or lazy.
  • 4 1
 I'm not so impressed... I'm actually riding the meta Tr 4.2 (1.gen) and I was looking forward for the new meta Tr 29 just to swap the tire size but staying the same travelwise... but now I'm disappointed...

What i love about the Tr 4.2 is that it handles pretty much everything, depending on how fast you want to go... especially having a v10 for the hard stuff. I would even say, that it can handle a proper DH-Track if you're not aiming to go as fast as you would with 200mm ....
For classic Tr(ail)-use it's just awesome: insanely fast, nimble and capable (even when the back-end is flexy as hell)

BUT: since the 1. Gen Tr4.2 they constantly downgraded the specs on the low-price-end... I got mine for 2,1k€ with a Yari, Deluxe RT, Sram NX and WTB rims... The year after a friend of mine got his one with a revelation and alexrims.... look et the specs now...

Downgrading the specs (or rising the price) and getting closer to the AM.... unfortunately it's done for me... Now it's not a downhillish trailbike anymore...
  • 3 1
 Can bikes get "too good?" It seems that bike suspensions are excessively isolating riders from trail features and bike head tube angles and fork lengths that are optimized for rocky chutes are too slack for general riding and cornering.

Sure, you can finally clear that one extreme feature that you used to walk, but you've got to ride around a hobby horse/boat anchor for 99% of your minutes.
  • 2 0
 It feels like they're all getting too, dare I say, specialized. You need a specific bike for every specific purpose.
  • 4 0
 Looks like an awesome bike, but damn that's looooooong. I feel like I would struggle to get the front wheel up & manual this thing.
  • 2 0
 I love the clean aesthetic of the frame, but the geo is getting ridiculous. 1257 mm wheelbase for a large trail bike? With a 64 degree head angle and 490 reach? Like, how many places does that even make sense? Anyway, I get it, the bike is not for my tight, gnarly, up and down and back up east coast trails, but man...that frame is so nice. It just seems like all the trends are headed in one direction, exclusively.
  • 5 0
 Mini-enduro? You're just trying to make us mad now
  • 1 0
 Minuro! sounds like manure, and rightfully so!
  • 2 0
 Glad Commencal are offering a proper XL size finally. I’d be interested to know how the bearings compare to my old Meta. The bearings on that were huge compared to most bikes and lasted easily 4x as long as my Nukeproof.
  • 5 0
 Anyone know if they're redesigning the Meta AM for 2021, as well?
  • 4 0
 Someone else ( @trelleder ) in the comments said it was coming on the 22nd
  • 3 0
 They have dates posted on their website on when the other new bikes in their lineup come out, I would expect the same changes but no one knows for sure
  • 2 2
 I just hope it’s a 650b...seems they are going away from them and that sucks
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer did you ride anything else in the bham area? Just curious if you think it’s enough bike for the steeper stuff like glacier. Did you max out the travel on double down anywhere? I’ve had 170mm and 180mm 27” bikes the past couple years but thinking about the switch to 29”.
  • 1 0
 I am planning on getting the silver frame, putting 27,5 wheels on it with 170mm of travel up front and a 216x63 vivid air in the rear. I hope the price drops, 1500€ just for the frame are you kidding me? The welding looks way too good though, is it some new technique?
  • 1 0
 It's kind of funny to see all the bike brands making different configurations of bikes to try to invent new niche markets. The 'problem' with this bike and many others is they are so versatile and the one bike can cover so many categories that the categories don't actually mean much in the real world. Looks like a bloody fun bike though!
  • 1 0
 @benmoosmann: Out of curiosity - how tall are you? I am 179cm with shortish legs, long torso and just ordered this thing in a Medium because 490 reach just seems past the limit for my height. A couple days ago I hopped on a friend's XL Honzo with 510 reach and felt like I could barely lift the front end. I am currently on a large Hei Hei with 445 reach. The 445 to 465 jump seems more likely to work out to me. I hope I am not wrong.
  • 1 0
 You 100% belong on a medium. The numbers between a super progressive geo bike like this and a kind of progressive old geo bike like the Honzo don't compare.
  • 1 0
 Note that the frame also isn't just any type of aluminium alloy, but 6066 T6 ProLite. It's got superior mechanical properties to the 6061 alloys used for most other aluminium frames. I think it's really cool to see companies like Commencal being really commited to alloy frames, using superior materials.
  • 5 0
 looks great Smile
  • 3 0
 looks like a true mtn platform, dont want any less travel but dont really need more. all day enduro instead of mini dh?
  • 11 0
 Like all mountain?
  • 2 1
 On their website for the top tier build it does list shimano 4 piston brakes but even on Commencal website the pic of that bike having only the 2 piston shimano's. Hope they can clear that up! Bike looks pretty sick tho
  • 2 0
 Also, the coil model(the next one down in price point) has 4 Piston brakes.
  • 2 1
 The meta am 29 (the enduro one) comes this monday 22... but I thinks this one is perfect

BTW, the specs shown 55mm shock stroke, but in the "a la carte" section, they show 50mm stroke ???
  • 1 1
 The top model has a bit more travel in the rear.
  • 2 0
 I don't think they've updated the a la cart options from 2019. Their forks are also listed as 51mm offset, and I asked them about that and they said they don't have the shorter offsets in yet, and that I should source one myself.
  • 4 0
 All of Mike's videos need to have a boucing happy bird cameo
  • 7 0
 I agree. I'll see if I can get a rabbit to hop past next time too.
  • 2 0
 Whatever labels there are for bike categories these days - looks and sounds to me like exactly what i wished for as a tall rider.

Can’t wait to build one up.
  • 3 0
 5 grand (european) for a full XT build and aluminium frame? Are they daft??
  • 2 0
 Sort of bored of companies doing this. Longer, slacker, more travel etc.... No everyone wants that if I did I'd by the AM or Clash.
  • 4 1
 It's a downtrail bike ????
  • 2 0
 Ohh that looked like Chuckanut . Love that spot. New Meta just got added to my list.
  • 5 2
 Looks like the Commencal Boyz, have been secretly test riding Pole
  • 3 0
 I love the Alloy enduros coming out
  • 3 1
 Pole evolink 140 copy. All your bikes in the buy and sell with 430mm reach are landfill now.
  • 2 0
 interesting they went with 44mm offset this time, I wonder what is coming for the META AM
  • 2 0
 Strangely on the META TR 29 ESSENTIAL build, they went with a 51mm offset fork. Source: www.commencalcanada.com/meta-tr-29-essential-c2x30713931
  • 2 0
 @johnnyo5: Same thing is on the european english site.
  • 4 1
 press fit BB is pretty much the only fail for me
  • 1 0
 So you get 4 pot brakes on the race model(g2 rs), but you dont get it on the highest spec build? Seems super strange to me why they would do that...
  • 2 0
 Rear brake mount has changed also. Any word on the reason for that @mikekazimer ?
  • 1 0
 Damn if you'd just bought a Meta TR in the last month or so, then this comes out. Hurrah if you're about to buy a new Meta TR however.
  • 2 0
 Tell me more about the Schwalbe "Super Trail" tires on the Meta TR 29 Race model!?
  • 1 0
 It's rare that PB does a bike review and I don't begin to scheme how to get one. However this bike cured me as it just doesn't appeal to me.
  • 3 0
 If your worried about the weight just cut out the pies
  • 1 0
 But.... Pies Cook
  • 1 0
 I remember when mini-DH bikes were a thing (and I thought they were quite fun). Glad to see we've moved on to mini-enduro, now!
  • 1 0
 I dont think it looks as nice as the previous model. Too low and long in the front and a bit to short in the seat and chainstays.
  • 1 0
 could you swap the shock and fork out for 170/160 setup on this? might be a better bike than the new META AM in that guise if it is possible
  • 3 1
 Ordering mine this Thursday, super stoked!
  • 2 0
 With a seat tube angle that steep the reach should feel just right.
  • 5 3
 great prices for a Pandemic with no carbon.
  • 1 0
 It obviously doesn't....but it looks as if the rear shock will smash in to the top tube with each compression.
  • 1 0
 Super excited to see commençal spec'ing the meta tr with shimano. But then I realised it isn't the same bike anymore ????.
  • 1 0
 would love to see the same review from the Stumpjumper EVO; much more agresive!!!!
  • 1 0
 $2,200? Pretty sure I am looking at ordering one right now. Even bottom build looks decent, especially for that price.
  • 2 0
 Cheap, Light, strong. Pick two.
  • 3 1
 Can we just call this what it is? ALL MOUNTAIN.
  • 1 1
 @mikekazimer AFAIRemember the suspension platform of the previous model was rather linear. Does the updated version feel more progressive?
  • 1 0
 Is a mini enduro a thing ? hilarious .
The first rule in marketing hype is to make your thing into a “ thing”.
  • 2 0
 cant wait for the 2021 meta am
  • 1 0
 Not sure it is a thing, but 15-16Kg trail bikes are certainly not a thing, therefore maybe that is why this new approach.
  • 1 0
 Specialized stumpjumper evo is mini-enduro and it isn't clear what kind of trails it is made for.
  • 1 0
 At some point one might as well get an e-bike to help carry all this extra weight bikes seem to be putting on.
  • 1 0
 I miss the meta sl..still got my 2013 model but whish they would make a 29er version.
  • 2 0
 Fresh as f*ck Wink
  • 1 0
 Looks so good. We need longer seatposts for sure though!!!
  • 4 3
 So this looks like a more affordable last-gen Transition Sentinel.
  • 1 0
 Where can I preorder the updated AM version?
  • 1 0
 Great honest review MK! Look forward to the long term review.
  • 1 0
 Wasn't this bike just reviewed in the sub 3k bike review?
  • 1 0
 well, whose STA angle can i complain about now? oh yeah, trek...
  • 1 0
 2021 Commencal HT review, pretty please
  • 1 0
 US site says no Small. Sizing starts at Medium. ???
  • 1 0
 This is just a grim reaper lite.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer you really missed an opportunity here, M-duro!
  • 1 0
 I was hoping they'd change to a threaded bb. Too bad it's still PF Frown
  • 1 0
 THATS A FRIKING COOOLLLL BIKE
  • 1 0
 Is it just me or does this seem like a 2017 Alloy Sentinel?
  • 1 0
 @levar012586 my next bike
  • 1 0
 #PepsiGlass !
  • 1 0
 private joke...
  • 10 13
 Should have called it, "Realistically all you need". You don't need a a 160-170mm travel bike for everyday riding, if you think you do, you're nuts and only buying into the hype.
  • 10 2
 But, like, what's the difference? If a 160mm travel bike is the same weight or heavier than a 140mm option, what am i gaining by choosing the shorter travel option? Because I'm losing at least some versatility.
  • 9 4
 Not everyone rides the same trails or has the same riding style you have no idea what people do or don't need.
  • 3 1
 @steddy: You might be gaining different suspension kinematics. My current bike is 20mm less travel than the previous from the same brake (Fuel EX Vs Slash) but the suspension could not feel more different under pedalling. Fuel EX - rocket ship, Slash boggy monster truck.

Less difference (but still some) when descending though, and that means that on mellower pedal trails the fuel is tonnes more fun to ride.
  • 3 2
 This would be perfect if it was 5lbs lighter. 34lb for a trail bike!!!!! Really? You can get dh and 180mm enduro sleds that weigh less
  • 4 2
 Dunno, you can definitely push a 160/170 mm bike to its limits on a lot of what we regularly ride in BC. I certainly use all my travel regularly.
  • 4 0
 @nouseforaname: Would have disagreed 6 months ago, but after getting a short travel 29 my enduro bike just collected dust. (Trail is an old world cup DH track).
geo>travel.
  • 1 3
 @nouseforaname: That's because Trek made a decision to have them pedal differently, via suspension kinematics and/or shock tunes. However there are 160 bikes that "pedal better" or just as well as shorter bikes.

Compare Specialized Stumpjumper 2018+ versions: The whole range from ST to Evo has similar suspension curves, so the main thing you'd feel on the shorter travel ones is that the air-spring might be ramping up faster. Pedaling effects on the suspension will be just about the same through the whole travel range. Sure a longer travel might feel "mushy" when you just push on it, but that mush is really just traction waiting to be unleashed. When the short travel one is ramping up the spring and getting super firm and starting to chatter, the long travel will still have travel to spare and just keep soaking up terrain do you can keep charging and funning. But when you put some pedal strokes in, those inputs go into essentially the same suspension design and into the ground in the same way.
  • 3 0
 @just6979: Not so much real world I'd argue. "You'd feel" theoretically, but actually take out a 170mm travel bike and a 120mm bike on trail. Regardless of suspension magic, the difference is VAST.
  • 1 0
 @50percentsure: What about Geo+Travel? I think in reality you need the geo to work primarily followed closely by an effective suspension system. I've ridden 130mm bikes that felt better than 150mm bikes and vice versa.
  • 1 0
 @50percentsure: that's a 50mm difference, not the 20mm you mentioned before. And you missed the point. A 120mm and 170mm bike are designed for different things in general. It's not just less travel on the 120 that makes it feel fast (again, stiff feels fast but isn't always actually faster), but the entire suspension design. That's why I used the Stumpy as an example. Same suspension, different travel (I think 130 to 160 is the range from ST to Evo), pedals similarly
  • 1 0
 Stoked on that STA.
  • 2 2
 I'll wait for the EBike version
  • 1 0
 Lovely looking bike
  • 1 0
 how does it climb?
  • 1 1
 It would be awesome if Commencal also launched a 27.5 meta tr
  • 2 0
 Even if they make it, would be more awesome if MDH brings all the options to Mexico, since they seem to don't care about anything other than 29er options.
  • 2 1
 looks like Norco Sight
  • 1 1
 Mini enduro, I’d prefer #megatrail.
  • 1 0
 I want to test ride one.
  • 7 8
 Is downcountry dead already?
  • 7 3
 when does mini enduro become down country?
  • 5 3
 was it ever really alive?
  • 3 0
 This isn't downcountry though?
Too much travel, too tough of a frame with too tough of a build kit on it, completely different purpose.
  • 3 0
 @NorCalNomad: are you missing out downtrail and upallmountaindown
  • 2 0
 @LancaCruz: what about upcountry and downcross?
  • 2 2
 Answer too Ripmo AF?
  • 5 1
 Better than the noodly feeling AF.
  • 2 1
 @Ajorda: my AF arrives tomorrow and i had never heard a review that said it was flexy. I checked the commencal site and a build with a fox 36 and SLX group set looks like its $3300, pretty good deal.
  • 2 1
 Most likely it's exactly the other way around. Seeing tons of Commencals out on the trails, but haven't seen any Ibis model in like a year. Maybe that's different in the US, but here in Europe Commencal sells like hotcakes.
  • 2 1
 @Ajorda: looks a lot better too IMHO.
  • 3 0
 @Snowrydr01: It's just a different business model, Commencal also wholly focuses on aluminum, which is a great advantage since it cuts R&D down on different material types.
  • 3 0
 @benmoosmann: I think that's the case that different in US. I think I've only seen a couple Commencals ever on the trails in US and I see Ibis(es?) regularly.
  • 1 0
 @ICKYBOD: Ok, right. Thats what I suspected. And for a good reason. I can't recall any media outlet ever having anything negative to say about the Ripmo and Ripmo AF.
  • 1 0
 @Snowrydr01: JKW did mention slight flex on the AF, but he’s crazy. I though it rode almost exactly like the V2 carbon.
  • 1 2
 Mini Euduro = Down-Country Enduro...?
  • 1 1
 ...forgot the sarcasm.
  • 2 2
 No, it’s not a thing.
  • 1 1
 Vs. GG Smash?
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.066717
Mobile Version of Website