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.

KS Lev has min insertion mark at 110-130mm (if I got the correct Lev) 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.

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.

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…

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?

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.