Hei Hei or King Kahuna? Who prefers what?

I preferred the Kona King Kahuna, I remember lusting after this when it was reviewed in MTB Pro.

I felt it was more substantial for all round trails back them than the Hei Hei, and more important it could take 80mm forks if I remember?

I ended up with a DEAN titanium, I am sure at that time Kona, American Classic, Dean and a few others were all made of the same tubing at the same manufacturer (Sandvik?) with only some differences in geometry though American Classic and Dean were identical at one point.

Later Deans with wishbones look very similar to Cotic's Soda, same dropouts which has me wondering?

Back to Kona though, I do think the Kona KK was one of the last good Ti hardtails in the V brake only age, most others seemed compromised in size or geometry. (Their 853 steel offering of that year was also nice)
 
sastusbulbas":77w8qkzz said:
I preferred the Kona King Kahuna, I remember lusting after this when it was reviewed in MTB Pro.

I felt it was more substantial for all round trails back them than the Hei Hei, and more important it could take 80mm forks if I remember?

I ended up with a DEAN titanium, I am sure at that time Kona, American Classic, Dean and a few others were all made of the same tubing at the same manufacturer (Sandvik?) with only some differences in geometry though American Classic and Dean were identical at one point.

Later Deans with wishbones look very similar to Cotic's Soda, same dropouts which has me wondering?

Back to Kona though, I do think the Kona KK was one of the last good Ti hardtails in the V brake only age, most others seemed compromised in size or geometry. (Their 853 steel offering of that year was also nice)

Reading your post made me so happy. Finally someone else who appreciates the King Kahuna and is not just considering weight and looks. Kk looks amazing anyway, and who can honestly say they notice 300 grams on a complete bike when they're out riding? :D The added rigidity does make it a little more "all round", and it's great for heavier riders who I've heard say the rear feels like mush on a Hei Hei (not dissing the Hei Hei, and lighter riders have no problem with mushy stays.) KK can take 80 or 100, but I think it rides better with 80.

My friend has a Soda...very nice bike! If I didn't have a Score and KK I would be jealous. Another friend just got his Dean, and there's a ti Dekerf on the way for yet another friend. I like the Cotic better than the Dean, but maybe that's because it's more of a trail bike. Reminds me of the Score a bit, though it can take longer forks than the Kona. But you are right that they are very similar with the dropouts and wishbone.

Lastly, there's a guy here with a KK looking to get tabs welded on. Never understood that. But he's young and probably feels V-brakes aren't powerful enough. It's plenty of power in the rear and I love having V's on the KK. That bike rides like a dream, handles smoothly, and always leaves me smiling :)
 
I wonder whether the two themes followed in this thread are linked. Kona obviously felt that the KK was needed because the HH wasn’t stiff enough for some riders, and it could be that the short seat tube extension was done in the interests of stiffness (prior to the introduction of the KK).

I’ve never read any former HH owner saying anything like ‘I used to have an HH and boy was it flexy, but I switched to a KK and that really solves the problem’. In fact I’ve never read any HH owner saying they found their bike too flexy at all. But there was a thing in the mid-90s of especially bigger riders, 85+kg whatever, saying ti generally was too flexy for them. I think this is a matter of taste to some extent, like some people say SIDs are too flexy, but there must be many who disagree because they still seem to sell quite a few 11 years down the line. But there’s no doubt that Litespeed and others came up with all sorts of shaped ti tubing in the aim of avoiding that criticism, and the KK was presumably Kona’s response to that market trend.

I guess the problem is that ti has opposite properties to aluminium. The limiting factor for an aluminium frame is breakages – you can have an aluminium frame that’s if anything too stiff for many riders, so you’d like to make it lighter to get more ride compliance, but you can’t because if you did it wouldn’t be strong enough and you’d get breakages. Whereas ti’s strength:stiffness ratio is far higher, so you could actually build a ti frame that was lighter than aluminium and it still wouldn’t break, but it would be too flexy to ride well. So ti frame builders have to resist the temptation to build down to a target strength level and instead overbuild up to a target stiffness level. Which is why people say a ti frame will last you forever – not just it won’t rust, but it’s way stronger than it needs to be.

With that in mind, could it be that the flatter top tube on those Hei Heis was so that you got slightly bigger triangles and more metal for any given size of frame, and this stiffened things up relative to the standard Kona shape? And then from 1997, when they went over to the stiffer KK with shaped tubes and gussets alongside the HH, they didn’t need that non-Kona shape any more?

I’m actually very surprised that you say the KK weighs 300g more than an HH, I thought it was half that, but whatever, for me it would be an HH any day. I weigh 65kg and I really can’t imagine I’d find a Hei Hei lacked stiffness for me – it’d be nice to find out though!
 
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't find a HH too flexy either at 60 kg. But I'm quite happy with a KK nonetheless. I've heard a few heavier 85+ riders say they thought the HH was too flexy in the rear, but that's not why I don't have one: I just found some KK's first. I can't remember where I got the weights from, but it was just around 300 grams for 17 or 18" frames. Obviously that would be greater for a 16" HH and 20" KK etc. It could be we weighed my friends HH frame and my KK frame...or I read somewhere, perhaps from Kona catalogues. Hmmm...getting old :) KK's made their first appearance in '96 by the way, with 6/4 stays instead of the 3/2.5 stays from '97 to 2000. I'm guessing you have the '96 catalogue scans that were posted in here a little while ago Anthony? If not I'll try to find the link if you can't find it in the catalogue scans.
 
I guess most people here would hate this bike :lol:

But man is it fun to ride! :D
 

Attachments

  • score review 007.webp
    score review 007.webp
    48.7 KB · Views: 1,502
I like the look of the Hei Hei, but I love the look of the KK. There's lots of round tubed bike frames out there (and probably with good reason - ride characteristics etc) but something a little different like the manipulated bi oval tubes and gussets of the KK do it for me.

I did own (very briefly) a Hei Hei. Almost immediately after I bought it my KK became available and I bought that and sold the Hei Hei without even building the thing up and riding it. A shame I know but it was only going to be around until I found the KK anyway. So, I can't comment on the ride of a Hei Hei!

The KK is a great bike and quite stiff say compared to my old '96 Marin Team Ti (which is sorta similar to the Hei Hei) To me the Marin felt a little soft at the back. The first time I rode it I kept looking down for the flat tyre! Being 80k in my socks didn't help I expect. Saying that, once you got used to it, it was a very pleasant ride.

Steve
:D
 
I know you did Steve! :D And I agree with you, Paul. Nothing not to like. But if weight and looks (gussets etc.) are an issue, then this must be an ugly beast in the eyes of some when compared to the graceful, clean lines of the Hei Hei. But I agree with Steve: like the Hei Hei, LOVE the KK.

PS Steve, I did ask about the Moots post. It was 1400 Danish crowns (could probably talk him into including shipping.) No idea what that is in £, but assumed it was probably more than anyone here wanted to spend? There were 3 others asking for one, but I'll be damned if I can find the thread now!
 
Back
Top