Steel Frame/Fork Battle: Fat vs Kona

[cherrybomb]

My vote goes to..........

Prestige with an RC31.

What better for British riding than I British frame and fork designed for just that??

Never really got the whole Fat thing anyway; they're nice, but they're not THAT nice. I mean, in this country of all places, what's the point of owning a bike that eats itself at the first sign of dampness?? :?

 

[Elev12k]

Mel,

I love the Fats and the heritage that goes with them, please understand that.

But truth be told, the nicest Fats I've seen have been early brazed chances and the later Saratogas.

A pity but it seems that Fat City was a victim of it's own success...trying to keep up with growth.

Rody, you're of course free to be critical Let's hear it! I am very critical towards build quality myself. That is exactly why I am interested in your opinion, as dedicated builder ...and because you've simply seen many more examples on your side of the pond.

What do you mean by "later Saratogas"? Saratoga, NY builds in general ...or even the final examples of the Saratoga shop (plant :mrgreen: )

Now this all also triggered the question with me, how early IF's (with the former FAT workstaff) compare to FATs from the Mass and NY era?? ...but maybe that would be more something for another topic.

 

[ededwards]

Dude, when it comes down to it, it's all metal and rubber and fun to sit on, the rest is just shameful blather.

Totally agree, and the shameless blather can be a great deal of fun!

 

[scant]

I've been watching this thread since the beginning & sat & watched it unfold, partially outta entire disbelief that it even started.

you really need to look at the wider picture to compare, which I'll soon expand on

handling? its too subjective, its like clothing fit, what 1 person likes, another hates. so as much as I love FAT handling & think theres no special handling traits of konas (or indeed build features of their frames), I'm wise enough to accept that others may get on better with a kona than a FAT (Jez prefering the higher front end for example). blondes & brunettes, personal preference thing..

while a TET kona might be better built than a MASS steel. or a saratoga steel (really a serotta unless its a BOI fork or all steel shockabilly as they were the only things actually built by ingelheart in this period) is better built than a MASS steel... this is TOO finer detail. (although yes I agree, serotta both steel & ti were better built than Mass Fat, truth be known)
this IS the wider picture in simple terms:

the vast majority of konas were mass produced in taiwan (the percentage of TET built & other custom konas is absolutely minute as a percentage of all konas built)
the vast majority of FATs, (were firstly considerably less in number than kona), were built with waay more quality control & the percentage of custom builds is waay higher.

yes theres examples of both konas & Fats breaking & Fats can have a rust issue if not maintained. but as a simple general rule that always applies, smaller scale production runs with a higher percentage of custom builds will always be built & finished to a higher quality than vast mass production (with a tiny percentage of custom). this applies in nearly all aspects of life & not just bikes.
yes mass production is catching up & will doubtless someday be able to match low production near custom runs & yes to the untrained eye a bare steve potts & a bare kona look very similiar. but for every 5000 people who cant see whats wrong with their kona, theres 50 who can fully appreciate the potts, FAT, serotta or whatever.

doubtless this thread will run & run as people are always massively passionate about their choice of bikes & defend them to the hilt- which is a good thing! the FAT lovers will agree, the kona lovers will disagree. its like the disc brakes Vs sh,te road calipers, fully rigid over 160mm travel arguments & all internet arguments in general
normally i'd just turn a blind eye... but to the FAT chance lovers I actually miss FAT chance :roll: so thought I'd chime in with my 2p regardless

... as you were

 

[purplewicked]

i don't get this thread; "does a sloping top tube gives a better ride quality?"
huh? one has nothing to do w/ the other.
konas and fats have very different geometry from each other. geometry is about handling, stability, balance and how you like to sit and position yourself on the bike.

If you consider the possible effect of the sloping top tube on the rigidity of the frame then your to sentences are somewhat contradictory. A sloping top tube could have a noticable impact on frame handling. On some frames the difference betwen a 1" and 1.125" can also be felt. (I'm not saying either does or doesn't in this specific case though).

Regarding the impact of racing, Kona catalogues (and Fats to some degree) also push the fact that racers test there machinery in the hardest conditions and that there frame geometries are a result of that. So racing's impact is a valid question to consider whether you are racing or on a Sunday morning ride.

My questions are playing devils advocate and asking the riders of each machine to consider why they think one is greater than the other, and what influence has marketting etc etc taken in their choice etc.

Whether you like the topic or not, I think its still a valid forum or pub conversation topic, its good to have some passionate discussion every now and then, and there's nothing really to loose sleep over.

In the end he Kona fans will still love their Konas, the Fat fans will love their Fats and the Klein riders will say that nothing compares to a rigid aluminium frame and they'd rather walk than ride either...

which has the better ride quality: a ritchey P21 or a yo eddy? ride quality, to me, it's how tuned is the tubing selection according to rider power, style and weight.
a ritchey is a racing bike: saddle psitioned for spinning, tubes selected for compliance while keeping enough stiffness to move rider forward. wheelbase spreads close to minus 42in where the rider gains stability in high speeds. when ridden n fast, smooth singletrack a P21 will feel much better than a yo eddy w/ it's fat, stiff tubes and 41in+ wheelbase cause the yo is a bike made for rocky switchbacks, negotiating "ladders" and dropping vertical chutes.
which one has the best ride quality?

 

[jez-4-bikes-max]

Wasnt the title of this thread:

Which steel frame/fork combo will you choose?

I think we've all deviated from this discussion somewhat...

 

[scant]

i don't get this thread; "does a sloping top tube gives a better ride quality?"
huh? one has nothing to do w/ the other.
konas and fats have very different geometry from each other. geometry is about handling, stability, balance and how you like to sit and position yourself on the bike.

If you consider the possible effect of the sloping top tube on the rigidity of the frame then your to sentences are somewhat contradictory. A sloping top tube could have a noticable impact on frame handling. On some frames the difference betwen a 1" and 1.125" can also be felt. (I'm not saying either does or doesn't in this specific case though).

Regarding the impact of racing, Kona catalogues (and Fats to some degree) also push the fact that racers test there machinery in the hardest conditions and that there frame geometries are a result of that. So racing's impact is a valid question to consider whether you are racing or on a Sunday morning ride.

My questions are playing devils advocate and asking the riders of each machine to consider why they think one is greater than the other, and what influence has marketting etc etc taken in their choice etc.

Whether you like the topic or not, I think its still a valid forum or pub conversation topic, its good to have some passionate discussion every now and then, and there's nothing really to loose sleep over.

In the end he Kona fans will still love their Konas, the Fat fans will love their Fats and the Klein riders will say that nothing compares to a rigid aluminium frame and they'd rather walk than ride either...

which has the better ride quality: a ritchey P21 or a yo eddy? ride quality, to me, it's how tuned is the tubing selection according to rider power, style and weight.
a ritchey is a racing bike: saddle psitioned for spinning, tubes selected for compliance while keeping enough stiffness to move rider forward. wheelbase spreads close to minus 42in where the rider gains stability in high speeds. when ridden n fast, smooth singletrack a P21 will feel much better than a yo eddy w/ it's fat, stiff tubes and 41in+ wheelbase cause the yo is a bike made for rocky switchbacks, negotiating "ladders" and dropping vertical chutes.
which one has the best ride quality?

is this question meant for me as you've quoted me? although they were both meant as race bikes (& hell they both did well enuff in their day!)they're 2 very different rigs & again it would come down to personal preference.

 

[purplewicked]

sorry scant. it was meant as a reply to the OPer...

 

[scant]

Wasnt the title of this thread:

Which steel frame/fork combo will you choose?

I think we've all deviated from this discussion somewhat...

internet forum in off tangent conversation shocker

purplewicked, no worries, i'm still mashin these keys homer simpson fat hand style & hope for the best

 

[ThePlant]

My vote goes to..........

Prestige with an RC31.

What better for British riding than I British frame and fork designed for just that??

Never really got the whole Fat thing anyway; they're nice, but they're not THAT nice. I mean, in this country of all places, what's the point of owning a bike that eats itself at the first sign of dampness?? :?

Reviving an old thread, definitely wonder how the orange prestige compares to the wicked in terms of ride, build quality ect