Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12

    Commencal Meta 5.5 standover height - please help

    Hi,

    I'm thinking about the Meta 5.5 but I'm a bit concerned about the standover height. I'm 5'10 with a 32" inseam and in terms of TT length, I think that the Large would suit me best. My concern is that the standover height will either make things frightning or painful or both is I ever have to dismount on a trail. I currently ride a stumpy fsr with a fantastic bent top tube which allows for excellent clearence. Has anybody else found this to be an issue ?
    I don't have easy access to test the bike for myself.

    Thanks
    Josh

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by mtn_mash
    Hi,

    I'm thinking about the Meta 5.5 but I'm a bit concerned about the standover height. I'm 5'10 with a 32" inseam and in terms of TT length, I think that the Large would suit me best. My concern is that the standover height will either make things frightning or painful or both is I ever have to dismount on a trail. I currently ride a stumpy fsr with a fantastic bent top tube which allows for excellent clearence. Has anybody else found this to be an issue ?
    I don't have easy access to test the bike for myself.

    Thanks
    Josh
    Josh,
    I am 5.11 with 34" inseam and riding M (5.5.3). I also tried L but M is more fun and playable bike. It rides better than my friends 2006 S. Enduro - I am worser rider than he is but we can finally ride together.

    Btw. standower high is not issue even for my other friend (5,10; 29.5 inseam).

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12
    Wow, you're pretty tall for the medium frame. I have a 2006 stumpy medium and it feels a bit cramped, so much so that I'm having to get a setback seatpost to get more comfortable for longer rides.
    Are there any 5'10 tall riders on large frames or is medium the norm ?

    Cheers

  4. #4
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,176
    I'm 5"10 with a 23" inseam. Riding a Medium frame with a 23" TT. Yeah, it does feel cramped, but I am more used to road bike geometries.

  5. #5
    Ride on
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    640

    not anymore

    I'm 5'10" (33" inseam) and I used to ride a Large hardtail frame. That frame felt fine while cruising around town and on mellow trails. But it was a handful when the going got technical. Now I ride a Medium fully and definitely prefer the flickability of a smaller cockpit combined with the longer wheelbase of a bike with trailbike geometry - longer chainstays and a slacker HA with a longer fork. Climbing was harder until I figured out how to position myself for optimum traction.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    652

    30 inches

    The top tube of my large 2006 Meta 5.2 is 30" from the ground. The measurment from the seat post clamp to the top of the head tube is 22.5". Hope this helps.
    Eric

  7. #7
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,677
    Seems like one benefit of the Meta is the full length seat tube as opposed to the Stumpy's interrupted seat tube. For me, with my short legs, a full length seat tube lets me drop the saddle all the way down for downhills. If I had to choose low standover vs. the ability to drop the seat all the way I will always go with the latter.

    I guess this is only an advantage if you're local riding has a lot of technical downhills that require you to drop you seat a lot and get way back.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12
    Hi Rugbyred,

    How tall are you ? I've found a fairly cheap 2006 5.2 but I'm not sure about which size to get . As stated, I'm 5'10 tall with a 32" inseam. I thought that a large would be better but it seems that most people my height ride the medium ?

    Cheers,
    Josh
    Last edited by mtn_mash; 01-02-2007 at 11:21 AM.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    652
    I'm 6'3" with a 34"inseam. I am not sure how they measure the tubes lenghts but if you click on the links below, you can compare. From the quick look I took, they seem to be the same. Look for the goemetry icon on the bottom left hand side for the 2006 model.
    Last years bike is better spec'd than this years as well. I purchased mine at greenfish.com and they are less expensive now than 4 months ago.
    I am unable to compare it to other fs bikes as this is my first but I really enjoy it as it pedals very well, I don't notice any pedal bob (I'm 225lbs out of the shower) and is a blast going downhill. I would/will be changing a few things (wheels and fork, to slow engagement and the fork flexes under my weight).
    Let me know how you like it when you decide.
    Eric
    http://www.commencal.com/bike/mtb/index_en.htm
    http://www.commencal.com/bike/mtb/20...etry/meta5.pdf

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    237
    When on the fence I'd go for the smaller frame. If its a bit tight, you can always get a longer seatpost or a riser bar/stem. If you err on the side of too large, however, you're stuck with a frame that's awkward in any kind of technical terrain and no adjustment can make the frame geometry more nimble.

    Often a salesperson at the bike shop will fit you out for a larger frame that would make for maximum pedalling efficiency on the bike path. If you're doing aggressive trail riding, you're gonna want to be able to push the bike around.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    670
    5'7" on a Medium here. Feels much better than the small Stumpy I had before.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    423

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Cockpit length

    One thing to watch out for is the shorter cockpit length that META offers, due to the aggresive 68 degree head angle. It results in basically longer wheel base and shorter cockpit than most XC bikes.
    I am 5'7 and ride 2006 medium Meta 5.2 which has higher standover height than I like, but much shorter cockpit than my other medium GF Sugar which has long 'Genesis' toptube. I doubt the short cockpit of medium size META will fit you well and I value that aspect more important than the standover height since that affects the basic riding comfort and overall handling. Having said that, I am a father of two boys and done with the breeding business so my opinion about standover height might be bias.

  13. #13
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,307
    I am 5'10 and a bit with a 32.5" inseam. I tried out a Meta 5.3 today and I can definitely say a large would be too big for me. The cockpit didn't feel cramped but I definitely didn't have any spare standover. I tried a small and I could actually have ridden that. Normally people my size are right on the border between M/L but with the Commencals I think we are dead on M. I would adjust the cockpit with stem and saddle fore/aft, but it actually felt just right as it was.

    (I normally ride a Med SIR9 w/100mm stem and use bar ends to stretch out on the straightaways).

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12
    I finally got to ride a large this weekend - and quite surprisingly, the effective top tube length is 10mm less than my medium 2006 stumpy fsr. the fit was perfect for me, but what is very disconcerting is the standover height. There really is very little to clearence between my rocks and the hard place - as much as I like the bike, I just don't see it working out on the trail. The relaxed head angle seems like it will make downhill a blast though, much better than my stumpy at least. I wonder how well it climbs ?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    670
    Climbs much, much better than a Stumpy. The rear end seems to be almost glued to the trail and it'll grip over rocky, rooty surfaces where the Stumpy would just let go.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    62
    I am also considering meta 5 or 5.5, and need an advise on which size to take. My height is 174 cm and 77 cm inseam. I used to ride C prophet M size - 430 mm height and 578mm ETT that is what I measured and it fitted perfectly with 70 mm stem (more enduro setup).
    I realy like bike`s low height on descents which makes it more nimble and safer.
    Now I would put RS revelations upfront for more allmountain setup and 90 mm stem (on commencal ofcourse). Can you please measure height and ETT for your S and M metas. I know that Geo measures are on the commencal site, but would also like to hear some third party measurments and opinions. I will go to local dealer next week when they get metas and try the bike, but would like to hear some nonmerchants advise/opinions on size. Which size would you recommend and why?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    423
    I am 170 cm tall (5'-7") and comfortablly on a medium Meta 5 with stock 90 mmm stem. it actually has shorter cockpit length than my other two bikes, because of the very slack 68* head angle. I couldn't imagine myself in a small size Meta since the medium already feel pretty cramp when I ride on tight switch backs, my legs feel very close to the handlebar when sharp turning. Also on steep climb you need to stretch out and place your weight to the front end, it barely has enough length to do that in my opinion.
    Unless you use Meta for urban riding or dirt jump, I wouldn't recomment you on any size smaller than a medium.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    62
    Thanks, I decided to get M size and it fits me perfectly. I just got me 2008 banana swingarm frameset with 2007 graphics. Most of the components are from my retired hardtail, except for wheelset which is laced with white reverse hubs to add to the bling.




  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    652

    Very nice

    Looks nice. How much are you enjoying it?
    How does the Pike feel? I am still int he market for a new fork and have been debating for way too long on wither a 36Talas or the Pike. I think the Talas my bit a little overkill at 160mm.
    Eric

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    62

    Good job!

    I have owned quite a few bikes and demoed even more, but I have done only one ride with Pike 454 Dual Air. Have ridden 454 u-turn coil, though.

    So here goes first impression: noticebly stiffer compared to Vanilla 130 (2005) but also not as plush, don´t get me wrong Vanilla is super plush and I have to ride it with some added compression, whereas Pike is also very plush but doesn´t need any added compression, at least not for me. It nicely ramps up at the end of the stroke which I prefer to more linear type of Forks. I have ridden 2005 talas 36R and this fork is superstiff, cannot even compare it with Pike. It is just point and shoot, I mean ride situation. If you are aggresive rider or on the heavier side, preffering superstiff fork this is the one you have been looking for. On the other hand I was dissapointed with how linear the stroke was - Fox supposed to settled it right with 2006/2007 models. Also one big difference between both forks is ATC. Pike has 518mm and talas 36 rc2 2008 around 550mm, which would make my meta something like 66,8° headangle...

    Meta is just great olschool fun ride with slack seat and headangle(68,2). It is very nimble, has same platform as 4X model, so stiffnes is no issue here It is a decent climber though not as good as Prophet it is very, very close, just didn`t expect it to be so good
    I´ll have to make some longer rides to comment more on bike/fork combo, but my first impression is

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    652
    But if I were to leave the 36 at 140 for most of my riding and use the 160 for lift access days it might make sense. I am just worried about what it would do to the head tube. Would my weight factor into future problems (6'3" @ 220lbs without gear).
    Eric

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    62
    Talas 36 2007/2008 can be set at 100/130/160mm, so 130 mm is just not enough for this kind of bike, especially when you consider the weight factor compared to f 32 or RS revelation, hence the price and stiffness.

    In your place I would consider RS Lyrik solo air which can be adjusted to 145mm, thanks to spacer that is similar to the spacer used in reba forks. Fork´s ATC would be 530mm and headangle would be something like 67,7°. If float 36 can be adjusted in similar manner then this is also the way to go. Since 36s and lyriks (over 1k$ or € if you are in EU ) are very expensive, you should consider selling your bike and buy yourself the beast.

    Maybe Meta 666 would fit you better, similar headangle 68° and generally the same measures, except for bottom bracket height (it is important though) would make a nice alternative. Also, I have to mention that with forks you are looking for, this bike would be more balanced.
    Whatever you´ll do try before you buy.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    652

    Pike for me

    As much as I would love to get the 666, my gf gets a new bike first.
    After looking into it a little more, I guess the Pike is better suited for me. How will it hold up for someone of my size (220lbs w/o gear) who rides aggresive xc with lift access days thrown in for fun?
    Thank you again,
    Eric

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by rugbyred
    As much as I would love to get the 666, my gf gets a new bike first.
    After looking into it a little more, I guess the Pike is better suited for me. How will it hold up for someone of my size (220lbs w/o gear) who rides aggresive xc with lift access days thrown in for fun?
    Thank you again,
    Eric
    Eric,
    Pike is used for 4x and DJ so do not worry about how it will holds up - great. For the weight (220lbs) you will need stronger spring (coil version is more plush) or Air version (more versatile).

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    188
    i am 6 feet tall (that is 1,82 cm).

    which is the correct size for me in a meta 5.5.3?

    the sizing charts indicate a large but most of sellers tell me that a medium would be perfect.

    what is your advice?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •