Lapierre GLP2: Full on E-Enduro
- Thread starter Rob Rides EMTB
- Start date
220mm on the front. Not many have that as standard. 21.4kg is quite impressive for the specification.
Is it me (on my phone} or does NV's bike have different brakes.,..
I love this bike, or at least the concept, because its a company ignoring trying to make the best looking bike, but instead focusing on making the best performing EMTB.
I am still a big fan of external batteries, because of how they enable the weight to be more centralised - whenever I ride other bikes, and come back to my Vitus, I always notice how much lighter the front end is and how much easier it is to lift up and manoeuvre - whilst the Vitus doesn't have the battery over the motor, it does have it about as close to the motor as you can get a battery, with it not coming that far up the downtube.
Great vid Rob, those trails look like a lot of fun
I am still a big fan of external batteries, because of how they enable the weight to be more centralised - whenever I ride other bikes, and come back to my Vitus, I always notice how much lighter the front end is and how much easier it is to lift up and manoeuvre - whilst the Vitus doesn't have the battery over the motor, it does have it about as close to the motor as you can get a battery, with it not coming that far up the downtube.
Great vid Rob, those trails look like a lot of fun
Not sure if there's an issue with some settings for your video @Rob Hancill
It played on my mobile earlier (in France).
But won't play either in the forum or in youtube on Windows 10 or Chrome OS.
It played on my mobile earlier (in France).
But won't play either in the forum or in youtube on Windows 10 or Chrome OS.
- Thread starter
- #7
Really strange. I have the same...
- Thread starter
- #9
YEs YouTube has some big bugs at the moment... My YouTube Studio has pretty much gone down!
- Thread starter
- #11
Is it working now?
miPbiP
E*POWAH Master
the battery mass is centred - good.
but it's really high, no?
but it's really high, no?
I guess if you work out where the average mass is, it's possibly slightly lower. By sticking it that way though you're not getting some of the weight as low as possible in front of the motor, but you're avoiding some of the weight going up high at the same time - up the frame. The ideal would probably be to have the battery in two parts for that design where half of it goes in front of the motor and half above the motor ?
A question(s) for @Rob Hancill
Everyone likes the Levo SL because of the lower weight - "It feels more like a normal bike".
Spec for Spec, it's about 4kg's less than it's Levo sibling, but some of that is tyres,other parts and weight shaved from the frame and so on.
In theory, we think a bike will handle better by getting the weight lower in the frame, as the GLP2 tries to do.
The SL keeps the weight lower in the frame, but the main difference is that the actual Weight in that area is significantly lower. Lighter motor and Battery.
So are we saying that it's not just about getting the weight lower down, but that the bikes handling is heavily influenced by any significant mass mounted around the crank area ? Does it act like a pendulum ? Even though it's Centered and Low ?
How does the GLP2 compare to the SL in terms of feel and handling ? You commented in the video that you had to adjust your position and balance to accommodate for the lack of mass in the normal e-bike position - presumably you make the same accommodations on the SL ?
And for climbing, you seemed to still like the GLP2's climbing - how did that compare to the SL ?
Everyone likes the Levo SL because of the lower weight - "It feels more like a normal bike".
Spec for Spec, it's about 4kg's less than it's Levo sibling, but some of that is tyres,other parts and weight shaved from the frame and so on.
In theory, we think a bike will handle better by getting the weight lower in the frame, as the GLP2 tries to do.
The SL keeps the weight lower in the frame, but the main difference is that the actual Weight in that area is significantly lower. Lighter motor and Battery.
So are we saying that it's not just about getting the weight lower down, but that the bikes handling is heavily influenced by any significant mass mounted around the crank area ? Does it act like a pendulum ? Even though it's Centered and Low ?
How does the GLP2 compare to the SL in terms of feel and handling ? You commented in the video that you had to adjust your position and balance to accommodate for the lack of mass in the normal e-bike position - presumably you make the same accommodations on the SL ?
And for climbing, you seemed to still like the GLP2's climbing - how did that compare to the SL ?
- Thread starter
- #17
I'd say the GLP2 is more like a pendulum. Just picking it up you can feel how centred that weight is. The Levo SL has the weight distributed across the bike.
Which is better in terms of weight distribution? Hard to say really. I found I had to weight the front of the GLP2 more than I usually would as the weight was more rearward over the back tyre.
Compare it to the Kenevo that has a slack head angle and (similar) 520mm reach. The weight is further forward as the 700Wh battery sits in the frame.
GLP2 weight: Easy to lift front wheel. MX style.
Levo SL weight: Easy to lift entire bike. MTB style.
You want to get the COG as low in the frame as possible on an MTB or EMTB - This is why you also see a lot of the modern DH and enduro bikes going with low mounted shocks, like on the SC and Specilized.
Ignoring things like suspension kinematics and geometry, the main difference between designing an EMTB and an MTB though it that with an MTB the shock is the heaviest single item sitting within the main triangle of the frame, whereas in an EMTB you have the shock, motor and battery.
What this means is that with an EMTB its about placing the weight within the frame in a way that firstly doesn't make it ride like a pig, and secondly is there a way you can use that weight placement to actually improve the handling?
Currently EMTB designers are battling on a third design front too - that is making the bike look good (or as much like a normal MTB ), because the vast majority of people are (no matter how well it rides) not going to buy an ugly bike.
I think we are seeing a bit of a split at the moment between brands focusing on making the bike look good over optimising the riding characteristics, and those focusing on riding characteristics over looks.
If you look at a bike like the new Whyte's for example, they have clearly put a lot of thought into getting the weight in places they feel has a beneficial effect on the handling, and from my brief time on one I would say they have succeeded, because the thing corners pretty much better than any other EMTB with an integrated battery that I have ridden.
Ignoring things like suspension kinematics and geometry, the main difference between designing an EMTB and an MTB though it that with an MTB the shock is the heaviest single item sitting within the main triangle of the frame, whereas in an EMTB you have the shock, motor and battery.
What this means is that with an EMTB its about placing the weight within the frame in a way that firstly doesn't make it ride like a pig, and secondly is there a way you can use that weight placement to actually improve the handling?
Currently EMTB designers are battling on a third design front too - that is making the bike look good (or as much like a normal MTB ), because the vast majority of people are (no matter how well it rides) not going to buy an ugly bike.
I think we are seeing a bit of a split at the moment between brands focusing on making the bike look good over optimising the riding characteristics, and those focusing on riding characteristics over looks.
If you look at a bike like the new Whyte's for example, they have clearly put a lot of thought into getting the weight in places they feel has a beneficial effect on the handling, and from my brief time on one I would say they have succeeded, because the thing corners pretty much better than any other EMTB with an integrated battery that I have ridden.
Swissrob
Well-known member
There is quite some hair around my navel and fluff in it as I gaze down thinking.....
Probably one of the best looking bikes I have seen with an external battery.
Surely having the shock mounted on the top tube must offset the gains with battery placement in regards to lower centre of gravity? Maybe a yoke over/in front of the battery would have been better for weight and allowed a bottle mount under the top tube? Which ends up, if you include the bottle weight a similar weight distribution and an ugly bike.
Why is belly button fluff always blue/grey...…..
Probably one of the best looking bikes I have seen with an external battery.
Surely having the shock mounted on the top tube must offset the gains with battery placement in regards to lower centre of gravity? Maybe a yoke over/in front of the battery would have been better for weight and allowed a bottle mount under the top tube? Which ends up, if you include the bottle weight a similar weight distribution and an ugly bike.
Why is belly button fluff always blue/grey...…..
I prefer the bikes with short chainstays and wheelbase because they allow me to be in control if weight distribution instead of leaving this to the frame designer.
The modern frames are designed to induce the rider to a ‘correct’ stance on the bike, wich actually really means being more frontwards than most riders can feel comfortable on the steep DH. The drawback of this is that the long reach, long wheelbase frames do restrain body movement over the bike.
I also like the ability that the short chainstays give to adjust your lines by kicking the rear sideways with ease, this is key for preventing or compensating the front slides while riding on offcamber slippery terrain.
The modern frames are designed to induce the rider to a ‘correct’ stance on the bike, wich actually really means being more frontwards than most riders can feel comfortable on the steep DH. The drawback of this is that the long reach, long wheelbase frames do restrain body movement over the bike.
I also like the ability that the short chainstays give to adjust your lines by kicking the rear sideways with ease, this is key for preventing or compensating the front slides while riding on offcamber slippery terrain.
Eddy Current
E*POWAH Master
Thats what I’m always about. In once compare ebikes with basketball shoes turned into fashion clothing, comfy and good looking, but not performance
@Rob Hancill is the GLP2 really and noticeable best handling than the average ebikes you ride?
- Thread starter
- #23
Yeah its not a good look! I filmed that at about 12am so chucked it on... to do my hair would've taken a long time you know ?
Bike
Member
hello Rob to make a comparaison with kenevo 2020 what is better and what not? at the end for your riding style wich one you'd choose?ty
It's interesting that like cars, weight distribution is becoming an important aspect in their handling.
Given the choice I'd rather weight the front - isn't that what aggressive mountain biking is all about?! Not being able to pick the front up seems like a small price to pay for front grip. That said, I'd like to try it.
Given the choice I'd rather weight the front - isn't that what aggressive mountain biking is all about?! Not being able to pick the front up seems like a small price to pay for front grip. That said, I'd like to try it.
Part of me believes this bike is brave and brilliant for bucking the "everything integrated" trend and going for form over function; the other half just thinks the BB area looks like a dogs dinner! I could get to like it, but maybe never love it.
I suspect it is one of those bikes that will always get a marmite reaction; whilst I don't care if other riders see me on an ebike and give an occasional bit of banter, I get a feeling this bike might attract the less open minded amongst our riding brethren to "comment" more forcefully...!
I suspect it is one of those bikes that will always get a marmite reaction; whilst I don't care if other riders see me on an ebike and give an occasional bit of banter, I get a feeling this bike might attract the less open minded amongst our riding brethren to "comment" more forcefully...!
I would counter that by saying correct riding technique allows you to weight the bike correctly, having a bike that enables you to both easily weight the front and lift it up is what I would be looking at
And my riding technique is far from perfect!
The opposite to that though, you can weight the front easily by changing body position to react to the terrain
I hadn't read that far down before I commented, you said it much better!
The physics behind my point is:
1) Mountain bike tyres, unlike car tyres, pickup µ with vertical load due to the mechanism by which they generate grip. This means that weight forwards = more front grip at the expense of rear.
We've got a trade here between being able to pick the front of the bike up, versus having to make a more conscious effort to weight the front. The usual outcome from not weighting the front is front washout = scary!
2) With the mass more centralised, the second moment of inertia is reduced. This in theory should enable the bike to turn quicker.
I can't see how this would be a bad thing.
3) The CoG height is slightly higher.
The effect of this is probably small when we compare it to rider mass and CoG height.
Whether this bike design is good depends on the relatives strengths/weaknesses of these three effects. On paper the benefits don't sound substantial enough to justify extra conscious effort to weight the front. I also don't really trust a pro mountain biker who is naturally much better at weighting the front, and has better upper body strength than an average/good biker.
I've not tried it though, so I could be completely wrong, which is why it raises a really interesting point, and that is: what is the ideal weight distribution for an eMTB.
1) Mountain bike tyres, unlike car tyres, pickup µ with vertical load due to the mechanism by which they generate grip. This means that weight forwards = more front grip at the expense of rear.
We've got a trade here between being able to pick the front of the bike up, versus having to make a more conscious effort to weight the front. The usual outcome from not weighting the front is front washout = scary!
2) With the mass more centralised, the second moment of inertia is reduced. This in theory should enable the bike to turn quicker.
I can't see how this would be a bad thing.
3) The CoG height is slightly higher.
The effect of this is probably small when we compare it to rider mass and CoG height.
Whether this bike design is good depends on the relatives strengths/weaknesses of these three effects. On paper the benefits don't sound substantial enough to justify extra conscious effort to weight the front. I also don't really trust a pro mountain biker who is naturally much better at weighting the front, and has better upper body strength than an average/good biker.
I've not tried it though, so I could be completely wrong, which is why it raises a really interesting point, and that is: what is the ideal weight distribution for an eMTB.
EMTB Forums
Latest articles
-
Introducing the Forestal e-Cygnus - a downcountry and XC emtb
The new Forestal e-Cygnus is a slightly unusual emtb. It comes in two... -
2025 M1 Sporttechnik EN 8.0 review
The M1 EN is one of four M1 models built on the same frame. Well, it’s...