Commencal Unveils 2021 Meta AM 29
PRESS RELEASE: Commencal
The switch to a 29-inch wheeled META from 2019 onwards has enabled a significant improvement in performance. For 2021, we're taking advantage of the experience and knowledge of our EWS riders and numerous tests, to make it even more effective against the clock!
With faster-than-ever speed to deal with, we decided to alter the geometry. Lengthened for stability, equipped with a 40mm stem, a short fork offset (42/44mm) and a slacker head angle. This means handling is not impeded and the bike feels like it has a good sense of direction. The seat angle is straightened and the offset is reduced for optimised uphill positioning regardless of whether in the saddle or on the pedals. The new Meta AM 29 will, therefore, delight riders eager for performance and those who like to give it all regardless of the difficulty of the trail before them!
The kinematics have been redesigned to enable a bike that is both more dynamic and more comfortable during suspension travel. This results in less rider-leg fatigue and essentially the ability to ride the bike optimally towards the end of long race stages. Thanks to 170mm travel on the front and 160mm on the back, this Meta AM is an enduro platform designed above all, to go fast for extended periods of time. The stiffness of the frame is always the subject of much attention.
The use of double-row Enduro Bearings allows a more homogeneous deformation of the frame without the loss of stiffness via the bearings. Aesthetically, the frame has evolved in depth. It's very simple, everything is new. Notably, the sharper lines highlight improved performance.
Geometry :
-The new META AM 29 is longer: 495mm reach (size large) vs 460mm on the old META AM 29
-The seat angle is straighter: 78.5° vs 76.5°
- Slacker head angle: 63.6° vs 65.5°
-Short fork offset
Optimised kinematics:
-More vitality
-Less leg fatigue
Travel
-160mm rear
-170mm fork
-The new META AM 29 is longer: 495mm reach (size large) vs 460mm on the old META AM 29
-The seat angle is straighter: 78.5° vs 76.5°
- Slacker head angle: 63.6° vs 65.5°
-Short fork offset
Optimised kinematics:
-More vitality
-Less leg fatigue
Travel
-160mm rear
-170mm fork
Finish:
-Better cable routing
-Easier bottle cage installation
Shape:
-Easy assembly and disassembly of the contact system
-Stiffer and more reliable double-row Enduro Bearings
-More of a compact rear triangle for less interference with rider's heels and calves
-Lower seat tube:
1) Makes it possible to mount a telescopic seat post with large travel (34.9mm diameter)
2) Maximum insertion length
Completely renewed look!
-Better cable routing
-Easier bottle cage installation
Shape:
-Easy assembly and disassembly of the contact system
-Stiffer and more reliable double-row Enduro Bearings
-More of a compact rear triangle for less interference with rider's heels and calves
-Lower seat tube:
1) Makes it possible to mount a telescopic seat post with large travel (34.9mm diameter)
2) Maximum insertion length
Completely renewed look!
All specs & prices on COMMENCAL Websites :
Europe
USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Chile
Mexico
Reunion Island
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
For what its worth, the new Sentinel has a 63.6 degree HTA, longer chainstays, and a longer overall wheelbase for each size than the Meta AM. Not sure I'd I'd expect it to be any better in the tight stuff.
It does seem like this year everyone is gravitating towards ~63-64 degree HTA's, reaches of ~485-495mm and wheelbases approaching 1300mm (in size Large) on their longer travel bikes.
The new Norco Sight, the updated sentinel, the Raaw Madonna, Banshee Titan, Privateer 161, GG Gnarvana, this new Meta AM... they're all pretty darn close in measurements. I really want to demo one of these at some point, just to see if I am on board with the changes.
I think I will love them though. I grew up riding dirt bikes, and mountain bikes have always felt twitchy and unstable to me. So longer wheelbases/chainstays, and slacker HTA's just "feel right" to me.
I like the bike but I wonder if it'll be too handfull for a mediocre rider like myself. I'm sure that elite riders will enjoy themselves but I could do without being scared that my front wheel will wash out every time I don't shift my weight enough forward
#nosemanual #euroturn
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/commencal-meta-am-29-2021
(ahem also geometrygeeks.bike/bike/pinkbike-grim-donut-2020)
I'm Privateer 161 curious, mind if I bug you with a question?
How tall are you, and how does the P4 fit you?
I'm in the official "grey area" for sizing between the P3 and P4, at ~186cm, so I'm curious about your thoughts on it.
But yeah generally speaking a smaller bike will be quicker through direction changes and a better rider can make up for the lack of extra stability with skill
I have that setup on an XL Madonna V2. It is very stable at speed. It’s a bit of a problem because I can feel comfortable riding at speeds that I don’t have the skill to handle.
I guess I'll be stuck on my Voltages until something bad happens.
The advantage seem to be it's very confident on the downhill rough stuff, very nice in the air off of bigger features, but it's much harder work in the turns, there's more pedal strike and I see the difference in speed with fellow riders on smaller bikes.
I love the bike but I've come to the conclusion I bought something 'too big' for the trails I ride here in the UK, despite the frame size being correct for my height according to the sizing chart.
I ride BMX quite a bit for commuting and social and that does influence how I feel on a bigger bike and I still have a lot of fun on it but next time I'm bike shopping I would aim for something that felt livelier.
I think Nico's words are good food for thought. Not everyone's on board w/ LLS but the almighty demo is the way to go even though ultimately it just comes down to personal preference and type of terrain/riding the rider prefers. That's it. For those that like traditional geo for a mid travel trail bike you can always size down or pick up a Trek or Specialized. If anyone's griping about longer travel bikes getting too big I can see that as an issue for some.
I just graduated from a 1215 wheelbase to 1260+. No problemo. Best fit of any bike I've owned. Long is also a relative term. I'm 6'1" (1.85m) on an XL and the bike isn't long or short, it just fkn fits really well with the steeper sta and more generous tt/reach and the slackage helps tame the gnar. It handles the opposite of poorly. And I can't imagine the Commencal enduro team didn't ask for the changes above.
It's interesting though that the new Switchblade was 'only' 66deg up front. Matt Walker, an inch shorter than me, is on a medium switchblade (I would ride an XL) with it's offensive sub 1200mm wheelbase. That obviously works for him. It would be a cool analysis to see pro rider heights and the size bikes they choose. If most riders are sizing down then that might say something.
I don't know of any of the front runners on the EWS sizing up or having unusually long bikes and 170mm+ travel F/R...
Bike companies should invest more in demo days, especially in Europe. It's stupidly difficult to demo anything exotic from across the pond or even demo anything on proper trails.
Yeah those guys have to turn a bike on a dime at mach chicken... and on unfamiliar trails. So that makes sense that they lean towards agility when it comes to overall length. I'm only going mach pigeon and on familiar trails so can turn a balanced 1260 wb bike just fine.
So what's Cody going to ride this year, an overforked stumpjumper or the enduro? I'm excited to see him race on his new team.
Here in the western U.S. there are a handful of bike festivals throughout the year that have a good variety of brands showing up for demos. You have mountains and resort towns in Europe, no? Do you guys not have festivals and demo events? I guess they'd probably be dominated by your local brands as the Pivots and Yetis of the world don't want to fund a European fleet.
Did you notice an enormous difference in bike sizing when you swapped? Did it take a bit of time to adjust or just on it and comfortable?
The same goes for Cheeseburgers it's from Cheeseburg and not cheese.
Enough now! Time for truth:
Hamburg is equivalent to Homecastle in English. That doesn't mean a castle is made out of homes.
It has a lot of vegans, still they have as much Hamburgers as citizens, but far less Citizen watches tho'.
I can continuo but this is an old topic.
What I really want is a Clash 29 aluminium 180/170mm for the bike park but a mullet with 165mm out back may have to do. My current Furious is fun but she’s a heavy girl. Everyone currently making a 170/170mm 29er is not offering an aluminum frame only option. Forcing people into carbon frame only pricing or full bike purchase is not cool. I’m looking at you Enduro, Slayer and Capra Pro Race.
I love my 27.5 wheeled trail bike (r: 130mm/f: 150mm) for all the poppy trails around me, but when I have to due some XC rides or races, I go for the 29er. No surprise, right? For the extremely chunky trails on my weekend rides, I grab my 29" Intense Carbine. Pure heaven on that thing.
I’ve been riding 29ers for thirty years. For bike packing and XC riding they work feat, but grow the travel and they become a plow.
I think it’s koolaid and the desire to be safe at speed, long travel 29ers are like a corvette, sleek and beautiful to look at, but good luck in the tight stuff.
I mean you're just wrong... I work in a bike shop and we're still selling plenty of 27.5 wheeled bikes.
Probably it is. The only 650b wheel I will have in the future will be on my gravel bike. For mtb, the 29" wheel is just..well..better.
I wanted a Meta AM 29 but didn't like the position when climbing (seat over the rear hub), otherwise it was a great bike but jumping and turning isn't as easy and fun as on my 27. The clash was really great, I was LOVING the position when climbing but a bit big and low for me... I hope to keep my bike a couple of years but anyway, if I change I think it will be for a 29er as I can see that they will slowly disappear....and the new AM will probably be good for me except that it is f*cking long! lol Anyway, still have a couple of years to think about that! lol
I know it might sound like nothing, but consider me as a next buyer if that's the case.
Exactly this!, perfect reference.
And for those who say that 29" wheels numb the ride...well, try less suspension. My nukeproof reactor with 130 travel(and 150mm fork) on black and red runs is a much more livelier ride and a more entertaining one than on my previous bike, witch was a GT Sanction. I'm having more fun and I am working on/with the bike more. The GT was also a big bike, long and slack(in my custom build) and wasn't particulary nimble.
The whole thing with nimbleness and agile handling is as much a geometry design as chosing between a wheel size or another, at least, in my opinion.
" 27.5 ain't dead"
So, we are finally there. I guess I'm just a Cro-Mag. My short future will involve cold dead fingers and prying.
Long travel 27.5 coil will never die!
P.S. F*ck a bottle cage.
I have been voting with my dollars for the candidates supplying 26" frames, rims, tyres... since way back when. Still do, and happy with that. I can live with the situation.
It is not popular with the rest of the electorate though, who tend to be swayed by just good ol' "n+1", so,
here's to proportional representation.
@dexterfawkes: Have you thought about building / maintaining your own wheels? I'd strongly recommend doing so. It really isn't the black art some people like to make it out to be. And it means you can keep riding the bikes you like!
Welcome to pinkbike puns, fluid dynamics edition...
I like the Enginerding article idea, or even just the feedback that we have a lot of terms thrown around, correctly and incorrectly, that might not be understood fully.
But maybe there are people that wonder why their bike is 'poppy' and 'playful' , while their buddy's bike looks similar but feels much more 'stable' and 'planted'. Understanding that, or at least having a place where you could look up what you should change to your bike if you wanted it to be more 'efficient' or 'nimble' could be valuable.
The hardest part of this might be to figure out what people really mean by those terms though :-)
That said what’s the hold up with RockShox and their new 38mm fork announcement? Picture on Commencal website is blurred out. Really RockShox? Just get on with it.
Press fit is pain in the arse when you have a carbon bike and ridiculous tolerances
Nicolai use the same machine to surface the frame and cut the treads on both side of the bottom bracket.
I am not sure this is the usual way to proceed.
Because they work and are less expensive for manufacturers to use.
If you have a narrow shell you have a bigger gap between the BB and the crank, seems to me that a bigger gap (with spacers) between crank arm and BB increases the leverage for the axle to apply lateral forces to the BB cups. So over time this moves the BB and wears it. If the BB cup is flush up to the crank arm this is less likely.
Just a theory, but it's consistent with my experience across 5 bikes with PF and a mix of alloy/carbon and shell width.
I suppose this just opens the door for other brands to fill the 'value' role as previous brands move towards establishing themselves as more legacy and less value driven.
"
Notably, the sharper lines highlight improved performance.
"
"More vitality." It's like Viagra for your riding!
Homogenous deformation?
How tall are you, what crank length and do you pedal with flat feet or toes down?
Yeah man, I actually can fell the difference between my buddy's 140-150mm occam and my 130-150mm reactor, in all caractheristics that matter: suspension travel, wb, fork off-set and reach. I could also felt the difference between my 165-170mm Sanction team and my 165-180 Sanction custom(dogbone with bearings, off-set bushings @ the shock, etc). All of them seem to be small detalis that make very little to no difference but, in fact, when you add all of them up, the handling difference is quite visible.
The red and black runs I did just last weekend say otherwise. And I'm your average(read mediocre) rider, nothing more.
After the last weekend experience, bar true DH drops and jumps and world cup type gnar, is more than enough bike.
I'm still learning the bike but, one thing I already miss is the extra safety net provided by 160-170-180mm of travel. Line choice is soooo much more important and I can't do stupid lines because it will "fight" back. I think this bike wants to make me a better rider. Hahahahaha
The supertrail casing could be interesting though and hallelujah that the Nobby Nic is finally available in a tougher casing and soft compound. How their touted "most versatile" tyre has been so limited in options so far is strange.
the Meta TR is now fairly long travel. Would be cool to see an uber playful (27.5?) short travel (120?) bike with rowdy intentions.
Snakeskin > Snakeskin + Apex aka Super Trail > Super Gravity > Downhill
If you zoom into one of the photos, you can see Big Betty's tread pattern. Seems like a faster rolling version Magic Mary.... the DHR II to the DHF.
On these bikes, you do not go low behind the saddle like in the medieval bike age; you go low in the bike, centered!, best of luck!
(I already ride a bike for which the 452 mm reach was too small, at 1.72, so I had to put a reach extender)
Due to the BB drop, current head angles etc, 29” already have lots of stability. Adding more wheelbase equals even more energy required to destabilize the bike to turn etc. Sure you can ride a longer bike more centred, but you’ll have a reduced ability to weigh the front or rear of the bike independently. Like everything, it’s a compromise.
Funny to mention Sam Hill and Nukeproof. O ride a reactor 290.
Some people like short bikes, others like crazy long ones. You have all the right to chose a shorter bike, but that doesn't mean their sizing is wrong
Keep going down this rabbit hole and I think you’ll end up thinking like I do that most mediums are getting too long. It’s the guys at the high end of the spectrum that need longer bikes.
To upset that stability requires more strength/effort.
I guess you could quantify it if you timed a stage on both bikes and looked at average heart rate. I’m betting the bigger bike would likely cause a higher heart rate. I could be wrong, just a hunch.
Specs are great on the higher end models, and geo looks spot on. Wish I could test ride one.
Thank god they’re not using the shitty e13 wheels anymore. After one year of mediocre riding they’re dinged to hell and to a point where it’s not possible to properly true them anymore.
E13 support hasn’t answered in two weeks, f*ck those cheese wheels.
What a stupid thing to do.
Chasing a trend and expecting small and medium sized riders to stretch over that reach, on a gravity oriented bike, is dumb and short sighted.
me: you fricking frickers don't u know that there r consequences for ur actions!
I was wondering too.
I hope the Clash is still 27.5 or I'm gonna be very annoyed.
Alternately if all I’m after is a relatively inexpensive aluminum mountain bike and I live in Canada, why isn’t Giant at the top of the list? At least they’ll stand by their product when it breaks, plus the spec is unbeatable for the money and the bikes all generally ride well.
What makes a Commencal special and worth the $?
Can 34.9 seatposts stop being a standard? Please and thank you.
-Every mountain biker ever
The same argument can be made for metric shock spacing. Rockshox made a new standard to try to compete in the suspension market with their absolute shit show of an engineering department and trash products, and needed to make a new standard to make the ifp sizes proportional between all of their shock sizes. That’s the only thing metric sizes were touted for, you can go back to the original post about it and check if you doubt me. The worst part is, is that they easily could’ve done it with imperial sizes, Rockshox couldn’t be bothered to because their engineering department doesn’t exist. There’s just no reason for it. It’s unnecessary, idiotic, and overall not good for the industry because it obsoletes older frames that work perfectly fine just because Rockshox couldn’t be bothered to pay for real engineers.
Two, I've seen pretty much every dropper on the market break. Some break more than others some break less. I personally would like a properly engineered 34.9 post, not sure why it has to be exclusive to 31.6. Yes there is a slight increase in weight but I'm willing to trade some weight for performance/durability. If you're not, you should not be looking at an aluminum Enduro race bike.
In short I don't think we should have 34.9 on xc bikes. Everything else, yes please.
www.worldwidecyclery.com/products/problem-solvers-3-3mm-seatpost-shim-31-6-seatpost-to-34-9-black?variant=31222774085&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0Mb3BRCaARIsAPSNGpXJEBuQyIcJbijwawjcMq0ZSve3VCcA3gRqZX7Z92nslF-0Kcjh41kaArW9EALw_wcB