Intense M9275
- Thread starter Trekrules
- Start date
ooh, inb4 the haters!
Last edited:
would love to try all those bikes!
Is it a one off frame or different dropouts like some companies are doing?
That looks like an XC casing, kevlar bead, 2.35" Nevegal. I'm currently running the same tire on the front of my 650 trail bike. It wouldn't be a suitable DH tire. 650 caught on quickly with rim makers but we'll have to wait a year or two for 2.4"+ and tougher casing tires.
The replacement 650b dropouts would move the axle up enough to keep the BB the same and back just far enough for tire clearance. Yes, the chainstay will grow but very little to accommodate the current tires.
I think the 650b dropouts are available for the Carbine.
I think the 650b dropouts are available for the Carbine.
So they're just dropouts?
Most frames these days seem to be built on the edge of the tire hitting something at bottom out, and also fairly close to the chainstay yoke.
You'd need (27.5-26 / 2) = 0.75" more space, so the chainstay would have to be that much longer - which is a huge increase - unless you want to sacrifice mud clearance, lame in itself.
If that's what they are doing, then count one more aboard the hater bandwagon.
Most frames these days seem to be built on the edge of the tire hitting something at bottom out, and also fairly close to the chainstay yoke.
You'd need (27.5-26 / 2) = 0.75" more space, so the chainstay would have to be that much longer - which is a huge increase - unless you want to sacrifice mud clearance, lame in itself.
If that's what they are doing, then count one more aboard the hater bandwagon.
And remember these bikes are currently rolling on max 2.35" Nevegals. Compared to a 26" 2.7" Minion it's narrower and not much taller. When DH 650b tires are available sub 17" chainstays won't be possible and frames will have to provide suspension clearance. That's why I like 26" rear, 27.5" front.
So WTF is the point of it then? Same OD, but requires new rims, new tires, new spokes, and new frame geo.
Until there are real 650b DH tires there isn't much of one. But my DH bike could use another half inch of bottom bracket height so once that happens I think it'll be worth a shot
To sell more bikes?
Marketing! After standard 26" bikes got so good that many people don't have to buy a new one every year the companies started to push 'innovation'....but not by addressing the obvious problems (we still get flats, still no mass produced lightweight gearbox trail bikes). Instead they paint everything carbon and throw different sized wheels on existing frames with different dropouts. Wooohhooooo, isn't that great! 
I couldn't agree with you more. Even though I lust after new gear it's the first time in a long time when I can't justify my idiotic spending habbits without going full retard. I understand some of the new stuff is cool but most of it? MehMarketing! After standard 26" bikes got so good that many people don't have to buy a new one every year the companies started to push 'innovation'....but not by addressing the obvious problems (we still get flats, still no mass produced lightweight gearbox trail bikes). Instead they paint everything carbon and throw different sized wheels on existing frames with different dropouts. Wooohhooooo, isn't that great!
I'm all for the largest wheel that will fit while keeping ideal geometry. To me it just makes too much sense...ever compared the effect of wheel sizes on a skateboard?
Marketing! After standard 26" bikes got so good that many people don't have to buy a new one every year the companies started to push 'innovation'....but not by addressing the obvious problems (we still get flats, still no mass produced lightweight gearbox trail bikes). Instead they paint everything carbon and throw different sized wheels on existing frames with different dropouts. Wooohhooooo, isn't that great!
I love you guys. SRAM spoon feeds you more gears year by year and you eat it up, because you NEED it and it solves every problem EVAR OMG. Take the same haggard old frame but make it CARBONZ TEH SHIMZ and it's "shut up and take my money"
pretty much this comment sums it up. 29ers don't fit with acceptable geometry. 650b lets you use what works on 26ers with bigger wheels. Intense may not be the best example, as they're always #1 on the bandwagon, but if you take a look at the new norco bikes, they're really pretty dialed. Bigger wheels make sense in so many different situations, put applying them represents the challenge, which is why 650b has tons of promise.
I don't necessarily buy that it's a good idea for the competitive world of DH racing, but it didn't kill XC racing, only made them faster. So, in 5 years you can still clutch onto your 26" wheeled bikes, but everybody will probably be faster than you.
That sucks also that I have to run 10-speed on a dh rig now (selling isn't an option because it would cost too much to replace it) although 9 or even less would be perfectly fine.
Are you being serious? I bet you can't scientifically proove that a bike with 650b-wheels is faster down a dh-course. The difference is simply too small to notice.
Are you kidding? That's the easiest scientific test possible, and much easier than quantifying "100% antisquat" for anything besides one single point at one single time.
Take two bikes of similar/same design. Which one is fastest to the bottom? Which one is fastest through different sections? Same rider, same course. No need to discuss "feel" or anything like that. Just one dude (or rather, several riders participating in the test) then time them top to bottom with splits.
Saying "everybody will be faster than you" is hyperbole, but if big wheels catch on, the highest tech will be applied there, and if it represents an advantage, everybody will switch (and the playing field will be leveled, again). If it doesn't, then who cares? Again, I'm personally ambivalent because if everybody switches, then there's no real advantage.
I've been on all the big three wheels sizes and I can certainly see the promise in 650b. I hope they're able to capitalize on it.
Take two bikes of similar/same design. Which one is fastest to the bottom? Which one is fastest through different sections? Same rider, same course. No need to discuss "feel" or anything like that. Just one dude (or rather, several riders participating in the test) then time them top to bottom with splits.
Saying "everybody will be faster than you" is hyperbole, but if big wheels catch on, the highest tech will be applied there, and if it represents an advantage, everybody will switch (and the playing field will be leveled, again). If it doesn't, then who cares? Again, I'm personally ambivalent because if everybody switches, then there's no real advantage.
I've been on all the big three wheels sizes and I can certainly see the promise in 650b. I hope they're able to capitalize on it.
The inconsistencies of the riders on each run would outweigh the "bigger wheels".
Last edited:
so downhill racing is not a test of who's fastest, but rather a randomized lottery of what rock is where? Of course you would do multiple runs, then average the times, but experimental design doesn't have to be that complicated to get a good result.
So why did nearly nobody show this data for the oh-so-super-fast 29-er trail and DH bikes? Only Dirt mentioned it in their 29er test that they timed the bikes (and supported it with data!) and 29 was faster.
I want to see more of this with identical setups (minus wheel size of course). Multiple courses, multiple riders, different conditions etc. And please with statistical support!
For the most part all what matters is the rider. There are no better or worse dh bikes on the wc-circuit. The bikes are on par and the main difference from rider to rider are ergonomic preferences. Not the machine makes the difference but man.
The outcome of the current WC-season wouldn't look any different if Gwin was on 26 and the rest of the field was on 650b.
The outcome of the current WC-season wouldn't look any different if Gwin was on 26 and the rest of the field was on 650b.
a bigger wheel is going to roll over roots and rocks faster than a smaller wheel. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around?
EDIT: Old school guys like myself will remember when 24" wheels were around on DH bikes for a few seasons. No one ever won races on 24" wheels.
EDIT: Old school guys like myself will remember when 24" wheels were around on DH bikes for a few seasons. No one ever won races on 24" wheels.
Last edited:
Dammit, "must spread rep around" etc blah blah...
Genius comment.
I'm still not convinced about 650b, I can ride a 26" bike just fine, and I'm to much of a carny midget for a 29er!
The last 29er I rode was horrible, felt like driving an old Kombi van compared to my last Subaru (RIP), makes similar noises but gives completely different results.
very well putMarketing! After standard 26" bikes got so good that many people don't have to buy a new one every year the companies started to push 'innovation'....but not by addressing the obvious problems (we still get flats, still no mass produced lightweight gearbox trail bikes). Instead they paint everything carbon and throw different sized wheels on existing frames with different dropouts. Wooohhooooo, isn't that great!
intense needs to come out with a carbon dh frame.
will these come in rootbeer?
i find it funny that in the world of dirt trucks the same applies. there is a reason trophy trucks run 40" tires and not 31s like stock trucks...
i fail to see how bikes wouldn't benefit as long as you keep the geometry you are looking for.
i fail to see how bikes wouldn't benefit as long as you keep the geometry you are looking for.
I'm yet to see huge merit in the 650b trend for DH racing, but I'll disagree with that.
This isn't the men's 100m sprint - getting down the hill the fastest is indeed a combination of bike and body, and while the rider is a much bigger part of the equation, you'd be foolish to think the bike was not significant enough to make a difference.
I can jump on a different bike and easily feel improvements that allow me to ride either more safely for the same level of speed, or faster for the same level of safety.
I think these small differences actually become more critical at the pointy end of competition because the riders are so good - and thus small performance improvements in the bike (whether it's better bump absorption from the frame / suspension, better brakes allowing for later braking, whatever) might make all the difference when it comes down to split seconds.
So you are saying Aaron Gwin isn't fast because he is Aaron Gwin but because he is on Trek? And that he wouldn't be as fast if he would be on a Demo?
Not really. You forget that WC-pros have mechanics and techniques to get the bike-setup they want. Just look at the athertons and how they updated the outdated geometry of the fury. Geometry-wise current stock frames are as simliar as it can get. Same for damping and rearend kinematiks. There is no frame that doesn't work in this respect. If you set up the shock right it will work. Same goes for forks and other components, the posibilites are endless.
Well he certainly stopped winning in a hurry when his equipment stopped working.
If equipment wasn't important in DH racing then teams wouldn't be paying all these mechanics to squeeze every last drop of performance out of their bikes.
What they do is basically adapting the bikes quicker to a certain track than a end user could do. Bicycle technology is not rocket science. Compared to car racing where the machine got so much more important than the driver that they had invent technical handicaps to keep things interesting bicycle racing is low tech.
A rider won't touch his ergonomical settings too much (see Brook MCDonald and forward geometry). Then they have the option to adjust geometry a bit which won't change drastically either and suspension setup. tires are the other big factor. But that's about it.
A rider won't touch his ergonomical settings too much (see Brook MCDonald and forward geometry). Then they have the option to adjust geometry a bit which won't change drastically either and suspension setup. tires are the other big factor. But that's about it.