Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
Re: Commencal
Had two. 2019 and 2021 Meta AM. The 2019 rode well but had very conservative geometry. Went to the 2021 for the longer reach. One of the fastest non-high pivot bikes I’ve ridden - in a straight line. Very long reach and very short chainstays made it exhausting to ride around corners because you had to get so much over the front wheel. Would wash out regularly at the end of bikepark days because my arms ran out of juice.
Build quality was good but not great, frame alignment ok for alloy frames. Worst offender was the kinda bad sealing on the bearings, I had enough dirt for a small garden in the main pivot. Dropout bearings were completely cooked after a year.
Not sure how the new V5 and SX are but doesn’t look much better in that regard tbh.
I know a few people who went down the same path, got a Commencal as a second bike upgrade to really shred on the downs, then upgraded again two or three years later to something more expensive but nicer build quality.
Add to that the cracking V4 Supremes and the whole flexy rear end clickbait from a certain Onlyfans influencer (who kind of seems to have fallen off? Haven’t seen or heard anything in a while) and the people’s trust in the brand seems to have decreased a bit.
I still think they’re doing a lot of cool stuff though, some of the best edits in the game and at the top of the racing game as well.
Re: Outside
My god that pinkbike podcast with Robin Thurston almost made me vomit. That guy is such an unlikeable slimeball. I’ve ended my Trailforks subscription and won’t pay a dime to anything outside related because I don’t want a cent of my money to end in his pocket.
So yeah, no deep industry insights here but plenty of my opinions.
Absolutely agree. To add on a bit, a lot of reviews, whether a complete bike or something like a fork, reference prior models, the changes that were made, and discuss how significant of a change or upgrade the new model is compared to old. The new Stumpy is a great example.
On the other hand, a lot of times the reviewer hasn't ridden the prior model in a long time. But there's obviously the huge practical hurdle of magically producing the prior model in the correct size to use for back-to-back comparisons.
If you were looking to do something different to move in the direction Jeff is suggesting, maybe a field/group test could include one well-liked, fairly vanilla bike from 2-3 years ago. A very imperfect solution that would be mostly about geometry, but it might add an interesting element if that bike were ridden back-to-back on the same trails as the newer models.
Along the lines of companies that haven't quite shut down but are taking a much more modest approach to deal with new market realities, Royal Racing is still around but now focused on a very narrow product range. Gloves, some casual wear, and drops of riding gear from time to time like the "Splatter" collection launched today. Hopefully this will allow this storied brand to stay afloat and keep doing what they love!
https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/royal-racing-launches-limited-edition-apex-splatter-kit
Enjoyed the royal stuff that came in the vital gear box. Miss those bi-monthly suprises!
Speaking of, what's going on with 661?
<Dirt 1:04 track has entered the chat>
For sure off topic but worth the quick digression...
To start, this is pure bro science—not something fit for an academic journal. If we take Top Gear as a template, they kept the driver and the track consistent, but everything else—including the weather—was uncontrolled. Stig-based testing gave us a single anecdotal data point, but it was never the definitive measure of a car’s performance. What made the show so compelling was the dynamic between three "everyday guys" discussing their thoughts on a vehicle + the unnammed rockstar we only knew as "the stig". Sometimes the qualitative impressions aligned with the track results; other times, they didn’t. That blend of qualitative and quantitative analysis left the final conclusion up to the viewer, which, in my opinion, was a big part of what made the show so addictive.
Now, imagine if a product test team applied the same principle—keeping the track and the rider(s) consistent over many years. It would be fascinating to analyze trends and draw meta-level conclusions. How did 2020 enduro bikes compare to the 2024 models? Are we actually getting more performance for our inflation-adjusted dollars? Have lap times tightened relative to money spent? Again, I know this is all not-academic, but still fun.
The big takeaways that would be worthwhile relatively quickly would be the bike that costs $2K and ran within 1-2% of bikes 4x more expensive, the really expensive fork that yielded slower laps times or the older "control" bike from 2018 that really wasn't any slower.
I know, I'm largely dreaming here, but the problem I'm articulating is real - its really hard to tell what is performance and what is cognitive bias or "a really good experience" when there is nothing objective to ground a test. I say this as a product tester myself, too.
that would be sweet for sure! maybe peaty gave us the seconds-per-year-advantage with the 2006 vs 2021 v10 test a few years ago (he never did a 3rd run on the new bike, but 7 seconds over 15 years...so .5 seconds per-year advantage? LOL)
on that note, aside from race DH or XC bikes, i don't recall trail or enduro bike marketing calling out that a new bike is faster. not saying it doesn't happen, but marketing seems like it's more about the fomo stuff on a new model like X new tech on a bike, weight, materials, geo or those more ambiguous traits like "traction" (which doesn't always mean speed). like did the new stumpjumper ever claim to be faster? (i see so many marketing things come through that i don't remember what i saw yesterday, so take all this w/ a grain of salt).
Dirtmag (RIP) used to test bikes on the same track (called the 1:04) and also get pro riders to do a timed lap on the track, similar to described above and the TopGear track etc.
I have a 2020 Slash... If someone has a 2025, I'm willing to do a comparison..
Even though I would like something new, every time I ride my bike, I'm reminded just how good of an all around bike mine is.. Would love to upgrade a few parts and see how things feel..
I actually didn't know that! Very cool. Wish they were still around eh!?
Lewis just posted a video the other day saying he (and everyone else who got a Meta V5 and V5 SX) got an email saying - essentially - they've figured out what caused the creaking and it was from a specific batch of bikes. If you contact them they'll send you the thing you need to fix it permanently.
He mentions it in the second half of a video talking about cracking his V10.
He also mentioned in a comment that he liked the Meta V5 and should have gone with the SX for his use case.
It's interesting how that Meta V5 creaking and too much flex video came out and now there appears to be significantly more consumer conversation around compliance and its benefits whereas previously a lot of the conversations were about stiffness. Consumers seemed to be taken aback by the bike flexing as much as it did. Was Commencal just ahead of the game in compliance? Their DH bike suggests they're in the group pushing this compliance-as-the-next-mtb-optimization.
I have the Meta HT. It rips. I don't have much experience with other hardtails to compare it to, though, so it's possible I just really like riding any bike that doesn't suck. I might have one size too small (I'm on the edge and erred towards shorter...but probably should have gone up with my proportionally-longer-than-average torso) but I come from the street/park bmx world so it isn't really a problem for me. It feels pretty stiff...but it's also from the V4 generation of Meta bikes so they might have not been really focusing on flex yet. I wonder if it'll see a design tweak in the not-too-distant future.
That's a bummer, a buddy of my had a Ti Argos built a little over a year ago, it's a good looking bike.
There's a really good section in Earthed 5 of Sam Hill pursuing and smashing the 1:04 time. Back in the Iron Horse days. Nigel tries to follow him with a big ole helmet cam and there's a few sections where Hill just drops him.
Earthed 5: Sam Hill on the 1:04
In regards to "just how significant of a headwind the plateauing of performance has become for the broader industry." I have my own anecdotal experience with this in just the last few months.
Background: I have been a mountain biking for almost 30 years, I slowly over time worked my way up to having high-end bikes, custom small builder frames, and usually 4-6 bikes at a time. I currently have a custom steel Singlespeed hardtail, a full suspension trail bike, a tricked out Dirt jump bike (evil imperial 😉), a Rigid Fat bike, a gravel grinder/monstercross bike, and enough spare parts and frames that I could build up another 4 bikes. For the last few years, I've typically purchased new frames as they've been released (usually at MSRP) and transfer some parts over from a previous bike along with purchasing a few new parts as dictated by new standards, preferences, trends etc. I also love new tech, I had a full AXS drivetrain and dropper within the first couple weeks of it being released, same with Transmission. All that to say, I'm the target audience for new bikes/frames/parts.
Last year I decided I had too many full suspension bikes, at one point I had a lightweight epic evo, a slightly burley overforked Transition spur and a Specialized Enduro. My local trails are fairly mellow, but I travel a lot to ride, so I liked having options for wherever I was traveling to ride. When I received my custom hardtail frame I realized that bike would be my primary bike for local riding and I needed to consolidate to 1 full suspension bike. I wanted something that wasn't too sluggish to ride locally but could handle bigger mountains. The Specialized Stumpjumper 15 seemed like the perfect bike, and I almost pulled the trigger on ordering a frame when they were released. But for the first time in years, I had a hard time stomaching the MSRP, and the more I thought about it, it didn't seem like a big enough jump forward in tech and features from current bike offerings. After looking at everything under the sun, I ended up buying a used 2023 (regular) strumpjumper frame with an upgraded rear shock and brand new Lyrik Ultimate 150mm for $1500. I also purchased the mullet link, which increases the rear travel to 135mm, and bought a brand new Reserve Mullet wheelset on sale for $500. The rest of the parts I transferred over from other bikes. So for $2000 I got a new-to-me complete bike versus $3500 for just the Stumpy 15 frame. And in my opinion, there's nothing about the '23 stumpy I've built that will make it old or obsolete in a couple of years.
In summary, after looking at all the new bike/frame options available, for the first time in probably 10+ years, I opted to purchase a used 2+ year old frame, and I'll probably keep this bike for the foreseeable future.
I was just about to come back and post the same clip. Not much else I could find online about the track. I'm sure Steve Jones won't mind being called Nigel.
Regarding Top Gear, it really should not be the basis for any testing. It was entertainment, not factual testing... Everything was done to be funny and watchable with basically no useful details given. Maybe in the first few seasons when they were finding their feet, but it quickly became pure entertainment.
Whoops! 🥴
Old enough to remember. Too old to remember specifics
My light bike is a '23 regular Stumpy as well and it's become my daily driver. I find myself choosing it for backcountry riding as well unless everyone in the group is on a bigger bike. I thought about doing something similar to you and consolidating to just one full squish with the option to change the fork and wheels, but my other bike is an alloy EVO. Considering I'd get next to nothing if I sold the frame, I decided it's worth more to me as a complete second bike.
Considering the amount of shocks I see break in Metas I don't think the flex was super intentional - personally I think you can control flex better with the wheels (rim width & spoke count) since its tough to make a swingarm flex torsionally while also rotating smoothly on the bearings
Interesting! You'd know way more than I would in that department!
Are you seeing it on the newer V5/V5sx or are you seeing it on the older bikes? Any patterns for which shocks are breaking more often?
Bad suspension design or just going too far?
I almost pulled the trigger on an Aluminum Stumpy Evo frame when they were like $1100 but it would have been a pig on my local trails. I thought about getting a heavier long travel bike and putting it on a diet, but when I discovered the mullet link for the regular stumpy I decided I would get that frame and do an "enduro lite" build. My full build ended up right around the same weight as my Spur, but improved on it in a few ways, 15mm more rear travel, piggyback rear shock, 20mm more fork travel, mullet compatible, and downtube storage, UDH compatible etc. The complete bike is around 27lbs with real tires and rides great on my local trails (no trips to big mountains yet.)
The whole process of acquiring this frame and building it up opened my eyes to how great so many existing bikes/frames from the last few years are. Other than being "high-pivot curious" there wasn't anything I saw with new bikes that really moved the needle enough to justify their price tags. For probably the first time in my riding career I don't feel the need to get a "new" bike every year, or even every other year. I guess this is what plateauing looks like.
And I have some terrible news for science-minded Top Gear fans: it's not even the same Stig behind the helmet in every episode. It's just entertainment. I'm so sorry to burst your Stig bubble.
Yup Meta V4 and V5/V5 SX, they still have clevis extensions and using a longer 230mm shock means there is less tolerance to extra length than something like a stumpjumper or Levo which uses a 210 shock. And its the usual suspects - DHX2's snap eyelets but also the occasional old Super Deluxe or Bomber CR (alloy shafts). Float X2's leak air or suck air in to the damper even faster, and the older X2's crack front eyelets - I had one X2 eyelet that was halfway to cracking clean off in a V4 Meta! It's just bad design - those extensions need to be shrunk right down or removed completely because its been an extremely clear pattern for a long time now
I think there is an important similarity between bike reviews and top gear though. People who are purchasing a car aren't buying it because it's the fastest car, so the stig test is more fun and anecdotal of potentially how quick it can go. If anyone actually wants a car to race, the stig test isn't really relevant as first thing your doing is putting on slicks and stripping out the interior etc etc.
Just like bike reviews, most people aren't buying a bike to race it, it would be nice to see how fast it is potentially. I think the Grim Donut has a great top gear style review, which is probably why it's the best thing pink bike have done in years, it's a honest take on the bike from a normal perspective (it's kinda horrible and a death trap) then a racer (the stig) absolutely shreds it and realizes how fast it is in a straight line, I can think of quite a few top gear reviews that were exactly like the grim Donut.
I don't think it's necessary to benchmark bikes againt the clock, as anyone actually racing will make quite a few changes, and importantly, everyone rides slightly differently and will deal with the geometry differently.
That’s a fair point (and I didn’t know that!), but I’d argue it doesn’t change my overarching point. Bike reviews are, first and foremost, entertainment. This entire site is built around entertainment. I referenced Top Gear because I find it fun, engaging, and—above all—entertaining, not because I see it as a model for an academic journal.
At this point, we're losing the script with all this back-and-forth—which is fine—but "What do you want to see in a product review?" probably deserves its own thread, maybe even add a Google Form. Adding something more quantitative (even if bro-science-ish) might be a waste of time, but I still believe there are countless ways to attempt to strip away marketing fluff and cognitive bias to reveal what a product actually does. When a reviewer attemps to do this, I enjoy it; it holds my attention. Maybe I’m in the minority, but I find it odd that no media outlet consistently compares an outgoing product to its successor in reviews. IE, I sure would have loved to see a rider pit the old Stumpy Evo against the new Stumpy 15 one in back to back testing (and that rider can't be sponsored by specialized
)
I’ll also say the quiet part out loud: some companies might not like this overall approach because it leans too much into bro science and doesn’t always deliver the narrative they want. That might be considered "unfair".
Finally, I might be biased, but I’ve always thought Vital had the best reviews—largely because their riders are some of the best and they are great at articulating what is happening with a particular product.
@jeff.brines "I sure would have loved to see a rider pit the old Stumpy Evo against the new Stumpy 15 one in back to back testing (and that rider can't be sponsored by specialized
)"
I'm in a fairly similar boat as you. Even as a self-proclaimed industry gearhead, (who just built a new Sentinel to add into my 5 bike fleet) I am excited to be done with buying and selling (rotating) my fleet for a while. As much as there are sweet deals out there, I just built a drool-worthy new bike and was able to get out of my "old" trail bike pretty well. I've also rotated through another couple bikes last year as I was experimenting with different brands, setups, suspension designs, etc. It was fun, but each bike was somewhat difficult to cost effectively turn in this market, especially living in a smaller town.
I agree that things are obviously plateauing from a general tech and geo standpoint. Even though something new (frame and/or component) is going to come out in the next year or two that I'm sure will make me rethink all of this, I'm going to sit on the sidelines for a bit. My fiancé is getting a new build thanks to some killer deals (Norco Fluid Carbon), so beyond needing to sell her dated 27.5 Liv Intrigue for this actually worthy update, I'm so glad to be thrilled with my fleet. It sounds silly, but because I like bike tech so much, I generally don't like buying something that I feel is about to be replaced/updated. However, for the time being, I don't have the feeling that I'm going to miss out on anything meaningful by watching what comes over the next couple of years.
All these posts about buying or keeping older frames strike me as anecdotes to support the industry's obsession with batteries and motors - at least until it can come up with something else that makes regular bikes and housing/cables better than they were two years ago.
I almost think the inverse is true for batteries and motors though. I'm not interested in an ebike but if I was the combination of rapidly evolving tech and massive depreciation (because evolving tech and bike industry...) along with mixed reliability would make me very leery.... And they're not exactly cheap either.
Post a reply to: The Bikeconomics (Mega)Thread