Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 301 to 400 of 490
  1. #301
    PCT
    PCT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Look a my picture, blue bike, frames are already available.

    FYI, Kona is going direct, dealers are not pleased.
    Yeah MSH, I am in the Denver area too. Spoke with Pedal Pushers in Golden about 4 weeks ago and they said they could get frames, that may have changed since. Ended up ordering online from Bikeman, they are really nice folks and should have some in stock.

  2. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebeat007 View Post
    Those running 29+, how much room in the sliders is there to adjust for Singlespeed use? Thanks.
    Plenty of room with a Minion 29 +, the tire is rideable slammed, but not in the mud. You have a big 1/2" for adjustment.

  3. #303
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Look a my picture, blue bike, frames are already available.

    FYI, Kona is going direct, dealers are not pleased.
    My post you are referencing is from January when it was the 2017 green. I bought a complete bike a couple days after that post, but thanks anyways

  4. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by MSH View Post
    My post you are referencing is from January when it was the 2017 green. I bought a complete bike a couple days after that post, but thanks anyways
    And no pics?

  5. #305
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    And no pics?
    Post 201 page 3 from ride in Crested Butte. Pretty much stock build(other than upgrading the anemic stock brakes with some XT's, Lev dropper, 50mm stem, & i35 to run 29+), so nothing exciting enough to post more than the front end in that pic

  6. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Still looking to sell my 2017 Large Wozo frame AND Bluto RC3 1200mm fork.

    I will seperate if need be, but right now I'd like to sell them as a package.

    Make me an offer, consider the cost of shipping in the deal, some places (Alaska) are pricey.

    A new Kona Wozo frame is $800 plus tax.

  7. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    708
    Anybody with a new BLUE Wozo, I want to buy your stock saddle!

    Send me a PM!

  8. #308
    PCT
    PCT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    158
    Installing a RaceFace NextSL cinch crankset. Can anyone recommend the proper spacer configuration for best chainline?

  9. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    I think the spacers are 2mm: two spacers non drive, one spacer drive. 6mm offset chainring (boost)

    Quote Originally Posted by PCT View Post
    Installing a RaceFace NextSL cinch crankset. Can anyone recommend the proper spacer configuration for best chainline?

  10. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Looks like the 2018 frames are going quick, the time to get one is now, otherwise it'll be another season on a Farley or some other boat anchor ...

    I can package the frame with a Bluto RC3 120mm fork. Will also sell any of the above seperately. (Mastodon is sold).

    PM with questions, offers, etc.

    The snow is coming!
    Last edited by Nurse Ben; 10-09-2017 at 09:12 PM.

  11. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    Has the BB changed from 2017 to 2018. Kona webpage states PF92 for one and PF121 for the other. Trying to figure if I can reuse either RF Turbine or Sram GXP cranks on the wozo frame and if so which BB I'd need.

  12. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    No change. I have both years, switched parts from a 2017 to a 2018, no issues.

    Of course the baby blue is ugly, but that's just my opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by nathanr View Post
    Has the BB changed from 2017 to 2018. Kona webpage states PF92 for one and PF121 for the other. Trying to figure if I can reuse either RF Turbine or Sram GXP cranks on the wozo frame and if so which BB I'd need.

  13. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    No change. I have both years, switched parts from a 2017 to a 2018, no issues.

    Of course the baby blue is ugly, but that's just my opinion
    Do you know the BB width?

  14. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    and she said: " it's so huge!"

    Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-kimg0522.jpg

    Barbe next to some puny Minion 3.8s

    Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-kimg0309.jpg

    Clearance is fair, 3/8", plenty for snow and sand, which is my go to for these wheels

    Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-kimg0207.jpg

    Bontragger Barbe 27.5 x 4.5 on Jackalopes, DT 350 hubs with 54t poe.

    Thanks to Mikesee for an amazing set of wheels!

    To fit these lovelies I had move the drops all the way back. These are some really tall wheels. Width is about the same as a 4.8 Minion on Large Marge rims, but height is closer to a 29+.

    They ride soooo big, reminds me of my first time on a fat bike. I'm really glad I went down to a medium frame because now I have the standover for monster tires.

  15. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    I swapped the Mastodon EXT Pro for an STD Pro, adjusted the spacers to 140mm, rode it at 140mm, then aired down to 130mm.

    What a great ride, I actually liked the 140mm set up best, did not feel too tall; of course the STD at 140mm is the same as the EXT at 120mm

    Today the Hodags got some trail time, replacing the Minions 3.8. I didn't notice any loss of traction, but the weight loss was obvious.

    Still waiting on 165mm GX Eagle Fat4 to come back into stock, then I'll be ready for Winter.

  16. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanr View Post
    Do you know the BB width?
    121.5. PF92 and PF121 are essentially the same thing. 41mm cups with the last number designating shell width. They probably listed 92 last year since SRAM seems to be the only one actually using PF121 in their product descriptions.

    Has anyone mentioned the fact that the 2018 Wozo is half a degree slacker?

  17. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinkers View Post
    121.5. PF92 and PF121 are essentially the same thing. 41mm cups with the last number designating shell width. They probably listed 92 last year since SRAM seems to be the only one actually using PF121 in their product descriptions.

    Has anyone mentioned the fact that the 2018 Wozo is half a degree slacker?
    I don't think it's slacker, the frames are identical; got both years in my garage. Kona rep said no changes.

    They made a mistake or they corrected for some variable like tires or suspension.

    Of course I'm running 130-140mm, so mine is fairly slack; rides great slack

  18. #318
    PCT
    PCT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    158
    Rides great with Fox 34 Boost Plus set at 140mm. Lots of room for 26x4.0. Gonna try 27.5x3.8 next, then maybe 29+. And a Mastodon Pro 120 on deck for winter. Very fun bike.

    Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-wozo_2.jpg

  19. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    708
    Interesting. I'm going strictly off of the geometry charts from both years. I may have to check with my rep because now I'm curious.

    I put a Fox 140 on my new frame running 29+ exclusively. Couldn't be happier.

  20. #320
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinkers View Post
    Has anyone mentioned the fact that the 2018 Wozo is half a degree slacker?
    It's because on the '17 they are calculating geom with a 511mm A2C on fork length and on the '18 they are using 521mm, so yeah same geom at the end of the day

  21. #321
    strider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    69

    STD version limitations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    I swapped the Mastodon EXT Pro for an STD Pro, adjusted the spacers to 140mm, rode it at 140mm, then aired down to 130mm.
    NB, I imagine that the STD version will not handle the 27.5x4.5 BGazis?
    thanks, R

  22. #322
    PCT
    PCT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    158
    Who has put Minion 27.5 x 3.8 FBF/FBR on Scraper 50mm rims? Fit is tiiiight, took me like an hour to get one on. Bead won't set well, and it'd be a nightmare changing a flat on the trail. IIRC the Hodags had a similar tight fit. Anyone have relevant experiences or advice?

  23. #323
    strider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    69

    FBF/FBR on 50s

    I have that exact set-up and love it right now for shoulder season and big gnar rides. In my case, I would have to say that the 'fit' of the FBF/FBRs on the Scraper 50s is one of the things I have liked, because I have been able to mount both of them with just my standard floor pump with out a compressor. I did not notice them being particularly challenging to get on or off. Granted, I usually use a lever for the very last bit of install and at the initial removal process. I have swapped them around a couple of times and could really tell the difference between getting the FBF/FBRs to seat compared to the constant challenges and pains I have had to go through to get Schwalbes seated (both Nobby Nics, less so, and especially Rocket Rons). I think that is largely due to the beefy sidewalls of the FBF/FBRs verses the light but very malleable Schwalbe sidewalls.

    Perhaps, your production round has a tighter tolerance. I got mine about 2 months ago. I think these would also be the ideal bikepacking tires as well , for when riding with heavier loads and ungroomed terrain. I'm going to try them in some snow conditions this season as well and see how they compare to a 26x4-4.8 set-up. Cheers, R

    Here's a current photo with them on:Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-img_2040.jpg

  24. #324
    strider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    69
    I tried everything to upload the photo right way up, but to no avail.

  25. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Fits, but tight, 1/8 of crown clearance. Good enough for me

    I had planned to reduce travel by 10mm, but it's not necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by rvercoe View Post
    NB, I imagine that the STD version will not handle the 27.5x4.5 BGazis?
    thanks, R

  26. #326
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Fits, but tight, 1/8 of crown clearance. Good enough for me

    I had planned to reduce travel by 10mm, but it's not necessary.
    If you have the 27.5 Barbegazis on there and still have clearance then I'm thinking I may be ok with my 29+ Chupa set up on i35s with the 120 STD for my Wozo. I think the OD on both those tires are near identical (765-770)? I really want to go with the STD vs the EXT to maintain a reasonable A2C and I don't want to change travel from 120 to 110. I've been waiting to hear if others have been successful running the 120STD with Chupas but other than the "the mayor" stating he had 1/2" of clearance in the main Mastodon thread I haven't seen anyone else confirm if the Chupas will fit.

  27. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Yes, add a 10mm spacer to limit travel on the STD and you still have 140mm travel. Even with 20mm spacers you have 130mm travel.

    [QUOTE=MSH;13381846]If you have the 27.5 Barbegazis on there and still have clearance then I'm thinking I may be ok with my 29+ Chupa set up on i35s with the 120 STD for my Wozo. I think the OD on both those tires are near identical (765

  28. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by PCT View Post
    Rides great with Fox 34 Boost Plus set at 140mm. Lots of room for 26x4.0. Gonna try 27.5x3.8 next, then maybe 29+. And a Mastodon Pro 120 on deck for winter. Very fun bike.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Wozo_2.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	182.1 KB 
ID:	1162516
    PCT can you post pics? I tried a Hodag 3.8 on a Duroc 50. It was a no go on my 2018 fox boost 34+ fork.

  29. #329
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by MSH View Post
    If you have the 27.5 Barbegazis on there and still have clearance then I'm thinking I may be ok with my 29+ Chupa set up on i35s with the 120 STD for my Wozo. I think the OD on both those tires are near identical (765-770)? I really want to go with the STD vs the EXT to maintain a reasonable A2C and I don't want to change travel from 120 to 110. I've been waiting to hear if others have been successful running the 120STD with Chupas but other than the "the mayor" stating he had 1/2" of clearance in the main Mastodon thread I haven't seen anyone else confirm if the Chupas will fit.
    It fits, but it's tight, so to be safe you should add a 10mm spacer to limit travel. It will still be capable of being set at the A-C you want, but you won't use all the travel; 140mm will only yield 130mm, etc...

    Does this make sense to folks? It seems like there is confusion and I'm not sure why...

    The two forks have the same travel, but the EXT is longer in air shaft by 20mm, so the A-C is increased by 20mm. This additional fork length is not reducible.

    You can limit compression travel on the STD by adding spacers, this does not increase A-C, but you lose the same amount of travel that you limit.

    It's kinda the same thing in the end, but if you don't need an additional 20mm of clearance, then the STD is the better choice.

    A 765 barely clears on an STD, so safety consideration would dictate the addition of a 10mm spacer to limit travel. If you want 120mm of travel, you'd set the fork for 130mm travel, so A-C is increased by 10mm.

    Remember the shock pump trick to adjust travel/A-C, very simple trick.

  30. #330
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Does this make sense to folks? It seems like there is confusion and I'm not sure why...
    .
    It makes complete sense. No confusion here....I get it, but if I can buy the STD and not have to f**k with it out of the box it's preferable, hence my question when you indicated the 27.5 Barbegazis fit fine.

  31. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by MSH View Post
    It makes complete sense. No confusion here....I get it, but if I can buy the STD and not have to f**k with it out of the box it's preferable, hence my question when you indicated the 27.5 Barbegazis fit fine.
    Oh, I understand, taking apart forks is time I don't have. I'd like to the Mastodon come in length options, but it ain't gonna happen at the current price points.

    A shop should be able to do it for $50.

    I had an EXT, sold it because there is no reason to get one unless you're running the tallest tires AND you want 140-150 travel.

    I'm running Barbes with a stock STD set
    at 140mm, no limiting spacers. I have a fender which will definitely ground out if I use all the travel, so I'll probably add a 10mm travel limiting spacer. But I'm not in a hurry

  32. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Where are you guys buying your forks? Was gonna get on from world wide cyclery. Great price with a 20% off discount code but they are out of stock.

  33. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by mxer View Post
    Where are you guys buying your forks? Was gonna get on from world wide cyclery. Great price with a 20% off discount code but they are out of stock.
    From them

    Got one a couple weeks ago, great price, fast shipping.

  34. #334
    PCT
    PCT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by mxer View Post
    PCT can you post pics? I tried a Hodag 3.8 on a Duroc 50. It was a no go on my 2018 fox boost 34+ fork.
    Minion FBF 27.5 x 3.8 on Scraper 50mm rim. Probably not more than 3.5 inches wide. Oodles of clearance on Fox 34 Boost Plus fork. I'd guess about 0.4 inches all around. There are several different SKU's for the Fox forks and it can be confusing...

    Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-20171028_115134.jpg

    A few rides in on the B-fat Minions (dry conditions) and from initial impressions I prefer the 26x4.0 Van Helga combo. FBF/FBR on Scrapers is probably lighter and more nimble but has a rounder profile and different rubber compound that affects handling. Further testing required. Honestly I need to air them down and go smash some stuff but the Minions are so tight on the Scrapers it'd take a half hour to change a pinch flat. Maybe swap back in a 27.5x3.0 rear.

    Gonna try 29+ next or some mullet combo, wondering if it'd be good for go-fast. Would not want to raise the bb much though.

  35. #335
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,307
    Quote Originally Posted by PCT View Post

    A few rides in on the B-fat Minions (dry conditions) and from initial impressions I prefer the 26x4.0 Van Helga combo. FBF/FBR on Scrapers is probably lighter and more nimble but has a rounder profile and different rubber compound that affects handling.
    Depending on what rims you have the Van Helgas on, that might not be the case on weight. The B Minions are heavy!!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  36. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    I have a set of 27.5 x 3.8 Minions for sale, rear has one sidewall patch that is fine tubeless, front is in great shape. Sell em for a song, send a pm.

  37. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by PCT View Post
    Minion FBF 27.5 x 3.8 on Scraper 50mm rim. Probably not more than 3.5 inches wide. Oodles of clearance on Fox 34 Boost Plus fork. I'd guess about 0.4 inches all around. There are several different SKU's for the Fox forks and it can be confusing...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20171028_115134.jpg 
Views:	50 
Size:	76.1 KB 
ID:	1164465



    A few rides in on the B-fat Minions (dry conditions) and from initial impressions I prefer the 26x4.0 Van Helga combo. FBF/FBR on Scrapers is probably lighter and more nimble but has a rounder profile and different rubber compound that affects handling. Further testing required. Honestly I need to air them down and go smash some stuff but the Minions are so tight on the Scrapers it'd take a half hour to change a pinch flat. Maybe swap back in a 27.5x3.0 rear.

    Gonna try 29+ next or some mullet combo, wondering if it'd be good for go-fast. Would not want to raise the bb much though.
    I definitely do not have the correct sku! Is your fork a 2018? Which sku is yours? Think i can just purchase the lowers from that sku? Thanks PCT!

  38. #338
    PCT
    PCT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    158
    Something like this, I think? https://www.probikesupply.com/produc...a-factory-fork

    Mine is from 2016, can't remember where I bought it. Stanchion clearance is massive, I have fit a 4.6 Flowbeist in there. IDK if you could retrofit new lowers in yours, probably would need the proper crown etc.

    It's a very capable fork and fits a wide variety of tire sizes. Good down to about 15-20 degrees. Hoping the Mastodon has significantly better cold-weather performance.

  39. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by PCT View Post
    Something like this, I think? https://www.probikesupply.com/produc...a-factory-fork

    Mine is from 2016, can't remember where I bought it. Stanchion clearance is massive, I have fit a 4.6 Flowbeist in there. IDK if you could retrofit new lowers in yours, probably would need the proper crown etc.

    It's a very capable fork and fits a wide variety of tire sizes. Good down to about 15-20 degrees. Hoping the Mastodon has significantly better cold-weather performance.
    Awesome! Thank you PCT! Actually want to run the Hodag 27.5x3.8 on front of my full suspension plus bike i bought last week.

    Been on an upgrade frenzy lately! LOL Bought a leftover 2016 Farley 5. Already have a mastodon 120 comp on the way too for it.

  40. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by PCT View Post
    Something like this, I think? https://www.probikesupply.com/produc...a-factory-fork

    Mine is from 2016, can't remember where I bought it. Stanchion clearance is massive, I have fit a 4.6 Flowbeist in there. IDK if you could retrofit new lowers in yours, probably would need the proper crown etc.

    It's a very capable fork and fits a wide variety of tire sizes. Good down to about 15-20 degrees. Hoping the Mastodon has significantly better cold-weather performance.
    Is 140mm the max travel on that fork? I'd like 160mm, any way to get more travel?

  41. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Is 140mm the max travel on that fork? I'd like 160mm, any way to get more travel?
    I think you need to step up to a Fox 36 for 160mm travel. The 34 only seems to be available up to 150. This according to there web page on the 34.

  42. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by mxer View Post
    I think you need to step up to a Fox 36 for 160mm travel. The 34 only seems to be available up to 150. This according to there web page on the 34.
    Not helpful, won't fit fat tires.

  43. #343
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Not helpful, won't fit fat tires.
    Correct! At least you now know the 34 is only available with a 150mm air shaft.

    Unless of course i am missing something. You could always reach out to Fox.

  44. #344
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    The Mastodon is so good, I'd only consider going to a Fox if the travel was greater than 150mm.

    I'd have to rebuild wheels or build boost front wheels to swap between bikes.

  45. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    The Mastodon is so good, I'd only consider going to a Fox if the travel was greater than 150mm.

    I'd have to rebuild wheels or build boost front wheels to swap between bikes.
    I hear that. On e of the joys of trying different stuff all the time. I start to think i am done and i wind up starting all over again thinking i can find something better. LOL Love this hobby!

    Took a chance and ordered the fox 34 that PCT linked to. Fingers crossed it is the correct one.

  46. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    The Mastodon is so good, I'd only consider going to a Fox if the travel was greater than 150mm.

    I'd have to rebuild wheels or build boost front wheels to swap between bikes.
    Nurse Ben, since you have quite a bit of experimentation with mastodon am i correct in thinking my 26x4.7 barbes will fit in the STD model?

  47. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    113

    Help me understand geometries

    Moved!

  48. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    113
    Edit: Already found the answer!

  49. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Kona designed for a short chainstay, so they bent the seat tube and used a low profile chainstay yoke. Kona likes long and low geometry, not all consumers like that design. It's not about sizing, it's about fit.

    Ventana designs for a more upright riding position, so their bikes are shorter in the front triangle. Ventana chainstays are longer, but not out of the norm for a fat bike. The Gordo has a substantial yoke and a less bent seat post.

    Standover matters, so I'd look at that closely when deciding on a frame you cant try first. I typically ride a large frame, but on the Wozo I dropped down from a large to a medium due to standover and reach. The Wozo also has a low bb, so it benefits from taller wheels.

    STA matters if you want shorter chainstays and less reach change when dropping your seat. a steeper STA generally leads to a long front end to compensate.

    HTA is personal preference, slacker HTA reduces reach and typically leads to a longer front end.

    Personally, I like the El Gordo, I owned a Ventana's tandem fat which is based on the El Gordo, Sherwood makes a high quality product. If I was to purchase an El Gordo, it'd be a custom geo, short chainstays, steeper STA, slacker HTA, and maybe a pinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Estuche View Post
    This might seem silly to y'all experienced builders, but I cannot wrap my head around the fact that brands like Kona can come up with frames like the Wozo with a TT length of 630mm and call it a medium, whereas for example, Ventana has el Gordo with a TT length of 588mm.

    What should I pay attention to? Is it the ST angle, HT length? Is it the fact that the Kona uses a larger diameter tire front vs. back? Please help me understand a bit of frame design.

    Kona:
    KONA BIKES | MTB | FATBIKE | Wozo

    Ventana:
    http://www.ventanausa.com/images/bik...art-090517.pdf

  50. #350
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Maybe, I have tight clearance on a Barbe 4.5, the 4.7 is taller, but you could probably get by with adding a 10mm spacer; worse case a 20mm spacer. This is the grey area, your choice is your own, I'm just another cubicle jockey

    Quote Originally Posted by mxer View Post
    Nurse Ben, since you have quite a bit of experimentation with mastodon am i correct in thinking my 26x4.7 barbes will fit in the STD model?

  51. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Kona designed for a short chainstay, so they bent the seat tube and used a low profile chainstay yoke. Kona likes long and low geometry, not all consumers like that design. It's not about sizing, it's about fit.

    Ventana designs for a more upright riding position, so their bikes are shorter in the front triangle. Ventana chainstays are longer, but not out of the norm for a fat bike. The Gordo has a substantial yoke and a less bent seat post.

    Standover matters, so I'd look at that closely when deciding on a frame you cant try first. I typically ride a large frame, but on the Wozo I dropped down from a large to a medium due to standover and reach. The Wozo also has a low bb, so it benefits from taller wheels.

    STA matters if you want shorter chainstays and less reach change when dropping your seat. a steeper STA generally leads to a long front end to compensate.

    HTA is personal preference, slacker HTA reduces reach and typically leads to a longer front end.

    Personally, I like the El Gordo, I owned a Ventana's tandem fat which is based on the El Gordo, Sherwood makes a high quality product. If I was to purchase an El Gordo, it'd be a custom geo, short chainstays, steeper STA, slacker HTA, and maybe a pinion.
    Thanks, this helps a lot, so if I wanted a more upright position, but still have some of the playfulness of short stays, what would that custom geo look like? In other words, if I wanted to fushion the Wozo and Gordo, could I just add some of the Wozo specs like those you mention (chainstays, ST and HT angles) and keep the rest as is? Or are there other considerations to keep in mind for the perfect hybrid?

  52. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    I can't tell you what you want, body type, riding position, riding style, terrain, these are all rider specific. I own a Wozo medium and a Fatillac large, the bikes are very different, but I like them both.

    If you want a more compact design with short chainstays, the Lenz Fatillac has that geo, maybe look at what Devin builds.

    If you want to pay for custom geo, like a Level 2 El Gordo (~$1500), I'm sure Sherwood would work with you, but it'll probably take a few months. Waltworks will also build you a sweet custom. Custom costs more and takes time.

    The easiest and cheapest fix with winter pending is to build a bike with an existing frame that is close to fitting your needs, then ride it and decide for yourself what you'd do different if you were the builder. Then order your custom frame, swap frames, and sell the production frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Estuche View Post
    Thanks, this helps a lot, so if I wanted a more upright position, but still have some of the playfulness of short stays, what would that custom geo look like? In other words, if I wanted to fushion the Wozo and Gordo, could I just add some of the Wozo specs like those you mention (chainstays, ST and HT angles) and keep the rest as is? Or are there other considerations to keep in mind for the perfect hybrid?

  53. #353
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Maybe, I have tight clearance on a Barbe 4.5, the 4.7 is taller, but you could probably get by with adding a 10mm spacer; worse case a 20mm spacer. This is the grey area, your choice is your own, I'm just another cubicle jockey
    Thank you NB. Not bad for a cubicle jockey. LOL Lets see what i come up with.

  54. #354
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Just placed an order for a frame only, we shall see.

    Edit, now kinda worried after reading that a 4.6 Dunderbeist on a 90 might be a little tight on the back?

  55. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114
    It might be close depending how large the tires actually run. Here's my frame with an Edna 4.3 on an 80SL (measuring 108mm @ 20psi):

    Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-edna-wozo-435.jpg

  56. #356
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Might be tight, worse case scenario you rebuild with a narrower rim or step down to a slightly narrower tire. I ran a 4.8 minion on a 65mm large marge and it was fine. From memory you have space for 110mm depending; 106-107mm on my Minions left ample room for mud and snow.

    Great frame!

    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Just placed an order for a frame only, we shall see.

    Edit, now kinda worried after reading that a 4.6 Dunderbeist on a 90 might be a little tight on the back?

  57. #357
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Might be tight, worse case scenario you rebuild with a narrower rim or step down to a slightly narrower tire. I ran a 4.8 minion on a 65mm large marge and it was fine. From memory you have space for 110mm depending; 106-107mm on my Minions left ample room for mud and snow.

    Great frame!
    I am right at 110mm with my Beist on 90's so might work for snow?? Ben do you have any knob to downtube clearance issues with your Mastodon?

  58. #358
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Large frame had lots of clearance, medium frame has enough clearance (5mm or so), I believe the small frame interferes.

    I think you'll be fine on those tires, though you'll have to play around with drop out placement to get the tire in the right placement.

    I'm running 130-140mm travel depending on my mood, so easy to change travel. No longer using an angleset.

    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    I am right at 110mm with my Beist on 90's so might work for snow?? Ben do you have any knob to downtube clearance issues with your Mastodon?

  59. #359
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114
    Agree that at 110mm you should be ok if that is widest point / knob-knob; the Edna is stretching to within a mm or so of that.

    My medium Wozo shows about the same 5mm clearance between the down tube and the Mastodon that Ben is seeing.

    I'm guessing it would be possible to gain some downtube clearance using the Salsa Cane Creek +3 40mm Crown Race that Salsa had made for Bluto compatibility with some of their frames.

  60. #360
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Thanks David.p, any complete pics of your ride yet??

    Kinda nervous about giving up my ti frame for the WOZO but needed some change. That and I now have a bike park in my backyard so I'm hoping for a bike I can still hit some jump lines with when I go out with the kids for a mellow ride.

  61. #361
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Thanks David.p, any complete pics of your ride yet??
    Not yet but hopefully this time next week - parts are still trickling in.

  62. #362
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Hey could someone with a medium measure the inside of the triangle from the bottom of the top tube to the bb shell (straight line don't worry about the curved seat tube) and along the bottom of the top tube between the seat tube and where the down tube and top tube come together up by the head tube. Just a rough measurement is fine, trying to figure out if my frame bag will fit. Thanks!!

  63. #363
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114
    I measured roughly 19"x10"

  64. #364
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Quote Originally Posted by david.p View Post
    I measured roughly 19"x10"
    Thanks man!!

  65. #365
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    113
    If using a 27.5 x 3.8 (~750mm) is it really possible to keep the shortest chainstays (420mm), if not, what is the approx. length when using say a Hodag or Minion? I'd really like to know please answer

    Edit: the answer is yes based on early posts, my bad!

  66. #366
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    My frame only didn't come with anything to mount the cable for the internal dropper, whatcha all using??

  67. #367
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    My frame only didn't come with anything to mount the cable for the internal dropper, whatcha all using??
    A rigid post :P

  68. #368
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    My frame only didn't come with anything to mount the cable for the internal dropper, whatcha all using??
    These aluminum cable guides from Paragon that dustyduke22 recommended here--> Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!

    They are clean solution and work really well. I bought the CC4111's here---> CC4111 - Aluminum Cable Clamp 4.2 mm Housing

  69. #369
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    I got some stick on cable guides, work fine.

    You can also hit up Home Depot/Lowes and get some cable hold downs, they have a hole that can be enlarged to fit on the existing bosses.

    Yeah, I'm not sure what Kona was thinking...

    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    My frame only didn't come with anything to mount the cable for the internal dropper, whatcha all using??

  70. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    402
    So I became really interested in Wozo due to it's Geo. I prefer high stack and long reach in addition to slack HTA and steep STA. After a quick glance at the geo charts listed on their website I was blown away and ready to order. The more I looked at the chart the more it just didn't add up. A 657mm stack and 510mm reach on the XL while still having a 74.5 STA was amazing. Then I noticed they were claiming a 521mm fork length, but I thought I read it came stock with a 100mm Bluto. I know the Bluto usually measures around 483-486mm with 20% sag based on on the rigid fat forks. So in reality with this bike at 20% it sits:
    HTA: 70 degree
    STA: 76
    BB height: 11.5" BB
    Stack: 641 (16mm lower)
    I calculated this using a possible un worthy application so you engineers please correct any or all mistakes I made....I'm hoping I'm wrong!
    So after my disheartening observation I'm down from my high and back to reality. In hope I was wrong I called KONA directly and they confirmed the Geo Chart for the WOZO was static un-sagged. I did some more calculations and figured I would have to run a 140mm Mastodon to achieve the geo numbers listed on their website. I'm think 140mm is a lot of extra travel I don't need for a winter only bike. Someone out there please tell me all the above info is incorrect! Actually it's kind of a win win. Either I get a sweet new fatty or save money by riding the current one in the stable.

  71. #371
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,307
    It’s correct, your money is safe.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  72. #372
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    69 deg HTA with a 100mm Bluto, JJ 4.8 front/JJ 4.0 rear. So real life might be 69.25deg.

    Bump the fork to a Mastodon 140mm like I'm running and you get close to 67deg, which I can confirm by eyeball with my Fatillac which is also 67deg.

    If the Wozo sucked and the geo was as you predict, no one on this thread would be riding one and certainly no one would be using it as a measure for modern fat bike geo.

    I'm on my second one. I consider it a hard tail version of my Fatillac, though a bit more stretched and lighter weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by jpfurn View Post
    So I became really interested in Wozo due to it's Geo. I prefer high stack and long reach in addition to slack HTA and steep STA. After a quick glance at the geo charts listed on their website I was blown away and ready to order. The more I looked at the chart the more it just didn't add up. A 657mm stack and 510mm reach on the XL while still having a 74.5 STA was amazing. Then I noticed they were claiming a 521mm fork length, but I thought I read it came stock with a 100mm Bluto. I know the Bluto usually measures around 483-486mm with 20% sag based on on the rigid fat forks. So in reality with this bike at 20% it sits:
    HTA: 70 degree
    STA: 76
    BB height: 11.5" BB
    Stack: 641 (16mm lower)
    I calculated this using a possible un worthy application so you engineers please correct any or all mistakes I made....I'm hoping I'm wrong!
    So after my disheartening observation I'm down from my high and back to reality. In hope I was wrong I called KONA directly and they confirmed the Geo Chart for the WOZO was static un-sagged. I did some more calculations and figured I would have to run a 140mm Mastodon to achieve the geo numbers listed on their website. I'm think 140mm is a lot of extra travel I don't need for a winter only bike. Someone out there please tell me all the above info is incorrect! Actually it's kind of a win win. Either I get a sweet new fatty or save money by riding the current one in the stable.

  73. #373
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    If the Wozo sucked and the geo was as you predict, no one on this thread would be riding one and certainly no one would be using it as a measure for modern fat bike geo.
    I never said the actual geo sucked, it's just not as attractive as what they posted on their website.

  74. #374
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by jpfurn View Post
    So I became really interested in Wozo due to it's Geo. I prefer high stack and long reach in addition to slack HTA and steep STA. After a quick glance at the geo charts listed on their website I was blown away and ready to order. The more I looked at the chart the more it just didn't add up. A 657mm stack and 510mm reach on the XL while still having a 74.5 STA was amazing. Then I noticed they were claiming a 521mm fork length, but I thought I read it came stock with a 100mm Bluto. I know the Bluto usually measures around 483-486mm with 20% sag based on on the rigid fat forks. So in reality with this bike at 20% it sits:
    HTA: 70 degree
    STA: 76
    BB height: 11.5" BB
    Stack: 641 (16mm lower)
    I calculated this using a possible un worthy application so you engineers please correct any or all mistakes I made....I'm hoping I'm wrong!
    So after my disheartening observation I'm down from my high and back to reality. In hope I was wrong I called KONA directly and they confirmed the Geo Chart for the WOZO was static un-sagged. I did some more calculations and figured I would have to run a 140mm Mastodon to achieve the geo numbers listed on their website. I'm think 140mm is a lot of extra travel I don't need for a winter only bike. Someone out there please tell me all the above info is incorrect! Actually it's kind of a win win. Either I get a sweet new fatty or save money by riding the current one in the stable.
    Sorry, but I can't stop laughing after hearing this. Nurse Ben has taken every opportunity to ridicule anyone who choses to ride a bike with greater than a ~67 degree headtube angle, regardless of their local conditions or handling preferences. Yet, without using an angleset (see his post above), even with a long-ish 140mm Std Mastodon at 20% sag, he's been running a 69 degree HTA all along on his Wozo...or more. Ben, I feel bad for you -- you've been suffering with a non-modern geometry bike and didn't even know it! And if you've been running the Mastodon at 130mm of travel (again see post above), your suffering has even been worse!

  75. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    69 deg HTA with a 100mm Bluto, JJ 4.8 front/JJ 4.0 rear. So real life might be 69.25deg.

    Bump the fork to a Mastodon 140mm like I'm running and you get close to 67deg, which I can confirm by eyeball with my Fatillac which is also 67deg.

    If the Wozo sucked and the geo was as you predict, no one on this thread would be riding one and certainly no one would be using it as a measure for modern fat bike geo.

    I'm on my second one. I consider it a hard tail version of my Fatillac, though a bit more stretched and lighter weight.
    Sorry, you can "eyeball" all you want, but your folly has been exposed!

  76. #376
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    708
    Wait, you mean manufacturers aren't listing geometry at sag? Shocking.

    The Wozo up next to most(all?) other hardtail fat bikes still has more progressive geometry. Even compared to most hardtails in general, it's difficult to find that many that have a listed head angle slacker than 69* (that's static. I guess that needs to be stated now).

    To claim that you need to run a 140mm fork to match the geometry on the website is simply wrong. You'd match the geometry on the website *sagged*, but you'd still be adding 30-40mm of A-C, so it wouldn't 'match'.

    If Kona lists 68.5* with a 521mm fork, my Fox 140 at 547mm should sit just north of 67* static. I don't see what's wrong with Ben's numbers (though I hate to admit it {Hi Ben! }).

    I personally don't pay a ton of attention to stack when looking at geometry, but I can say that my bars (large frame) sit 2" higher than a similarly setup XL Santa Cruz High Tower LT.

  77. #377
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinkers View Post
    Wait, you mean manufacturers aren't listing geometry at sag? Shocking.
    You could be right about manufactures not listing geo charts at sag. I know it's not done on FS bikes since the front and rear essentially both sag not affecting the static geo angles. Same goes for rigid bikes of course, but HT's sag on the front end only can dramatically change geo.

    I've been riding Beargrease's for a couple years now and know they list their geo charts based on a 100mm Bluto at 25% sag. Not sure what other companies do with their HT's. I've been comparing all other options against the sagged BG charts which I now realize takes some extra math.

    Either way, all that matters is that it feels right on the trail. I know that I'm attracted to the short chainstays, steep STA, and high stack on the Wozo. The problem for me is to justify a new build I'm not willing to go to a even lower BB and steaper HTA then my BG's 68.5 HTA. So according to Kona and apparrently other manufactures standard static measuring my BG actually rocks a 66.83 HTA... sweet!

  78. #378
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    402
    Correction... I just went back and looked up the "static" A2C on 100mm Bluto and it's listed at 511mm on SRAM's and Salsa's website. The Wozo static geo chart is based on a fork with a 521mm even though it states it comes stock with a 100mm Bluto. So it seems they fluffed the HTA, stack, and BB height with a additional 10mm up front. So while the other numbers may seem progressive in reality it has one of the steepest STA's on the market😂. To make things even worse, it comes stock with a 4.8 up front and 4.0 out back. So if you ever decide to run equal size tire's front and rear it steepens up even more! Good thing the extremely steep STA allows the option to run a 40mm longer travel fork! Still hope I'm wrong, but find it pretty funny till proven otherwise.....

  79. #379
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    So, JP had a brain fart, we all good now?

    Seriously, you all need to ride more and read less. The buyer’s constipation around this place is amazing.

    The only way to avoid having your HTA steepen when you ride a bike is to run rigid or run full suspension. I figured that was common sense, but this is the era of new populism 😂

    Enjoy that super slack Beargrease, I don’t miss mine one bit.

  80. #380
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,307
    The Wozo has forward thinking geometry and is a welcome addition to the other fat bike geometries out there (especially the long reach and short chainstays). That said, it's not a slack frame. Companies like Surly and Salsa list their geometry at the rigid fork length, which just happens to also be the sagged fork length for the designed suspension fork length for said frame. I'm glad Kona brought the Wozo out, I just wish it had a 68.5 HT angle at SAG. I spent some time on a Honzo myself. It was a fun frame, but I had to run a 140mm fork on it to make it enjoyable.
    I was on a Singular Puffin frame when the Wozo was released. At first I got excited and thought it was the perfect replacement to keep shorter stays and go a tad slacker, until I realized the geometry was unsagged.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  81. #381
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114
    Finished my build and got a shakedown ride in this morning. Can't wait to get more ride time in.

    Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-gr001-3598_wozo-1024.jpg

    Frame: Medium
    Fork: Manitou Mastodon Comp Std 120mm
    Headset: Cane Creek 40 ZS Tapered
    BB: Race Face BB86/92, press fit, 41mm diameter, 24mm spindle
    Crankset: Race Face Aeffect Fat Bike crank, 170mm arm x 170mm and Race Face Cinch spider 104/64 bcd
    Chainring: Wolftooth Drop-Stop Powertrac 30t 64bcd
    Bash Guard: BBG 32t 104bcd
    Shifter: Shimano SLX SL-M7000 11sp
    Rear Der: Shimano SLX RD-M7000 11sp GS
    Cassette: Shimano SLX M7000 11sp, 11-46t
    Chain: KMC X11.93
    Brakes: Shimano BR-M615 Deore
    Rotors: Shimano XT SM-RT76 6 bolt, 180mm/160mm
    Wheels: SUNringlé Mulefut 80SL wheelset
    Tires: Maxxis Minion FBF 4.8 120tpi DC/EXO; Surly Edna 4.3 60 tpi
    Pedals: Race Face chester
    Seat Post: Oval M750 31.6 x 400mm
    Saddle: WTB Pure V
    Handlebar: Jones H-bar
    Stem: RaceFace Evolve 70mm

    Kona Wozo Review: 420mm chainstay, runs 29+ to 26 x 4.8!-gr001-3600_wozo-1024.jpg

  82. #382
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    So, JP had a brain fart, we all good now
    I'm confused, which part of the previous statements were a brain fart? I backed up all my thoughts with data provided by Kona and Rockshox. Please be more specific Nurse Ben. Also, I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to get the real numbers on the Wozo. The only person I'm remotely attacking is the one published the Wozo geo chart. If you love the bike that's all that matters. It seems clear you didn't love it in it's stock geo setup either, hence the massive fork and I thought I read you had a list of other things you'd change. Not everyone is willing to throw a 40mm longer fork on a brand new bike just to make it capable for their trails. Ignorance is bliss, just go ride and stop reading if this is bothersome... cheers!

    Side note: I never said my BG is super slack. However I do know it is a true 68.5 at stock form and a lot more slack then the Wozo sadly😩

  83. #383
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Call Kona directly if you need more clarification.

    Quote Originally Posted by jpfurn View Post
    I'm confused, ...

  84. #384
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Ya gonna extend that fork a bit? the Comp will go to 140mm.

    Once you have the extra travel you can adjust travel by shock pump. Nice to have options.

    I end up leaving mine at 140mm, though a few times after adjusting pressure I didn't extend the fork fully and ended up with less

    Quote Originally Posted by david.p View Post
    Finished my build and got a shakedown ride in this morning. Can't wait to get more ride time in.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GR001-3598_wozo-1024.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	230.6 KB 
ID:	1166546

    Frame: Medium
    Fork: Manitou Mastodon Comp Std 120mm
    Headset: Cane Creek 40 ZS Tapered
    BB: Race Face BB86/92, press fit, 41mm diameter, 24mm spindle
    Crankset: Race Face Aeffect Fat Bike crank, 170mm arm x 170mm and Race Face Cinch spider 104/64 bcd
    Chainring: Wolftooth Drop-Stop Powertrac 30t 64bcd
    Bash Guard: BBG 32t 104bcd
    Shifter: Shimano SLX SL-M7000 11sp
    Rear Der: Shimano SLX RD-M7000 11sp GS
    Cassette: Shimano SLX M7000 11sp, 11-46t
    Chain: KMC X11.93
    Brakes: Shimano BR-M615 Deore
    Rotors: Shimano XT SM-RT76 6 bolt, 180mm/160mm
    Wheels: SUNringlé Mulefut 80SL wheelset
    Tires: Maxxis Minion FBF 4.8 120tpi DC/EXO; Surly Edna 4.3 60 tpi
    Pedals: Race Face chester
    Seat Post: Oval M750 31.6 x 400mm
    Saddle: WTB Pure V
    Handlebar: Jones H-bar
    Stem: RaceFace Evolve 70mm

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GR001-3600_wozo-1024.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	229.7 KB 
ID:	1166547

  85. #385
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Call Kona directly if you need more clarification.
    I just got off the phone with Kona and they saw the discrepancies in the Geo chart. He looked up the geometry from the previous year and it shows the Bluto correctly at 511 mm. He told me he's going to reach out to the engineer for the Wozo and get back to me.

  86. #386
    strider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    69
    An angleset headset took any worries away and added a plethora of geo options. The external lower cup added 8-10mm of extra height (stack) and the +/- 1.5 degree of adjustability let me get a silly 66.75 upto a 69.5 HA running a 120mm Bluto.

  87. #387
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Overkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    402
    So does the Wozo pretty much have to run a suspension fork? Looking at the required A-C of at least 511mm and even accounting for sag, I'm don't think a rigid fork would have a long enough A-C. Longest I've seen are 485 or so.

    Any one running one rigid? Sorry, I skimmed the thread but didn't see anyone.

  88. #388
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Ya gonna extend that fork a bit? the Comp will go to 140mm.
    Maybe. I also have a skinny-tired, full suspension 27.5 that is 140mm front and back and I'm not sure I need/want 140mm on a fatty/29+ hardtail. I do plan on swapping spacers around to add 10mm of crown height at 120mm. But yes it's nice to have options.

  89. #389
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Overkill View Post
    So does the Wozo pretty much have to run a suspension fork? Looking at the required A-C of at least 511mm and even accounting for sag, I'm don't think a rigid fork would have a long enough A-C. Longest I've seen are 485 or so.

    Any one running one rigid? Sorry, I skimmed the thread but didn't see anyone.
    It's designed for a suspension fork. You can run rigid (I've seen a few between this and another Wozo thread) but the HTA will steepen and the BB will come down.

    Still, I'm considering a rigid to swap in at times. Longest rigid fork I've seen is 490mm a-c on a Brontrager Haru or RSD carbon. The 483mm Salsa/Surly forks are next. Salsa Cane Creek +3mm crown race (or an angleset headset) will add a few millimeters.

  90. #390
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Overkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    402
    OK, so I'm not off base here - it really is a frame intended for suspension. Thanks for the info.

  91. #391
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    No such thing as a frame designed for suspension other than a full suspension bike. Any bike can be run rigid, More importantly, what is the A-C around which the frame is designed.

    The Wozo geo specd on their website is based on a 100mm travel suspension fork like the Bluto, which with sag works out to the same as what you should expect from a rigid fork, maybe a tad steeper HTA by 0.5 deg.

    In other words, don't worry about it, just run rigid.

    Of course, I think you should run a 140mm travel Mastodon, well, at least 120mm

    Quote Originally Posted by Overkill View Post
    OK, so I'm not off base here - it really is a frame intended for suspension. Thanks for the info.

  92. #392
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Just ordered the tool kit to extend my Mastodon to 140. Main reason I purchased this frame was for the head angle but my "old school frame" is slacker. Fairly disappointed in the geo chart being off, thanks JP for doing the legwork.

  93. #393
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Just ordered the tool kit to extend my Mastodon to 140. Main reason I purchased this frame was for the head angle but my "old school frame" is slacker. Fairly disappointed in the geo chart being off, thanks JP for doing the legwork.
    Wozo HTA stock build with a 100mm Bluto, 4.0/4.8 tires, is 69 deg.

    Wozo with a 120mm fork ~ 68 deg HTA

    Wozo with a 140mm fork ~ 67 deg HTA

    If you want to run a shorter fork and have a slacker HTA, then use an angleset.

    Nothing has changed.

  94. #394
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    402
    So I finally had a chance to talk to the engineer that was in charge of the Wozo. We both pulled the geometry chart up and I addressed my concerns about the fork length stated was 521mm when in actuality he the Bluto is 511 mm without sag. He agreed the 521 mm was incorrect and not sure why the chart changed from the previous year using the correct 511 mm Bluto. After talking for a bit he admitted that the original plans were to build the Wozo around a 521mm fork. Somewhere the ball was dropped in communication. Stocking the bike with a 4.8 upfront and a 4.0 in the rear was bandaid for the HTA mistake. He suggested a head cup spacer and a 120 Bluto for the desired 68.5 HTA. He said he was going to update the Geo chart on their website ASAP.
    So no, this bike was not intended to run a rigid fork unless you could come up with a custom 521 mm fork. I run the Bontrager Haru fork which is 491mm I believe. Running that fork would steepen the HTA and lower the bottom bracket well beyond most riders comfort level.
    I told them that riders are throwing on a 140 mm fork to improve the geometry. He thanked me for my feedback and asked that I keep in touch. I may have to wait out till next year to see if they update the frame.
    Nurse ben, I hope you didn't buy a newer Wozo based off of the newer geo charts. The frame geometry did not change.

  95. #395
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Wozo HTA stock build with a 100mm Bluto, 4.0/4.8 tires, is 69 deg.

    Wozo with a 120mm fork ~ 68 deg HTA

    Wozo with a 140mm fork ~ 67 deg HTA

    If you want to run a shorter fork and have a slacker HTA, then use an angleset.

    Nothing has changed.
    Really no big deal but it did change things. I was hoping on running a 120mm fork would put me @ 67.5 deg but now I need to go to 140mm to get there. And no way can I run my rigid 491mm fork this winter which is about equivalent to a 100mm Bluto plus sag which I thought the frame was built around. My mistake for not taking the difference size tires into the equation but I'm guessing the frame wasn't built around that in the first place.

    Like I said no big deal I will deal with it and I'm sure it will be a rad bike but....... Plus I will lose needed standover. I'm sure it will be fine in the end.

  96. #396
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by jpfurn View Post
    So I finally had a chance to talk to the engineer that was in charge of the Wozo. We both pulled the geometry chart up and I addressed my concerns about the fork length stated was 521mm when in actuality he the Bluto is 511 mm without sag. He agreed the 521 mm was incorrect and not sure why the chart changed from the previous year using the correct 511 mm Bluto. After talking for a bit he admitted that the original plans were to build the Wozo around a 521mm fork. Somewhere the ball was dropped in communication. Stocking the bike with a 4.8 upfront and a 4.0 in the rear was bandaid for the HTA mistake.
    Nice work and thanks for sharing this. I will say the danky ganj up in WA must be off the charts. I'm not tracking how these guys/gals at Kona go to production on a bike in their lineup without dottin' the i's and crossin' the t's? Then they have to resort to the 4.8/4.0 to fix it LOL.
    Whatever the case I still love this thing. Shakedown ride today with the new Mastodon at 130 was sweet!

  97. #397
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Quote Originally Posted by david.p View Post
    Finished my build and got a shakedown ride in this morning. Can't wait to get more ride time in.

    Sweet whip btw!!

  98. #398
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    A Wozo with 120mm fork and 68 deg is pretty close, same as a Honzo.

    Just get an angleset, they work fine, I've run them on tandems, fat bikes, and FS bikes.

    I highly recommend setting your Mastodon at 140mm, then use a shock pump to reduce to 120-130mm. You might find that 140mm is sweet.

    The tire size difference maybe changes the HTA by 0.25 deg, not significant.

    You guys are going way overboard, there is nothing new here.

    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Really no big deal but it did change things. I was hoping on running a 120mm fork would put me @ 67.5 deg but now I need to go to 140mm to get there. And no way can I run my rigid 491mm fork this winter which is about equivalent to a 100mm Bluto plus sag which I thought the frame was built around. My mistake for not taking the difference size tires into the equation but I'm guessing the frame wasn't built around that in the first place.

    Like I said no big deal I will deal with it and I'm sure it will be a rad bike but....... Plus I will lose needed standover. I'm sure it will be fine in the end.

  99. #399
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    A Wozo with 120mm fork and 68 deg is pretty close, same as a Honzo.

    Just get an angleset, they work fine, I've run them on tandems, fat bikes, and FS bikes.
    I like the works components headsets myself.

  100. #400
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    708
    I've run my Wozo with both a Carver Popeye and Carver XC490 fork (both are 490mm) and had no issues. I loved the bike and only put a 140 on to change things up a bit (which ultimately I'm glad I did).

    Every frame was designed with a particular setup in mind, I don't know why that automatically means deviating from that setup is out of the question. I understand that you steepen the bike a bit, and that you'll lower your bottom bracket. But people invest way too much time/effort into theorizing how something may or may not ride. If you want to ride the Wozo rigid, do it. You can easily find a rigid fork that is an appropriate A-C (balls to whether Kona designed the bike around a 120 fork or not, they're selling it with a 100mm Bluto and half-assed workaround with the tires). A 483-490 fork will be plenty close to the stock feel of the bike, and if you're that worried, continue with a 4.0/4.8 setup.

    I agree that the Beargrease is more slack. Cool deal since I thought it was 69. Go figure. Still, static it'd be 67.5-68*. No idea where you're getting 66.83 from. To go along with this though, if you want to compare geometries the Wozo still has a steeper seat tube angle, shorter chainstays, and longer top tube.

    That said, I seriously think you guys are overthinking this and the Wozo is indeed progressive for a fat bike.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I got my Kona Wozo
    By OfficiallyColin in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 181
    Last Post: 05-01-2017, 08:58 PM
  2. Kona Wozo
    By nitrousjunky in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 12-30-2016, 05:46 AM
  3. Kona Wozo frame only option?
    By Nurse Ben in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-30-2016, 04:41 PM
  4. Help with my first bike - KONA WOZO or KONA BIG HONZO DL??
    By stew1818 in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-19-2016, 02:43 PM
  5. Kona wozo
    By stew1818 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-15-2016, 02:43 PM

Members who have read this thread: 417

Posting Permissions

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