Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    93

    High standover on 2005 Coilers??

    I basically spent the winter dreaming about buying a new 2005 coiler. SO about a week ago I head to my LBS to try one out and maybe put some $$$ down on it. So I ride it around the lot and it rides great....but I'm disturbed by the lack of standover, enough that I'm not sure if I could make myself buy one or not. I rode an 18" Giant AC in 2003 with tons of standover room, but the 17" coiler I rode literally had no standover...the toptube was in my crotch when I stood over the bike. (Im about 5'11 with about aq 3" inseam) Has anyone else experienced this same problem?? if so does it ever bother you when riding?? The guys at the shop, some of whom own the same bike say that they have the same problem but that it isn't a big deal....but I'd like some more opinions since this is a bike that I'll likely be using for risky riding where falling will be likely and frequent.

    This whole situation is making me consider a Gemini just so I won't need to worry about my nutz...but then I don't think a gemini pedals as well.....

  2. #2
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,244
    If you fall off of something big an extra inch or two of stand over will not make much difference.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    46
    I have a 2005 Coiler dee lux and noticed the same.
    The problem is due to an extremely high bottom bracket (about 1.5 inches higher than the 13.7 inches stated from Kona).
    I don´t understand why they didn´t keep the 2004 Stinky geometry, which was awesome (compared to that now)

    What pissed me off was the response of Kona to my email, regarding the discrepancy. They told me the bb height stated by them was with 25% sag calculated "to give a real world measurement". I never heard of that! Why 25%, not 30 or 20% ?
    As for this weirdness, i cannot recommend buying the bike.

    I was worried of a "tippy" feel while riding, but it wasn´t a problem.
    In the end, i just rode the bike with a much lower fork (steepening the headangle, of course), and it was ok, but i´m not really happy about it.

  4. #4
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,244
    Quote Originally Posted by POCaHunter
    ...The problem is due to an extremely high bottom bracket (about 1.5 inches higher than the 13.7 inches stated from Kona).
    ...I don't understand why they didn't keep the 2004 Stinky geometry, which was awesome (compared to that now)...
    Huh?
    I just measured the BB ht on my '05 Coiler DL: 13.7", as claimed, no sag.

    The '04 Stinky and Coiler have different geometry.
    The '05s have been adjusted for the longer travel plus the new Stinkys have much lower TTs than the '04s.

    I bought a '05 Coiler BECAUSE of the geometry. I do not feel comfortable on any of the Stinkys.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    93
    So is the top tube lower on the 2004 Stinky?? The shop I'm planning on buyign from has a 2004 stinky in stock too, but I didn't test ride it because I assumed it would have even less standover height.

    So you're not having any problems with the ride height of your Coiler Shiggy?

  6. #6
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiggy
    So is the top tube lower on the 2004 Stinky?? The shop I'm planning on buyign from has a 2004 stinky in stock too, but I didn't test ride it because I assumed it would have even less standover height.

    So you're not having any problems with the ride height of your Coiler Shiggy?
    Top tube and standover of the '05 Stinky is much lower than the '04 Stinky.

    The '05 Coiler is also slightly lower than the '04 Coiler.

    The '04 Stinkys are the tallest of the bunch. The '05 Stinkys the lowest.

    The Stinkys are too short in the cockpit for me. I can not balance on them well. Standing I feel like my feet are in front of me and I am doing a pull up on the bars.

    I have no problem with the ride height of my Coiler DL. I like bikes with high BBs. My Matt Chester XC/trail hardtail has a 13" high BB. When I am on the Coiler the BB is actually lower than the Chester.

    If you mean high standover, I do not even notice it.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Huh?
    I just measured the BB ht on my '05 Coiler DL: 13.7", as claimed, no sag.

    The '04 Stinky and Coiler have different geometry.
    The '05s have been adjusted for the longer travel plus the new Stinkys have much lower TTs than the '04s.

    I bought a '05 Coiler BECAUSE of the geometry. I do not feel comfortable on any of the Stinkys.
    Well maybe our frames differ in that matter, but my BB is still tall (about 14.5") with a manitou firefly 04 installed, wich is about 2,5" lower than the 66. Maybe mines an old frame (=04 coiler) where longer shockplates have been installed, screwing up the geometry?

    I know that the '04 Stinky and Coiler are different frames, but the 04 stinky and the 05 Coilers have the same suspension travel, and i thought before having my weird geometry, id rather have the geometry of the 04 Stinkys

  8. #8
    SMR
    SMR is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    156

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by Twiggy
    I basically spent the winter dreaming about buying a new 2005 coiler. SO about a week ago I head to my LBS to try one out and maybe put some $$$ down on it. So I ride it around the lot and it rides great....but I'm disturbed by the lack of standover, enough that I'm not sure if I could make myself buy one or not. I rode an 18" Giant AC in 2003 with tons of standover room, but the 17" coiler I rode literally had no standover...the toptube was in my crotch when I stood over the bike. (Im about 5'11 with about aq 3" inseam) Has anyone else experienced this same problem?? if so does it ever bother you when riding?? The guys at the shop, some of whom own the same bike say that they have the same problem but that it isn't a big deal....but I'd like some more opinions since this is a bike that I'll likely be using for risky riding where falling will be likely and frequent.

    This whole situation is making me consider a Gemini just so I won't need to worry about my nutz...but then I don't think a gemini pedals as well.....
    I don't notice the top tube height when I ride and I've never landed on the top tube when I've crashed on any bike. I can usually get the bike out from under me. I love the bike, my only problem is that my old knees get sore when I do long climbs. It's a super fun bike to ride, I think you would like it a lot if you got one.

  9. #9
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,244
    Quote Originally Posted by POCaHunter
    ... but the 04 stinky and the 05 Coilers have the same suspension travel, and i thought before having my weird geometry, id rather have the geometry of the 04 Stinkys
    Should have done your homework. Same travel does not equal same geometry.

    Also, a shorter fork lowers the BB.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Should have done your homework. Same travel does not equal same geometry.

    Also, a shorter fork lowers the BB.
    WTF?
    Look, Shiggy, i bought the bike (Coiler Dee Lux 2005, 17", in that champagne color you have also) in December 04, assuming it would have a nice geometry with a low BB (comparable to an 04 stinky). Sadly, i noticed an extremely high bottom bracket. When Kona came with their geometry chart in about Feb05, i noticed the discrepancy, mailed to Kona and got disapointed once more.
    I then installed a fork which was way lower than the 66, in order to get the BB down, understand? Still, the BB is higher (14,5") than stated, and i said it was ok, but not superb to ride.I do not need you to explain to me that a shorter fork lowers the BB.
    Now, im happy for you that your bike fits to what Kona says, but mine does not. So even if the geo chart would have been available before i bought the bike (allowing me to do my homework), the weird geometry (along with the discrepancy) would still be there!
    The only thing i did wrong is that i trusted in Kona and did not measure the BB ht in the shop.

  11. #11
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,244
    Quote Originally Posted by POCaHunter
    WTF?
    Look, Shiggy, i bought the bike (Coiler Dee Lux 2005, 17", in that champagne color you have also) in December �04, assuming it would have a nice geometry with a low BB (comparable to an 04 stinky). Sadly, i noticed an extremely high bottom bracket. When Kona came with their geometry chart in about Feb�05, i noticed the discrepancy, mailed to Kona and got disapointed once more.
    I then installed a fork which was way lower than the 66, in order to get the BB down, understand? Still, the BB is higher (14,5") than stated, and i said it was ok, but not superb to ride.I do not need you to explain to me that a shorter fork lowers the BB.
    Now, im happy for you that your bike fits to what Kona says, but mine does not. So even if the geo chart would have been available before i bought the bike (allowing me to do my homework), the weird geometry (along with the discrepancy) would still be there!
    The only thing i did wrong is that i trusted in Kona and did not measure the BB ht in the shop.
    Something is definitely strange here. My bike is exactly on spec and is from the first production run (I got it in February).
    I have also had the '05 bike specs since October '04 (in the '05 catalog).

    As for doing your homework, I was refering to this:
    ...I know that the '04 Stinky and Coiler are different frames, but the 04 stinky and the 05 Coilers have the same suspension travel, and i thought before having my weird geometry, i'd rather have the geometry of the 04 Stinkys
    If you wanted Stinky geometry you were not going to find it on a Coiler.

    You can not assume.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15
    There is an article in the new Mt Bk Action that put my Dee Lux worries to rest for good. They say throw out everything you've ever heard about standover height. An inch is fine on todays bikes. Don't remember all the finer points, but check it out for yourself. I've had no problem what so ever with my 05 17" coiler dee lux. I'm 5- 9 with longish legs.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    93
    Thanks everyone, I think I probably will end up going with the coiler as I had originally planned. I may actually be getting a job at the shop that I'm planning on buying from, in which case I may upgrade to a sherman anyways for the added adjustability. That way if I found the standover to be a problem maybe I could just lower the front end on technical trails. Thanks again!

    Twiggy

  14. #14
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiggy
    ....a sherman anyways for the added adjustability. That way if I found the standover to be a problem maybe I could just lower the front end on technical trails...
    I doubt it that would be worth the expense. Compressing my fork 2" lowers center of the TT less than 1".
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  15. #15
    PUNKROCKER!
    Reputation: overkillphil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    43
    If you are concerned with lowering the bike for climbs, why not go with the Z1 FR ETA? It's as strong as the 66 without the height, has similar internals, and is 2lbs lighter. As for size, they are alot more compact than last year. Just got my 20" Deluxe (I'm 6' 6") and it's great. If the top tube worries you too much, buy a Roach Rally TT pad (use XL) they fit like a charm.
    TOP OF THE MORNIN TO YA!
    To the wee little BAS$@#DS, I say POGUE MAHONE!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-29-2008, 07:33 AM
  2. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 07-30-2005, 08:11 AM
  3. blast from the past, cut/paste from archived MTB DOC posts
    By ashwinearl in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-09-2005, 09:47 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-30-2005, 10:00 PM

Posting Permissions

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