commencal 4.2 v's 5.5.2

gordonfreeman101

As I'm a bit new to all this - I can't figure out which of the above has the better components/frame. Can anyone help?

They both have the same RRP but the 4.2 can be had over the internet for a bit cheaper.
1070 v's 1200ish.

The 4.2 is lighter. Thats about as much as I can work out :oops:

The commencal website isnt much help it doesn't tell you the difference between the '4' and '5' ranges. Any ideas?

thanks.

Andy B

the '4' is a 4" travel bike, the '5.5' is a 5.5" travel bike, both frames use the same linkage style on the shock.

4.2 spec is:

NEW Meta 4 frame
Fox RP2 shock
Rockshox Reba SL air fork featuring motion control and lockout
Sram 27spd transmission
Formula Oro 18k hydraulic disc brakes
Raceface Evolve XC components
Sun Rims Equalizer 21 rims laced onto Shimano and Commencal disc hubs
Maxxis Larsen TT tyres
SDG Fly RL saddle offers all-around comfort and functionality
Bike weight: 27.7lbs

5.5.2 spec is:

Fox RP2 shock
Fox Float 140 RL fork
Sram 27spd transmission
Avid Juicy 5 hydraulic disc brakes
Race Face Evolve XC components
Sun Equalizer 27 rims laced onto Shimano and Commencal disc hubs
Maxxis High Roller tyres
SDG Bel Air saddle offers maximum comfort and style
Bike weight: 29.7lbs

benpinnick

The main difference is in travel and riding styles. the 4 series is a 4 inch travel XC bike while the 5 is a 5.5 inch travel trail bilke (hence 4.x and 5.5.x). The componentry is adjusted to suit too. The lower the number after the point the better the spec (i.e. 4.1 is better than 4.3). As the 4 series is XC orientated its always a bit lighter as its got less bulk, and less need for strength. So its not as simple as which is better component wise as they do different things.

The 4 will also have steeper head angles and a generally more agressive geometry than the 5, which has quite a slack head angle (even relative to other trail bikes) making it suited to pointing downhill more than up.

My advice, never buy a bike without trying it, I am assuming you havent as you'd know the answers to your questions otherwise, or you have a terrible LBS. My other advice, if you live somewhere flat, get the 4. If you live somewhere hilly and you like riding up, get the 4. If you prefer riding down, get the 5.

Good luck!

gordonfreeman101

Thanks for the response Andy. So would I be right in thinking that as the 5.5.2 has more travel, it's designed for jumping off higher things. Hence it also has more durable / heavy weight components, and in turn the whole bike weighs more. Or is that not the case?


cheers

(p.s. I was able to find the component specs but not able to interpret them)

gordonfreeman101

cheers benpinnick. Very helpful. I am intending on a test ride before purchase - I'd just like to go armed with a basic understanding of what I'm asking about - otherwise I'll not appreciate their answers/pitch

RVP

benpinnick wrote:

The main difference is in travel and riding styles. the 4 series is a 4 inch travel XC bike while the 5 is a 5 inch trail bilke (hence 4.x and 5.x). The componentry is adjusted to suit too. The lower the number after the point the better the spec (i.e. 4.1 is better than 4.3). As the 4 series is XC orientated its always a bit lighter as its got less bulk, and less need for strength. So its not as simple as which is better component wise as they do different things.

The 4 will also have steeper head angles and a generally more agressive geometry than the 5, which has quite a slack head angle (even relative to other trail bikes) making it suited to pointing downhill more than up.

My advice, never buy a bike without trying it, I am assuming you havent as you'd know the answers to your questions otherwise, or you have a terrible LBS. My other advice, if you live somewhere flat, get the 4. If you live somewhere hilly and you like riding up, get the 4. If you prefer riding down, get the 5.

Good luck!

Best answer you'll get

:thumbsupsmiley:

benpinnick

no problems, and for what its worth I really like commencals. The specs are sufficently similar at a superficial level that you could not really choose between them with each suiting its niche well, and better than the other if reversed. Or out another way if one is cheaper than the other you should consider that a bonus for the cheaper as they are intended to be pretty much the same level of specification as far as I can tell.

The 5.2.2 spec listed above is different to the one I have seen in so much that the brakes on the 5.5.2 I rode recently were Formula, not Avid. But hey, whos counting, they are both good.

If you have not had a trail bike before, I think you'll find the 5.5.2 a bit wierd feeling, especially on the flat. Its steering will be a bit wooly and the whole geometry a bit wierd. Don't be fooled though, its different, but not necessarily bad, and it really knows how to go downwards...

passout

I was under the impression that the Meta 4 frame is basically the same as the 55 only with less travel. The geometry of the Meta 4 is very relaxed for an XC bike - which makes it quite a unique bike really - a hardcore 4 inch travel bike. There is very little weight difference between them I'll think you'll find which is the reason why the 55 is a much more popular choice. I reckon you can forget the angles etc because they are 'the same'. Even the component choice is fairly similar although the Meta 4 is clearly more aimed at XC. By far the two biggest differences are, unusually, travel & cost.

I had the same choice and went meta 55 because I ride in the Lakes alot & thought that the extra travel may come in handy. For me this was the right choice but i could've coped with the Meta 4 and saved some dosh. If you ride really challenging (rocky) routes most of the time and/or like jumping off stuff abit, then I'd go 55. If you are a two wheels on the ground at all times bloke and ride a wider variety of terrain i'd go for the Meta 4.

They are both good bikes - I don't find the ride 'weird' at all personally. I've never got used to a bike as quickly as I have the meta, everything feels right and instinctive. The 4 & 55 are both good choices but don't get bogged down with the decision as the are not as wildly different as some sibling models by other manufacturers.

Main thing is get the sizing right, test one (even the car park can let you know if it fits) and buy one before they go.

I got mine from Merlin Cycles for under £1400, they were very good.

gordonfreeman101

Thanks for the advice.

I test rode lots of different sized 55's and one medium 4.2. The 4.2 didn't feel right at all.

Bought a medium 5.5.2 in the end but changed the stem for a longer one. Very happy with the purchase so far, but have yet to give it a real test.

Thanks again all.

Leviathan

Folks

Excellent thread, really helpful & interesting

gordonfreeman101

ok 3 weeks later....

still absolutly delighted. Its really light. Soaks up all my mistakes. Very comfy. Only fallen off twice so far. It climbs very well too when you lock out the suspension.

so glad I went for the commencal

passout

I'm chuffed with mine too but ripped of the rear mech and snapped the dropout last night (up the Calfe in Yorkshire). I think the frame is OK. Otherwise great bikes, I agree.