# lapierre dh 720



## sundace (Jan 22, 2009)

http://www.lapierre-bikes.co.uk/lapierre/big-mountain-bike/2011/dh-720-2011/geometry

anyone have it?

how does it feel?

the pendbox is as great as it is said?


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

worst set of marketing ******** ever created for DH.

you could no pay me to ride one.


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Well they sure do love their Links and bearings. I wonder if that BB violates GT's patent?

Pretty bad ass looking though.


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

so the BB moves FORWARD as the rear wheel goes up? Wouldn't that create massive pedal blowback and chain snappage?


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

bxxer rider said:


> worst set of marketing ******** ever created for DH.
> 
> you could no pay me to ride one.


Well, as it stands I don't think anyone is paying you to ride any of their bikes. And since I'm sure you've probably never thrown a leg over one I'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on. A bike frame doesn't come out of marketing, it comes out of engineering. marketing comes as the result of engineering and performance claims.


----------



## MikeyOrange (Feb 25, 2005)

lelebebbel said:


> so the BB moves FORWARD as the rear wheel goes up? Wouldn't that create massive pedal blowback and chain snappage?


The swingarm drives the link that rotates the BB slightly rearward and upward :thumbsup:


----------



## cyrix (Jan 29, 2008)

MikeyOrange said:


> The swingarm drives the link that rotates the BB slightly rearward and upward :thumbsup:


Seriously, reading this and then looking at the frame made it so much clearer to me what was going on.


----------



## burgundy snake (Dec 12, 2007)

Is that a dent in the seat tube? WOW 7 piviots!


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

MikeyOrange said:


> The swingarm drives the link that rotates the BB slightly rearward and upward :thumbsup:


No, look at this video:

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/145630/

The BB moves slightly back, but only up to the sag point. Then it moves down and forward, creating massive chain growth. Which is obviously intended. I just can't really see how that wouldn't create a heap of problems.


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

his dudeness said:


> Well, as it stands I don't think anyone is paying you to ride any of their bikes. And since I'm sure you've probably never thrown a leg over one I'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on. A bike frame doesn't come out of marketing, it comes out of engineering. marketing comes as the result of engineering and performance claims.


as it stands, i turned down the opportunity to test one on the principle of **** design.

the reason this design is so bad and actually born out of marketing is though pend-box system is THE worse way to achieve its pedalling characteristics. it is easier to use a idler system to get EXACTLY the same pedalling characteristics.

using an idler would loose 5 bearings, frame would be stiffer, less maintenance AND lighter. but because other company's use idlers to create this characteristic lappierre created pend-box as a patented marketing tool instead of putting time and money into marketing a system ANY company can use. the 2011 dh720/920 is born from the need to be different not the need to be better!

there is no two way about it, it was created for marketing. if you don't see it, then you are lost to the world of design intellect and will forever buy into marketing ********.


----------



## Norcoshore1 (Apr 28, 2010)

bxxer rider said:


> as it stands, i turned down the opportunity to test one on the principle of **** design.
> 
> the reason this design is so bad and actually born out of marketing is though pend-box system is THE worse way to achieve its pedalling characteristics. it is easier to use a idler system to get EXACTLY the same pedalling characteristics.
> 
> ...


says the goof who rides an orange


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

Norcoshore1 said:


> says the goof who rides an orange


keep up......

besides, don't change what's not broken.


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

bxxer rider said:


> keep up......
> 
> besides, don't change what's not broken.


You're exactly right. Don't change what's already mediocre. Don't ever worry about improving upon a product or doing something new as long as you can happily remain stagnant.


----------



## sonic reducer (Apr 12, 2010)

looks like at least 14 seperate bearings in this frame not counting DU's? man.


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

his dudeness said:


> You're exactly right. Don't change what's already mediocre. Don't ever worry about improving upon a product or doing something new as long as you can happily remain stagnant.


development of a good design is good, redesigning for sake of marketing is bad. that is my point. so enough of the sarcasm and removing my quote from its context.


----------



## kubo (Sep 20, 2009)

his dudeness said:


> You're exactly right. Don't change what's already mediocre. Don't ever worry about improving upon a product or doing something new as long as you can happily remain stagnant.


Kona?


----------



## igotbanned (Oct 20, 2007)

bxxer rider said:


> as it stands, i turned down the opportunity to test one on the principle of **** design.
> 
> the reason this design is so bad and actually born out of marketing is though pend-box system is THE worse way to achieve its pedalling characteristics. it is easier to use a idler system to get EXACTLY the same pedalling characteristics.
> 
> ...


:madman:

Don't try to reason out the design with two pictures and one video. It's silly to try and do that. Perhaps the bike doesn't work well, perhaps it does. Either way, your coming to a conclusion without having ridden it (and without ANY knowledge of the details of the design) is dumb and shows little respect for engineers.

And if you'd like to declare a criteria for being lost to the world of design intellect, the first thing on your list should be "jumping to conclusions". Don't be an armchair engineer.


----------



## gurp (Jan 20, 2004)

his dudeness said:


> A bike frame doesn't come out of marketing, it comes out of engineering. marketing comes as the result of engineering and performance claims.


If done right, marketing has major inputs on what to build (role of marketing is technically product, place, price and promotion, the 4 Ps). However, the bike industry is ass backwards and doesn't work like this.


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

igotbanned said:


> :madman:
> 
> Don't try to reason out the design with two pictures and one video. It's silly to try and do that. Perhaps the bike doesn't work well, perhaps it does. Either way, your coming to a conclusion without having ridden it (and without ANY knowledge of the details of the design) is dumb and shows little respect for engineers.
> 
> And if you'd like to declare a criteria for being lost to the world of design intellect, the first thing on your list should be "jumping to conclusions". Don't be an armchair engineer.


explanation and reasoning with sometimes NEVER works, they are still deluded and lost like you!

ONCE you understand how certain characteristics that are created though certain design implications then it is possible to understand how a bike will ride by looking at it. and before you fly of the handle that is not ********. its just tiny bit harder with vpp but with a single pivot and some practical knowledge and a logical technical understanding its piss easy to work out by looking at it.

but if you protest the opposite you just prove your ignorance and and how far you have bought into marketing. and you are dead to understanding how rear suspension works.


----------



## Norcoshore1 (Apr 28, 2010)

bxxer rider said:


> ONCE you understand how certain characteristics that are created though certain design implications then it is possible to understand how a bike will ride by looking at it.


so if you knew how your orange was going to ride beforehand, why did you buy it?


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

Norcoshore1 said:


> so if you knew how your orange was going to ride beforehand, why did you buy it?


1) i was coming off a patriot when i get the 222, i loved the feel of the patriot just wanted to change to a more race dedicated bike

2)i bought it before i understood suspension any where near as well as i do now.

3) i will be going back to a 224 evo when given the chance (budget issues)


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)




----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

bxxer rider said:


> development of a good design is good, redesigning for sake of marketing is bad. that is my point. so enough of the sarcasm and removing my quote from its context.


Enough of YOUR sarcasm and removing MY quote from it's context.

And aren't you the kid saying Orange is the only company that makres a good bike, and that apparently any company that redesigns a bike is doing so purely for marketing?

Yet you have a Turner. Didn't Turner do a redesign? Are they sellouts now?


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

his dudeness said:


> Enough of YOUR sarcasm and removing MY quote from it's context.
> 
> And aren't you the kid saying Orange is the only company that makres a good bike, and that apparently any company that redesigns a bike is doing so purely for marketing?
> 
> Yet you have a Turner. Didn't Turner do a redesign? Are they sellouts now?


again, removed it from context. i never said orange were the only good bikes out there. far from it. and turner did not invent a whole new system to make good marketing but instead continued the development of an existing system that i known to work.

enough of your twisting.


----------



## juan pablo (Jan 17, 2007)

This thread made my head hurt. Where did the good old MTBR days go?


----------



## sundace (Jan 22, 2009)

so what do you think of the bike?

is it good or not?

i haven't understood yet!


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

sundace said:


> so what do you think of the bike?
> 
> is it good or not?
> 
> i haven't understood yet!


good if you like lots of maintenance, lots of stupid useless bearings, weaker designs and more prone to flex.


----------



## Lunchbox362 (Jun 27, 2009)

That bike is ugly to me, and seems overly complicated/inefficient.

Any ride reports?


----------



## igotbanned (Oct 20, 2007)

bxxer rider said:


> explanation and reasoning with sometimes NEVER works, they are still deluded and lost like you!
> 
> ONCE you understand how certain characteristics that are created though certain design implications then it is possible to understand how a bike will ride by looking at it. and before you fly of the handle that is not ********. its just tiny bit harder with vpp but with a single pivot and some practical knowledge and a logical technical understanding its piss easy to work out by looking at it.
> 
> but if you protest the opposite you just prove your ignorance and and how far you have bought into marketing. and you are dead to understanding how rear suspension works.


Stop talking out your rear end. No one can only look at a complex design and understand the details of its working characteristics, let alone the specific forces acting on any member. I dare you to plot the rear-axle to BB-center distance as the bike moves through its travel (even ignoring chain tension), if you think it's easy to do. And it's very doable, I'll tell you that much, though rather difficult.

-Third Year Mechanical Engineering Student, Cal Poly SLO


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

igotbanned said:


> Stop talking out your rear end. No one can only look at a complex design and understand the details of its working characteristics, let alone the specific forces acting on any member. I dare you to plot the rear-axle to BB-center distance as the bike moves through its travel (even ignoring chain tension), if you think it's easy to do. And it's very doable, I'll tell you that much, though rather difficult.
> 
> -Third Year Mechanical Engineering Student, Cal Poly SLO


now take it back into context and stop reading it how you WANT it to be written but read it how it is.


----------



## b4 stealth (Sep 9, 2007)

bxxer rider said:


> now take it back into context and stop reading it how you WANT it to be written but read it how it is.


:cough: troll :cough:


----------



## igotbanned (Oct 20, 2007)

bxxer rider said:


> now take it back into context and stop reading it how you WANT it to be written but read it how it is.


I never took it out of context. I quoted you on what you said in its entirety. What is written is that a person can take a look at a picture of a (new) suspension design and come to conclusions about how well it works. That is not true. If you truly believe you can do that I don't know what to tell you, except that, no, you can't.
How about, instead, you read what you wrote.

And how about my dare?


----------



## giantsaam (Dec 10, 2006)

igotbanned said:


> I never took it out of context. I quoted you on what you said in its entirety. What is written is that a person can take a look at a picture of a (new) suspension design and come to conclusions about how well it works. That is not true. If you truly believe you can do that I don't know what to tell you, except that, no, you can't.
> How about, instead, you read what you wrote.
> 
> And how about my dare?


There is obviously no use reasoning with bxxer riding because apparently he is so pro that he has turned down testing a new progressive design to ride his clunky Turner, that has since then abandoned ship and gone to a non existent DW link.

And to Bxxer rider if we didn't develope new suspension designs we would all still be riding Proflex, Outland and Amp research frames.


----------



## 317000 (Mar 2, 2007)

My dearest Bxxr-Rider, must we go down this road again?

http://www.pinkbike.com/v/158521/l/

leckhampton, self filmed on pinkbike.com


----------



## 317000 (Mar 2, 2007)

b4 stealth said:


> :cough: troll :cough:


If only it were so...


----------



## giantsaam (Dec 10, 2006)

dowst said:


> My dearest Bxxr-Rider, must we go down this road again?
> 
> http://www.pinkbike.com/v/158521/l/
> 
> leckhampton, self filmed on pinkbike.com


A little brake control would go a long way downhillers who skid into every corners give us a bad name. 
By the way that was a sick cyclocross track


----------



## sundace (Jan 22, 2009)

after such a productive discussion, i guess that the bike kicks ass!


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

giantsaam said:


> There is obviously no use reasoning with bxxer riding because apparently he is so pro that he has turned down testing a new progressive design to ride his clunky Turner, that has since then abandoned ship and gone to a non existent DW link.
> 
> And to Bxxer rider if we didn't develope new suspension designs we would all still be riding Proflex, Outland and Amp research frames.


show me a design that is actually NEW not just re-badged other technology from the last 5 years in suspension.

and igotbanned i never said that i could give out precise technical data just work out what the ride characteristics will be.

and dowst don't do the personal attacks because it just makes a fool of your self. (besides i had a highroller on it the back of the vid so soon as i touched back brake it locked up every time no matter how hard you works to modulate the power)

giantsaam just a loose natural line for bit of a mess-about. my riding has infact changed massively since then.

on and fact i can be reasoned with just with a factual argument that doesn't have bus size loopholes in  cobble to gather a decent enough comment then i give respect. i don't have any respect what so ever in the very slightest for any one who following marketing ******** that is everywhere in this sport.

oh and btw, mtbr i now officially worse then pinkbike. just some on here when bored and cant ride.....


----------



## igotbanned (Oct 20, 2007)

Oh lord, you've said something true. You can't be reasoned with unless being told you are correct.

As to finding a new design, found one: http://www.lapierre-bikes.co.uk/lapierre/big-mountain-bike/2011/dh-team-2011

So if you can't give precise technical data, lets hear how it will ride. Don't argue around my every point and ignore me. Obviously the picture in the link shows enough details for your judgement. Tell me how it rides overall.

And maybe in addition to that, go ahead and point out any loophole you've found in my arguments so far.


----------



## sundace (Jan 22, 2009)

i guess the discussion has gone totally downhill...

my main concerns on the lapierre 720 are:

1. 7 pairs of bolts are too many, aren't they?

2. the pendbox may attract too much dirt

3. the pendbox is too vulnerable in rocks...it may be damaged rather easily...(?)

overall i like the design and is a very tempting bike.

another option is the devinci wilson xp:

http://www.devinci.com/bikes/browse_9#9_32_93

comments please!


----------



## cyrix (Jan 29, 2008)

bxxer rider said:


> show me a design that is actually NEW not just re-badged other technology from the last 5 years in suspension.
> 
> and igotbanned i never said that i could give out precise technical data just work out what the ride characteristics will be.
> 
> ...


You are by far the biggest troll I've ever seen here. You have not once given any factual information to back up what you say, and just keep ignoring people who ask you specific questions by acting like a patronizing jerk. You just keep plugging your ears and screaming out "LALALALA I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT"


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

cyrix said:


> You are by far the biggest troll I've ever seen here. You have not once given any factual information to back up what you say, and just keep ignoring people who ask you specific questions by acting like a patronizing jerk. You just keep plugging your ears and screaming out "LALALALA I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT"


:madman:


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

igotbanned said:


> Oh lord, you've said something true. You can't be reasoned with unless being told you are correct. :madman:
> 
> As to finding a new design, found one: http://www.lapierre-bikes.co.uk/lapierre/big-mountain-bike/2011/dh-team-2011 *its not new tech, its a new way of creating a pedalling characteristic from the 90's!!!!! its not ****ing new! just a stupid arse backwards way of doing things*
> 
> ...


...


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

sundace said:


> i guess the discussion has gone totally downhill...
> 
> my main concerns on the lapierre 720 are:
> 
> ...


much much much better option to go with the wilson.


----------



## cyrix (Jan 29, 2008)

bxxer rider said:


> :madman:


I figured you wouldn't have an actual intellectual answer to respond with.


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

bxxer rider said:


> now take it back into context and stop reading it how you WANT it to be written but read it how it is.


It's just funny how everyone that has something to counter what you said was marketing hype is apprently dumb and taking things out of context yet you have no ability to prove this so-called marketing hype yourself or even prove that a specific design is good or bad just by looking at the pictures... Oddly enough when someone calls you out on that you once again play the "out of context" card.

You're a funny kid, but just like no one's points are valid to you, yours aren't valid to the majority either.


----------

