Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Loving my 5.5!

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26

    Loving my 5.5!

    At the beginning of this summer I bought my first Commencal - a used 2008 5.5 in XL. I bought it because it was a trail bike that I could afford, but with a few changes, I have really come to love it! The guy I bought it from installed a newer RS Sektor RL on the front end, which is really a nice fork. I installed an e.thirteen chainguide and a K-Edge bash ring in place of the front shifter and derailleur. In the cockpit, I installed a Crank Brothers Iodine 3 stem and Iodine 11 bars. The 1x9 setup is sweet, and playing with the air pressure in the rear shock has made a big difference.
    I hope to change the wheels out pretty soon, as the stock wheels are pretty well worked.

    The only problem I have with the bike is that it seems to be quite tall with a short wheelbase. Has anyone ridden the newer All-Mountains? Any ideas if they may have a longer wheelbase and maybe a more low-slung feeling?

    Thanks for listening!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Loving my 5.5!-img_20120916_173925.jpg  


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,095
    The newer Am's are definately longer on the geo charts[ too long for my trails]. I run about 35% sag, at that the Meta 55 runs pretty low.I use wide 750mm wide bars to get low and wide for stability.. I prefer a 140 fork on the front [ less flex] and are running a RT3 High volume L tune shock and it's much smoother than the Rp23.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freeriderB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,560

    head tube angle

    can you tell me what the meta 55 HA is?
    I'm thinking of picking up a newer model frame...2010,
    i can't find it stated anywhere.
    my gut says 68.5* for some reason.

    if it is this steep...can these frames use the new angle head sets to bring them down to 67*5?

    thanks.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,095
    Same as 2012.

    COMMENCAL META 55

    From memory mine is 67.5 with a XMM140. Similar with a 140 Rev or Float 150.
    The 140 XMM or Rev fork give a more solid feel to the front end.
    PS They will take a 200 x 56 shock to give you 150mm at the rear. In reality I get as nearly much travel out of the 200 x 50 on most of the trails.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freeriderB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,560

    meta 55 HA

    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    Same as 2012.

    COMMENCAL META 55

    From memory mine is 67.5 with a XMM140. Similar with a 140 Rev or Float 150.
    The 140 XMM or Rev fork give a more solid feel to the front end.
    PS They will take a 200 x 56 shock to give you 150mm at the rear. In reality I get as nearly much travel out of the 200 x 50 on most of the trails.
    great...looks like it is 68* based on the link you provided.
    i'm assuming switching the rear shock will change the geometry as well.
    If your increasing from 140mm to 150mm won't it be a steeper HA and higher BB?

    I'm just guessing because I know reducing the i2i shock length on my FR bike slackened the HA and reduced the travel.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,095
    Both shocks use same i2i length, just different travel. Will slacken it slightly, only because you will use a couple of mm more sag. Rev 140, xmm140 and Float 150 have similar AC measurement. Geo charts are based on Float 140. I run a 200 x 50 at about 35% sag and BB height seems spot on to me.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freeriderB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    Both shocks use same i2i length, just different travel. Will slacken it slightly, only because you will use a couple of mm more sag. Rev 140, xmm140 and Float 150 have similar AC measurement. Geo charts are based on Float 140. I run a 200 x 50 at about 35% sag and BB height seems spot on to me.
    so for example...7.875 x 2.0 vs 2.25" stroke?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,095
    Yep 7.875" i2i can come in either 2.0" or 2.25" stroke. The Meta 5 ramps up more at the end of the stroke than the Meta 6 so it is harder to use the extra travel. The 2.25" tend to be more common if you want to pick one up 2nd hand.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freeriderB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    Yep 7.875" i2i can come in either 2.0" or 2.25" stroke. The Meta 5 ramps up more at the end of the stroke than the Meta 6 so it is harder to use the extra travel. The 2.25" tend to be more common if you want to pick one up 2nd hand.
    is the frame designed to use either?
    or is it like my prophet...the 2.25 fits, gives extra travel...but the rear tire buzzes the saddle when the shock bottoms?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,095
    I doubt it's designed for it, but with all the air out, my 55 carbon doesn't bottom in a static test. The ramp up in that extra 6mm is high anyway, as the leverage ratio continues to drop past what it was designed for. I personally haven't found any great advantage in running the longer shock. It's just more common 2nd hand. If you ran a coil you would get better results with the longer shock.

    I find the low tune large volume RT3 7.875 x 2 run at low pressure better than a 7.875 x 2.25 RP@ or RP23.
    I've even had a 7.875 x 2.25 RT3 off my Meta 6 and didn't notice enough difference more me to use the longer shock.

    On my Carbon 55 I just prefer it 140mm both ends.It's got a more accurate tighter ride. The heavier alloy 55 may feel better with a150mm?

Posting Permissions

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