First Look: Intense ACV 27.5+ Trail Bike

Jul 7, 2016
by Richard Cunningham  

Intense ACV Pro Build 2016

Intense launched two new models concurrently in Sedona, Arizona, where I had the chance to get a first-ride impression of each in terrain that is noted to bring out the weak spots of any trail bike. One of those was the ACV, which stands for "Air Cushioned Vehicle" - a reference to its 2.8-inch plus-sized tires and 130-millimeters of rear-wheel travel. The ACV comes off embargo today, so here's a look at the bike, along with some quotes and videos from the folks at Intense. It's a blast to ride, it exudes confidence - and if you want more detailed riding impressions, I'll be posting a full review of the ACV in a few weeks. - RC



bigquotesThe new ACV (Air Cushioned Vehicle) is a specifically designed 27.5+ bike that was created out of a necessity for adventure. A wider 2.8" tire offers ultimate traction climbing or descending any terrain, while the agile geometry and 130mm of adjustable travel deliver supreme ride quality. Fluctuating the tire pressure between 12 to 25 PSI adds another level of ride preference to the ACV.
- Intense

ACV Basics:
• Adjustable travel: 4.5" to 5" (115mm OR 130mm)
• 27.5+” wheel size
• 5.3 lbs / 2,420 grams - standard frame w/ alloy link, no shock, size medium
• Monocoque front triangle
• Integrated Boost 148 x 12 dropouts
• Internal brake and derailleur cable routing system
• Internal seat tube cable routing for dropper posts
• Angular contact/collet bearing system with replaceable grease zerks
• Flack guard downtube and chainstay protection
• H20 bottle on downtube
• Contact: Intense Cycles


Inside the Intense ACV



The ACV comes in one color scheme and two builds: The "Pro" and "Foundation." Both share the same carbon chassis and adjustable (115 or 130mm) suspension travel. The frame has a Boost 148-millimeter rear end and the chassis is designed to accept tires up to the full three-inch plus-sized width. Intense says that the ACV can also run 29-inch wheels as long as you have a Boost-compatible set laying around.


ACV Pro Build: $6500 USD

FRAME ACV 27+ monocoque UD Carbon Front and Rear Triangle, alloy Top Link, Internal Derailleur Routing, Integrated protector, w/ 148 x12 mm spacing, 115 -130 mm travel
FORK RockShox Pike RCT3, 27.5+” 15QR thru axle, 150mm travel, 110 x 15 mm
SHOCK RockShox Monarch RT3 Debonair
WHEELS DT Swiss M1600, 40 mm PLUS
HUBS 28 Hole DT Swiss 240 ; 110 x15mm front; 148x12 BOOST rear w/ XD driver, centerlock
RIMS DT Swiss M 1600 Spline Two, 27+"
SPOKES DT Competition 2.0/1.8/2.0
TIRES Maxxis Ikon, 27.5x2.8“, Kevlar Bead, EXO TR
SHIFTERS SRAM X1, 11 speed
DERAILLEUR SRAM X01, 11 speed
CRANK Race Face Next 32T
CASSETTE SRAM XG-1175 10-42, 11 speed
CHAIN SRAM X1, 11 speed
SADDLE Fabric Scoop Radius Elite
SEATPOST RockShox Reverb Stealth, 31.6mm x 420 mm, zero offset, 125 mm of travel
HANDLEBAR Renthal FatBar 20mm - 760mm
STEM Thomson Elite X4: 50mm
HEADSET Cane Creek, 40, alloy cartridge
BRAKES SRAM Guide RS, 180 mm front and 160 mm rear
GRIPS Intense Dual Density Lock-On
ACV Foundation Build: $4600 USD

FRAME ACV 27+ monocoque UD carbon front and rear triangle, alloy top link, Internal derailleur routing, integrated protector, w/ 148 x12 mm spacing, 115 -130 mm travel
FORK RockShox Pike RC, 27.5+” 15QR thru axle, 150mm travel, 110 x 15 mm
SHOCK RockShox Monarch R Debonair, 200x 51 mm
HUBS 32 Hole Intense Tuned, 148x 12 mm BOOST; 110 x15mm front; 148x12 BOOST rear ,Shimano driver, 6-Bolt
RIMS Sun Duroc 40 Rims, 27+”, Tubeless Ready
SPOKES DT Swiss Champion
TIRES Maxxis Ikon, 27.5x2.8“, Kevlar bead, EXO TR
SHIFTERS SRAM NX, 11 speed
DERAILLEUR SRAM GX 11-speed
CRANK Race Face Aeffect, 32T
CASSETTE SRAM NX 11-42, 11 speed
CHAIN SRAM NX 11 Speed
SADDLE WTB Silverado Sport
SEATPOST RockShox Reverb Stealth, 31.6mm x 420 mm, zero offset, 125 mm of travel
HANDLEBAR Intense Recon 31.8 x 18 x 760 mm
STEM Intense, 50mm
HEADSET TS Intense headset
BRAKES Shimano BL M506 180 mm front and 160 mm rear
GRIPS Intense dual density lock-on



Riding the Intense ACV



Intense ACV Geometry
Small
Medium
Large
X-Large
Seat tube length 433 mm/ 17” 458 mm/ 18” 484 mm/ 19” 509 mm/ 20”
Seat tube angle 73.8 ̊ 73.8 ̊ 73.8 ̊ 73.8 ̊
Head tube angle 66.25 ̊ 66.25 ̊ 66.25 ̊ 66.25 ̊
Stand-over height 801 mm/ 31.55” 805 mm/ 31.68” 810 mm/ 31.9” 813 mm/ 32”
Head tube length 94 mm/ 3.7” 102 mm/ 4” 114 mm/ 4.5” 119 mm/ 4.7
Top tube length 573 mm/ 22.6” 599 mm/ 23.6” 624 mm/ 24.6” 119 mm/ 4.7”
Chain stay length 438 mm/ 17.25” 438 mm/ 17.25” 438 mm/ 17.25” 438 mm/ 17.25”
Bottom bracket height 334 mm/ 13.15” 334 mm/ 13.15” 334 mm/ 13.15” 334 mm/ 13.15”
Wheelbase 1146 mm/ 45.1” 1172 mm/ 46.1" 1199 mm/ 47.2” 1225 mm/ 48.2”
Reach 394 mm/ 15.5” 416 mm/ 16.4” 438 mm/ 17.25” 463 mm/ 18.2”
Stack 620 mm/ 24.4” 628 mm / 24.7” 640 mm/ 25.2” 645 mm/ 25.4”



MENTIONS: @intensecyclesusa

Posted In:
Reviews and Tech First Looks Intense


Author Info:
RichardCunningham avatar

Member since Mar 23, 2011
974 articles
Report
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

125 Comments
  • 104 27
 cool 29er. (I refuse to acknowledge the 275+ platform.)
  • 23 3
 huh, you're right, 29 refers to the outer diameter of the inflated tire, so i guess 27.5+ is closer to being a 29er than a 27.5
  • 50 105
flag kentb276 (Jul 7, 2016 at 16:42) (Below Threshold)
 Then you obviously have no desire to take technology to new places and push the limit of what bikes can become. Close mindedness is not the answer in this day and age.
  • 10 8
 @xeren: yup
  • 32 21
 @kentb276: LOL... Why does it always have to be about pushing the limits? Not everyone gives a shit, some of us are happy riding what we've got. And where does it end? Not going to be happy until you've got your self-driving hover bike? Of course you won't, you'll be too busy looking for the next thing... And hey, if that's what makes you happy, go for it!
  • 32 11
 @kentb276: Ignore the pb trolls who think nothing could possibly be improved. If they really believed this they would be riding the first bike they ever bought.
  • 7 5
 @DirtyHal @kentb276 cmon boys im just trying to get likes and become comment famous.

But real talk, I dont really get the + idea. fat bikes in the mid west in winter in snow seem very useful. But after watching the launch video of kovarik I didnt see a single thing he couldnt have done on a normal 275 bike. I guess im just not as optimistic as to what they have to offer that other technology doesnt. It certainly cant be traction cause ive watched Chris and the coastal crew drift these things just like any other bike.
  • 13 4
 @Motoracer31: So a fat bike tire has more traction, but a +size tire doesn't? How about a cyclocross tire, does that have the same amount as a regular mtb? Should we just ride those since traction doesn't increase till 3.7"?
  • 9 3
 @Motoracer31 well I mean OK, but there are now dedicated 27.5+ bikes that are fun as f*ck to ride
  • 10 4
 Think about it like this: You could put some 24" rims and really thin tires on your 4x4 pickup truck and it would ride like crap if you tried to take it off-road. However, put some smaller rims and some big meaty tires on it and you will have something that can handle the offroad without beating you senseless. Its the same concept with mid-fat tires.
  • 11 3
 @Thustlewhumber: That's a huge stretch. There's a threshold for how meaty a tire is on a truck before you start having negative performance offroad. With 27.5" bikes we're reaching weird territory where tires are bouncy unless the rubber compound is extremely hard and unfortunately heavy. After riding one last weekend I'm personally convinced that these things don't get you down tech shit better, faster, or easier. A properly set up bike performs better, I don't anticipate this wheel/tire size will be adopted by anyone who takes racing seriously soon because despite what sales pitches are being used, this standard is not translating to better performance.
  • 2 1
 @mecabeat: I never said it had more traction.... I said it seemed more sensible in snow. I did say however the + size stuff doesn't seem to have anymore traction than a normal (2.25-2.5 for me) tire.
  • 8 1
 i like the idea 27.5, i also like the idea of + size tires/tyres, why not 26+ = true 27.5 eh?!
  • 3 1
 @xeren It's the latest market trend, why have 27.5+ when you can have 29-
  • 2 1
 @xeren: depends on the tire, but on i45 rims the Vee Rubber Trax Fatty 3.25s are exactly 29 inches in diameter. Most are slightly smaller diameter though.
  • 1 0
 26, 27.5 and 29er enduro/AM tires have evolved a lot in strength/weight ratio....now with more rubber...well....
  • 4 3
 @Motoracer31: no u say. Plus tyres have more traction than knobbiest 2,5" tyres, at least in most scenarios. The only place they get close is fast loose gravel. I rode Stache 29+ once and I was leaning like moto GP, and I still didn't wash out. On climbs those tyres just go, you don't need to modulate your power at all.
  • 3 0
 @Motoracer31: you really need to ride one
  • 2 2
 @kentb276: @kentb276: Agreed! There will always be haters that push against progression only to eventually jump on the bandwagon.
  • 2 0
 @Motoracer31: True, you can break them loose and drift them. They do so with amazing amounts of control actually. But if you don't want to drift them you can rail a flat turn like you wouldn't believe. Consider the tread. A plus tire with a 40-50mm rim on edge, lays down as much knobby as a 2.35 tire on a 24mm rim does in a straight line.

We are in drought here. The trails are like kitty litter. 27+ rails even in the loose stuff. I wouldnt have believed it myself until I tried it..
  • 1 0
 @devanish: Now that sounds like something that everyone would like!!
  • 45 5
 How fitting that it's the color of piss and shit...
  • 4 4
 Or fudge and chocolate.. Mmmm..
  • 33 8
 Plus bikes. Don't tell me they're sticking around.
  • 49 4
 They'll stick around until you get one, love it, think its the best, and then they'll move onto something better.
  • 7 2
 @PHeller: you have the market figured out my friend.
  • 1 0
 I for one did not foresee every company getting on board with plus size. Yet it seems everyday a new plus bike is released. I'd rent/demo one in a heart beat. I have zero interest in dropping money to own one. Anyone who has worked in a shop knows that the most profitable thing sold is rubber. New sizes = new revenue streams
  • 25 8
 So last weekend I finally rode a 27.5+ bike at Stevens pass. Felt like a completely nerfed biking experience. A lot of talk about how it feels planted, which may be somewhat true but this bites you in the ass when you have to exert a little more to "un-plant" it per say if you want the bike to kind of do it's thing underneath you (being "loose" is what they call it down a tech spot?). These bikes don't get "loose" as well, I need my bike to do it's thing beneath me while I focus on what's coming up ahead. I can see the appeal for novice-ish riders who want to try and smash through something they don't think they could normally smash through, but that's about it. Even then a novice rider is going to eat shit if he's riding something beyond his skill level, I don't think the tire/wheel size here mitigates that much at all. It's hard to articulate, but I didn't like it at all. I'm sure all the LBS are using that as a selling point, however. I don't mind 650b so much, but I do feel 650b "plus" takes away from a riding experience. I wasn't faster, it wasn't necessarily "easier" to get down tech spots, if anything it felt... annoying?

My sentiment isn't resisting change IMO, it's resisting weird shit. I'm sure if I had been talked into the merit of a 27.5+ bike and I ended up forking up 3-4 grand for one, I'd stop at nothing to defend it's merit. However I simply can't buy into this. Luckily, I am not forced to ride or buy one, but good god local bike shop salesmen trying to pedal these things as what consumers should buy are just a bunch of wankers. Commission is cool, selling new product is cool, but I can't imagine how ugly the sales tricks are used to get these things out the door. My concern is these things are things nobody who already rides really wants, but people who are getting into mountain biking will fork up cash for. New bike riders, they have money to blow. Around here a lot of Microsoft/Amazon/Boeing guys are getting into biking, they have tons of money to blow and I think manufacturers see these kinds of riders as the best money grabs, and they know damn well spinning "hey this is the latest thing, mountain bikings been in a dark age for years but they're finally starting to really do good R&D and here's what they came up with it's unmatched" works like a charm on these folk.

Meh. We let 27.5 rape us up the butt, and now it's here forever. I don't fight 27.5 anymore we all have to suck it up and realize that this is what manufacturers are manufacturing now, but 27.5+... this stuff can eat shit.
  • 5 2
 Well described. I would imagine a motivated novice rider will graduate from the numbed-out ("planted") ride of plus-size tires in a season if he/she rides on an similarly equipped bike with a good set of 2"+ tires suited to local terrain. What would the marketing write-up sound like if we'd had overweight, flimsy sidewall, pressure-nitpicky tires to start with, and now the industry was going with the new "skinny" standard?

Yay for more options, but if you jump on this trend and find youself sucking wind uphill, constantly checking tire pressures to find the sweet spot, and then wanting a new, precise, skillful bike like your regular-sized-tired friends, plus size does beginners a disservice. But hey, sell more bikes, right?
  • 7 3
 I own a 27.5plus trail hardtail and I like it so much that I have not ridden my enduro bike for quite a while. It also goes nice with my 29" wheels, but the plus just makes it perfect on trails. Even for an experienced rider (I have 20+ years of riding).

I am not sure though if that extra rubber makes sense for full suspension rigs.
  • 1 1
 Poi
  • 4 0
 Point taken. However, with 20 years of riding experience, you are skilled, efficient and fit enough to keep plus tires rolling uphill. Your bike probably isnt entry-level or mid level, and dragging out your pump each ride to play with tire pressures doesn't seem like a big deal.
  • 3 1
 @PinkyScar: yes, I don't care about efficiency as I get up the hills I want. But I am also not sure how much I actually lose. I think it is more the relaxed geometry which makes me slower.

My point is rather that I don't think plus is only for beginners, it is just the perfect combination with a rigid tail. On my enduro with Magic Mary tyres, I see no value-add of plus, as it does not lack traction.

(And in case you haven't ridden a modern geometry hardtail for a while of any wheel size, it's real fun)
  • 2 0
 @niib: I still haven't had a chance to try 27.5+ so I can't really talk from any experience but I would tend to agree with you that it doesn't make much sense for full suspension but it could make sense with hardtails to add a little extra cushion. It might look weird but a hardtail with a 29er wheel up front with front suspension fork and a 27.5+ tire in the back might be a good approach
  • 2 1
 Well, it is good to have options, and to each his own I guess. Rider size and riding style has a lot to do with what feels good to someone. I am not a new bike rider, 30+ years mountain biking and bmx before that (never a roadie), and I am lucky enough to be able to try lots of bikes. I think they are still finding the + sweet spot, and it seems to be settling in on about 2.8 inch tires. That's not that much wider than the 2.35" tires I was running on a high-end carbon trail bike But I never rode that bike once I went to + size, and when I did it felt sketchy, slow, and less able to hold the line I was wanting. Being able to break the tires loose is the way some people like to ride, but any time you are breaking traction you are losing speed in an inefficient way. You can still be "loose" through sketchy areas, and you might actually be going faster. A friend of mine who is a much better rider than me was unable to keep pace with me through sketchy downhill sections on his 2.35 tires.

But again, if you don't like it, you have other options. I just don't think we'd see as many + options now if there wasn't a good reason for it. As much fun as I am having, plenty of reason for me.
  • 1 0
 The companies going with 2.8s tend to be the ones who don't want to be caught short on this train, and didn't want to re-tool as much as they would have needed to for a design to clear 3.25s. Specialized fortunately, after being late to 29ers, and even further behind on 650B, are on the lead group for B+ bikes. Trek as well, and Rocky Mountain really was the first and even though they started with a 2.8 tire (because its all WTB had available) they had the good sense to design the first bike around even bigger rubber (3.25). I've got a Spec Fuse Comp and the first thing I changed was replacing the stock Spec 3.0 tires with some Vee Rubber Trax Fatty 3.25s and god was it an improvement. More rubber down, less weight and rolls sooo smoothly now. I believe Specialized designed the FSR 6Fatties to clear up to 3.5 in the frame.
  • 1 0
 "local bike shop salesmen trying to pedal these things as what consumers should buy are just a bunch of wankers" Lol, good to see the term 'wanker' has penetrated the US vocab.
  • 1 0
 Who gives a shit what other people ride. For you to be this concerned about a bike is funny to me. You're a nerd for sure....prolly couldn't ride a bike to save your life is my guess....
  • 1 0
 @bikedabutte: You run around commenting on month old shit regularly? We're all sorry you spent money on this ep1.pinkbike.org/p6pb9096484/p5pb9096484.jpg

I'll take it you can't ride for shit. Now f*ck off old man.
  • 15 3
 Had a '96 M2 Stumpy back in the day, had a really long top tube, slapped on some White Bros triple clamps and Azonic Shorty stem, ghetto 'Forward Geometry' 20 years ago. Stuck some fat Nokian (or Tioga Factory) tyres on the Rhyno Lite rims, and had a 27.5+ wheelset... Alls I'm saying is, none of this shit is new.
  • 1 0
 that'd be a 26+ , not 27.5+... and those Nokians and Tioga Factory tires were not in any way comparable to modern tires other than widths.
  • 16 5
 The amount of hate for new things on PB is ridiculous. So many top comments sound like grumpy old men complaining about the kids and how it used to be done in your day.

If you really want to live in the past that badly, lock yourself in your basement with your #26aintdead wheels and beat off to old NWD movies while you pretend like you ride anything at all like that.

Also, the amount of envy for new stuff is downright childish. The bike Industry isn't forcing anything on you by releasing a new bike. Yea, I know, I can't afford it either...and it doesn't matter! I mean seriously, is the car industry forcing anything on you when a new expenaive model comes out?

29 is a thing.
27.5 is a thing.
+ Tires is a thing.
Enduro is a thing.

These things are probably all here to stay for a while. Get used to it already. It's not even new anymore and people are bitching like the day it came out.
  • 2 1
 completely agree with you and this is coming from a guy riding a 2009 trance that still runs great (even with 26" wheels).
  • 6 0
 ..."lock yourself in your basement with your #26aintdead wheels and beat off to old NWD movies" ....you say that like it's a bad thing Wink
  • 1 0
 I agree. The industry isn't forcing anything on you, it's giving you an option. Take it or leave it. No need to be angry. All the other options are still out there for you. Except maybe 26. That shizz is dead.
  • 2 0
 Me too. I think + wheel technology can still be improved slightly with lower weight, better puncture resistance and less foldover in corners etc. As this happens the benefits could start to outweigh the cons.
  • 13 3
 Really wish the reach was longer. This still feels like short reach for the modern crop of bikes.
  • 4 2
 Agree...intense, sc, ibis, ...well known for short reach bikes. U gta size up.
  • 3 1
 @jrocksdh: True except for the Spider 275/275c. I'm hoping that the new Spider 29c has the long reach/steep seat angle geometry of the Spider 275c.
  • 3 1
 @jrocksdh: I am also agreeing ... hard to understand how some of these well known brands have such trouble getting the geometry right.
  • 13 6
 Zzzzzz zzz wake me up when the chubby tire things is laid to rest, or the marketing geniuses have the sheep with drooling over "confidence exuding" mountain hovercrafts. Put "regular folk" affordable wheels and tires on these bikes, and you've got yourself a heavy, slow bike with minimal skill required, and you can expect to suffer immensely on any given climb. I live where trails can be steep, loose, rocky, and slippery wet, but ask yourself this question honestly: is any trail you ride either a) not fun, or b) unrideable because your bike's particular tire size doesn't provide the "ultimate traction"? And if you answered yes, have you considered a tread that is better suited to your conditions, rather than a whole f*cking bike, built around fashionably fat rims, fat hub widths, frame/fork widths etc.? Maybe just take up riding the magic carpet at the amusement park.
  • 4 4
 The climb wouldn't be as much of a slog as you probably think.
  • 7 0
 27.5+ seems to be all about improved traction. Of the multitude of things holding me back from being a better rider, traction is not one of them. I've also gone decades installing narrow tires for mud. When did big fat tires that can load up with 20 lbs of wet soil become a good idea?
  • 6 0
 This is the weirdest industry in terms of marketing shtick. In no other wheeled 'sport' does the entire industry make blanket statements that wider provides better traction. Period. You want traction in thick mud? Go narrow. Always.
  • 3 0
 @WayneParsons: here in the uk 2.2 spikes is the normal from November to April, hell we even run cut spikes the rest of time 27.5+ is a big joke here
  • 14 4
 Air cushioned vehicle..load of bollocks.
  • 2 2
 www.britannica.com/technology/air-cushion-machine

Makes sense to me.
  • 10 3
 I find it amusing that Intense - Lopes and Steber - wanted nothing to do with plus size or fat bikes until they see that Santa Cruz can't keep up with demand on the plus sized Hightower.
  • 10 2
 Can we just stop for a second and appreciate the awesome Kovarik footage. MmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMMM!
  • 2 1
 Twas a good video.
  • 9 2
 For the money I'd choose a different bike from a different brand I'm thinking
  • 5 1
 We are just critical of certain changes. It's very healthy. Imagine your employer wanted to lower your wage, would you welcome it with open arms. After all its a change. Vote with your wallet and have an independent opinion. Personally I think plus size is a joke.
  • 18 11
 Kovarik on a plus bike makes me sad.
  • 16 12
 You're just jealous because Plus bikes can get rad.
  • 15 5
 Sometimes new stuff is better, sometimes just a fad.
  • 7 10
 But in this case, they aren't that bad.
  • 8 9
 So try one out, you'll be glad.
  • 9 6
 I don't understand why different tire sizes make some people so mad
  • 4 11
flag CircusMaximus (Jul 7, 2016 at 18:32) (Below Threshold)
 @PHeller: no they can't, actually. Riders with skills can. And riders with skills don't need these plus bikes.
  • 6 0
 Seems like a bike for my dad
  • 1 1
 Ya nibble and bite on this marketing mackerel bait scad, Hook in your mouth and a boot in your financial gonad.
  • 5 0
 Whew! Thank 6lb 8oz baby jesus he was on the plus bike in that video. I dont think he could have made it on a regular 27.5 bike with 2.25 to 2.4" tires! Lol
  • 5 1
 Serious question, for the type of riding in the video wouldn't regular 27 wheels be better handling wise? The Plus wheels are for adding a sort of suspension ?
  • 5 2
 I think this is a cool bike. I will be buying a new bike in the next year, and I think I would be doing myself a disservice by not seriously and objectively checking out 27+. This one will be at the top of the list.
  • 2 0
 Yes yes I spotted it haSalute
  • 2 1
 Agreed. Subjective, lighthearted test rides do a disservice to industry-leading products.The list is long, my wallet fatter than my tire size.
  • 1 1
 @PinkyScar: Good one, man!
  • 5 0
 Looks awesome! Change the colour though coz brown and yellow under my butt is never a good thing!
  • 2 0
 IDK. It seems bikes designs are getting a little stale. Besides the new colorway , the video seemed to highlight angles, degrees, and options that everybody else is doing. And since when is a chainstay protector a feature worth highlighting? Don't misunderstand me, I like the featured bike and when companies put out new products, but I feel that its getting hard to stand out when there are so many great products out now.
  • 4 2
 Why are options such a negative thing in this industry? People saying plus bikes are nothing new but others are crying out like this is something that was just released to ruin their favorite sport.

As for traction, I don't see many jeeps with small narrow tires. I Offroad quite a bit and when rock crawling you want as much surface contact as possible, wide tires, aired down. Same with sand, air the tires down and spread out the surface tension. Mud however is different, big nobs and a tall tire.

I've rode both 27.5 and a 27.5+ in Sedona and on long mountain trails and there were areas where both had their advantages. However, when I was climbing technical sections in Sedona the 27.5+ was like being able to put the bike in 4wheel drive low and just keep climbing. Climbing switchbacks on dry loose mountain trails it was the same thing, no slipping, just put the legs in 4low and go.

That said, would the 27.5+ be my go-to everyday bike? Would it be my bike for smashing a KOM? No. But I would love to have it as an option for rides with lots of technical climbing, loose trails, exploring new trails, and to change things up.
  • 1 0
 I'm curious, I haven't had the chance to ride one yet. how do 27.5+ bikes pedal compared to a 29? It just seems like the rotating mass would make them feel sluggish. I've also read in several reviews that they feel vague, is this true?
  • 2 0
 I have two wheelsets for my bike, 27.5+ and 29. I don't think the plus wheels are significantly more sluggish. It's more the low pressure that makes it feel different and there you will have to find the right pressure for your riding style and trail.
  • 6 1
 Thats a shitty color.... literally
  • 6 1
 I remember when 3.0" tires were cool here... times sure have changed
  • 4 3
 I love Intense and it'll be a long time before I surrender my 2010 Uzzi. Kovarik is a sick rider. That video and that bike, however, are both f*cking rubbish. Plusser tires are all good until the paper thin sidewalls they use to keep the weight down get slashed every other ride.
  • 2 1
 Huh. I didn't have any particular affinity for Intense before this, on account of having seen them break more than any other brand, and this bike certainly doesn't help. I'll stick to the regular old, outdated, 2013 model 26 inch wheels.
  • 1 0
 I've always been a fan of fat tyres but I think 2.4 is enough. In fact this year I built some xc race only wheels, scary light with bald 2.0 tyres. They don't have much grip but they're fast and I don't seem to be much slower on them. I've had some fun rides on them, out of control, sliding all over the place. Being on the limit is where the fun is, not trying to get heavy, draggy tyres up to speed
  • 1 0
 Another day, another 27.5+ MTB. When Gary Fisher Bicycles introduced the first mass market 29ers over ten years ago it wasn't initially obvious to everyone what advantages they offered or how long it would take to perfect them. As it happens there were real advantages, which I won't go into here, as well as the disadvantage that for around a decade 29er geometry was sub-optimal and wheel strength, in many cases, was underwhelming etc.

Now that 29ers are more or less sound a new path of development, i.e. 27.5+, is being proposed. While there is undoubtedly some substance to this 29er paralleling 27.5+ trend - increasing tyre width will likely prove a great advantage in the same way that increased wheel diameters (29in and 27.5in) did. But it would be sensible to determine where the advantage lies and avoid ten years of live testing of sub-optimal tyre profiles while bike and tyre manufacturers work out where they are heading.

I think there is no evidence that increasing the air volume of tyres will be the key to unlocking improved traction and performance from MTB tyres. Actually, that a 27.5+ wheel/tyre miraculously works as a drop in replacement for a 29in (Boost) wheel/tyre sort of gives away the game - there has been no attempt at working out optimal tyre profiles, it is just a matter of reproducing a 29er sized tyre on a 650B rim. A better approach would be to just host wider tyres on wider rims using existing rim and tyre diameters. That way the advantage of wider tyres could be assessed independently of the high air volume tyre gambit that may prove to be without any merit.
  • 7 2
 Yet again more dung.
  • 4 1
 I miss the days when boutique brands allowed you to choose from a pallet colours, the colours these day....urk
  • 1 0
 Me too. Back in my BMX days, pretty much every model for every major brand -- GT, Haro, Redline, Hutch, etc. -- came in several different colors. Why did that end? I assume it was a cost cutting measure, but a darn shame.
  • 5 1
 What's the other bike? And when does it come off embargo?
  • 2 2
 It's a 29er short travel bike(Spider 29 revamp). It's been softly confirmed for later this year by multiple insiders.
  • 6 1
 fat bikes, fat people.
  • 2 0
 Who the fawk is being into this chit!! Every other day a new company is releasing a 27.5+ model and I've only seen 2 out on the trails ever! I don't get it...
  • 3 0
 Coco the clown,chuckles and Ronald mcdonald
  • 7 2
 Poop and Pee vehicle.
  • 3 0
 If Charlie Brown was core, I'd bet this would be the first bike he'd choose. Because he's vain that way.
  • 4 1
 I was against 27.5+ till I took on out now I cant get the other bikes out , fecking brilliant
  • 2 0
 The video is like of an alternate universe where bikes were developed first and foremost for traction instead of speed.
  • 2 0
 yay another expensive bandwagon bike thats not actually good as a standard tyre bike
  • 2 0
 Marketing rules! Take your 27,5+ bikes away... For me is a 29! You want large tires? Buy a fat or a motorcycle!
  • 3 0
 Nice external bottom headset lol...
  • 1 0
 Cool - next. Any long travel proper 29er coming up Intense? Psst..........still waiting for Uzzi's in depth review by the way.
  • 1 0
 America, first way to put most of Europe of a new bike is that terrible music... We had a full dose of it, back in the eighties....
  • 4 3
 Who cares what kind of wheels it has. It's a bicycle therefore it's awesome.
  • 8 6
 Man, people seem to hate change...
  • 1 0
 And options. I don't understand. Don't like it, don't buy it, but why the out and out hostility? It's a nice bike.
  • 2 0
 Since the bottom bracket is not mentioned, shall we assume it's press fit?
  • 3 0
 It is Pressfit.
  • 2 0
 I wanted him to ride through or over that creek. I would have been sold!
  • 2 0
 Apple Cider Vinegar goes in your belly, not your bike...
  • 1 0
 Disclaimer: Only 3 tires were harmed (cut sidewalls) in the making of this video.
  • 7 6
 I've been resistant to the 27.5+ thing...
Until now...
  • 2 1
 Id be more inclined to get a bike that offers 2 diff wheel sizes moving forward.
  • 3 1
 @jrocksdh: And a different set of wheel sizes moving backward!
  • 1 0
 @jrocksdh: santa cruz tall boy and high tower, if only they were available aluminum to make them affordable
  • 2 1
 Direct competition to the Hightower, and the name is great.
  • 1 0
 The color is on point... NOT!
  • 1 0
 6500$ and NOT EVEN a rock shox rct3 SOLO AIR ??? FU INTENSE!
  • 1 1
 17" small? They mean it comes in sizes M, L, and XL right?
  • 1 2
 It is a bicycle.
  • 3 6
 The bigger the cushion, the better the pushin'
  • 2 5
 I prefer the versitality of the Ibis Mojo3.
  • 4 3
 Like having one travel setting and the inability to run 29 inch wheels?







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.063393