Frame: Kona Blast vs Kinesis XC 130 vs Azonic AZ-7

rodsky77
rodsky77 Posts: 9
edited February 2012 in MTB buying advice
Hello all,

My fist post here.
I am having some trouble making a decision about whether I should upgrade my Kona Blast frame to a Kinesis XC 130 or an Azonic AZ-7.
So, I bought a Kona Blast Deluxe 2010 last spring http://www.konaworld.co/bike.cfm?content=blastdeluxe.
Since then, the only thing left on that bike is the frame, the rest has been replaced with XT/SLX components and a Rock Shox SID fork (100 mm). Now, I really don't want the changed out components to "rot" away in my basement, so, I am thinking that I should upgrade the Kona frame to something better and put the Kona frame together with it's original components and sell it.

I've been mostly looking on CRC, and found these 2 frames:
Kinesis XC 130: http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=65382
Azonic AZ-7: http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=48320

The Azonic is definitely lighter than the Kinesis, but the 0.5 pound difference is a non-issue.
I do like the Kinesis for its zero stack headset capability and that it can handle a 100-130 fork, although the Azonic can handle a 100-130 fork as well.

The biggest question is: should I bother upgrading the Kona Blast frame? Does any one of these frames offer any real advantage over the Kona except for the 1.0-1.5 lb weight loss and the possibility to fit a fork with more movement? I spoke to the guys at my lbs and they said that I could fit a 120 fork on the Kona as well, but anything more than that would ruin the geometry, and that's fine, I don't think that I will ever put anything more than a 120 fork on a bike.

I ride XC and singletrack, nothing too technical, no huge drops - 2' at the most.

Thank you for your help/viewpoints.

Cheers.

Comments

  • lawman
    lawman Posts: 6,868
    i think that azonic is mis-printed there is no way that weighs 2.7lbs!!! the kinesis weighs 3.5lbs and ive owned an xc120, the older version of the xc130, essentially the same bar a few tubing changes, and its a good bike, but i find it quite steep with a 140mm fork, so a 100mm would be super steep, given you are coming from the quite relaxed blast, i would steer clear of it unless you fit atleast a 120mm fork.

    have you considered the on one whippet or 456? good deals at the minute as undecaled frames are £300 and very good vaule for full carbon frames
  • rodsky77
    rodsky77 Posts: 9
    Thank you for the reply lawman.

    Yeah, they are not really listing the true weight on that frame, but someone in this forum bought
    the Azonic AZ-7 frame in 18.5 (which is what I am considering) and said that it weighed in at 1357 g ~ 2.99 lbs
    Here's the thread: viewtopic.php?f=20005&t=12777152&p=16943767&hilit=azonic#p16943767

    The carbon frames you are talking about look really good, especially the whippet.
    But being a newbie at this and doing most of the montage/maintenance work myself, I'm not sure that I want to get an all carbon frame just yet because an alu frame would be more tolerant of any sort of "mistakes" in maintenance.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Thank you for the warning on the fact that the Kinesis XC 130 is too steep.

    Are there any other alu frames you could recommend? £400 would be the ceiling for me.

    Then again, perhaps I should just stay with the Blast frame for now, it's not the most exciting frame, but I rather like
    its geometry.
  • MountainMonster
    MountainMonster Posts: 7,423
    The maintenance won't have any effect on the frame. If you set the derailleur up wrong, or anything goes wrong with the components, your frame will still be fine unless you have an off. I wouldn't worry about carbon at all.
    My London Road
  • timsim07
    timsim07 Posts: 7
    The XC130 has quite a low BB so you'd probably want more travel to lift it up a bit. I just bought an XC130 frame to go with RockShox revelation 140mm forks (got the forks 50% off at winstanleys:
    http://www.winstanleysbikes.co.uk/produ ... Forks_2009
  • supersonic
    supersonic Posts: 82,708
    Take a look at this:

    http://www.merlincycles.co.uk/Bike+Shop ... me_694.htm

    Will take a 120mm fork, middling geometry, light, and great price!
    GT ZASKAR CARBON TEAM

    VOODOO CANZO

    Come and see me at https://www.facebook.com/biketyke/
  • rodsky77
    rodsky77 Posts: 9
    Thanks MountainMonster.

    I will definitely look at the carbons as well.
    However, one bit, I just upgraded the seat post for a pretty hefty price and it's a 27.2 size, and these carbons need a larger seat post size, bit of a pain, thought I already bought everything that I need :)
    MountainMonster wrote:
    The maintenance won't have any effect on the frame. If you set the derailleur up wrong, or anything goes wrong with the components, your frame will still be fine unless you have an off. I wouldn't worry about carbon at all.
  • rodsky77
    rodsky77 Posts: 9
    Thanks supersonic.
    This frame looks good :)
    Can't really find the specs on the frame, seat post, HT, BB size, etc.
    Are they somewhere on the site in downloads/support?
    supersonic wrote:
    Take a look at this:

    http://www.merlincycles.co.uk/Bike+Shop ... me_694.htm

    Will take a 120mm fork, middling geometry, light, and great price!
  • supersonic
    supersonic Posts: 82,708
    They used to be: I'd drop them a quick email.
    GT ZASKAR CARBON TEAM

    VOODOO CANZO

    Come and see me at https://www.facebook.com/biketyke/
  • rodsky77
    rodsky77 Posts: 9
    Thank you Supersonic.

    In general, how do you guys feel about frames with zero-stack headsets vs external?
    Any real-world performance differences? People say that the front is much stiffer with a zero-stack.
    Is this a true statement?
    supersonic wrote:
    They used to be: I'd drop them a quick email.
  • supersonic
    supersonic Posts: 82,708
    rodsky77 wrote:
    Thank you Supersonic.

    In general, how do you guys feel about frames with zero-stack headsets vs external?
    Any real-world performance differences? People say that the front is much stiffer with a zero-stack.
    Is this a true statement?
    supersonic wrote:
    They used to be: I'd drop them a quick email.

    Zerostack were invented for that reason - a lower overall headtube size. Can't say I have noticed any stiffness differences.
    GT ZASKAR CARBON TEAM

    VOODOO CANZO

    Come and see me at https://www.facebook.com/biketyke/
  • rodsky77
    rodsky77 Posts: 9
    timsim07 wrote:
    The XC130 has quite a low BB so you'd probably want more travel to lift it up a bit. I just bought an XC130 frame to go with RockShox revelation 140mm forks (got the forks 50% off at winstanleys:
    http://www.winstanleysbikes.co.uk/produ ... Forks_2009
    Thanks timsim07, but a new fork is not in the budget :(
    So, this frame is out of the question.
  • rodsky77
    rodsky77 Posts: 9
    Thank you all for your responses, help and input.

    I bit the bullet and ordered the Azonic AZ-7 18.5" - did not want for CRC to run out of stock - it happens too often and the frame looks very interesting - for a frame that is such an unknown quantity to have a rating of 4.6 on MTBR and not a single bad review, of the 15-20 reviews out there, it must be a pretty decent frame.

    Will weigh it and report back on the true weight for this year's model.

    Will most likely be about 3 lbs.

    Should make a pretty good XC setup with my current components.

    Thanks again.
  • rodsky77
    rodsky77 Posts: 9
    Hi all,

    Have the Azonic AZ-7 - it looks very cool :)
    The weight of the Azonic AZ-7 18.5 inch frame with the hanger is: 1370 grams ~ 3.02 lbs
    In case anyone cares, the weight of the Kona Blast 2010 19 inch frame is 2000 grams - 4.41 lbs (could not find the weight of this frame anywhere....)

    Putting everything together now, and putting all the old parts back on the Kona. Should take me a week or two :)

    Thanks again for your help.

    Cheers.

Categories