Video: Intense's New 140mm Primer Does (Almost) All the Wheel Sizes
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.
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.
Author Info:
Member since Oct 18, 2005
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
cdn.bicyclebluebook.com/bikepedia/2003-Specialized-Big-Hit-DH.jpg
Me too but not with you
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.
" 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.
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"
@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.
(For the record, I actually up voted the above comment.)
Come on Intense! You have the ability to get it so right! Help me upgrade from my 2018 Primer (orange / red)....
"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.
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.
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.
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
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!
great idea, bk! let's take our geo from road bikes like we did in the fkn 80s & 90s!
(face palm)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Steep seat tubes made sense on longer travel bikes, you don't set up short travel bikes with as much sag.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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!
Super Cross! Make it happen! I’ll be your prophet!
Which is why I have my seat slammed forward on my mullet
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.
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.
Yes it is me, i hate anything under about 77 degrees!
(Also, Zerode's Taniwha Mulét has been around a while, but they're definitely not mainstream)
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...???