Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10

    kona kilauea vs kona kahuna

    I am trying to make up my mind and am looking for all kinds of advice! First of all check out the Kona Kilauea I have. I am wondering if the fork is too long for it? maybe I should get a new stem to make up for the added fork length? I read that suggestion to someone else whos fork is too long for their kilauea somewhere on this forum.

    there is a kahuna full suspension being sold locally that I am considering for $475 it has a couple of upgrades (rear disk).

    Really I am not sure if I need a full suspension...But I am interested in one, and if my current fork doesnt work right on the Kilauea all the more reason. If I do get the Kahuna I will put the rigid fork back on my kilauea, and use it more as a commuter, and put the Marzocchi EXR Pro on the Kahuna

    I like to fly over rough terrain and do small drops 1-2 ft (but I plan on working my up to bigger and bigger drops eventually.) and my bike needs to be able to get me out to the trails which are pretty far from home without wearing me out. Not really an issue but its my excuse for avoiding a dh at this point. Also I am a beginner to intermediate rider and I do not think the trails warrent a dh around here.

    Any thoughts? Do you see any major flaws in my kilauea setup or the notion of puting the EXR on the Kahuna?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails kona kilauea vs kona kahuna-bike.jpg  

    kona kilauea vs kona kahuna-kona-kahauna.jpg  

    Last edited by moss84; 03-15-2011 at 01:56 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    542
    I have also replied to your other thread, but I would say the Kahuna may well be the better bet for the kind of riding you do.

    I have seen on here sometimes (back in the days when Joe and Tech used to post on this board) that Tech would say that with a very long fork, the changes in angle when it compressed in an extreme load situation could be more than the head tube welds were designed to withstand. I guess he may have been defending Kona against warranty claims, because I recall Joe being much more laid back about it. Nevertheless, it may be something to bear in mind. Frames are much heavier now than they were back in 93 because of the greater stresses that they are put under.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Anthony you did a great job explaining this to my feeble little mind I'll have to wait and see if this guy gets back to me about the Kahuna then throw the rigid fork back on my kilauea..which is actually a broadie and slightly longer than the original p2s.

    If he doesn't get back to me I will definitely try a shorter 60mm stem, theres a good chance that the kilauea is the right choice for most if not all my riding. I originally exaggerated the hight of drops I do. I like biking on rough track a lot however, hell if I keep them both then I got options...and can always sell the weaker link. I should probably get a new stem before I make up my mind on the Kilauea.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10
    on the other thread anthony wrote. "With all due respect to sxr-racer, setting excessive sag will just make the fork perform worse than its optimum, so it will harm the handling more than help it.

    The fork is certainly a lot longer than the frame was designed for and possibly too long. However I am currently running my 96 Explosif with a 100mm Float and the handling is great with a short stem. This is the arithmetic:

    1. The Float is 475mm from centre of axle to crown race and I run the standard 25mm of sag, so the sagged length of the fork is 450mm.
    2. The frame is designed for a 410mm rigid fork, so the Float is effectively 40mm longer than the frame was designed for.
    3. Say the frame was intended originally for a 120mm stem, you take one for one off that
    4. So for a 40mm longer fork, you need an 80mm stem, which is what I'm using.

    I find the handling just right with this combination, really sharp but not too twitchy. It isn't my idea - Kona did something very similar on their hardtails when they went first to 80mm and then to 100mm forks, and lots of other makes do much the same. A long fork slows the handling down, a short stem speeds it up.

    In your case, the arithmetic is slightly more extreme because your 93 frame was designed for a 390mm fork. So if you were running my fork on it, you would need something like a 60mm stem. That would give you good sharp handling, but would it make the bike too short for you? That could be the limiting factor. But I would certainly recommend that you try a shorter stem to see whether you prefer the handling with it."



    I am wondering if removing some spacers would make any difference to this equation?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by moss84
    I am wondering if removing some spacers would make any difference to this equation?
    If you mean internal spacers in the fork, I don't think you can do that with an EXR. If you mean the spacers under the stem, they wouldn't change the head angle or handling - it's the height of the base of the head tube that determines the head angle.

Posting Permissions

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