Spotted: A Closer Look at the New Intense Prototype DH Bike
After securing its first win at the 2022 Tennessee National DH under Dakotah Norton (finals were cancelled due to a snow and wind storm) we now have a clearer look at the new Intense prototype.
We're three years into Intense's latest design phase and have seen multiple different designs being raced on the World Cup circuit since 2019. However, no design seems to have stuck for the team, with rolling updates and frame shapes becoming a regular feature underneath its racers. At the start of February, we got a peek at the newest design as Jeff Steber teased a high pivot Intense downhill bike and now we have a clear look at the new frame design.
The new prototype marks a big departure from the previous few Intense DH prototypes that have all focused around the lower link suspension design. This time around, we have a high pivot, four bar design, with a massive rocker link driving the shock, which partially sits in a recess in the downtube.
Intense's M series of bikes started back in 1995 with the bike that Shaun Palmer rode to a silver medal at the 1996 World Championships, so it's cool to see that go full circle nearly 30 years later, albeit with a Horst Link layout instead of a link-driven single pivot this time around. While the new design hasn't seen much racing so far, it does seem to be competitive after Dakotah Norton's huge six-second win at the 2022 Tennessee National DH.
Previous Intense mullet prototypes built for Aaron Gwin (left) and Neko Mulally (right)
So, is this a finalised design? Well, it's probably too early to tell at the moment. The bikes we saw in Windrock this weekend were all carrying telemetry systems, which leads us to believe that the team is still tweaking and perfecting the platform. With the 2022 World Cup kicking off in just over a week it shouldn't be long before we should be able to get some more details on the new bike, and see how it performs on the world stage.
146 Comments
Well if this Jekyll dh doesn't work then next season I recommend they 'prototype' a Tues.
edit - despite all the flack Intense gets, like many others I'm always gunning for Gwin, so hope he's fit/healthy/dialed and feeling good on the new whip. wishing the Intense crew + Neko much fastness against the Frenchies and their dialedAF HP bikes.
Separate from my funny joke, does this shock look like it has a ton of rotation? Does it rotate down and into the frames shock channel? I guess they'll spec trunnion at one end and bearing at the other end?
@jomacba:
I'm eagerly awaiting the Miami Vice font & colorway. wallpapercave.com/miami-vice-wallpapers
Jekyll: "oh how cute, it has its Daddies linkage"
Stab Primo and Dare: *blankly stares*
Jeff always makes good looking bikes but have to ask, how much moonshine was consumed designing and welding this?
I mean it as a compliment. I like my bikes like I like my art, unique onto itself and offensive to half the people who look at it. This thing’s a masterpiece.
@jomacba:
Go to Vital if you want to see detailed pics….
Oh...and you can correct, clarify or delete your comments so that you can learn, repair relationships or simply not have to see your mistakes on screen for infinity.
I know that it is possible to edit but I am not too sure why I would want to. Nothing that I have said is in any way damaging any relationships. There are plenty of people out there who would love the opportunity to become a 'squid' and have been putting in real work to do so. Jack is an example of that. For PB to not have anyone at major events, especially close to home, should be embarrassing.
There are many og eastern area photogs and it wouldn’t take PB much effort to get some coverage. I assume the Outside group has a different priority set. I find it a rather hard pill to swallow that bike company’s are having record profits and if Outside invested in PB their must be some money in it. Yet mtb Photography is not a lucrative avenue.
PB doesn't let you edit your comments. You can do it for maybe a minute or two after you've submitted a comment, but after that, the comment locks and you're forever known for something you typed, whether you're relaying incorrect information or said something in jest that was interpreted wrong and wish the clarify.
Lots of reasons to edit comments or DELETE. One really shlt thing PB changed a while back was the ability to delete a comment so you'd stop getting notifications on your dashboard of additonal comments or if you just want out of a shltshow of Waki diatribes.
There are a few others out there that would gladly contribute if they were asked. Hell, I would make an effort to attend more than the 3 or so races (mostly DHSE) I attend. A site, like PB, that gained notoriety from its photo coverage not being able to find a solid, drive side photo of a new bike at a race, again, should be embarrassing.
(probably not, but a fan can dream)
So, the first one wasn't a "four bar". The four bars refer to the things that locate the rear wheel. Single pivots, linkage driven or not, have one single thing that locates the rear wheel. There could be any number of "bars" as part of the linkage, still doesn't make it a four- or six- or whatever-bar.
Not being picky to harsh on single pivots, but to harsh on using terminology incorrectly. We have a ton of specific terminology in the bike industry, and people already fight over which is better or worse (neither, they're just different, most of the time) even when the correct terms are used. So maybe one of the biggest media players in the mountain bike world could use the correct terms, to keep things unambiguous, and just to demonstrate some actual expert knowledge in the industry they represent.
So for me, early M1’s were 4 bar, single pivot. Later M1’s 4 bar, with Horst link.
Should ABP/SplitPivot be called "4 bar, with single-pivot and concentric pivot"? What about the Delta System on Evil bikes? That's got at least 4 "constituent parts", should that "4 bar, with dog bone links pulling on counter rotating bell crank?
Answer: No. They are single pivots, because a single pivot locates the rear wheel. And again, this doesn't mean they're any less good of a design, it's just a matter of not diluting the terminology.
"The number of bars within the linkage system has no relationship to whether it is single pivot..."
Yes, I said that previously (and again just above) The single pivot naming refers to the _single_ pivot that does all the work of locating the rear axle.
".... or Horst link."
Well, that part is wrong. A horst link suspension is a (true) four bar system, applied to bikes, with specific locations for a couple of the pivots: main pivot above the BB, and secondary pivot (chainstay pivot) below the rear axle, with rear axle on a floating link (seatstay). So the number of parts (4: the upper link also plays a part but its location is not part of the old patent) that locate the axle actually is a huge part of the horst link definition.
not that it matters to normies though, those people think they can outargue laws of physics
So yes, an ABP is a 4 bar, a VPP is a 4 bar, horst link is a 4 bar etc,,,, My take from all this is that companies (or journalists) shouldn't try and use engineering terminology and bike terminology, the 2 overlap in ways that lead to poitnless conversations like this.
Stick to Horst link, single pivot, vpp single pivot with linkage driven shock. etc,,,
ABP is not four-bar, it only needs one bar to describe the axle path.
Why shouldn't we use engineering terminology? If it's technically correct, use it, since it's almost always the least ambiguous terminology. It's the mixing and matching that confuses things.
BTW, Horst-link actually refers to a very specific four-bar layout, VPP is also a specific four-bar layout, and single pivot with linkage is a subset of single pivot. So your list is already overlapping, broke your own rule.
And remember, none of this implies one or the other is better. It's all about trying to be unambiguous and specific.
From the engineers handbook.
"A four-bar linkage, also called a planar four-bar, is the simplest movable closed-chain linkage. It consists of four bodies, called bars or links, connected in a loop by four revolute joints"
This linkage was discovered and used many many years before bicyles were even invented. It has absoluely nothing at all to do with axle paths. It is purely and simply the number of bars and pivots within a closed chain linkage. What the bars or pivots are connected to, or doing, makes zero change on how many there are.
I guess we (me and the engineering world) will just have to agree to disgree with you.
Incidentally a single pivot is 2 bar (not 1). 1 bar being the main frame, the 2nd bar being the swingarm.
wake me up in 10 years, eh?
VPP stands for virtual pivot point, and in reality Horst link bikes, DW link bikes, Giants Maestro, JS link, are all a]have a “virtual pivot”, meaning the “main pivot” that dictates axle path is out in space, and varies as the bike goes through its suspension travel. However they are not all VPP bikes, that would be you Santa Cruzes, and the Intense bikes (the JS tune is just a variation on the VPP axle path essentially)
Essentially anything other than a single pivot sus design is a variable virtual pivot when the suspension goes through extremes.
Words can be tough
You’re both right, f*ck yeah
Seriously, with people dooching a few grand on Ebikes,same people that would pay good money for 2...3... bikes, is there a REAL market for DH bikes?
No offense on the questions, or negative karma, btw!
Just asking...
A link to Vital?
Here you go, scroll around two thirds of the page.
www.vitalmtb.com/forums/The-Hub,2/2020-MTB-Tech-rumors-and-innovation,10797?exclusive_forum_user=false&page=206
Hint: there is no "top" or "bottom" for bike shocks. More than a few bikes have flipped their shocks from the traditional layout, for various reasons: ease of connecting lockout remotes, ease of fitment around a reservoir or thru a seat-tube tunnel, various claims of better air-can lubrication or reducing unsprung weight.
Join Pinkbike Login