Intense M6 Team Evo Prototype
Jeff Steber posted up a prototype version of the M6 he has created on the Intense forum that the Intense guys will be running this year it looks like. Lighter, very adjustable, and more versatile.
“This is the refined version of the M6 evo we were prototyping last season based on racer input from Matti Lehikoinen & the boys from CRC team.
The frame features the G3 adjustable drop out and a new Adjustable head tube with + or - 1 degree.
The head tube is very simple & light and uses the same bearing pieces as the internal 1 1/8″ flush headsets in the rotating cups. You can still use a standard with this setup .
The frame has the ability to run both the 10.5X 3.5 shock for 9.5″ travel and a very m6 type feel or the 9.5X 3″ shock for 8.5″ travel and a livelier feel while maintaining the same leverage ratio. The mono tubes have been slimmed down and the frame comes in at 9.2 lbs.” Jeff Steber
Adjustable headangle ( + / - 1degree)
Adjustable dropouts
Visit Jeff’s thread on the bike on the Intense Forum at MTBR.
Facebook
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
Twitter
Wonder if the tire still hits the seat tube so that you can’t get all the travel you pay for, or has that “feature” been left in.
Jimmy, if you’re talking about the M6 then you must not know that it doesn’t do that with their updated dropouts. Intense came out with them shortly after the M6 was released and they’ve been shipping with the updated dropouts for a long time now. You can still request / purchase the FRO dropouts if you want the slacker/lower race geo but run the risk of the tire rubbing on the seat tube near bottomout.
I have a ‘08 M6, with “normal” dropouts, and when I bottom the frame, the rear tyre hits the seat tube.
Does anybody know, why? Maybe the setup of the shock is wrong?
And the upper vpp linkage is cracked now….:D Can it crack because of the bottomouts?
Cheers!
Siiiiick!
That looks sweet. I was not that excited about the m6 this evo edition though is making me take notice. Any indication when this will be sold to the public?
They are prototype only, no talks of a public version yet.
This is an M6 I would go broke to own. Hope there’s some serious consideration for mass-production for the public.
Yeah well still can’t believe that they let it out the door with such as obvious issue. Good to hear they have remedied the situation though.
4.1 kg? with shock? Incredible
[...] Fonte: Sick Lines [...]
That is one beautiful frame, and a nice a evolution from the previous M6
looks good ……..
but why have a supid head angle adjuster its a race bike.. and its not like its for freeride, they should know exacly the rite headagle not just say well were band an adjustable one it there dicks!
and another dum ass design the drop outs whjat is the point in them being like that…… when you snap the dropouts off or strip a thread cause your mechs wraped round the wheel you gota buy a whole new lump of metal thats going to cost loads more that other dropouts.
It’s oddly strange to think that a slight curvature in the down tube would change the whole look of the frame. Aside from the technical and adjustablility aspect, there’s really not that much of a general difference. Yet, I’m sure it rides like a whole new bike under certain configurations.
I’m no racer but how long would a frame like this last under racing conditions? The dropout area looks ridiculously thin.
Dave - Interesting thought. Our opinion on why it’s there is because it gives the rider/mechanic the flexibility to adjust the bike to tailor to the course better.
All world cup downhills are not on the same track, nor do they all have the same amount of turns, drops, sprints, etc. It is wise to give WC Dh’ers a more swiss-army knife type bike than a single knife and hope they can make do.
By putting the adjustable headset in there (its not required and you can run regular headset cups in there as well for a 0 degree adjustable). This gives them three degrees of adjustability to work with and tailor the bike to for any give course without having to pack/ship 4 bikes with different geometry.
I suspect a more recreational rider that rides at a given spot every weekend all the time though would find this feature not necessary.
The dropouts do have their benefits. Agreed it does seem expensive IF you were to bend it but they’re quite strong to be honest and we’ve yet to bend one ourselves.
blackdot: You can only speculate how long a frame like that would last as it depends on a TON of variables. The frame isn’t that light if you know what other similar stock consumer available bikes weigh.
The V10 frame is similarly lightweight yet no one makes claims of it being fragile, and the Session 88 is an even lighter frameset than both, yet few question their durability. Just some food for thought. As technology increases they are able to get frame weights lower. The trick is keeping it strong at the same time.
I’m confused about the dropout type/spacing. It looks like a QR 10×135 but that is silly just like it is on the Demo 8. Is it a 10×150? Does the frame have a 73mm bb instead?
Intense does their dropouts a bit differnt on their bikes. These may look like normal qr dropouts but they’re not.
Basically these dropouts are 12mm (the axle uses centering adapters to adjust for 12mm/ 10mm/ or quick release.
Because of this, if you buy one of their bikes with the 135 dropouts (like Socom / Uzzi, etc), you can run a 12mm thru axle, a 10mm thru axle, or a quick release through using the dropout system.
The nice thing about their 12×150 (or even using their 12×135 setup) dropouts that we’ve found is that it is easier to get the rear wheel in as you don’t have to thread the axle through a hole in both sides of the frame.
I love how the frame looks. It amazing how a small bend in the down tube changes the look of the frame. it looks super fast kind of like a rocket ship.
If god were a bike…this is it - no doubt!
I am also super stoked to see the that you are now going to be able to run a 9.5X 3? shock for 8.5?. that opens up the shock options for the 9.5X 3? setting, like a fox or rockshox.
FRO = First Run & its Over.
Those things are a joke, unless you’re a sponsored rider who gets frames for nothing… or a 150lb lightweight who couldnt snap a frame if he tried.
In my entire mountain biking lifetime, I have only ever broken two frames… both Intense FRO’s, both in their first season of use. NEVER again will I even consider buying another FRO.
I’ve seen stock, non-FRO, 6.6’s beating around my local trails year after year but the whole FRO lineup is just a joke. Actually, it makes me wonder if they just got a bad batch of frames with walls way too thin on the tubes and didnt want to scrap the whole batch so they just made up the whole ‘FRO’ thing.
Lighter, YES they definately are. “For Race Only”??? Not so much, unless of course the race is to be first to snap your frame.
Sicklines - I can’t follow your statement of the frame not being “that light”. It would be one of the lightest frames in production today.
A Socom frame weighs 4200g (9.25lbs), a Wison weighs 4350g (9.6lbs) and a 224 4460g (9.8lbs). Don’t have a real weight on a V10. As for the session 88 frame, its actually slightly heavier. A respected PB and RM user has a real weight. I quote: “4250 grams (9.4 pounds) for a M frame, steel spring and axle”.
Rob - we may have to do a proper comparison for everyone at some point if we get a chance. Apples to apples. You need to weigh the same parts for each frame to see what partially what we’re getting at.
For example: If it is weighed with a shock, is that with a ti spring? Is the rear axle included in that weight? Are the bike’s you’re comparing this to being weighed with the same parts? Same frame size?
It’s not that its not a light frame, because it certainly is, it’s just that it is unlikely to be that significantly lighter than the currnet bikes out there that we know weights of should this become a production bike.
Couldn’t resist, here’s a small example if you’re still reading
Even if that is 9.2lbs for a medium frame with only a ti spring, shock bolts, and no rear axle that means the frame by itself is roughly (4173g - 325g ti spring - 495g ccdb w/hardware - 60g shock bolts = 3293g
A guy on RM posted his Large frame only (which includes headset cups and the lower bearing) so lets look at the bare frame number he has for comparison sake and you’ll see.
A LARGE Trek Session 88 frame (including only the headset cups and lower bearing) is 3294g, will use lighter shock bolts (23g lighter), uses a shorter 8.75 i2i shock (lighter), a shorter ti spring comparatively which will be lighter, and a lighter aluminum rear axle.
There’s one example for you, and its with a large 88 frame with headset cups and one bearing vs. the medium frame if that weight claim includes shock, ti spring, and all shock hardware/bolts.
Hopefully that helps shed some light on that comment.
I fully understand what you are saying about consistency, I just thought that saying “The frame isn’t that light if you know what other similar stock consumer available bikes weigh” is a little misleading compared to “it certainly is (light), it’s just that it is unlikely to be that significantly lighter than the current bikes”. Prior implies that its relatively heavy whereas latter implies the fact that its the same weight or lighter than current frames. Not to worry, I’ll live…
I saw Matti riding the prototype bike last summer, that frame is beautiful, the new bented tube is sooo nice !
But it’s way to expensive in europe