Intense ACV: Foundation Build - Review
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
The ACV's rear suspension is intended to provide ample mud clearance for Plus tires up to three inches wide.
Construction
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.
Cable and hose exits on the underside of the bottom bracket are exposed to rock strikes, but suffered no damage during the review.
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.
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.
Duroc rims are on the heavy side, but they tick all the boxes for Plus-width tires.
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.
Build
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geometry
 |
 | Point 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.
| 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. |
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.
| It 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.
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.
| 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. |
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:
| If 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 |
Author Info:
Member since Mar 23, 2011
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Bad habit? I think geometry is more important which is why thats true
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Old" Intense.
fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/intense/387847d1219944869-2009-uzzi-vp-sneek-peek-2009-uzzi-vp-2.jpg
www.sicklines.com/gallery/data/726/08_intense_socom_frame_raw.jpg
"Old" Santa Cruz
fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/santa-cruz/566104d1283382699-carbon-nomad-gallery-nomad-1.jpg
www.bike198.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/santa-cruz-tallboy-carbon1.jpg
That "Senna" Yellow on Tallboy... Sweet Jesus
Now let's see this, which comes for very similar money
ep1.pinkbike.org/p6pb14144244/p5pb14144244.jpg
www.instagram.com/p/BPgBje6hAsz/?taken-by=antidotebikes
Even Direct Germans can do better for 70% of the price
cdn.mos.bikeradar.imdserve.com/images/news/2017/01/18/ultimate-1484755458169-u9azusf7agxi-630-354.jpg
But what do we get today for fricking 8 grand?!
fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/intense/1091005d1472524874-intense-recluse-reviews-specs-image.jpg
i.ytimg.com/vi/vg9HEBLxAAk/maxresdefault.jpg
Cheers!
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.
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?
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!
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
$4500 for that build? Intense can go suck a fat one.
Get ready for when they will announce the revolution: 2.3 tires + 25 wide wheels and 132.75 travel!
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.
TaTa.
PS the MEC is now selling Intense so it must be---------------------------Hip
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.
The "viola" after the wheel swap was probably meant to be "voila" though.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
(Caveat: based on polls, perhaps not most riders on THIS website; most mountain bikers in general.)
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.
Ok, the guy screwed up big time, but for the frame to fail like this is also shocking...
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.
(And, no, I don't mean 'cheap' in terms of the ticket price ????)
to me, I believe they should spect some lighter version of the cassette
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.