Or just get a Demo and then you don't have to worry about replacement bearing kits.
Intense M9 or Carbon V10
- Thread starter Curler
- Start date
Or just get a santa cruz.
the totally redesigned pivots on the nomad were part of the reason i bought that frame, and it's been the low maintenance champ of any FS bike i've owned. one of the reasons i'm considering a v10c is just to have a DH bike with the SC pivot engineering.
ironic, since not that many years ago, SC = Super Creaky was the reason I avoided their frames.
seeing as how these two bikes along with the new demo, the session 88, and arguably the new yeti 303 represent the pinnacle of dh technology up to this point; I'm pretty sure they ride f*king great. I would challenge ANY ridemonkey desk jockey to find a "riding" fault with any of these bikes. QC... sure. Reliability.... maybe. Availability... you bet. Rides like crap? Bullsh*t.
Wouldnt that just look like black plastic with modern carbon technology?
I'm pretty comfortable saying that 90% of the people on this forum, every other forum, and likely every other rider out there, can't push todays bikes to 90% of their potential. M9 or V10, neither one is going to hold you back.
Get whichever you can physically obtain faster and ride it.
Last edited:
That's exactly why I went with the M9. I was going o get th V10carbon but I got my hands on the M9 faster. I've already put over a dozen runs on my M9 in our local mountain, and loving it!
...says the guy reviewing stems.
I say go with the M9. Carbon is not recycable...
Ok well I am now leaning towards the Santa Cruz and ill tell you why.
Firstly carbon does have an appeal, I believe that is the way mountain biking is going to go and there is a lot to be said for carbon done right. Strength to weight ratio can't be beat and Santa Cruz has done a few carbon frames in the last couple years and I haven't heard an outcry about how easily they break. One of the biggest factors swaying me is their crash replacement guarantee for the life of the bike. I believe Santa Cruz will stand behind their product. (Not that I don't think Intense won't but they don't have a crash replacement policy on their website).
Secondly at 6'0 tall the Santa Cruz size large looks like a perfect fit for me. I think this is because they went to a 4 size lineup they could have smaller jumps in between sizes. I am on a medium Intense right now that is just a little bit too small and the large is just a little bit too big. I think more companies should have 4 sizes.
I really like all the adjustment the M9 has it looks like you can really dial that bike in and I would love to tinker with it and find out what makes me fastest. I am glad that user adjust-ability is finally making its way back into the sport after a long absence.
As far as the DHR goes, it seems more evolutionary rather than revolutionary. No adjust-ability, no fancy carbon and looks only a mother could love. Add to that that its 200 dollars more expensive, doesn't come with an Angleset, and has been delayed for who knows how long for who knows what reason, I scratched that one off my list.
Firstly carbon does have an appeal, I believe that is the way mountain biking is going to go and there is a lot to be said for carbon done right. Strength to weight ratio can't be beat and Santa Cruz has done a few carbon frames in the last couple years and I haven't heard an outcry about how easily they break. One of the biggest factors swaying me is their crash replacement guarantee for the life of the bike. I believe Santa Cruz will stand behind their product. (Not that I don't think Intense won't but they don't have a crash replacement policy on their website).
Secondly at 6'0 tall the Santa Cruz size large looks like a perfect fit for me. I think this is because they went to a 4 size lineup they could have smaller jumps in between sizes. I am on a medium Intense right now that is just a little bit too small and the large is just a little bit too big. I think more companies should have 4 sizes.
I really like all the adjustment the M9 has it looks like you can really dial that bike in and I would love to tinker with it and find out what makes me fastest. I am glad that user adjust-ability is finally making its way back into the sport after a long absence.
As far as the DHR goes, it seems more evolutionary rather than revolutionary. No adjust-ability, no fancy carbon and looks only a mother could love. Add to that that its 200 dollars more expensive, doesn't come with an Angleset, and has been delayed for who knows how long for who knows what reason, I scratched that one off my list.
thats fine with me. i want to see the carbon pattern. i dont want paint to cover that goodness.
i also got my M9 two months faster than i was able to get a V10c, so that also made the decision easie.
Thats the point. I dont think you'd actually see a carbon pattern with the new techniques they use, but maybe someone else can shed some light on this?
I agree that it would look sexy as hell tho!
Carbon fiber that they use for frames, bars, cranks does not have that weave pattern. it is usually a top layer just to look nice because that is what we percieve as carbon fiber.
Look at Easton carbon bars or Edge/Enve carbon bars/seatposts, that is what carbon fiber looks like.
they do have that weave pattern inside their frames though
edit:
edit:
Last edited:
it has basically to do with reinforcemernt
The weave patterns are aesthetic. You should worry about the specifications of the carbon fiber. Colnago uses 50-ton carbon fiber for certain parts of their bikes. Meaning the bike can withstand up to 50 tons of pressure. Ofcourse that is unnecessary for most parts of the frame so they use that in moderation with other lesser carbon fiber components. Good thing about carbon fiber is that you can alter the stress tolerance on specific parts of the frame compared to aluminum where the tolerance will be almost the same everywhere on the frame. They use different types of carbon fiber for different parts of the frame depending on whether you need stiffness or compliance.
Its not easy to actually test these claims as a civilian but you can surely tell the difference on test rides if you are an experienced rider. Some carbon fiber frames will show the weave patterns but the weave doesnt necessarily mean its better or worse than the other. Its the material when it comes down to it. Just as some wheel manufacturers will argue that the spoke allignment makes all the difference, I am sure some manufacturers of carbon fiber will argue the weave patterns make some difference. I say its minimal and has more to do with aesthetics. When it comes down to it the type of carbon fiber used should be more of your concern.
P.S. Dont worry about where the carbon fiber is made because currently the best quality carbon fiber is from Asia. I read this in a magazine and I also learned that many Italian bike companies buy their carbon fiber from Asia.
Steel has tensile strength of roughly 29 million psi. A "low modulus" carbon fiber has tensile strength of roughly 34.8 psi. So a high modulus carbon fiber would have much more. They classify carbon as low, medium, high and ultra modulus monocoque. Ultra modulus carbon fiber will have tensile strength somewhere between 70 million to 150 million psi. High modulus carbon fiber is just below that.
Based on this its easy to tell that carbon fiber is much stiffer. We all know its lighter so its no question that a race bike will be more suited with carbon fiber than any other material.
The weave patterns are aesthetic. You should worry about the specifications of the carbon fiber. Colnago uses 50-ton carbon fiber for certain parts of their bikes. Meaning the bike can withstand up to 50 tons of pressure. Ofcourse that is unnecessary for most parts of the frame so they use that in moderation with other lesser carbon fiber components. Good thing about carbon fiber is that you can alter the stress tolerance on specific parts of the frame compared to aluminum where the tolerance will be almost the same everywhere on the frame. They use different types of carbon fiber for different parts of the frame depending on whether you need stiffness or compliance.
Its not easy to actually test these claims as a civilian but you can surely tell the difference on test rides if you are an experienced rider. Some carbon fiber frames will show the weave patterns but the weave doesnt necessarily mean its better or worse than the other. Its the material when it comes down to it. Just as some wheel manufacturers will argue that the spoke allignment makes all the difference, I am sure some manufacturers of carbon fiber will argue the weave patterns make some difference. I say its minimal and has more to do with aesthetics. When it comes down to it the type of carbon fiber used should be more of your concern.
P.S. Dont worry about where the carbon fiber is made because currently the best quality carbon fiber is from Asia. I read this in a magazine and I also learned that many Italian bike companies buy their carbon fiber from Asia.
Steel has tensile strength of roughly 29 million psi. A "low modulus" carbon fiber has tensile strength of roughly 34.8 psi. So a high modulus carbon fiber would have much more. They classify carbon as low, medium, high and ultra modulus monocoque. Ultra modulus carbon fiber will have tensile strength somewhere between 70 million to 150 million psi. High modulus carbon fiber is just below that.
Based on this its easy to tell that carbon fiber is much stiffer. We all know its lighter so its no question that a race bike will be more suited with carbon fiber than any other material.
Great googling, cut, and paste. Unfortunately, this is not quite correct. Tensile strength is not a measure of stiffness, though you can definitely make carbon stiffer if layed up properly.
Yes it was cut and pasted. Tensile strength is basically how much pressure it takes to pull something apart. So I guess they were trying to say if it takes more pressure it is stiffer.
i think we need Gridds to chime in. Williams F1 might know something about that finicky plastic stuff
At least quote your source rather than passing it off as your own:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081021132259AAF6sIz
Really? No really? It's not a fracking term paper or thesis.
i going to have to report you to the Dean. their is a honor code here at RM University.
well, at least someone here knows how to use google, rather than relying purely on armchair engineer speculation.
We need armchair engineering!!! How the hell is everyone going to be able to figure out this years "Best Bike Ever"?well, at least someone here knows how to use google, rather than relying purely on armchair engineer speculation.