Exclusive First Ride: Intense 951 Evo – 650B DH Racer
 |
 Intense, PB and Troy Lee Design bend the rules of color and common sense as Harold Preston sends the 951 Evo to flat, well past the transition on Ted's road-gap-to-table combination. |
Intense will be releasing its first production downhill chassis completely designed around mid-sized 650B wheels at the Sea Otter Classic. It’s called the 951 Evo and Pinkbike was given the opportunity to ride the bike in a secret, two-day test session a few weeks earlier. Intense designed the 8.5-inch-travel 951 Evo specifically for the mid-sized wheels. That means its swingarm, front-section and frame geometry are exclusive to the Evo. More importantly, Intense founder and designer Jeff Steber says that, rather than attempting to duplicate the handling of its 26-inch-wheel counterparts, the 951 Evo’s steering and cornering were also optimized for 650B. However subtle, that should translate to a unique feel that we were eager to explore. Expect the 951 Evo to be available in late May in small, medium and large sizes, equipped with a Cane Creek Double Barrel shock. MSRP for the frame and shock is $2900 USD and prices for complete, ready-to-race 951 Evos will be announced later this spring.
 |
| Intense applied subtle touches, some learned years earlier from its experimental 29er downhill prototypes, to design a 951-based chassis that would extract the most performance from 650B wheels. |
951 Evo Highlights:
• New swingarm and front-section designed specifically for 27.5 wheels
• 8.5 inches of travel
• Re-curved VPP suspension for more gradual rate change
• Cane Creek Double Barrel shock standard
• Chainstay length maintained within 5mm of 26-inch 951 chassis
• Accepts full-travel, 200mm DH forks
• Geometry optimized for wheel-size
• Small, Medium, Large sizes
• $2900 - Frame with Cane Creek DB shock
• Available May, 2013
• New swingarm and front-section designed specifically for 27.5 wheels
• 8.5 inches of travel
• Re-curved VPP suspension for more gradual rate change
• Cane Creek Double Barrel shock standard
• Chainstay length maintained within 5mm of 26-inch 951 chassis
• Accepts full-travel, 200mm DH forks
• Geometry optimized for wheel-size
• Small, Medium, Large sizes
• $2900 - Frame with Cane Creek DB shock
• Available May, 2013
Side-by-Side Comparisons
To get our heads around the new bike and to ensure that our riding perceptions were as accurate as possible for the two-day evaluation, we chose a familiar DH track and invited two talented local riders, not sponsored by Intense, who have extensive experience aboard both the 951 and the M9. We also brought along an M9 for side-by side comparisons (a 26-inch 951 was not readily available). The M9 was set up with Fox suspension and Maxxis tires, while the 951 Evo rolled on Schwalbe Hans Dampf tires and was suspended by a Manitou Dorado fork and a Cane Creek DB shock. While a scientific apples-to-apples comparison was not possible - two sessions, riding similar bikes on a familiar DH track, provided enough experience to clearly define the differences in both the 951 Evo’s handling and its performance – and they were not so subtle.
 |
| Intense's 650B 951 Evo opposite the M9 - two of the world's more capable descenders. With equal riders aboard, the M9 would have a small fight on its hands to stay ahead of the Evo. |
 | While a scientific apples-to-apples comparison was not possible - two sessions, riding similar bikes on a familiar DH track, provided enough experience to clearly define the differences in both the 951 Evo's handling and its performance - and they were not so subtle. |
About the 951 Evo
The 951 was intended to be Intense's more affordable downhill/freeride chassis and as such, it lacks some of the features of the M9, like adjustable G3 dropouts and multiple options for ride-height and suspension travel. Surprisingly, however, the 951 has become quite popular among racers and is now capturing a substantial portion of the brand's DH sales. The 951 Evo is constructed from heat treated 6000-series aluminum throughout. Every tube is butted, tapered or manipulated in profile and the top tube is the hydroformed and welded feature that has become an Intense signature. All of the main pivot bearings use adjustable angular-contact bearings for an extended service life, and the head tube is a straight 1.5-inch style, so that forks with any combination of tapered or straight steerer tubes can be used. Designer Jeff Steber said that some modifications were done to the 951 Evo’s VPP suspension rates to smooth its feel through the mid-stroke of the shock and also to reduce the rising rate at full compression. The new tune works exceptionally well with the Cane Creek Double Barrel shock.
951 EVO Geometry
Size (inch/mm)............Small .....................Medium....................Large
Wheelbase..................47" / 1193.8.............48" / 1219.2..............49" / 1244.6
Top Tube.....................22.5" / 572...............23.5" / 597................24.5" / 622
Chainstay....................17.5" / 444.5............17.5" / 444.5.............17.5" / 444.5
Head Tube...................4.5" / 114.................4.5" / 114..................5" / 127
Head Angle..................62.5.........................62.5...........................62.5
Bottom Bracket...........13.75" / 349.2..........13.75" / 349.2...........13.75" / 349.2
Fork Axle/Crown..........23" / 586
Shock...........................9.5 X 3.0" / 241 x 76
Bottom Bracket........... 83mm
Headset.......................1.5"
Seatpost Dia................31.6mm
Rear Travel..................8.5" / 216mm
Rear Spacing..............150mm
Size (inch/mm)............Small .....................Medium....................Large
Wheelbase..................47" / 1193.8.............48" / 1219.2..............49" / 1244.6
Top Tube.....................22.5" / 572...............23.5" / 597................24.5" / 622
Chainstay....................17.5" / 444.5............17.5" / 444.5.............17.5" / 444.5
Head Tube...................4.5" / 114.................4.5" / 114..................5" / 127
Head Angle..................62.5.........................62.5...........................62.5
Bottom Bracket...........13.75" / 349.2..........13.75" / 349.2...........13.75" / 349.2
Fork Axle/Crown..........23" / 586
Shock...........................9.5 X 3.0" / 241 x 76
Bottom Bracket........... 83mm
Headset.......................1.5"
Seatpost Dia................31.6mm
Rear Travel..................8.5" / 216mm
Rear Spacing..............150mm
What is Different?
Remarkably, the Evo's 17.5-inch chainstays are only 0.2 inches (5mm) longer than the standard 951's to make room for the larger wheels and rear-wheel travel is the same. The rear tire comes awfully close to the saddle at full compression, but that is an occupational hazard which also comes with most 26-inch-wheel DH bikes. Steber extended the top tube length of the 951 one half inch from the M9 - the medium M9 has a 23 inch top tube, while both the 26 and 27.5-inch 951s measure 23.5 inches. The head tube is one half inch shorter, at 4.5 inches, than the M9 and 951, while the bottom brackets are the same height, at 13.75 inches.
Conventional logic holds that a larger-diameter wheel would require a steeper head angle in order to duplicate the steering action of a smaller-diameter wheel, but Intense kicked out the Evo's head angle from the standard 951's 64-degrees, to a much slacker, 62.5 degrees. Standard 951s use a 65-degree seat angle, while the Evo's is 64 - a shift that only the tallest riders for a given size will sense. The 1.5-inch delta between the wheelbases of the M9, the 26-inch 951 and the 951 Evo in the medium size is significant, with an inch of that created by the Evo's slacker head angle and longer top tube. The M9 can be set between 46.5 and 47.5 inches, the 26er 951 wheelbase is 46.5 inches and the 951 Evo measures 48 inches. For your future data bank, Intense published the Evo's frame geometry with a fork crown-to-axle measurement of 23 inches (586mm) which means it will accept all of the most desirable 200-millimeter DH sliders.
 |
| (Clockwise) The Evo's Manitou Dorado fork put in a surprisingly solid performance. Its inverted design is easily adapted to larger-diameter wheels. Cane Creek's Double Barrel damper is a good match for the 951's VPP suspension. The Evo's swingarm is reconfigured to raise the dropouts in order to maintain an optimal 13.75-inch bottom bracket height. The big wheel is a tight fit behind the 951 Evo's seat stay bridge. A bit primitive, but the 951's Integrated fork bumpers are available at almost any hardware store. |
Key Components
Availability of premium wheels, tires and forks was the limiting factor for the mid-sized wheels's entrance into the marketplace, and while most brands are well-represented in the trailbike segment, 650B-specific DH components are just coming on line this spring. Fox Racing Shox will have its 2.75-inch 40 ready in May, and reportedly, DH forks from RockShox and X-Fusion will follow shortly after. The default fork for 650B DH bikes at present is the Manitou Dorado, which was on the 951 Evo. The Dorado has no significant clearance issues with 27.5-inch wheels because its reversed stanchions do not require a reinforcement arch. Wheels specific to DH, on the other hand, are still in the pipeline for most big-name brands. Hoops for our test bike were built with Novatec Diablo 275 rims, which are holding up quite well. Tires are not a problem, with almost all brands releasing 650B options of their popular DH patterns this year. The Hans Dampf from Schwalbe proved well suited for the sometimes slick hard-pack found in Southern California, and is becoming a go-to tread for many riders on the World Cup circuit. The rest of the 951 Evo was classic DH kit - powered by a Shimano Saint ensemble and glued to the dirt with a Cane Creek DB shock.
0% Loaded
1/14
| Of course, the extra speed could be chalked up to exuberance and New Bike Syndrome, but as the testing progressed, it became apparent that, while the 951 may not feel much faster, it is really moving. |
From the outset, the 951 Evo pedals easier than the M9 over any surface. All three of us commented immediately on that point - and the Evo's balance feels quite good from the get-go, so there is need for a familiarization period before sending the bike. Two runs down Ted's and the difference in speed was evidenced by the fact that our first rider was over-jumping everything. Of course, the extra speed could be chalked up to exuberance and New Bike Syndrome, but as the testing progressed, it became apparent that, while the 951 may not feel much faster, it is really moving. The enlarged wheel-size, in conjunction with the 951's revised suspension and steering geometry, create a wonderfully smooth ride that erases much of the sense of speed and urgency that comes from a bike when it is banging down rocky terrain.
 |
| Comparing the M9 (left) with the 951 Evo on identical trails reminded test riders of how good the M9 is - it fears nothing. The two bikes seemed to be equally matched on big hits and landings. The 951 rolls more fluidly over rock gardens and trail chatter and in those situations, it carries more speed. |
Corners came up suddenly on the Evo, and there we discovered the second major difference between the M9 and the 951. Turning the Evo requires a more pronounced lean angle, which corresponds to results we have garnered from testing AM 29ers in this same zone. The additional lean is nowhere near that of a 29er and it becomes natural after a couple of shuttles. Once learned, the 951 reveals another trick in the turns that may be inherent to its wheel-size. Where the M9 tends to break traction with an edgy feel, the Evo lets loose in a more controlled manner that encourages feet-up drifting. The differences in the two bike's tires may play a large role in this, but the feel was that the 951 rider was more in the bike than on it when pushing hard through a corner. We speculate that some of the added stability is due to the bottom bracket being lower in relation to the axles than the 26-inch-wheel M9.
 |
| The 951 chassis feels as easy to corner as it looks. The hip in the background of this composite image helps to indicate how fast the turn actually is. The Evo liked to be leaned harder than the M9, and it repaid the favor with some of the most predictable cornering we have experienced. |
Of course, there is the question of whether or not slightly larger wheels add significantly to the 951 Evo's speed in the rough. The answer is yes, they do roll faster, but the truth is that an eager rider on a good day could get the M9 down the rocks as fast as the Evo. In fact, the third test rider of the team (un-named, due to conflicting sponsors) was not completely convinced that he could put in a faster time down the most technical parts of the trail on larger wheels. Medium-amplitude features, like rock gardens and chatter bumps, are built into the trails at Ted's to put suspensions to the test and all were in agreement that the 951 zoomed through them as if they were part of an XC circuit. Perhaps the greater advantage of the 650B platform is that it takes the edge off the terrain and thus requires less concentration to ride the course. This in turn, makes it easier to focus well ahead on key features and to hold a more accurate line.
 |
| Launching into one of the zone's many rock gardens. Preston, who fielded the most positive review of the Evo, owns the M9 used in the test, as well as a 26-inch-wheel 951. |
First impressions:
| Riding is not racing and the defining tests of the mid-sized wheel's potential will begin in the start-houses of the first World Cups this Spring. That said, we expected the benefits of the 650B wheels to be minimal and difficult to discern, but such was not the case. The Intense 951 Evo is one of the easiest downhill bikes I've ever ridden and that sentiment was reflected by far more capable riders. It pedals easily and you don't have to pedal as much because it carries its speed so well. We expected the Evo to feel sluggish in its steering, but beyond the extra lean angle, it is at least as nimble as the M9. In theory, the 951 has a lot going for it in the positive column and almost no negatives. Unfortunately, those seeking hard numbers will have to wait for the racing season to heat up. Our efforts to ride the two bikes on the widest range of terrain available did not provide the consistency required to publish relevant Strava comparisons (Planned for the long-term test.) Before you get all hot on a new 650B DH bike, however, be reminded that some key ingredients - like a proper selection of DH forks and wheels - are still on the horizon. It would be prudent for first-adopters to confirm the existence of those critical components before slapping down the credit card on a frame and shock. (Intense will stock complete build kits to ensure Evo customers are covered.) All things considered, though, the 951 Evo could provide a very rare opportunity for a privateer racer to buy a measurable advantage over the bikes that most riders, including super-funded corporate teams, will be campaigning on this season. A couple or three seconds isn't going to change the life of a weekend shuttler, but that is exactly the advantage that an up-and-coming racer needs to move up the rankings and get noticed. My advice? If you own a fresh DH bike - keep it. If you are in the market for a new race bike, I'd put my money on the 951 Evo - or something darn close to it. - RC |
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
-
About Us
Contacts FAQ Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sign Up! Sitemap -
Advertise
Advertising -
Cool Features
Submit a Story Product Photos Videos Privacy Request -
RSS
Pinkbike RSS Pinkbike Twitter Pinkbike Facebook Pinkbike Youtube Pinkbike Instagram
Newsletter Signup
Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.061524
Haha classic, I was once riding on a trail that had a small drop at the end that landed you in a city park. I had a new DH bike and the spring on the shock was a bit soft. I went off the drop, the front wheel came up, caught my shorts as my ass was too far back and pulled my pants down just as I rolled past a group of 6 Scandinavian backpackers having a picnic. It was awesome haha...
www.schwalbetires.com/super_gravity_revolutionary_carcass_technology_for_mtb
Apparently good enough for Danny Hart isn't good enough for someone like you.
= marketing 101
And Waki, I know you are joking, but if the wheel issue is nothing than you should prove it by winning some races with 24" wheels on a DH bike and writing an article about it. These things make a difference. They figured out bar width pretty recently. Stems took a while to get shorter to a size that made sense. Head angle only got slack a little while back. This seems to be legit. I am dying to try a norco range killer b, and this DH bike just made my dream list.
I think i am reaching the ultimate level of my training. Hippcritirvana is almost complete. I shall now preach the pointlessness of internet trolling and! geeking.
I have about 1/2" clearance on my 26"'Float CTD with the 27.5 HD
But the angle of approach of the wheels relative to your center of gravity makes a difference in how the bike rides and how it feels to the rider. I personally feel like I am sitting "in" my 29" bike as opposed to "on top off" my 26" bike.
If a taller rider will benefit from (or need) a larger frame, why would he/she also not benefit from (need a) large wheelsize?
There is a reason Specialzied does not make any size Small 29" wheeled bikes or any size XL 26" wheeled bikes.
The height comparison is relative to a rider of any given height on a 26" wheel versus a 27.5" or 29" wheel. Not to the height of the rider relative to the performance of any of them.
Your center of gravity in relation to the angle of approach of the front wheel is why a taller rider will benefit more from a larger wheel size than a shorter rider.
To put it simply...a taller rider going from an identical 26" wheeled bike to a 29" wheeled bike will feasibly see more relative benefit from the larger wheelsize than a shorter rider on the same bike. That's not to say that either will see any benefit if they don't like the way the bike feels or rides nor will the taller rider be faster than the shorter rider due to the increase in wheelsize.
I for one am a wagon wheel convert...and at 6'7", you will be too someday, trust me.
doug
What is being said is: For a taller rider, the relative benefits of riding a 29er vs. a 26er will be greater than those of a shorter rider. But that will not make the taller rider faster than the shorter rider.
Think about this a a spectrum of costs and benefits, the effects of which change depending on a number of factors (skill, experience, ability) including height & weight. In isolation of all other factors, the shorter you are, the less the effect of the benefits of the 29er will have on you. The taller you are, the more effect the benefits of the 29er will have on you. Both riders benefit from the same factors, but the effect is magnified the taller you are relative to riding a 26" wheel The same goes for the downsides and the opposite is true for the benefits and downsides of a 26" wheel.
Think about the downsides of a 29er.
It's bigger...the effect of the this is minimized the taller you are.
It's takes more effort to turn...the effect of this is minimized the taller you as a taller rider, presumably with longer arms, can in theory generate more leverage at the handlebars.
It's heavier...the effect of this is minimized the taller (and presumably bigger & stronger) you are.
The benefits and drawbacks of either wheel size can be overcome with skill and ability, but in isolation of all other factors, the benefits of moving from a 26" to a 29" wheel, while the same for everyone, the effects of which will be magnifide for a taller rider.
There are limitations to all of this (trail size, max speed, radius of turms, etc) so no, building a bike with 42" wheels does not make sense.
If you can't figure it out, it's ok just to stick with your current bike. No one's forcing you to do anything.
@Nikoli hit the nail on the head - It's about how the whole bike is setup; the BB height in relation to the axle height. not just that bigger wheels are just magical somehow. Plus a slightly bigger wheelbase.
One thing is that those Dorado forks are looking tastier every day.
XL frames w/ 26" wheels no longer exist as far as Specialized is concerned.
It is all about how the whole bike is set up...and a frame as large as an XL will generally work better with larger wheels.
What do you have one of those height check things from the entrance to the rides at Disneyland at your trailhead or something?
Your wheels must be this small to ride this ride.
The ride height check you mentioned is funny but probably more insightful just cuz of wheel debates in race applications. Debating wheel size to me is like debating what is most attractive on a woman when at the end of the day you just want one that fits your personality the best...or your skill level...
I just have a problem with people who have a problem with 29ers or 650b(ers?).
Open your damn mind...29" wheels do some stuff better than 26" wheels and vice versa. Ride what fits your style, terrain, skill set, etc.
European Enduro races...I'm 26"/160mm (or 650b/150mm) all day. U.S. Enduro races...I'll be killing it on a 29er.
The flip side of that comment about the ride height is that Specialized is actually kind of doing it with their 29ers. No small frames of the Enduro 29 means, "You must be this tall to ride this ride."
And one thing before you all jump on 650b, check tyre and wheels availability, big chance is that you won't find any spares in your lbs :/
That quote invalidates any argument this article has.
Then they say: "Preston, who fielded the most positive review of the Evo, owns the M9 used in the test, as well as a 26-inch-wheel 951."
Guess he loaded up the wrong bike that morning! I agree this comparison is useless. 2 different bikes, 2 different suspension set ups, 2 different types of tires. There is no validity in this comparison at all.
But the introduction of an awesome new bike was turned into just another bull shit wheelsize comparison or opinion article posted by RC, who despite all his techinical knowledge and achievement in the industry, can't seem to formulate a worthwhile thought or comparison when it comes to wheelsize.
These half crocked comparisons and opinion pieces posted on Pinkbike do more harm to the analysis of wheelsize in mountain biking than good. Comparing two dis-similar bikes, under the guise of similarity by using the Intense brand name and then calling it a comparison of wheelsize does little more than create conjecture and uninformed internet arguing.
The fact that a direct comparison of an identically spec'd 26" and 27.5" 951 is actually possible, but was not done is the most disapointing part of this whole article.
Maybe RC should take a look at his former employers most recent issue to see how you should compare similar bikes with different wheel sizes.
The May issue is actually the most recent issue. I've had it on my throne reading rack for the past week.
I was talking about the comparison of an identical 26" Stumpjumper versus a 29" Stumpjumper.
You know...a comparison of identical bikes with different wheel sizes. Nobody said anything about 2x4's and protractors.
You sir...are a moron.
1. Pinkbike writes every bike is great, but this goes for all "First look" articles.
2. Anytime someone talks big wheel momentum they conveniently forget about braking distance and scrubbing off speed.
3. As someone said ^^^^, it always seems like the big wheel bike is fitted with some light tire like the Arden, HD, RR, SS and the like.
One other thing that I find strange is the various different opinons about how much faster 27.5 wheels are. In an earlier 27.5 test article tester said he only gained a second per mile with 27.5 wheels on a DH trail and that can be made up or lost with just good line selection. Here it's like 2-3 seconds and it gives lesser riders a chance to compete.
I think I hurt that tree more than it hurt me though.
Second, along the same lines, the results of this "test" seemed exactly in line with what would have been predicted. That the 650B rolls better and can go faster over some of the rough stuff, but lacks a little in handling compared to the 26", with the riders concluding they were faster on this track but had doubts they could ride a tight technical track as fast on the 650B. Sound familiar? It should because that's exactly the popular opinion out there. So my question is did these testers really feel this way based on the riding? Or were their impressions influenced by what they had expected going in?
To me all this is nonsense until we see these things out on the WC where the best riders and putting both bikes to the test and we see what bikes the riders end up riding and on what courses.
regards,
the rest of the biking population riding old fashioned 26" wheels who are not OCD/ADHD obsessed by wheel size and are just geting on with riding their bikes and having fun, ignoring the bike industry hype machine, and laughing as the sheeple rush to sell perfectly good mountain cycles in order to buy new more expensive redundant big-wheeled cycles with NEW 2014 spec things and stuff and waaaaah when is my new XX2 coming out???? want !!!!!!
"Sheeple"? Really?
How many 29ers or 650b bikes have you ridden? Zero, right.
Ask yourself this question. When WC DH racers start showing up on 650b bikes - bikes their bike sponsor doesn't actually sell - is it hype, or a performance advantage? If a rider chooses to race a 650b bike in an Enduro when their sponsor makes/sells all 3 wheels sizes, is it hype or an advantage?
Your beloved 26" wheels were an arbitrary winner in the wheel size sweepstakes when mountain bikes were just starting out...kinda like VHS over beta, Blu-ray over HDDVD, etc... Ironically, like VHS v. beta, beta was actually the superior format.
wake up sheeple!
951 frame looks amazing as always!!!!
Reminds me of a timed test Dirt made with 2 riders and 2 trailbikes. The guys had the impression to be faster on the 26" but were actually faster (or similiar) with a shorter travel 29". Sure the big wheels smoothen things a little. Of course 27.5 a little less than 29". But I guess for racing it's gonna be standard for everybody by next season. If you're not racing DH (like me) that's not interesting to change now as RC said it.
please dont tell everyone my plan
But everything else has no value in the test because most of what they talked about is largely controlled by tires and suspension. Until they test back to back with identical builds and settings (minor changes in the rear to optimize to leverage) we won't really know how much of these changes are down to wheel size.
At the end of the day with all the factors in a downhill run one mistake can undo a win so wheel size aill rarely if ever be the deciding factor, the athlete always wins. 650b might make some bits easier but it still has its draw backs in other areas where 26er excel, different style different strengths i cant see it making a massive advantage mark at all tracks but It may suit some. Of course I may be proven wrong as the season unfolds.
2. Having said that everyone claiming that these wheels have little to no effect due to the roughly inch difference in diameter is full of crap. If that were true then we could say the same about 180 and 200mm of travel. 20mm isn't much but it does make a difference not as much as say 40mm but still something.
3. As for the MX comparison, how they tested different wheel sizes and settled on 21 and 19/18 inch for the rear rims (not wheel diameter) I think the same should happen with mountainbikes. MX settled on around 28in in diameter, they use a 21, 18, or 19 inch rim with a big tire to achieve this. Mountainbikes with the lack of engine have been going with bigger diameter rims and a smaller tires. A 26in rim is 22.0in (559mm) and with a DH 2.5 tire the diameter comes out to ~27in. Now a 650b wheel with DH tires of the same size will undoubtably comeout closer to 28in and thus closer to the the optimium MX wheel diameter. Now DH bikes have followed MX bikes in many areas, suspension (although not to the point of having 12in of travel), geometry (MX bikes tend to have headangles 62.5-63.5º) and other components so I don't see why they won't with wheels.
4. I'm pretty sure the Hans Damf tires on the Evo are the supergravity ones which in 650b come out to 1000g which isn't far of the 26in tires on the m9!
5. and that's a wrap.
In the shop where i work we just fitted 650b wheels to a woman's 26" wheeled bike ''to make her faster'' the wheel comes very close to the fork arch and very close to the saddle, but it bloody fits fine!! What's the point?
Ps. Her Strava times are the same.
Is it faster is what I wanna know! Get a 951 (not an M9!) fitted with some 26" Hans Dampf's and give us some bloody average times down a variety of runs done but a variety of riders...
The fact that most companies charge 30% More for a 29" bike over a 26" with the same spec is enough to put me off.
Unless your stinking rich, calm down go watch a bunch of MTB movies and realize all those guys are riding 26" and make you look like crap.
Go oil your 26ers chain give it some love and GO RIDE IT.
WAIT for all the BS hype to calm down, and the prices to even out.
WAIT a bit more and see the hype when the industry starts pluging 26" tires as the new thing.
All this 27, 29 etc...30, 36 what ever.... it's a waste of time for DH maybe in XC but not DH. It's only to make people spend their money. I stick to my 26 FRO and challenge any 27.5
Intense get back to the basics and design a Carbon 951
Combined 500g more mass on the outside of two flywheels is huge. The faster they turn the bigger angular momentum and acceleration is. That explains why you cant turnin as quickly as with a 26 wheel, or brake or accelerate.. The bigger momentun of a 27 carries you better over the first and second root. After that it is 26 again because at slow rotational speed uphill 500g dont matter.
Also this bigger wheel weight is actually softening the current suspension. Leverage vector gets longer. And I think this is the effect that all the testers are actually talking about, it lowers spring rate and lets you notch up damping. Many riders ride way to big springs and only use the beginning stroke of their bikes - this seems like an advancement - the shock can now work better to controll the weaker spring.
My daughters 26, 951 runs a silver spring upfront and a 300lb spring in the back @ static HA 62 (riding HA is around 55-5
Wheels hitting seattube - two layers of ducttape keep the paint fresh...It also means you finally used all your bikes travel.
It's only by lowering your center of gravity per se that you will improve cornering and handling.
If you have a physical argument, bring it on. I'm no physicist so I can learn something.
Maybe I'll start using wood blocks on my pedals to raise my center of gravity up...so I can see further down the trail. No drawbacks to having a higher center of gravity, right?
Another example of a "well known advantage" often used by the cycle industry: your down tube is bent to come orthogonaly onto your headtube because you maximise the welding surface. Aha? Pythagoras was wrong and noone noticed for 2500 years? the diagonal is shorter than the orthogonal section of a tube?? Really?
There's this other one from Trek revolutionizing applied force on a shock (broke down to pieces by a simple physics rules as once explained by an engineer at Santa Cruz, forgot his name).
So? Still believe what everybody "knows" is true? You're free to believe what you want.
Moto tried different sizes, and found the balance between maneuverability and stability. MTB is doing the same, just 20 years later.
I'm not saying it can't be better I'm just a bit turned off off the desperate wheelsize-marketing-war. And before you say I just shouldn't read it: It's almost unavoidable. Every publication about mountainbikes I know has at least two wheelshizzle-articles which are desperately trying to sell you stuff nobody apart from pro racers need and even them maybe won't become faster by it. Yeah if Gwin wins the overall on a 650b everyone will be like "I told ya" but in the end he won it because he's Gwin not because he's on specialized, trek 26 or 650b.
(other than the fact its FWD)
on a serious note are they even available to buy?
approves this bike....
I rode it....
No 26" 951 to use for the test and a old(er) chainguide? What's going on over there at Intense?
Chocolate covered ants? Possibly, but even if it rolls better, I ain't buying it.
Unless it's chocolate covered