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.
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.
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
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
With the 5 inch rockers on the 'Box, they pedal very similar. The Rip has a very active suspension on the trail, as does the Box. I honestly would put them pretty even overall, but the inch that has been chopped off the chainstay on the Lenz really puts it in another league. You just can't ignore it. Even if it pedaled noticeably worse I would deal with it just to have the geometry of the Lenz. It just does everything better. The Box just climbs and climbs and climbs up rough terrain with gobs of traction.
I will say that I'm a huge fan of the Rip RDO even still, but it wasn't in the same category anymore. If I hadn't ridden the Lunchbox I'd probably still be very satisfied with the Rip RDO, but as it stands it was hard to go back to longer chainstays.
If you can't get your hands on a new Lunchbox, the Niner would still be my #1 recommendation.
I have no experience on a RIP RDO however, I can contribute my opinion and findings, with relevancy, of the new Box to the old...
In the first ~10 hours and ~50 miles I've cleared obstacles and sections of trail -- mostly ledgy climbing and gnarly uphill root gardens -- that gave me fits on my previous Box. The bike makes things borderline easy.
Colin, and others here speak the truth when they say "gobs of traction" when climbing.
1. You won't see a Lenz review in MBA or the like...
2. Won't ever a see an "ad" for one
3. Most people will have never heard of it
4. It's unapologetically un-carbon
5. It doesn't have any cute acronyms or "technology"
6. The Website is...well, dated is a nice way to put it
Point is, this is mountain biking. It is supposed to be raw, ugly, utilitarian, rough, manly, tough etc etc etc. It's a tool, not jewelry. Use that MF'er.
Because of this I have the say that my Lenz is the definition of a "mountain bike".
In the past 4 years I've only seen one other Lenz in person, a Leviathan, and the guy riding it was pleased as punch.
I really think that we all get caught up in the details and the newest, latest and greatest that we miss the boat somewhat. I'm totally guilty of this.
This bike isn't flashy but it is by far the best bike I've ever ridden. The funny part is that it has it all, even more than the latest and greatest.
Bottom line is that this bike is FUN. Remember that word? Isn't that why we all do this in the first place?
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
15.4M posts
515.2K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!