First Ride: 2021 Commencal Meta TR - Is Mini-Enduro a Thing?
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.
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
• 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
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.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Its all a big fallacy if you ask me.
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?
I’m from boulder and I approve of this message.
I'd like to attend a demo day to see how it compares to my ripmoAF.
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
I know y'all struggle with 'rithmatic.
Categorizing bikes is pointless.
I think I'll have a mental refreshment and watch the battle ensue. Good thing you didn't put eMTB in the mix.
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.
As someone who hates to crash, I bet you know more than you're letting on.
Damn I miss Waki.
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.
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.
@Riwajc: Waki was lynched, because of supposedly being a racist
Find it and read comments.
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.
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.
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
@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.
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)
So if you're on the size fence: size up if seat tube actual is slack, size down if seat tube actual is steep
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.
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
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
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.
Maybe a new bike is coming later this year, something more "downcountry"..
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
If level of difficulty is really your main goal I would recommend a unicycle with a 12" wheel for your off road enjoyment.
Only us Joeys have to compensate lack of skills and finesse with geometry band-aids
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?
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.
Granted what were talking about is 20-30mm of reach, not a night and day difference.
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.
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.
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.
www.commencalusa.com/meta-tr-29-signature-c2x30728117
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
What bikes have you found that the HA didn't match the specs? I've heard that tolerances in that area can vary.
That just adds up to the fact that Commencal geo charts tend to be messed up.
It's not that 0,5° matters tho
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.
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"
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.
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.
i think that will help with heat dissipation
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.
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.
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.
Then geo & spec.
Trance, electro-house or something like that but not techno.
Since when a 140mm 29" is a mini-enduro ?
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.
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.
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...
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.
BTW, the specs shown 55mm shock stroke, but in the "a la carte" section, they show 50mm stroke ???
Can’t wait to build one up.
The first rule in marketing hype is to make your thing into a “ thing”.
Less difference (but still some) when descending though, and that means that on mellower pedal trails the fuel is tonnes more fun to ride.
geo>travel.
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.
Too much travel, too tough of a frame with too tough of a build kit on it, completely different purpose.
there is better, lighter, better price point, climb efficient and better looking bikes on the market ATM !
For 15kgs you can get A 180mm playful bike or for 150mm travel you can ride a 13,8 kgs bike, why would you buy a 150mm / +15kgs bike ?
Is the MTB evolution planning to regress after the Covid 19 ?
Are we planning to go back to 26’’ ?
I will just wait with my Commencal Pasta Power until the trend is back to 26’’, 140mm travel, 15,5kgs, I don’t need to hurry for a new toy ????
❌????⛔️
The longer term review happens further down the line, and will include more detailed ride impressions, any durability issues, and how the bike compares to others in the category.
Probably not the set up for everyone, but now it rides highish in the travel, stays plush, and rarely bottoms out. Honestly i'd rather it have a firm feeling off the top for pumping and such rather than have to use more travel to get into the frames progression.
About the lack of progression, I think it depends a lot on which feel you like more, what kind of trails you ride and what's your pace. Mine worked well on vary natural trails at moderate pace, but when I started to really push it the rear end would struggle. In the end I was running the biggest (1,02cu") volume spacer which gave acceptable progressivity but then the linear damping was all over the place, specially rebound
Like I wrote, "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."