Reckon that 'backbone' piece is cast with soft tooling then post machined? If so they must be fairly certain this is what they're going with for...
Reckon that 'backbone' piece is cast with soft tooling then post machined? If so they must be fairly certain this is what they're going with for production. The funky looking chainstay looked printed to me but not so sure.
Looks cool though!
My guess is they 3d print the lost wax core or sand?
Am I the only one to find these lug joints a bit sketchy?
I mean it looks like it's holding up since they're moving these at...
Am I the only one to find these lug joints a bit sketchy?
I mean it looks like it's holding up since they're moving these at serious speeds, but carbon tubes and lugs and rivets bring back some (cracking) 90s vibes...
Very likely not the only one, but I don't think it's much of a problem.
As for serial vs. proto, the bonded joint is also riveted...
Very likely not the only one, but I don't think it's much of a problem.
As for serial vs. proto, the bonded joint is also riveted together, so even if the bond fails, it's still secured in place and won't cause a destructive failure. Don't see that being used in serial production and don't see lugs like these being used in serial production. Milling them will be a PITA compared to just welding tubes, 3D printing them is a no-go looking at what the Athertons are doing (the dream bike build video), it's simply not scalable. There are possible solutions to it all, talking about serially produced bonded bikes, but I'm not sure how they would work out in the field.
@maximumradness that's very clearly a Loic Bruni LB logo. And a Red Bull helmet. And very clearly the components the Specialized team is running. If it was to be Evil, what are they doing these days at all?
Uhm, if these are indeed riveted, why are you against it?
Also, not a native english speaker here, so what exactly is a rivet? a permanent mechanical fastener of some sort? That needs to be broken to be removed?
This does not look like a prototype anymore, far from it. The attention to detail is pretty high. I'm not sure they'd go to that level...
This does not look like a prototype anymore, far from it. The attention to detail is pretty high. I'm not sure they'd go to that level if this is just another proto aluminum mule to test before committing to a carbon mold. I could be wrong but to me it looks like it might be a early/pre production run to verify before mass production. The idea of a competitive and good looking Intense Al dh bike makes me feel all warm and nostalgically fuzzy inside.
wonder if this is gonna be fully US made. not that overseas factories can't make high quality bikes. because heritage and stuff.
I assume they are just trying to get those extra grams for Aaron and dak to go hunting for the top step. If they are gonna take this bike to production a win is gonna help those sales and it’s completely conceivable for either to do it. The hp1 was a competitive design but much heavier than the average weight of the race winning bikes from the past few years. I don’t think weight is everything but I don’t think they could be too far out of the norm on either side and expect to win at this level with the hp6. I assume had they stuck with the hp1 they’d be on a much lighter v2 whether it was carbon or aluminum.
Reckon that 'backbone' piece is cast with soft tooling then post machined? If so they must be fairly certain this is what they're going with for...
Reckon that 'backbone' piece is cast with soft tooling then post machined? If so they must be fairly certain this is what they're going with for production. The funky looking chainstay looked printed to me but not so sure.
My guess is they 3d print the lost wax core or sand?
Im a process engineer at a big machine shop so I like to think Im not an idiot on this subject. This thing looks wildly expensive to make id think its some kind of casting like has been said which isn't cheap but the alternative being made out of a solid piece would be crazy expensive and I am not entirely sure possible with the angles and dimensions they have going on mostly in the seat tube area.
I think you're probably right some kind of casting and a lost core probably from 3D printing, but all of this would be pretty damn high investment for a prototype or even a niche downhill bike.
I mean why would 5dev do a supperlegera version (Internet points for this naming @Sir HC ) on a cnc if it was cncd from the get to?
I kinda wanna say its not printed as there doesn't seem to be any porosity in the material from the pictures. But the same would apply to casting it in sand or some soft proto tools (clamping pressure could be an issue). Plus the fact the tubes are welded to it and I'm not sure how well cast aluminum welds or how well weldable aluminum casts. I'm lost here to be honest...
@hitar_potar a rivet for securing the bond is not something I would expect a company the likes of Specialized to use. I expect they would test and verify the bond for serial production and not need it. This could be something to add extra security on protos.
It's not machined, sure as hell not.
I mean why would 5dev do a supperlegera version (Internet points for this naming @Sir HC ) on a...
It's not machined, sure as hell not.
I mean why would 5dev do a supperlegera version (Internet points for this naming @Sir HC ) on a cnc if it was cncd from the get to?
I kinda wanna say its not printed as there doesn't seem to be any porosity in the material from the pictures. But the same would apply to casting it in sand or some soft proto tools (clamping pressure could be an issue). Plus the fact the tubes are welded to it and I'm not sure how well cast aluminum welds or how well weldable aluminum casts. I'm lost here to be honest...
@hitar_potar a rivet for securing the bond is not something I would expect a company the likes of Specialized to use. I expect they would test and verify the bond for serial production and not need it. This could be something to add extra security on protos.
For the Spesh, could it be a port to insert the "glue", or to let the "overfull" going away, or some sort of degassing process ? With the picture from above I can't say if a port of some sort or a pop rivet...
It's not machined, sure as hell not.
I mean why would 5dev do a supperlegera version (Internet points for this naming @Sir HC ) on a...
It's not machined, sure as hell not.
I mean why would 5dev do a supperlegera version (Internet points for this naming @Sir HC ) on a cnc if it was cncd from the get to?
I kinda wanna say its not printed as there doesn't seem to be any porosity in the material from the pictures. But the same would apply to casting it in sand or some soft proto tools (clamping pressure could be an issue). Plus the fact the tubes are welded to it and I'm not sure how well cast aluminum welds or how well weldable aluminum casts. I'm lost here to be honest...
@hitar_potar a rivet for securing the bond is not something I would expect a company the likes of Specialized to use. I expect they would test and verify the bond for serial production and not need it. This could be something to add extra security on protos.
Well it was certainly machined at some point after casting since they had to do all the bearing pockets/bottom bracket etc. Makes me think it wasnt done in house at Intense as the stuff 5dev is doing is easier than the machining that was already done on it. Lining up bores and threading BB is more difficult than just cutting in pockets. Intense seems pretty open so maybe we will see a video on the production!
I think it has to be cast. Would have thought welding tubing to a casting is ok, thinking of automotive subframes for example.
You raise a good point about why 5 Dev would get involved afterwards though. Maybe they made the part and then realised is was bloody heavy??
Either way, for Intense to be dropping cash on parts like this I would assume means they are close to a production run which is great news. I remember lusting over the M1, 951 etc etc and it feels weird not having a droolworthy Intense DH rig on the market (I'm not a fan of the M29). Would also be good to see Gwin and Dak continue their good form coming into 2023.
I assume they are just trying to get those extra grams for Aaron and dak to go hunting for the top step. If they are gonna...
I assume they are just trying to get those extra grams for Aaron and dak to go hunting for the top step. If they are gonna take this bike to production a win is gonna help those sales and it’s completely conceivable for either to do it. The hp1 was a competitive design but much heavier than the average weight of the race winning bikes from the past few years. I don’t think weight is everything but I don’t think they could be too far out of the norm on either side and expect to win at this level with the hp6. I assume had they stuck with the hp1 they’d be on a much lighter v2 whether it was carbon or aluminum.
don't forget - UCI rules mandate a frame must be available for sale to the public within one year from being raced (IIRC there is a possible extension to 2 years but that's it).
don't forget - UCI rules mandate a frame must be available for sale to the public within one year from being raced (IIRC there is a...
don't forget - UCI rules mandate a frame must be available for sale to the public within one year from being raced (IIRC there is a possible extension to 2 years but that's it).
don't forget - UCI rules mandate a frame must be available for sale to the public within one year from being raced (IIRC there is a...
don't forget - UCI rules mandate a frame must be available for sale to the public within one year from being raced (IIRC there is a possible extension to 2 years but that's it).
I don’t think that rule applies to DH racing and has been discussed before. I could dig through the uci rules but there are so many examples of DH bikes that where protos and never went anywhere.
The Float X2 version of the Commnecal Supreme DH V5 Signature appears to come spec'd with some "First Ride" Schwalbes. Probably the new dry terrain tire that's been seen on some WC bikes? Hard to say from the side profile image.
Availability isn't until May 2023 so maybe the tires will be officially released by the time these bikes are delivered.
I don’t think that rule applies to DH racing and has been discussed before. I could dig through the uci rules but there are so many...
I don’t think that rule applies to DH racing and has been discussed before. I could dig through the uci rules but there are so many examples of DH bikes that where protos and never went anywhere.
a lot of the more notable examples (honda rn-01) predated the rule.
I don’t think that rule applies to DH racing and has been discussed before. I could dig through the uci rules but there are so many...
I don’t think that rule applies to DH racing and has been discussed before. I could dig through the uci rules but there are so many examples of DH bikes that where protos and never went anywhere.
The Float X2 version of the Commnecal Supreme DH V5 Signature appears to come spec'd with some "First Ride" Schwalbes. Probably the new dry terrain tire...
The Float X2 version of the Commnecal Supreme DH V5 Signature appears to come spec'd with some "First Ride" Schwalbes. Probably the new dry terrain tire that's been seen on some WC bikes? Hard to say from the side profile image.
Availability isn't until May 2023 so maybe the tires will be officially released by the time these bikes are delivered.
Didn't they only race that bike for part of a season, and then can the DH program anyway?
I though they ran that for more than one season I could be wrong.
but if you look through the rule book I’m 99% sure that rule is not in there for mountain bikes. Again it has been discussed here before and the conclusion is it only applies to road.
It's not machined, sure as hell not.
I mean why would 5dev do a supperlegera version (Internet points for this naming @Sir HC ) on a...
It's not machined, sure as hell not.
I mean why would 5dev do a supperlegera version (Internet points for this naming @Sir HC ) on a cnc if it was cncd from the get to?
I kinda wanna say its not printed as there doesn't seem to be any porosity in the material from the pictures. But the same would apply to casting it in sand or some soft proto tools (clamping pressure could be an issue). Plus the fact the tubes are welded to it and I'm not sure how well cast aluminum welds or how well weldable aluminum casts. I'm lost here to be honest...
@hitar_potar a rivet for securing the bond is not something I would expect a company the likes of Specialized to use. I expect they would test and verify the bond for serial production and not need it. This could be something to add extra security on protos.
Well it was certainly machined at some point after casting since they had to do all the bearing pockets/bottom bracket etc. Makes me think it wasnt...
Well it was certainly machined at some point after casting since they had to do all the bearing pockets/bottom bracket etc. Makes me think it wasnt done in house at Intense as the stuff 5dev is doing is easier than the machining that was already done on it. Lining up bores and threading BB is more difficult than just cutting in pockets. Intense seems pretty open so maybe we will see a video on the production!
Should even be less work than what 5dev has done by the looks of it. All the holes and surfaces are done from the same plane, so the BB hole/threads and the bearing holes for the pivots. And the most important thing is it's done on a raw part which has to be clamped in roughly the right position and then you make the holes relative to one another. It requires tighter tolerances for sure, but once you have the setup finalized, you should be done in two operations at the most I guess (I might be wrong here, there might be some internal surfaces that require facing too, that could be a bit more of an issue). 'Repairing' the part is more cumbersome as you need to line it up properly, in the case of what 5dev has done it possibly requires clamping the part in 3 or 4 orientations (depending on if they milled it through and through or from one side), etc.
I mean, it's not rocket science, just like drilling out the pivot locations on a raw piece isn't, it just requires taking some time to reach the required precision. Which shouldn't be a problem on prototypes.
One thing though, having the initial piece made (cast or printed, whatever the method is) and drilling the BB and pivot holes in it, THEN having it milled out... Brave. Internal stresses from the material and it being removed can wreak havoc on the shape of the part and twist it out of tolerance. Easily.
Regarding the rule, it was mentioned either here or somewhere else that even if it applies to MTB, it is completely ignored by UCI.
How about Canonndale dual shock design. That’s right off the top if you look into it they do not enforce it in DH.
the most recent one (2019) was only raced for one season, so it complied. going farther back the dual shock version that was raced by the volvo cannondale team around 2000 predated the rule. the rule was implemented 2010 or 11.
the way the rules are written there are no exceptions for MTB, but yea, i'm not aware of any instances in MTB where the UCI has actually enforced it for mtb. i would also guess that teams don't want to take a chance, because there's something like a 10k chf fine if the UCI does decide to enforce it.
I'd hazzard a guess that the rule (for road or whatevs) is that once seen on the circuit, the product must be available for sale within the year. Not that if the product is used for less than a year, it can be a proto and not made available for sale.
I though they ran that for more than one season I could be wrong.
but if you look through the rule book I’m 99% sure that...
I though they ran that for more than one season I could be wrong.
but if you look through the rule book I’m 99% sure that rule is not in there for mountain bikes. Again it has been discussed here before and the conclusion is it only applies to road.
the rule is in the general organization section of the UCI rulebook. it technically applies to all disciplines the UCI governs, but in news that won't shock anyone hasn't been enforced outside of road racing.
If the rule exists but is never enforced what’s the big deal for you. As long as they are not cherry-picking certain teams it applies to then I think most people are not worried about it.
If the rule exists but is never enforced what’s the big deal for you. As long as they are not cherry-picking certain teams it applies to...
If the rule exists but is never enforced what’s the big deal for you. As long as they are not cherry-picking certain teams it applies to then I think most people are not worried about it.
given the maximum fine (which is actually 100k chf), i don't think any of the teams would want to be caught out on it. because the UCI has never made changes without notifying teams and riders, right?
Loving all this nerdery and bling of this new Intense, it looks so rad! Just want to say I would hate to be the one looking for cracks in such complicated parts. Hopefully it’s all good and the dudes are haulin’ next year!
Schwalbe "First Ride" is the company name for tires that unsponsored riders will never have.
That Intense "cradle" is some kind of very nice casting. You can see the residue inside. Some of the finest are in SoCal from WW2 believe it or not.
I am less impressed with 5 axis machining. They just cut windows, with no thought to radii or load direction. When I first saw their cranks I thought "somebody needs to pay for a FEA software add-on". I think so even more now. FEA on that thing would look like a parade in San Francisco.
drivel from me at work:
Schwalbe "First Ride" is the company name for tires that unsponsored riders will never have.
That Intense "cradle" is some...
drivel from me at work:
Schwalbe "First Ride" is the company name for tires that unsponsored riders will never have.
That Intense "cradle" is some kind of very nice casting. You can see the residue inside. Some of the finest are in SoCal from WW2 believe it or not.
I am less impressed with 5 axis machining. They just cut windows, with no thought to radii or load direction. When I first saw their cranks I thought "somebody needs to pay for a FEA software add-on". I think so even more now. FEA on that thing would look like a parade in San Francisco.
I don’t know if they really did topology optimization as Jeff Steber mentions on Instagram, but I do know I will definitely be stealing your FEA analogy 😆
drivel from me at work:
Schwalbe "First Ride" is the company name for tires that unsponsored riders will never have.
That Intense "cradle" is some...
drivel from me at work:
Schwalbe "First Ride" is the company name for tires that unsponsored riders will never have.
That Intense "cradle" is some kind of very nice casting. You can see the residue inside. Some of the finest are in SoCal from WW2 believe it or not.
I am less impressed with 5 axis machining. They just cut windows, with no thought to radii or load direction. When I first saw their cranks I thought "somebody needs to pay for a FEA software add-on". I think so even more now. FEA on that thing would look like a parade in San Francisco.
The main issue I have with those cranks is that they are far from optimal for a crank. Given the loads the optimal shape for a crank is any kind of box section. That's why the best cranks are either hollowed out glued two parters, hollow forged or welded by using a tube (when it comes to metal cranks).
My guess is they 3d print the lost wax core or sand?
Uhm, if these are indeed riveted, why are you against it?
Also, not a native english speaker here, so what exactly is a rivet? a permanent mechanical fastener of some sort? That needs to be broken to be removed?
I assume they are just trying to get those extra grams for Aaron and dak to go hunting for the top step. If they are gonna take this bike to production a win is gonna help those sales and it’s completely conceivable for either to do it. The hp1 was a competitive design but much heavier than the average weight of the race winning bikes from the past few years. I don’t think weight is everything but I don’t think they could be too far out of the norm on either side and expect to win at this level with the hp6. I assume had they stuck with the hp1 they’d be on a much lighter v2 whether it was carbon or aluminum.
Im a process engineer at a big machine shop so I like to think Im not an idiot on this subject. This thing looks wildly expensive to make id think its some kind of casting like has been said which isn't cheap but the alternative being made out of a solid piece would be crazy expensive and I am not entirely sure possible with the angles and dimensions they have going on mostly in the seat tube area.
I think you're probably right some kind of casting and a lost core probably from 3D printing, but all of this would be pretty damn high investment for a prototype or even a niche downhill bike.
It's not machined, sure as hell not.
I mean why would 5dev do a supperlegera version (Internet points for this naming @Sir HC ) on a cnc if it was cncd from the get to?
I kinda wanna say its not printed as there doesn't seem to be any porosity in the material from the pictures. But the same would apply to casting it in sand or some soft proto tools (clamping pressure could be an issue). Plus the fact the tubes are welded to it and I'm not sure how well cast aluminum welds or how well weldable aluminum casts. I'm lost here to be honest...
@hitar_potar a rivet for securing the bond is not something I would expect a company the likes of Specialized to use. I expect they would test and verify the bond for serial production and not need it. This could be something to add extra security on protos.
And yes, it is exactly that. A blind or pop rivet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivet
For the Spesh, could it be a port to insert the "glue", or to let the "overfull" going away, or some sort of degassing process ? With the picture from above I can't say if a port of some sort or a pop rivet...
Well it was certainly machined at some point after casting since they had to do all the bearing pockets/bottom bracket etc. Makes me think it wasnt done in house at Intense as the stuff 5dev is doing is easier than the machining that was already done on it. Lining up bores and threading BB is more difficult than just cutting in pockets. Intense seems pretty open so maybe we will see a video on the production!
I think it has to be cast. Would have thought welding tubing to a casting is ok, thinking of automotive subframes for example.
You raise a good point about why 5 Dev would get involved afterwards though. Maybe they made the part and then realised is was bloody heavy??
Either way, for Intense to be dropping cash on parts like this I would assume means they are close to a production run which is great news. I remember lusting over the M1, 951 etc etc and it feels weird not having a droolworthy Intense DH rig on the market (I'm not a fan of the M29). Would also be good to see Gwin and Dak continue their good form coming into 2023.
don't forget - UCI rules mandate a frame must be available for sale to the public within one year from being raced (IIRC there is a possible extension to 2 years but that's it).
Which is a completely bullshit rule...
Because they can just skirt around it by changing the prototype they're running, or because you don't agree with the spirit of it?
I don’t think that rule applies to DH racing and has been discussed before. I could dig through the uci rules but there are so many examples of DH bikes that where protos and never went anywhere.
IIRC it was driven more by the road side of things....
The Float X2 version of the Commnecal Supreme DH V5 Signature appears to come spec'd with some "First Ride" Schwalbes. Probably the new dry terrain tire that's been seen on some WC bikes? Hard to say from the side profile image.
Availability isn't until May 2023 so maybe the tires will be officially released by the time these bikes are delivered.
a lot of the more notable examples (honda rn-01) predated the rule.
How about Canonndale dual shock design. That’s right off the top if you look into it they do not enforce it in DH.
Didn't they only race that bike for part of a season, and then can the DH program anyway?
I though they ran that for more than one season I could be wrong.
but if you look through the rule book I’m 99% sure that rule is not in there for mountain bikes. Again it has been discussed here before and the conclusion is it only applies to road.
Should even be less work than what 5dev has done by the looks of it. All the holes and surfaces are done from the same plane, so the BB hole/threads and the bearing holes for the pivots. And the most important thing is it's done on a raw part which has to be clamped in roughly the right position and then you make the holes relative to one another. It requires tighter tolerances for sure, but once you have the setup finalized, you should be done in two operations at the most I guess (I might be wrong here, there might be some internal surfaces that require facing too, that could be a bit more of an issue). 'Repairing' the part is more cumbersome as you need to line it up properly, in the case of what 5dev has done it possibly requires clamping the part in 3 or 4 orientations (depending on if they milled it through and through or from one side), etc.
I mean, it's not rocket science, just like drilling out the pivot locations on a raw piece isn't, it just requires taking some time to reach the required precision. Which shouldn't be a problem on prototypes.
One thing though, having the initial piece made (cast or printed, whatever the method is) and drilling the BB and pivot holes in it, THEN having it milled out... Brave. Internal stresses from the material and it being removed can wreak havoc on the shape of the part and twist it out of tolerance. Easily.
Regarding the rule, it was mentioned either here or somewhere else that even if it applies to MTB, it is completely ignored by UCI.
the most recent one (2019) was only raced for one season, so it complied. going farther back the dual shock version that was raced by the volvo cannondale team around 2000 predated the rule. the rule was implemented 2010 or 11.
the way the rules are written there are no exceptions for MTB, but yea, i'm not aware of any instances in MTB where the UCI has actually enforced it for mtb. i would also guess that teams don't want to take a chance, because there's something like a 10k chf fine if the UCI does decide to enforce it.
The most recent one is a dual shock variant.
I'd hazzard a guess that the rule (for road or whatevs) is that once seen on the circuit, the product must be available for sale within the year. Not that if the product is used for less than a year, it can be a proto and not made available for sale.
the rule is in the general organization section of the UCI rulebook. it technically applies to all disciplines the UCI governs, but in news that won't shock anyone hasn't been enforced outside of road racing.
If the rule exists but is never enforced what’s the big deal for you. As long as they are not cherry-picking certain teams it applies to then I think most people are not worried about it.
given the maximum fine (which is actually 100k chf), i don't think any of the teams would want to be caught out on it. because the UCI has never made changes without notifying teams and riders, right?
full disclosure: i work in a very heavily regulated industry and am a bit of a nerd for rules & regulations as a result.
Loving all this nerdery and bling of this new Intense, it looks so rad! Just want to say I would hate to be the one looking for cracks in such complicated parts. Hopefully it’s all good and the dudes are haulin’ next year!
drivel from me at work:
Schwalbe "First Ride" is the company name for tires that unsponsored riders will never have.
That Intense "cradle" is some kind of very nice casting. You can see the residue inside. Some of the finest are in SoCal from WW2 believe it or not.
I am less impressed with 5 axis machining. They just cut windows, with no thought to radii or load direction. When I first saw their cranks I thought "somebody needs to pay for a FEA software add-on". I think so even more now. FEA on that thing would look like a parade in San Francisco.
I don’t know if they really did topology optimization as Jeff Steber mentions on Instagram, but I do know I will definitely be stealing your FEA analogy 😆
The main issue I have with those cranks is that they are far from optimal for a crank. Given the loads the optimal shape for a crank is any kind of box section. That's why the best cranks are either hollowed out glued two parters, hollow forged or welded by using a tube (when it comes to metal cranks).
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation