Vintage MTB Tech: Lapierre X-Control vs. Specialized Epic

The dawn of the new millennium saw a significant shift in the world of Cross-Country (XC) mountain biking. Gone were the days of predominantly road-based circuits; the terrain was becoming more technical, demanding more from both rider and machine. In response, the XC bike evolved dramatically, embracing disc brakes and, crucially, full suspension. It was a revelation to many that suspension wasn't solely the domain of downhill and freeride disciplines, long before the terms 'enduro' or 'all-mountain' entered the vernacular. The perception of full-suspension bikes as heavy and cumbersome was also being challenged. However, a persistent specter haunted XC riders: the dreaded 'pedal bob' or 'pumping' effect, an energy-sapping oscillation that inevitably occurred under powerful pedal strokes. Purebred cross-country enthusiasts abhorred the thought of wasting hours of arduous training to this parasitic movement. Consumers found themselves in a quandary, torn between the desire to preserve the perceived efficiency and performance of their steeds and the allure of the latest technological advancements, promising superior grip and comfort through suspension.

The Quest for Efficiency: Lapierre's FPS vs. Specialized's Brain

This apparent dilemma wasn't insurmountable, as several manufacturers dedicated themselves to finding elegant solutions to this vexing problem. Among the early pioneers were France's Lapierre and America's Specialized. Both introduced bikes designed with a specific focus on combating this pervasive 'plague' of pedal bob. The Lapierre X-Control, with its innovative Floating Pivot System (FPS) kinematics, was the elder statesman. Born from a concept developed by Emmanuel Antonot (who would later found the Moustache brand), the FPS system ingeniously employed a carbon plate. The inherent flex of this plate allowed the main suspension pivot point to shift as the suspension compressed. The objective was to achieve a specific sag point (the static suspension compression under rider weight) where the suspension became effectively immune to the downward forces generated by pedalling. Simultaneously, the suspension remained free to articulate in response to ground irregularities during extension (negative travel) or to absorb impacts from below. While more easily demonstrable on the trail than explained on paper, this technology proved to be a significant commercial success.

Lapierre's explanation of the kinematics likened it to a door: opening or closing under pressure applied to one face, but remaining inert when force was applied along its edge – a form of mechanical lockout. This virtual pivot point concept, a truly French innovation (cocorico!), would later be widely adopted and adapted by numerous other brands. Specialized, on the other hand, pursued a markedly different technical path for its Epic. They opted for the 'Brain' system, a small canister housed at the base of a unique shock absorber positioned beneath the left rear seatstay. This anti-bobbing technology was developed in collaboration with fellow American suspension specialists, Fox Racing Shox (who also utilise a similar principle under the 'Terra Logic' moniker). The Brain system directly influenced the shock absorber to mitigate pedal bob, allowing Specialized to remain true to its FSR (Four Bar Linkage) suspension platform, a system they had employed since the early 90s and continue to use today. The FSR design features four pivot points, including a proprietary, patented pivot located on the chainstay, near the rear axle, designed to minimise the interference of drivetrain and braking forces on suspension performance.

The 'Brain' Explained: An Inertial Valve System

At its core, the 'Brain' system is an intelligent hydraulic lockout for the shock absorber, utilising a clever inertial valve. This valve operates via a small weight (masselotte) that seals the shock's hydraulic circuit, thereby locking out its travel. This weight rests on a small, adjustable spring. When a force is applied from the ground upwards, acting on the wheel axle, it compresses the spring, dislodging the weight and freeing the hydraulic circuit, allowing the shock to absorb the impact. The Brain's proximity to the rear axle is crucial, placing it as close as possible to the source of the 'impact'. Once the obstacle is cleared, the weight naturally returns to its original position, locking the shock until the next ground-induced force.

Materials and Manufacturing: Scandium vs. M4 Aluminium

In the early 2000s, composite materials had not yet saturated the market. While many high-end hardtail models featured carbon fibre frames, few manufacturers were yet integrating full suspension with such advanced materials. This would soon change, with the Specialized Epic receiving a carbon composite version in 2006, and the X-Control following suit the year after. For our featured bikes, both the 2002 Lapierre X-Control Ultimate and the 2003 Specialized Epic XC Disk, aluminium alloys formed the basis of their construction. The more expensive Lapierre boasted what manufacturers somewhat misleadingly marketed as 'Scandium'. In reality, it was an aluminium alloy subtly enriched with scandium – a sort of 'magic potion' said to confer significantly improved mechanical properties, such as increased strength, stiffness, and weldability, compared to standard aluminium alloys. The promise of this material was palpable on the trail, offering a reduction in weight and a subtle boost in the bike's dynamic performance.

The Specialized, meanwhile, utilised its proprietary M4 aluminium. This was a designation for a quality alloy, meticulously worked in terms of its morphology and wall thicknesses to meet the stresses and dimensions of the frame. Unlike the Lapierre, the M4 frame was not the most prestigious in the Specialized line-up; that honour belonged to frames utilising M5 aluminium. M5, another in-house designation, also represented a high-end aluminium alloy, similar to M4, but subjected to even more precise and complex tube shaping. Regardless, the Epic Disk tipped the scales at nearly two kilograms heavier than the Lapierre. This weight penalty could be attributed partly to the frame itself and partly to its slightly less high-end component selection. The Specialized was also priced approximately €700 less than its Lapierre counterpart.

Componentry and Strategy: Elitism vs. Value

When presenting their machines for the 'Mountain Bike of the Year' awards, manufacturers often adopted distinct strategies. Some focused on exclusivity, prestige, and the aspirational 'dream', while others prioritised an attractive price-to-performance ratio, appealing to the 'reason' of the voters. Lapierre unequivocally chose the former. The X-Control Ultimate, living up to its name, was impeccably kitted out. The Shimano XTR drivetrain (with the exception of an LX front derailleur) was complemented by a handsome and lightweight Ritchey WCS triple crankset (44/32/22). Coupled with a RockShox SID SL fork, Mavic CrossMax Disc wheels, and Ritchey WCS finishing kit, the X-Control represented the pinnacle of off-the-shelf componentry for its era.

The Specialized Epic played a different game, opting for a more budget-conscious selection of components, with the notable exception of the superb Fox Float 80 RL fork, which served as a counterpart to the similarly sourced Brain shock. The drivetrain was a mix of Shimano LX (shifters and front derailleur) and an XTR rear derailleur, a common marketing tactic of the late 90s and early 2000s. This strategy aimed to 'flatter' potential buyers by placing the most visually prominent and desirable component – the rear derailleur – at the highest possible tier. For the crankset, stem, handlebars, and seatpost, Specialized turned to its own branded 'S' components. These were generally more economical products, some designed or manufactured by Specialized themselves (like the StrongArm crank arms), perfectly functional but lacking the premium feel or low weight of their aftermarket counterparts. The wheels followed a similar pattern, featuring a Shimano Deore rear hub and a Specialized Stout front hub, laced to Mavic X223 rims.

While perfectly functional on the trail, this component mix lent the Epic a certain lack of 'lustre' and likely contributed to its higher overall weight. To complete the comparison, let's consider the brakes. As expected for bikes of this era, both featured disc brakes. From 2001 onwards, all award-winning MTBs were equipped with hydraulic disc calipers. The Lapierre sported the elegant, lightweight, and prestigious Formula B4 brakes, with their distinctive gold calipers, whereas the Specialized opted for the more modest and understated Shimano Deore hydraulic brakes. Aesthetically and in terms of weight, the Italian calipers held the advantage, while the Japanese brakes were often lauded for their reliable performance.

A Ride Through Time: The Revival

Pulled from their long slumber, our two vintage XC stalwarts underwent a thorough 'health check' before embarking on a nostalgic ride. While the riders might be showing their age, the bikes, remarkably, had aged far better. The primary area requiring attention was, unsurprisingly, the braking systems. All other components proved to be perfectly functional. Inflating the suspension was a straightforward task, and the drivetrains required no adjustment. In essence, apart from the brakes, these machines had remarkably stood the test of time. The key question remained: would the Lapierre's carbon FPS plate retain its youthful suppleness? Many feared that such delicate components might have lost their original springiness over the years.

Lapierre X-Control: The 2002 Champion

The Lapierre X-Control was the undisputed winner of the 2002 'Mountain Bike of the Year' award. In that year's competition, held in Aragon, France, three French brands vied for the title, with none other than former moto racing legend Jean-Michel Bayle in attendance. The X-Control faced stiff competition from the Sunn Neuro Pro and the Commençal Pasta. The Pasta, a hardtail, was at a disadvantage against its full-suspension rivals, ultimately finishing in third place. This marked a trend that would continue, with hardtails increasingly finding it difficult to gain traction in such prestigious awards. The Lapierre, however, had to fight hard to clinch victory over the Sunn. Several factors tipped the scales in its favour. The jury was particularly impressed by its Scandium frame and its overall featherweight build. It was lauded not only for its pedalling efficiency but also for its enjoyable ride characteristics. As one enthusiastic reader commented in issue 133 of Vélo Vert, "The X-Control is a formidable weapon both uphill and downhill."

Fifteen years later, after a comprehensive service – a necessity for such a venerable steed abruptly awakened from a peaceful retirement – the X-Control was ready, or so we hoped, for a forest excursion. What sensations would this Lapierre deliver during our two-hour ride? Returning to a bike from this era inevitably meant a recalibration of all riding perceptions. The handlebars, rather than being flat, featured a noticeable rise, making it feel almost as if we were on a different bicycle, perhaps even a road bike. With a bar width of only 560mm, our position felt dramatically altered, transporting us back in time. While initially disorienting, we soon adapted, leaning into the machine and shifting our weight back. In terms of aerodynamics, the X-Control likely offered some advantages, even if outright handling comfort wasn't its forte. What about the much-vaunted FPS suspension? Visually, it wasn't the most aesthetically refined system, appearing somewhat complex. However, our on-trail experience contradicted this less-than-flattering visual assessment. When pedalling on flatter terrain, settled into the saddle, the X-Control was surprisingly impressive. While some minor oscillations were present, they didn't significantly impede our progress – a rather successful implementation of anti-bobbing technology. What's more, as the ground became more uneven, the Lapierre proved effective, demonstrating genuine traction. The ride would undoubtedly have been even better with less worn tyres; the original rubber had clearly succumbed to the ravages of time. Dare we say, it might have performed even better with 29-inch wheels for enhanced grip? Yet, hopping back onto a 26-inch bike reminded us of the sheer fun derived from nimble, smaller-wheeled machines. When navigating tight turns or needing to manoeuvre the bike, the ease of handling was evident. However, we approached the few descents on our route with a degree of caution. It was certainly not aboard the X-Control that we would be setting any personal bests on Strava – and frankly, that would have been surprising!

Specialized Epic: The 2003 Brain Child

After the trails of Aude in 2002, it was the turn of the Buëch region to host the 'Mountain Bike of the Year' election a year later. Specialized, having already secured a victory in 1997 with its Ground Control, seized the opportunity to etch its name onto the winner's trophy for a second time. This triumph was, above all, a victory for the 'Brain' system, a technology dear to the heart of the Morgan Hill-based brand. Compared to its rivals, namely the Lapierre Trail LTX and the Decathlon Rockrider 8.3, the Epic was not the best-equipped or the lightest bike. In static assessments, it even lagged behind its two competitors. However, it possessed a trump card: the renowned 'Brain' from Specialized, a system that, through various iterations, remains relevant even today. The Brain had already captivated riders back then, and its concept, when paired with the FSR kinematics, was nothing short of revolutionary. Its contribution was widely praised by numerous jury members. "The Epic remains lively, but with a suspension that actually works," was a notable comment unearthed from the archives (specifically, Vélo Vert issue 145).

Upon remounting the 2003 award-winning Epic, we wondered how this 'veteran' would perform after such a prolonged period of inactivity. It would be disingenuous to claim it responded with the same verve as in its youth. The Brain's activation wasn't always perfectly fluid or immediately responsive. Nevertheless, the bike displayed some commendable residual qualities. Our initial laps on the Epic were surprisingly positive. While the riding position on the 2002 Lapierre X-Control felt somewhat dated, even obsolete by today's standards, the Epic's cockpit had a distinctly avant-garde feel. It's remarkable how quickly things can evolve, sometimes in just a single year. With its semi-risen handlebars, measuring a comfortable 660mm in width, the Epic settled us into its controls with a pleasing familiarity. This, of course, made everything else significantly easier. Navigating the forest, the Specialized alternately jostled us through the more chaotic sections and then smoothed out, thanks to a Brain that was perhaps a little temperamental in its operation. While the suspension might have felt somewhat stiff (likely due to age, as they say!), the bike remained enjoyable to handle. As a curious postscript, it was only after returning to the editorial office that both tyres finally gave up the ghost, deflating completely – phew!

Technical Specifications

Final Thoughts: A Nostalgic Journey

What a unique experience! Riding these two venerable machines was a moment apart, a true journey through the annals of mountain biking history. Riding 26-inch wheels, for instance, something we'd grown unaccustomed to, brought back a certain charm. For those of us who have embraced the 29er, rediscovering the sharp accelerations and nimble changes of direction was a delight. Yet, reverting to 26-inch wheels also meant a complete disruption of our established riding habits. As the miles passed, we gradually became more comfortable, mastering trajectories and braking with greater confidence. It required an initial period of building trust in these machines and their components. The V-brakes (on the X-Control, though the article later mentions Formula B4 discs) and cracked tyres offered little initial reassurance. Our primary objective was to return our two former champions to the editorial office, as intact as possible. Consequently, we adapted our speed, particularly on descents and through rocky, root-laden sections.

To be honest, we were pleasantly surprised by the capabilities of these bikes. While they may not operate with the precision of a Swiss watch, they still possess considerable merits. Both bikes handled predictably, with line choices favouring a slalom-like precision over outright speed, yet the pleasure wasn't solely derived from velocity. The atmosphere during this 'duel' was more akin to a historic rally than a World Cup race. On flat or rolling terrain, our bikes held their own, though our pedalling cadence had to adjust to accommodate the large 44-tooth chainrings. Our two old warriors performed admirably during this brief test ride, immersing us once again in sensations we had believed forgotten, sensations that resurfaced as swiftly as a teenage acne breakout. However, neither the riders nor the bikes possessed the arrogance of youth; instead, mutual respect prevailed, allowing us to appreciate the charm and unique character of this slightly nostalgic encounter. Our two former champions delivered exactly what we expected, and we now allow them to return to their well-deserved retirement, awaiting the next opportunity, who knows, to share a trail with them once more. ❚