Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 1585
  1. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Yeah and don't forget he got rid of his Ripley and bought an SB-95c after writing this. Me? I'm glad he's out there living the dream.
    To be fair, I was referring to the SB95 alloy version. I hadn't yet gotten the SB95c, which I liked better than the Ripley overall.

  2. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    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.

  3. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    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.

  4. #154
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Yeah and don't forget he got rid of his Ripley and bought an SB-95c after writing this. Me? I'm glad he's out there living the dream.
    Yes & then got rid of that & went back to a Rip9 RDO.
    Raising money, my friend broke his neck Mtbing, Please Share link. http://givealittle.co.nz/cause/elliottkeys/donations

  5. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    29
    So could people explain to me the pros and cons of the short chain stays I have been looking at another 29er with short chain stays with 4.5 inches travel as I don't need a 6 inch travel bike and I also am kinda partial to carbon. Thanks

  6. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    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.

    The bike that started it all just got even better...-img_20131030_103137.jpgThe bike that started it all just got even better...-img_20131030_103925.jpg

  7. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20131030_103137.jpg 
Views:	158 
Size:	273.2 KB 
ID:	842969Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20131030_103925.jpg 
Views:	149 
Size:	256.8 KB 
ID:	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.

  8. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    Touche` sir! I really like the Minion upfront, it is worth the weight penalty.

  9. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    Touche` sir! I really like the Minion upfront, it is worth the weight penalty.
    Just went DHF front DHR II rear on my TBLTc. Blown away.

  10. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    Thats a DHR on the front of mine. I have a DHF 2.3 that I haven't yet installed.

  11. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    29
    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

  12. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    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.

  13. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by JIMSLICK View Post
    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
    I do believe that bb height is for the older models.The newer bikes like the ones here are lower.

    Sorry guys.I didn't realize colin responded to this.

  14. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    65
    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
    Last edited by wigston; 10-30-2013 at 03:38 PM. Reason: typo

  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    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.
    Why would you have both, out of curiosity? Also, is it just as simple as a couple bolts to swap them out?

  16. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,813
    Quote Originally Posted by wigston View Post
    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
    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.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  17. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    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!!

  18. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,017
    Quote Originally Posted by kelstr View Post
    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!!
    kelstr don't you dare, next thing we know Geek will see this thread then where does that leave me?! 😄

  19. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    Haha. We can't help it Just J, it's a geometry chart's wet dream.

  20. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by B. Rock View Post
    Why would you have both, out of curiosity? Also, is it just as simple as a couple bolts to swap them out?
    Why not?

    It is just that simple actually.

    The 5 inch rockers cost extra, but I wanted to have them just to experiment with.

  21. #171
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,874

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

    Quote Originally Posted by B. Rock View Post
    Why would you have both, out of curiosity? Also, is it just as simple as a couple bolts to swap them out?
    You're asking this of the guy who has bought a gazillion high end bikes this year? Of course he has multiple sets of rockers!

  22. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    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.

  23. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    kelstr don't you dare, next thing we know Geek will see this thread then where does that leave me?! 
    I really love my SB95 ,I just go so fast on the dam thing, but I do really like the idea of this really short wide rear end ,I was thinking if I could fit on the large Box ( which I doubt ) the thing would be like a BMX bike for me on the hacky nasty Az trails .

  24. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    Why not?

    It is just that simple actually.

    The 5 inch rockers cost extra, but I wanted to have them just to experiment with.
    Thats how I would get the bike also , its so cool to be able to test and really see what is what.

    Colin , How different does the suspension perform from 5 to 6" rockers ?

  25. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,017

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    Haha. We can't help it Just J, it's a geometry chart's wet dream.
    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

  26. #176
    memento mori
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    363
    Could a mammoth be had with lunch box length chainstays ? I'm a fast-tech-xc guy that stays relatively close to the ground and that short,stiff rear end has my wallet hand twitching

  27. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,662
    Quote Originally Posted by DAVID J View Post
    Could a Behemoth be had with lunch box length chainstays ?
    Yes, it's what I'm considering.

    The bike that started it all just got even better...-capture.jpg
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  28. #178
    memento mori
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    363
    Caught me before my edit

  29. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by kelstr View Post
    Thats how I would get the bike also , its so cool to be able to test and really see what is what.

    Colin , How different does the suspension perform from 5 to 6" rockers ?
    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.

  30. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    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
    Haven't tried a Hans Dampf on the rear, but a Minion DHR fits fine with room. I think Mikesee has ran some large rubber on his so maybe he'll chime in.

    There is more room than on the SB95c, I can tell you that much.

  31. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    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.

  32. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by B. Rock View Post
    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've pretty much hit the nail on the head. One bike fits all.

  33. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    122
    Very interesting. I know it's subjective, but do you feel the double can shocks outperform the single cans by a large margin in regular trail riding?

  34. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    In short, no. Now if you are doing long runs, a reservoir shock can help for sure but for "regular" trail riding I haven't found much of an advantage.

  35. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    122
    10-4. I've never ridden a piggyback, but with getting a 'bigger' bike the thought has crossed my mind enough to pause between the 'box and behemoth frames solely for that option.

  36. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,905
    I went for the Lunchbox mainly because of the various shock options and I like a 150mm rear hub spacing. This is the first "production" Lunchbox that has had room for piggyback shocks.

  37. #187
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    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
    It depends on your definition of "mud" and "massive". Where I live mud clearance is unimportant, in that if it's wet enough to be muddy, you simply can't ride--the bike (ANY bike) packs up within 10' of leaving pavement, and you're done.

    That said, I'm running Minion DHF 2.5's on 35mm wide Derby rims. At least 6mm clearance at any given point, more in some places. Hans Dampf's are substantially smaller volume-wise, so I'd guess you'd have 8-9mm of clearance, minimum.

  38. #188
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,002
    I've been able to get 5 solid rides in on this bike in the last ~10 days.Not as much as I'd like, but it beats a sharp stick in the eye.As anyone might expect when looking at a geo chart for this chassis, it is *sporty* when descending, and rewards a rear-wheel-heavy riding style.By that I mean if you can sit back and manual, or at least unweight and loft the front when things get chunky, you will be richly rewarded.But that's not, to me, the real beauty of this sled.What the overall package does when pointed up is truly groundbreaking, at least where I live and ride.Pulling the rear wheel that little bit more under your CoG makes a tremendous difference in traction.In short, if you can maintain good left/right balance *and* keep the pedals turning, you've got a fighting chance at making it up stuff you probably never have before.And then, of course, once you're up there you get to come ripping back down…I finished a ~6 hour ride last week with a sore throat--from making moto noises all day long…
    Last edited by mikesee; 03-04-2015 at 05:20 AM.

  39. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,017
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    It depends on your definition of "mud" and "massive". Where I live mud clearance is unimportant, in that if it's wet enough to be muddy, you simply can't ride--the bike (ANY bike) packs up within 10' of leaving pavement, and you're done.

    That said, I'm running Minion DHF 2.5's on 35mm wide Derby rims. At least 6mm clearance at any given point, more in some places. Hans Dampf's are substantially smaller volume-wise, so I'd guess you'd have 8-9mm of clearance, minimum.
    Well we're talking clay clagged chainstays and an extra 10lbs + of weight added to the bit on an average winter ride. Clearance is massively important.

  40. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/rQg7ko8D91Q56I2MlmHPn5BwdAAQH5ysi3U6JKwTWgQ?feat=e mbedwebsite"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-jvs61fZPLV0/UnM4p5EBi8I/AAAAAAAAlrA/tqvHNPt4PMI/s800/PA060574.jpg" height="454" width="800" /></a>
    Hmmmm...Prenup? Impressive...


  41. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wobbem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    563
    And slowly the myth that short chain stayed bikes can't climb loses credibility.

  42. #192
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    Hmmmm...Prenup? Impressive...
    Mack Ridge coming up from Troybuilt. New favorite climb in the valley.

  43. #193
    Pick a wheel size...
    Reputation: jimithng23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    482
    Incredible shots and amazing riding, Mike.

    After a loooooong week of work, I'm really really REALLY needing a ride on this rig!

  44. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,312
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Mack Ridge coming up from Troybuilt. New favorite climb in the valley.
    Looking forward to your next film showing you motoring up that insanity. If I didn't know better, I'd say you staged those photos. Incredible stuff.

  45. #195
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Looking forward to your next film showing you motoring up that insanity. If I didn't know better, I'd say you staged those photos. Incredible stuff.
    What I would give to have the motor I had 10 years ago with this bike, now.

    <sighs>

  46. #196
    Pick a wheel size...
    Reputation: jimithng23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    ...With the 6's, the pedaling performance suffers a tad, as expected, but more plush on the chunk...
    Would I be correct in assuming that when you swap to the 6's you must also install a longer stroke shock?

    I may be interested in this as well as the 160 air sleeve for my Pike - the idea of having "2 different bikes in one" appeals to me........

  47. #197
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by jimithng23 View Post
    Would I be correct in assuming that when you swap to the 6's you must also install a longer stroke shock?

    I may be interested in this as well as the 160 air sleeve for my Pike - the idea of having "2 different bikes in one" appeals to me........
    Here's how it breaks down:

    LunchBox = 200 x 51mm stroke shock w/6" levers.
    Behemoth = 200 x 51mm stroke w/5" levers.

    Geometry and intent of each bike aside, the main difference is the levers giving a different total travel. So you can swap the levers to get 5 or 6" depending, with no need to change the shock or stroke.

    In an effort to dot every i and cross every t, I experimented this spring with a few 200 x 57mm shocks using 5" levers. That combo gives a *very* firm top end, with good mid stroke support and a beautiful ramp to bottom. Makes this chassis feel very efficient, and more or less begs for a stand-and-deliver climbing style. Peeps coming from shorter travel bikes or living in less chunky regions might really like this setup. Living where I do, I disliked the loss of small bump sensitivity relative to the 'normal' (200 x 51 w/6" levers) LunchBox setup.

    But I love that if the mood strikes or if I'm roadtripping to someplace very different from my normal environs, a lever or shock swap can completely morph the demeanor of the bike.

  48. #198
    Pick a wheel size...
    Reputation: jimithng23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    ...But I love that if the mood strikes or if I'm roadtripping to someplace very different from my normal environs, a lever or shock swap can completely morph the demeanor of the bike.
    Exactly.

    So no need for different shock if I swap to 6" levers...perfect.

    Yes, I'm in love with the efficiency of this chassis with the 5" levers. Kept up with the "fast group" on the local XC loop with no problems - in fact, I found myself rolling them up when the trail would point down...pretty damn fun.

    So, when my compass points W next fall, I'm hoping to have the 6" levers and a 160 air sleeve in the toolbox. ;-)

  49. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Here's how it breaks down:

    LunchBox = 200 x 51mm stroke shock w/6" levers.
    Behemoth = 200 x 51mm stroke w/5" levers.

    Geometry and intent of each bike aside, the main difference is the levers giving a different total travel. So you can swap the levers to get 5 or 6" depending, with no need to change the shock or stroke.

    In an effort to dot every i and cross every t, I experimented this spring with a few 200 x 57mm shocks using 5" levers. That combo gives a *very* firm top end, with good mid stroke support and a beautiful ramp to bottom.

    --snippage--
    Very cool!

    So, this combo of 5" rockers plus 57mm shock gives 6" of travel, but with a different leverage curve than the 'standard' 6" set-up? Or is the travel still 5"?

    My new 'box is on order. This thing sounds perfect for the mess o' wet chunk hereabouts.

  50. #200
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoWheelMan View Post
    So, this combo of 5" rockers plus 57mm shock gives 6" of travel, but with a different leverage curve than the 'standard' 6" set-up? Or is the travel still 5"?
    I think that combo gives more like 142 or so millimeters. Can't tell the difference in total travel, but the character of the bike sure changes.

Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What bike got you started????
    By eddievettelt1 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 12-20-2013, 02:46 AM
  2. If you started riding a bike to lose weight...
    By muddytire in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 01-01-2013, 12:04 PM
  3. Getting Started....Buy the bike...What to buy?
    By mrbmeisen in forum Bikepacking and Bike Expedition
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-11-2012, 06:30 PM
  4. Getting started. What should I do with my bike?
    By ncologerojr in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-04-2012, 04:15 PM
  5. Good bike for getting started?
    By bgowland in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-29-2011, 08:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •