Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Interesting...I hope more than just a few are available here..unlike the Honky Inc

Hate to think of the price here is it's 1700 US large.

I have never ridden apex or SRAM, but touring with a low gear of 36/32? Seems odd to me, would probably benefit from a triple...

And whats with 140mm discs? 160mm works fine and give people options...Maybe all these specs will be more sensible when it comes out?

I've pretty much the same driveline on my CX commuter...the 46/36 double talking to a 11/32 backend makes things a lot easier in the rough stuff or when you are weighed down with the neccessities of a workaday life. Leave the big front end to the dedicated roadie bike...

That's a great looking bike. Regarding chainring size, my Surly Cross Check runs 50/34 and 12-26. I don't do much off-road, mainly using it as a highway-bashing commuter that can cut across grass reserves and the odd bit of single track. I spend 95% of the time in the big ring. But I'd be equally happy with slightly lower gearing. I'd like the disc brakes, but love my Surly.

waramatt wrote:I'd like the disc brakes, but love my Surly.

You can convert your CC to front disc, where it makes the most difference. I've converted my CC.

Surly may eventually build a disc CC similar to the Disc Trucker.

petie wrote:Hate to think of the price here is it's 1700 US large.

I have never ridden apex or SRAM, but touring with a low gear of 36/32? Seems odd to me, would probably benefit from a triple...

And whats with 140mm discs? 160mm works fine and give people options...Maybe all these specs will be more sensible when it comes out?

My CX has a SRAM Apex Groupset. It came with a CX Crank of 46/38. I swapped that for a standard 50/34 Compact, with 11-32 on the back. Avid BB7 Road Discs (160mm). As an all weather commuter it is great. I've done 5,500km on it since November, and it is currently in my garage waiting for a new bottom bracket. That is the only thing I don't like - the GXP Bottom Brackets are not sealed cartridge bearings (at least not on the drive side), and sine I ride through all sorts of muck (and don't make a habit of removing my cranks every time I clean the bike), the bottom bracket drive side bearing developed so much play that I could see my chain rings wobble side to side under load, and this caused the chain to jump off into the spokes.
So, tomorrow is new BB, new chain, and maybe a new cassette (old cassette looks fine, so should have another 5000km left in it at least).

The APEX shifting smoothess is nowhere near as good as my road bike, but that is comparing bottom of line SRAM with top of the line Shimano. As the APEX parts wear out I am replacing them with higher spec. I will probably ditch the APEX Crank and go back to Shimano, just to get rid of the GXP BB.

Queegueg...I've run both the SRAM and the Shimano external cup BB's...haven't found much difference between either with respect to durability. SRAM are claiming a new sealing system for theirs too.

The odd thing about SRAM (and Shimano for that matter - just not as obviously) is that it is the same basic external cup BB throughout their range regardless of application.

The other option is go to aftermarket...which is what I'll be doing next time http://www.enduroforkseals.com/id225.html

Another thing to consider if you would like your BB to last longer is longer coverage mudguards.

Nobody wrote:Another thing to consider if you would like your BB to last longer is longer coverage mudguards.

I am running full length guards with a mud flap on the front as well. I ride in all sorts of muck so it is no surprise the BB is shot after 5500km. I did not realise that the drive side bearing is not a sealed cartridge. When I removed the rubber seal to inspect it, it was a very sorry sight. That will teach me for riding through water deep enough to convert the bottom bracket!

silentbutdeadly wrote:Queegueg...I've run both the SRAM and the Shimano external cup BB's...haven't found much difference between either with respect to durability. SRAM are claiming a new sealing system for theirs too.

The odd thing about SRAM (and Shimano for that matter - just not as obviously) is that it is the same basic external cup BB throughout their range regardless of application.

I have covered almost 35,000km on all my bikes combined in the last 4 years. This is the first time I have had to replace a Bottom Bracket.
I think the lifespan of the BB this time around is caused by riding in extreme weather and not cleaning/greasing the BB afterwards. You can't do this on a Shimano BB, but the SRAM one is not a sealed cartridge on the drive side and can easily get contaminated with gunk.
I'll treat the new BB with a bit more kindness and see how it goes.

queequeg wrote:

Nobody wrote:Another thing to consider if you would like your BB to last longer is longer coverage mudguards.

I am running full length guards with a mud flap on the front as well.

What I meant was longer than standard full length. When I measure from the ground to the bottom of the front mudflap of the Longboards, it's ~65mm. The lower the front mudflap gets, the less spray on the BB and drive train.

queequeg wrote:That will teach me for riding through water deep enough to convert the bottom bracket!

"Sealed" or not, this is obviously going to be a "game over" move for bearings. I'd argue that there's no point even stating how long your BB lasted if you do this.

Another option is to go back to sealed cartridge square taper. Should last many times longer if you don't submerge them. If you have to submerge, then simple cup and cone square taper would be easy to service.

It's probably a replacement to their Honky Inc which the LBS told me was being discontinued this year

Looks like they're replacing the carbon fork with a steel one then. I think it's a move in the right direction for them (I would have preferred a curved fork though). Carbon and steel buyers usually differ in their view of bike materials. I wouldn't buy a steel bike with a carbon fork. Most wouldn't buy a carbon bike with a steel fork either.

Haven't seen too many carbon forks with rack mounts either!!

silentbutdeadly wrote:Haven't seen too many carbon forks with rack mounts either!!

And I think you've hit upon the reason they've switched back to steel.

I don't think they've switched so much as recognised the opportunity to further develop distinction between niches in the Kona range. The distinction between a CX and a commuter over the coming years will get more obvious - CX will go the lightweight speed of the roadie route while commuter will take on some of the geometry and features of the tourer but in a lighter roadie twisted package.

This new Kona is very much pitched at that latter end hence the steel fork. It could be done with alloy or even carbon wrapped alloy but I suspect that the handling and particularily dampening would suffer under load.

I have 42-34 x 11-28, Rival. It's a 50-34 with an after-market big ring. I tried 44-34 first and went even lower so I can stay on the big ring for everything but steep hills, no need for triple.

Looks like this is it:

http://www.konaworld.com/bike.cfm?content=rove

Wow, total change from the Honky Inc which was discontinued.

Shimano to SRAM, Avid to Hayes.

Nice looking though.

thomashouseman wrote:Wow, total change from the Honky Inc which was discontinued.

Shimano to SRAM, Avid to Hayes.

Nice looking though.

So different that I don't think you could say they were in the same class of bike. This is definitely CX by name and nature, the Honky Inc was a much speedier, more nimble beast looking at the numbers. Ironically, this is probably a better fit for commuting - the 46 crank is nice.

Xplora wrote:This is definitely CX by name and nature, the Honky Inc was a much speedier, more nimble beast looking at the numbers.

The numbers aren't that different.

The same rider wouldn't be any quicker on the Honky.

Xplora wrote:Ironically, this is probably a better fit for commuting - the 46 crank is nice.

Indeed. Bought anything yet?

I think Kona have cracked it with this one. The spec is pretty close to the ideal compromise between CX, day tourer and commuter and it looks impressive too . The group on it is not bad either...though, as always, the weak spot is the wheelset.

If I hadn't have built something very much like it already (Scott CX frame, Rival CX groupset) then this would have suited me to a T.

rkelsen wrote: Indeed. Bought anything yet?

Nah, this isn't for me. I'm putting tribars on my commuter - need for speed... the honky just wasn't quick enough.

Has anyone actually had a ride of one of these? I'm seriously considering one but there doesn't seem to be anyone in WA who is stocking them or planning on it.