Kona frame but which one

[Anthony]

A later steel frame as it'll take sus fork easier is now a high poss as 100-120mm travel would be enough for me on the trails I do

Kona never fitted a fork with more than 100m travel to the frames with the 1994-onwards geometry. I would suggest that as a sensible limit, and even then only with quite a short stem.

 

[sweety]

Cheers Anthony yes a 100mm would enough but would poss use a 80-100mm stem but with cut down bars as wide bars seem to upset the tendinitis in my shoulders At the min i've got 530mm wide bars on my CC which are just a tiny bit short but they were cut 19 years ago but i've grown a bit since then but they are still very comfy

 

[konaman1]

I'm afraid there are some misapprehensions here.

From 1994 onwards, all hardtail Konas were designed to give a 71 degree head angle with a 41cm a-c rigid fork.

This means there is no difference between the different years in terms of what fork you can use. A 1999 frame is exactly the same shape as a 1994, as indeed is a 2009 frame.

I appreciate that it's natural to think that as forks had longer travel over the years, Kona must have changed the geometry to accommodate them, but they didn't. Some companies did do that, but Kona kept the frames the same and simply fitted shorter stems to keep the steering the same.


Your quite right Anthony, l always thought that Kona altered the geometry for '96 but it is indeed from '94 onwards


Prior to 1994, Kona frames were made for a 39cm a-c rigid fork, which makes them less suitable for fitting suspension to - not impossible though, but perhaps best to stick to short-travel forks, and again to use a shorter stem to compensate for the longer fork.

Kona have never had such a high reputation for their aluminium frames as for the steel ones. I can't see any logical reason for that. The Kula/AA/Pahoehoe used top quality Easton tubesets, the best you could get, and the geometry was exactly the same as the steel frames. I think it's really just a market perception, the upside of which is that Kulas are really cheap to buy.

Don't get me wrong l love the easton tubed bikes, but l always try and steer people away from the early alu frames due to the non replaceable mech hanger. l had to part with my '97 Kula because of a broken hanger.

During my teens in the mid to late 90's one of my friends had a Cindercone and later a Nu Nu both bikes felt very harsh compared with my much older Zaskar Le and l couldn't understand his fascination with Kona's. Fast forward to 2003 and eBay and l won a '98 explosif. The Zaskar was out of there (although l've regretted selling it since) and l've been a Kona convert ever since.

 

[urbanfireblade]

I can vouch for Kula's, my '07 Kula Deluxe Easton Ultralite tubing that rides fantastically on 2.1" tyres and 100mm travel Rebas. Xt/Xtr gumph all over=22 1/2lb total weight. Definitely recommended!


Generally speaking, you are always 'aware' of the fact your riding a 15yr old bike, i can't put my finger on why, but riding a '93, or a '95 etc steel frame kona it feels like a solid, reliable workhorse.

My '07 Kula D is a whole lot of fun , the retro konas feel like your riding a piece of history.

I'd sway towards an Easton tubing Kona frame if your only having one bike.

 

[Anthony]

I picked up a 1999 Stumpjumper M2 Comp for a friend the other day. Had to ride it for a few miles, and it needs a bit of fettling but basically it felt heavy (because it was a couple of pounds heavier than any of my steel Konas) and as dead as a nail.

Then went out Thursday evening with the Brighton Explorers Club on a 1995 Kilauea with P2 fork. I was the oldest rider with the oldest bike, and there were at least a couple of the others that I feel sure are faster riders than me and they certainly had more modern and quite expensive bikes. But over that kind of riding, general cross country, no singletrack, I felt that I had the fastest bike. Up any kind of hill it was almost embarrassing, I was having to dawdle otherwise I'd have been on my own. I'd get to a gate, hold it open for them all, set off again well last, and as they lumbered their full sussers back into motion I could just ride straight past them again before resuming amble mode at the front. There's no way that was me, it was the bike.

 

[bolly]

have a look at the catalogues in the archives loads of info including frame and bike weights also spec and suspension and sizes and angles. hope you find what you are after but if a mint explosif 19" comes available please let me have first dibs.

 

[elPedro666]

There's no way that was me, it was the bike.

haha - it does work both ways...

 

[davegt]

Folks

This is a really interesting thread for those like me who are trying to decide whether to fit modern short travel sus forks to early Kona frame.

So:

Can anybody definatively tell me what new short travel fork to buy for a 1994 Lava Dome and what size stem would best suit keeping the geometery the same?

Cheers

Dave

 

[BobCatMax]

A Kona AA with nice forks is a very good hardtail.

amen to that!

look down there in my sig

 

[elPedro666]

Folks

This is a really interesting thread for those like me who are trying to decide whether to fit modern short travel sus forks to early Kona frame.

So:

Can anybody definatively tell me what new short travel fork to buy for a 1994 Lava Dome and what size stem would best suit keeping the geometery the same?

Cheers

Dave

Something like an 80mm Indy or SID with a 100mm stem I'd guess, or any other 80 or even 100mm fork/80mm stem. You won't keep geometry the same as such as it'll now be fluid as the fork compresses, but it should still feel good. Just be sure you can lose the length off your riding position