Video: Intense's New 140mm Primer Does (Almost) All the Wheel Sizes

Aug 20, 2019
by Mike Levy  


The Primer name originally showed up in the Intense catalog five years ago, and things have been a little complicated since then. Up until, well, just now, if you wanted a trail bike from Intense you might have been looking at the 130mm-travel Spider on 27.5" wheels, or maybe the 140mm ACV if you wanted to go plus-sized. But the Recluse had 140mm as well, only it was on big wheels. And if 29ers were your thing, maybe the previous, 130mm version of the Primer would be the one.

Options galore, but a bit confusing. For 2020, Intense has one trail bike, the Primer, that offers 140mm of rear-wheel travel paired with a 150mm fork. But there are still choices to make: You can have it with two 27.5" wheels, two 29" wheels, or a mixed 29" front and 27.5" rear combo. All versions come in with 140/150mm travel, and they all have a geometry adjusting flip-chip at the upper link.

Intense Primer 2020
The 2020 Primer sports 140mm of rear-wheel travel, a 150mm fork, and you can get it in both 27.5'' and 29'' wheel sizes, along with the Primer S, a mixed wheel size option.


The 27.5" and 29" wheeled bikes are available at three price points, starting at $3,799 USD and going up to $6,999 USD, while the Primer S with mixed wheels gets two complete build options. Want to start from scratch with a frame? They go for $2,999 USD with a Fox DPX2 shock. You can see all the details, geometry, and pricing over on Intense's website, as well as a review of the Primer S here on Pinkbike in the near future.


241 Comments

  • 117 15
 But what about 26"?
  • 77 5
 Does not do all the wheel sizes.
  • 33 4
 They lied?! I wanna go back to 69ers!
  • 39 2
 I only do headlines. Finally, a new bike designed to take 24" in the rear and 26" in the front. Take my money!
  • 5 8
 Give up the dream
  • 21 2
 Only a matter of time before 31” tires are the new normal and everyone is duped into buying new bikes again
  • 5 3
 @FNDTN: I no longer call that a new bike Wink . I've got their 2006 P1 dj bike. Same wheel configuration. No new bike either.
  • 4 4
 @SirWonky: that would be about 666mm diameter.
  • 4 2
 And 24" for that matter... What if I want to slap on a pair of white halo jump hoops with cross spoke brazing?
  • 5 3
 Blk:mrkt Roam takes 26”, 27,5” and 29” wheels
  • 2 1
 @SirWonky: yeah boy, my words....
  • 3 8
flag Arepiscopo (Aug 20, 2019 at 11:40) (Below Threshold)
 @vinay: we’ll call it Your Mom
  • 1 0
 @vinay: Cash in my hand, where do I pay ?
  • 4 6
 Yeah let's f*ck up the geometry for a wheel size 1% of riders still use!
  • 1 1
 @vinay: you'll have to back to 2004 and ask for a kona stinking with that tall order
  • 3 0
 @coltybear15:

Me too but not with you
  • 1 0
 @enger: Lots of bikes like that back then. Banshee Scream too (or Mythic for the Brits).
  • 1 0
 @vinay: yup...some old school bad ass bikes for sure.
  • 2 0
 @vinay: Taking 24" in the rear sounds very unpleasant.
  • 2 0
 @illc75243: might be a little rough riding
  • 2 0
 @vinay: 24" rear 36" front, superior.
  • 1 0
 @seraph: We already know that in future, we'll all be shredding this Zebra OTB:

www.pinkbike.com/news/guillaume-bouts-bonkers-concept-bikes-1.html

But just as with all developments we see in mountainbiking (geometry, cassettes, axle standards etc), we need to go through a transition of stuff that takes half a decade to become obsolete. UCI regulations are even slower. As it is now, you can ride that Zebra OTB in a DH race, but not in XC.
  • 62 12
 This is the only bike I camp with, because it's in tents.
  • 15 1
 Make sure to bring an M16 in case you get attacked by bears.
  • 16 1
 @masonstevens: An Uzzi is much more portable.
  • 8 1
 My Socom can call in air strikes!
  • 10 1
 Watch out for Spiders
  • 10 1
 NoNeed for bullets, use the tazer.
  • 4 7
 With an intense you can really be a "recuse" and head deep into outback knowing you're always safe with a "carbine" by your side.
  • 3 1
 Not sure if a carbine is enough but lets try.
  • 3 1
 In tense situation...guns and bears
  • 2 2
 @masonstevens: and Spiders.
  • 1 0
 Check your shoes, might be a stray Recluse in there.
  • 1 1
 if all the weapons fail you can always rely on a Tazer
  • 1 0
 Please stop
  • 2 0
 @stumphumper92: So, you'd prefer all these puns were...wait for it....past tense?
  • 30 1
 Just to clarify one comment on the video. All Primer models DO have internally routed cable guides.
  • 2 0
 Are the frames for the 275, 29 and S all the same with just different forks/wheels? If so, that opens up a lot of color options for people like me who build their own bikes.
  • 9 0
 @ATXZJ: The Primer S and Primer 29 share a frame, the Primer 275 is designed and built specific to 27.5"
  • 13 0
 Nice! That mullet bike has me intrigued! Glad to see Intense take a risk. Stoked to see how it stacks up in PB's upcoming field test. @mikelevy do you have an ETA for the test?
  • 3 0
 @intensecyclesusa: Cool. looking at your geo for the primer it says:

" GEOMETRY NOTE: GEOMETRY TAKEN AT TOP OUT WITH 557MM AXLE TO CROWN LENGTH AND 51MM FORK OFFSET"

This note is listed for all the models including 27.5, which shouldn't have the same A2C as a 29 much less a 51mm offset. Are you planning on updating this and any thoughts on offering the "S" model with a 140mm fork to steepen the STA back up a bit?

Either way, good to see you guys doing something new and offering direct customers more options.
  • 7 2
 Why no XL 27.5!? This is such a stupid trend and will cause you to lose customers. If the next gen tracer tries to push me to 29 inch wheel then it looks like I’ll be making the switch to yeti and the SB165...
  • 10 0
 @intensecyclesusa PLEASE BRING BACK ALLOY! Smile
  • 2 0
 ... Those USA 275A's from a few years back were the coolest! Uzzi, 951, Tracer, Palmer M16A... red 2015 T275A still my dream bike... want one so bad!
  • 6 0
 @ATXZJ: Thanks for catching that! We are updating the website to reflect:Geometry taken at top out with 539mm axle to crown length and 44mm fork offset on the Primer 275.
  • 5 0
 @Colson217: We will have an XL 27.5", it is just not available at the moment. The sizing is included on the Geo charts.
  • 1 0
 @intensecyclesusa: don't forget EC cup in headset stack height please.
  • 3 0
 @mtbikeaddict:

From what I remember there was an issue that came up that was out of intense's hands about make alloy frames in Cali. There was an interview with another frame designer/maker and he had mentioned there was an environmental issue, it's from the ride monkey forums

"but few people believe you can succeed in the market without carbon. I get beat up about it all the time.

I had approached Jeff about making my alu bikes in his factory. He had just sold his heat treat equipment, which the state of Cali was making him remove anyway. And the rest of his alu production equipment as well.

That's part of the problem. We're almost not allowed to make stuff in 'murica"
  • 2 0
 @kiddlivid: Guerilla Gravity, made in ‘merica carbon frames. They also made full aluminum frames, rear triangles still welded in house. “ Ride Fast”
  • 3 1
 @intensecyclesusa: Sorry, somehow I don’t seem to get the logic behind that. Wouldn’t the only way a “mullet” bike made sense be, if it shared the frame with the 27.5, so that you could have the short chain stays, etc. but still have a big, good rolling wheel in the front? This way, any advantage in handling or maneuverability of the S over the 29 would have to be marginal, since the frame is the same...
  • 2 0
 @nurseben: I think the difference there being Colorado vs Cali environmental laws
  • 3 0
 @nurseben: GG doesn't make AL anymore.

@kiddlivid has a great point: people complain about importing everything, but then in the USA we regulate companies to death. California is ahead of this trend.

Just because a regulation has an intended outcome doesn't mean it actually has that effect in the marketplace, or that the benefits of the regulations outweigh the costs they incur. This is especially true about environmental regulations, where all it does is just push manufacturing overseas to countries with even lower environmental standards and end up polluting even more.
  • 21 2
 They narrowed 4 bikes into one model, 3 different wheel sizes, but still kept the unlimited horrible color combinations... I kid I kid, the grey one isn't that bad
  • 5 1
 And I'd been looking to up vote a comment about how great the paint jobs are... Guess I'll settle for down voting you instead ;-)

(For the record, I actually up voted the above comment.)
  • 2 0
 It's true. The only thing I'm hoping is that the next update will not have Stevie Wonder doing the paint combos.

Come on Intense! You have the ability to get it so right! Help me upgrade from my 2018 Primer (orange / red)....
  • 12 1
 Taken from the Intense website:

"EVOLVED FROM EXCELLENCE THE NEW INTENSE PRIMER AND IS EVEN MORE TRUE TO THE TRAIL AND PROVIDES OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE THAT STANDS OUT FROM THE CROWD THANKS TO A STRIKING DESIGN. A CLEAR VISION FOR THE LATEST INTENSE LINE-UP WAS TO CEMENT INTENSE MODELS INTO EACH SEGMENT, AND THE INTENSE PRIMER RANGE DELIVERS ON THAT PROMISE WITH OUTSTANDING, CONFIDENCE-INSPIRING RIDEABILITY SPECIFICALLY FOR THE TRAIL."

From what language was this translated? Holy grammar check, Batman.
  • 12 0
 Marketinglish
  • 25 14
 74 degree seat angle? Very 2015-2017. Who’s going to buy a trail bike with that geo in 2019-2020 knowing the advantage of steeper seat angles now? Odd choice.
  • 72 12
 People who don't subscribe to bro-science?
  • 14 5
 @LeDuke: that's right, 74 is for those who subscribe to road bike science
  • 11 2
 Why does everyone think what works for them must work for everyone else everywhere else? My god just imagine a world where people ride different terrain.
  • 24 4
 You can just move the seat forward and "voila", instant steeper seat tube by a couple of degrees.
  • 11 3
 Unless you ride somewhere that isn't strictly up and down. Trail bikes for flatter areas make sense with less steep STAs.
  • 8 2
 but it is an actual 74 degree angle. way better than a 77 that turns into a 71 when the seat is high.
  • 6 6
 @privateer-wbc: It's funny because I'm getting neg repped to hell on the TBv4 thread for saying this very thing.

Living where it's rolling terrain, 600-800ft of elevation gain over a long ride. The steep seat tube angle put so much weight onto my hands I had to sell my Ripley V4, it was painful to ride even on shorter rides.
  • 27 1
 @tacklingdummy saddles can MOVE?!?!??!? You mean we could have been adjusting our own effective STA and rider position this whole time??

Seriously guys, every couple years it's some new magic number - chainstay length, stem length/bar width, then HTA, then reach, now STA. As long as the numbers aren't horrendous you can just switch around saddle positions, bars, and {gasp} stems til you hit a position you're happy with.... and if that doesn't work, you bought the wrong size bike. Near-vertical seat tubes and gigantic wheelbases aren't the right recipe for all trails/riders.
  • 6 1
 @mikkosinisalo: do you even pedal bro
  • 9 2
 @bkm303: you and your common sense are not welcome here, bro
  • 4 2
 @bkm303: you know it dude! Best sense anyone has typed on PB in weeks!
Except don't tell the bike industry this or the bike magazines that shovel their propoganda otherwise people would just ride the nice bikes they own
  • 8 9
 @privateer-wbc: Except that steep seat tube angles are better everywhere. I'm in one of the flatter parts of the country and steep seat tube angles are a game changer for every situation. The position of the saddle over the cranks makes the pedaling more efficient.
  • 5 3
 @dualsuspensiondave: Define "efficiency", and tell me how a steeper seat tube makes for more efficient pedaling.
  • 3 2
 @dualsuspensiondave: "more efficient" pedaling from steeper STA? Guess all those roadies on 72-74° don't care about pedal efficiency...
  • 2 0
 Are we talking static or sagged?
  • 2 3
 @LeDuke: There’s many different things involved from kinesiology to biomechanics when the position of the rider’s body and bicycle both change. In addition when we talk “comfort” while climbing, long term that may equate to injuries or lack there of. Anything we can do to get our shoulders back and not flex our spine is helpful as cyclists.
  • 5 1
 @bkm303: roadie position is a compromise between optimal biomechanics and aerodynamics, then comfort for longer stages. Then they compromise for the UCI rule book as well as ridiculous elitism and preservation (as their hard headedness often goes beyond conservatism) now if you look at Time trials /triathlon bikes which don’t submit to the UCI rules or Grand Club for ultimate suspension of self evaluation, you will find seat angles as steep as 80 degrees, longer reach and slacker head angles. Some companies though, like BMC produce road bikes with 73-74 seat angles.
  • 5 0
 @bkm303:

for taller riders it's a huge ass difference tho. all the "pedestrian" stas feel pretty horrible to me now that I've tasted what 76-77 feels like. it's just one part of geo that went unaddressed for too long and i'm glad everyone's copying whoever did it first (Nicolai/Pole?).

but yeah not everyone is doing it yet so for those who, for some reason, prefer slacker they have options. also there is such a thing as too far imo. I tried a 78 sta rig and had to slam the saddle all the way back on it's rails for it to feel tolerable. anyway 76 in my minimum acceptable sta for my next bike now. yes preference will always rule but the general geo shift over time is great. nobody's bitchin about trailbikes that abandoned the 68/69 deg hta. drink the cool-aid!
  • 2 0
 @bkm303:

great idea, bk! let's take our geo from road bikes like we did in the fkn 80s & 90s!

(face palm)
  • 2 1
 @WasatchEnduro: that was directed specifically at a claim that steep STAs are inherently more pedal efficient.

I can definitely see how it would matter more for taller riders though. Mtb geo is on a great trend overall and I'm def not bitching about the lack of 70° HTA bikes on the market. But writing off a bike because of a single number on a geo chart ("lol so 2015 amirite") is silliness. I think the STA basically makes sense in light of the reach not being super long... but in any case many of the differences we're talking about here are within range of adjustment using saddles/stems/seatposts/etc.
  • 5 0
 @WAKIdesigns: the road/TT bike thing is complicated because aero is everything (no drafting), plus odd UCI rules like tube aspect ratios go away and allow for super aerodynamic tube designs that fill gaps in the frame, allow crazy brake mounting positions, etc. If anything I'd argue tri/TT bikes skew the compromise even more towards aero than on standard road bikes, but I know a lot of triathletes also talk about benefits of glute/hamstring recruitment with steeper STAs, apparently it helps save quads for the running stage. Never seen any bulletproof science on that (but I haven't seriously looked either).

In any case there are loads of standard road/cx bikes with STAs in the 74° range (BMC, canyon, trek, giant, orbea, specialized, to name a few). Who knows, maybe in the next few years all the roadies will revolt and demand steep STAs and prove me wrong.
  • 2 0
 @bkm303:

fair points be kay em.

alls I know is steep STAs (for me) make climbing easier. also, for every demo on a bike w/ sub 76 deg STAs i've had to slam the seat all the way forward and even then they don't feel as good as their peers. but i'm over 6'. i've also bent saddle rails landing jumps hard on a seat that was slammed all the way forward. more leverage yo, not optimal.

as a cool-aid drinker armchair engineer and irrational consumer I for sure will judge a bike by a number!

anyway, after riding several of the latest and greatest i'm targeting 64-66 HTA and 76-77(ish) STA for the next sled.

also, i'd still like to hear how this bike rides even tho i'm not digging the colors.
  • 1 0
 @bkm303: there is an issue with steeper seat angle for RACING road bikes which may not be applicable to amateur bikes. Race bikes have bars placed lower for better aerodynamics which mean more weight is placed on arms/hands. If you now steepen the head seat angle, even more weight ends up there. On a TT bike, for an hour, 1,5 - well, you will endure. On 4-5h stage of a multistage race? Especially when you sit for most of the time. Neh... the thing I don't get is short wheelbases and I bet this will change too.
  • 2 0
 I think everyone is overlooking the fact that rear suspension sag slackens the seat tube angle the rear sags way more than the front when seated. Road bikes don't have that issue. A sagged 78* mtb is probably around 73-74*

At 6'4" I have always had tall saddles. I had a commencal Meta 6, a good few years ago and iirc the seat angle was slacker than the head angle, and that felt like pedalling a recumbant, while trying to reach the handlebars. Steeper is 100% better in my experience.

There are numerous dropper posts with a layback style seat clamp, and saddles seem better able to slide rearward, rather than forward. Everyone complaining about things being "too steep" can call on numerous options to slacken where there isn't as many options to steepen.

I'm sure everyone is familiar with having to slide forward on the saddle during a climb. Imagine the benefits of that without impaling yourself.
  • 1 0
 @Konda: True dat. hear hear, admirably good point indeed.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: well that was sort of my point - I don't think the steep STAs of TT bikes are very indicative of what's comfortable/best for doing long rides regularly. I'd look more towards standard road/touring/gravel bikes that people are using for endurance events, and with some exceptions these all seem to have 73-74ish STA. True the roadie pros still end up slamming stems to get crazy uncomfortable aero positions, but an amateur rider can just choose to put their bars in a more reasonable position via stem, spacers, etc and have a perfectly comfortable position.

As for the wheelbase, I really enjoy the handling & stiffness of the short road/cx style bikes vs long touring rigs like my old Surly LHT (very long for a road bike - barely fit on my roller trainer). I'm not sure if lengthening the reach makes as much sense for road as it does for mtb... we like the handling characteristics of short stems, but from experience a short stem on my road bike felt terrifying at speed - way too sensitive (GCN did a video on this too I think). But maybe if you throw slacker head angles into the mix the longer reach/shorter stem would be more manageable... just not sure it's better for the types of speeds & maneuvers you're doing on a road bike.
  • 2 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Actually, no. The UCI allows for an exception to the rule book for mass start race bikes; all you have to do is ask an official prior to the start of the race. That's it. But, if you're bringing up STAs of 80 degrees, you surely know that those bikes don't climb worth a shit because that puts the rider in a terrible position for generating maximum power. Tri-nerds are trying to ride at a steady 300w for 4.5hours and then run after that; the bikes are designed to save the hamstrings. Whereas a WT road racer is going to hit multiple CAT1 and HC climbs at a much higher power, with much larger surges thrown in along the way. But, for the average overweight MTB rider who is trundling up a gravel road at walking pace, I suppose a crazy steep STA that allows them to just barely reach their bars is fine.
  • 3 1
 @LeDuke: Get over it, you don’t know anything about it. Just being negative without in experience or any knowledge of the human body.
  • 2 1
 @Konda: Same setback seat post to slack can be turned 180 to steepen.

Steep seat tubes made sense on longer travel bikes, you don't set up short travel bikes with as much sag.
  • 1 1
 @LeDuke: I am not planning to bring STA to 80 degrees. I even made fun of steep seat angle echo chamber by drawing a bike with a "negative" seat angle Smile I also commented mostly on TT bikes. Thriathlon, Iron Man in particular is as impressive to me as stuffing a cucumber up ones bottom. I don't judge, just not my thing... I know it may take no more than a weekend on airbag to learn a backflip, much less than training to be able to do iron man. I'm still more impressed with a backflip... ceach to their own. off course...
  • 3 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: That is not true.
The head on the post is profiled in such a way you can't just flip it round without your seat level being about 45 degrees.
  • 2 0
 @Konda: Do I need to take a picture of a saddle level on my seatback command post to prove it?
  • 2 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: if you manage to rotate it 180* and have it as a "setforward" post with a level saddle I'd love to see a picture.
All the dropper posts I've had (reverb and Brand-X) are inline, but this has not been possible.
If it is, I'd definatly look at getting one to steepen things up for my bike.
  • 12 0
 Hidden away from all the hype, but glorious to many. Addition of a threaded BB.
  • 4 0
 Whoa, thanks for mentioning that! Not something I noticed. Great news!
  • 17 5
 I'd rather a Chromag Primer personally.
  • 8 2
 Stylus for me..
  • 2 1
 @spread1: but we are talking about Primers Razz
  • 2 1
 @privateer-wbc: I know. It’s a Chromag thing.. :-))
  • 2 0
 @spread1: I won't argue that, I own a Stylus myself Wink
  • 1 0
 @privateer-wbc: I'd take Dulux one coat Matt grey primer
  • 1 0
 @chainspotting: I'm partial to Rustoleum Razz
  • 2 1
 Chromag is way overhyped. The frames are expensive, and hardtails don't do everything well, unlike they advertise on their website. There is a place for hardcore hardtails, but you can't really put them on the same level as FS bikes.
  • 1 0
 @phops: Tell that to the hardcore rippers who destroy the North Shore on them. And Dave Harder won the BC Enduro series at Retallack a few years ago on one, so to say they aren't on the same level is BS (it's just a matter of the rider you put on it).
  • 1 1
 @ratedgg13:

And those same rippers would be even faster on FS bikes. And Dave Harder would be even faster on the Enduro stages. Your legs are primary suspension components, even on FS bikes, and if you got the skill and fitness, you can make it work.

I just take issue with the notion that a hardtail can be ridden on the same level as an FS. If you are new, and you buy a Chromag thinking it can hold a candle to FS bikes, and you take one to a park, you are going to be dissapointed.
  • 2 0
 @phops: in terms of fun, you can DEFINITELY put them on the same level as any other bike.

And if someone is winning races on one, against talented riders on FS bikes, that is proof they can be put on the same level, under a talented riders. In fact, in XC, on some courses, hardtails exceed the speed of FS. That's why half the XC racers out there keep one in their quiver.

Different strokes. Horses for courses. YMMV. Win some lose some. Etc.
  • 1 1
 @privateer-wbc:

People aren't "winning" races on them, there has been a few cases where people have won on hardtails in a few situations, where the courses benefitted a hardtail, just like you mentioned with XC racing. And you can't really compare the professional skill level to the level most consumers.

As soon as someone wins a World Cup DH event on a hardtail, Ill take my words back. But that will never happen, because FS are more capable than a hardtail.
  • 1 0
 @phops: more capable is course and application specific.
  • 1 1
 @privateer-wbc:

Sure, and FS bikes are more capable than hardtails on a larger variety of courses than vice versa.

Overall, I am really not sure why people like you feel the need to prop up hardtails. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them being subpar to FS bikes. Not everyone needs FS, and hardtails are cheaper to own and get more people into mountainbiking without blowing loads of cash, and they are also better for learning fundamental techniques. Just let them exist in their own space, and stop trying to make them something they are not.
  • 2 0
 @phops: I'm not sure why people like you feel the need knock hardtails or poo-poo on solid companies like Chromag either. That's where all this started, isn't it?
  • 1 1
 @privateer-wbc:

Because Chromag advertise them being as capable as a fs bike. I have no issue with them personally, I just don't think its a good thing to somewhat mislead people new to the sport.
  • 8 1
 That “S” model grey paint with the striping is one of the better paint schemes I’ve seen in a long time (especially from intense). Why not offer it on the 29”? Not everyone wants to ride the trend wave, but we all want a good looking bike. Dammit.
  • 4 0
 The S build will take a 29 rear wheel no problem.
  • 3 0
 @willem: I just saw the release on vital and realized that. Definitely one to look at. I know it’s not about looks, but man, that thing is a looker.
  • 7 1
 @intensecyclesusa
Make alloy frames great again!!
Seriously, I’ve ridden various Intense bikes for 12 years, you guessed it, all in alu, but it’s looking like I’m being guided toward a new Foxy or Hightower, there’s alloy versions…
  • 2 0
 Aluminum all the way. Pole bicycles really demonstrated what you can do with al manufacturing, including reducing waste.
  • 6 0
 Liking the smart component spec on these. 170mm cranks on all 3 Primers 4 piston xt's up front, 2 piston xt's out back, and each size has a different dropper post length.
  • 2 1
 Sounds like a nightmare to keep pads. I would gladly take a weight increase to having to source two different pads when I am in a pinch...
  • 1 0
 @Rconroy: Good point about stocking two different sizes of pads. I change pads about once a year, so it shouldn't be too big of a deal.
  • 11 5
 I love how Intense is not following the stupid trend of super long reach measurements!
  • 11 13
 You must be the guy still refusing to ride a 27.5 or 29 and still dropping your seat manually.
  • 2 1
 It is about felling not about the number )
  • 3 0
 @andrew8404: ride 27.5 but just feel same how intense research and development does that you lack control especially over jumps with super long trend reaches.
  • 3 0
 @DH-Angel: weird cause the longer reach makes me feel so much more stable on jumps and the DH. Maybe if your doing BMX stuff a smaller reach and bike helps.
  • 2 0
 Except that they lengthened the reach and kept the seat tube angle about the same as it was.
  • 5 0
 That upper link, blind hardware in carbon fiber, or really blind hardware in any material for a frame, no, stop it, don't do that!
  • 2 0
 I saw that right away as well. I am def concerned about that and will have to see how that is constructed, to see if it will be an issue.
  • 4 0
 I love my Spider 275C, sad to see it disappear from the Intense website. Although I'm glad to see they reduced the seat tube height on the new Primer. Is silly to see the giant pedestal of a seat post on the Spiders.
  • 1 0
 i was literally waiting for them to release a spider with a shorter seat tube...
  • 3 0
 Just reviewed the Geo numbers for the XL between the updated Trek Fuel EX and the Intense Primer 29. Pretty darn close to each other with the Intense having a slightly longer chainstay (440 versus 435 for Trek), seat tube angle for both being 75 degrees, the head tube angle for the Intense being very slightly slacker (65.9 for Intense vs 66 for Trek), and the reach being minimally different (498.4mm for Intense and 495 for Trek). Reading the Trek review, I didn't notice any mention of whack geo, so I would expect similar comments by Pinkbike when this gets reviewed (assuming similar geo comparisons for other sizes).
  • 2 0
 I read recently where a tall Pro XC mountain biker said that due to all the steep seat tube angles he now has to run set back seat posts for optimum efficiency to slack the STA back out. I too feel better right around 75-76 degrees but don't seem to like it any steeper than that.
  • 2 0
 From the looks of the geo, all three frames are slightly different to accommodate the respective wheel size. I wonder if they could have made one frame that was adaptable to all wheel sizes. That would be cool because you would have options.
  • 2 0
 The 29er bike also looks similar to the Revel Rascal (different suspension design with the BB drop being less with the Intense). Geo's across the bike sizes is very similar (reach, angles, etc.) with the larger bikes for Intense having longer wheel base. The small for Intense is a little bit smaller than the one from Revel.
  • 6 1
 But I’ll have to strap 2 different sizes of tubes on the frame...
  • 5 1
 Just bring 29" tubes and shorten it up if you need it for the rear.
  • 2 0
 What happens if you install a 27.5" tube on a 29" rim?
  • 9 1
 @vinay: its slightly more stretched out. I actually use to only carry 26" tubes for all 3 wheel sizes.
  • 6 1
 @vinay: lots of folks just carry a 27.5" tube for 29--slightly lighter and it'll stretch plenty.
  • 10 0
 What is this tube you speak of
  • 2 0
 LoL flats...
  • 1 0
 @mfoga: My, my thought too. Just to help the OP with the thought process.

I still ride with tubes (Schwalbe/Syntace ProCore), never really went fully tubeless nor do I plan to. I may even give Tannus a try at some point. So please @harriieee, don't make me feel old Wink .
  • 2 0
 I carry 24” tube for my 29er. They’re made of rubber and stretch just fine. At least for long enough to get me home.
  • 1 0
 @mfoga: what kind of evil machine do you own that has 3 wheel sizes
  • 5 0
 @Grnnilddcv: custom trike. 29 up front, 27.5 on right rear 26 on left rear to help it turn left.
  • 1 0
 US website is showing (rear) hub sizes for all three at 257mm. Super boost, ugh! I guess I'm old fashioned, but I just hate having so many "standards"....

Other than that, the bikes look very interesting and have a lot of promise! To all the seat angle haters, chill out and see how it rides! It's not just about what's on paper!
  • 4 0
 257mm sounds like MegaIntenseSuperBoost.
  • 5 0
 Standard boost 148mm for all primer frames. This should be updated on the website to reflect.
  • 3 0
 @intensecyclesusa: GREAT!!!! Thank you for clarifying that. I know a lot of us will be happy to hear that. Intense for Life.
  • 3 2
 @intensecyclesusa: would you bring back Uzzi in fresh format? Super Enduro/ Mini DH is coming! RM Slayer, Yeti SB165, Commie Supreme SX, E29 is almost there too. Uzzi 2020 180-190 rear travel. Maybe just make M275 with BB92 and 148 rear? 180 29” single crown up front or Dual crown 200mm.

Super Cross! Make it happen! I’ll be your prophet!
  • 3 0
 Why is it every other bike website has pics of leverage curves, geo details, initial ride insights with photos of everything and pink bike has 4 paragraphs and 2 photos?
  • 2 0
 Because this is an ad to drive clicks to the YouTube channel. Double dip the revenue!
  • 2 0
 Cool...more 4-5k bikes with Nx build kits. Guerrilla Gravity is looking more appealing with every release. My 1k Bossnut had Nx and My 2k Scout has Nx. All of these 4-5k bikes have the same. Where did the value for our $ go.
  • 3 1
 Dude?? The Pro build is easily under $6K, and it's totally top shelf kit!! I'm not saying that's cheap, but it's top shelf! You'd pay $7K for a Santa Cruz and still not get that kind of build kit.
  • 2 0
 @mybaben: I’m not saying Intense is worse than Santa Cruz as far a value goes. Santa Cruz is awful as far as value is concerned but in my opinion 4K+ builds shouldn’t have Nx, Gx would be nice for a mid tier bike. Just because I’m one of the fortunate people who can afford a mid spec bike these days doesn’t mean I want to pay mid to top spec prices for low end kit. I would guess most customers are looking for mid tier unless they are racing or a dentist. A little more value for our money would be nice.
  • 2 0
 Yep. GG at the top of my list right now.
  • 2 0
 @Broso: That makes sense. I think that price point is a perfect chance for bike makers to spec Shimano SLX. I would way rather ride that than NX! Too bad SRAM has locked up the market for the time being... Now that Shimano is releasing 12 spd, we'll see what happens.
  • 1 0
 @mybaben: It’s crazy to me Nx is on every bike from 1k to 5k, I would also take SLX! but Gx would be fine. I’ve noticed it more lately because I’m in the market for a mid tier bike and can’t seem to find many spec’s that don’t need drivetrain and brake upgrades at 4-5k it really shouldn’t be an issue.
  • 2 0
 I wonder how much tariffs have caused companies to move components down rather than increase prices. That said, there is no way I could get my 2018 Intense Primer Bandit for the price I paid these days...would easily cost $1k more.
  • 1 0
 @Broso: Agreed. GX shifter (or anything GX) on the pro build is lame.
  • 1 0
 Finally watched the vid, 74* STA is on the mullet. So maybe they are close to 75 on the other two. (Though too bad they weren't 75 on the mullet and steeper still on the other two) Same for the shorter reach comment, smaller rear wheel rotates the frame back and down and decreases reach YES? Cause the center of the BB gets further from headtube. BUT it makes for a longer ETT? Cause the seat is getting farther away from the bars... I think.

Which is why I have my seat slammed forward on my mullet Smile
  • 2 0
 Intense are nailing the paint jobs in recent years. It's nice to see some companies still put some effort into that. I think many "boutique" brands, at least, should do the same.
  • 4 1
 Finally, water bottle inside the frame, Geo numbers are kinda awkward, but, I would definitely test ride this
  • 10 8
 You mean we waited all that time for this thing and it’s got a mid 2000s seat tube angle? That in combination with McDonald’s colorway makes for a disaster.
  • 3 2
 I like the colours, but seat angle and reach may be a deal breaker for me. Everything else is mega! Will definitely be demoing this beast
  • 19 3
 If you can't pedal a bike with a 75 degree STA, the problem isn't the bike, it's you.
  • 2 2
 @LeDuke: With modern geo, the idea is to lengthen the reach while making the seat tube angle steeper to compensate due to rider position. Typically they don’t lengthen the bike and keep the seat tube angle the same as it previously was. Not that 75 degree STAs are unridable.
  • 2 0
 @LeDuke: Riding a 74/75 STA is totally fine and doable, but it's a lot more comfortable to be a couple degrees steeper... it actually makes a difference especially if your climbs are all straight up and you don't pedal on flat ground much.
  • 4 1
 Not everyone rides the same trails. This Is much better and much more comfortable geometry for flow trails. "Modern" trends hurt a very large percentage of riders. This bike is exactly where geo should be, and most likely will be moving back to soon
  • 2 2
 @alexisfire: It will never go back to that, as there is science behind the modern geometry changes. Being stretched out on a bike is terrible for the body and in no way optimal. Back issues alone is enough for me to never have a slack STA bike again. I ride predominantly flow trails because that’s what we have where I live, and slack STA make no sense for that either.
  • 2 1
 @dualsuspensiondave: What science is that, pray tell?
  • 3 1
 @dualsuspensiondave: Please share the science with us....

If adjusting your saddle position, stem length, & bar width couldn't make you less "stretched out" you were on the wrong size bike. Steep STA is only beneficial to the extent that the reach & wheelbase are growing longer. If the bike doesn't have crazy long reach (these bikes don't), you don't need a crazy steep STA to keep the saddle-to-bar distance reasonable.

Steep STA is all well and good for bikes that continue pushing the wheelbase/reach longer and longer, but I can guarantee you Schurter & Vanderpoel aren't going back to Scott & Canyon bitching about climbing body position on their 74° STA bikes.
  • 2 3
 @bkm303: Pretty much everything an XC racer does to their body is harmful, and athletes mostly aren’t scientists studying biomechanics, kinesiology, physical therapy, etc. If you guys don’t have degrees in the above, then don’t act like you do. Ride the new bikes before you make claims that geometry changes are just marketing. Most things are in this industry, but recent progressive geometry is not. There’s real stuff behind it. If you care to have me explain, PM me.
  • 1 0
 @dualsuspensiondave: I never said it was marketing. If your goal is to make a longer bike with increased reach, steep STA makes total sense - you don't need degrees in any of the above, it's just geometry & common sense. Cockpits can't keep getting longer for the same size rider.... as reach grows, the saddle has to come forward.

If you're claiming that bikes with longer reach are objectively better somehow that's a silly claim, as "better" depends on what you're using the bike for. The position of the bars relative to the saddle on the long bike with steep STA can be exactly the same as on a shorter bike with a slacker STA. So where's the inherent benefit of steep STA? If my upper body position is exactly the same, is 2° difference in leg angle, well within my normal range of motion going to put me in the hospital? How is steep STA beneficial on a XC or road bike, where longer reach would give me undesirable handling characteristics?

Still waiting on that science... you can link sources in the comments.
  • 2 0
 as a person with long legs, I can double post regarding slack seat tubes, the longe legs the far behind BB you ass will be, which is ok for the descending, however from pedaling perspective makes you highly in akward position, espetially on techclims
  • 1 0
 @dualsuspensiondave: The funny thing is that by putting bigger wheels on bikes made changes to the fit of bikes that work better even if you put 26" back on, but some how after using bigger wheels 26" feels too small especially on the front?
  • 1 0
 @intensecyclesusa - would the linkage fairly fit to a coil shock? your are talking about ramping up in the mid stroke, but no comment to the end of stroke. Maybe you can present a graph?
  • 5 2
 mullet bikes: if you desperately want your 2013 seat angle back
  • 4 0
 73.5 .... Wtf
  • 2 0
 This just might be the perfect rig for a mullet build. That is until transition builds a carbon scout.
  • 2 0
 Plot Twist: Transition announces a new 145mm updated bottlerocket. Just between the Scout and Patrol...
  • 1 0
 @j-p-i: don't... Just don't. My heart can't take it
  • 1 0
 @j-p-i: I want this to be a thing
  • 7 5
 Suspension layout is so 2019 Santacruz. With SC new LL VPP. Why buy an intense?
  • 4 3
 Exactly what I thought...gotta go lower linkage driven shock or not at all these days... looking at you SC and Spesh...
  • 1 0
 What advantage does that provide?
  • 6 3
 You mean the SC has intense like layout. Try googling how their business agreement works. Intense does a lot of the initial design for SC. Your question is more accurate to ask, why buy a SC when you can get the Intense.
  • 3 0
 Have you ever ridden the JS tuned intense next to the Santa Cruz LLVVP. On the Nomad vs Tracer i felt that SC was far too floppy no matter how much I messed with the shock and intense was an awesome arounder but never descended quite like the Nomad. But you know they say if you live how a intense rides you’ll hate the SC, and vise versa. They are very different feeling bikes
  • 1 0
 @alexisfire: Exactly. Besides SC are so totally overpriced these days, it's ridiculous! $7000 and we still don't get Fox Factory. So lame.
  • 1 0
 @OpeSorryAbootThat: it just looks more gnarly...
  • 1 0
 Because it is boutique, not mass produced marketing hype
  • 5 0
 @alexisfire: where the heck are u getting that from? Intense had a deal on the old VPP patent with SC, but I've never heard anything about them doing any bike design for them? That doesn't make any sense... SC is a much larger company, they have shown numerous test mules and behind the scenes development videos over the years.

Why would intense develop more complex suspension designs and then not incorporate them into their own bikes?

I did Google it b4 I commented, I don't see anything...???
  • 1 0
 JS tuned bikes are definitely on the higher side compared to SC in terms of anti-squat. They definitely feel more lively when you get on the pedals.
  • 7 5
 Intense makes some good bikes but my god, their color schemes and patterns are always ugly AF.
  • 3 0
 +100 they usually have a 2nd colorway that's not quite as bad, but they also always run out of those ones first!!! You'd think they'd start to notice that trend and chill out their graphics a bit...
  • 2 0
 This was cool until they went with superboost. Also the builds come with 20mm axle front.
  • 2 0
 See above comments. it was a typo on the website! All is well. 148mm is alive.
  • 2 0
 Any bike with 29 inch wheels will work with 27.5 or a combination of both. More marketing hype.
  • 1 0
 Whats the clearence on rear will it take a Maxxis MINION FBR 27.5 X 3.8 as got these tyres a while ago but dont have clearence too fit them?
  • 2 0
 Why not just get different tires that do fit?
  • 3 1
 Crazy paint job. this looks like a bike outta space, I couldn't even ever imagine owning a bike that looked like that
  • 1 0
 The mid price bike is $5700 with GX eagle. For the same price you could walk into a shop and get a Pivot Trail429 Pro Xt 12 speed bike. Not a bargain, anymore.
  • 6 5
 Intense is first to drop a production Mullet bike. I knew it was coming from some company.
  • 7 0
 Alchemy Arktos Nine7Five dropped a few weeks ago. Foes Mixer three years ago.
  • 1 1
 Yeah, you guys are right. I should have said mainstream companies.
  • 3 1
 Trek are pretty mainstream, and their 69er was quite a long time ago ;-)

(Also, Zerode's Taniwha Mulét has been around a while, but they're definitely not mainstream)
  • 2 0
 Have people forgotten about the Big Hit? Weighs more than all these newcomers combined, and could huck to flat like nobody's business.
  • 2 1
 I am not a big fan of the new intense frame color schemes. I like the older moto color schemes intense rolled out in 2016.
  • 4 2
 73.5° seat angle in mullet mode? Wtf this is dh bike territory
  • 3 1
 So we're really moving forward with this mullet bike trend. Alrighty
  • 1 0
 I'm growing out my mullet right...
  • 2 0
 Superboost is a dealbreaker. Stop.
  • 4 1
 this was a typo. 148mm standard boost.
  • 2 0
 @intensecyclesusa: Is the 20mm front axle also a typo?
  • 1 1
 @intensecyclesusa: Woo! Thank you for keeping our wheels relevant!
  • 1 0
 @intensecycles. Is the stand over heights correct? All sizes seem to be the same
  • 3 1
 3k for frame and shock....
  • 1 0
 Is very common on carbon models....
  • 1 0
 @vtbert: true, I'm just basing everything off of Guerrilla Gravity's price now
  • 1 0
 @intensecyclesusa how does the new primer compare to the 2019 Carbine when comes to climbing and downhill?
  • 2 0
 That space atop the Sundial is for leisure- not work @mikelevy
  • 2 0
 $3800 for a carbon frame model?
  • 1 0
 I need a head check. Those prices! "Low" end priced bike with some really budget bike kit, no thanks.
  • 2 1
 Jack of all trades, master of none.
  • 2 1
 it's a pity they snap so easily
  • 2 1
 Looks like a 5010
  • 5 3
 Who do you think does initial bike design for SC? It's Intense. Part of the old VPP business deal they made years ago. SC gets access to Intense designs
  • 1 0
 @alexisfire: um no, but they did have some arrangement on the original patent which is expired and why Diamond back can now use it too.
  • 1 1
 I had a Primer and absolutely loved it. 135, too.
  • 13 14
 Intense, arguably the only brand that slowed down Gwin.
  • 8 1
 I think Gwin is transitioning to slopestyle after sideflipping in Fort William.
  • 2 4
 Seat tube still too long and so are the chain stays. The two issues that held the original primer back which is a bummer
  • 6 6
 Still garbage
  • 2 4
 If they didn't make ebikes I'd consider buying.
  • 1 3
 Will never buy from an ebike manufacturer!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.062685
Mobile Version of Website