You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No naming and shaming at this stage but I've cracked my hardtail and hitting a brick wall with the manufacturer. Genuinely gutted as I loved the frame and have another bike from the same manufacturer who I'm beginning to lose the love for.
Basic facts... frame has cracked on the seat tube where a brace joins it from the top tube. The seat post (LEV) has always been in the frame a few mm beyond the minimum insert markings.
Frame is a large, I'm 6ftish so bang in the middle of the size chart.
They're saying the minimum insert markings on the post are irrelevant and the post should be 50mm beyond the intersection with the top tube*. Even with the post slammed this is impossible, as it would be with most dropper posts needing around 250mm of post inside the frame.
To me this suggests that using any dropper post on this frame/size combination automatically invalidates the warranty? This is despite their full builds being specced with the same post and in the photos on their website the posts definitely aren't slammed in the frame meaning they're unlikely the required 50mm below the top tube.
Any thoughts/tips on how best to proceed?
*still waiting to be told where I was supposed to find this info.
Well that bit is true. That's the limit for the post not the frame.They're saying the minimum insert markings on the post are irrelevant
[quote=nickjb ]
Well that bit is true. That's the limit for the post not the frame.Correct.They're saying the minimum insert markings on the post are irrelevant
I'd always recommend at least 30mm below the [i]bottom[/i] of the seat tube/top tube junction. 50mm seems a wee bit generous, but in the same ballpark
Was the seatpost supplied with the frame?
Thanks for clearing that bit up.
I guess it comes down to where/how you're supposed to find out the required insert for the frame then.
If the seatpost was supplied with the frame and it is genuinely impossible to get it in as far as their recommendation ( which I assume was in the owners manual?) then you have more of a case, but as above marks on post are for the post not the frame...
[quote=jamesfts ]I guess it comes down to where/how you're supposed to find out the required insert for the frame then.Ask.
Learn.
Get an expert to do it for you.
You can get longer Reverbs so they can be inserted further. I only realised this after I bought one and found out that it was only just long enough for me.
I've never thought about the minimum inserting mark on posts only being for the post and not the frame. I'll have to watch out for that on any other bikes I ride in the future. I guess it makes sense as the seat post company won't know what bike it's on. Food for thought.
Tom KP
Commencal Meta?
If it is important then I'd expect it to be in the manual. As scotroutes says at least 'a bit' below the top tube weld as a rule of thumb.I guess it comes down to where/how you're supposed to find out the required insert for the frame then.
I'd always recommend at least 30mm below the bottom of the seat tube/top tube junction. 50mm seems a wee bit generous, but in the same ballpark
Problem is with this particular frame design there is about 180mm of frame above the seat tube/top tube junction so finding a dropper that'll reach 50mm below that would be tough.
Was the seatpost supplied with the frame?
No but they spec it on their full builds.
And is there any mention in the owners manual about insertion depth?
180mm of frame above the seat tube? Over seven inches?
Commencal Meta?
You did what I did 🙂
Commencal Meta?
Yup, Meta HT
You did what I did 🙂
Yeah, didn't think it'd take much investigation work 😉
And is there any mention in the owners manual about insertion depth?
I'll have to dig it out and double check.
180mm of frame above the seat tube? Over seven inches?
165/170mm above, 180 is the mid point of the 2.
[quote=thegreatape ]
You did what I did
[img] 
[/img]
high fives all the history lookers
[img] 
[/img]
Is that the world's biggest gif? Had to wait 5 minutes for the post options to load in!
It seems Commencal are now just ignoring me.
The gory details - cracked Commencal Meta HT:
[img] 
?oh=d1a70213d40a3997e31fc57a12e5f2b2&oe=571B826F[/img]
😯
think its gone past [i]cracked[/i]
You really need to find out if any of the literature they give out with the frame states this. If not then you have a case I think.
[img] 
[/img]
Haha love it Brant - would be perfect for midget with incredibly long arms... I'll get the Dremel out!
You really need to find out if any of the literature they give out with the frame states this. If not then you have a case I think.
Trouble is I'm buggered if I can find the paperwork and it's not available on their website so relying on them sending me something (having approached them using a different email address).
jamesfts - what wheels size and frame size is this, and how old?
2014 frame, the last one before the added front mech and bottle cage mounts.
27.5 and large - out of interest why do you want to know?
2014 frame, the last one before the added front mech and bottle cage mounts.27.5 and large.
Not sure if it will help but have a 2015 Meta HT 29er in XL and I have all the paperwork at home. Happy to check it out for you and see if it says anything?
Interestingly I was very surprised when my XL only came with a 350mm seatpost which I ride right on the insertion limit.
(better get a longer one!)
Haha love it Brant - would be perfect for midget with incredibly long arms... I'll get the Dremel out!
The problem I have with frames of this style (which is why I prefer a bent top tube) is that this style isn't really a dropped top tube, it's an extended seat tube.
Keith Bontrager used to always recommend that on his frames, a seatpost should extend a half inch below the lowest point of the top tube/seat tube joint. And on this style of frame, I think the top tube is the lowest bit.
It gets more complicated/worse on some models because the internal profile of the seat tube might be such that engaging more post doesn't really do anything. Because after a certain point, the post isn't touching/reinforcing the frame anyhow.
I certainly agree that the indication on a seatpost is for the "seatposts sake" and not the frame. I would want a to have a design such as this tested for fatigue with insertion to about the point the arrow on the back is positioned at - as per Keiths dimension, but for the upper "reinforcing" gusset rather than the top tube.
Or...
[img] 
[/img]
If you could I'd really appreciate it, I'm not 100% sure I got anything with it but it may just be my memory. I recently (possibly stupidly now) bought a v3 frame fork and shock which came with no paperwor at all - I had to download manuals from Bos in the end.
No problem, I'll have a look later on and see if I can find any reference to it.
Think I'll also need to do some measurements because if the post needs to extend 1/2" into the frame below the actual top tube then I might need a seatpost that's well over 400mm
[Edit, my email is in my profile so if you drop me a line I can give you and update]
Thanks, will do.
The email I got through from Commencal states that it needs to be 50mm below the seat tube intersection... which is something like 250mm on my frame just to have it slammed. I think to be within their advised sizing and to get a usable saddle height on the large you'd need a post with about 450mm under the collar...
Edit: Thanks - email sent
...as per Keiths dimension, but for the upper "reinforcing" gusset rather than the top tube.
I did wonder if this may be the case and there is a bit of confusion with the translation but as they're no longer replying to emails it's hard to say.
Also worryingly (not my actual bike but same size) ...
[img] 
[/img]
I'm glad [s]I'm a shortarse[/s] have relatively short legs despite being average height.
Not sure how helpful this is but I bought mine in basic stock spec from commencal direct. The geometry chart says the XL is suitable for riders of 6'2" and above and with a maximum inseam of 38.8".
I'll look at the measurements later but I suspect the stock seatpost supplied (350mm and stated as such in the spec sheet on their website) wouldn't conform to allow any of that if it needed to be 50mm below the seat tube.
they want the seatpost 50mm below the bottom top tube join?
it'd be hitting the shock!
Can you show where the bottom of the seatpost was on your frame?
Just had confirmation from Commencal that the seat post needs to be 50mm below the actual top tube not the bridge/brace - roughly 250mm into the frame.
I've just bought a Meta V4 and that came with no paperwork at all other than an invoice. Which is helpful.
I've a feeling mine was the same.
[i]Just had confirmation from Commencal that the seat post needs to be 50mm below the actual top tube not the bridge/brace[/i]
That's one way of never having to provide a warranty replacement frame.
Stupid, just stupid.
I'd check what seatposts they fit on built bikes and see if any of them would actually meet this criteria at a rideable height.
*makes note never to buy a commencal*
What a pile of * from a pile of * company. I really hope you get somewhere with it as they sound an appalling company to give money to.
[quote=jamesfts ]Just had confirmation from Commencal that the seat post needs to be 50mm below the actual top tube not the bridge/brace - roughly 250mm into the frame.
They only let the buyer know this after there is an issue, poor form I'd say. But I'd expect no more than that from Commencal.
Yeah. Having spoken to a few mates in the industry I'm not entirely surprised either.
"A shower of ©unts" is phrase used by a number of people now.
I remember the years they cracked regularly , 2008 to 2010 or 11 I think. Here we are in 2015 and they are still doing it.
It gets more complicated/worse on some models because the internal profile of the seat tube might be such that engaging more post doesn't really do anything. Because after a certain point, the post isn't touching/reinforcing the frame anyhow.
Yup - the ones where there's an internal sleeve so it matters sod-all how much post you have in there, only the top two inches are doing anything.
The other design that can be filed under "I have no idea what I'm doing" are the designs that don't have an internal shim, they have a thicker tube extension basically butt-welded on top of the seat tube. Seen several like that where the whole thing has just snapped off.
[url= http://kssuspension.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/LEV-tech.pdf ]KS Lev has min insertion mark at 110-130mm (if I got the correct Lev)[/url] Total possible insertion on the same drawing ranges from only 176-239mm
I'd ask an engineer to check two things:
How far down the seat tube is sized to accept a seat post, is it 50mm past the junction referred to?
Their opinion on HAZ toe-cracking contributing to the fault
Haha - I'll never be buying one of those then. What a crap design.
You might be better going for an angle of attack where you look to see if you can show that if you stick 230mm of seat post into the frame then you can't make it fit the height ranges that it's sold as fitting.
Unimpressed- going to be checking my meta. There was me thinking they had a reasonably reputation
"How far down the seat tube is sized to accept a seat post, is it 50mm past the junction referred to?"
You could check this yourself by inserting a standard post and seeing how far down it will go. I would not be surprised if it won't go down as far as the manufacturers say it should do going on that pic above!
"You could check this yourself by inserting a standard post and seeing how far down it will go."
Good point. The reason that I suggested getting it measured is to show that inserting a seat post that far would actually support the seat tube and not be flapping around in over-sized air after 150mm (or whatever), which is a moot point if it doesn't go in that far 🙂
Commencal show the KS eTen dropper on some of their bikes now, which I think has a longer insertion depth than the Lev. Do you have any literature that specifies the Lev?
Thanks to Ant for sending over some copies of the relevant pages of the owners manual - this seems to be the only reference they make to required seatpost insertion.
[img] 
[/img]
A quick measure of my large meta am (v3) and you'd have to have 300mm of post inside the frame to meet that 50mm requirement. Seems somewhat excessive to me
So back to the question: if you use the post they supply, does it allow sufficient insertion(!) to support the size range they advertise for that frame? If not, they're talking bolleaux. If it does, an expensive lesson has just been had though the inclusion/non inclusion of the instructions is worth pursuing with the people you bought it off (assuming a 'trader' rather than an individual). If there weren't any, I'd be following that up with them...
The owners manual clearly states 9cm is the minimum insertion into the frame. Email that pic to them and and go from there.
"A shower of ©unts" is phrase used by a number of people now.
A few more added! Either a disgraceful attempt to not honour a warranty or a woeful design. Either way it's a good reason not to buy one.
This appears to me to be well into the realm of unreasonable conditions. Since we're talking warranty rather than legal rights, then I guess you'd need to threaten them with trading standards. Then again, how long have you had it? I'm tempted to think that you have rights under SOGA regarding how long you'd expect a bike frame to last for (which can be longer than a year under current laws), where their suggestion would definitely be seen as an unreasonable condition.
*strikes new zesty off Xmas list*
It is one make I will never consider now. Hopefully you get somewhere with it OP.
[quote=boblo ]So back to the question: if you use the post they supply, does it allow sufficient insertion(!) to support the size range they advertise for that frame? If not, they're talking bolleaux. If it does, an expensive lesson has just been had though the inclusion/non inclusion of the instructions is worth pursuing with the people you bought it off (assuming a 'trader' rather than an individual). If there weren't any, I'd be following that up with them...
This.
The picture above shows an insertion mark on the seatpost, not the frame so is actually pretty much irrelevant in this discussion. The photo isn't even of the same frame. Boblos test is surely the right one?
On warranty just had my complete Santa Cruz frame replaced after 18 months. One of the bolts crossed threaded. No quibble new frame. All companies aren't the same. Money is saved somewhere
strikes new zesty off Xmas list*
Dave
Why were not talking about Zesty?
Commencal innit?
LaPierre Dave....
Jesus, going to check my v3 meta. Having said that, is this the first cracked v3/v4 meta?
50mm below the toptube on my Meta SL would have the seatpost poking into the shock-housing. The seattube diameter also becomes wider about 30mm below the toptube. Could be different for FS frames, I suppose (it's an HT in the OP, right?).
I was already on the growing list of people who will never buy a Commencal again because of their refusal to stand by their products once they've taken your money.
It doesn't really help the OP, but it seems what they're implying with this response is that the seat tube extension and brace serve no purpose at all. Therefore it's a terribly designed frame from a company offering terrible customer service. I seem to remember a very similar scenario with Pace a few years back. I kinda hope Commencal's business goes in the same direction Pace did...
[quote=arogers ]It doesn't really help the OP, but it seems what they're implying with this response is that the seat tube extension and brace serve no purpose at all.
Indeed - the question is whether if the top tube curved up to meet the seat tube rather than a brace, would that make it less likely to crack there? If not, then their requirement is bollox, if so, then their frame design is bollox.
Dear Lord, i love these frames and was on the verge of buying one.
I was blinded by shiney pics and hadnt considered any of the above implications.
OP i really hope you get a decent response from Commencal
To be fair, though (and in my capacity as a slightly concerned Meta owner), when was the last time you heard of a cracked Commencal, post-2010? A cursory google shows no forum posts (I'm sure there must be some, but maybe not many) about cracked V3s that I can see.
And to be fair again it's not just the crack that's the problem here. It's the disgusting stance of the Teflon backed company. Your on your own buying into that shower of........
The odd thing is it's not a weedy little brace, I can't see a curved top tube being any stiffer than that - especially if the curved top tube doesn't have a brace below it.
Is the seat tube internally shimmed?
Exactly, Ben, if that brace is functional, then the seatpost should only be required to be inserted below that. I do wonder in that case whether there's a problem in translation...
Where are you OP?
*strikes new zesty off Xmas list*
Oooh, just because the speak wiz zee zimilar accent, no, we strike zem off ze list also?
[img]
[/img]
It seems quite simple - am I missing something?
Bike manufacturer issues manual etc with bike.
Frame fails due to something that IS NOT covered in the manual etc.
Bike company says no due to something that IS NOT in the manual etc.
Consumer is on moral and probable legal high ground since the criteria was not given to him before the failure.
Just a heads up - did you buy direct from Commencal? I had dealings with them several years ago as a result of a cracked bearing housing on an Absolut SX, but dealt through Merlin Cycles who I bought the original frame off. My frame was replaced quickly within a couple of weeks with the following year's model.
How did you pay for it? You (should) have 180 days from the date of purchase to open a paypal dispute if you paid that way, or maybe you have some sort of cover with a credit card company.
I bought a frame direct from Commencal and it had a manufacturing flaw with the rear dropout upon arrival and a bent mech hanger. The amount of hoops I had to jump through to get it fixed before I had even put it together was ridiculous.
On the plus side the frame is a joy to ride now addressed.
*puts new zesty back on Xmas list* Result!
Win Win!!
Sorry - not had chance to update this thread, thanks for all the replays and help.
To answer a few questions:
Frame was bought directly from Commencal in August last year.
Where are you OP?
Malvern, Uk
Is the seat tube internally shimmed?
It doesn't seem to be, looks to have failed at the weld then spread backwards.
Exactly, Ben, if that brace is functional, then the seatpost should only be required to be inserted below that. I do wonder in that case whether there's a problem in translation...
I fear not, it took a week of emails, photographs and questions to get them to confirm the exact point.
So back to the question: if you use the post they supply, does it allow sufficient insertion(!) to support the size range they advertise for that frame?
They sell the bike built with a KS e-ten (100mm) Reverb (125mm) or a static 350mm post. Using the static post would only allow 10cm externally which IMO is nowhere near enough for a anyone in their size chart to fit a large frame.
I've written them a response that I'll be sending over this morning - I'll update everyone with their response.
Did they send you the paperwork/manual stating minimum insertion with the frame?
No, didn't receive anything with either frame (ht or v3) - the page is taken from a manual from another Commencal hardtail but seems to be their generic document as it covers everything from triple clamp dh forks to xc bikes etc.