Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

The bike that started it all just got even better...

265K views 2K replies 114 participants last post by  mikesee 
#1 · (Edited)
Bicycle wheel Bicycle tire Bicycle frame Tire Wheel


The new and improved Lenz Lunchbox.

Short chainstays? Check. 16.75 inches measured the honest way, from the center of the rear axle to the center of the BB.

Travel? Check. 150mm.

Stealth Dropper post routing? Check.

Clean-ass cable routing? Check. Rear derailleur cable runs down the downtube, inside the rear chainstay and pops out right at the derailleur. Nice.

Piggyback shocks? Check. Pick your favorite, it fits.

150mm rear hub spacing? Check. Props to Banshee for doing this as well. It matters much more than the 15mm vs 20mm fork argument.

Stiff as shizzzzzzz? Check. With the rear wheel removed, you can't budge the rear triangle. I've never had a bike that even comes close to this one in this regard.

More pics to come. I've been too busy grinning and riding to take pics.

Props to Devin Lenz on making a masterpiece, literally. He made it, with his hands, in his shop, in Colorado and it's a functional work of art.

Forgot to add, BB height is 13.5 inches with the 150mm Pike. This improvement was huge for me as I always felt the previous model's BB height was a tad tall for east coast carving. Now it slays corners. I don't have the chunk and chunder like out west, so the additional height was a hinderance to getting that "in the bike" feel. Problem solved.
 
See less See more
1
#145 ·
haha! thanks for that. ;-)

hoping to go out today for some more interesting trail and action shots.

first couple of rides I was more focused on shaking the build out and dialing in the suspension. the VA was packing up on me through high speed root gardens and such...quick adjustment and good to go.

loving the Pike/VA combo. I had some reservations that the VA may have been overkill; those thoughts are gone.

I'll be sure to post up more thoughts as I get more time on the bike.

Sun's out, time to ride.
 
#146 ·
OP: Are you the same Colin+M that wrote this a few months ago? if you are - man, you go through a lot of amazing bikes! would love to hear some comparisons and wondering what your ride will be next month, but for meantime enjoy your new LB.

"Well I've owned the LTc, SB95 and now the Ripley.

The Ripley for me is my "one bike to rule them all" as I tend to keep the drops and jumps under 3ft and it pedals so damn well. Literally if you turn the crank, the bike is going forward whether it be uphill/downhill/flat ground. This is the best pedaling bike I've ever ridden, period. It is almost freaky how quick it is to be honest. I couldn't believe how fast I was on my "home trail" today and I don't think I gave up anything on the descents. The 120mm of travel feels like much more because it is so well executed. It is hardtail fast when you pedal, in or out of the saddle, and supple to the max on the downs.

I liked the SB95 I had, but nothing about it really wowed me to be honest. It was heavy and very middle of the road. I do think that the sb95c however should really propel it to true "super bike " status.

The LTc, although the Geo chart would mislead, really likes to be pointed downhill and was very easy to pop off jumps and felt very comfortable in the air. On the downside, it pedaled like it wanted to be pointed downhill

So to sum it up...if you desire a trail bike, get the Ripley. It will take the drops and will grab some air if you desire it. I'm just not that type of rider, but Brian Lopes just rode one to a 9th place finish on the DH course at Sea Otter against numerous DH Bikes. Not too shabby for a 120mm 29er.

The Ripley is the best bike I've owned and I wouldn't give it up to get the LTc or SB95 back. The DW link feels similar to the switch link on the Yeti, but is better executed IMO as the Yeti seemed to blow through travel and wasn't as supple on the rocks/roots. I think the carbon version will address the weight issue, but I still prefer the Ripley's DW link to the Yeti's switch."
 
#149 ·
The 2 things that drove me away from the Ripley eventually were the fact that I felt it was too small and that it was very twitchy. Now after realizing that the Fox 34 fork I was running on it was taller A-C than my 150mm Pike might play into those feelings:)

I still think I would have been better off on an XL rather than L, but I'm sure the 160mm fork A-C didn't help the ill handling characteristics I was encountering as it would have shortened the reach and just screwed things up in general.
 
#152 ·
The 2 things that drove me away from the Ripley eventually were the fact that I felt it was too small and that it was very twitchy. Now after realizing that the Fox 34 fork I was running on it was taller A-C than my 150mm Pike might play into those feelings:)

I still think I would have been better off on an XL rather than L, but I'm sure the 160mm fork A-C didn't help the ill handling characteristics I was encountering as it would have shortened the reach and just screwed things up in general.
For what it's worth, I had similar feelings about the L Ripley I demoed with a 120mm fork on it.
 
#153 ·
Yeah, I think Ripley version 2.0 will hopefully address a lot of the issues folks are having. Cable routing, tire clearance, geometry tweaks, more travel perhaps? Not bad for a first try, but I think there are definitely better bikes in that category.
 
#156 ·
Well you don't "have" to go big on travel.

As pictured set up with 5 inches rear travel and 140mm up front. Pedals like a dream. I dare you to make this bike lose traction in a climb.

The short stays help with...well, everything. I honestly can't think of a downside other than it took this long to get a bike like this:)

As you see it here it weighs 28.8 lbs. I could lose probably another 1-1.5 lbs easy by changing out the tires to a Rocket Ron rear/Ikon 2.35 front, putting my XTR brakes on instead of the boat anchor Hope M4 with stainless hoses and putting my XO crank on.

I might just do that to see how light it gets.

Bicycle tire Tire Bicycle wheel Bicycle frame Wheel
Bicycle tire Bicycle frame Bicycle wheel Tire Wheel
 
#157 ·
Well you don't "have" to go big on travel.

As pictured set up with 5 inches rear travel and 140mm up front. Pedals like a dream. I dare you to make this bike lose traction in a climb.

The short stays help with...well, everything. I honestly can't think of a downside other than it took this long to get a bike like this:)

As you see it here it weighs 28.8 lbs. I could lose probably another 1-1.5 lbs easy by changing out the tires to a Rocket Ron rear/Ikon 2.35 front, putting my XTR brakes on instead of the boat anchor Hope M4 with stainless hoses and putting my XO crank on.

I might just do that to see how light it gets.

View attachment 842969 View attachment 842970
You are insane! In the best way, of course. I hope that if you ever put a Rocket Ron on the front of this bike that someone steals it, though.
 
#161 ·
I am not all that well versed in all the techy bike stuff but I do enjoy it though but the post in the beginning said 150mm travel which would be 6 inch travel when I got the geo chart from lenz for the 5 inch bike the mammoth and behometh it seems the bottom brackets are kinda high which I know I don't like.thanks again for the response
 
#162 ·
Allow me to clarify. I have both the 5 inch (127mm) and 6 inch (150mm) travel rocker arms, so I have had it set up both ways. Also the BB height/geo numbers aren't current on the website. My BB height with the 150mm fork was 13.5 inches, a titch lower with the 140mm fork of course.

I don't like high BB bikes either, that's why I love this new version of the Lunchbox.
 
#164 · (Edited)
the Behemoth is sticking with a little higher of a BB since it's more of an XC bike. the lower BBs end up with too many pedal strikes. The Lunchbox will have the lower BB since it's leaning towards the freeride end of the spectrum. It should also be noted that our bikes corner really well even with a little higher BB. The short chainstays make a big difference in cornering. So don't be too afraid of the BB height because with the short chainstays, you'll notice better cornering than other bikes you are used to, and you won't be hitting your pedals.

And we could always make a Behemoth or Mammoth with Lower bb height for a reasonable custom charge.

Nick @ Lenz Sport
sales@lenzsport.com
 
#166 ·
Good to know. Thanks for the info. I'm one of those people who prefers higher BBs because I have to pedal through roots and rocks on every ride. I get enough pedal strikes with my 14" BB FS bike currently I'm loathe to go lower, but it seems the new crop of 6" bikes have mostly gone that way.

Nice to have a higher option.
 
#167 ·
This thing looks really cool, I like the super short rear end with the 150 .
I really want to ride this new one.

I ride here in AZ with a girl " Kathleen " that has an older moth and box, but this one really has all the numbers I always wanted .

I can't wait to ride one!!
 
#175 ·
I can definitely see the attract and I'll let you into a little secret that I have been talking a little with Nick myself lately! ;)

It's definitely a bike that I could (almost) justify (to my wife!) having as well as my SB95c but here's a question that I don't think has been asked as yet...

Mud clearance, massively important to me in these winter months. Will a Hans Dampf fit in there with plenty of room to spare? Surely with these ultra short chain stays something has to give somewhere?

I was considering buying a Trek Stache 9 with mid size wheels but this could be a long travel alternative for me. :)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#172 ·
Exactly. Of course now I only have one. The Lenz is so much more versatile than I imagined that I was able to let go of the Rip9 RDO. I was expecting to hold onto the Niner just because I figured I wouldn't want to pedal around a 6 inch bike all the time, but it really surprised me and with the 5 inch rockers it is like 2 bikes in one anyway.
 
#181 ·
With the 5 inch rockers it is more firm in the initial travel and feels very similar to the SB95c we all know and love. With the 6's, the pedaling performance suffers a tad, as expected, but more plush on the chunk. I don't have a ton of time on either just yet, but that is my initial impression.
Sounds like by changing rockers you're also changing the leverage ratio? I wonder if the 5" rockers match the behemoth rockers, which do share the mammoth leverage ratio which does favor pedaling a little more. This would mean you could have your trail bike for the easier or longer days in the saddle with something like a M+, and keep the 6" rockers with a VA or something for when it gets big. Hmmmm.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top