Issue 74 Bike Test Commencal Meta AM

Throwback Thursday: 140-150mm Trail Bikes

by 1

As we head towards our print deadline for Issue 107, which will include a bike test of 160mm travel bikes, here’s a look back at the bike test in Issue 74, which starts with Benji basically saying that 160mm bikes are horrible. How technology has moved on in just four years…you’ll even find Benji noting the unusual new feature where the cables go inside the frame…Issue 74 Bike Test Commencal Meta AM

Bike Test: 140mm-150mm Trail Bikes

How much travel is too much? Benji ponders the perfect trail bike.
Tested: Commençal Meta AM 2, Ghost AMR Plus Lector 7700, Mondraker Foxy R

FGF 693: The bikes we don't own...
Latest Singletrack Videos

Do you remember the mid-Noughties? Six-inch travel mountain bikes were being thrust upon us like Manna from heaven by various bike companies and magazines (not Singletrack though, obviously). These bikes were the new, all-you-ever-need mountain bikes. Finally we were able to buy one bike for everything. Unfortunately most of them weren’t very good. Most were far too heavy. Most had just-plain-wrong geometry. You want me to ride a 35lb bike with a 14in bottom bracket and a 70° head angle? Er, no thanks.

There were some great bikes that were great at specific things. But there weren’t any of them that were anywhere close to being suitable all-round trail bikes for the UK.

What is a ‘trail bike’ anyway? One person’s ‘trail’ is another person’s ‘pootle’, is another person’s ‘mental singletrack’. ‘Trail bike’ sounds almost like a banal transatlantic tautology. It’s a bike for trails? Aren’t all bikes for trails? What sort of mountain bike isn’t a trail bike?

Issue 74 Bike Test Commencal Meta AM

A trail bike is arguably defined by what it is not. It’s not a XC bike. I’m afraid that ‘XC’ now does mean ‘XC race’ rather than cross(ing) country(side). It’s not an all mountain bike, either. ‘All mountain’ implies a decent amount of altitude or amplitude, gradual climbs, steep and extended descents. A trail bike falls between the two. It also overlaps. A trail bike is the middle bit of the Venn diagram.

Like it or not, trail bike is a useful classification. Admittedly it’s only useful because of the misuse and preponderance of loads of other not-so-useful classifications. But that’s by the by. We are in the situation that we’re in. It’s no good us trying to reclaim ‘XC’. Neither is it going to go down well calling these bikes ‘Light All Mountain’. That will lead to far too many rollings of eyes.

I broached the dreaded W word above and it must be said that the repeated factor that came into play as we were testing these bikes was indeed weight. Weight is often the elephant in the room when it comes to any type of mountain biking that isn’t cross-country racing. Only jeyboys and jeygirls are bothered about weight. A couple of pounds here or there doesn’t really make a difference. As soon as you put proper tyres on a bike it’s irrelevant so why bother yeah?

Unfortunately there is a real world. A world with gravity in it. No, not ‘Gravity’ as in ‘not good enough to be downhill’. Gravity as in Isaac Newton and Granny Smith. In our real world there is a point at which a mountain bike becomes ‘heavy’. I mean ‘heavy’ in a normal mountain biker sense, not cross-country racer or indeed downhill racer senses.

Mondraker Foxy R Issue 74

Debate may rage on and on among the Singletrack Test Squadron as to the exact number of this tipping point but because it’s me who gets to write this bit I’m going to state that the magic number is 29. Bikes less than 29lb can still ride heavy (ones with soggy suspension for example). But it doesn’t work the other way; I don’t think that any bike over 29lb can ever ride light.

This introduces all kinds of ‘fun’ pub debate fodder. Would you rather ride a 27lb bike that’s been bulked up with aggro tyres and a dropper post to reach 29lb, or would you prefer to ride a 31lb bike that’s been put on an extreme diet? Where is it possible to save weight without compromising the bike’s capabilities? Can you get away with running sticky draggy tyres if your bike weighs less than the Magic 29? Is it pointless putting fast rolling tyres on a bike that’s designed for off-piste plummets?

Mondraker Foxy R Issue 74

Right then. Here’s a question. Here’s the question, in fact.

How much travel do you need?

Now you’re probably thinking that I’m going to do the usual mag journo thing and cop out with some airy fairy ‘it depends’ diplomatic non-answer. Well, I’m not. I’m going to answer the question, the question.

This content is exclusive for Premier users.
If you are a Subscriber log in.

Subscriptions start from just £1.99

Find out more!

 

 

Author Profile Picture
Hannah Dobson

Managing Editor

I came to Singletrack having decided there must be more to life than meetings. I like all bikes, but especially unusual ones. More than bikes, I like what bikes do. I think that they link people and places; that cycling creates a connection between us and our environment; bikes create communities; deliver freedom; bring joy; and improve fitness. They're environmentally friendly and create friendly environments. I try to write about all these things in the hope that others might discover the joy of bikes too.

More posts from Hannah

Comments (1)

Leave Reply

OFFER ENDS 31st MARCH