Quantcast

Intense 2012 uzzi - weapon upgrade

A-NON-A

A-NON-A

Chimp
May 4, 2010
87
0
Inland Empire, Ca
I was out at Intense Cycles recently and got to speak with Jeff the owner about all the things he is working on. One of those projects was the newly revamped UZZI. We talked a bit about the UZZI and the market sector it fits in. He specifically mentioned the Transition TR250 in our conversation and spoke about the MINI DH bike segment.

The majority of the upgrades are tube angles and the adjustable G3 142MM dropout for increased stiffness. You can view photos and read the press release here if you want : 2012 INTENSE UZZI
 
buildyourown

buildyourown

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2004
4,832
0
South Seattle
Looks like what the SS2 should have been. Instead, they took the SS and removed all the features that made it awesome.
Looking closer and comparing the geo, I can't really tell the difference. Hopefully they shed some weight, cause the SS is a pig.
 
Beef Supreme

Beef Supreme

Turbo Monkey
Oct 29, 2010
1,434
73
Hiding from the stupid
buildyourown said:
Looks like what the SS2 should have been. Instead, they took the SS and removed all the features that made it awesome.
Looking closer and comparing the geo, I can't really tell the difference. Hopefully they shed some weight, cause the SS is a pig.
Click to expand...
The SS is something like 9.25lbs with a steel coil. I am not sure I would call that heavy.
 
IH8Rice

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,524
494
Im over here now
im glad they are using a direct mount FD now. i thought i had read that somewhere and after getting a current Uzzi in, im glad they are
they sent (after forgetting to include it, the FD and other parts in the original shipment) a custom made cnc'd adapter for a direct mount FD onto their round seat tube. :think:
 
R

RaindogT

Monkey
Dec 22, 2005
186
0
Kansas City
Dead Sexy-- but what is with the 142mm DO? 135 Qr not stiff enough, but 150 thru too much? Are rear hubs even made for 142mm drop outs? this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing.... Or am I missing the point completely and 142 isn't the hub spacing?
 
buildyourown

buildyourown

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2004
4,832
0
South Seattle
RaindogT said:
Dead Sexy-- but what is with the 142mm DO? 135 Qr not stiff enough, but 150 thru too much? Are rear hubs even made for 142mm drop outs? this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing.... Or am I missing the point completely and 142 isn't the hub spacing?
Click to expand...

It's not a stiffness thing. 10sp drivetrain and more dish to the wheel. I think it's also supposed to help with chainline. Trek and Spec started it and now other manufactures are following.

I have the SS with 150mm rear and it's still really flexy. And yes, a 9# frame is a bit heavy for a 6.5" bike. My bike, built with light parts, is over 35#.
 
A-NON-A

A-NON-A

Chimp
May 4, 2010
87
0
Inland Empire, Ca
Personally I am all for improvement but it seems like alot of the manufacturers are making changes just to force consumers to constantly upgrade. One of the things I discussed with Jeff was how much of what the industry is doing is improvement, and how much is purely profit driven. We ended up talking quite a bit about 29er's gaining acceptance which led him to 650b. He seemed adamant that that will be the NEXT THING the major players start pushing....

RaindogT said:
Dead Sexy-- but what is with the 142mm DO? 135 Qr not stiff enough, but 150 thru too much? Are rear hubs even made for 142mm drop outs? this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing.... Or am I missing the point completely and 142 isn't the hub spacing?
Click to expand...
buildyourown said:
It's not a stiffness thing. 10sp drivetrain and more dish to the wheel. I think it's also supposed to help with chainline. Trek and Spec started it and now other manufactures are following.

I have the SS with 150mm rear and it's still really flexy. And yes, a 9# frame is a bit heavy for a 6.5" bike. My bike, built with light parts, is over 35#.
Click to expand...
 
R

RaindogT

Monkey
Dec 22, 2005
186
0
Kansas City
buildyourown said:
//snip// And yes, a 9# frame is a bit heavy for a 6.5" bike. My bike, built with light parts, is over 35#.
Click to expand...
I have a transition preston-- I can end the 'weight to travel ratio' conversation fast.... :D I also run it in the 4" setting with the dangerboy plates. I love that frame-- just wish it could be a little lighter--

Back to the 142-- seriously-- there are 142 rear hubs???? I guess I don't keep up with the current specs..... I've never had 150 nor a 1.5 ht frame.
 
Last edited:
baca262

baca262

Monkey
Aug 16, 2011
392
0
links look almost exactly like the 951 which leads me to believe they have a very similar axle path... i hope i'm wrong. i want something more plowy.
 
Zark

Zark

Hey little girl, do you want some candy?
Oct 18, 2001
6,254
7
Reno 911
buildyourown said:
It's not a stiffness thing. 10sp drivetrain and more dish to the wheel. I think it's also supposed to help with chainline. Trek and Spec started it and now other manufactures are following.

I have the SS with 150mm rear and it's still really flexy. And yes, a 9# frame is a bit heavy for a 6.5" bike. My bike, built with light parts, is over 35#.
Click to expand...
Negative, its a stiffness thing. 9speed and 10speed are the same cassette body, same spacing, same dish.
12x142 allows a stiff through axle setup that's easier to remove and install wheels trailside. the extra width is to provide a shoulder for the axle to rest on. The disc spacing, hub shell width and cassette location are identical to a 135mm hub.
 
DirtMcGirk

DirtMcGirk

<b>WAY</b> Dumber than N8 (to the power of ten alm
Feb 21, 2008
6,379
1
Oz
I love my SS1. Taking it with me to Moab. That bike is a pants party.
 
DirtMcGirk

DirtMcGirk

<b>WAY</b> Dumber than N8 (to the power of ten alm
Feb 21, 2008
6,379
1
Oz
Actually once I have some spare cash laying around I am going to do the 142 on my ASR5.

Maybe I'm weird, but I can't feel "flexy" in bikes. And you'd think I could, I am one of the biggest mammals on RM, at least by weight.
 
buildyourown

buildyourown

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2004
4,832
0
South Seattle
Zark said:
Negative, its a stiffness thing. 9speed and 10speed are the same cassette body, same spacing, same dish.
12x142 allows a stiff through axle setup that's easier to remove and install wheels trailside. the extra width is to provide a shoulder for the axle to rest on. The disc spacing, hub shell width and cassette location are identical to a 135mm hub.
Click to expand...

Really? I've been wrong once before.
I thought the 7mm went to dish.
 
denjen

denjen

Certified Lift Whore
Sep 16, 2001
1,691
36
Richmond VA
I just converted my Hope Pro2 rear to 142. Just had to swap out the axle and put on the wider end caps.

Specialized makes a wheel set called the 142+ that does have a wider hub body and different dish, but you can only use it on their bikes.
 
?

?????

Turbo Monkey
Jun 20, 2005
1,678
2
San Francisco
Why do the new Intense bikes have the brace between the chain stay and seat stay on the drive side? I don't understand. Isn't the main purpose of that brace to stiffen the disc brake mount?

Does I9 offer end caps to retrofit 150mm to 157 and 135mm to 142?
 
4130biker

4130biker

PM me about Tantrum Cycles!
May 24, 2007
3,884
450
My guess is because there is no vertical connector (between the seatstay and chainstay) on the drive side because of the drivetrain. I'm thinking this helps aleviate this "missing" tube on some models. See ih8rices pics above to see what I mean. Never noticed that part befor- I guess I just assumed it was on the brake side!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom