[Joe W.Cup]

I'm not trying to starting any $hit here, I'm honestly curious about what the general consensus is of what people think the difference between Santa Cruz and Intense is. Both build high end rigs, both use VPP, both are more then capable of shredding, and yet I hear more negative feedback about Intense then SC.

For arguments sake, lets say that I am in the market for a new frame (which I am), my choices are the V-10, 951 and the discontinued M6 (which I already own).

Now, we have all heard from more then one source that Intense's QC isn't the greatest and that "they" - while building one of the most sexiest bikes - as one Monkey put it, "seems to be no consistency or QC with the fabrication". So this got me wondering, what really are the differences between Santa Cruz and Intense.

Joe

 

[davet]

since you already own an Intense, couldn't you answer those quality control questions yourself?

 

[Fred.dh]

i really dont get the point........?!?!!??

 

[Inclag]

The only bikes that I've seen that have as much misalignment as an Intense are Sinister's.

For what it's worth, back in the day I had an Intense that had at the very minimum 1" of left to right dropout movement when cycling the swingarm. A teammate had to purchase a new frame during the middle of the season, because of a misaligned M3 rear end that took ~ 6 months to be re-welded at the Intense factory (this bike also had linkage/bearing issues). Also, one of the faster pro women in this area has cracked her frame 4 times.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, that the Intense bikes are fast with excellent geometry. But the quality of their work, hardware used, and overall attention to detail is garbage compared to other offerings out there.

Why are you only interested in these two bikes?

 

[WBC]

I wouldn't say you should think that one is better than the other, they're different companies in a lot of ways.

Both are high end, handbuilt bikes that require a significant input of capital and labor: SC is outsourced Mass produced using very high end capital vs. Intense is In-house Mass-Produced using high end labor. There will always be more chance for error in the in-house built bike using fewer capital input, because it's more hands on.

Also, I'd say one has to look at the time required to change platforms. Intense can roll out a new bike in months, Santa Cruz still hasn't spec'd the longer stroke shock on the V10. This is a function of both the company model (focus: reliability vs. performance) and also where the bikes are produced (how quickly can your designs be returned in production?)

My take on it is that with the Intense, you get a bike that is more up to date with current market demands at the trade-off of refinement and engineering time. You could say that with an Intense you're riding next year's proto from SC.

I normally buy the reliable, more refined (perhaps more boring) bike, but this time I bought the Intense. I know it'll take more english to maintain, but the bike is fun as ****!!!

It's like buying an $100k Acura vs. a $100k Ferarri. One is more raw, more exciting, but there's a tradeoff for that.

 

[miuan]

Intense used to build good bikes in the past. Recently they became a brand which produces a lot of sexy new bikes, apparently without extensive testing or thorough engineering. I see a lot of these bikes being sold shortly after being purchased, which keeps me wondering.. and I see a lot of mates on V10's who just keep riding them season after season. SC does small changes, and does so with consistency.

 

[RMboy]

I cant really comment on Intense as i have no owned one, and i have only ridden one around the car park once, but people do rave they ride great. One thing is the horrific prices they try to sell there frames at, there just not worth that much, you can buy an ok car for that over here!

Now with Santa Cruz i have owned a V10 and it was great.. No issues at all! Was quite reasonable to repair bearing etc. (I could be biased)

I have to admit i have heard a lot more horror stories about Intense than i have about SC. But you got to - 80% of them away as loads of them will be e-crap!

p.s Intense welding.. im sure it strong, well i hope so, but it does look awfully untidy my glory looks neater.. But been a former intern at Nicolai makes most stuff look bad i suppose.. LOL

 

[The Breaker Man]

I have had 4 Intense frames. I own an SS and a Socom. They ride great, but I will never buy Intense again. Currently, on my new warranty Socom frame, when trying to install the rear triangle 2 people are needed. You have to twist the rear end at the dropouts while somebody jams the bolts in the upper link. That's how far off it it is from being square.

 

[rockofullr]

My take on it is that with the Intense, you get a bike that is more up to date with current market demands at the trade-off of refinement and engineering time. You could say that with an Intense you're riding next year's proto from SC.

dude the V10 looks pretty up to date to me (longer shock stroke is not as important as people want you to think) sometimes it's better not to change something that works, and newer does not equal better. Plus you can get a year old V10 for cheap(er), try that with a 951.

 

[Joe W.Cup]

i really dont get the point........?!?!!??

So you took the time to reply
Read the posts after your's and maybe you'll understand the point.

It has has been pointed out, it seems that some of Intense's products have been "rushed" through production. My point is that I would like a "big" travel bike (M6 or V-10) and was wondering if SC wouldn't be a better product for me.

Is it really that hard to understand?

 

[spliffy]

for 2010 intense's pricing is better than santacruz for most of their bikes. I am a dealer for both brands an i must say both are amazing and as far as QC for the last ten years we have been a dealer for both brands they have been on par witheach other as far as issues. Both brands are at the top of the industry your better of looking at the geo and making your mind up off that

 

[Banshee Rider]

My take on it is that with the Intense, you get a bike that is more up to date with current market demands at the trade-off of refinement and engineering time. You could say that with an Intense you're riding next year's proto from SC.

I know a number of people who hate the company for this same reason. Their 'refinement' process is too short. They introduce and discontinue bikes before they even reach maturity. The majority of companies that come to mind introduce new bikes, give them several years of production, and introduce a new offering with the market desire has changed. Intense has the agility of a small company and can switch production quickly, but in my personal opinion, they abuse that advantage to the point of training people to 'wait until next year.' I've owned and ridden extensively bikes from Intense, and while I thought their bearing, linkage, and hardware design was sub par to the Santa Cruz bikes I've also owned, I can't say anything bad about the quality or ride of the particular bikes I owned from them. I do think they leaned more towards the "flighty" end of the design spectrum rather than the "cutting edge" though. I personally have a problem with owning a $3,000 frame that I know won't be worth much the following year because its already in the process of being replaced with another bike.

 

[spliffy]

m1 production 96-2003
m3 prodution 2004-2007
m6 production 2008-2009
951 is a stem off of the Socom wich has been in production since 07
m6 will be redesigned most likley protos come seaotter
seems to me they have stuck with it
my m1 production may be cut short by a year or two

the slope style and 6.6 may fall into bikes that had short production lifes but the tracer and new slopestyle have taken there places

 

[Bikael Molton]

M6 has already been redesigned at least once, right? So you are saying a second or third redesign may come at Sea Otter?

m1 production 96-2003
m3 prodution 2004-2007
m6 production 2008-2009
951 is a stem off of the Socom wich has been in production since 07
m6 will be redesigned most likley protos come seaotter
seems to me they have stuck with it
my m1 production may be cut short by a year or two

the slope style and 6.6 may fall into bikes that had short production lifes but the tracer and new slopestyle have taken there places

 

[WBC]

M6 has already been redesigned at least once, right? So you are saying a second or third redesign may come at Sea Otter?

There is the original M6 which has been in production. The M6 Evo which was never slated for production had only a few made for select team riders, which I wouldn't count as a redesign.

Changing what dropouts they spec'd it with does not count as a redesign. I'd consider that a packaging correction.



Most companies seem to significantly change their frame designs every couple of years. Planned obsolescence is a major part of any industry (ours no more than skiing, high-tech, etc), and is in no way exclusive to Intense. Look at Specialized, Trek, Canfield, anyone - new flagship DH frame every 2-3 years. Norco rocked the same DH frame for like 8-10 years, but they're special.

 

[spliffy]

Redesigns are a good thing in my book. If a company has the abiloty to up date their bike on a regular basis why shouldnt they. It helps them stay at the front of the curve and meet peoples changing needs. I aprove of intenses ways amd hope they do what they do best push the downhil industry foward year by year

 

[norbar]

Redesigns are a good thing in my book. If a company has the abiloty to up date their bike on a regular basis why shouldnt they. It helps them stay at the front of the curve and meet peoples changing needs. I aprove of intenses ways amd hope they do what they do best push the downhil industry foward year by year

Seriously do you think that much changes in a year? I know you want to support the company but be reasonable. Looking back in time big changes happen every 3-4 years and intense changes bikes in half of that time. Doing new bikes is a good marketing move but if I'll pay a lot I want a reliable frame. Also for the moment intense has no really forward thinking bikes. They are good designs that I'm sure ride pretty well but geo, weight or suspensionwise I can't see them being anywhere before the market (and I can see some bikes before them). Personally I like the idea that banshee does with a visible project that everyone can see and comment on and extensive testing by different riders (not only pros by a longer period of time). This minimalises the chances of unforseen problems. It may take a bit long but releasing the bike quite soon after the pros got it doesn't really give you a chance to test the issues.

I wouldn't also call the way SC does things the best way to go because they are on the other end of the spectrum - they want to keep it reliable and prooven but they are stubborn as hell to change the bike in any way. I know a lot of people like how the v10 rides but there are no big changes on the horizon for it and it has been 5 years.

 

[spliffy]

i think you took my post differently than what i intended. And on a side not do you no how hard it is for companies to change tooling and fixtures when bikes are not made in house. This makes it much harder for companies to up date as much as small inhouse builders. This is probaly the big reason for why Banshee and SC do not change things as fast. For they can not afford to, and whould be stupid to go through the changes on a bigger scale with over sea manifacturing. I amnot saying that intense is a better company with this in mind its just that their buisness model is set up differently. And that is what enables them to change things up witch in return makes them apealing to different types of consumers. If every bike company whent after the same customers what would that do to the industry as a whole.

 

[norbar]

i think you took my post differently than what i intended. And on a side not do you no how hard it is for companies to change tooling and fixtures when bikes are not made in house. This makes it much harder for companies to up date as much as small inhouse builders. This is probaly the big reason for why Banshee and SC do not change things as fast. For they can not afford to, and whould be stupid to go through the changes on a bigger scale with over sea manifacturing. I amnot saying that intense is a better company with this in mind its just that their buisness model is set up differently. And that is what enables them to change things up witch in return makes them apealing to different types of consumers. If every bike company whent after the same customers what would that do to the industry as a whole.

Actualy banshee had a full year testing period by a large group of riders around the world. The whole design proces is described on their blog so you can look threw it SC takes too long imho but slightly less is just in time when the market demand changes (among many other things).

 

[slowitdown]

it's important to keep change for change's sake (fads) separate from changes that improve things.

MTB design often follows fads that are going nowhere. follow what bikes have done in the past 20 years rather than the past 10 and you see some serious mis-steps. sometimes the mis-steps are just being ahead of the curve and sometimes they are just on the wrong curve. the Foes Inferno, a 7" travel XC frame that they debuted in 2003 or 2004 comes to mind as something that was ahead of a curve that is going on now. the 50-lbs freeride bikes curve was off the rails. but on the other hand I guess overbuilt is a stage on the way to right-thinking designs.

it's also important to remember that a lot of rider fads have origins in things that work for a certain tiny subset of riders, but make little to no difference for the vast majority of riders at lower skill levels. the trend to super-slack head tube angles, chased by low-skilled riders, is not a good one. better to learn how to handle a bike that actually does want to turn in a radius other than 100 yds, and refine your skills as your speeds and speed-related-needs indicate.

I think for this thread's purposes, the big difference is the geometry differences between SC and Intense frames... and the alignment issues that others have raised.

 

[norbar]

it's important to keep change for change's sake (fads) separate from changes that improve things.

MTB design often follows fads that are going nowhere. follow what bikes have done in the past 20 years rather than the past 10 and you see some serious mis-steps. sometimes the mis-steps are just being ahead of the curve and sometimes they are just on the wrong curve. the Foes Inferno, a 7" travel XC frame that they debuted in 2003 or 2004 comes to mind as something that was ahead of a curve that is going on now. the 50-lbs freeride bikes curve was off the rails. but on the other hand I guess overbuilt is a stage on the way to right-thinking designs.

it's also important to remember that a lot of rider fads have origins in things that work for a certain tiny subset of riders, but make little to no difference for the vast majority of riders at lower skill levels. the trend to super-slack head tube angles, chased by low-skilled riders, is not a good one. better to learn how to handle a bike that actually does want to turn in a radius other than 100 yds, and refine your skills as your speeds and speed-related-needs indicate.

I think for this thread's purposes, the big difference is the geometry differences between SC and Intense frames... and the alignment issues that others have raised.

Considering how modern FR bikes have older DH bikes geo begginer riders can still get a non slack geo if they want

 

[slowitdown]

Considering how modern FR bikes have older DH bikes geo begginer riders can still get a non slack geo if they want

just put 'em on an old Santa Cruz Super 8.

 

[Fred.dh]

i like the slack ones .... and yes.. i have an M6 huhahahahaha

 

[davec113]

it's also important to remember that a lot of rider fads have origins in things that work for a certain tiny subset of riders, but make little to no difference for the vast majority of riders at lower skill levels.

 

[JCL]

Yeah

 

[Zark]

m1 production 96-2003
m3 prodution 2004-2007
m6 production 2008-2009
951 is a stem off of the Socom wich has been in production since 07
m6 will be redesigned most likley protos come seaotter
seems to me they have stuck with it
my m1 production may be cut short by a year or two

The M1 saw 3 revisions at least, one early one had a Mac strut rear with a Fox Alps shock!
97-99 bike was non-FSR
00-01, FSR with a Fox Vanilla
'02+ FSR, w/ long stroke 5th shock

 

[ianjenn]

The M1 saw 3 revisions at least, one early one had a Mac strut rear with a Fox Alps shock!
97-99 bike was non-FSR
00-01, FSR with a Fox Vanilla
'02+ FSR, w/ long stroke 5th shock

Or ROMIC shock!

Both are good bikes. The M6 should stay in production to give options for those that hammer bikes. Race types that think they need a 2LB lighter rig get the 951.

It will be interesting to see what the newer M6 rendition looks like.

 

[lumpygravy]

Intense is like ferrari, you pay for name, you expect things to go wrong or not be right in the first place and expect to pay big to put them right.

Santa Cruz is like Porsche. More reliable, better engineered much less exclusive, but just as fast if not faster judging by race results!

 

[stiksandstones]

Santa Cruz just as fast if not faster judging by race results!

Simply not true.

And also bear in mind a few other factors for Intense on this list:
-Intense has the smallest race team budget out of anyone on this list.
-racers are 'choosing' to ride intense, meaning there is no factory team, it is just privateers choosing to ride their bikes.
-the 3 brands ahead of intense are +20x the size of Intense.

2009 UCI Manufacturers cup
1. Specialized (648)
2. Trek (415)
3. Giant (404)
4. Intense (375)
5. Scott (361)
6. Yeti (359)
7. GT (348)
8. Santa Cruz (324)
9. Commencal (303)
10. Merida9 269)

Awarded to the bikes that have won the most UCI World Cup and World Championship events

 

[time-bomb]

Intense is like ferrari, you pay for name, you expect things to go wrong or not be right in the first place and expect to pay big to put them right.

Santa Cruz is like Porsche. More reliable, better engineered much less exclusive, but just as fast if not faster judging by race results!

Huh? That analogy has my head spinning.

Oh wait, Ferrari makes red cars and Intense makes red bikes

 

[Huck Banzai]

I skimmed much of the recent stuff (not surprising) But SC takes a long time to change?

They have introduced new bikes, and completely redesigned virtually all of their bikes repeatedy.

Heckler has been redone 2x in the past 6 years, Bullit, Chameleon, Jackal, V10, Nomad - pretty much all of the bikes.

Several of them are only a few years old since original design.

They've introduced Driver 8, TallBoy this past year alone. Stigmata not long ago. Added carbon versions of the Blur.....

and the list goes on. In my experience the difference between the brands that stuck out WAS price (they have come more in line) and Intense generally running their bikes a little lighter, with a little steeper geo's (Eg 6.6 vs Nomad, VPF vs Uzzi VPX, etc..)

I've never understood the Intense 'hype' (my characterization/opinion!) although they do make some sweet bikes.

 

[ianjenn]

Intense is like ferrari, you pay for name, you expect things to go wrong or not be right in the first place and expect to pay big to put them right.

Santa Cruz is like Porsche. More reliable, better engineered much less exclusive, but just as fast if not faster judging by race results!

AT that level the bike has almost nothing to do with results!
U can stick a top 10 WC finisher on a 20" and they would beat a majority of riders down a hill.

SC has big names on their Syndicate team, Intense..... doesnt have a true team.

 

[dropmachine]

I would kill 6 of you to own the new SS.


Consider it a warning.

 

[jonKranked]

Simply not true.

And also bear in mind a few other factors for Intense on this list:
-Intense has the smallest race team budget out of anyone on this list.
-racers are 'choosing' to ride intense, meaning there is no factory team, it is just privateers choosing to ride their bikes.
-the 3 brands ahead of intense are +20x the size of Intense.

2009 UCI Manufacturers cup
1. Specialized (648)
2. Trek (415)
3. Giant (404)
4. Intense (375)
5. Scott (361)
6. Yeti (359)
7. GT (348)
8. Santa Cruz (324)
9. Commencal (303)
10. Merida9 269)

Awarded to the bikes that have won the most UCI World Cup and World Championship events

Hey stik, was the Manuf. Cup inclusive of all MTB disciplines? or was it solely gravity events?

 

[norbar]

Hey stik, was the Manuf. Cup inclusive of all MTB disciplines? or was it solely gravity events?

I remember the talk about it somewhere and I'm pretty certain it also included XC (which would explain the high place of merida and pretty low of SC and Yeti)


As for v10 being redesigned lately. New links do really count as redesign? More of a small change. They did though change the rest of their offer.

 

[ChrisKring]

Hey stik, was the Manuf. Cup inclusive of all MTB disciplines? or was it solely gravity events?

Yes, all disciplines.

 

[lumpygravy]

AT that level the bike has almost nothing to do with results!
U can stick a top 10 WC finisher on a 20" and they would beat a majority of riders down a hill.

SC has big names on their Syndicate team, Intense..... doesnt have a true team.

I was referring to 2009 DH when Santa Cruz came 1st and the CRC intense team came 10th. Regardless if you are to argue that the bike has almost nothing to do with results, which of course makes 90% of the threads on this forum completely irrelevant, which they probably, then my analogy regarding quality and reliability stands. Santa Cruz = Porshe, Ferrari= Intense.

If you know nothing about these cars which it appears a few do not judging by responses, ferrari are known for their extremely poor reliabilty, service intervals and huge maintenance costs, whereas in comparison it is the opposite for porsche. However people buy Ferrar's from the heart and Porsche from the head, much like the respective bike manufacturers

 

[jonKranked]

Yes, all disciplines.

That's what I thought. No offense stik, but I think that's kind of an apples to oranges comparison, at least when considering the subject of this thread is DH bikes (at least that's what I've taken away from it).

Stik, is there anyway to get the points for the Manufacturers cup broken down by discipline?

 

[Huck Banzai]

I remember the talk about it somewhere and I'm pretty certain it also included XC (which would explain the high place of merida and pretty low of SC and Yeti)


As for v10 being redesigned lately. New links do really count as redesign? More of a small change. They did though change the rest of their offer.

Granted its been a few ywars, but the current V.10 is Rev 2, if you recall the beast that was the 04 V10!!!! 1 very major revision, and then links and rear triangle.

I dont think they're any more conservative than others; Intense may be a bit more adventurous - they always seem to have a proto on the map - and 951 is the first to raise my eyebrows aesthetically!

BTW - I would buy a Porsche 'for, the heart' - in love with 911's since 1978! I would consider buying a Ferrari purely for the chick magnet factor, otherwise MEH, Ill soup up an EVO and roast em both!

Of course I can afford none of this, Evo included.................MOOT!

 

[lumpygravy]

If we are talking innovation, didn't Santa Cruz come out with VPP ages before Intense licenced it from them?