PINKBIKE FIELD TRIP
COMMENCAL META TR RIDE
A Tough Trail Smasher
Words by Mike Levy, Photography by Anthony SmithCommencal is one of four direct-to-consumer brands included in this year's Field Trip value bike reviews, with a $2,599 USD charge on your credit card being all that's needed to see the 130mm-travel Meta TR Ride arrive at your front door. The sharp-looking aluminum trail bike gets a 150mm RockShox Revelation RC fork, 29" wheels shod with aggressive, tubeless-ready Schwalbe tires, and a 12-speed drivetrain from SRAM. That adds up to a 33.5lb weight that might sound a bit chunky compared to competition costing twice as much, but that number is comparable to the other seven value bikes included in the Field Trip.
Our Meta TR test bike is a size-large with a 475mm reach, and it gets a 66.5-degree head angle, 76.5-degree seat angle, and 434mm chainstays. All that puts the axles 1,218mm apart.
Meta TR Ride DetailsTravel: 130mm
Fork travel: 150mm
Wheel size: 29"
Frame construction: Aluminum
Head angle: 66.5-degrees
Chainstay length: 434mm
Reach: 475mm (lrg)
Sizes: sm, med, lrg (tested), xlrg
Weight: 33.5lb
Price: $2,599 USD
More info:
www.commencalusa.com The aluminum frame uses a single-pivot, linkage activated suspension layout to deliver its 130mm of rear-wheel travel, and it's controlled via a simple, air-sprung RockShox Deluxe Select+ shock that offers rebound and pedal-assist controls. You might think you need more dials, but you don't. There are a handful of frame details worth pointing out as well, especially given the Meta's price. This includes the nicely done internal routing that doesn't look like an afterthought, and pivot hardware that wouldn't be out of place on a much pricier carbon frame.
Commencal also gives riders two places to mount a bottle, an effective chainstay protector that's far nicer than some cheap rubber wrap job, and the cutest little fender on the back of the seat tube that's intended to keep rocks from jamming up the linkage. Small things, sure, but it's obvious that the Meta is a well-thought-out bike, regardless of its relatively low cost. After all, don't forget that the entire Meta TR Ride costs less than most carbon fiber frames.
ClimbingWith sturdy Schwalbe rubber, a 150mm-travel fork, and a 33.5lb weight, the grey Meta definitely sits on the burly side of the trail bike spectrum, enough so that you might expect it to be a pain in the ass when faced with a long ascent. That's not the case, however, as the Commencal proved itself to be a worthy technical climber and efficient enough for anyone's needs.
With all eight of our value bikes weighing in at well over 30lbs, none of them are ever going to feel like spritely trail bikes that jump forward at the hint of you shifting to a smaller cog. But once you get moving, none of them felt all that heavy, either, especially the Meta. The Deluxe Select+ shock was at its best when running 25-percent sag, a setting that never required either Kazimer or myself to reach for the pedal-assist switch while also giving the pedals a bit more ground clearance. The suspension also works well with a bit more sag - it's progressive enough that you can run 30 or even 35-percent without clanging off the end of the stroke all the time - but life was easier on the technical climbs when the shock had a more all-around setup.
Commencal has also done well with the geometry to keep the Meta from being a handful on steeper pitches that would trouble a slacker, longer all-mountain bike, especially the 76.5-degree effective seat tube that feels spot-on. One thing that does need mentioning is how wide the seatstays are where they attach to the linkage, so much so that some riders will brush their calves or heels while they pedal, and especially if you're using a bit of body English.
Descending The Meta isn't the longest or slackest out of our eight value test bikes, and it's not the heaviest, either, but it's the only one of the bunch that could pass as a burly all-mountain bike when faced with serious terrain. Both Kazimer and I made separate notes, without speaking to each other, about the Meta being the most solid of the group, noting that it has that "I'm going straight through the rocks'' attitude that's not common in this travel bracket.
The 150mm-travel Revelation fork relies on the Motion Control damper rather than the pricier Pike's Charger unit, and while there's certainly a difference between the two when things get fast and choppy, only those who race at a high level will feel held back. For the rest of us, the fork tracks the ground impressively well, letting you know that you're not on the best-of-the-best only when faced with extended sections of rough trail. But unlike the Recon fork that's used on less expensive bikes, the Revelation was supportive, and I'd have a hard time justifying an upgrade as long as it continued its trouble-free action.
It's more of the same with the Meta's rear-suspension, too, although to be fair, all of the full-suspension value bikes offered surprisingly well-sorted action. The gray Commencal is versatile in that it's happy to run 25, 30, or even 35-percent sag without you hitting bottom-out more than you should, and its decent on-power pedaling manners seem indifferent to how you prefer your spring rate. That's notable for a 130mm-travel trail bike, especially given that the sturdy Commencal could see anything from all-day epics to all day in the bike park.
It's a quick bike in the corners, too, especially when it was loose and marbly, which is every day in Sedona. While I felt like I had to sometimes 'catch' the other trail bikes when they'd start sliding over the cat litter-covered singletrack, the Meta has a more relaxed, "I'm gonna slide, but everything's cool, dude'' way about handling itself.
It's comparison time, and you know that the $2,599 USD Meta TR Ride has to go up against its German mailorder frenemy, the $2,299 YT Jeffsy AL Base. The YT has more rear-wheel-travel, is 5mm shorter in the reach department, half a degree slacker up front, a half-degree steeper out back, essentially the same chainstay length, and an 8mm longer wheelbase. Small differences on paper, but the two bikes are quite different on the trail.
Both Kazimer and I came to the same conclusion: The YT prefers to dance a bit and feels lighter on its wheels, despite being nearly a full pound heavier, slacker, and longer than the Commencal. And to make it even fairer, I hadn't looked at either bike's numbers until testing was nearly wrapped up, as per usual. If you're looking for more of an all-around trail bike, the YT delivers. But if you want a trail bike to chase all of your enduro friends, and don't shy away from a sender or three, you'll prefer the Meta.
Pros
+ Versatile rear suspension
+ An all-mountain rider's trail bike
+ Extremely sturdy feeling for a trail bike
Cons
- Might feel like a lot of trail bike to some riders
- Wide seat stays might contact heels or calves
- Doesn't suit slow, rolling terrain
Photos: Anthony Smith
Additional footage: Lear MillerThe 2020 Pinkbike Field Trip was made possible by support from Smith, 7Mesh, and Over the Edge Sedona.
www.ridefox.com/fox17/help.php?m=bike&id=805
You are quoting 27.5 numbers. Very 2016
Looks like a four-bar/Horst
Can someone please enlighten me...
@mikelevy & @mikekazimer I know it's basically impossible to do a blind test on a bike, but it would be interesting to see the difference between how a bike's geo feels on the trail and what the numbers say on paper. For example, give the bike a few runs prior to knowing the bike's geo, then look at what the numbers actually are and discuss what did/didn't feel right.
@Arierep:
The published numbers for the 2020 Meta AM 29 maybe don't seem quite as far off as some of the TR numbers. It's sold in most built bikes and a la carte builds with a 170mm fork. The geo chart shows 571 for fork length. The fox charts posted here imply a fox 36 in 170 is 577.1.
So if they are off by 6.1mm, we might get what, 0.5 degree slacker HA and SA? 1 degree slacker? (and BB higher?)
But goes this also depend on fork setup and sag? Are the published numbers trying to account dynamic ride height or whatever? or are all bikes supposed to be measured unweighted?
Meta TR 29 Essential (2019): Full GX Drivetrain; SLX Brakes; Fox 36, DPS shock
but ya UCI EWS that has only been UCI for what a year and downhill.
I believe that four of the above sports are Olympic sports. You might not care about the above disciplines, but in the eyes of the UCI the two gravity disciplines are the least important of the group. On the UCI website if you go to mountain biking they list 4x above EWS.
Why not just call it what it is. Commencal makes really good gravity bikes, all mountain bikes, trail bikes, downhill bikes, enduro bikes?
If weights is really you're thing go buy a shorter travel carbon bike. I think its pretty hard to justify twice the money for a couple lbs and similar descending prowess.
Obviously, since you are on an XL frame, there are limits to how light you can go due to rider weight.
The frames use beefier tubing than shorter travel bikes, you want sturdier rims and tires, and you want a 35-36mm stanchion fork and piggyback shock. All that stuff adds up.
Then again, I’ve never felt like my 31 pound aluminum Slash held me back climbing (even on 5k plus vert days-at altitude), and it slays descents, even at a bike park.
I’d say just don’t obsess over bike weight. If you’re over 10% body fat, that’s where you can trim some heft.
You could try a Cannondale raven from 2001. Maybe with some sweet sweet Panaracer Fire XC Pros, redstripe sidewalls=always fast.
And trying to get in the top 15 Strava on all my favorite trails is my past time.
Being that my terrain is rolling a bike that carries speed and is light helps in that regard.
People that primarily ride park, downhill, freeride, street or some other disipline where weight truly doesn't matter wouldn't understand.
Has a 125mm revive dropper, di2 xx1 11 speed mash up.
Carbon bars, shimano tharsis pro stem.
Shout fork, King hubs lb carbon rims.
Trickstuff Piccola brakes, fsa carbon cranks, ht me03 magnesium pedals, chinese carbon saddle and Magic Mary 29 soft compound snakeskin front and rear.
Total weight 27lbs 11oz.
The head angle with the 150mm fork is 65ish, and you can put on a slightly longer shock(210x55) for more travel.
Off subject? Willing to bet they moved the seat forward to make up for their lack of reach. 50mm stem on this bike. The SA doesn't really feel slack at all. All the manufacturers are playing this number game, virtual numbers a bunch distractive non-sense.
as a light rider on 65kg i agree, except for that i didn’t (2018 rev rc) even experience that it was good on mellower trails either. After 6 months i gave up and bought a manitou mattoc. i should have done it earlier ???? Even the manitou minute comp, that i had on the bike before were way better, even though it had alot of flex...
Still loving my Meta after one year. The bike that makes you want to straightline everything.
Uh oh Norco Torrent, I guess Norco didn't classify you right seeing as they squarely place you in the All Mountain category in their lineup!
Not a big fun of 29’ however it would be perfect entry into mtb world for the person!
You can literally ride everywhere from pump track to bike park
I think both two bikes are a great deal, but I am a little concerned about weight.
There was no mention of this in the test, was this as issue experienced, or expected? Does anyone have this issue?
I don't think they'll hold anyone back...
This is deliberate self parody, right?
Guess I'm not built like a bowlegged cowboy.
One thing that I personally don't like are the boat anchor 12 speed cassettes. By the time you start pushing 600g on your cassette, I'd rather lose a gear to save the weight. But again, we ask for nothing but 12 speed, so that's what manufacturers provide.
Finally, think about dropper posts. You gain ~300g by adding the dropper post, and take enough of the budget that the manufacturer is forced to spec a cheaper groupset/suspension/wheels. At this pricepoint, I'd rather get no dropper and instead get a better fork (I'd replace the dropper anyways), but without a dropper, this bike wouldn't sell.
If you want a light bike, get a Giant Stance, replace the dropper with a fixed post, put a 10 speed groupset on it, switch to a FOX 32, and switch to some 2.2" XC tires with 20mm rims. Report back and let us know how much better it is than this 33.5lb bike.
Its especially crappy when shopping for XS/S size bikes for kids or girlfriends. Those come with the same boat anchor components which are supposed to hold up under the 100kg+ guys on their XL frames.
New trail bikes also very rarely crack or break like old ones used to. I haven't heard of anyone that I know that has broken a front triangle in ages. (Cracked chainstays are another issue... but at least they are cheaper and easier to replace).
-the weight difference might by heavily (pun) concentrated on tyres/wheels
- you can have a heavy bike pedaling and climbing amazingly and a light one feeling like a drag. Just changing the geometry and suspension kinematics like the anti squat can achieve you that
Regarding XS/S bikes, I know where you're coming from. My girlfriend is ~153cm & 52kg, so finding bikes for her is a challenge. I'm definitely more willing to spend extra to lose weight on her bikes. For components, I think you have to take a different approach than a typical rider. You might have to do a fully custom build or plan to swap a few components. She might not need DH brakes with 200mm rotors, so you can spec trail-rated brakes with 180mm rotors instead. Rather than a 160mm Lyrik, spec a 160mm Pike. Spec trail/all mountain wheels rather than enduro/DH wheels. Use slightly thinner casing tires. There aren't many components that don't have a lighter, less stiff/capable counterpart.
One thing you have to remember, though, is that weight isn't always bad. It's almost always a benefit for descending (sprung weight, at least), and until you're carrying your bike up big features, it doesn't slow you down that much.
If people are complaining about how heavy a bike is, they're typically not considering where the weight is or even how it will effect the ride. Most people won't say 'why didn't they spec a rigid post and an 11 speed drivetrain in order to have some money left over for wheels that weigh 200g less?'. Instead, they're saying 'all I care about is that it has a dropper, 12 speeds, at least 130mm of travel, looks cool, weighs less than 30lb, and costs less than $2k'. They just don't realize that making a frame lighter comes at a cost, and all of the new features both add weight and detract from how much money goes into the other components.
Either way, extra weight does increase the required output for each stroke over time and my legs feel it. The percentage of that that comes from the increased rotational weight of the wheels vs frame weight? I have no clue.
By the way, a number of known Enduro and DH racers hoover around or even over 90kg.
For lighter weight builds, go check Last. They have several versions of the Glen