2009 Uzzi vp sneek peek

[mr intense]

Sneek peek at 2009 Uzzi vp , changes still to be made as this is the 2nd proto but getting close. Travele adjust (like Tracer vp ) 6.75" or 7.25" 2nd gen VPP w/ new bearing zirk system, Iscg 05 integrated bb, 1.5 head tube . more specs to come.Leverage ratio in the 2.5 / 1 range , coil or air .

[sticarl]

Wow, very nice, sign me up please the color looks more like a candy apple red, silver base with red clearcoat.

[nybike1971]

Wow! It looks great, the red works is such an amazing paint job.

Any guess about production frame weight?

[twouareks]

Gorgeous! I've been waiting for you to post this up too!! Thanks!!

[ancientwisdom]

WOW!

Any more info on this Mr. Intense? Fork travel range? Shock length? Frame weight?

[Truckee Trash]

I'm in.

[Anthem]

intense awesomeness. so after ordering my SS i'll need to get my hands on this uzzi and the tracer. i'll be broke dudes ...

[Navj]

Nice, but replaceble dropouts should be a better choice for this frame...just my thought. It looks like 135 mm rear end, isnt' it? Maybe we'll see at Eurobike ?? :-)

[stooo]

Ahhhh.... now that looks more like a replacement for the current 6.6. Like it a lot.

[NZSpokes]

One of those with a fox 40 set to 7 inch will do me....

[hball]

the shock fit looks horrible. does not look like you can mount every shock you want to.

[frorider]

sweet.

i trust that you'll make sure that someone using a Totem with a 1.5 steerer/headset, and tires that are large enough for loose conditions, will still have a bottom bracket height below 14 inches. as Intense knows, that was a common complaint w/ the previous uzzi vpx. not all of us want to run a zero stack reducer headset. skinny steerer tube, and smallish tires just to keep the BB reasonably low.

[ddraewwg]

Originally Posted by hball

the shock fit looks horrible. does not look like you can mount every shock you want to.

True, but that looks to be a small....and it's just a proto. Other sizes would allow more options even in this model.

[Fadl]

Originally Posted by ddraewwg

True, but that looks to be a small....and it's just a proto. Other sizes would allow more options even in this model.

Looks more like a medium to me.

[mr intense]

This is another test proto set up with a Travis 180 single 1.5 & remember as I said these are still protos and there are changes in process to address shock fitament, rate etc.
The weld on drop out is set @ 135 but uses a chip that will allow standard, 12mm or Maxle configuration & it is a lighter setup as you can see we are trying both.

[skatetokil]

Originally Posted by Fadl

Looks more like a medium to me.

So here's a question for all you industry types: do manufacturers just design and proto a medium and then scale up and down for small and large? I've always felt like medium bikes rode better even though I should be on a large at 6'3. Might just be a preference for small bikes, but it seems like lots of rigs just look out of proportion in other sizes. I imagine that just adding or removing some tube here or there would totally change the weight balance and feel of the bike.

[supercub]

lots of maggs here now....

[mr intense]

that is pretty much the way I do it , start @ the medium size for several reasons, it will fit more people for test riding & I always scale up and down from there as the medium is always what I consider ideal numbers ( wheelbase , height ,etc.) I have always ridden a medium size frame even though most people would put me on a large cause I like the fell of this relationship the best.

[DIRTJUNKIE,]

Originally Posted by mr intense

that is pretty much the way I do it , start @ the medium size for several reasons, it will fit more people for test riding & I always scale up and down from there as the medium is always what I consider ideal numbers ( wheelbase , height ,etc.) I have always ridden a medium size frame even though most people would put me on a large cause I like the fell of this relationship the best.

So if you ride a medium how tall are you? I have always rode a large at 6' 0" but I have never tried a medium so I can't compare.

[Nagaredama]

Please tell me the new VPX will be available in XL.

[Nagaredama]

Any more geo numbers?

HA?
BBH?

[sanjosedre]

I like it but with my SS I find it hard to justify a new frame for .75" increase in travel.

[simonzahner]

just brilliant!
the dropout thing sounds like a great way to make as many people as possible happy.

[smithrider]

Tracer = 5.5 to 6.0 travel
Uzzi = 6.75 to 7.25 travel

Bye Bye 6.6

[iRider]

Originally Posted by frorider

as Intense knows, that was a common complaint w/ the previous uzzi vpx.

Other dropouts would solve that problem EASY, but I am still waiting....

The new Uzzi LOOKS good!
Although from experience I am fearing that the monocoque is not as crashworthy as the tube'd frame on the old one. And again this low-low-low link on the new VPP......

[zark]

Originally Posted by smithrider

Tracer = 5.5 to 6.0 travel
Uzzi = 6.75 to 7.25 travel

Bye Bye 6.6

Kinda what I was thinking

[NZSpokes]

Originally Posted by iRider

Other dropouts would solve that problem EASY, but I am still waiting....

The new Uzzi LOOKS good!
Although from experience I am fearing that the monocoque is not as crashworthy as the tube'd frame on the old one. And again this low-low-low link on the new VPP......

How would you hit the link on something? If it did the bike would stop anyway when it hits the back wheel.

[iRider]

Originally Posted by NZSpokes

How would you hit the link on something? If it did the bike would stop anyway when it hits the back wheel.

Ever had to cross a log at slow speeds? You are using your bashguard to take the hit and get over it if it is higher than your BB. Now if the link is lower than the bash....
Maybe it is just a PNW thing

[snowskilz]

what is the intended standover and head angle with a 160mm fork?

[scorpionsf]

why does it look like a trail bike? i like it but for having so much travel the stabdover is huge and it just doesnt look like an sxt or reign equivalent to me

[misctwo]

sick.

[matthew]

Originally Posted by smithrider

Tracer = 5.5 to 6.0 travel
Uzzi = 6.75 to 7.25 travel

Bye Bye 6.6

Dont forget to squeeze the slope style in there
SS = 6.5 travel

at this rate I see why my next bike wont be a 6.6 but the choice wont be easy.

Be very interesting to see the weights, angles and BB heights when the frame is finalized.

Especially a comparison of the SS at 6.5 and the uzzi at 6.75- same fork, same headset etc.

[Huck Banzai]

Originally Posted by Nagaredama

Please tell me the new VPX will be available in XL.

I would stop the hating if they did.

But they wont do something right, it'd break a trend.

[mtnbikerx]

And I thought I had this bike thing licked

[Innocent Bystander]

Jeff, you are making bikes that are just too pretty to ride. That is the prettiest thing I have since the original Uzzi VPX. Please tell me that this one will be available in that Carolina Blue color.

[ScottW]

Nice, I was wondering when an update/replacement for the 6.6 would be seen.

Any thoughts of doing a works black finish?

[mr intense]

Just wait this one is only getting better & I am guessing that would be works blue or the CRC team blue.Third proto should hit the target!

[peachy-B]

i guess i'm the only one that likes the old VPX better. this one just looks like the 6.6 or the new trailbike. the current VPX looks burlier. comments are all visually, after all it's just pretty pictures for now.

[Gman086]

Very NICE! Only thing I'd change is the seat tube juncture still looks too high and a mess. Change to to more like the SS and it'll be perfect.

[herrczeg]

Jeff, I pay! I think, this bike give the realy multi configuration for freeriders!

[kashani]

me gusta mucho

[THE DESIGNER]

Originally Posted by mr intense

Just wait this one is only getting better & I am guessing that would be works blue or the CRC team blue.Third proto should hit the target!

Hi, Jeff

I saw this awesome orange M6 on pinkbike:

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Claire-...ense-2008.html

and am wondering if you are ever going to introduce this kind of finish to the market.
(I don't think it is a "works" color. Is it anodised raw? I love the texture under the color.)

[HOFFMAN223]

Originally Posted by peachy-B

i guess i'm the only one that likes the old VPX better. this one just looks like the 6.6 or the new trailbike. the current VPX looks burlier. comments are all visually, after all it's just pretty pictures for now.

Hit the nail on the head.....the old VPX looked like a tank, indestructable artwork almost, you knew you had a bad@ss bike on your hands. This new version looks too similar to the 6.6, trailbike, SS, and even the 5.5. Hard to distinguish between all of them.

[geetee1972]

I am curious as to where this bike it intended to fit into the range; isn't there a danger that you will end up confusing your customers? There does seem to be a lot of overlap between this bike and the SS. Having spent some time on the VPX I always regarded it as a bit of a free ride bike in that it was just about compatible with a double chain set up front, was quite nimble, burly build and with quite a progressive shock rate to manage larger drops. The SS would appear to offer the same thing for more or less the same reasons, although I haven't ridden one so I can't be sure.
Thing is, we rarely get to ride a bike before we buy it (certainly in the UK) so how we perceive them is kind of important; the marketing is all we have to go on a lot of the time.
So - how is this bike going to be marketed?

[frints]

I'm with you guys I like the looks of VPX better, but I'm biased & ride mine as much as I can. I like the idea of the zirk system, but not enough for me to make the change.

[herrczeg]

You are right Geetee.

[Innocent Bystander]

I had an original VPX, and yes, it looked like something directly from the movie The Road Warrior. That said, I think most people trail rode the VPX as a heavy duty trail bike that you could take to the DH park. I think this bike is closer to that vision.

Aside from that, I have to wonder why it is Jeff hates me so bad. With the new Tracer and Uzzi, doesn't he realize that I am pretty much headed for divorce court? Why would you do that to your loyal followers? Why make these bikes SO damn pretty that we are forced to buy them, regardless of the consequence? Where is your compassion?

It's ok, I know a good lawyer... put me down for a medium.

[mr intense]

The story behind Claire's bike, the color is a transpartent gold over works, we did all her new frames this color so she would have something diff. The frame is accually a spare M6 evo team bike I had made for Matti. Claire had been riding one of Kovariks old CRC m6 and it was a bit amall for her so I matched her up with this frame. Claire has been great to work with & has lots of potential. It doesn't hurt being beautiful & CK's bride to be either!

[davec113]

Originally Posted by peachy-B

i guess i'm the only one that likes the old VPX better. this one just looks like the 6.6 or the new trailbike. the current VPX looks burlier. comments are all visually, after all it's just pretty pictures for now.

Me too... not sure I'd want to trade my vpx in yet. It also looks like it'll replace the 6.6 SS... why buy a SS when the new Uzzi has 2nd gen vpp and similar travel/geo? Of course I'm guessing on the geo part, we'll have to wait and see how similar they are.

I'm a little disappointed to see a fox 36 on the new Uzzi, I was kind of hoping for a bigger bike with ~ 8" travel that would take a 180-200mm fork. Maybe the new vp free will fit the bill?

[FreerideMonkey7]

looks way too similar to an ss

[Err]

Jeff -

Looks great. I'm assuming slightly longer CS than an SS and a bit higher BB, hoping for a similar HTA.

There seems to be a lot of riders divided on the BBH of a FR bike. Lots of folks want the high BB for getting over rocks and logs, some really want the cornering and low CG of a low BB. Spec'ing replaceable dropouts with ability to pick your geo would go a long way towards broadening the appeal of the Uzzi.

[MTBAlex]

I was hopeing a little something different. Most of the bikes are beginning to look the same.

[THE DESIGNER]

Thanks for the great info! I am looking forward to see more variations on "works" colors in the future. I so love the idea that each one of the frames has slightly different finishes like handmade ceramics which gives the owner the feeling of owning something special.

Cheers!

[Fadl]

Originally Posted by MTBAlex

I was hopeing a little something different. Most of the bikes are beginning to look the same.

That's right but this is Intense design at his best.
Each model has a different geometry for different riding capabilities.
So even if they look like the same they will ride different.
But there is no need for a 6.6 anymore I think....

[Innocent Bystander]

If all bikes looked like the new Intense bikes, I would be just fine.

[Uncle Cliffy]

Originally Posted by MTBAlex

I was hopeing a little something different. Most of the bikes are beginning to look the same.

Looks like an SS with a long seat tube...

[sanjosedre]

Ok I take it back, the more I look at it the more I like it.
There I said it

Originally Posted by sanjosedre

I like it but with my SS I find it hard to justify a new frame for .75" increase in travel.

[jonny427]

^^ word. These bikes are sick.

[rich2007]

Put me down for one! 24" top tupe on a large and 66deg with a 580mm axle to crown, 14ish" bb. If there is a waiting list I want on

[mr intense]

A little beta on the geometry , again we are still prototyping but so far this is what is working really well. With the adjustable travel (6.75 or 7.25 )it allows you two different setups making the frame more versatile.
with Fox 32 (545 ac) 67 HA @ 14" bb
say 180 Totem or Travis 66 HA 2 14,25 bb
Small 22"TT. med 23" lrg 24" tt
the standover is basically the same as the Slope Style just has a little more seat post support. The Slope style was really designed for park riding & i see a lot of guys trail riding with the seat post way out, not good.

[matthew]

Originally Posted by mr intense

.
with Fox 32 (545 ac) 67 HA @ 14" bb
say 180 Totem or Travis 66 HA 2 14,25 bb

Fox 32 or fox 36?- I'm guessing you mean a 36 Vanilla or talus...???

Looking at thr ratio I'm guessing the shock stroke will be longer than on the current 6.6?
(which means I wont be able to easily move my CCDB onto a new frame.

Personally I think the uzzi will kill... Damm good looking machine.

Wondering how the shock attatchment position effects the ride and how noticable it is .
I see on the red one it 's different to the works finish.

[ancientwisdom]

with a 545mm axle to crown it's definitely a 36 Fox (they all have the same at 160mm). just looking at it the shock is certainly longer than the 7.875 X 2.25" used on the 6.6. I can't tell though if it's a 8.5 X 2.5" or a 8.75 X 2.75".

[qbert2000]

Originally Posted by mr intense

A little beta on the geometry , again we are still prototyping but so far this is what is working really well. With the adjustable travel (6.75 or 7.25 )it allows you two different setups making the frame more versatile.
with Fox 32 (545 ac) 67 HA @ 14" bb
say 180 Totem or Travis 66 HA 2 14,25 bb
Small 22"TT. med 23" lrg 24" tt
the standover is basically the same as the Slope Style just has a little more seat post support. The Slope style was really designed for park riding & i see a lot of guys trail riding with the seat post way out, not good.

what do you mean by "not good". i know nigel page was touting the ss as a design that could do everything. can you not run it trailriding safely?

[mtnbikerx]

My take on Jeff's "not good" comment is simply this. Did you ever hear the statement - "with a long enough lever you could move the earth?" Well, with the leverage a long, unsupported, seatpost has on the seat tube it's reasonable to assume that the chances of splitting, bending or otherwise buggering up your frame is greater with mondo seat post extension. Common sense really.

[qbert2000]

Originally Posted by mtnbikerx

My take on Jeff's "not good" comment is simply this. Did you ever hear the statement - "with a long enough lever you could move the earth?" Well, with the leverage a long, unsupported, seatpost has on the seat tube it's reasonable to assume that the chances of splitting, bending or otherwise buggering up your frame is greater with mondo seat post extension. Common sense really.

i wouldn't call designing a bike that only accepts a short seatpost common sense really. in the initial reviews of the ss a lot of people said it was good as a do everything bike. personally i don't know why you would put a front derailler guide on it if you expected everyone to ride around with the seat slammed down. that is not common sense. i understand how a lever works, but if you don't want people to ride it uphill, don't make it compatable with a front derailler. you see a lot of these set up with dual rings. it's tough to ride a bike uphill wth the seat slammed down.

[mr intense]

Sorry I meant Fox 36

[mr intense]

Originally Posted by matthew

Fox 32 or fox 36?- I'm guessing you mean a 36 Vanilla or talus...???

Looking at thr ratio I'm guessing the shock stroke will be longer than on the current 6.6?
(which means I wont be able to easily move my CCDB onto a new frame.

Personally I think the uzzi will kill... Damm good looking machine.

Wondering how the shock attatchment position effects the ride and how noticable it is .
I see on the red one it 's different to the works finish.

Its all about fine tuning , we are trying two different shock lenghts with different rates.
We are a bit more focused on the fine tuning of the design these days hence the new generation VPP on certain models.Joe& the desidn team at Santa Cruz has spent a lot of time analizing and tweeking the Patented VPP design and both Santa Cruz & Intense have our own variations within our designs.
After using VPP for the last 4 years we are using that knowlage to make the next genertaion of VPP bikes. The evolution of VPP continues.
One of the greatest things about true VPP is how it allows you to control shock rate & wheel path through out and in various areas of the movement , this is acheived by the counter rotating links & the fine tuning is where it is all at.
It is easy to tell if a design fall within the VPP patent as one link will move clockwise and one counterclockwise.Hope I didn't overdue that answer but basically we are fine tuning the suspention.Did I say fine tuning enough.Its early coffee please.

[hball]

Originally Posted by mr intense

Its all about fine tuning , we are trying two different shock lenghts with different rates.
We are a bit more focused on the fine tuning of the design these days hence the new generation VPP on certain models.Joe& the desidn team at Santa Cruz has spent a lot of time analizing and tweeking the Patented VPP design and both Santa Cruz & Intense have our own variations within our designs.
After using VPP for the last 4 years we are using that knowlage to make the next genertaion of VPP bikes. The evolution of VPP continues.
One of the greatest things about true VPP is how it allows you to control shock rate & wheel path through out and in various areas of the movement , this is acheived by the counter rotating links & the fine tuning is where it is all at.
It is easy to tell if a design fall within the VPP patent as one link will move clockwise and one counterclockwise.Hope I didn't overdue that answer but basically we are fine tuning the suspention.Did I say fine tuning enough.Its early coffee please.

so you managed to solve the pedal feedback and out of the saddle problem? on AM, enduro, trailbikes etc you are often using the granny an the pedalfeddback always keeps me away of the 6.6 or a SC bike. but i loved my fsr tracer and uzzi slx.

[E2@CC]

Good points there with the front der. option and not being able to really extend the seatpost enough to get full leg extension on extended climbs. But me personally I never ride with my saddle the height it should be at- unless I'm on a true XC bike- I typically wouldn't ride the same sections of trail on an XC bike at the speed that I ride them on the SS- the saddle would just hinder being able to slip behind the seat for technical descents, whereas on the SS you can set the seat at sort of a mid-hieght and have descent leg extension and still have it out of the way for jumping trail obstacles. Hell I do DJ on mine- ladder drops- ride skinnies and still tough it out on morning trail rides before work with my 38T ring up front- I figure it's more of a workout anyway- I have to stand up for about 80% of the climbs - that damn 38T is just impossible to spin with - so that's where that front derailleur would come in handy. Also down south here we don't have any lift access so where we ride you have to pedal to get to the fun parts.

[mr intense]

Originally Posted by hball

so you managed to solve the pedal feedback and out of the saddle problem? on AM, enduro, trailbikes etc you are often using the granny an the pedalfeddback always keeps me away of the 6.6 or a SC bike. but i loved my fsr tracer and uzzi slx.

The pedal feedback you talk about is usually a side effect of the suspention set up with too much sag and not in the ideal 20 to 30 % range, this causes the the shock to blow through to the end of the stroke where most of the chain growth happens.
This is one of the areas of fine tuning you will notice on the designs using the new VPP configuration, Basically around 20% less chain growth.
You will see different configurations of VPP through out the model range based on the relationship between wheel path , shock rate travel & intended use of the bike, so don't expect to see the same configuration that is on the new Tracer vp & Uzzi say on a DH segmented bikes. Vpp opens up so many design possabilities when you approach it this way.There are a lot of good designs out there and it is in the fine tuning that they can be great designs.

[qbert2000]

Originally Posted by E2@CC

Good points there with the front der. option and not being able to really extend the seatpost enough to get full leg extension on extended climbs. But me personally I never ride with my saddle the height it should be at- unless I'm on a true XC bike- I typically wouldn't ride the same sections of trail on an XC bike at the speed that I ride them on the SS- the saddle would just hinder being able to slip behind the seat for technical descents, whereas on the SS you can set the seat at sort of a mid-hieght and have descent leg extension and still have it out of the way for jumping trail obstacles. Hell I do DJ on mine- ladder drops- ride skinnies and still tough it out on morning trail rides before work with my 38T ring up front- I figure it's more of a workout anyway- I have to stand up for about 80% of the climbs - that damn 38T is just impossible to spin with - so that's where that front derailleur would come in handy. Also down south here we don't have any lift access so where we ride you have to pedal to get to the fun parts.

no i realize that you can't make the 6.6 a cross country bike but you will still have a good amount of post showing to make the bike pedal worthy when you are riding all mountain. it will never be at your optimum extension but it stills shows a lot of post. i was just curious what mr intense thinks is too much then? the sss is a great bike but i have never seen a warning as to how much post should be showing as a maximum. is there one?

[NZSpokes]

This is why they invented the Gravity dropper, Joplin etc.

[iRider]

Originally Posted by NZSpokes

This is why they invented the Gravity dropper, Joplin etc.

You realize that the leverage ratio the post puts on the frame has nothing to do with with the type of seatpost, are you?

[ScottW]

I like the geometry Intense is looking at. The SS is 66.5 ht, 74 seat tube and 13.5 bb, for my taste those are not numbers I want for trail riding. I know the Uzzi will be a trail/freeride bike but I'd use it mainly for technical trail riding with some small jumps/drops.

The biggest question for me now is what the frame weight with a coil shock will be?

[NZSpokes]

Originally Posted by iRider

You realize that the leverage ratio the post puts on the frame has nothing to do with with the type of seatpost, are you?

Yes. HTH.

[jbogner]

Originally Posted by qbert2000

personally i don't know why you would put a front derailler guide on it if you expected everyone to ride around with the seat slammed down. that is not common sense.

It's also common sense to assume that a bike named the "Slopestyle" might be intended for slopestyle riding, no? It didn't take me much time to figure out that with a 17" seat tube, there was no way I'd be able to trail ride one. I'm no rocket scientist, but even I could figure out that the regular 6.6 (with its gusseted seat tube) was for trail riding and the 6.6 Slopestyle was for... slopestyle.

As for the front derailleur cable stop, I'd assume that was more out of convenience for those who insist on doing things *their* way despite Intense's intended use of the bike. Look at all the folks who put FD's on their SOCOMs...

[qbert2000]

Originally Posted by jbogner

It's also common sense to assume that a bike named the "Slopestyle" might be intended for slopestyle riding, no? It didn't take me much time to figure out that with a 17" seat tube, there was no way I'd be able to trail ride one. I'm no rocket scientist, but even I could figure out that the regular 6.6 (with its gusseted seat tube) was for trail riding and the 6.6 Slopestyle was for... slopestyle.

As for the front derailleur cable stop, I'd assume that was more out of convenience for those who insist on doing things *their* way despite Intense's intended use of the bike. Look at all the folks who put FD's on their SOCOMs...

my "common sense" response was to the lever principle. as far as it being called a slopestyle, that is a name and an intention. i don't think it is an absolute. you'll see a lot of ss owners who ride them for all disciplines not just slopestyle and in a lot of cases not true slopestyle at all. when you read an interview with nigel page who claims he had a lot of influence on the design of the ss, he states that he wanted a bike that could be used for everything. dirt jumping, downhill, slopestyle and even trail riding. my question was whether jeff was saying that the bike has a limit for the seatpost length. i haven't heard or seen that before. you will never have the seat up as high as an xc bike but when you are riding it as a trailbike, you definately raise it up. i just want to know if there is a max to it besides the minimum insrtion mark on the seatpost. if you aren't doing lift assisted riding it is nice that you can ride it up a hill. as far as only riding a bike as it is named that would be pretty limiting. i ride my "dirt jump" bike on trails and even on the pavement. i know it is not the true intent of the design, but it is a bicycle and sometimes i use whatever is nearest the garage door to get from point A to B even if it wasn't named for that.

[Orange-Goblin]

Originally Posted by E2@CC

Good points there with the front der. option and not being able to really extend the seatpost enough to get full leg extension on extended climbs. But me personally I never ride with my saddle the height it should be at- unless I'm on a true XC bike- I typically wouldn't ride the same sections of trail on an XC bike at the speed that I ride them on the SS- the saddle would just hinder being able to slip behind the seat for technical descents, whereas on the SS you can set the seat at sort of a mid-hieght and have descent leg extension and still have it out of the way for jumping trail obstacles. Hell I do DJ on mine- ladder drops- ride skinnies and still tough it out on morning trail rides before work with my 38T ring up front- I figure it's more of a workout anyway- I have to stand up for about 80% of the climbs - that damn 38T is just impossible to spin with - so that's where that front derailleur would come in handy. Also down south here we don't have any lift access so where we ride you have to pedal to get to the fun parts.

EXACTLY!

I have my eat dropped right down most of the time, as i rarely sit on the thing, but even when trail riding i only pull it up halfway on my 410 thomson, as it allows for more out-of-the-saddle riding when it comes up.
I only pull it right up for climbs, and very rarely put much pressure on it in that situation, its usually fireroads anyway!

The SS was not meant for XC, its meant for park riding and throwing about, so the short seat-tube makes perfect sense!

[Hirvi]

Originally Posted by qbert2000

my "common sense" response was to the lever principle. as far as it being called a slopestyle, that is a name and an intention......he wanted a bike that could be used for everything. dirt jumping, downhill, slopestyle and even trail riding. my question was whether jeff was saying that the bike has a limit for the seatpost length..

No, as saying "no good" he propably just meant that this (the SS) is no trail bike, as it's not. It is not smart to try to make it one. It's a slopestyle bike, and there's no real need to lift the seat that much. You need to be able to drop it real low for tricks.

That I agree that it would be good to make it impossible to mount a front derailleur on bikes that don't need one. Cause people will put a f/d anywhere they can, even M6 if it would fit (at least in the US, it seems) and it's just stupid. There ARE trailbikes in the lineup, you need get one if you trail ride. There's no sense in riding a VPX/Socom/SS with a front der, mile long seatpost & stem if you ride trails, uphills, and a small drop/jump or two.
Right bike for the job, you know... I know it tickles your ego to ride a cool looking bike, but it's just wrong if you're doing it, well, wrong.

And to the new "Uzzi" (read 6.6). I was too waiting for something more burly. Now there's a good durable freeride machine missing. Everything's so light and slim. You need a bike to huck on, ready for serious abuse! Like the old one.

[TeeWorks]

exactly like my first thought was, hirvi!
I wondered if the new uzzi could replace my big bike in any future time. Don't want no FRO Bike. Just something that gives me the confidence for some harder riding without any worries. Now it looks like one bit heavier 6.6, which i'm riding trails very happily with! What do i need a 6Where is the triple Travis and the 7,8" i waited for?

...or is this all a missunderstanding and the frame is that stiff that there is a true and reasonable option for a DC fork?

cheers!
Flo

[mr intense]

It is hard to tell in the photos but the tube spec is more stoust than the 6.6 and uses the seat & chain stays spec'd on the M6 , Socom & Slope Style also as the mono TT looks similar to the new Tracer it is much wider especially in the headtube area & top & bottom Gussets. It will be a bit heavier than the current 6.6 but not nearly as heavy as the Uzzi & so far has proven to be very versatile deprnding how you set it up.

[TeeWorks]

thanks for the quick reply! so does your answer imply that it also can make sense (geometrically) to set it up with a MZ888/Travis203? ...No offense, but I can't believe seeing a 160mm Fork in that Frame, esp. with such a long stem

[mr intense]

The pic of the raw one is built more like you are talking about . The 160 fork version would be beyyer with the air shock spec & set in the 6,75 travel.

[climbingbubba]

Is there a approximate date for the release? i need to know how much time i have to save up for it....

[rickthewelder]

Originally Posted by mr intense

The pic of the raw one is built more like you are talking about . The 160 fork version would be beyyer with the air shock spec & set in the 6,75 travel.

So everyone knows, me and a couple of my partners in crime @ Intense weighed the raw one when Steber was at lunch one day after it was built and it tipped at 35.91 lbs. and it felt like all the weight was in the Travis.
When i copped to Steber how much he told me it would get lighter........
My VPX weighs 46, with a Travis 180 SC.
I can't wait.
RTW.

[noxir]

Fecking hell.... yet another Intense I'm drooling over. My accountant REALLY disapproves.

Luckily my riding approves!

[TeeWorks]

hehe, ok alright... only my thing is, that when i sometimes think of replacing my rig, i need a frame that fits a 888RC3 - so hoping that the final uzzi will fit it!

[ir12daveor]

I was just about to post a thread about what's happening to the 6.6 when I saw this thread. I was thinking about building up a 6.6 this winter with 180mm forks for all mountain trail riding and some park riding.

I already have a 5.5 which I do everything on, but I am feeling that it is getting a little too much abuse when it goes for days out in the lift country so I want to keep this as a touring bike for long rides with lots of climbing and no lifts or maybe a little bit of enduro riding.

I want my second bike to have a cross over with the 5.5 in that I can still climb it, but I want it to be able to take me further then the 5.5 can go. I want it to be able to do long enduro rides where I can use the lifts, but also may need to climb up to 1000m (3000ft) in a day, and also take me to the park for some action a few times a year.

I was thinking of building a 6.6 with Marazochi 66 ATA, I reckon the bike would have come in at about 16kg (35.5lb) so would not be out of the question for a little climbing but would be burly enough to take some punishment in lift country and have a high enough BB for trail riding in the Alps.

It seems not that the new Uzzi is going to fit the bill of what I was looking for in the old 6.6. I would still go for the 6.6 but the new VPP and grease ports etc are actually a good selling point.

So an anyone comment, should I get an old 6.6 for my second bike or wait for the new Uzzi?

When will the new Uzzi be available in Europe?

Cheers,
Dave.

[matthew]

Originally Posted by ir12daveor

I want it to be able to do long enduro rides where I can use the lifts, but also may need to climb up to 1000m (3000ft) in a day, and also take me to the park for some action a few times a year.

I was thinking of building a 6.6 with Marazochi 66 ATA, I reckon the bike would have come in at about 16kg (35.5lb) so would not be out of the question for a little climbing but would be burly enough to take some punishment in lift country and have a high enough BB for trail riding in the Alps.

So an anyone comment, should I get an old 6.6 for my second bike or wait for the new Uzzi?

Cheers,
Dave.

Here's mine at about 35 lbs with a ti spring CCDB and a Marz 66RC2X 170mm fork.
I regularly pedal up 2000 to 3000 feet on a climb (all be it slowly) and it descends with a similar feel to my Demo 9 ( obviously less travel and weight ).
I'm still very happy with the bike...
But,,,,
how much do you weigh, I'm a light 150 lbs so the 6.6 is still holding up well.
If you are heavier you may like the idea of a beefier rear triangle and thicker tubes, especially with the fact that you have a lighter bike.
I would think that the new uzzi would be perfect for your needs and you would get the service advantage of the grease ports.
It looks like it will be a sweet ride.
The 6.6 may be available now and you may pick one up at a discount, the uzzi is still in proto stage and who knows when they will be available in europe.

If I was looking for a bike that was beefy enough for lift days and pedalable for riding up into the mountains, I would wait for the uzzi.
just my 5 cents.
good luck

[ScottW]

How about a few more pics???? Maybe a target frame weight for medium with air shock?

[Err]

Back from another BC road trip and have been thinking about this new UZZI a bit. I'm riding a Socom at the moment for all-around FR and using my SS for it's intended purpose (and an occasional trail ride).

Some thoughts -
I find the Socom to have near perfect Geo for all around FR with the exception of the wheel base. The TTL, BBH, HTA (actual measured at 66 deg on my setup) are money for getting over/on top of/down/etc anything on the trail. The wheel base is a little cumbersome on really tight turns and on very narrow skinnies (4" or less) with turns. I've done a fair amount of all-around FR on the SS on some of the same trails as I've done on my Socom and find the skinnies easier, but the BB is too low for pedally trails that are very rough. The SS corners better than the Socom on man-made trails (A-Line) but suffers on natural trails where the "berm" is a tree trunk. The HTA on the SS is about as steep as I would want a FR bike to be any more. I really don't want to see a 67 deg HTA on the Uzzi. On the way up the hill, the SS is a gem and I really think some of that same geo needs to find it's way on the Uzzi. The 74 deg STA combined with the longish TTL makes for a roomy enough cockpit and keeps the front wheel planted. With a slightly raised BB, the UZZI would 1-up the SS when pedaling through the rough stuff. I think my rambling alarm just went off, going to wrap this up...

Thoughts in a nutshell -
Replaceable dropouts
66 deg HTA w/565 A-C & non-zero stack headset
Keep the wheelbase in check with 17" chainstays
Mirror the SS top tube lengths
Mirror SS Seat Tube Angle
STL small=16, med=17, large=18 (please no fricken 18" STL on a med!)
TT as low as possible
2.5'ish leverage ratio
BBH of 14.25 with 565 A-C with option of running the orig M6 dropouts if you want it lower.
Weight w/coil shock 9-10 lbs.
MAXLE compatible!!!!!

[climbingbubba]

how was whistler? deer valley tomorrow?

the uzzi you describe sounds like a perfect do all bike for me, i already got the go ahead from the wife to get it when it comes out. hopefully soon, also hopefully the 09 marzocchi's have the bugs worked out because the uzzi with a 66 ata would be my ideal build.

[Err]

Originally Posted by climbingbubba

how was whistler? deer valley tomorrow?

the uzzi you describe sounds like a perfect do all bike for me, i already got the go ahead from the wife to get it when it comes out. hopefully soon, also hopefully the 09 marzocchi's have the bugs worked out because the uzzi with a 66 ata would be my ideal build.

That's killer dude, sure you'll love the UZZI when it does arrive.

I may lay low tomorrow, maybe build a new jump or something when I do manage to wake up. It was a crazy trip with little sleep, bikes are still in boxes at the moment.

[climbingbubba]

Originally Posted by Err

That's killer dude, sure you'll love the UZZI when it does arrive.

I may lay low tomorrow, maybe build a new jump or something when I do manage to wake up. It was a crazy trip with little sleep, bikes are still in boxes at the moment.

next time you go to whistler me and Sara will try to be there.
well if deer valley somehow falls through ill come dig,
also i have some my wheels ready to build when you have some free time.

the only thing im concerned about the uzzi is the sizing. like usual im going to be right between a M and L being 6' with long arms. 23.5 would be ideal for me i think. probably get the M though and run my 65mm stem.

[Err]

Originally Posted by climbingbubba

next time you go to whistler me and Sara will try to be there.
well if deer valley somehow falls through ill come dig,
also i have some my wheels ready to build when you have some free time.

the only thing im concerned about the uzzi is the sizing. like usual im going to be right between a M and L being 6' with long arms. 23.5 would be ideal for me i think. probably get the M though and run my 65mm stem.

and/or run wider bars which will stretch you out a bit. I'm enjoying the heck out of my Sunline's set at 28.5".

should have time for the wheels in the next few days.

Mary and Alex killed it up there. Mary got the big GLC, gap and drop on Dirt Merchant, Drop-In clinic, A-Line rock drop. Alex pretty much crushed everything I towed him down, I'd list it all but I'd be here all day.

[ir12daveor]

I just got a sneak peak of the snek peak. Just back from the Eurobike public day and saw a prototype of the new Uzzi. It looks pretty sweet in person, I was told that it is not the one that will go into production but it looked quite nice. A bit like the tracer on steroids.

[Mr Smith]

Any ideas on the mud clearance. In europe with a 2.5" on an UZZI the tyre clogs up between the brace and the tyre . Santa Cruz have a better clearance method with the Blur as it gives room for the mud to disipate.

[pipe]

FWIW I completely agree with Err. His numbers are exactly what I am looking for in my next rig.

[iRider]

Originally Posted by Mr Smith

Any ideas on the mud clearance. In europe with a 2.5" on an UZZI the tyre clogs up between the brace and the tyre . Santa Cruz have a better clearance method with the Blur as it gives room for the mud to disipate.

FWIW: I am in the PNW (and yes, we have mud) and no problems with either 2.5 Maxxis or 2.35 Kendas clogging up.

[iRider]

Originally Posted by pipe

FWIW I completely agree with Err. His numbers are exactly what I am looking for in my next rig.

Probably you can't combine a long TT with a short wheelbase and short chainstays and keep the seat tube angle.