You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Is it just me, or is this not surely the most ugly bicycle to find its way into existence?
[img] 
[/img]
[i]the most ugly bicycle to find its way into existence?[/i]
no, this is.
[img] 
[/img]
I quite like the lappierre, tbh, the corratecesque seat tube is even 'ok' (just).
I'm FAR more disturbed by a brand new frame robbing off an exterior wall
[img] 
[/img]
The Lapierre is a bit odd looking but not fugly IMO, it's better looking than anything I've seen with an "Orange" sticker on it for example...
You obviously missed this one...
[img] 
[/img]
I think the XR looks great. I'm also appalled by a brand new frame resting on a brick wall!
I've been trying to think of things to sell since I saw it TBH, not bothered about looks its how it rides.
Saw the 529 and a 729 next to each other in a shop the other day. Personally, I really like them, it's just where the shock pierces the seat tube that's slightly ungainly. But if they ride as good as they're supposed to, I wouldn't give a monkeys! The 729 in all black with red highlights looks damned smart if you ask me...
[img] 
[/img]
Certainly anything full suspension from the likes of Orange, Marin or many others for the last decade or so all look a lot worse IMO...
Ugly is a matter of opinion but you can not argue against the engineering fact that the structure and load paths are not the most effecient. It is horrendous.
JohnB - Member
Ugly is a matter of opinion but you can not argue against the engineering fact that the structure and load paths are not the most effecient.
How is that am "engineering fact" exactly? How do you define efficient?
Building it that way means that parts of a more conventional structure can be shortened, lightened, or dispensed with altogether. If the net result of that is a frame that's strong and stiff enough, but lighter than a conventional layout - then it's a success.
Loads should go into junctions of tubes not the centre of tubes and certainly not the centre of kinked tubes.
If you did an FEA of that design you would have high stress concentrations at the junction of the seat tube and top tube, the base of the seat tube and the kinks in the seat tube. The concentratins can be reduced by adding material but fundamentally the structural design is less effecient than putting loads into junctions of tubes.
I would define an effecient structure as maximum stiffness for minimum material.
Loads should go into junctions of tubes not the centre of tubes and certainly not the centre of kinked tubes.
That doesn't tend to be the case in FS bikes - seatstays usually meet rockers right in the middle of the seat tube, requiring lots of additional strengthening material, not a whole lot different to the above. But the above design loses a chunk of seatstay to make up for it, plus there's no additional material for the other end of the shock.
If you did your FEA, and knew how much material had been used and where, you might have your fact, as opposed to just speculation.
Make a card board cut out model of the bike frame above and load it and watch where and how it flexs.
Now make one with a triangle and put the shock loads into the seat tube / top tube junction.
The lower design will be stiffer for less material.
It's obvious they don't know what they're doing as they have no experience of building great bikes. 🙄
Surely this is a lot sexier than that 🙂 oh and its £400 cheaper...
To me this is a way better bike than that and i havent even ridden one yet lol...
http://www.cube.eu/en/full/allmountain/ams-100-super-hpc-pro-29/