Intense ACV: Foundation Build - Review

Feb 1, 2017
by Richard Cunningham  

ACV is an acronym for “Air Cushion Vehicle,” and also the name of Intense’s first foray into the Plus-sized, 27.5-inch-wheel trail bike arena. The ACV was launched in February 2016, in Sedona, Arizona, where I gave it a beating on the red rock trails there before taking one home to review it on a more familiar landscape. Intense bills the ACV as “a bike that was created out of the necessity for adventure. A wider 2.8-inch tire offers ultimate traction, climbing or descending any terrain, while the agile geometry and 130mm adjustable travel deliver supreme ride quality."

Intense offers the ACV in two builds that share the same chassis, colors and graphics. The more affordable Foundation model that we review here runs $4599 USD, with the up-scaled Pro Build offered at $6499 USD. Obviously, the price difference is tucked into the component spec’ – and as we would soon discover, some of those choices can significantly affect the performance of a Plus bike.

ACV Details:
• Carbon frame and rear suspension, Boost axle spacing, dedicated to 27.5+ wheels
• Fits tires up to 3” width
• Adjustable travel: 115mm or 130mm (4.5” or 5”)
• RockShox Monarch Debonair R shock
• RockShox Pike RC fork, 150mm travel
• Adjustable, angular-contact bearings with grease fittings
• One-by transmission: SRAM GX/NX 11-42, powered by a Race Face Aeffect 32t crankset.
• Custom Wheelset: Intense Hubs, Sun Duroc 40mm inside-width aluminum rims.
• One downtube bottle mount
• Seatpost: KS LEV (RockShox Reverb Stealth)
• Sizes: Small, Medium, Large and X-large
• Weight: 30.4 pounds (13.8 kg), actual
• MSRP as tested: $4599 USD
• Contact: Intense Cycles

intense ACV 2017
The ACV's rear suspension is intended to provide ample mud clearance for Plus tires up to three inches wide.


Like most mountain bikes that come from the iconic brand, the ACV is both beautiful and functional. The carbon chassis blends angular frame members with rounded transitions that give it a modern profile. Its two-tone graphics work well with the frame design, and the package is finished with internal control lines and a molded chainstay protector.

intense ACV 2017
Cable and hose exits on the underside of the bottom bracket are exposed to rock strikes, but suffered no damage during the review.
intense ACV 2017
The lower headset cup is taller than most, presumably, to tune the stack height of the fork to suit the ACV's geometry.

On the functional side, the rear suspension and fork are widened to the Boost axle standard – and the elimination of any vestige for a front derailleur makes additional room for tires up to three inches wide and a compact, 17.25-inch chainstay length. The missing front derailleur also allowed Intense to balance the loads through the swingarm by adding a second vertical strut on the highly-stressed drive-side. (Most dual-link rear suspension designs make do with a single asymmetric strut on the left side of the swingarm.) The main suspension pivots use an adjustable collet system, which allows owners to tune out any play that may develop as the sealed ball bearings wear in and, like its predecessors, the ACV’s lower link has a grease fitting so it can be serviced externally.

As for the suspension itself, the Foundation ACV relies upon a RockShox Pike RC fork, paired with a Monarch Debonair R shock. The chassis can be switched from 115 to 130-millimeters of rear-wheel travel, via two shock-eye positions on its aluminum rocker link, while the fork stroke is pegged at 150 millimeters – a disparity that current designers use to enhance the big-hit capability of bikes with reduced rear travel. Those familiar with the once-patented Virtual Pivot Point configuration that Intense shared with Santa Cruz will recognize the similarities, including the reverse-action dual-link configuration, but it is now called “JS-Tuned Suspension” – a reminder that Intense has cut its ties and is now crafting its own kinematics.

intense ACV 2017
The ACV foregoes a front derailleur to make room for a vertical strut on the more highly stressed side of the carbon swingarm.

No exact figures were given, but the ACV feels softer off the beginning than Intense’s previous VPP trail bikes, a little firmer in the mid-stroke, and with enough ramp-up towards the end to huck to flat if necessary. In stock form, the rear suspension sag seemed to remain close to 30 percent as spring pressure was increased, with most of the added stiffness arriving in the second half of the shock’s stroke. (Air volume spacers could modify that, although I did not use any for this review.)

Component Highlights

Low-pressure Plus-width tires must be paired with rims that are wide enough to stabilize their sidewalls during hard cornering and high-G maneuvers. The dust is still settling on Plus design, but most agree that 40-millimeter rims are optimal for tires ranging between 2.8 and three inches wide. Intense chose aluminum Sun Ringle Duroc 40 rims, which proved to be just right in the width department and are probably durable enough for downhill use.

intense ACV 2017
Duroc rims are on the heavy side, but they tick all the boxes for Plus-width tires.
Intense ACV 2016
The Aeffect crankset offers quick-change gearing without having to mess with the bottom bracket assembly.

The extra traction generated by Plus-width tires provides the opportunity to claw your way up impressively steep and technical climbs, so lower gearing is also a consideration. Intense specs the ACV with a 32-tooth chainring, powering an 11-42 tooth 11-speed cassette, which is low enough to make short work of punchy climbs. Once you realize what can be scaled aboard a Plus bike, however, you may want a lower gearing option to pit yourself against ascents that you once shrugged off as impossible. The Race Face Aeffect crankset's right-side release and direct-mount chainring facilitate quick gearing changes.

Release Date 2016
Price $4599
Travel 115mm or 130mm
Rear Shock RockShox Monarch Debonair R
Fork RockShox Pike RC, 150mm
Headset Intense brand
Cassette SRAM NX 11-42, 11 speed
Crankarms Race Face Aeffect 32t
Chainguide ISCG 05 mounts
Bottom Bracket SRAM press fit 92mm
Pedals NA
Rear Derailleur SRAM GX1
Chain SRAM 11-speed
Front Derailleur no provision
Shifter Pods SRAM GX1
Handlebar 760mm Intense, aluminum
Stem 50mm Intense brand
Grips Intense Lock-on
Brakes Shimano M506 180mm F, 160mm R rotors
Wheelset Intense custom
Hubs 32-hole Intense Tuned, 148x 12 mm BOOST; 110 x15mm Front Hub; 148x12 BOOST Rear Hub Shimano Driver, 6-Bolt
Spokes DT Swiss Champion
Rim Sun Ringle Duroc 40 aluminum
Tires Maxxis Ikon F, Rekon R, 27.5x2.8“, Kevlar Bead, EXO TR
Seat WTB Silverado Sport
Seatpost RockShox Reverb Stealth 125mm
intense ACV geometry

bigquotesPoint the ACV where you want to go and trust that the tires will find the grip you'll need.

Sedona showcased the ACV's best qualities. Its geometry was a good balance - precise enough to negotiate tight switchbacks and iffy ledges, and slack enough to drop into near vertical chutes with confidence. The standard-issue Maxxis Ikon and Rekon tires stuck to the red-rock like Gecko toes. I was able to run pressures as low as 14 psi up front and 18 psi in the rear, so the Intense floated over sand washes and gravelly climbs, and it leveled much of the momentum-robbing chatter that is the only downside of riding in Arizona's mountain bike paradise. Pinkbike does a fair amount of product testing there, so I'm familiar with Sedona's trails. A couple of days were enough to convince me that Plus bikes were a perfect match for the Southwest's desert landscapes.

I rode the Pro build in Sedona, which was lighter weight (by almost two pounds) than the Foundation ACV that I took home to review. Realistically, that's the equivalent of a full water bottle, so I did not anticipate a significant reduction in its performance. At home in Southern California, the dirt is harder and, compared to Sedona's sandstone, the granite boulders afford less grip. The ACV adapted quickly to its new surroundings, but it wasn't killing it like I had experienced in Arizona.

intense ACV 2017

bigquotesI experimented with the shock's low-speed compression lever and found that the middle setting was an energy saver anytime I was pedaling in earnest.

To be fair, the ACV was still a blast to ride. I was acing technical climbs that I had struggled with for years, and on group rides, anytime there was a long patch of sand or loose gravel, it seemed like I was coasting along while the others were wiggling around, searching for firmer soil. Steady climbing, however, especially on hard-packed soil, felt more arduous than it did on my conventionally shod trail bike. And, there was a slight lag in acceleration with each pedal stroke when I was slogging out of a G-out or muscling up a steep, punchy climb at low speed.

Initially, I blamed the ACV's rear suspension, which seemed more active under power than I thought it should be. Turns out, though, that the wheels that Intense specs on the Foundation build are pig heavy (assisted by SRAM's 538-gram PG 1130 cassette. At 6.7 pounds (3.04kg), the total weight of the rear wheel handily exceeds that of the ACV's chassis - which explains away much of the crappy acceleration. I also discovered that, on my home turf, the Maxxis tires were an "either-or" deal. If I ran the pressure a few pounds higher than optimal, the rolling resistance was noticeably reduced on hardpack, but that improvement came at the expense of cornering and technical climbing grip. I switched to lighter wheels and grippier tires and - voila! - my ACV recaptured its soul. I usually climb technical pitches with the suspension wide open, but I experimented with the shock's low-speed compression lever and found that the middle setting was an energy saver anytime I was pedaling in earnest.

intense ACV 2017

bigquotesIt is a perfect platform from which to explore "I wonder where that goes?" trail spurs, or long-abandoned mining tracks.

Air Cushion Vehicle

Once I got the ACV dialed in, my riding took a different turn. If I wanted to shred fast downhill tracks with my friends, I'd choose my enduro machine. When I was out by myself, or if the route was less than certain, I'd reach for the ACV. My long-travel enduro bike requires a specific level of difficulty and gradient to fully enjoy, where the ACV is happy to roll anywhere there is dirt - up or down, vertical or flat. With its relatively slack, 66.5-degree head angle, ample front-center, and other-worldly traction, it is a perfect platform from which to explore "I wonder where that goes?" trail spurs, or long-abandoned mining tracks. The penalty for a bad decision is minimized when you run out of trail, because you know you can scratch your way back up, ride comfortably out of a creek bed to the next road, or bang your way down slope of sandbag-sized rocks with a measure of confidence. It's a trail bike in the true sense of the term.

On the subject of technical performance, Intense did their homework. The house-brand aluminum handlebar is wide enough to provide more than enough leverage and control for all but the most width-challenged riders. The steering action is on the lighter side of stable, but I'd rather have lighter feel at the grips than be wrestling with an oversized, low-pressure tire.

The 2.8-inch tires mask a lot of what the suspension is doing by making a more seamless transition from the beginning to the mid-stroke of the wheel travel There's a hidden advantage there, because it simplifies setting up the suspension to getting the correct sag and low-speed rebound - two things almost every rider has mastered.

Though not optimal, the standard Maxxis tires grip well in most conditions and when they do let loose, the contact patch continues to find traction - so even an intermediate rider can drift like a boss. On that note, braking is exceptional for the same reasons, but the rear end will happily skid when called to action - and it doesn't take much to erase the diminutive knobs of your average Plus tire.
intense ACV 2017

bigquotesThe steering action is on the lighter side of stable, but I'd rather have lighter feel at the grips than be wrestling with an oversized, low-pressure tire.

A year aboard the ACV was a learning experience. During that interval, I had the opportunity to ride a handful of 27.5-inch Plus bikes, and I used the ACV to evaluate wheels, tires (Maxxis HRII Plus tires are worth a look) and related accessories to get a handle on the genre, and where it may be evolving towards. What I learned so far is that the ACV is one of the better handling Plus bikes out there - and it was quite reliable. The upside of those sturdy wheels was that I neither dinged a rim nor found a reason to turn a spoke nipple. The linkage pivot bearings became loose on two occasions, but they are easily adjusted. I'd call that a win.

The larger lesson, though, was (and this is true with all Plus designs) that getting the right combination of wheel and tire is perhaps more important than acing the bike's geometry and suspension. The ACV underscores this fact. The Pro build absolutely rocked, while basically the same machine, with a downgraded wheelset, suffered a surprising drop in performance. I'm a believer in 40-millimeter width rims for Plus tires - especially when paired with 2.8 inch rubber. The wider stance controls sidewall flex, even with lightweight tires, and the bike feels firm and very predictable through the turns. Large and lightweight is the Grail of Plus.

The magic of stabilizing a relatively lightweight, supple tire with a wide rim is that its broad contact patch and smaller tread blocks can conform to the nuances of the trail surface to create cornering grip, where a conventional enduro/all-mountain tire is constructed with pointed edging blocks, backed by a stiff casing designed to impact or penetrate the surface to provide grip. You don't need to shove the ACV into the dirt or bash features to change direction. Instead, you point the ACV where you want to go and trust that the tires will find the grip you'll need for turning or braking. It's a far smoother and less dramatic trail-riding experience, which tends to build confidence, and that encourages riders to experiment with more challenging lines.

Pinkbike's Take:
bigquotesIf you were to make a chart that spanned the realm of riding experience and technical difficulty - with single-purpose cross-country racing bikes at one end, and single-purpose downhill racing machines at the other, Plus bikes, like Intense's ACV, are more capable trail bikes and conceivably could replace most models that currently exist between dedicated XC and enduro designs.

Those who live to slash and dash at Mach speeds as if every trail were an enduro stage, would be pushing the ACV beyond its comfort zone. Most mountain bike riders, however, (including some of the world's best bike handlers) ride at speeds that are within the Plus bike's performance envelope. The ACV can descend anything that an enduro racing machine can, and it can climb technical terrain with surety that no cross country race bike could hope to match. For Intense, the ACV Pro build is a win. The Foundation has the handling, the chassis, the suspension, and most of the key components, but it needs to go on a diet before it will be able to play on the same stage.
- RC

Visit the high-res gallery for more images from this review.


  • 123 18
 I spent 3 days in Sedona on the ACV pro. Day 1 the thing felt like a complete pogo stick and got bounced around in any sort of technical terrain. Day 2 I dumped about 4 psi out of the tires and it felt like a complete slug that couldnt corner worth a shit. Day 3 I added a couple PSI back into the tires and proceeded to tear a 2 inch gash in the sidewall just on the begnning of the Highline descent. I will say it climbs techy stuff like a goddamn billy goat, but it was hands down terrible on any sort of fun descent. Day 4 I rode a tracer and had more fun that all 3 of those days combined. no thanks on plus sized
  • 7 29
flag JMBMTB (Feb 1, 2017 at 1:27) (Below Threshold)
 plus sized can work just needs to be on a bike with less travel
  • 5 0
 I recently bought a plus size hard tail, it's good but tire pressure is critical. For me it's early days but I've quickly concluded that for me anyway I'm happy it's not my only bike. My Genesis Tarn 20 comes with WTB Rangers which are hopeless in UK winter conditions so I'm swapping to Maxxis high rollers, they're expensive but I think they'll totally improve the ride.
  • 6 2
 I found quite the opposite. I was even able to ride posse ground parks jump lines with ease.
  • 3 5
 I'm excited to try a 27+. I doubt it would every be my dedicated bike, while I'm still young enough to hit jumps and the park, but I could see this being great in winter slop, or places like Montana with gravel over hard.
  • 6 1
 That;s a bummer, I have no idea how you had those kinds of results on plus wheels especially in sedona. I've spent the last 6 months of switching back and forth from 29er carbon wheels to 40mm internal plus aluminum wheelset and my experiences line up with RC's review. I run 14psi and 16psi rear for most rides and up it a bit in sedona.
  • 9 0
 Arizona is nasty with tires, and I don't think there are many durable plus sized on the market to handle the terrain. I've also heard the rear tires bounces when at higher speeds. I ride a Tracer, and it is fun in Sedona.
  • 9 0
 @jdendy: WTB's Ranger Plus tires with the heavy casings are bomb proof.
  • 2 1
 @jdendy: surly dirt wizard 3.0s. Best plus tire out. Carcass is legit.
  • 1 9
flag Jackson900 (Feb 1, 2017 at 9:18) (Below Threshold)
 @JMBMTB: You my friend are as Mr. Trump would say, "Wrooong"
  • 4 0
 @Jackson900: well to be honest it's all personal opinion at the end of the day i guess most people just disagree with mine haha which is fair enough, i was just going from my experiance, have tried 4 plus bikes and my favourite by far was the santa cruz tallboy which is only 130mm front and 110mm back and my least favourite was the scott genius LT plus which is 160 front and back i believe and the two inbetween were the hightower which is obviously gonna be pretty similar to this which i thought was okay but would have rather had normal size tyres but yeah probably should really have tried a few more before saying that ha
  • 1 0
 @JMBMTB: thats why my cannondale jekyll has 160mm and 2.8 minions and its more fun to ride than cannondales
Bad habit? I think geometry is more important which is why thats true
  • 6 2
 @jdendy: I haven't seen a fat bike yet that has rebound settings on the tires. Everyone I have ever ridden is always out-of-control high bounce ball at blistering speeds. They definitely have their purpose if you are a slug snail Rider. If you like to go fast stay away from the fat ones.
  • 2 1
 you just compared a station wagon to a crossover....
  • 2 0
 @chrisn5: To be fair the trails in my local forest when wet are so slippery nothing grips and riding just damages the tracks.
However on man made trails with a hard surface the 2.8 Rangers stick in corners like shit to a blanket !
The steel framed Genesis tarn is an absolute blast to ride and I do think plus size is the way to go for trail bikes.
The bigger tyres totally negate the need for shorter travel full suspension and hardtails are good for winter, it's a good combination when you've got the right tyre for your local conditions.
  • 5 2
 I agree that many plus tires make it a pain to find the sweet spot for tire pressure, and the initial round of plus tire sidewalls were like paper. However, the current crop of High Rollers, DHF/DHR, and Dirt Wizard options are durable even when compared to their non-plus sized competitors. The real question I'd like to see asked with plus tires is what is the best volume for different ranges of rider weight. I weigh around 200 lbs (90 kg) and a 27.5x3" tire stops bouncing at 13 psi in the front and 15 in the rear, but the wheel is vulnerable to rim strikes at those low pressures. I need to run a 2.8" casing tire to get the pressures high enough to keep from hitting the rim on a regular basis. My wife weighs much less, and Maxxis Rekon tires with casings that measure 2.7" (listed as 2.8's) needs to run 9 psi in the front to keep from getting bounced around. Stiffer sidewalls are simply not an option for her at those volumes, and at that low pressure she'll smash her rim to pieces in the first few minutes of a ride. A 2.5" casing is the largest she can ride based on the low pressures needed for her weight. At some point maybe the conversation will change to riders to picking tire volumes based on their weights. Most of us have specific pressure we like to run (around 17 psi for me), and we'll pick a tire size that behaves progressively enough at that pressure to keep from smashing rims or bouncing us around like superball.
  • 1 0
 @jdendy: if there is a HELL for tires it would be in the desert. I can't think of any environment that is worse on the tires. The older I get the less I care for a desert Shred
  • 2 0
 @properp: rebound settings on tires lol. Yeah That's why I've stayed away from plus and fat bikes. When I moved from CA to AZ and started ripping tires, I was like umm this is going to be an expensive sport out here.
  • 3 1
 @regdunlop38 just because you don't know how to dial in a bike doesn't mean it cant be done. PSI is crucial on these + sizes and tire choice is equally important. Did you even adjust suspension settings or just make a total change of 4psi in 3 whole days and base your opinion on that?
  • 1 0
 @xechcorx: I've been running these tyres for a good 6 months. Love them to bits but I have managed to slice the sidewall in the French alps. Still holds up fine with a tube but I'd say that currently surly dirt wizards have the thickest and strongest plus tyre side wall
  • 2 0
 @turbojet-megafred: I do belive that every ride shreds somewhere. On the right psi, tire, and rider. I just never need more than 2.5 to do it.
  • 2 1
 Tracer owner here. I love my bike!
  • 41 3
 Been awhile since we've been fortunate enough to read a full RC bike review!
  • 10 1
 Well, now we know why.
  • 33 2
 I wonder if you could fit both this bike and a rake into that red VW
  • 4 0
 @Bluefire: I don't, did I miss something?
  • 8 0
 @bhd13: He was testing the ACV for the past 12 months. Smile
  • 18 2
 ACV in french Is an acronym for "accident cardio vasculaire" which Is a Blood clog to the brain that can be very dangerous obviously
  • 3 0
 @freerabbit: aneurysm as it's more commonly known. that was my first thought too. Kinda like naming any car ST for the Quebec market!
  • 1 0
 @slyfink: ST?
  • 2 0
 @freerabbit: I was about to say the same! Smile
  • 3 0
 @freerabbit: accident cerebro-vasculaire?
  • 6 1
 @freerabbit: An "intense" ACV is even worse!!
  • 2 0
 @fred0: ST pronounced in english = estie en français
  • 2 0
 @slyfink: Ha ben tabarnack!
  • 1 0
 Yes he can write a very detailed and informative article! Well done!
  • 1 0
 @maxlombardy: i stand corrected ;-)
  • 1 0
 @freerabbit: actually I think both are accepted terms
  • 27 0
 I've got calf envy!?
  • 10 0
 At what age does one suddenly acquire calves like that. I swear it's an overnight thing.
  • 1 0
 haha I thought "Someday, my calves will look like that!".
  • 8 1
 RC does not skip leg day.
  • 9 0
 @Protato: Try riding a 27.5+ bike for a year like RC did. Wink
  • 25 2
 rode one these things, pedals good up....rides like complete shit on the downhill.
  • 16 0
 Playing devils advocate here, serious question, and maybe re-hashing old stuff, but...

All the benefits of those plus tires - better traction, stable, good climbers... Isn't that what 29" brought to the table? Only the larger hoops roll better, don't feel as sluggish, don't tear as easily, and are not as sensitive to precise tire pressure.

Seriously asking a question... What will a rider get out of a 275x2.8 over a 29x2.5 ?

I'm not anti-plus, but just didn't feel all the "pluses" when I took a ride on one. Did I miss something?

Oh, and BTW, alway good to hear from a seasoned rider like RC.
  • 3 2
 In comparing a 27.5x2.8 NN to a 29x2.5 DHF, there are some reasonable weight savings. Roughly 150g per tire and probably 40g per rim. So, 27.5 gives you a stronger wheel and less rotational weight.

Alternatively, a 27.5x2.8NN is within 5 grams of a 29x2.6NN. For similar tire weight, you get more volume with the smaller wheel size.

All this number crunching suggests the 27.5+ is better for climbing and for loose conditions. That reflects my brief experience renting a 27.5+ Hightower in Moab. That bike ate everything I could I could throw at it. Steep climbs, sandy corners, and chunky straight-line descents.

Right now I am experimenting with a 29x2.6NN on the front of a stumpy FSR. It's been awesome for current mid-Atlantic conditions -- lots of wet leaves over roots and gravel. However, the 2.6 tire raises the front end a noticeable amount. The front feels a bit vague on twisty trails. Still experimenting with pressures and contemplating flat bars..
  • 8 0
 I remember the talk of 29ers being the shizzle when they first became popular - "OMG! So much traction! Like having an extra inch or two of suspension!". Rode a few, and determined that they rolled over stuff a bit easier, but otherwise were like sluggish 71/73 XC bikes of the 90s. I happily returned to 6" travel 26ers and didn't ride another wagon wheel for years...

FFWD to last year, and a warm winter that had some of my favourite trails thawing out in February. I had the rigid fat bike out and was surprised at how well it handled dry dirt. 68-degree HA and big floopy tires on 90mm wide rims. Hmmm. Demo'd a few plus bikes and one 29er this past summer, and determined the following:
- Narrow rims are death for wide tires. A Specialized 6Fattie [seriously, who made up that name?] I rode had rims at least 15mm too narrow for the tires. Cornering was vague, as in "I appear to be still on the bike, but everything else is indeterminate. Are those trees? Who am I?"
- As RC said, tire pressure was key. I never did find the sweet spot. Most of the time, it was like riding a Red Utility Ball. BOOIIIINGGGG off every root, rock, blade of grass and firm air pocket. Reduce tire pressure to combat the bounce, and they folded over the aforementioned narrow-ass rims like wet newspaper.
- Straight-line traction was significantly improved on the 27+ compared to 26/27x2.4, up and down. 29er is almost as good. Fatbike is still better than any of them.
- 27+ vs. 29er rolling speed is about the same, as is the "nimbleness" of the bikes in turns, but I'd give the edge to 29.
- 27+ will, in most cases, have more traction than 29er, all other things being equal. There's just more tire touching the ground. The + tires hook up in corners, but there's less feedback to the rider.
- Tire selection is key. If you like to roll a DHF/DHR on a 29er, you should go with a similar tire on 27+ to get the most out of the + experience. Trying to get away with low-profile 27+ tread when your terrain calls for big side knobs will be a compromise.

TL;DR: rim and tire selection is key, as is tire pressure if you want to get the most out of 27+. I found rollover and rolling speed to be about the same between 27+ and 29er, but YMMV.
  • 5 1
 @mikerJ: I have been riding a '17 Fuel EX 9.8 since the end of the summer. I have the stock (2.8" Bontrager/Sun Duroc 40) + wheels and I have 29" wheels (Carbon 25mm internal/2.35" Hans Dampf). The bike is boost.

The Plus wheels exceed the 29" in traction, both climbing and descending. The traction for climbing in insane. I have no idea how people claim that plus doesn't offer any advantage for descending. They open up a new realm of traction and smooth chatter considerably. This means you can air into landings, onto crummy root/rocky sections, or ride gnarly chutes that you probably wouldn't with regular tires. Rather than make trails easier as I've heard some people say, in my opinion they allow for new more challenging lines.

The 29" wheels accelerate better, pick up and carry speed better, have less rolling resistance, and slightly better rollover.

For my bike and the kind of riding I do I prefer the 29" wheels, but the Plus wheels are surprisingly fun, more so than I thought they would be.
  • 3 0
 "Isn't that what 29" brought to the table?"

The benefits ascribed to 29 and 27+ sound similar but they are accomplished in different ways - sort of.
Rollover: the larger the diameter the better it is. 29" being the tallest has the best rollover, but 27+ is larger than 26 or 27.5 so there's still improvement.

Traction: In terms of contact patch 29" tires do have a greater contact patch than 26 or 27.5 so you'd notice the improved traction, but 27+ has a MUCH greater contact patch so it's going to be the clear winner if you really wanted/needed ultimate grip (of course that is, unless you go full fat).

Sluggish: Traction and friction are opposite sides of the same coin. You may want gobs of traction in some loose spots but on fast hardpack it’s just going to slow you down. There's a complex mix here of MEASURED tire width, we all now the advertised size isn't always the measured size (that's what she said), tread pattern, rim width, and tire pressure. Small changes in this mix (especially in tire pressure) have a HUGE impact on plus tires and the ride quality. Getting this "wrong" for the trails you are riding and the way you like to ride can make an amazing bike ride like poo. The margin for error seems to be much narrower on plus bikes than it does on non-plus bikes.

Personally, I feel like it comes down to personal preference and current conditions. I've mostly been on 27+ tires for the last year and spent significant time on a Hightower and Mojo 3 as well as a few rides on a Switchblade. I've also logged a couple thousand miles on 2 different hardtail 27+ bikes. All three of the full sus plus bikes rode different. I tend to agree with RC's conclusions - in general there is a massive range in what a plus bike can do, but it's not always the best tool for the job. I wouldn't use it for riding the bike park or for trying to race an enduro line, but I'd pick it every time for all day exploring and playing. However there are some locations where the advantages of plus are less noticeable. Specifically riding in Santa Cruz it wasn't as pronounced. Also there are times when some tire combos seemed more sluggish for the conditions (Nobby Nic was hella slow in wet squish loam), and others where the same tires would beat any skinny 29" tire (dry and loose on the exact same trail).

It took a lot of experimentation and playing around in different conditions, different locations, and with different set-ups but I've learned a lot about what does and does not work with these. They're not perfect, and they're not always the best - there will always be compromise.

Oh and I think the sidewall tear thing is BS. You can get the exact same sidewall protection in any tire size or forego that sidewall protection. Plus tires have a bit more sidewall surface but I've gotten well over 1000 miles out of set of Schwalbes bashing into a lot of lava rock with no tears. I think some people are more prone to tears. And obviously cheaper tires and those without sidewall protection are more prone to tearing.
  • 2 0
 I've ridden a 27.5+, 29+ and a fat bike for a day or 2. I don't own any of those, but have a shop full of friends that let me borrow them cuz,"They are so much fun". Here's my take on it. The Plus and fat bikes are "fun" to a point. I could climb a wall if I had the right gearing. They would take you thru about any corner, where ever you wanted and soaked up some pretty big roots and rocks. But if you messed up the start of a climb and started out slow, you worked for it. I could feel the weight, but was not on carbon wheels, which I can't afford, so that's real world stuff. At high speeds, I felt uncomfortable. It was like they wanted to just go straight after a certain speed. And I did have 2 flats on those bikes. They were fun bikes to just ride I guess.

My daily rides are 29er's (and a 26er, but that's just for fun) and I run 28mm inner E*thirteens rims, tubeless, with a 2.5 DHF front and HR II 2.3, DHR II 2.4 or Ardent 2.25 rears (all EXO casings), depending on the weather. I have played with the pressure, in the low 20's on a few occasions by accident, but run around 30psi most of the time. But mostly, "Does it have air? Good" and I go ride. I check it every other week maybe.. I have yet to flat in a year and have over 150 rides. I didn't even change the sealant. That's in a few weeks, btw. As far as traction for the 29er goes, it's really good. Far better than anything I've ridden the last 25 years, not plus traction, but have little issue if I have the right tire. I can also roll over a lot of stuff. They carry speed and accelerate fine. And it corners really good. Changes direction better too. I felt more at home going 30mph on the 29er then I did going 29mph on the plus. I couldn't get any more speed out of the plus bikes for some reason.

For hard charging, I'm happy with my 29ers. The trade offs, I felt, missed where I get my excitement from, going fast downhill. I think plus bikes are more fun for newbies or someone wants a bike to just go ride. I wasn't like,"I need one of these" but also didn't hate them. Just isn't my cup of tea. Although, a 29/27.5+ bike might peak my interest, to trade off wheels for different days.
  • 17 3
 Sweet looking Hight-- oh wait, it's actually the Hightower's overpriced cousin.
  • 14 4
 And it's beige...
  • 19 0
 @WAKIdesigns: It's actually called Excruciatingly Neutral.
  • 9 1
 @MTBrent: hahahaha Big Grin I look at it, I feel like I am staring into The Void
  • 5 1
 Hah, and it's one of Intense's more reasonably spec'd bikes for the price. Don't even look at the Recluse price-to-value ratio. It'll just make you mad.
  • 3 1
 That colour scheme is about as sexy as brown corduroy bell-bottoms. (for those of you who think those are sexy, well they ain't)
  • 5 3
 @hangdogr: Hah, price is one thing, I saw Recluse in person (or so I think judging by paintjob on the site) and I can't look at it even without knowing the price tag. I have no clue when and how did Intense went wrong. Even the fist carbon bikes were rather nice. Those aluminium bikes were incredible, absolutely incredible, especially red an raw colors. I was salivating like a stoned dog. They used to be the Ferrari of the bike world.
  • 1 1
 They look to be the same price?
  • 1 0
 @creativefletch: They are similarly priced, but the Santa Cruz has a better spec at the same level.
  • 1 2
 @seraph: And with thoughtful design elements like the flip chip so you can run 29" or 27.5+ (not that I personally would do either).
  • 4 0
 @WAKIdesigns: The great thing about Ferrari is that they're limited production, and (at least used to) represent something that you couldn't get at any other price point. Intense has lost their way as they don't represent anything that you can't get everywhere else (except for maybe the uhh.. **unique** paint jobs), yet they price themselves as the boutique brand they wish they still were.
  • 1 0
 @hangdogr: nailed it.
  • 1 0
 @rrolly: Agree...blah
  • 1 1
 @WAKIdesigns: At least the Intense has better cable routing than Santa cruz.
  • 3 0
 @Stefmeister: Seriously? Routing it directly under the bb is better? SC isn't the best, but I vote it's better than this.
  • 11 2
 Intense never answers their phone for support. intense never responds to any emails. Once in a very blue moon when i do get a hold of someone over at intense for support they are always in a rush to get off the phone. Therefore, i don't go with intense bikes but choose another brand.
  • 9 0
 So it's a mediocre bike at everything? I don't really get this whole plus thing except as a marketing exercise... even if these things are great for beginner / intermediate riders, why would you not want to learn skills properly on a regular trail bike?
  • 5 0
 Dentist/no time
  • 10 0
 I switched to lighter, grippier tires and — cello! — who's your daddy?
  • 14 0
 My society for ochestral-instrument-themed-puns-derived-from-bike-review-typos (we are a small group) really appreciated your joke. Feel free to attend our AGM.
  • 7 1
 First, I don't ride or am affiliated with Intense in any way, but felt like I'd give my honest impression on this bike since I had the chance to ride it a few weeks ago.

Anyway, I rented and rode the pro build in sedona, but it had a 2.8 DHF up front and a 2.8 Recon out back around 17 psi and the dang thing was a blast on the trail. Not something I'd race in any category, but was fun to ride through rough and steeper lines at higher speeds there on highline and high on the hog trails. Climbed pretty well to with gobs of traction. At 5'7" the medium fit perfectly. The 66.2 HTA AND L/M shock tune was really good for what the bike was designed for IMHO.

The two things I'd change for the better would be to adjust the lower chain stay or add additional guard material to keep the chain from chewing into the carbon close to the chainring & 2nd, use thicker spokes or something with the M1600 40mm wheelset it had. Maybe the spoke tension was off, but they were playing like a guitar string on rougher sections of the trails.

That said, I'm not rushing out to get one myself, but after testing previous intense trail bikes & 3 other FS 27+ bikes, I think they nailed it on their first 27+, minus the hefty price tag. But I guess that's the industry norm now for "Pro" model anything.
  • 1 0
 How'd it handle the steep technical section on Hiline?
  • 1 0
 How'd it handle the steep, technical *descent on Hiline?
  • 5 0
 My takeaway- How many riders who are "in development" of their skills/confidence are going to 1. Pay $6500 for a bike that has appropriately light wheels compared to a $4600 version and, 2. Check and fiddle with tire pressure every time they want to ride in order to optimize the "cushion" from the big tires?
  • 5 1
 Man I love the look of these bikes but I have to say these bikes also give a sour taste in my mouth.
We have a few customers who are intense bikes from the last 3 years and all deal with issues of the swing link bolts that thread into the frame coming loose during rides... Some it happens over a long period of time and on the one Spyder its just about every ride.

We have tried just about everything to keep the bolts in place but one way or the other they find a way to start getting loose.

Anybody else run into this issue?
  • 5 0
 intense has a fix for this. the linkage bolts now have a smaller thread pitch in order to prevent them from coming loose.
  • 2 0
 @barbaricht: Thank you!

I will have to contact Intense and have em ship up some new hardware. We are not the Intense Dealer in town so Getting info about stuff like this is a little tricky.

Appreciate your help!
  • 1 0
 you are welcome!
  • 7 0
  • 2 0
 nice review Rich.... articulate and cogent , as always.... my latest tire pick...conti 2.4 mt kings on 30mm are the sweet spot for me.... i guess as +sizing, boost axles , become more prevalent they will be category killers... most people are still gonna cycle (pun here) through their quiver and consider plus as a 2nd or 3rd bike... keep on it!
  • 7 1
 Looks like a turd.
$4500 for that build? Intense can go suck a fat one.
  • 2 0
 Thank you pinkbike for reviewing the foundation build. But summary of the components like in other bike reviews would be helpful in addition to the comments to wheels and tires. Overall, great review by RC as always. Makes you really understand the strength and weaknesses of the bike.
  • 3 1
 Oh wow! Now the GURUS finally realize that 2.8 tires + a porky wide wheels make a dog on the uphill!!!! Congratulations! Amazing it took a year to figure that out!!!!!

Get ready for when they will announce the revolution: 2.3 tires + 25 wide wheels and 132.75 travel!
  • 3 1
 You know what they say about Minibikes, Fatbikes and Plus bikes, fun to ride but don't let your friends see you.
5k for that are you cracked, does it come with a digital tire gauge so you can get the tire pressure "just right" so you don't F your rims or go pogo down the hill.
PS the MEC is now selling Intense so it must be---------------------------Hip
  • 2 0
 Plus Bikes are here to stay- that was the unisono tenor of almost all bike mags 1-2 years back. It seems like the vast majority of reviews from many bike-magazines have their reasonable share in propaganda marketing.

Nowadays costumer reviews say the exact opposite. Industry with the help of most magazines abroad tried to trigger a new trend. But reason won over marketing bullsh*t this time. Just wondering what the next big thing will be.
  • 2 0
 If anyone's interested in this bike Nov 2018 or later, this is my 2 cents:
Foundation Medium frame, all stock, w/MEC flats, new 3.0" front tire

PROs: Climbs; Traction; 6" Dropper; Cheap & quiet brake pads; 40mm rims
Surprisingly great climber. Have always had Specialized Enduro & Stumpjumpers w/Horst Link mountain goats, but this VPP really works for climbing.
Once you perfect your balance of F/R pressures, the machine grips, tracks and rails like mad. It's the fine line compromise of: 1. enough pressure for no sidewall fold; 2. not bouncy and spinning out on roots. Once you get pressures right, you have traction on wet diagonal roots that your buddies can't rival.
6" Rockshox Reverb has a ton of travel to drop out of the way for descents. You may think you'd never need that much travel, I didn't, but it's nice once you have it. Action is smooth once it was serviced at the LBS for initial sponginess.
The Shimano brakes are not the top quality, but modulate as well as my various Avid Elixers, Hayes & Hope brakes, and seem bombproof. The nice thing is cheap $12 brake pads at the LBS (up to $35 elsewhere!).
Although the rims are heavy, the 40mm width really allows for you to push them, and they perform.

CONs: Crap Tires; Heavy Tubes; Heavy wheels; Attention to Tire Pressure; Rear Hub; Fork suppleness
The Maxxis tires are minimal in knob grip and sidewall strength. Prepare to wear them out fast. My new Specialized Purgatory 3.0 front tire has stronger sidewalls and bigger knobs. Noisy at speed on the street to/from home, which means high rolling resistance, but our singletrack is mostly steep up/down, so low speeds.
Each 27.5" x 3.0" innertube weighs 15 oz, so going tubless w/4oz of Stans made a very noticeable difference in rotational inertia, helping acceleration and nimbleness. Light carbon hoops & rubber would really make this bike fly.
As said above, tire pressure takes some time to dial. It also depends on the tire you choose and if the ride may encompass a considerable section on road. You definitely want to pump them harder for longer road or rail trail sections.
You have to pedal pretty far to engage the rear hub after coasting. Not a nice quick positive engagement of the gears. Upgrade the hub when get a new wheelset.
The Pike fork just can't quite dial in for me. To get the suppleness I'm used to with Totems or Lyriks, I need to run too low of pressure which tops out too often.

Background: 150 lbs; 5'-10"; big BC mtn climbs & techy drops; SilverStar bike park flowy jumps; 33 yrs serious singletrack since 1985 Norco Bigfoot

Other bikes: 2012 Giant Faith for freeride; 2007 Devinci Ollie 1 for DH
  • 1 0
 Thanks for the report.
  • 4 0
 You mention Maxxis a bunch but run Ranger 2.8s in every photo..whats the deal with those?
  • 2 0
 The WTB Rangers were some of the tires I tested on the ACV, and happened to be the ones I had on before the photo shoot. Good mix between fast rolling and grip.
  • 2 0
 Τhe review was informative and nice to read. It is expected that on 27+ the weight of the wheels will make or brake the ride (similar to 29ers).

The "viola" after the wheel swap was probably meant to be "voila" though.
  • 8 0
 Actually no, I believe Richard often does play bowed-string instruments while riding trail bikes. Everyone knows you need your rims light as possible for this to work though.
  • 4 0
 Excuse my French
  • 2 1
 The free use of "rear suspension" to signify "rear triangle" throughout the article really irks me.

"the rear suspension and fork are widened to the Boost axle standard"

"Carbon frame and rear suspension, Boost axle spacing, dedicated to 27.5+ wheels"

"The ACV's rear suspension is intended to provide ample mud clearance for Plus tires up to three inches wide."

Am I missing something?
  • 1 0
 that depends, what are you getting at?
  • 1 0
 Has anybody tried a regular set of 27.5" wheels and tires, let's say Carbon with Minions front and rear, on any of these frames? I'm dying to know how much agility you can gain back on a regular set of wheels. I'm sure you'd give up a little frame stiffness in places, but a single platform that you can swap wheels on is my Holy Grail.

I built up a Easton ARC 45 rims with WTB Trail Boss tires for my 9:Zero:7 fatbike+Bluto and used them this past summer. Originally they were just intended for bikepacking, but I rode the bike a couple of dozen times instead of my Yeti SB66C and had way more fun on the hardtail than I thought I would, even though the tires are not very aggressive.

I'd love someone to take a single plus frame, and run a comparison of 3"+, 27.5" regular, and 29" wheel options.
  • 1 0

The Duroc 40s are 515g for the 27.5 size, 15g lighter and 11mm wider than the widely used Stan's Flow EX. FYI, the inside width is 36mm, not 40mm as you state.
The Rekon 27.5x2.8 3C/EXO/TR tire is 780g, 20g lighter than the 2.3 DHR with equivalent technologies, and arguably faster rolling do to its lower profile and closer packed knobs.

It would be unfair to categorize these parts as problematic when realistically the hubs, plain gauge spokes, and brass nipples should be at fault. There is also no mention of running the bike tubeless, as it should be for high volume, low pressure setups. Tubes for these sizes can be up to 1lb each.
  • 1 0
 Thanks for the catch. ( I ran different wheels for much of the review.) The total weight of the wheels was my concern. And, as far as tubeless goes, all of our test bikes are tubeless.

As a side note: Bikes with tubeless wheels and tires are fitted with tubes by the manufacturers because they don't (or can't) ship them with sealant, and if the tires go flat, the rims can be damaged during shipping and handling.
  • 1 0
 "The ACV's rear suspension is intended to provide ample mud clearance for Plus tires..."

It's interest to see another person's perspective on the rear clearance. When I looked at the tire and chain stay clearance it looked anything but ample.
  • 1 0
 This is a great review but I am easily confused. I am 52 and ride around the Calgary/Rockies area, Bragg creek, Canmore, Banff-Topp notch. I am slow to climb but moderately fast on the decent and can handle the double diamond coal shutes ok (for those that know). I have a 2014 stumpy carbon evo expert 29 with carbon roval's 22mm or whatever, and put carbon bars, atlas stem and sram RSC brakes on. I would like to hear the opinions of why I should go to the ACV Pro or stay on what Ive got and maybe just upgrade to a 30 mm or so rim. Thanks
  • 6 6
 I recently purchased a plus bike in the same travel bracket and agree wholeheartedly with the PB Take. This is the platform of the modern trailbike - laying prejudices aside, this is the bike that best fits most riding and most riders.

(Caveat: based on polls, perhaps not most riders on THIS website; most mountain bikers in general.)
  • 5 1
 This the platform that fits some riders. I find that most people who have been riding for 10+ years and are very aggressive are not too fond of the plus size.
  • 3 0
 @McNubbin: I can see that, but would you say that most mountain bikers have been riding for 10+ years?
  • 2 0
 @Bluefire: ...or are "very aggressive"?
  • 2 1
 Why are Maxxis tyres listed but WTB are on the bike ?
Only interested because I've got 2.8 WTB rangers and they just don't do mud ! They're hopeless and I'm switching to Maxxis High rollers.
  • 5 3
 obviously every bike has the tendency to break but I've seen a few people complaining of their Intense's cracking/snapping, are they really that 'fragile'?
  • 5 2
 Check this one at 1:30:

Ok, the guy screwed up big time, but for the frame to fail like this is also shocking...
  • 4 3
 At first they were. You have to keep in mind that Intense only started doing Carbon like 4 years ago. The early Carbines were known for snapping chainstays. Then again, they had this problem for some time with their alloy frames too, and no one builds a nicer alloy frame than Intense. Anyway, the large-scale issues are gone now and Intense's carbon frames are as strong as the best in the business. You will still find some weird quirks, but that's what you sign up for when you buy a boutique product.
  • 2 1
 @TheRaven: Strange quirks, like why bother with internal routing when everything goes around the bottom bracket. Or why this even happens on a $5k bike in the first place.
  • 1 0
 @McNubbin: I hate internal routing to begin with, but there's nothing wrong with under-the-bottom-bracket routing for the majority of riders. In my 18 years of riding, all but five of my (20+) bikes have been routed that way and i've never had so much as a nicked cable...yet I have had one crushed FD cable on a top-tube routed frame and one punctured brake hose on a top-of-downtube routed frame. The advantages of bottom-of-downtube routed cables (simple routing that makes it dead-easy to change parts, lower likelihood of cable bind, and cleaner aesthetics) far outweigh the risks...which is why in 2017 it's still a common thing.

As for quirks - I mean things like the VPP bottom link that invites rocks and dirt like it's hosting an after-finals college party resulting in the literal eating of the frame adjacent, and OEM shocks that rub links and mounts...the kind of thing that doesn't keep you from riding, but also the kind of thing that should not exist on a $3k frame despite the fact that it does pretty much everywhere, despite the brand that appears on the downtube.
  • 4 1
 I'll let you know after I sell my brand new warranty frame. ;-)
  • 2 0
 @cvoc: Nevermind - didn't realize it was a fail vid.
  • 3 0
 @TheRaven: I'm sorry, but routing cables like this is bush league, period. That's half-assed design right there. I've never once experienced or seen cable bind on a well setup bike, and from an aesthetic standpoint the cables down there look like dog shit.
  • 2 0
 @McNubbin: Your opinion is noted. I disagree...aside from the fact that internal cable routing is an answer to a question no one asked, of course. Then again, so are more than half the MTB "innovations" we are saddled with.
  • 1 0
 @TheRaven: FWIW if internal routing rings the death knell on cable ties, then I'm all over it like flies on shit.
  • 3 1
 You can rent one at Krank Cycles Maui.. That thing is a beast up and down!!!! But we put a monarch + w debonair and Noble carbon wheels.....
  • 3 0
 Anyone see notice RC's calves? Not into dudes, but that is some serious cut!
  • 4 2
 well since i saw the guy coming short on a super small step up and BROKE IN 2 pieces his intense carbon frame, i never would buy anything intense !!!
  • 3 1
 Intense has a history of making nice looking bikes, but that's where it stops @ nice looking. Owned an M6, Tracer, and Taser...sadly. There's no alternative facts to be said.
  • 2 0
 I would say that this is one of the best looking and most fun trail bikes that i've ridden this year! But i think that for the price its way under specked.
  • 2 0
 This may seem shallow, but few things scream 'cheap' like a decal head tube badge!

(And, no, I don't mean 'cheap' in terms of the ticket price ????)
  • 1 0
 They've not convinced me their reputation as an overpriced and easily breakable bike has gone. Their warranty was almost as epic as Evils. Seem like a bunch of money grabbing arse holes in short.
  • 3 0
 Yes, still a pretty penny but cheers for reviewing a more mid-spec bike
  • 3 1
 Why spec 760 and not start at 780 or even 800? Bewilders me as u can always reduce but can't add.
  • 3 1
 438mm reach on the large?! T-rex inspired geometry. Sorry Intense, you're off the back on modern geo but thanks for playing.
  • 3 0
 Just not enough bang for that much buck.
  • 2 0
 This bike rips,period! Consider up sizing as well..A bit of a smaller reach. I went with a xl and Im 6 foot.
  • 2 0
 I love reading reviews of 'affordable' bikes!
  • 1 0
 Any feedback regarding intense hubs?
to me, I believe they should spect some lighter version of the cassette
  • 1 0
 The mojo 3 was an absolute joy to ride. Fun fast and capable. Traction was insane. I'd own one if i didn't live in Texas.
  • 2 0
 Holy Calves Batman! #Goals.
  • 2 1
 Fat bikes are full retard for trail riding.......this makes plus bikes on the spectrum.
  • 1 0
 No comments on the locked out high speed compression on the Pike RC? or did you change out the shims?
  • 2 4
 Oh you want it lighter Richard?
So it can for sure break too soon, so we have to deal with intenses amazing customer service?
How about you stop asking for bikes to be lighter Richard. How about being honest with yourself and the people considering spending good money on bikes.
Bike shit already fails like crazy.
Making shit stronger is the answer.
The fact that none of you industry pea brains understand this is a real f*cking problem.
  • 2 0
 Cowles Mtn Baby!
  • 1 0
 Shhh... that's my evening ride spot
  • 1 0
 Is that velcro on the rear triangle to stop the chain eating it?
  • 2 0
 Sam Hills mechanic used to use fluffy velcro to quieten the bike. It works a treat.
  • 4 3
 Thank you for reviewing a reasonably affordable bike God bless
  • 5 1
 For close to $5, the spec on this bike straight up sucks. For the price, there should be at least be carbon bars and something other than house brand hubs and 5lb wheels.
  • 2 1
 RC knocking out another quality in depth review
  • 1 0
 Gotta love riding in a good tech flanno. So damn comfy on a cool day.
  • 1 0
 So it still climb like an XC, but it descent almost like an enduro?
  • 2 0
 Sure! "E gli Angeli ne cantano le lodi in cielo!"
  • 1 0
 @duzzi: I don't know why, but you made me laugh
  • 6 5
 I'd rather ride an Ellsworth...
  • 1 0
 Why is the chain all brown?
  • 2 1
 Plus size is great if you suck on a mtn bike....
  • 2 0
 do I need this? no
  • 1 0
 Why would u pay this price for this special ?
  • 1 0
 Those calf gains tho. Propahhleee saluted on a daily basis baby please
  • 7 7
 Id have one if they came in a different color.
  • 9 3
 @kanter I'm in love with that paint scheme, but hey different strokes for different folks.
  • 3 1
 Banana machine
  • 3 0
 I like the colour scheme, but it screams out for Kashima.
  • 2 1
 Plastic fat bike.
  • 2 2
 As the saying goes -you can't polish a turd!
  • 1 1
 I liked it the first time when it was called a Session
  • 1 2
 That paint job.... Not sure if this is a Usa thing.... But here in Europe, its a noooooooooo.....
  • 2 0
 I live in Europe, and I think it's a (qualified) yes!
  • 8 11
 Ugly as sin colour way, ugly as sin part spec, and a price point that doesnt seem to add up. Cant imagine why they sold out to mountain equipment coop
  • 6 9
 Someone get a bucket of water. This bike is fire.
  • 4 6
 Amazing bike

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2000 - 2020. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.030668
Mobile Version of Website