Results 1 to 68 of 68
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    104

    Unit/Explosif geometry changes.

    Has anyone noticed that the geometry foor these frames has changed over the last three years...at least according to Kona's geometry tables? The one thing that has got me most curious is that the head tube angles have been slackened from 70.5-71 in 2003 to 68.5-69 in 2005.

    Anybody know why this is?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Everyone runs longer forks. A slacker headtube will make up for the difference, and keep the steering responsive.
    That's about it...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe - Kona
    Everyone runs longer forks. A slacker headtube will make up for the difference, and keep the steering responsive.
    That's about it...

    Does that mean that the 68-69 degree angles are measured with a longer fork (eg. 100mm) as opposed to the standard 80mm fork?

    Thanks.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    104

    I still don't get it...

    The Explosif and Unit are designed with an 80mm fork in mind and have been for some time, right? The geometry charts show 70-71 degree headtubes two years ago and now they are 68-69. If you put a longer (100mm) fork on that frame it will slacken the head angle even further. The more slack the head angle...the slower the steering. It seems that if they were trying to compensate for people putting longer forks on this frame they would have made thehead tube angle steeper not slacker.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Clanky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    I think in the past two years that 100mm has become more of the standard for forks, even on hardtails. Kind of like in the 1990's when 80mm replaced the more common (at the time) 65-70mm.

  6. #6
    If you have to ask...
    Reputation: miles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    658

    I'm with Allroads on this one

    If a longer fork will make a given bike handle lazier, why slacken the head angle to exxagerate the effect?

    miles
    It's 7:09 California time

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GearHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,008

    Just a bad deal now

    Im not sure about the Unit/Explosif, but I has rode the last couple of years Kikapu's. The did the same thing. In '04 models they just took old frames which were designed for 80 mm forks and put on 100 mm forks while leaving the rear travel alone (3"). The bikes now do not work as cross country bikes, yet are way too light to do anything else with them. They repeated this for '05 too.

    What's up with that, surplus of old frames, didn't want to make new jigs and tube cutters?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Gear,
    The Kikapus were 3.5" in the rear, and are 4" in the rear now. And if you haven't ridden one, make sure to. They ride great! I race xc on mine.
    On that note, has anyone on this thread actually ridden one of the new Units or Explosifs? They're really nice riding bikes with good geometry. People online tend to think that a half degree is some super-noticeable thing, and something without really understanding the true math behind it.
    Could you imagine if the Stinkys and Coiler had 71 degree head angles? Since they have such long travel forks, shouldn't it even be steeper, in your estimation?
    My Unit has a 100mm fork, and feels anything but slack.

    Joe.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GearHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,008
    Joe,

    I believe some of what you are saying but it is vastly exagerated and not totally accurate. If I put a 100 mm fork on a bike instead of a 80 mm fork, on lets say a medium size frame. This will decrease the head tube angle approximately 1 deg. You will gain back very little of that is static sag since you would run that type of bike with about 20 % sag. And yes, I do understand there will be a larger amount of effective sag when you are actaully riding a 100 mm vs a 80 mm fork. My bad on the rear suspension travel and not elaborating completely, but now with the increased rear travel won't that just create even more slackening of the head tube angle as the back end sags more? Isn't it true that most FS bikes increase the rear and front suspension at a simialr rate, therefore you would want to maintain the same head tube angle for the bike to handle the same?

    If riders asked for a different head tube angle, I can understand that. I just don't like how it rides now!

    I would also argue that you CAN notice a difference in 1/2 deg head tube angle change. I have a TALAS fork and when you change the travel, it changes the feel of the bike. I also understand that some of the noticed change is due to the handlebar being lower at te same time, but not all of it.

  10. #10
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    one more reason not buy a Kona

    the title says it all

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368

    "feel"

    Johnny,
    In your previous posts, you've already proven to have a pretty tenuous grip on suspension design, and and obvious grudge with Kona. I'm sorry that that's the case, but that still doesn't make your case any stronger.

    Gear,
    You can definitely tell a difference in an inch of travel, i agree.
    That's okay about the rear suspension thing, i just wnated to clarify the travel. We've always built balanced bikes, and i agree with you that they need to stay similar, but not exactly the same. I ran my 2004 Dawg Primo with the Talas fork at 5" up front almost all the time, and it rode great, even with an inch less in the rear.
    Now, with 4" and 4" on my King Kikapu, it rides and feels great, nut not necessarily any more balanced than the Dawg Primo did with an inch difference between the front and back.
    With our new design getting 4" of travel, there's not really any more sag than on the previous ones. The shock stroke is different, so it's not really a linear equation comparing the two.
    I was just having a conversation with Dew (our frame designer) about how he can spend all day looking at numbers and charts and computer drawings of frames, but none of it really matters until we get out and ride the prototypes. Some things look pretty simple on paper, but end up working differently in the rear world. This is exactly the case with head tube angles.
    Sorry if i can't allay all of your concerns on head tube angles in my little post here; i've never really been a numbers guy. I hate math, and was an English major, after all! Now, i can talk about "feel" and "soul" and the overall ride quality all day long, but those things don't translate very well, especially on an internet forum, with all the alter-egos and attitudes associated with anonymity.
    On that not, i urge you to ride our bikes. Stack them up against other bikes. If you still don't like what we do, then that's cool, and another bike is definitely best for you. Not everyone needs to ride the same thing. That's what big chains and concept stores are for. If, however, you DO see where we're coming from, then great! We love what we do, and we build things to ride the way we like. Maybe someday we'll have a marketing focus group to tell us what to do, but i really doubt it.
    Cheers,
    Joe.

  12. #12
    LBS Manager
    Reputation: Johnny Hair Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,918

    Feel

    All of my observations were made based on feel not numbers I have spent alot of time on a kikapu and found the only benefit to that design was it was ineficient it made me more physicly fit. But realy if some one likes how any given bike rides for them thats realy all that matters.
    Last edited by Johnny Hair Boy; 01-12-2005 at 07:26 PM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xl_cheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe - Kona
    Gear,
    The Kikapus were 3.5" in the rear, and are 4" in the rear now. And if you haven't ridden one, make sure to. They ride great! I race xc on mine.
    On that note, has anyone on this thread actually ridden one of the new Units or Explosifs? They're really nice riding bikes with good geometry. People online tend to think that a half degree is some super-noticeable thing, and something without really understanding the true math behind it.
    Could you imagine if the Stinkys and Coiler had 71 degree head angles? Since they have such long travel forks, shouldn't it even be steeper, in your estimation?
    My Unit has a 100mm fork, and feels anything but slack.

    Joe.
    So would my 05 unit/explosif be to steep since I have the p2 disc rigid on it? That fork doesn't seem to have any correction on it.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    31

    Do you like the ride w/ the P2?

    Quote Originally Posted by xl_cheese
    So would my 05 unit/explosif be to steep since I have the p2 disc rigid on it? That fork doesn't seem to have any correction on it.

    XL Cheese,

    Do you enjoy the ride of your bike with the P2 fork? I love the way my Unit handles with the P2.

    Happyboy

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    104

    That head tube angle thing.

    Thanks to everuyone for weighing in on this. As the one who started this thread I appreciate it. My concerns about this whole notion of what appears to be geometry changes comes from the fact that I am looking for a new ride. I have never ridden a Kona but I like those that I have seen an fully appreciate the company's history and commitment to high quality bikes. I am interested in a Kona for these reasons and that it fits within my budget.

    So...that said, when I started to investigate further the geometry charts were something I looked at and I just wanted someone to help me understand why the company seems to have changed the numbers this much. Joe, I agree that 1/2 a degree probably isn't much. This is more like 2 full degrees though and I wanted to know if this was a typo on the website or, if not, what the logic behind this change was.

    So far, no one has really been able to explain it. Saying the bike has soul and rides great is fine. The best advice here is to go ride one and see if I like it. The problem with that is that the Explosif/Unit are sold as framesets and the other hardtails are designed around 100mm forks...

    Hey, I'm just being a responsible consumer.

    PG

  16. #16
    If you have to ask...
    Reputation: miles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    658

    I'll weigh in on this, too

    I'm looking to build myself a geared race bike. My last one was a Yeti ARC, which I bitterly regret selling. Anyhow, Yeti's new geometry doesn't suit me as well as their old (2000) did. In Yeti's case, it's top tube length.

    I've been riding and racing mountain bikes for 20 years now, and I have a pretty good idea of what works for me and what doesn't. I like a top tube length of slightly more than 24", which the Yeti no longer has- the nearest is 24.4" and that doesn't make me happy. The Kona that I'm interested in, though, has a 24.2" which is good. However, the angles are very slack, and this is not what I want.

    Reading between the lines, it sounds as if the bike has simply been remeasured, but not changed- that is to say, they slapped a long-@ss fork on it, and it slackened up the angles. They then called out the new numbers as the new geometry.

    The problem with this theory is that 1" of fork height ? one degree of head (and seat tube) angle. To lose two whole degrees (71? to 69?) means removing an 80mm fork and throwing on a 120mm. Now, who would do that on a bike designed and marketed as a lightweight race hardtail?

    So- I guess my question is this: What fork in specific is the Kula designed for? The Deluxe comes stock with a 100mm Fox, so this translates to maybe a 70? head angle with an 80mm fork.
    In any case, I do want to run a 100mm Fox, but I want a bike that doesn't handle like a barge as a result.

    As trivial as one degree sounds, it really does make a significant difference in the way a bike feels.

    miles
    It's 7:09 California time

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    104

    Here is what I have been told...

    Quote Originally Posted by miles
    I'm looking to build myself a geared race bike. My last one was a Yeti ARC, which I bitterly regret selling. Anyhow, Yeti's new geometry doesn't suit me as well as their old (2000) did. In Yeti's case, it's top tube length.

    I've been riding and racing mountain bikes for 20 years now, and I have a pretty good idea of what works for me and what doesn't. I like a top tube length of slightly more than 24", which the Yeti no longer has- the nearest is 24.4" and that doesn't make me happy. The Kona that I'm interested in, though, has a 24.2" which is good. However, the angles are very slack, and this is not what I want.

    Reading between the lines, it sounds as if the bike has simply been remeasured, but not changed- that is to say, they slapped a long-@ss fork on it, and it slackened up the angles. They then called out the new numbers as the new geometry.

    The problem with this theory is that 1" of fork height ? one degree of head (and seat tube) angle. To lose two whole degrees (71? to 69?) means removing an 80mm fork and throwing on a 120mm. Now, who would do that on a bike designed and marketed as a lightweight race hardtail?

    So- I guess my question is this: What fork in specific is the Kula designed for? The Deluxe comes stock with a 100mm Fox, so this translates to maybe a 70? head angle with an 80mm fork.
    In any case, I do want to run a 100mm Fox, but I want a bike that doesn't handle like a barge as a result.

    As trivial as one degree sounds, it really does make a significant difference in the way a bike feels.

    miles

    Hi Miles, I feel your pain (sold my Ibis four years ago and have been kicking myself ever since). Kona ETch told me that the Explosif/Unit are still designed for an 80mm fork...which makes me question the 68-69 degree head tube even more. I do know that they have a new tubeset (Dedaccai) this year as well. My understanding is that the other hardtails are designed for 100mm forks.They also are showing the same slack angles on the gemetry chart.

    https://konaworld.com/2k5_catalog/im...INA_p56-57.jpg

    Don't know what to tell you...The other thing is that when a bike moves through its fork travel the head tube will steepen up.Thing is how much riding are people doing at the bottom of their fork's travel?

  18. #18
    Rollin' a fatty Moderator
    Reputation: DiRt DeViL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,820
    When I purchased my Unit frame I took the time to research on fork travel. Even asked Joe on this forum about voiding the warranty by putting a 100mm fork on a '04 Unit which was designed around a 80mm fork.

    Joe's reply was that the warranty would not be voided by running the 100mm fork. I went ahead and put the fork in and loved the way it handles.

    Lesson learned: Ask before you buy or try stuff if you want the manufacturer to honor the warranty.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    The 2005 Unit head tube angle is 67.5 degrees with 100 mm fork!

    I've taken great care in measuring the headtube angles on my bikes. I measured them with an accurate protractor on a perfectly level surface with no weight on the bike (zero sag). The 2005 Unit is 67.5 degrees with a Fox F100 fork, a 2004 ML7 w/F130 is 69.0 degrees, and a 2003 Truth w/100 mm fork is 71.0 degrees. The Unit definitely feels too slack to me. It is especially noticeable when climbing. The ML7 feels just right as an all-around bike and the Truth has a nice racey feel - both feel very balanced for their intended purpose.

    I will be installing an 80 mm fork soon, but that probably won't even get it to 68.5 degrees. It seems to me that the Unit should be somewhere around 70 degrees w/80 mm fork unsagged.

    If the 2003 Units truly are steeper, I'd be happy to trade frames with someone! I'm serious. Mine is a 19" Radar Green 2005.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    You've got that backwards.

    A longer fork makes the headtube even more slack and the steering even less responsive!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    Backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe - Kona
    Gear,
    Could you imagine if the Stinkys and Coiler had 71 degree head angles? Since they have such long travel forks, shouldn't it even be steeper, in your estimation?
    My Unit has a 100mm fork, and feels anything but slack.

    Joe.
    If they have long travel forks, the head angle needs to be slack so that the head tube angle doesn't get too steep as the fork is compressed. You seem to be thinking about this all backwards!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by B R H
    If they have long travel forks, the head angle needs to be slack so that the head tube angle doesn't get too steep as the fork is compressed. You seem to be thinking about this all backwards!
    BRH, i know. I was making a joke about a previous post. I'm sorry, and i'll do my best not to again.
    Now i need to get back to my protractor.

  23. #23
    Art is Resistance
    Reputation: djcrb9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,376
    BRH, You used a PROTRACTOR? Holy cow, that's really funny. I don't think i've used a protractor since the third grade.
    Know what i did last night? I rode a bike. Then i drank a bunch. At no point in time do my night time (or any time) activities include the use of a protractor. This makes my head hurt. I don't know if it's just the hangover, but i tihnk it's the mental picture of someone taking a protractor and holding it up to a bike. That's awesome!!! I think there was a kid in my grade school whose nickname was protractor boy. I can't really remember for sure, it could have been pocket protector boy, it's been a while. Wow, a protractor. I used to make cool circles when i drew with one.



    "I'm Crazy Protractor Face! I don't believe we've had the honor. My vision is impaired, but I can still see you've got candy."
    Last edited by djcrb9; 01-13-2005 at 09:07 AM.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    Protractor.

    I don't think it's the same type of protractor we all used in grade school. Isn't "protractor" just a generic term for "angle-finder"? How about clinometer? Anyway, the tool I use is made for measuring angles on structures other than paper.

    -Protractor Boy

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    That's a relief. So has the geometry indeed changed?

    I'm still curious if the original poster is correct in stating that the geometry has changed. Are the numbers in the tech sheets for the Unit accurate? I assume they are measured with the stock rigid fork? What is the axle-to-crown measurement on the forks that were used?

    PS. Am I the only one with feet so long that they scrape all the paint off the wider-than-normal chainstays back near the dropouts on the Unit? One ride and it was gone on the left side. How thick is that tubing anyway?

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,591


    Maybe a visual would help?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    104

    Original Poster Here...

    Quote Originally Posted by MMcG


    Maybe a visual would help?

    That is what I have been trying to find out. All I know is that the numbers have changed according to Kona's published data. In 2003 the head angle for a 16" Unit/Explosif was listed at 70.5 and 71 for an 18. The same size frames for 2005 are listed at 68.5 and 69 respectively. I emailed Kona and they said that the bikes are moving into a new niche and are less "race" and more "trail". They also said that the new 2005's were still based on an 80mm fork.I assume that the geometry was measure with an 80mm fork as well but who the hell knows at this point. All I know is that Kona Tech did not dispute the numbers I asked about.

    BTW, they also said that using a 100 would slacken things further and cause "damage to the frame in an impact" due to the thin tubes.

    Happy Trails.

  28. #28
    Rollin' a fatty Moderator
    Reputation: DiRt DeViL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,820

    You're saying that if I crash...

    this beatiful bike will break due to the thin tubes?



    I don't think that a normal crash will break it, I took a nice OTB fall recently and the bike is still going strong.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    104

    No, that is what Kona said.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiRt DeViL
    this beatiful bike will break due to the thin tubes?



    I don't think that a normal crash will break it, I took a nice OTB fall recently and the bike is still going strong.
    Ride what you like.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by allroads
    Ride what you like.
    Allroads, did I or we say that a Unit would break in a crash? IF so, i'm in trouble, i had an awesome crash the other day... the bike didn't break, and luckily, neither did i.
    Where did you get that Kona said that? This one really baffles me....

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    104

    Joe

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe - Kona
    Allroads, did I or we say that a Unit would break in a crash? IF so, i'm in trouble, i had an awesome crash the other day... the bike didn't break, and luckily, neither did i.
    Where did you get that Kona said that? This one really baffles me....

    I have just forwarded me email correspondence with Kona Tech to your address. Hope this helps clear things up. Frankly, I have always liked Kona and regarded youir products highly. I don't personally believe that adding 2cm of fork height will cause a frame to break but I am not a frame builder either. I do think it is cool that you are participating in Kona related issues on this site.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    allroads,
    Thanks for sending the e-mail my way. I answered your message.
    Our tech guy knows more about our bikes than probably anyone i've ever met, but he sometimes doesn't explain his e-mails to the fullest possible extent.
    Yeah, he was 100% right, the tubes on the Unit are thin. They're steel, and steel is thinner than aluminum, or pretty much anything other than Ti. It could break on impact, sure. Any bike in the universe could break on impact. (ie: riding it into a wall) I think that's simply a weakness of bicycles, and the way the front wheel sticks out there a bit.
    To explain to all of you, your Unit or Explosif is no more likely to break on impact (or anything else) than any other bike. Except, of course, for hucking bikes, but that's not really what this is about.
    I have OBVIOUSLY not had near enough coffee yet this morning, so i need to go take care of that, pronto.
    Thanks guys, and thanks, allroads, for mentioning my presence on here. I enjoy and will continue to do so, provided i don't start getting death threats or something.
    cheers,
    Joe.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,591
    I still don't think a clear answer has been given on the changed head tube angle on the Unit or Explosifs

    what fork was used to calculate the slacker HT angle? Was it measured with an 80mm fork or a 100mm fork?

    It's still confusing to me. Because if measured with an 80mm fork - if one were to opt for a 100mm fork then it would be a pretty slack ht angle for a trail hardtail and definitely an XC hardtail. IT would be something along the lines of 67.5 degrees wouldn't it?

    It would really rock if someone could step up and clearly and definitively explain the reason for the change and the actual ht angle and with what fork does it apply to (80mm or 100mm).

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Oof, i don't know anymore. I'll measure mine over the weekend and see what it comes out as. I've got 100mm on mine. Now, if only i could find that protractor.... just kidding. kind of.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,591
    well joe it seems like you have at least a few potential Explosif/unit customers who are on the bubble about the frame due to the geometry changes - so a simple clear, easy to understand answer may just add several new sales for kona - that's where I'm coming from.

  36. #36
    And He was Not
    Reputation: Enoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,655

    If it works???

    I just recently ordered a explosif frame. I had been riding a bike with 80mm fork and a head angle of 69 degrees with no sag. It wasn't the quickest handling thing on extremely tight and slow single track, but going down hills and fire roads it was a rocket. It seems the slacker angles made the bike feel like it had a 100mm fork on the front. Something else I noticed was due to the fact this was a Single speed, I was standing allot which kept the fork deeper in its travel(steeper head angle). The slacker head angle seemes to be a plus on a single. I hope I like my new frame as well. I'm not going to worry much about the angles right now, I'm just gonna' trust what Kona says about it being designed for a 80 mm and hope it handles as good as my previous S/S frame(not a Kona) that cracked.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    2003-2005 Unit Geometry specs.

    Below are the specs I was able to find. I'm pretty sure the angles are measured with the rigid (408 mm axle-to-crown) fork. I'm not sure if the fork length changed from year to year though. I have a 2005 Unit and measure 67.5 degree head angle with a 100 mm Fox fork (472 mm axle-to-crown). It is too slack for me. I'm going to sell my 2005 frame. The I'm either going to try to find a 2003 Unit frame (steepest head tube angle) and run an 80 mm fork or something else from a different manufacturer. I wish I had realized the geometry was so slack before I purchased the 2005!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by B R H; 01-14-2005 at 12:46 PM.

  38. #38
    And He was Not
    Reputation: Enoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,655
    Did you notice the seat angle changes? and Top tube length changes?and BB height? All these angles could be diffefent from simply raising the head tube a little, say like 15-20 mm... Hmmmm. Kinda' makes you wonder ....

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,591
    I like that 12.4" bottom bracket height for here on the east coast. That 69 degree number must be with a 100mm fork don't you think?

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    Calculated head angles with longer forks.

    Below is what I came up with using the numbers in the table above. I had to make some assumptions like the specs assume 408 mm axle-to-crown fork and I used a constant 42.5" wheelbase (3/4 of an inch either way doesn't really change the results). For the forks, I used rigid = 408 mm, 80 mm = 452 mm, and 100 mm = 472 mm axle-to-crown measurements. Anyway, I hope my calculations are correct. I can't explain the discrepancy between my measurement of ~67.5 degrees and the calculated value of 68.6 degrees. Regardless, 2003 still looks best to me.

    YEAR rigid 80 mm 100 mm
    2005 69 68.7 68.6
    2004 70 69.6 69.4
    2003 71 70.6 70.3

    Oops, the wheelbase does not remain constant... duh. It makes a big difference. I must be getting too old to remember all this geometry stuff. I'll try again.
    Last edited by B R H; 01-14-2005 at 03:33 PM. Reason: I messed up.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    I don't think so.

    These things are hard to measure, but my 2005 with 100 mm fork measures ~67.5 degrees and it feels like it too. The BB height is just shy of 13" on mine.

  42. #42
    And He was Not
    Reputation: Enoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,655

    Too much Info

    I didn't notice the head tube length changes? Don't know if it, or anyything else really matters. What matters most are how the bike rides. MOST of the time the bikes are designed with a certain length fork in mind, and what I've found is that is where they seem to work best. Alot still depends on the rider and the terrain, but for the most part the MFG have already figured it all out. I'm hoping mine will work fine with a 80mm fork. If it is a little slack, that will just help stability on the downhills.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GearHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,008

    Your right Enoch

    That is all Kona keeps doing is putting longer forks on the same bike frame. Why design a new frame, which actually works with the longer forks, when you can save money just be using old designs.

    And hey, some people are going to like the slack head tube angle and the way the bike handles with the longer fork for certain types of riding. That part I fully understand, but that is not what this bike is intended to do. Also, it seems they have not redesigned the head tube to take the additional bending moments introduced by longer forks.

    The thing that gets me the most is Joe. He will not give you a real answer. Maybe if we back him into a corner a little harder, he will actually do something useful. Quit telling us about your FEELINGS and just answer the simple technical question.
    Last edited by GearHead; 01-14-2005 at 02:10 PM.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    31

    A Question for you guys measuring Angles

    Hey when you guys are measuring your angles are you measuring the bike stock with the P2 fork (410mm axle to crown) and stock tires or at least matching tires. If you had the rigid fork on with a 2.4 on the front like I run and something a little smaller 2.1 rear, would that change the angle enough to notice?

    If you are measuring the bike with a 80mm suspension fork is that static? If so wouldn't that slacken the bikes geometry? So maybe Kona shows the geometry static? Then when you sit on the bike and sag the fork 25% you would be at about 70-71 degrees instead of ending up steaper? If you start at 70-71 static angle wouldn't the bike become quit steep with 25% sag. I am not sure how to keep track of all this stuff but like I said a couple of days ago I love the way my Unit rides with suspension and rigid. I going to ask my local dealer if I can borrow the angle thing and check out my angles. I am going to keep riding mine one way or the other but at least I will be more clear about this thread.

    Happyboy

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by GearHead
    That is all Kona keeps doing is putting longer forks on the same bike frame. Why design a new frame, which actually works with the longer forks, when you can save money just be using old designs.

    And hey, some people are going to like the slack head tube angle and the way the bike handles with the longer fork for certain types of riding. That part I fully understand, but that is not what this bike is intended to do. Also, it seems they have not redesigned the head tube to take the additional bending moments introduced by longer forks.

    The thing that gets me the most is Joe. He will not give you a real answer. Maybe if we back him into a corner a little harder, he will actually do something useful. Quit telling us about your FEELINGS and just answer the simple technical question.

    It's shocking that someone with a logo from a competitor would be so eager to trash Kona and what we do.

    I haven't given a straight answer because i haven't measured my personal bike at home. Sorry, but i don't own a protractor. I will make sure to measure it this weekend for you, like i already said. I'm not about to go home today to go measure my bike. Of course, i run 2.3" tires, so that will change things. If numbers are more important than feelings, so be it. That's kind of a shame, but i can understand how numbers are important.
    There's no need to "back me into a corner." I've already said i will supply concrete information after the weekend. I'm very sorry you don't think i do anything useful. I rather enjoy posting on here, and have had comments thanking me for it. Many companies do not do this, i've always found it helpful (and fun) but i'm not about to lie to you about something when i do not have the correct answer for you.

    Cheers,
    Joe.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    All we really need are details on the existing specs.

    I think you'll find it's not easy to measure your headtube angle accurately at home. You're right, tires do matter some (unless they are the same front and rear) and so does the fork (rake). I'm still curious what you come up with though.

    What would really be most useful would simply be details on the geometry specifications that Kona has already published. The numbers are almost meaningless unless we know how they were measured. If we knew the fork rake, the fork axle-to-crown, and the wheelbase for each set of specs (each year), then we could make useful comparisons.

    Wouldn't it be nice if every company provided all these details?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Ok guys, here it is, the straight poop from the frame designer. The measurement is with no sag on an 80mm fork. Fox, i believe, but i'm not sure.
    The way we measure it is so that when you're at 15% to 25% sag (as most fork companies recommend) you've got your normal angles. If we did not do this, just as Happy Boy surmised, things would ramp up in a very bad way as you blew through that travel.

    Like you said, having all of thse things is very nice, but everything changes the moment a fork changes, or a tire, or a rider, a size, a handlebar, on and on and on.

    For better or for worse, i think i need to bow out of this thread for a while, as it's taking too much time from my other little duties around here.
    Thanks for the fun, guys,
    Joe.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    Thank you very much!

    Those details help alot! I assume the same method applies for the specs given for the model years in question (2003-2005)? Assuming that is the case, I crunched the numbers again (correctly this time) and the results seem to make more sense. Better yet, an 80 mm fork will probably work out OK on my 2005 frame! 2004 still looks a little better to me, but I can see where 2003 frames may be a bit steep for some riders.

    Have a fun weekend! Got a protractor yet?

    The axle-to-crown numbers are in mm (372 mm is about what a fully compressed suspension fork would be, 408 mm would be the rigid Project 2 fork, 452 mm would be a Fox 80 mm fork, and 472 would be a Fox 100 mm fork).
    Attached Images Attached Images

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Man, I'm glad you're good at math and hammered out the numbers so quickly!
    And yeah, that's hoe we measure all of our bikes...
    I don't have a protractor, but i do have a cool hagnetic thingie that thicks on one side and points right to the angle, very cool!

    Ok, it's 4:00 on friday, it's time for beer.
    Good weekend, everyone!

    Joe "the new protractor boy!!"

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    You were a protractor boy all along.

    I think any tool used to measure angles in a plane is technically called a protractor. I used the same thing. Even the bigger ones are difficult to use and read more accurately than about 0.5 degrees. I actually measured 67.75 on my bike. Pretty close to what the math says. Actually probably even closer since my front tire is a little taller than the one on the rear.

    I'm eager to get that 80 mm fork on there now. 1 degree makes a difference!

    PS. Maybe you could get those details added to all your spec sheets?

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    40

    Kula Primo Head Angle...

    I've recently measured my Kula Primo's head angle with a 100mm fork (476mm axle to crown). Using a digital protractor, I measured a 67.5 head angle.

    According to Kona, the 2004 Kula Primo is designed around a 100mm fork and has a stated head angle of 69 degrees and that was what I was told when I enquired with kona tech. Even with a 25% sag it won't come near 69 degrees. With the fork fully compressed the head angle was still only 68.5.

    It seems that the published figures for the 2004 hardtails (other than than the unit and expolsive) must also be measured using an 80mm fork. I wish I would have known this as I would have gone for an 80mm fork.

  52. #52
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,597
    Something that’s been overlooked is that a 80mm fork runs much less sag than a 100mm fork. With a riders weight on a fork the difference axle to crown isn’t too much. And from what I’ve gathered from Kona has the Unit/Explosif frames set somewhere in between the “sweet spot” for either 80 or 100mm forks so they work well with either. I’ve just picked up a 05 Explosif that I have a 100mm suspension corrected Surly 1x1(sorry Kona, you were out of P2’s). And it handles quicker than my Klein with an 80mm SID. So before you speak absolutely about what you infer from numbers, realize they are only a tool, and unless you have RIDDEN the bikes your ultimatum statements are unqualified at best.
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    Feel is certainly subjective, but the numbers are useful.

    I have a 2005 Unit that feels too slack to me with either a 75 mm or 100 mm suspension fork. The numbers I've posted are accurate, but the steering quickness is certainly subjective.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125

    Your measurements are not quite right.

    Your headtube angle will change ~1 degree for every 20 mm of fork travel. If the initial head angle is 67.5 degrees, 100 mm lower will yield ~71.5 degrees. That's just a fact (geometry). Be sure to measure carefully on a level surface and hold the protractor parallel with the head tube and down the center vertical plane.

    More importantly, how does it feel to you?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Clanky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by G-reg
    Something that’s been overlooked is that a 80mm fork runs much less sag than a 100mm fork. With a riders weight on a fork the difference axle to crown isn’t too much. And from what I’ve gathered from Kona has the Unit/Explosif frames set somewhere in between the “sweet spot” for either 80 or 100mm forks so they work well with either. I’ve just picked up a 05 Explosif that I have a 100mm suspension corrected Surly 1x1(sorry Kona, you were out of P2’s). And it handles quicker than my Klein with an 80mm SID. So before you speak absolutely about what you infer from numbers, realize they are only a tool, and unless you have RIDDEN the bikes your ultimatum statements are unqualified at best.
    UMMM....I totally disagre with you about how the "numbers" make for an "unqualified statement". I buy a new bike about every 5-6 months for the past 7 years or so. They are all High End bikes that I can't test ride locally. 99% of the time I can look at a spec sheet and tell if I'm gong to like the ride of a bike. And I know so many other riders who do the same. Especially when buying a frame, sight unseen. If the Manufacturers specs are correct it is totally possible. If they are not correct then you WILL have a ride "feel" that is not what you were looking for.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    40

    My bad...

    B R H your right in your geometry calculations. My fault for not clarifiying that I'm not getting full 100mm fork compression, not even close, but that's another issue. But the head angle is correct. I've rechecked it.

    As for the feel, I only thought to check the numbers after finding the ride of my primo more slack than my previous Kona hardtails. Had I not felt a difference I wouldn't care what the numbers are.

    Using your calculations though, a drop of 26mm (478mm Marz -452mm 80mm fox) would arrive at a head angle ~69degrees which is the published spec. This is what has lead me to beleive that the figures are based on an 80mm fork.

  57. #57
    giddyup!
    Reputation: NRSLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    68

    Kona Konfusion

    Quote Originally Posted by B R H
    Below are the specs I was able to find. I'm pretty sure the angles are measured with the rigid (408 mm axle-to-crown) fork. I'm not sure if the fork length changed from year to year though.
    I am considering a Kona Unit bike or Explosif frame (same frame). I also noticed that the geometry changed significantly from '04-'05. 2.5" additional standover! Stunning! This prompted the following exchange with Kona, about the geometry and what travel a suspension fork should be for these frames. I found the information from Kona to be confusing. Joe Kona or anyone else, can you help me make sense of this?

    What I do not understand is that no-one from Kona has been able to explain why the numbers changed, beyond saying the frames are the same but the fork used to make the measurements are different. Why change the fork used, and why not tell us what the change was? I'd love to by and Explosif, but I won't if Kona isn't willing to say what's going on. I can't stand over a 30.4" top tube!

    Why would they change how they measure the geometry (using different forks) and then tell you it doesn't matter?

    If a 100mm travel fork would be dangerous on these bikes, how much safer can an 80mm be (it's not much of a difference!)?

    -----Original Message-----
    To: tech@konaworld.com
    Subject: Explosif geometry

    I have friends who own the Unit, and they love it. I'm looking at the Unit/Explosif geometry charts, 2004 vs. 2005. There appears to be a dramatic change in the standover for 2005.

    I want to verify that the standover for and 18" frame is changing from 28" in 2004 to 30.4" in 2005. Is this correct? Is it being measured in the same way for both years? If the geometry is changing that dramatically, I need to find a 2004 model year Unit or Explosif (to run as a SS) ASAP!

    -----Reply-----
    From: tech@konaworld.com

    They're the same, we just changed the fork used when we made the calcutation. If you allready know what size you like on the 04, then don't worry about the 05.

    -----Second Message-----
    To: tech@konaworld.com
    Subject: Re: Explosif geometry

    Interesting... what was the change in fork?

    You recommended an 80mm travel fork with the '04, I believe. How well would a 100mm travel fork work?

    -----Reply-----
    From: tech@konaworld.com

    More rigid vs suspension. Stick with 80, those tubes are so thin that if you start wedging a big fork on you can be sorry. Also since the fork is now held at a less than optimal angle more force goes into bending the fork vs. compressing the springs this makes the fork less sensitive to small bumps. Plus since just about every fork out there uses a bushing that increases support as it compresses the loose feeling you get when the fork is topped out will also be exaggerated.

    -----Another Reply-----
    From: tech@konaworld.com
    Our designer mashes up a range of numbers for a best guess scenario. Don't overthink this, or you'll be up all night.

    All you need to focus on is that the 05 bike will have the same fit and feel as the 04 (maybe if you're very attentive you can feel a change in the ride from the new tubes), and will run best with either an 80mm single crown suspension fork like a Rock Shox Sid, or a Fox F80, or a P2 26" fork.
    What do you want to get enlightened for? You may not like it. -Shunryu Suzuki

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    I think maybe our tech guy got a little over-enthusiastic in his statement. I've been running a 100mm fork on my bike for a few months with no issues, and i know a few others that do just the same. More than that is going to be a problem, as it would be on Any xc hardtail.

    Joe.

  59. #59
    giddyup!
    Reputation: NRSLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    68

    Unit durability?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe - Kona
    I think maybe our tech guy got a little over-enthusiastic in his statement.
    Thanks for the reply, Joe. I gotta say, your tech guy confused the snot out of me, and I'm pretty good with this kind of stuff. That fact the he didn't bother to give any details didn't help, either. I was running an On*One Inbred with a 100mm fork, and it was an excellent setup. I was doing some "light freeriding" (as I call it) and had no problems (it's a 4.5lb steel frame, very similar that way to the Unit). It was designed for 80-100mm forks. I weigh about 175lbs from skin out when I ride. I've not done any damage to the frame doing log-overs and 2-3' drops.

    What I'd like to know is, do you know of people doing log-overs and 2-3' drops with the Unit? Do you know of anyone who has done damage to the frame while riding? I've got a line on a 2004 Explosif in that gorgeous blue color. I'd hate to miss the opportunity to get one, if it will be a good frame for me. (I like the sliding dropout, and that's why I probably won't go back to an Inbred.)

    Thanks!
    What do you want to get enlightened for? You may not like it. -Shunryu Suzuki

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe - Kona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by NRSLove
    Thanks for the reply, Joe. I gotta say, your tech guy confused the snot out of me, and I'm pretty good with this kind of stuff. That fact the he didn't bother to give any details didn't help, either. I was running an On*One Inbred with a 100mm fork, and it was an excellent setup. I was doing some "light freeriding" (as I call it) and had no problems (it's a 4.5lb steel frame, very similar that way to the Unit). It was designed for 80-100mm forks. I weigh about 175lbs from skin out when I ride. I've not done any damage to the frame doing log-overs and 2-3' drops.

    What I'd like to know is, do you know of people doing log-overs and 2-3' drops with the Unit? Do you know of anyone who has done damage to the frame while riding? I've got a line on a 2004 Explosif in that gorgeous blue color. I'd hate to miss the opportunity to get one, if it will be a good frame for me. (I like the sliding dropout, and that's why I probably won't go back to an Inbred.)

    Thanks!
    Of course, people have done damage to the frames. That goes for just about anything. The trails where i ride are pretty hairy, and i have not damaged the frame. There's probably some 2 foot or higher drops, but everything is to a transition, which makes a huge difference.
    The bike is not built for drops, but you know that. It's a durable frame, and will handle true mountain biking, but i don't like to say "this bike will handle this drop and that bike will handle that drop" because there are so many factors that come into play above and beyond the frame. The rider, the terrain, all of that is a major factor. I wouldn't do what i call "light freeriding." It is, after all, a cross country frame.

  61. #61
    giddyup!
    Reputation: NRSLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe - Kona
    Of course, people have done damage to the frames. That goes for just about anything. The trails where i ride are pretty hairy, and i have not damaged the frame. There's probably some 2 foot or higher drops, but everything is to a transition, which makes a huge difference.
    The bike is not built for drops, but you know that. It's a durable frame, and will handle true mountain biking, but i don't like to say "this bike will handle this drop and that bike will handle that drop" because there are so many factors that come into play above and beyond the frame. The rider, the terrain, all of that is a major factor. I wouldn't do what i call "light freeriding." It is, after all, a cross country frame.
    I hear ya. I think I'll be better off with a little beefier frame - my interest has definitely expanded a bit beyond vanilla XC. Something like the Evil DOC will give me room to grow. Thanks for your input!
    What do you want to get enlightened for? You may not like it. -Shunryu Suzuki

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountainbikextremist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,004

    Good job! 5 stars for Kona!

    I just wanted to give you guys at Kona 5 stars! I have alot of respect for the stuff you guys put out on the market. My dad has an Explosif that he uses for commuting and he loves it. I have a Coiler on order and i am pumped to get it. I have riden one, and i personally love how they ride. Its pretty cool that you keep up on MTBR and answer Q's. Good job Kona!
    If I want your opinion, I will give give it to you...

    You got like 3 feet of air that time... -Napoleon Dynamite

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    543
    This is a very old thread now, but interesting in a number of ways:

    1. I dont read Joe's inputs as being as clear as they could have been which is puzzling because Kona have obviously designed their geometry to give the best handling they can, so why not explain clearly what they did and why?

    2. amazingly, it appears from what Tech said that all the published head angle figures up to 2004 were taken with a 41cm P2, i.e., they were nonsense, because the vast majority of owners were running much longer forks which gave a much lower angle than the stated 71 degrees.

    3. a frame that has a 71 degree angle with a 41cm P2 will have a 69.4 angle with an 85mm fork sagged by 20mm. Joe says they now (from 2005) take the angles with the actual fork, sagged, and the 2008 Kula Supreme is quoted at exactly that, 69.4. With a 100mm fork sagged by 20mm, the same frame will have a 68.5 angle and the other 2008 Kulas are quoted at 68.3, which is pretty damn close.

    4. so that seems to suggest that the hardtail frames still have exactly the same shape as theyve had ever since 1994, and that with every increase in fork length along the way the head angle has become progressively slacker it was just that the way they measured it up until 2005 concealed the fact (and misled buyers).

    5. I still cant understand why Joe didnt take this thread as a perfect opportunity to explain exactly why Kona now favours slack angles for XC hardtails, but instead stonewalled his way through it with what reads to me at times like rather strained good humour.

    Looking at some other makes, the Specialized S-Works, Rocky Mountain Vertex, Jamis Dragon, Voodoo Bizango, Marin Team Ti all quote 71 degrees, so its not like 71 degree handling has gone out of fashion.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    A friend was recently considering one of these frames so I sent an e-mail to Kona again on this issue. Their response was that the Unit frame has indeed been the same all along! The only change is how the angles were measured for the published specs.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    447
    Sucks they took the V brake option off their race frames. I am shopping around for a new brand to race next year because of this. Kona also gave me a pretty crappy response to my question as to why they decided to take the V brake bosses off their frames for 2008. In the end it sounded like a money saving thing. I dislike companies who make the decisions for the customer rather than letting the customer choose what components he/she wants to put on his/her bike.

    Kona gets a huge thumbs down from me this year for many reasons, and you are looking at somebody who has been a very loyal Kona customer for more than 4-5 years now. Well, used to be a customer until 2008.

    It was fun guys, but your disc brake only options are killing me in the wallet and mind.
    ... And I Am You,
    And What I See Is Me!

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountainbikextremist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildeyes
    Sucks they took the V brake option off their race frames. I am shopping around for a new brand to race next year because of this. Kona also gave me a pretty crappy response to my question as to why they decided to take the V brake bosses off their frames for 2008. In the end it sounded like a money saving thing. I dislike companies who make the decisions for the customer rather than letting the customer choose what components he/she wants to put on his/her bike.

    Kona gets a huge thumbs down from me this year for many reasons, and you are looking at somebody who has been a very loyal Kona customer for more than 4-5 years now. Well, used to be a customer until 2008.

    It was fun guys, but your disc brake only options are killing me in the wallet and mind.
    So tell me why you are so set on V-Brakes again??? Since you in the market to buy a nice race bike, I would imagine you have the money to invest in disk brakes, which I might add are far superior to V-Brakes in all demensions. Personally, I dont blame kona for doing away with the mounts....its old technology. Shoot, you can find department store bikes with disks now. MOST, mountain bikers want disks, and the MINORITY wants V-Brakes. So they finally made the decision that it wasnt worth the money to have them on that bike. Whats the big deal?
    If I want your opinion, I will give give it to you...

    You got like 3 feet of air that time... -Napoleon Dynamite

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by B R H
    A friend was recently considering one of these frames so I sent an e-mail to Kona again on this issue. Their response was that the Unit frame has indeed been the same all along! The only change is how the angles were measured for the published specs.
    My calculation is that the head angle gets steeper by 0.6 deg for every cm that the fork is compressed. So I guess Konas reasoning must be that if you take a frame like an S-Works that has a 71 deg angle when a 10cm fork is compressed 2cm, just think what the angle must be at full compression! i.e., 71 + 8 x 0.6 = 75.8. But then Spesh would say how often do you corner with the fork at full compression? Never.

    But Kona would say, OK but under hard cornering the fork is compressed by more than when youre just riding along because of lateral forces, so say its compressed by 4-5cm, rather than just 2. In that case the angle would become 71 + 3 x 0.6 = 72.8, which is kind of steep.

    But Spesh might say, yes but a rider that corners that fast is an expert and can deal with 72.8, might even prefer it. And anyway the Kula would be giving him 68.3 + 3 x 0.6 = 70.1, which means that even under heavy cornering forces the Kula is still pretty slack. And under normal conditions its very slack.

    And Kona say hey, but the folks like it! And Spesh say 'we sell more than you guys do, I wonder why?'

    And then they all go for a beer. And Kona say how do you know whether you like this beer?

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildeyes
    Sucks they took the V brake option off their race frames. I am shopping around for a new brand to race next year because of this. Kona also gave me a pretty crappy response to my question as to why they decided to take the V brake bosses off their frames for 2008. In the end it sounded like a money saving thing. I dislike companies who make the decisions for the customer rather than letting the customer choose what components he/she wants to put on his/her bike.

    Kona gets a huge thumbs down from me this year for many reasons, and you are looking at somebody who has been a very loyal Kona customer for more than 4-5 years now. Well, used to be a customer until 2008.

    It was fun guys, but your disc brake only options are killing me in the wallet and mind.
    Please come to the 21st century. You are invited. But please do not bring your V-brakes.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-14-2005, 07:12 AM
  2. geometry questions..HT to FS
    By Diamond Dave in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-17-2004, 01:12 PM
  3. Unimpressed with the Jekyll's adjustable geometry.
    By Skygrounder in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-30-2004, 10:50 PM
  4. Bullit - geometry adjusts? Which works for you?
    By yoonior in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2004, 06:48 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2004, 07:32 AM

Members who have read this thread: 2

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.