Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:46 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Which steel frame/fork combo will you choose?
Fat & BOI 67%  67%  [ 30 ]
Kona & P2 33%  33%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 45
Author Message
 Post subject: RUST
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:59 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:22 am
Posts: 1094
Location: walsall near cannoooook
1 ) Monster rusted away in 96 before problem was discovered and was never explaned why this may have happened
2 ) Monster 2007 rusted away my fault lack of mainenence and not moving a sealed seat post for a few years
3 ) Discovered retrobike when slagged of on forum

4 ) Buy mint yoeddy with no sign of rust get it blasted before paint and o fu**in s**t rust
5 ) December 2007 get new tube in yo and new paint + decals again

6 ) Get a hole put in top of bb shell/seat tube and coat tube internals with stuff???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:35 am 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:40 pm
Posts: 323
Location: rio de janeiro
andrewl wrote:
Given the amount of Kona love/hate at the moment I thought a more specific question was in order, hence the following steel frame and fork battle:

Fat vs Kona

So in one corner we have the mass produced steel Kona frame (ie no Hots) with a P2, and in the other you have the hand crafted Fat Chance with a Big One Inch Fork (or unicrown if you prefer).

Does the sloping top tube of the Kona and P2 make for a better ride than the more horizontal TT on the Fat with a BOI?

Does the Kona have the racing pedigree their catalogues suggests?

Is the ultimate disapperance of Fat from the MTB scene a reflection of poor ride, poor marketting, business sense or retaining the 1" headtube for too long etc etc...

How many of us have ridden or owned both to even make an informed decision? and does that matter....

Given you can spec each bike with identical parts of your choice which frame fork combination would you prefer to ride?

There's no time for fence sitting, you're at the trail head and the single track awaits, you must choose one or the other!! ;)


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.
both bikes are built for technical terrain riding. do you ride technical trails? steep slippery slow singletrack? if not you should be better served w/ other brands.
racing pedigree?! pffft.. what does that have to do w/ ride quality? the most expensive vintage mtbs on the planet are cunninghams.. very few were made and the racing pedigree does not compare w/ ritchey, raleigh, gt or trek. what the hell does racing pedigree matter anyway when you are dropping a slippery, rocky, sphincter clenching section? zero!
if you suspect fat city's disappearance from the scene was caused by bad quality then you should ride a Trek and quit the vintage side of things alltogether.
this thread sucks..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:49 am 
BoTM Winner
BoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:22 pm
Posts: 742
Location: Wooster, Ohio
the purpose of the thread is to stimulate discourse, intellegent or otherwise...glad you were sucked in :P

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

cheers,

rody


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:49 am 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:40 pm
Posts: 323
Location: rio de janeiro
do you guys even MOUNTAIN BIKE? by the replies in this thread you are all riding the local sidewalk.
does anyone here ride technical singletrack? i mean woods riding w/ all kinds of obstacles and danger... slippery, rocky, rutted STEEP terrain.
you chose your bikes based on myth and looks. fats are an answer to east coast trail conditions and not a fashion statement. their geometry are all about balance in slow, rocky terrain. the beefy seatstays give you power climbing while the low front and laidback seat angle give you loads of control w/ body english. the BOI fork shortens the front and gives precision. it's a stiff bike made to react quickly. never a fireroad bomber.
konas are made for the pacific northwest and opt for steep seat angles and tall handlebars hence tall headtubes. then comes the need for sloping top tubes so one can have loads of clearance to save the b@lls when dismounting on steep ascents. it's not for looks.
it has nothing to do w/ race, norba racing or euro racing.


Last edited by purplewicked on Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:51 am 
BoTM Winner
BoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:22 pm
Posts: 742
Location: Wooster, Ohio
Oh, in answer to your final question...





rigid...since the beginning, and proud of it 8)

rody


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:05 am 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:40 pm
Posts: 323
Location: rio de janeiro
rody wrote:
Ok, I've enjoyed reading the banter thus far, and although I'm certainly no expert, I do have an opinion based on years of riding and working on both manufactuers frames.

The true tale of a bikes quality is not in the shiny paint or flashy decals, although they make us feel good/excited about the frame, but the unfinished product beneath and the story it tells of it's creation.

Fat's, all the fan hype and love aside, were excellent manufactured frames... I say that because the majority of the bikes produced were not handled by Chris and a few close craftsman, but by many hands that repeated the same process on each frame to create a finished product.

It is in the passing of hands that the details of fine craftsmanship are lost.

I've worked on a number of Fats without paint and there are some alarming mistakes present that should not be excusable on a high end frame; tubes that are not aligned/placed in plane prior to welding, braze on's that are in fact only tack welded and never finished, drilled vent holes in tubes in the vertical plane that are forgotten and left open, welds that have porosity holes from increased internal gas pressure, etc...

The majority of the Fat frames were never even blasted prior to paint to insure good mechanical adhesion, thus the poor paint durability.

Speaking of paint, even on a few NOS frames, I've seen areas of the frame that have not been painted (underneath the seat stays, under the canti hanger).

Now, when you are cranking out the number of frames a year that Fat was, mistakes do occur. Hell, even on custom one off frames it happens. But the pure number/frequency I've observed is a bit unsettling.

As for design, Chris did put a lot of effort into this, as he took time to spec custom tubing and shapes to insure the finished product rode like he anticipated it to.

As for Konas, the majority of the line served it's purpose; to hit a price point market with a product that generated consumer contentment. The TT Hot's were another matter. We had the pleasure of sharing building responsibilities of the Brave Cycle frames for Doug Gloyd with Tom. He did a few runs as did Grove. Tom's work was detailed oriented, precise, and of excellent quality. Although successful, he was always an underated builder, as many of his designs (both geometry and finish) did not excite, but produced long lasting solid bikes.

Strip a TT HOT and a YO and compare frame construction and quality...the HOT will walk away with the honors every time.

FAT vs. Kona...both are held in deep regard in their admirers hearts and will be a contest that will continue for years to come on this board :D

cheers,

rody
[/quote]
i had a trek 8900 composite. it had the most beautifull paint ever... and it rode like crap.
fat city cycles was about handling. ok.. the paint jobs were cool but the handling was the deal.
i have a wicked.. much softer riding than a yo and it's still magical when i need to clear things that require loads of balance.
my other bike is an ibis mojo so i am not easily impressed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:11 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:12 am
Posts: 2461
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
purplewicked wrote:
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... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:32 am 
BoTM Winner
BoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:22 pm
Posts: 742
Location: Wooster, Ohio
"fat city cycles was about handling. ok.. the paint jobs were cool but the handling was the deal.
i have a wicked.. much softer riding than a yo and it's still magical when i need to clear things that require loads of balance."

dude, now ya got it going on...I totally agree with ya!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:20 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:12 am
Posts: 2461
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
purplewicked wrote:
do you guys even MOUNTAIN BIKE? by the replies in this thread you are all riding the local sidewalk.
does anyone here ride technical singletrack? i mean woods riding w/ all kinds of obstacles and danger... slippery, rocky, rutted STEEP terrain.


For proper technical riding I wouldn't choose either bike but rather something like my 5 Spot or RFX. But the question was specifically about two rigid steel frames, so the singletrack should also be chosen in that context too. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:24 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:14 pm
Posts: 13405
Location: Warwick
One problem with fats I find is....

...you need a lot of headset spacers to raise the front end.


Konas had it right from the start. Rocky Mountains, Brodies and Toads did too.... The sloping thing was also a cool design feature as you didnt smash your nuts when you come off. Looked good too and they were reknown for their steep head tube angles that incidentally made downhilling less than impressive...(Steve Pete riding an Explosif proved otherwise)

Forward facing seatclamp - great idea. 1 1/8th headtubes - pretty much from the start, decent weight characteristics, and may I say quite an important note: the fact that they STOCKED THUMBIES on their range even after Shimanos major push for rapidfire plus to the masses...

I just think the designs were absolutley sorted.

Oh yeah I currently own a Fat Ti and a Yo eddy.

Ive owned numerous Hei Hei's, a Hot and currently own a 1991 Lavadome, a custom Ku (thats yet to be built) and got a couple of Explosifs on their way.

Yeh I like Konas.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rsp250 and 46 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group