2002 Kona Chute XC

Now I know these bad boys are supposed to be Jump, FR etc but I saw this large frame in my local shop and thought XC it's a long low frame so Gets me the reach I was after and the bollock clearance to boot!

Staf.

Tht looks surprisingly good done up as an XC bike. Hows the geometry working out? Hows the weight?

It rides beautifully and is incredibly light I don't an exact figure but a friend of mine has an expensive racer and it lighter than that, all parts used are aluminium, titanium, carbon fibre or magnesium, the brakes are hayes mag plus which are a combination of all four.

looks great, get a spec list up, some nice bits of kit on there

Nothing wrong with that, bet it handles better than a dedicated xC bike when things get tight and there's opportunity for some air time

It is for lack of a better phase, The tits! now for the spec list. . are we sitting comfortably children? Then I'll begin!

Frame: Kona Chute 2002
Fork: Pace RC31
Wheels: Gold Hope Pro's, DT Swiss D.B. spokes, Blue nips and Mavic 717's.
Tyres: Panaracer Fire XC Pro
Quick releases:
Wheel: Gold Hope
Seat: Gold Hope
Headset: Gold Hope
Seat post: X-lite Metal Matrix
Stem: X-lite Angelo
Handlebar: Raceface silver Deus
Saddle: SDG Black/Grey Titanium Bel-air
Grips: Kona Black/Grey Jack Shit
Chainset: RaceFace Silver/Grey Deus XC
Pedals: Azonic Azonic Silver/Grey Accelerator (amazing pedals strong enough for DH light enough XC if you get a chance buy a pair you won’t be disappointed)
Shifter: Silver M750 XT
Brakes: Silver/carbon fibre Hayes Mag Plus
Cassette: Silver M750 XT
Chain: Something extremely expensive it's blue and coated but can't remember who it's by
Cables: Gore Ride-On Grey Low Friction Gear Cable
Hoses: Goodridge braided

Accessories:
topeak micro rocket carbon (the Mrs. says it looks like a lipstick)
and since this photo I've found a NOS gold H2O so that on there now.

This was my last money no object build back in 2002, I'm in the process of building another one which has taken me years to get all the bits for as it's all NOS mid 90's stuff http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81974&highlight=

Staf.

that is bloody gorgeous!!

very sleek and smooth looking

good job sir!

sweet. hard to imagine its supposed to be a jumper

Wow that must be the only Chute with a rigid fork anywhere! And a long flat stem. And a way way back position for the saddle. And it works. I’ll bet the Kona designer would be interested to see it.

I don’t know if these details from the 2002 Kona technical specifications are of any interest to you, but here they are anyway (with the Kula for comparison and my comments added)

CHUTE
Our strongest hard tail, designed with Out of Bounds geometry for long-travel suspension forks, and built for extreme trail riding and dual slalom.
Built for 110mm fork, sagged 28mm (48.5/45.7cm)
Top Tube - Kona Clump Light 7005 - Ø 55 x 1.8/0.95/1.5t
Down Tube - Kona Clump Light 7005 - Ø 62.5 x 2.2/0.8/1.5t
Seat Tube - Round 7005 - Ø 34.9 x 2.4t
Head Tube - Forged & machined 7005 - Ø 44 * Ø 33.95
Seat Stays - Rectangular 7005 - Ø 23/17 x 1.8t
Chain Stays - Rectangular 7005 - Ø 32/18 x 1.8t
[I presume the dimensions of the top and down tubes must be the average along the tapered tube]

KULA
A lightweight frame with lightweight components for cross-country racing.
Built for 80mm fork, sagged 20mm (45.5/43.5cm)
Top Tube - Easton Ultralite 7005 - Ø 35 x 1.6/0.9/1.5t
Down Tube - Easton Ultralite 7005 - Ø 44.5 x 2.4/1.0/1.3t
Seat Tube - Round 7005 - Ø 31.8 x 2.35/1.8t
Head Tube - Forged & machined 7005 - Ø 41 *Ø 33.95
Seat Stays - Round Quad butted 7005 - Ø 19 x 1.4/1.75/1.3/1.4t
Chain Stays - 7005 - Ø 25.4 x 1.8 (left), Triple butted 7005 - Ø 25.4 x 1.7/0.9/1.4 (right)

I make the theoretical weight relativities (Chute over Kula) roughly top tube +65%, down tube +25%, head tube +50%, seat tube +30%, seat stays +35%, chain stays +30%, overall +35%

So if the Kula frame weighs c3.5lbs, it suggests the Chute is c4.6, i.e., you’ve basically got a double-butted 7005 frame of around the weight of a steel Cinder Cone, maybe a bit lighter, but far stronger and stiffer.

I think the conclusion has to be that although you’re not using the frame for what it was designed for, it’s actually not far off what you might have ideally specified for a frame designed for your purpose. Which is either a stroke of luck or divine inspiration. We’ll let you decide which!