Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 73
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OrBikbldr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    Yep, smack-o goes the downtube.

    I must say it's cool to see the original poster keeping the current standards of bike industry journalism / bike evaluation alive and well.

    D- for the design, D- for the attempt at Guerilla marketing.

    I am thinking that they are going to need to order some of those ventana made headset races. THey may have to stack 'em up in pairs to avoid that fork smacking

    On the up side it is really great that 1) they are making an attempt at 29er and 2) they are allowing us a preview.

    that being said, I doubt I will be buying one, best of luck anyway.

    On an edit I should clarify why I won't be buying one...I cant afford it while I am in law school with two kids.
    Last edited by OrBikbldr; 11-10-2005 at 03:17 PM.

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    48
    I find it interesting how people on this forum can gripe about tire and fork clearance from a couple of photos taken at a right angle to the bike. Either I am not seeing some photos or there is some wild speculation going on here. Instead of jumping to conclusions why don't we just wait for some more photos and/or the final product before passing judgement?

    As for the D- grades, where do you get off saying that? Its a good thing when we get a look at a prototype, we should offer constructive feedback, not backhanded smack talk. Personally, I see no guerilla marketing going on here.

    This reminds me of a funny Daily Show rebuttal:
    Ed Helms: Jon, do you live near a sports store?
    Jon Stewart: No, why?
    Ed Helms: Cause I just want to know where you get your balls.

  3. #28
    Shamisen Appreciator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,874
    I think it's great that the community is getting a look at a prototype, even greater that there's another brand in the industry that's taking a look at 29ers.

    I do feel that the review was a little light, but I look forward to reading the riders thoughts on it again once more time has been spent in the saddle.

    What's up with the negativity Warwick? It's a prototype and fork clearance is one of those issues that should be worked out by the time the frame gets to production. BFD. I seem to remember a certain builder who was practicing some guerilla marketing on the trials boards a few years back. Remind me, what's that aluminum coating process of yours called?
    Sean Chaney :: Owner/Builder :: Vertigo Cycles LLC
    flickr :: www.vertigocycles.com

  4. #29
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    470

    flopping around...

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupboy
    I just hope the production version doesn't have that scary rear tire clearance.

    Wheel flop? Nonsense. Slower handling? Nonsense. Sluggishness - yes, but only from a dead stop or while grunting on the SS...to me. Once rolling I notice zero difference.

    Regardless, if I wanted a quick handling 29er race bike I'd by a Racer X or Asylum and put an 80mm Reba on it. Would likely be lighter too.
    really? never noticed wheel flop or slower handling on a 29? how many different bikes have you ridden?

    i'm now on my 5th 29" bike, having been toying with the concept on and off since the days of the bruce gordon rock and road tires, and one of the biggest problems i have (emphasis on "biggest") is the fact that larger wheels tend to flop around in tight going, get deflected by rocks more when hitting them diagonally (i have a hunch it has a lot to do with the fact that they offer a greater target area to deflect), are harder to accelerate and decelerate (why is it that six-inch brake rotors turn blue a whole lot faster on my 29" wheels than they do on 26" ones?), and they exhibit a greater load on suspension components. this is across the board.

    don't get me wrong. i love big wheels. but they have some pretty notable design considerations (i'm taking care not to say "flaws" here) that are intriguing to build around. especially when it comes to things like wheel strength to weight ratio and the effect larger wheels have on bike geometry and suspension componentry.

    meanwhile, it's interesting to see intense playing around in the direction that they have chosen. i applaud seeing someone with their reputation jumping in, even if it is with an approach that many here are voicing dismissal of. celebrate it a little, and cut the guys some slack! if you don't like it, you don't have to buy one. but just bagging on them, based on one photograph no less, well, it comes across as pretty closeminded...

  5. #30
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,036
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK
    Rear tire clearance looks REALLY tight in that photo. Can we get a closer look?

    I realize this is a prototype - what do you think you can achieve as far as max tire size?
    26" wheel Spider (as posted by n10'sGuy on the SS board)
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thylacine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by smudge
    I think it's great that the community is getting a look at a prototype, even greater that there's another brand in the industry that's taking a look at 29ers.

    I do feel that the review was a little light, but I look forward to reading the riders thoughts on it again once more time has been spent in the saddle.

    What's up with the negativity Warwick? It's a prototype and fork clearance is one of those issues that should be worked out by the time the frame gets to production. BFD. I seem to remember a certain builder who was practicing some guerilla marketing on the trials boards a few years back. Remind me, what's that aluminum coating process of yours called?
    Hey, I'm all for Guerilla marketing. Spam is tasty and goes well with Pineapple.

    I know people get excited seeing protos and feeling like they're all warm and fuzzy being 'part of the process', but from one photo you can clearly see that the forks would smack the DT in a crash, the toe overlap is marginal, and I ain't even looking closely.

    We gotta 'keep the bastids honest', right Smudge?
    No longer member of the bike industry nor society, so don't hassle me.

  7. #32
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    ... the toe overlap is marginal, and I ain't even looking closely.
    Looks like a non-issue to me, unless you pedal with your heels over the spindles.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  8. #33
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: 2melow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,573

    Oh Boy...

    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    I know people get excited seeing protos and feeling like they're all warm and fuzzy being 'part of the process', but from one photo you can clearly see that the forks would smack the DT in a crash, the toe overlap is marginal, and I ain't even looking closely.

    Geez...here we go again....
    [SIZE=7]pro·to·type - An original type, form, or instance serving as a basis or standard for later stages[/SIZE]
    Niner Bikes employee. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Niner-...3652275?ref=ts
    Front Range Forum Moderator

  9. #34
    Cold. Blue. Steel.
    Reputation: OneGearGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    Yep, smack-o goes the downtube.

    I must say it's cool to see the original poster keeping the current standards of bike industry journalism / bike evaluation alive and well.

    D- for the design, D- for the attempt at Guerilla marketing.
    Girl #1: "Doesn't Darcy look really pretty in that dress?
    Girl #2: "No. It makes her look fat!"

    Moral of the story: Putting someone else down does not make you look more attractive. It is, in fact, an ugly trait. Thylacine- stop being THAT girl.

    OGG
    Spinning and Grinning...

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DeeZee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    5,259

    New question here. What

    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    Yep, smack-o goes the downtube.

    I must say it's cool to see the original poster keeping the current standards of bike industry journalism / bike evaluation alive and well.

    D- for the design, D- for the attempt at Guerilla marketing.
    Your comments do not compute.

  11. #36
    try driving your car less
    Reputation: jh_on_the_cape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,054
    dood, that's INTENSE!!

    ha ha! thanks for posting the pic. Looks great. Don't mind all the self-appointed experts here... I would love to take that thing for a LONG spin.

    And if you didnt already know, you have a cool job... good to see that you take advantage of it by dreaming up new stuff.
    Only boring people get bored.

  12. #37
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,147
    I"m just saying the bigger this forum gets, the more arseholish it gets as well...

    Thylacine probably still hasn't even ridden a 29er, dude has been putting them down from the start

    the bike looks great, if I had the money I'd consider it, always liked the 26ers Intense makes
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  13. #38
    DWF
    DWF is offline
    Non Dual Bliss
    Reputation: DWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,240
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Sometimes I think 29er fanatics are their own worst enemies. Finding fault in nearly every new entry and then wondering why companies are reluctant to join the market. Saying you want more choices then complaining when the choices are different from what is already available or not different enough.

    I think you guys are mis-reading/mis- interpreting "handle like a 26 inch" bike.

    One of the main claims against 29ers is they handle sluggishly, with less agility. Part of the reason for this is the increased amount of trail when using the available forks. Decrease the trail and the agility increases while still benefiting from the inherent stability and traction of the big wheels.

    Bottom line is all bikes do not have to be the same. Different is good! Choice is good!
    A-freaking-men!!!
    A man must have enemies and places he is not welcome. In the end we are not only defined by our friends but those against us.

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: goneskiian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,390
    Just from those 2 photos it doesn't look like the 26" wheeled Spider has any more clearance than the PROTOTYPE 29er.

    There are lots of folks here that need to lighten up a bit and give Intense some credit for even building a prototype. Choices are a good thing folks!

    Don't forget, Intense make tires too. If they're designing a bike maybe they've got some tires in the works as well. Sounds all good to me.

    Cheers!
    -Ian

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thylacine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by appleSSeed
    I"m just saying the bigger this forum gets, the more arseholish it gets as well...

    Thylacine probably still hasn't even ridden a 29er, dude has been putting them down from the start

    the bike looks great, if I had the money I'd consider it, always liked the 26ers Intense makes
    Actually, I had a Sycip "700c Mountainbike" pre Noughties, and I like bigger wheels. Heck, I like all size wheels just as I like all size bars, stems, cranks, seatposts and....frikken....shoe sizes. Never said otherwise. The inability of some to not be able to take a bit of ribbing or their need to pidgeon-hole people based on some childish "You're either with us or against us" mentality is not my problem.

    Still, Intense makes a good bike - If only they'd fixed the trail issue by maching up some custom dropouts for the fork rather than simply steepen the head angle like we all do.
    You'd think with their resourses they could bang heads with WB and have some real marketable advantage, right? I mean, you gotta sell frames with forks, so it only makes sense to align yourself real tight with a fork OEM.

    And how about doing the downtube a-la Specialised / Lenz to fix the fork crown issue?

    Gee, do I have to do everything around here?
    No longer member of the bike industry nor society, so don't hassle me.

  16. #41
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,036
    Quote Originally Posted by goneskiian
    ...Don't forget, Intense make tires too. If they're designing a bike maybe they've got some tires in the works as well...
    To repeat, Intense Cycles sold Intense Tires several years ago. Now totally separate companies.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  17. #42
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    896
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    Yep, smack-o goes the downtube.

    I must say it's cool to see the original poster keeping the current standards of bike industry journalism / bike evaluation alive and well.

    D- for the design, D- for the attempt at Guerilla marketing.
    And what grade would you give this redheaded stepchild?

  18. #43
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    Tell that rider his bike is too small for him.

    :-)

    B for innovation
    D for drivetrain efficiency and wear
    A for short chainstay/long travel ratio with high pivot
    F for rider/wheelsize ratio

  19. #44
    Recovering
    Reputation: jbogner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    If only they'd fixed the trail issue by maching up some custom dropouts for the fork rather than simply steepen the head angle like we all do.
    Custom dropouts? The Reba has cast lowers. And don't you think it's just a little unrealistic to expect a boutique frame builder with three days of work on a prototype to do something that Fisher, in four years and thousands of bikes, hasn't done?

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    490
    Well - presumably you could do some sort of alternate dropout for a WB fork, I don't think the suggestion was restricted to Rock Shox forks. The trail issue is a very definite one for 29" wheels. I quite liked the handling of my Rig with a Reba, though the recent addition of a rigid fork with more rake has made a world of difference to the agility and speed of handling. You can of course reduce trail by steepening the head angle which is what Intense seem to have done. The problem then is that you have toe overlap issues in smaller frame sizes. A better way to reduce trail is a fork with more offset/rake. This is very achievable on a rigid fork, though more difficult on a suspension fork as there are obviously other design constraints at work. However I'm sure if the big manufacturers really put their minds to it they could make it there. I don't think it's going to be long until they see sufficient demand to justify such a step - we've indeed had previous reports that WB have been experimenting with forks of different amounts of offset themselves.

    Wheel flop is something that is apparent on any bike with a lot of trail, even more so if that's accompanied by a relatively slack headangle. I think this is possibly more obvious on 29" wheels because they tend to have more trail generally, and the wheel is heavier so you feel this tendency more readily. As with most steering geometry traits, it's most illustrative to think of an extreme example. Picture a bike with a really slack head angle and a lot of trail. Lean the bike off centre, and the wheel will want to fall, or 'flop', so that it sits on it's lowest point.

    Sam

  21. #46
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,752
    Does Intense still have a 220lb rider weight limit on their frames and what will be the limit on the new frame? I had a Blur at one point and although I'm not fast the bike felt fast.

  22. #47
    Recovering
    Reputation: jbogner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Singular
    Well - presumably you could do some sort of alternate dropout for a WB fork, I don't think the suggestion was restricted to Rock Shox forks.
    The proto photo on this thread shows a Reba, and I think it's safe to say that any frame coming to market right now ought to work, as is, with the existing crop of forks (otherwise, we'll end up with everyone griping on here about how they'd love to buy the frame, but they don't want to have to buy a new fork to go with it). If Thylacine is going to start arguing that every new framebuilder ought to customize White Brothers forks specifically for them, then it's kinda hard to take that argument seriously.

    "I give the Spider 29er a D- because it doesn't cure world hunger or protect the Earth from rogue meteors."

  23. #48
    hispanic mechanic
    Reputation: sslos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,229

    Bravo!

    Welcome to the party, guys. Glad there's another builder on board.

    the los
    "Shut up body and do what I tell you."
    Jens Voight

    http://teamjva.com/jens-voigt-soundboard/

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,191
    First, thanks for trying a 29er, we who believe appreciate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by n10'sGuy
    Spider 29 ride report:
    Spider 29 prototype #1: This frame was designed with steep angles to eliminate excessive trail found in most 29 designs. The goal was to make the bike handle like a 26” Intense Spider and to reduce 29 wheel flop.
    I have a Leviathan with at 100mm Reba. The head angle is probably 70 or less and the super stable handling is very confidence inspiring on steep technical terrain. On the other hand I feel the handling could be crisper on flater tight terrain or climbing but it's a trade off thing and lots of people here seem to really like the Leviathan. On the other hand Lenz's newer 5" travel design, the Bohemoth, does have a steeper head angle at 71 deg. As are others I'm concerned that a 73 degree head angle may loose too much of the positive 29er traits of stability and resistance to 'endoing' but I haven't ridden it so it's just conjecture on my part.
    As a potential customer I'd just request that you make an otherwise identical frame with a 71 degree head angle for your own comparison before finalizing production specs.


    Quote Originally Posted by n10'sGuy
    Initial impression: 4” travel on a 29 feels like 5” or more, handling is good behaves much like a 26” Intense Spider.
    I think you'll find a 4" travel 29" bike may fit the 5.5 market segment more than the Spyder racer segment. With luck and/or good planning maybe it will work for both.
    Last edited by Cloxxki; 11-11-2005 at 07:41 AM. Reason: just some figures
    2 wheels

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DeeZee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    5,259

    Diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Nat
    Difference is good, which is why I wouldn't want a 29er to replicate a 26er (because why bother?). I guess they should explain what characteristics they're trying to achieve. When I read "handles like a 26er," I read "twitchy and nervous." I like Wolfy's way of describing it: "fast nimble race FS XC bike with 29 inch wheels." That's nicely descriptive. We'll see how their Marketing department spins it upon release.

    When I buy a new bike I want it to feel different from what I already have, in order to give me a new experience. How boring would it be to buy the same bike over and over and over again?

    Shiggy an Nat are right. I find it amazing that the 29’er community is embracing this bike with open arms. All of the racer type should be going nuts. Personally I am disappointed because if it was a 5.5….wha-wing! However it makes sense that Intense would offer a CC 29’er first and if sales are good a 5.5 would be next (if there is a fork to match the frame).

    What really surprises me is the amount of posters that drool all over themselves when (insert manufacturer here) introduces another steel HT frame. How boring is that?
    Last edited by DeeZee; 11-11-2005 at 07:19 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •