So, what’s up with the Kona Process 134?

Angus Young

So, what’s up with the Kona Process 134?

These guys think it’s the bee’s knees, at least top three, maybe higher. And its all about the geometry…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3JjsjA5u8w

And these guys seem to agree, it’s all about the geometry…

http://s.wiggle.co.uk/images/kona-process134-review.pdf

Yet, despite making the top ten in the WMB Bike Of The Year, there seems to be a serious issue… with the geometry.

“The problem is that, while the rest of the bike demands that you hit everything full on, the 68-degree head angle can’t match its control and stability.

Around slow switchbacks - or if you like BMX-fast reactions in general - it’s great, but once on loose or random rocks it can snap round underneath you and fire you down the trail, instead of drifting it out the way a slacker angle could.”

And…

“I was eager to try there revitalised Kona. However, after barrel rolling down a rocky hill after a high-speed mid-corner fork tuck, it became apparent that while the Process 134 has the suspension platform and toptube length to get you into trouble, the slightly steep head angle doesn’t give much wriggle room once you’re there.”

So one review says its geometry will give you confidence, the other says its geometry will eat you alive. With such opposing views, surely there’s no middle ground here - someone must be right and someone must be wrong.

What’s going on here? It’s all so confusing. Or am I just confused?

Kowalski675

Yeah, it surprised me when i read it, after previous glowing reviews.

Angus Young

And presumably they're all riding them just as hard. I don't suppose you get on the test team unless you're able to push really hard.

And what gets me is the direct contradiction. Bike bible says it will give the less skilled confidence, yet it throws a skilled WMB rider into the bushes.

BigAl

Well, the journos need something to write, need to take it with the usual ladle full of salt.

Not my kind of bike, so I've no idea. User feedback will surely follow on fora such as this and then we'll more likely know.

[cynic] maybe Kona's advertising budget just doesn't buy enough praise?[\cynic]

Kowalski675

Angus Young wrote:

And presumably they're all riding them just as hard. I don't suppose you get on the test team unless you're able to push really hard.

You would hope so, if their opinions are to have any value. It does seem almost like they're reviewing a different bike to other reviews though, very divergent opinions.

supersonic

You have to review geometry in context - and a good reviewer will also be able to put forward arguments for and against a certain geometry whether they like it or not. Sure, we have some very odd set ups that no one seems to like - and others that seem to be 'en vogue', but many don't seem to be far off a certain mark. Which is why it surprises me when I read all these comments of 'good' geometry and similarly of those disliking it. The geometry is nothing radical (and these are the comments that surprise me most!) - hell, it is not far off my 10 year old GT ID5 which people nowadays slag off for being steep!

There is no one do it all set up. We'd all be riding it there was.

Angus Young

supersonic wrote:

The geometry is nothing radical (and these are the comments that surprise me most!) - hell, it is not far off my 10 year old GT ID5 which people nowadays slag off for being steep!

They're not really talking about the head angle, though, are they. Most of what they're talking about in the first two examples is short chainstays, long toptube, short stem sort of stuff.

supersonic

Even then, it is very similar! Seen it all before. Geometry fads come around and go around.

Kai in the Borders

I have a Process 134 DL. The bikes that 'beat' it in the TBOTY may well be 'better', I can't say as I've never ridden any of them. I've also not had the Kona for long and the WMB team said they'd ridden theirs extensively for a few months. So maybe I'm still in the honeymoon period. It's also my first 650b experience which could be significant.

What I can say is that I've done natural trails, trail centres and some steep, rooty & slippery stuff - up and down - and it has been amazing. It may not quite cut the mustard for highly competent and experienced journals riding EWS style Enduro trails in Italy(when most of the other bikes were sporting longer travel), but for the average Joe riding some of the best trails in the Tweed Valley it is ace!

It's not the lightest bike around, but oddly enough that doesn't seem to matter. I had a Spicy before and that felt more lardy. The Kona climbs well. I mean really well. The traction is amazing and I've cleaned some hard climbs with it. So for me, weight isn't as much of an issue as the numbers might suggest. Over time I'll probably upgrade with a few lighter parts anyway.

Equally, comments about the head angle may apply to fast, steep and rocky descents but there's a trade off here. As I said before, I had a Spicy which is slack, but lacked the responsiveness that makes the Kona more useful to me for more of the time as well as giving it a more playful character. And it doesn't half go fast downhill either. The suspension set up is very impressive.

The Process 134 DL is probably the best MTB I've ridden. I could improve it with upgrades, but the standard spec is pretty solid as it is. I have absolutely no regrets. I've never wanted to ride my bike more than I do now!