DH Field Test: Intense M1 - For Your Gnarliest Trails

Welcome to the 2024 Downhill Field Test. We put together five great race bikes to compare the latest generation of World Cup sleds. In this group test, we'll be covering the Giant Glory, Commencal Supreme, Frameworks Downhill Bike, YT Tues, and this, the Intense M1. Stay tuned for your weekly fill, with each review dropping on Wednesdays.

---

Frame Details


The bike uses mixed wheels and looks to have a race-ready focus. The cables all run externally, and while the open design looks like a honeytrap for all kinds of mud and debris, it also drains well when you wash it. While there are plenty of ways for mud to get in and behind the layout, there are also plenty of places it can run off.

The frame is all-metal, and although this bike is clearly built for racing, it lacks geometry adjustment compared to other bikes on this test. You get the large headtube, which racers will love, but that angle or reach-adjust headset you could fit would be the only way to adjust the geometry. There is no chainstay adjustment or flip-chips on this bike. The latter is easy to forgive, but I think that while chainstay adjustment can be a bit of a headache to design because of having to incorporate the needs of the brake, I think it would be very fitting to have on any downhill bike, especially one with middle-of-the-road 445mm chainstays.

One adjustment this bike does have, though, is two positions for the lower shock mount. This means the bike can be set to a progressive or linear setting, which also gives a different travel output by 9mm.

---

Suspension


The suspension of the Intense is a somewhat bewildering prospect, and not only because of the language one uses to describe layouts. In the literature I've read from Intense, they have often referred to it as a six-bar and also a six-link layout. Upon further reflection, I think it's in the latter's camp. Although a lot is going on, it boils down to being a linkage drive four-bar (the chainstay, seat stay, and two swing links make up the four-bar, which then subsequently drives the shock via a rocker).

The bike's linear position gives it 27% progression across its travel, and the progressive mode gives a value of 30%. Both should be ample, but it's good to see different settings that might help offset rider preference or spring type.

While the high-pivot does kill drivetrain interference nearly dead, there is a large sway in the anti-squat values depending on what gear you're in, and you do feel this out on the trail should you go to stamp on the pedals. While not the largest consideration for a downhill bike by any means, racers, as well as anyone who's ever cranked hard into a sketchy pull, would appreciate something with more support in the larger gears, especially when the bike is already outfitted with an idler.

The high-anti-rise value gives a bike that tracks very well when braking, all without creating excessive feedback through your feet. On paper, a lower value keeps braking more independent, but in the real world, I want my suspension to be encouraged to work and follow the ground, irrespective of grip.

The axle path's inflexion point is just beyond the midway point in the travel. During testing, I didn't feel any pronounced hangups at this part, and it remained smooth, controlled, and consistent throughout its stroke.

---

Geometry


Designing a downhill bike's geometry is more nuanced than one might think. Whereas with trail and enduro bikes, there is an expectation of versatility, with downhill bikes, there is an assumption that everybody riding the bike will be doing so with the same intentions on a similar style of track. Of course, that just isn't true. There are people who want a bike park-shredder, others who want a true race bike, and some who want the single most capable bike money can buy.

The geometry of the M1 gives it an upright position. Its 63-degree head angle is quite commonplace, but there are other values which, when put together, combine to give quite a rearward weight bias. The 642mm stack and 470mm reach lay the foundations for a bike that will come alive on steeper sections. But whereas this could be offset with a longer chainstay to weight the front more, the Intense almost doubles down with a 445mm rear end. While this isn't short, it does further help to keep the rider's weight rearward.

While 470mm reach might not sound like a lot for a size large, it's worth considering why downhill bikes often have a shorter horizontal distance between the bottom bracket and headtube. For instance, an enduro bike with a 480mm reach and a 63 head angle will have a front-centre of around 840mm.

The intense, with its shorter reach, has a front centre of around 845. That's because the longer fork pushes the axle out so much further forward. For that reason, I happily ride downhill bikes with a shorter reach. You can reap the benefits of the slack geometry without having the axle so far in front of you that it's hard to affect.

---

Test Bike Setup

All the bikes on this test were outfitted with Schwalbe Tacky Chan control tires, and the forks were set to a base 205mm between the seal and lower crown. The bars were all cut to 770mm, and we were in the position where all bikes used the Fox 40. The M1 came with the new Grip X2 damper. While there is a marked difference in feel between the Grip2 and Grip X2 in the 38 that I tested, I found the 40 with different dampers less hard to pick apart.

While I tried both modes for the shock, I quite liked the progressive one. It might not have been quite as sharp as the linear mode, but the tracking was incredible, and the bike still offered a very adequate level of support in the mid-stroke. I ran the stock 500lb spring and opted for a setting that was highly damped, slightly softer and quite quick in its return stroke.

---

Descending


When looking back at the downhill bike field test, if I had to choose one of these bikes to ride gnarly, scary downhill, it would be the Intense.

That said, isn't that what downhill bikes are for? And isn't that the whole point? Well, yes. However, they offer it to different degrees. The Giant and YT almost felt like big-enduro bikes more than downhill sluggers, the Frameworks pushed the envelope a little further, and the Commencal is something out on its own, offering a weighted and precise front yet an ability to suck to the ground like nothing else I have ever ridden. The M1, however... the M1 was different.

Everything about this bike made it feel like a monster, and the confidence inspired on steep trails shouldn't be understated. As mentioned earlier, key geometry dimensions give this bike a very rearward weight bias. That comes alive when it's steeper, but it can feel a little lifeless on anything but fast, committing trails. On flatter turns or bike park runs, it just feels a bit light on the front. While it doesn't suffer from handle-bar flop per se, I think it would be a better bike if the front were more weighted. It would still offer a huge amount on the trails it currently thrives on, and an extra 10 or 15mm on the rear end won't undo the modern, downhill-honed geometry, but it could well mean you carry more speed out of the flat corner after the chute of death you just rode down.

The M1 covers a lot of bases. The geometry does usher in a great body position; however, I think if your weight was shuffled forward a bit, it would only give you more precision.

The suspension plays into this as well to a degree. For me, I can't see a reason why you wouldn't want to reap the benefits of a high-pivot and idler on a downhill bike. This bike doesn't have the same all-out traction as the Commencal in either mode, but it does offer an incredibly stable chassis and an ability to make the roughest, fastest sections feel neutral and controlled. People wanting to generate pop for bike park jump lines may also find that even in the linear mode, it tends to absorb rider inputs when driving into lips.

On the brakes, that high initial anti-rise means that when coupled with a relatively quick rebound setting, the tracking over medium holes while on the brakes is very, very good. It manages to do so without disrupting the chassis or ever pushing the rider's weight forward. It stayed muted, tracking and effective. The lessening influence of the braking as the bike goes through its stroke means that it doesn't feel like it ever overwhelms the travel later in the stroke or packs up as you break over rough terrain before you even get into the turn.

---

Technical Report

Fox Suspension: The gold stuff is good, and while the Grip X2 doesn't represent a huge leap forward in their 40, it also doesn't harm what was already an excellent product. The tracking and sensitivity of the 40 is excellent, and it manages to offer great tracking while also not feeling unstable on the small bumps. While small bump tracking is, of course, very important, it's important to consider that instability and sensitivity are different sides of the same coin. The 40 walks that tightrope very well.

TRP Drivetrain and Brakes: The TRP stuff works well; however, I am not yet convinced it offers the same level of performance, fit or quality when compared to other brands' high-end equipment. It just feels a bit cheaper, with a plastic feel. Ultimately, it wouldn't be worth swapping out, but it is worth remembering that this bike isn't exactly cheap. The ergonomics are far inferior to its rivals, and it tended to skip whenever even small amounts of mud or grit were introduced to the cassette.

Intense Carbon Handlebar: I am not in anyway opposed to carbon frames. In fact, I'm neutral about frame material, and you get good and bad executions of each. That said, the one part I want to be alloy on a downhill bike is the bar, and the idea of putting a carbon bar on a metal frame is counterintuitive, to say the least.

---

Pinkbike's Take

---

---