something to strive for commencal

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 09, 2012, 09:36:14 AM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[What is the main type of machine you use to surf the site?]

What is the main type of machine you use to surf the site?
Desktop
	100 (29%)
Laptop
	140 (41%)
iPhone
	44 (13%)
Android phone
	24 (7%)
Tablet
	15 (4%)
Other
	14 (4%)
Total Voters: 252

[twin]

well, the official weights of the new, if somewhat fugly cannondale am frames are in.

in one corner, the rize, weighing in at 2115 grams with 130mm of travel and with compability to the lightest and stiffest crank system known to man as well as the lightest (1.38kgs i believe) 130mm fork on the marked..

in the other corner, the moto, weighing in at 2.875 grams.... WHAT? for a super stiff and burly enduro frame? that can't be right...

both weighed without the shock.

if i had to choose between a 3.5?kg 666 or a 2.9kg moto the choice would've been easy, no matter how ugly the new moto frame is. 2. fekking 9  got damn it, i've been trying so hard not to like these bikes... and still don't, but oh my how light they are.

well commencal, introduce easton tubing on all your designs and make em lighter, at least the top of the line ones. If kona can do it..

again, 2.875grams 

i'm almost speechless

(at first i wasn't that impressed, but then i noticed it said 2, not 3, then i was thoroughly impressed)

[steveb]

You've somewhat missed the point of Commencal I think.

Max, Nico and all the boys and girls in Andorra know full well that there is a lot more to a successful bike than it's weight. Cannondale are run by marketing men and accountants who most likely get no closer to a proper bike than my 85 year old grandmother!

Selling your product on weight is like selling your product on price, it's really quite easy, providing you don't care much about reliability. And there is a reason why Cannondale is nick named CrackNfail.

[zetzel]

Cannondale's are nick-named 'Crackandfails' for a reason you know.

And some of there bikes only come with half a fork!!!!
Who ever thought of that must have been high at the time.

[mtc]

I wouldn' buy that Cannondale (Moto) and if it had only 100 grams!
1.) They have no "soul"
2.) I wouldn't go even near that ugly bike (if it deserves the title bike at all)

cheers

[steveb]

The Rise looks rubbish, I mean why? Been done before, better too I suspect.

I do like the look of the Moto, but am i right in thinking the lower shock mount is on the swingarm?

If so, very very odd, must have an incredibly rising rate action!

[twin]

warning, long post:

well, if you were to look at cannondale.com at the two bikes you'll soon find that the weight is buried in a tech sheet, it's not at the actual pages where the specs and geo is stated. In fact, in none of the videos or the actual other promotion of the bike is the weight mentioned. They go so far as stating qoute:

WEIGHT: Don�t see a weight listed for this bike? Wondering why that is? Well we used to list our weights only to realize that while Cannondale will weigh a medium or 56 inch frame and err on the side of caution when we know there will be variances due to welds etc , our competitors (and you know who they are) are weighing their small or extra small frames and rounding down (because hey, who will know?) and you�re left wondering what�s going on and making an important decision based upon BS.

So because weight is too important to you as a consumer, we ask that you PLEASE do your homework and visit your local shop so you can compare our bike weights to their bike weights for yourself� apples to apples with no marketing BS. Don�t believe us. Don�t believe them. Go see it, feel it, weigh it and test ride it for yourself. Yes, we�re that confident. You should be too. (sure, this can be seen as marketing bs too...)

So no, i do not believe i've misunderstood Commencal at all. When a company makes the lightest enduro frame on the marked the frame weight is bound to be noted somewhere. Knowing Cannondale, they're all about lightweight yet stiff bikes, while commencals obviously favours the stiff over the lightweight part. The fact is, Commencal can't market their bikes on weight because they as frames goes aren't that light. Sure, their top of the line builds are ok, but as frames goes the ones commencal offer are more on the average side of things then on the lightweight. The same goes for price. The price is set according to a few factors; at what they need to survive, what they need to make a profit to invest in r&d and to pay their riders/employees. It's also a well known fact that medium to high pricing is often assosiated with quality so it also makes sense not to make em too cheap or not you'll loose the medium to high end customers (did you know that while road bikes only makes for 15%of all bike sales they make for 50% of the profits? (source: buisnessweek article on sram) Why, they have a large segment of customers who are willing to pay a (large) premium to get the bike and parts they want.). After all, prices can be lowered, but if you up em a lot you're gonna loose customers, yet to the higher end customers you'll still be that low end crummy brand (marketing 101). That said, some of cannondales top of the line bikes are in fact rediculously overpriced.

crack'n'fail... Please, get with the times man. Things have improved a lot since the raven and so on frames cracked every other day. Of cannondales newest offerings the only bike with a know issue is the new scalpel, which has had some bonding issues in the chain stays  and in the shock mount on the frame (both on a limited batch). None of the other bikes; the judge, perp, prophet, rush, taurine, caffeine or optimo has had lots of issues with em. In fact, the perp stalled the fatigue testing machine three times (they do a bit of testing nowadays you know) so it's not falling apart anytime soon.

The other recently known issue is with cannondales incredibly light lefty sl fork (1.29kg). Due to another companys (the assembly was outsourced) use of the wrong type of locktite they had some issues with an internal part coming loose. Thus is not the case anymore. In fact, a mentioned before, they've recently introduced the lightest 130mm fork on the marked which is probably stiff as hell to. I have a lefty max equipped prophet and the lefty is the stiffest 140mm fork out there. And yes, i think it looks really nice as well.

and yes, as i've also stated before on this forum, i'm not very partial to the way they look. When they first came out i was dissapointed in a big way. But... in terms of the rize, with cannondales system integration, meaning their in house designed forks/cranks/stems, you can build it as a 9 - 10 kg 130mm bike - provided you can dish up the cash for crossmax st type wheels, xtr/xt/x0/x9 gearing, decent brakes and some other lightweight parts. The only other similar bike that is as stiff in the rear on the marked, according to cannondale (though i doubt they have tested them all.. ) is the new santa cruz blur.

In terms of the quality of the suspension in the rear, it's not like commencal and bos are the only companies out there who can design good rear suspension designs. The same goes for geo.

And yes, the shock is mounted on the swingarm, and yes, the hatchet drive was probably influenced by commencal. Supposedly it works like a charm as the dhx shocks are "custom" valved to fit the rates of the suspension, much like commencal does to their bikes.


So, to sum it up, no i haven't misunderstood commencal at all. The goal of any bike manufacturer is to provide customers with the best product they can. In terms of (full suss) frames the factors are proper geometry, stiffness, longevity, efficient suspension designs that still soaks up all the bumps and making em as light as possible. It's also an idea if they look good and represent some kind of evolution (while the design of the rize might not be an evolution at all, the way the frame is put together surely is). The reviews of cannondale's newest offerings have yet to be written so time will tell whether they possess these traits. So far though from what i've heard they do, yet the looks aren't that pleasing. But when you narrow it down the looks should be one of the least important aspects of a bike.

so why do i rave about the weight of cannondales on a commencal specific forum? Because i'm hoping for some lighter commencal frames in the future, but that still have the same amazing capabilities as they do today. And yes, it's worth a premium.

[steveb]

The goal of any bike manufacturer is to provide customers with the best product they can. In terms of (full suss) frames the factors are proper geometry, stiffness, longevity, efficient suspension designs that still soaks up all the bumps and making em as light as possible

You see, there is where i disagree with you. Some manus don't really give a nod to weight, I know Commencal do, but it's way way down their list.

I recall a conversation with Max yonks ago, when a new design on the Meta was coming out, I asked about the weight. he said they found that the new designs were a bit lighter than the old, but instead of putting out a lighter frame they used more metal in places. Their approach was the old frame weighed X, the new frame is lighter, but everyone loved the old frame, so lets take that weight saving and turn it into better strength and stiffness and put out the new design at the same weight as the old.

If you look at the Meta5 frame weights over the years 06 was the lightest, I think 08 v2 is the heaviest, but it's also the stiffest Meta5 there has ever been, yet speaking from some pretty extensive riding experience riding all generations of Meta5's it has the lightest and snappiest ride of them all. Bear in mind that since the first Meta5 in 05 frame weights have only fluctuated by a third of a pound.

Obviously this is all horses for courses, if you ride most of the time in the dry, lightweight might be important, if you ride in normal conditions half a pound on the frame is really neither here nor there as in a typical ride a bike can pick up 3-5lbs of mud anyway.

And I do know that some people like to obsess over weights of bikes and bits, and that's cool, but what I'm saying is that if your that type of person, then really Commencal is most likely not the brand for you.

[steveb]

By the way Twin, I've just read that back and it could come across wrong, i didn't mean to offend with any of it.

[twin]

oh but it is  hehe. (oh, i wasn't terribly offended no but it is usually a good way to ensure a discussion by saying i don't get something hehe)

What i was saying is that i wish commencal would invest some more in their frames in terms of lighter tubing, but it seems like that is not to be. Wasn't it you who recently posted the "meta lite" post on the start page? Remember, i've never talked to mr Max in person, nor to any other commencal official. Thus my view of commencal is influenced by what i like in a bike and where i believe commencals emphasis should lie in the future . I believe there are designs out there that are just as stiff as the various commencals, yet lighter. I've always had theoretical issues with the weights of the frames (supreme, meta) - meaning something to obsess about but that isn't really that big of a problem , but as function is the more important i've recommended both frames to a lot of people and a lot of em have ended up buying em. I simply love my supreme.

The whole point of this thread is not to bitch and moan about weight, or eh kinda it is in a gentil sort of way, it's really rather to promote a shift in the thinking behind how the frames are made. We all know commencal full suss designs are some of the best out there, they have more than proved that they can make brilliant bikes. What i'm saying is now is the time to start use lighter tubing to get the same stiff frames, only lighter. I have no idea what type of tubing they are using (?) in their frames, but i feel it to be inferior to what say cannondale or santa cruz are using (correct me if i'm wrong - i might well be). Sure, espescially sc is in another segment in terms of price, but still.. That is my real "problem" with the weight. I look at a similar frame from a similar company with a similar characteristics and the commencal is always the heavier - sometimes by far. I guess the quick fix is for me to stop looking at other frames and their weight.. (something i prob will, the next mini is prob my next frame as long as it's as light or lighter - fingers crossed! - than the current one). I also agree that strength and stiffness are more important factors than weight, but only to a certain point. But.. i guess when i start dropping big stuff the extra strength due to the extra weight (hopefully) is gonna come in handy.

ok, i admit it, the only spot i'm going to notice a lighter frames are on the brutal uphills. My specs are just where i want em to be so the frame is really the only spot i can save any weight. Not that it is such a huge deal or something i strive for at all actually, but it's winter, i'm somewhat sick, it's raining and i had a decent slam las night due to a rear tire slipping out in a very unfortunate spot (and over the handlebar i went and slid back down, head first towards a drop, though not a very big one hehe). Add to the this the fact that i discovered the weight of the moto last night, which prob is burly as can be, and voila! here we are

the thing is, i think we agree. We would love to see some lighter frames ( or in my case frame, i only care about the mini ), but not if it compromises everything that is sweet about the designs as they are. After all, there's a reason a semi-wheightweenie such a myself rather keep my supreme than get a nomad or a moto - both of which are lighter frames by a fair margin - i like it a lot and for now firmly believe it's a better bike. I just wish it was a little bit lighter yes, i know, i should shut up as i've said it over and over and over again before.  oh well, maybe somebody listens, hehe. After all, i'm not asking them to drop a kg, but 2-400 grams would be sweet. The perp, a 180mm bombproof design , weighs in at 3.6kg so it should be possible, though the mini looks a lot, meaning a lot!, better imo.

oh well, as you can see, my prefered brands are cannondale and commencal and sc, in the podium way (2 1 3) with commie on top, though it varies from what kinda bike we're talking about.

i know, is should grab a beer and stop obsessing   hehe will do. After all, i actually learned quite a bit by your answers in this post regarding the design philosphy at commencal hq, which is good.

[steveb]

Hmm, OK, good points well made.

Yes, I do see where your coming from, perhaps I missed your point initially. I do agree, a Meta5 made from Easton Ultra lite would be sublime, but it would most likely add 50% to the price of the frame. It'd maybe save 1lb, would that be a worthwhile spend?

[macadam]

I think Twin has good points.

I really like my Meta 5.5, but the way Commencal informed the user on the frames weight disappoints a bit. I remember that when I was in the market for the Meta I was looking for the frame weight. I think that as look, stiffness and the way it rides, weight also play a role. Otherwise, if weight is not important, one could just take burly FR-DH frame. All that I found, and I'm not that bad as screening the web, was that the Meta 5.5 VIP frame was around 2.9 without the shock. Add the 250grams of a RP23 and you'll get 3.15kg. However the frame turned out to be 3.45kg. OK, no biggie, it is still a nice frame...  Then people here on COC start posting the real weight and this made the weight known to the public.

Then I remember that when the 2008 came out every site stated that the new frames are 150gr lighter and stiffer in the rear. Again after people start buying them and weighted them they realize the weight was very similar. Also they said that there were some changes in the geometry. But for a while nobody knew what was changed. The most advertised was that the seat angle changed. But it seems that also the head angle changed a bit.

What I want to say is that Commencal is not very transparent, at lest not to the public with specs of their frames. And what this does is that you lose the trust in the brand. I really wonder now if the new swing arm is stiffer than the old one. And if by how much. And the point here is not that the old one is not stiff, but for me this looks more like a marketing thing... if you think that the Supreme and the Mini DH models kept the old swing arm which was very similar to the per '08 Meta.


I don't think a Meta with lighter tubing, also produced in Taiwan, needs to be 50% more expensive. Here in Germany the 5.5 VIP goes for ~1300 Euro. Add 50% to it and you reach to ~2000 Euro. Well, here things gets complicated since for 2000 Euro you can get a Nicolai Helius FR, hand made in Germany, or for 1800 Euro  a Liteville 301 (frame weigt 2240 gr without the shock) or a Rotwild. And even if the Meta is a very nice frame, all these other frames are not worse, and probably even better. Not to talk about the quality of the finish. And since we are talking about light and stiff bikes, my ridding buddy has two Ventana's (and one of then is a El Terremoto 160mm travel bike). Without the shock I would say it weights a bit less than the Meta. Also I don't think anybody can say that this bike is not stiff! It is such a nice quality frame: tubes, welds, links, painting.

What is my point again? Well, there are lots of brands that cares about their customers and try to give them the best they can make. So is not only Commencal which care about the riders. I guess that Commencal is still a small brand and doesn't has the economical power of other brands, but I think it will be possible for them to build a lighter frame, without compromising the strength for a similar price (probably 10-15% more). After how much can a Kinesis made frame can cost.....


I will still ride my Meta frame since it does rides nice, but if Commencal will not change a bit their attitude things might change in the future since the market is full of offers!


Happy trails,
Adrian
 

[steveb]

Kinesis make a lot of Commencals frames already.

You have reaised good points, and you've also explained the problem: Commencal are only 6 years old, and have only only been selling large numbers for 3 years, if that. In 08 they're talked about in the same breathes as Spesh, and Cannondale and other premium brands, but Commencal are a fraction of their size, with a fraction of their turnover, a fraction of their resources, a fraction of their money and a fraction of their staff. Go to any race were Commencal are in attendance and they don't have loads of inhouse pit lane staff or PR people, they have the guys from the office doing whatever they can to make things happen. Try calling the office when a race is on, no one is there, they're at the race, cleaning bikes, making sandwiches and fixing bikes. Nico put new bearings into my Elite DH racers frame at a Maxxis cup last year, Nico is the product designer! David came over to Belfast last year and helped me tell people people at a public facing show about the brand, David is the European manager. Max turns out to all the public  events he can and helps build bikes, he owns the company!

Point is, considering the brands they are now playing along side they are a tiny team, and they're so young, and in reality way understaffed. This means things ain't as slick as others. But it also means things can happen at the drop of a hat. Last year we made a suggestion about a frame, 3 months later the frames with the mod we suggested were available to the public. This year it wa felt that a small mod would improve a frame, this last batch had that mod and it's now improved. This mod will have increased the weight a bit, so the previous info was wrong. But it's better to have old info wrong than not run with an improvement mid season, no?

Commencal know where they are weak, and yes, communication with the public is one such area, but they are learning, and things are getting better, and a lot of the info is fed down to the dealers, it's upto the dealers if they info is fed to you.

[mtc]

I must say, that because the frames are NOT trimmed only to lightweight was a BIG factor of my decision to buy a 666!
I know how it feels if the bike feels like a chewing gum! And it doesn't really give away confidence.

And of course I like the mentality of Commencal. And this is what people don't understand!
As Steve said, the bikes are a bit heavier for a number of logical (at least to me) reasons!

And they are still a pretty small company. I hope it stays that way, because it is very nice to have a bike from a company, that is not huge, selling millions of bikes every year.
It's like a good old family business. You (or I) know that because it is a "family business" each and every one will give his best. Even beyond his obligations/duties in the company voluntarily.

[twin]

i remember late last year when cannondale decided to start making their lower end hardtails somewhere in Asia. A lot of their die hard American fans were disappointed in a big way. I on the other had stated this was sensible for two reasons;

1) to free production capacity and thus be able to produce the top of the line frames, notably the scalpel/system 6/super six, in house.
2) It also meant reducing costs in a segment where hand made American frames doesn't fetch a premium at all, thus generating a larger profit which in turn can be used to invest in further r&d.

so why am i telling you this? Well, it's to support what stated above by macadam. It was a point i made in passing earlier in the thread, but due to post length I skipped it for all intended purposes. Anyway, the point is this; I do not believe Commencal at the present time has the same kinda sales of lower end models or necessary margins to promote and finance the initial investments necessary to shift the production of the full sussers up a notch. Commencals business strategy, as i have understood it, is to make midpriced bikes to the average to mid higher end consumer - with builds attracting the latter. Yet, due to incredibly good performance, exceptional geometry and some of the better riders in the industry, Commencal has made the jump from a relatively small and obscure brand to a well known and respected brand virtually "over night". Thus it all of a sudden isn't compared to the smaller companies, but faces the competition of the marked heavy weights, both in terms of the financially large and the boutique marked.

Commencal has been international for quite a few years now, but now make the plunge into the American marked with a solid importer over yonder. The reason behind this post is thus; is it Commencals plan to step up to the challenge of the new competition, say cannondale/sc/ventana (screw spesh, i hate spesh ), and try to emulate their lighter frames, or is it to continue with business as usual? The point I'm trying to make is that it is time they step it up a notch, though perhaps only on a limited scale, say for a top of the line lite model in every model lineup (no that will only drive the costs through the roof, universal upgrade! hehe - then again, the two step approach is what cannondale is doing with their alloy/carbon dual lineups..). Yesyes - i know, the reason a lot of riders choose Commencals is the due to price, performance and decent (enough) build. Usually (this is a huuuge assumption) a higher end, boutique-buying consumer might not even consider Commencal. Not so much over issues such as price or performance, but due to factors such as weight and finish. This is what i would like to see change.

I know, changing a winning recipe is a recipe for disaster ( muahaha). Why fix something that isn't broken? Well, what I'm saying is that perhaps the recipe is somewhat incomplete or slightly off. By this i mean that thus far issues might have slipped by due to size of the operation and the general consumers of their products. What I'm afraid might happen now though is that these errors, as i perceive them to be - even as slight as they might be, might stall or eventually disrupt the further growth of the company. I have to admit i do not care if Commencal end up being the 7Th large company or remain a moderately small but successful operation, but i do feel it is essential for Commencal as a company to "be all that it can be" ( hehe, sorry, the us army has destroyed that phrase) so it can win the "hearts and minds" (hihi, i was on a roll here (did you know that phrase was coined by a British officer during the initial phases of the Malayan incident in the 50/60s was it? - though the phrase is bound to have been used earlier)) of its consumers and those of possible consumers. It's a question of brand marketing and associations.

Of course, nobody likes a noodly bike, but i for one don't really like a bike that claims to be heavier for the sake of strength while the real reason - or at least a part of it - is that it's a question of the materials used. It's not that commencals frames are especially heavy, they're not, but they're not especially light either. Thus far that hasn't been a problem due to the competition, but in the future it might be. What I'm getting at is that in order to evolve i feel this is an issue that needs addressing.

I'm not sure this is the best thread to have on this forum and perhaps it's something we should rather contact Commencal directly about. I claim to have no insider knowledge of how the industry works so i might be waaaay of base here. I'm also somewhat worried that I'm raising a point that some people haven't given any thought or that might end up being a negative in their relationship with Commencal/their bike. That is not at all what i want, not in the least. I know this last reply was somewhat lofty and perhaps way out of proportion. In a direct comparison with cannondale the freeride/dh frames are generally 2-400 grams heavier, while the difference is larger in the xc/am full suss marked. At least in the latter that is a significant difference. Yesyes, i also know the price is equally greater for the cannondale if you want a better model, bu oh well..

then again, what is better, a light frame with decent components or a frame that is neither here nor there, but potentially with much better specs for the money. I guess in some respects it's a battle for specs. (hm, haven't thought about it that way before...). then again #2, along comes canyon and destroys that line of thought - or to some degree at least.

anyway, let's move on shall we? i know most of you already have