[Closed] To all you Kona detractors out there.

2nd hand Kona's are reasonable value the RRP is the problem, especially when you look at the spec.

Love my Kula adore my King Kikapu Geometry feels the same no matter which i ride. More fun than my last three girlfriends in a silk bag.

Mate wouldn't be without his Dawg

don't know if it's the same in the UK but the Kona shops in Madrid sell all Konas at about 30% off (minimum), so you can pick up some very good bargains.

And the wife adores her Easton-framed Kula Lisa 🙂

[img] ?v=0[/img]

V happy with my Caldera, although it's had quite a lot of kit upgraded. Right now it is sweet as.

So your reply to people who would criticise Kona is - You've been off your bike for 3 months. You bought a kona full susser, after riding hardtails for 15 years and you are impressed?

Not exactly the most glittering praise for Kona is it? They havent invested in any new technologies or tried to develop their designs in any meaningful way. They've become stagnant basically. God help them if they ever do decide to revamp their bikes....imo they'll have a long hill to climb. Their bikes are okay, but primitive by todays standards. Also they are over priced and under equiped.

I would really love a Four. They look lovely lovely bikes!

Primitive maybe (so am i) but you know what if it works thats fine by me.

They do work, just not as well as other designs. You only realise this when you try out some other bikes in anger.....then your kona just doesn't seem to cut it anymore 😥

Dont ride any other bikes and you'll be happy.

They havent invested in any new technologies

Apart from the magic link.

or tried to develop their designs in any meaningful way.

Apart from the Four, the 5.0, the 29er Heihei?

Do they ride well? Yes. So why should they be a bad bike company? Don't get it. They're an option for potential bike purchasers, try them, if you like them buy them.

Maybe Gnargnar's one of these marketing obsessed people we were talking about last week?

I'm going to buy a Paddy Wagon.

Why do people seem to think that every mm of tubing on a bike needs to be hydroformed into a work of art ?

Kona have simply decided that a normal tube works just as well - live with it !!!

As for people moaning abouttheir graphics - wtf ! What difference does that make when its covered in mud - maybe that the problem arond here, people don't get them dirty !

...but primitive by todays standards

So's my 06 Heckler then... But it works, really well.

molgrips -

Apart from the magic link.

Oh ffs, that's your answer? I take it back, they have revolutionised bicyle suspension.

Apart from the Four, the 5.0, the 29er Heihei?

Radical stuff.

Do they ride well? Yes. So why should they be a bad bike company? Don't get it. They're an option for potential bike purchasers, try them, if you like them buy them.

Comparitively speaking, no they do not. But they cost the same as their competitors. This is an internet forum, a place for debate and exchanging opinions. If I want to express how I feel about Kona bikes I will.

Maybe Gnargnar's one of these marketing obsessed people we were talking about last week?

No, I am one of those "mountain bike riding people" the kind who actually rides bikes, as opposed to collecting them. I've owned 3 Konas. Still have one, compared to the many other bikes of a similar ilk which I've tried it is primitive in all respects, what more can I say. I am expressing an opinion, based on my personal experience. What's your problem?

GNARGNAR is obviously one of these riders who thinks technology will make him the rider he wants to be.

HTTP404 -
GNARGNAR is obviously one of these riders who thinks technology will make him the rider he wants to be.

Are you completely unable to objectively compare the performance of different bikes?

Oh never mind, just suck my balls.

Oh ffs, that's your answer? I take it back, they have revolutionised bicyle suspension.

Yes it's my answer. Why the FFS? It's a new innovation, and you said they hadn't made any. As for the 29er whatnot, it's evolving their designs, when you said they didn't do it.

You say they don't ride well, I say they do. That is a matter of opinion and I'm sure you'll appreciate me saying that - after all, it's an internet forum as you rightly point out.

I just disagree with your assessment of the company. I don't think you are doing them justice. You can't come on and say they're bad like it's some kind of fact. They have changed their designs over the years, and they make nice bikes in some folks opinions. So there you go.

If I want to express how I feel about Kona bikes I will.

I don't think I implied that you couldn't. I'm sorry if I came over that way.. all I'm doing is disagreeing with you on whether or not Konas are nice bikes. I don't have a problem with that, and I didn't mean to imply that I did (cos that would be ridiculous).

Still, I like Konas, and others might too. So if you are shopping, try one 🙂

Kim's are no more and no less sophisticated than most other bike brands. Certainly the level of equipment you get for the money means they're overshadowed by the likes of Trek, but then Trek have Keith Bontrager to design all the bits that Kona have to buy in from the likes of Truvative, which will always mean the price point gets shifted against Kona value wise. As far as sophistication is concerned, gnargnar is being disingenuous about Kona being behind the times and rubbish as a result. Drek. Kona's hardtails are as good as anyone's, and even their faux-bar full-sus bikes ride perfectly well enough for the average mountain biker. Obviously gnargnar's skills are so finely honed that a Kona is totally inadequate, which is fine, but I'd be willing to bet that my mate Sean who actually rides Konas, Treks and Gary Fishers, hardtails, full-sus, 29er, 26er, the lot, could leave him trailing on any Kona gnargnar cares to name. Up till pretty recently his bike of choice was a Dawg Delux, which would get thrashed all over Wales and the Forest of Dean. I'm going to scrounge a new 29er hardtail which is beautiful, lovely colours and graphics and seriously light. Good enough for the average sort of biker who can't match up to the standard set by gnargnar.

molgrips - Member

Yes it's my answer. Why the FFS? It's a new innovation, and you said they hadn't made any. As for the 29er whatnot, it's evolving their designs, when you said they didn't do it.

Because I dont rate it, I think it is a tacked on gimmick as opposed to a well sussed design, I also doubt that something like that has any business on a bike like a coiler. Adjustable geometry yes, but hardwired into the design as opposed to tacked on. The other bikes imo dont exactly represent much in terms of evolution.

You say they don't ride well, I say they do. That is a matter of opinion and I'm sure you'll appreciate me saying that - after all, it's an internet forum as you rightly point out.

I'm saying relative to other bikes they dont perform as well. I think current VPP, dw link and commencals linkage system etc are superior in terms of overall suspension performance. Compare a Dawg to a meta 5, see what I mean. If you prefer the dawg, fair enough but I'd be suprised. Or better yet compare a stab to a supreme, or to a socom.

CountZero - Obviously gnargnar's skills are so finely honed that a Kona is totally inadequate, which is fine, but I'd be willing to bet that my mate Sean who actually rides Konas, Treks and Gary Fishers, hardtails, full-sus, 29er, 26er, the lot, could leave him trailing on any Kona gnargnar cares to name. Up till pretty recently his bike of choice was a Dawg Delux, which would get thrashed all over Wales and the Forest of Dean. I'm going to scrounge a new 29er hardtail which is beautiful, lovely colours and graphics and seriously light. Good enough for the average sort of biker who can't match up to the standard set by gnargnar.

Oh just feel free to distort what I said, funny how everyone has a mate who is a brilliant rider who could woop everyone's ass isn't it.

My "mate" used to race world cups, and is internationally recognised as a great biker across many disciplines. He rides kona's too, because they sponsor him. I think he'll have your mate any day.

Instead of replying to your waffle I'll just pose a question again - Can you honestly say that you CANNOT appreciate any difference between the various suspension platforms available today?

If you can't then fair enough. I didnt think it took any amazing degree of skill or special ability to determine which bikes pedalled better, gripped better or absorbed impacts better but seemingly you do. I assumed it was simply a case of riding different bikes and being objective about their relative performance.

I thought everyone possesed this, but based on the above perhaps not. If I am the only person who can tell the difference between varying bike designs I wonder why companies waste their time developing them. Must be a cynical marketing ploy.

Did you know that the Specialized suspension designe is 17 years old this year?

Can you honestly say that you CANNOT appreciate any difference between the various suspension platforms available today?

I can appreciate the differences. I am a very astute rider and I pay a great deal of attention to the characteristics of my bikes, which is why I spend so much time faffing with them and adjusting them.

I haven't ridden loads of different suspension designs (but then, a lot of people haven't). Personally I am more concerned with geometry than plushness of suspension, which is why I race on a Kona. I do my trail riding on Oranges - I feel the Kona offerings for trail bikes are to heavy. If they had the magic link when I was shopping for a big bike I'd have given it some serious consideration. And even if you don't like it, it's still an innovation.

I rode a few bikes when I was shopping for insurance replacements, but I was getting deals on Oranges and Konas. I test rode a couple of bikes, decided I loved the Kona, so I bought it. I didn't want to shop around loads more.

Am I allowed to like Konas? Without being branded a wrong-headed fool? 🙂 I'm not trying to tell you they're the best thing ever, but I like their bikes on the whole, and I like some of what they do as a company. Surely this has to be end of thread? I just want to be friends!

Spec-wise Kona definitely don't represent good value for money compared to a lot of the competitors.

But I think the problem might be that Kona have an inflated presence in the UK. Over here they're pretty big, everyone has heard of them, many have owned one etc. But worldwide they're minnows compared to Trek, Spesh, GT etc so don't have anywhere near the buying power.

Perhaps they shape up a bit better compared to someone like Marin?

I was one of those giving Kona a hard time earlier today. However, I'm looking for an alloy frame I can build up with drop bars, disc brakes, rack and guards. The Kona Dew drop looks like the only thing I can find!

"[i]They havent invested in any new technologies"[/i]
Apart from the magic link"
Its on one bike, a bike which most people won't buy.

Instead of redesigning the suspension to deal with problems with a linkage single pivot (thats waht the seatstay pivot 'faux-bar' is) they came up with the floating brake arm on the longer travel bikes. Maybe they've been prevented from using the FSR chainstay pivot, or the DW link, or Giants Maestro, or marins/whytes Quad Link and so on, but maybe they should have come up with a design of their own?

[i]"Why do people seem to think that every mm of tubing on a bike needs to be hydroformed into a work of art?
Kona have simply decided that a normal tube works just as well"[/i]

The whole point of hydroforming is to increase the weld area at the tube ends and to manipulate the tubing in such a way that it can be made lighter, stronger or both

Kona [b]do[/b] use hydroformed tubing
[img] [/img]
If you look close enough (its only subtle because they haven't been using and developing it for as long) the top and down tubes are hydroformed

The 2009 hei hei, four, one20, dawg, and coilair all have some hydroformed tubing

[i]"Trek have Keith Bontrager to design all the bits that Kona have to buy in from the likes of Truvative"[/i]

The vast majority of trek bikes don't come with bontrager cranks, but shimano ones, so are buying from elsewhere.
Trek use Bontrager bars/stems/seatposts/wheels/saddles yes, but kona also do their own stems/bars/seatposts/grips and use them on the top end models, not just the bottom ones

[i]"even their faux-bar full-sus bikes ride perfectly well enough for the average mountain biker"[/i]
Thats kind of the point, what about people who don't just pootle about and actually get somewhere near pushing the design a bit, then konas can show themselves to be lesser than some of the competition

If you're spending say £2k on a bike, then surely you should expecting something more than just average?

Did you know that all Konas, including the entry level £330 bike, have butted frames use forged head tubes, drop-outs and bottom bracket shells.

Did you know that all scandium frame and higher end Konas are made at the Hodaka factory in Taiwan. The same factory that produces the heavily manipulated frames for Scott. Dewey (designer) chooses not to have Konas tubes manipulated for purely cosmetic reasons.

I luvs me my coiler, it's robust,matt black & was a bargain @ NZ$3500

"all Konas, including the entry level £330 bike, have butted frames use forged head tubes, drop-outs and bottom bracket shells"

As will every other manufacturer

Did you know that Kona is still owned by its two co founders Dan and Jake, they make only what they like and have no shareholders to answer to.

Did you know that Dewey, Konas chief designer, was the founder of the Deep Cove bike shop (Cove bikes) thats why the Dawg and the Hustler are so similar.

How dare people diss my Dawg. An aweome workhorse of a bike that stood up to loads of abuse from a clumsy, pie eating duffer with an over inflated opinion of his riding abilities and so went down stuff that maybe he shouldn't. They might not have pretty swirly bendy tubes but seing as we've mentioned gimmicks, surely they've got to be the worst. I ride a Nomad now but still miss my Dawg. Especially places like the lactic ladder at Golspie. It's a different matter at the top though! I have to agree that I would never pay the full RRP for one.

I must admit (my first comment on this Kona thing). I do think they are pretty much frozen in time (say upto 2004)- all the competition has been evolving. Kona is missing 'something'. Their tubing looks really heavy across most of their range IMO. Not dainty at all.

Did you know that Kona have designed and built a bike (the Africa) that is provided free to healthcare workers in Africa, this is the third year of the project and many hundreds of bikes have been supplied and cosequently lives saved.

Did you know that the mainstream Kona bikes are manufactured alongside Marin bikes in the same factory in Taiwan and specification for pound are virtualy the same. Different type of ride though.

Did you know Peter the Great taxed people for growing beards and riding Marins. 😀
Actually the last bit isn't true.

the only full susser i ever fell i love with was a coiler, and this coming for a dia hard kona hater, in fact i hate all canadian bike, they jus dot suit my ridig style (i prefer low and step bikes, kona and their ilk are slack and tall).

Not sure i agree with you gnarganr on likeing all other suspension systems, a VPP feels very different to a DW/meastro, which is different to a horst, which is different to a high single pivot, which is different to a ow single pivot.

Give me a slight rising rate, well controlled damping and more importantly geoetry that suts your riding. FWIW i hated VPP bikes when i test rode a blur, it felt horribl, lik you were riding a bike over trapdoors, it would randomly wallow if you pedal'd over bumps.

yourmothermakesteaforpaligap

Excellent posts, very funny (although not sure if that was the intent).

Did you know that Kona were some of the nicest spec'd and designed bikes in the early 90s (I'm sure you do), and that since then regardless of how good/bad/indifferent their (your) bikes are, they consistently look cheap. I do hope you don't design the finishes...

I submit for evidence:
[img] [/img]

I am not saying I like all systems, I just think the others have moved on where Kona have not. Not every design suits my riding style but I can appreciate their relative merits.

For example, I am not overly fond of the maestro system, but comparing a reign to a coiler, the reign pedals noticeably better and seems to grip over rough terrain much much better.

With VPP bikes like the socom, I am not crazy about the way they sag so much, it's disconcerting at first, to get the most out of it you seem to have to commit 100% to it - it rewards aggression which takes a bit of faith.

Like I said earlier, I am just trying to be objective, trying to see what performs where, trying to understand the various characteristics of different designs. I love bikes, and I find them very interesting. I try to ride as many as possible and I am fortunate that I ride with a large circle of friends so there are always plenty of bikes to test.

I haven't bought a new bike in years, that doesnt mean I'm not thinking about it - when I do, I'll choose the suspension system which I think is the best in the widest variety of conditions which that bike is likely to be in. I'll probably adapt my riding style slightly to accommodate this new bike, but no doubt I'll be used to it in no time, and it'll be something I no longer think about.

Out of all of them I would lean towards intense's vpp setup or commencal's linkage system (whatever it's called).

[img] [/img]

Compare this to the previous picture. I'm sure somebody will now expalin the differences between the Trek's suspension design and the Kona's, but just look how much neater the rocker is.

It seems Kona are getting slated, cos people don't like the current look. The suspension design is essentially the same as Cove Hustler, older Trek Fuel EX's and numerous other faux bar designs no doubt.

Orange haven't changed their single pivot design for 10 years. Sure its evolved over the years but its not exactly radical new technology is it? Doesn't seem to bother so many people does it? And those that pay the price for a frame that could buy a full bike from another brand.

Cotic have taken a horst link design. Cutting edge again eh, another 10 year or so old design? My god, all those people who paid all that money for a frame using such an old design 😉

Rocky Mountain don't look so good value either.

The list goes on doesn't it. Aside from Giant, Trek, Specialized looks like we're all getting ripped off over the odds for our preferred 'fix' 😉

So far as comments about "the average mountain biker", thats probably 95% of the people on here. You might prefer one design or another but 'pushing the design limits' of a bike....I don't pootle but I wouldn't kid myself I was pushing the design limits of a bike (for its intended use)...

mtbtomo - Member
It seems Kona are getting slated, cos people don't like the current look. The suspension design is essentially the same as Cove Hustler, older Trek Fuel EX's and numerous other faux bar designs no doubt.

It's similar to a Hustler and the older treks? Unlike Kona, cove haven't tried to use virtually the exact same design on every bike regardless of purpose. They diversified their designs for their freeride and dh range with the peeler and the playmate (which were horst likn??), and then they have changed them again with the shocker and std which I can say are both great bikes.

Trek have developed their active braking pivot to enhance the faux bar design, which apparently is a big improvement but I wouldnt know. They also totally revamped their freeride and dh bikes.

Turner have licensed the DW link to develop a new range of bikes. Spesh might be sticking with the horst link but they have been creative with the way they've applied it.

Giant have developed the maestro system, Orange have started do diversify somewhat with the Blood, hardly revolutionary but it least it shows they are considering differing pivot positions for different types of bike.

Even Banshee have moved away from the faux bar system. Rightly or wrongly I think Kona are in the minority here as far as sticking with one platform across all bikes is concerned. You can applaud them for it or criticise them, and at the end of the day you dont have to buy the bike but if you compare them to cars for example - you wouldnt pay the price of a new car if you knew that it was exactly the same model the manu had released ten years ago, with the same engine bhp, fuel economy, no abs or air con etc etc when their competitors were releasing much more powerful and more efficient cars for the same price.

You're applauding other companies little developments, but make little acknowledgement Kona have made little developments like the Magic Link, that braking arm thingy, used different shaped tubes albeit not as radical as everyone else.

Like it or not, Kona's always get good write ups in the magazines for how they ride. Rarely good value, but they always ride well. If they ride well or should I say people [b]enjoy[/b] riding them, old technology or not then I don't see the problem.

Kona are a business. If they are selling bikes and people are going back for more, then business is fine. R&D costs a lot and can easily be money down the pan, licensing another design costs too.

But, at the end of the day, you don't have to buy something you don't like. Even if you do buy something you do like, there will always be someone faster and more skilful.

I'm not applauding other companies little developments, I was replying to a post which seemed to say that innovation or change in bike design was not the norm outside of the bigger companies. Anyway I'd hardly call a smaller company like cove or Banshee bringing out radically different bikes from what they had become synonymous with as small changes.

Did Kona actually invent the floating brake arm idea? I have no idea. As for the magic link, it seems to be too little too late. Look at those support beams between the seat tube and the down tube on the magic link, that is not the type of thing I want anywhere on my mtb, never mind a burly am/freeride bike.

this years dawg deluxe looks well nice in the flesh. the bars/stem are gunsmoke and it seems nicley finished.

Comparitively speaking, no they do not.

As a matter of fact they do... Any 125/130 kona bike I have tried is riding as well as my rocky mountain. I have yet to try a HT that ride as well as my hoss
HJ nope not as fast DH.
Indred nope not as flickable
456 too long.

Thats kind of the point, what about people who don't just pootle about and actually get somewhere near pushing the design a bit, then konas can show themselves to be lesser than some of the competition

Well interestingly over here I see a lot of kona. All the DHers/freerider rides stinkees but hey maybe the rock garden know as the south Alps is not good enough to push a bike t it's limits.

Kona have always been in advanced to other companies. The first dawg (called the bear) was actually a 'light' stinky 2001 (like the golden one). The second dawg with 130mm of travel was exactly the 2001 godlen stinky. Kona was the first company to produced a dirt/dual HT.
They were the first company to provide factory racers with Ti and risers for XC and so on and so on...

if you compare them to cars for example - you wouldnt pay the price of a new car if you knew that it was exactly the same model the manu had released ten years ago, with the same engine bhp, fuel economy, no abs or air con etc etc when their competitors were releasing much more powerful and more efficient cars for the same price.

At the end of the day it's simply a wheel moving around a pivot. It's not that difficult. Everything else you read is window dressing.

but maybe they should have come up with a design of their own?

Why? Wouldn't that be spending money just for the sake of it? If people like the way they ride then that's good enough, surely? All the better then to spend your R&D budget on new bikes in other areas.

and more importantly geometry that suits your riding

Exactly. No point getting to obsessed with the mechanics of how suspension works. If the only measure of a good bike was how sophisticated its suspension was, we wouldn't be riding around on Orange 5s and Cannondale prophets - both really well loved bikes that get great reviews. The geometry is the main reason I love my Heihei. It just begs to be thrashed like a naughty servant 🙂

I may not be winning races since I'm too fat to climb well - but it gets pushed to the very limits on singletrack and downhill sections in races - and comes back for way more. Which is much more than you can say for most XC race bikes that I've tried.

It's unfair to compare Konas to 10 year old cars because they have been tweaked over the years. The Heihei didn't exist before 2007 or 6, and it was a fairly unique machine when it came out I think. There are a few other short travel XC race FS bikes now I think. A better comparison would be to say VW. Their diesel engine design hadn't changed fundamentally for 10 years or so but they were still good cars that people liked to drive, and that sold well.

I am inclined to give Kona some credit, as yourmothercookssocks does, for the AfricaBike, and also for the Ute.

They used to make fantastic XC hardtails. Then they made some lovely chunky full-sus bikes. Apart from utility bikes though they've made nothing that has wowwed me since about 2004. I'd be perfectly happy with any of their output (I'm not a good rider) in functional terms but I need them to be substantially better value at the moment.

and also for the Ute

Well you would 🙂

If I had more money and space in the garage, I'd be sorely tempted with a Ute. And a Jake the Snake. And I lust after a PhD too. Maybe a Sutra as well.