Field Test: 2020 Intense Primer S - Mixed Wheel Corner Carver
PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
2020 INTENSE PRIMER S
Mixed wheel corner carver
Words by Mike Levy, Photography by Trevor Lyden
2020 INTENSE PRIMER S
Mixed wheel corner carver
Words by Mike Levy, Photography by Trevor Lyden
Intense used to have a few different models in their lineup that could be considered trail rigs, but there's only one name for 2020. The all-new Primer offers 140mm of rear-wheel travel paired with a 150mm fork, but there are still choices to make given that you can have it with two 27.5" wheels, two 29" wheels, or a mixed 29" front and 27.5" rear combo like our Primer S test bike.
You can also have your Primer S in one of two trim levels; the 'Pro Build' pictured here goes for $5,799 USD straight off Intense's website, with a Fox 36 FIT4 fork, *e13's LG1 Enduro Race wheels, and a mixed SRAM drivetrain. The Expert model costs $3,899, or you can get the frame and shock for $2,999 USD.
You can also have your Primer S in one of two trim levels; the 'Pro Build' pictured here goes for $5,799 USD straight off Intense's website, with a Fox 36 FIT4 fork, *e13's LG1 Enduro Race wheels, and a mixed SRAM drivetrain. The Expert model costs $3,899, or you can get the frame and shock for $2,999 USD.
Primer S Details
Travel: 140mm
Wheel size: 29'' front, 27.5+ rear
Frame construction: Carbon fiber
Head angle: 64.5 / 65.1-degrees (geometry)
Chainstay length: 440mm
Reach: 454 / 460mm (L)
Sizes: S, M, L (tested), XL
Weight: 30.0 lbs / 13.6 kg (as pictured)
Price: $5,799 USD
More info: www.intensecycles.com
Travel: 140mm
Wheel size: 29'' front, 27.5+ rear
Frame construction: Carbon fiber
Head angle: 64.5 / 65.1-degrees (geometry)
Chainstay length: 440mm
Reach: 454 / 460mm (L)
Sizes: S, M, L (tested), XL
Weight: 30.0 lbs / 13.6 kg (as pictured)
Price: $5,799 USD
More info: www.intensecycles.com
The carbon fiber frame is all-new for Intense, and they've used it as the base for the 27.5'', 29'', and mullet-wheeled models. The former gets its dedicated front and rear triangles, while the 29er and the Primer S share frames. You'll find a flip-chip at the aft shock mount that takes the head angle from 64.5 to 65.1-degrees (in the mixed-wheel configuration) while also lifting the bottom bracket by just over 7 millimeters.
Intense is still using a similar dual-link layout, but they're saying that it's been revised for 2020 for improved efficiency and added ramp-up for those big hits. A Fox Factory DPX2 shock looks after the 140mm of travel while being compressed by the carbon upper link (the bottom one is aluminum), and titanium hardware holds everything together. Fancy.
Climbing
There's a lot of talk about steep seat angles these days, but the Primer S' 74-degree seat tube was noticeably slacker than the other trail bikes being tested. Part of the reason is the fact that Intense uses the same frame for the 29" Primer and the mixed-wheel version. That puts you a bit farther behind the bottom bracket than some of us would like to see, and while it wasn't that long ago that 74-degrees wasn't out of the ordinary, it's a compromise worth mentioning.
Also worth a few sentences is how good the Intense feels when you're out of the saddle to use all those watts. It's got plenty of jump to it, with satisfyingly crisp acceleration at every pedal stroke. Just watch those pedals, though, as that 27.5'' rear wheel (and the slightly lower-profile Maxxis rear tire we installed) sees them a few millimeters closer to the ground than is ideal when you need a couple of cranks to push through a tricky climb.
Aside from wanting 2-degrees added to the seat angle, the slow-speed handling was on-par for what you'd expect from a trail bike. Be decisive with your line choice and take advantage of the traction that 140mm can give you to get the most out of it.
Descending
Is it wrong that when I see an Intense, I sort of want (and expect) it to be a great descender? With so much of their history revolving around downhill racing, I'm probably not the only one thinking that, but it's a bit more complicated with the Primer S. First, the good stuff.
I can't remember a test bike that's made me look so good in so many corners, and especially when there was a berm involved. At first, I thought, ''You're better than you remember, Mike!'' Not surprisingly, that wasn't the case. When I rode the other three trail bikes, it became obvious that the Primer S has a distinct knack for carving corners with very little care whether you've decided to go inside or outside or if you've decided on a big ol' slide. It feels low and stable, which obviously helps, but it's also very good at telling you what's about to happen; there are no surprises, no sudden loss of traction that you weren't expecting.
After keeping our thoughts to ourselves during back-to-back testing with the Primer S, Stamina, Optic, and Occam, it wasn't a surprise to find that Kazimer's notes on the Intense's impressive cornering were full of as many exclamations points as my own.
Now onto the less good stuff. Despite the relatively slack head angle, the Primer S felt like it needed a bit more attention on trickier sections of trail. I wouldn't call it nervous, but it and the Occam certainly feel the most 'trail bike' of the four. It's not like I'd shy away from a sketchy line that I'd roll into when on the other three bikes, but the timing doesn't lie: I was consistently slower down our test lap on the Primer S, which is odd given how it amazing it feels in the corners.
Now onto the less good stuff. Despite the relatively slack head angle, the Primer S felt like it needed a bit more attention on trickier sections of trail. I wouldn't call it nervous, but it and the Occam certainly feel the most 'trail bike' of the four. It's not like I'd shy away from a sketchy line that I'd roll into when on the other three bikes, but the timing doesn't lie: I was consistently slower down our test lap on the Primer S, which is odd given how it amazing it feels in the corners.
Timed Testing
Our timed lap for the trail bikes was around 1:30 long and started with Afternoon Delight, a rooty, twisty singletrack that feeds you into the rocky lines of Lower Whistler Downhill. After that, we crossed the piste before entering Heart of Darkness where the lower Freelap cone was hidden next to a tree.
Don't forget that timing is just one of many ways to judge a bike, and fast doesn't always mean it's the best for everyone.
Levy: ''The Intense was the slowest of the four bikes for me, clocking in 6.2% slower than my fastest time.''
Using a 27.5" rear wheel drops the bottom bracket height compared to the 29'' version of the Primer, and it also means that the lower, slacker of the two geo positions feels like it's on the ground. Yes, that low setting would have been a little more useable with the stock 2.8" tire, but either way, you're still looking at a sub-13" bottom bracket height. I realize that's partly why it cuts corners better than me at work, but I couldn't get comfortable with it on our rooty, rocky trails. Thankfully, it's just as impressive in the higher, slightly steeper setting and, as an added bonus, it'll vastly lower your chances of scorpion-ing courtesy of a pedal strike.
On the suspension front, it's not that the back of the Primer S doesn't work well, only that it performs exactly as 140mm should - it's good, but not exactly mindblowing. There are a few things to point out with the bike's spec, too, including a Fox 36 with a FIT4 damper when we all know that Grip2 internals has surpassed it. Yes, the FIT4 system works well - it's what we all wanted before the original Grip came out - but this 'Pro Build' deserves the latest and greatest. ''The FIT4 150mm fork is an excellent beefed up trail bike fork,'' Intense countered when I asked about the spec. ''It still allows the flexibility of a lockout to aid in the long days of a rider climbing just as much as they are descending.''
Also, I understand the idea of a four-piston brake caliper up front combined with a two-piston rear unit (more power where you need it the most), but it just seems odd when I want all the power on both ends; let the customer tune that via rotor size, please. Lastly, it's odd to see a bike with a 2.6" front tire and a 2.8" rear tire. Some mixed-wheel bikes are coming out like this in order to compensate for the shortened reach and dropped BB when going to regular width 27.5, but we're not huge fans of how those rear plus tires feel—especially on a bike that corners this well.
Talking Tires
Using the same 'control tires' for all of the bikes in each category means that we can focus on things that matter most, like the handling and suspension, and then better compare the bikes against each other. Eliminating a variable and all that. Sounds good, right? Of course, it's not that simple.
First, having to change and tubeless twenty-eight tires isn't a quick task. Second, it meant that the Intense would be using a 27.5'' x 2.4" wide Minion DHR II WT rear tire instead of the 2.8'' wide Rekon+ that comes stock. While the DHR II certainly makes sense on the back of the Primer S, the rear axle ends up sitting around 4mm lower in height than with the Rekon+, and that means that the seat angle gets a smidge slacker and the bottom bracket is even lower than stock. We ran the bike in its higher geometry setting to compensate. However marginal, it needs mentioning given some of our thoughts on the bike's performance.
Pros
+ Mindblowing in the corners
+ Relatively efficient
Cons
- Not purpose-built for mullet wheels, so seat angle is too slack and reach is compact
- Stock 2.8" tire spec is not our favourite setup
- Fork and brake spec are odd
The 2020 Pinkbike Field Test was made possible by support from
Race Face apparel & pads, Giro helmets, & Sierra Nevada beer.
Race Face apparel & pads, Giro helmets, & Sierra Nevada beer.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
At least Mike Levy is balanced in his commentaries and in this test recognizes the obvious: a mullet bike must be built with a mullet specific geometry. Slap a 29 wheel in front and guess what: it will slacken your seat angle do a possibly uncomfortable degree!!!!!!
PS Won't comment on the futility of a 90" runs to somehow evaluate a bike "performance" ... nor on the idea of swapping tires to try to eliminate one (of the dozen or so) variables. I do feel a bit bad about the work involved: swapping wheels would seem to be a much faster way to do so, and in addition eliminate yet another (big) variable.
It would be interesting to see what PB has to say about that. I recall the article taking a very very strong stance on that setup being a sham/not working/total trend. Then the following season having a good amount of fairly dominate performances (EWS & UCI DH) utilizing the mullet.
Tried to compare to the Pole geometry, since they gave it such a good review, but there are enough differences in each geometry number that it would make sense to compare just one or two numbers.
Then go give the downhill bikes a 1:30 downhill timed section to show who's fastest.
Since they are trail bikes they deserved at least a 5 min timed section with ups flat sections (where you still have to pedal to move) and downs would've been more fair and gave much more info.
Also take with a grain of salt the fact that this type of terrain is like 10% of what most riders ride.
To me though the sizes are wrong if 5foot11 is on xl. What do tall people buy? Virtually no one offers xxl.
5foot11 is surely very average and manufacturer's should sell the appropriate frame as medium.
Not defending the bike- it's not on my list- just seems like the tire size is a design factor here. Which could be a con in itself, but /shrug
I foresee all manufactures in the near future putting in much larger shock flip chips, at a bare minimum. To accomodate peoples 29/27.5 desires.
This is my second mullet bike and I honestly thought I was going to go back to 27.5 front and back but I immediately missed the mullet feel and handling so much I went back within 3-4 rides.
Seems to me to be the best way to do it: 27.5 bike with 10mm sorter 29 fork/wheel up front
@g-42 you should at least call them and let them know her personal stop and they can build one from scratch timed to her right and everything. My buddy loves his Foes Mixer.
Mountain bikers ride much more forward and far less torque than a moto, roosting is not the same, so there’s no advantage to mullet, only the disadvantage of making for awkward transitions and less stable handling.
To me, the mullet bike makes sense in frame sizes up to medium, while the rest of the sizes can go full 29.
I'd ride a Large frame on a modern DH bike and medium on most any trail rig. And yes, I buzzed my nuts on an SB150 & Mondraker Foxy xrxsrsrs (some combo of letters).
Q:How many Pinkbike commenters does it take to figure that out?
A: 303
Agreed. Intense is asleep at the wheel. They went direct and stopped progressing, effectively reducing the Primer (or keeping it) to a 'Dad's bike' which will see one trail day a month under most customers. It looks like basically every other bike in the test has great geo for the category except this. An embarrassing fail.
No i haven't ridden it. Yes, the new linkage layout and frame look good. Looks are subjective so i won't comment on the colors/decals (meh). But we're in the age of woke geo war and this sad sack is limping along at the back of the pack.
Hey, at least the frame didn't fail!
Confirmation bias, my babe! To be fair we all do it. And I wound't be adverse to taking a spin on the 29er, much more sorted tho still unfashionable by a degree or so with that 75 sta.
Intense should be INTENSE, garish and bright. A bit lairy and individual.
nope... for realsies?! they're STILL copying SC? while doing that please steepen the sta.
wait did i miss the sarcasm? these Primers are new!
And having a larger diameter front wheel with a narrower tire isn’t that outrageous. At least none of the guys I rode cross or enduro motorcycles with ever complained about that kind of setup.
Get it up on some crowdfunding site so you get money for body armour and medical bills.
Except that the 29er geo has a 75° STA, which is pretty contemporary (id devinci Troy, revel rascal etc) and a reach that is 470+
But you also need to scale reach with STA. 470 on 75° might feel the same as 480 on 76° or 490 on 77° because of how tipped over the front you are. Large ripmo feels cramped to me, large primer 29 feels about right, as an example. Similar reach, different STA.
Has there been any bike lately that still had fit4 on the 36 instead of grip2?
I had a Fox 34 Perfomance Elite Fit4 fork which was superb.
@zarban‘s explanation with air shaft length makes more sense.
If talking about the 34, I would rather have the cheaper Grip damper from the performance model than the Fit4.
Same reviews go on to say that FIT4 is better for those that like a "set and forget" fork... while with the Grip2, because it's so adjustable, it's very easy to into adjust away any performance benefit it has over FIT4 if you're not careful.
I couldn't care less
The Primer is a trail bike and I would prefer the Fit4 over the Grip2 on a trail bike all day.
The climb switch is really nice and by no means is the Fit4 a bad fork.
I only switched the fork, because it was non boost and I really needed a boost fork for my new wheels.
I'm more of a light weight rider so maybe that adds to my personal preference too.
And I really don't understand that obsession with having a enduro fork on any kind of bike.
A 130mm Trail bike needs to be capable and light, needs to be fast, easy and fun to ride.
A trail fork can handle the ups and downs just fine for that application
If I want to shred DHs at high speed I just take my 180mm Enduro bike. Harsh on the ups, but fun on the downs.
But for a long day trail ride with friends I would choose my light trail bike any time over the enduro bike.
It's way more fun and still fast enough on the downhills.
But I do know a few people that prefer Fit4 over Grip 2 because they are the set and forget tyle. And the Fit4 is pretty impressive.
I just did a custom trail bike build and opted fornthe FIT4 36PE
I'm no suspension guru and I'm not at all inclined to be fking with minute settings all the time.
Just want a great fork set up properly and then just leave it alone and ride.
Most of my friends buy the Lyrik or Pike because they like the set and forget style better so wanting the Fit4 fork for that reason makes complete sense.
I always find it very weird how much prices for things manufactured in other countries varies so widely due to tariffs, duties, etc. Not just bike stuff, everything.
This is not to criticize the reviewers; they did a great job and provided their honest opinions. It's just to point out that if you take restaurant advice from someone with very different tastes to yours, expect a disappointing meal. The best thing I did when researching a new purchase was to test ride bikes that I had read reviews of to learn if my preferences matched a given reviewer. If not, their review held much less weight. Reviews are amusing, but unless you can find someone with preferences exactly matching yours, nothing compares to riding the bike yourself.
Also hoping at least a little comparison of the Norco vs the Santa Cruz. (I realize they were put into different categories but they both seem similar in HA and BB height.)
PB... by choosing this model you guaranteed immediately changing the geo from stock with the control tire swap. Also... a Fox 34 is a trail fork... for a trail bike. The “trail” category is now so broad that light/heavy adjectives are almost necessary which seems a little silly. Prior the the fox38 development, it was safe to say the 34 was a trail fork and the 36 was an enduro fork. Why did we exclude the bike that most riders would actually consider buying because Intense chose NOT to spec an enduro fork on a trailbike?
This mullet version seems like a novelty that should never have been released compared to the 29er that probably rips. Intense brought this meh review on themselves, and I cant say I can really fault the media including PB. I mean who wouldnt order the ‘freak’ version to test if money was no object? The problem is that for the consumer... money is of course an object. So now, plenty of hype and meh for the “freak”... but no real world look at the underlying bike in 27 or 29. For a direct to consumer brand with no way for consumers to put their hands on... this has got to be a marketing fail.
Full disclosure... I ride a 2018 primer that I looove for its light weight, value and performance. I was hoping Intense would come correct with the update but surprisingly... nothing in the new release made me feel like trading up. I hope they sell though because I wish them all the success!! The staff have been great to deal with and it was awesome visiting with the team at Snowshoe!! Intense for life boys!
How about you spoon some 1.8" tires on the Pole and see how fast your time is on that terrain...
ALSO, if your gonna size down on the Pole, than why didn't you size up on the Intense? You had a look at all three versions of the bikes way before the feild test and it should have been obvious it had a shorter cockpit.
On the flip side, it's BS of Intense to market the bike like they have a mullet version when they've just made a home brew conversion like anyone one could. Also it's BS for intense not to publish correct geo. Also, the tame and lame geo is super disappointing.
Can't fault PB's comments on spec or seatpost angle...
two contrarotating short links: isn't that the definition of VPP?i had an M9 and the suspension was exactly like that (of course the cinematics are different..i hope), and it was exactly like the VPP from Santa Cruz. What am i missing?
www.google.com/patents/US5553881
www.google.com/patents/US5628524
www.google.com/patents/US6206397
www.google.com/patents/US6488301
Same same, but different.
Intense always tuned their suspension to be much more mild on the initial falling rate, even when they were officially licensing the VPP patent(s). When the patents expired and they could now call it JS tune or whatever they ditched the regressive, falling initial rate even more and now have a flat(ish) to rising rate, like their DH bike and the Santa Cruz v10 always had with their lower shock mount.
Patents are a mess, and many of the engineering terms used in them are borrowed from other industries (like the hated anti-rise term) and used incorrectly, even in official government patents. Patent law ultimately is guessing what a Judge will say if it ever goes to litigation, not on actually trying to define technical pathways to do things. I personally don't see any good evidence that the whole idea of patents actually do benefit science, technology, and end consumer products. They mostly are make-work programs for rich lawyers.
www.pinkbike.com/news/Court-Issues-Ruling-In-Split-Pivot-Lawsuit-2013.html
He tried suing Giant and lost again.
www.vitalmtb.com/news/news/Dave-Weagle-Drops-Patent-Lawsuit-Versus-Giant-Bicycles,782
He's never won in court.
In the Giant suite he dropped his case and Giant was pretty harsh in their announcement of it. That sorta seems like either Giant was 100% in the right and DW had no case? OR, like an out of court settlement and a solid non disclosure agreement...? But again the only facts we know is the suite was dropped. Other than we saw examples of Giants R&D department making different suspension designs so we know they were testing new things. Also Giant's primary business at the time was still making bikes for everyone else. So they would have to be very careful how they were handling other brands patents and proprietary designs while also making their own designs. So I'd think they would have been very good at the legal aspects/basis of what they were doing. (which to play devils advocate, may have included DW signing something that ended up totally screwing himself trying to sue them later??)
Obviously there are countless examples of the small guy getting screwed over by large companies. So I'm not saying it didn't happen. BUT, there are also countless examples of people using patents as a way to sue other entities who put a lot of time and effort in developing something. Not saying that's what DW did. I think EVERYONE has experienced having a good idea only to find out somebody already thought of it. So it's totally possible each party was in the right, but from DW's side he sees these companies he worked with now coming to market with something similar to what he was working on. And so from his perspective he thinks he got screwed, but that once all the information is available in court that didn't turn out to be true?
Anyway, maybe this will be like "who shot JFK" and someday the FBI will release the info to the public and we'll know...
I still see some future in this configuration, but it was done poorly in this case.
1) Plus tires are dead, for good reason. The bike should have arrived with a 2.5 Aggressor in the rear with the geo designed around that.
2) The bike should have had a proper frame built for this geo.
3) Just generally speaking, Intense bikes are still way too short in Reach.
Too bad they don't have flip chips/adjustable drop outs or a different shock linkage or planned to be able to use a different shock length, etc. to adjust the geo to make the mullet work better.
OR, if they would have started with a 77 degree seat post angle than when it got slacked out on the mullet it would still be fine .. and pushed reach out more.
Most likely they just jumped on a trend to try and grab some sales without designing a bike ready to make a mullet!
Though I got to say GT was stupid not to release a limited edition Martin Maes mullet conversion of the force when he was winning every race.
I think mullets are perfect especially for smaller riders, where a 29 rear tire has too little clearance to your butt.
I ride a canyon strive mullet with a self designed front triangle and imho it rocks:
fotos.mtb-news.de/p/2430505
Which is basically what I am hearing from the complaints about seat tube angle
If you increase the area of the slave cylinder (pistons) you increase the force output for the same pressure generated at the master cylinder (lever).
Maybe a future test comparing all 3 version6 with the same level build is in order...
It's basically a 29'er with a shitty 27.5+ rear tire and outdated geometry.
(Too short reach and too slack seat angle etc.)
Why: Because 27,5+ has the same circumference and axle height as a 29'er = Not a mullet and as such no advantage from running different sized wheels. On top of that you get shitty handling because its a + tire with added flex and more grip on the rear than on the front. Who in their right mind wants that?
Do it right or don't do it at all! Mullets are great when done properly. Don't let this half assed attempt fool you.
Bontrager, Schwalbe, and Specialized make reinforced carcasses that would have offered better traction without affecting the geometry as much as going down to a 2.4 tire. Now that mullet bikes appear to be going somewhat mainstream, it's okay to stop crapping on 2.8 tires. It's just a tire width, not a new standard.
Who's the new favourite? There's a new Yeti, and it has chainstays.......
- One will say ``I feel bad for the people buying into this joke of a mullet bikes``. @GatoGordo
- Another one will say: ``don`t they have any e-version `cos you know...?``
- Another one: now I have to carry 2 sizes of tubes instead of one in case of, also btw: how to you fix a flat?
- Some will just go back to 26``rear/front and those can`t be wrong...
Cheeers :-)
As far as the raging debates here (and I agree the term mullet is incorrect = short front, long rear) and in all the other bike topics (chainstays, really?), it is all just psychology. People want to be recognized, acknowledged, validated, whatever - just get the bike you like and ride it until you can't.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Kill Yourself.
To put it simply, you do not need more rear braking power. I mechanical disk brake with a 160mm rotor has more than enough power to lock up the rear of DH bike at speed. (barring fade).
What you want is more modulation. The ability to use the power without locking up while having enough to do so when needed/wanted, the ability to do so with lower pull force, and reduce brake fade.
To increase modulation, you can reduce the overall power by dropping piston count, or reduce the leverage advantage of a larger rotor by decreasing diameter. In this respect, it makes sense to do one of these. (either will help heat management as well)
When I switched from Hope M4's to Saint brakes, I found them so much bitier and more powerful that I struggled to not lock up the rear tire. I switched the rear to a resin pad instead of metal to reduce the amount of bite and give more modulation.
In summary, saying you want more power in the rear is probably a miss-perception.
Would be interesting to see a comparison of wheel sizes options on this bike.
OK PB, we all like a bit of foreplay, dam we need some of that shit, but I'm not known for my stamina and endurance. For the love of all that is holy, GET ON WITH IT MANm your doing my head in. I can't take this much long.
PS Am absolutely lov'in the reviews. Keep it go'in!
It’s Intense, they’re lower budget, direct sale, they can’t compete with big names.
Why did it feel less stable through a rock garden? Doh!
The review is spot on and all the mullet dreamers should be paying attention.
“Relatively efficient”
How can it be?!
Any pinch flats? Or those *almost* pinch flats where you get a slowww leak on the bead that never quite seals?
That ^ doesn’t make anyone giggle, nope.
-@mikelevy
We'll see next year if they change the Enduro bikes too....