# Khs bnt 29 xxxl



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

Has KHS been building this bike for a while or is it something new?

Just throwing it out there , in no way shape or form would this bike fit me...but , I wasn't sure if some of the tall clydes on the forum were aware of this model.

XXL 23.1 "

XXXL 24.6 "

BNT 29 - KHS Bicycles


----------



## klydesdale (Feb 6, 2005)

Wow, that looks like a great hardtail for XXL/Tall+ folks. Cro-moly frame with a 1.5" HT and oversized tubes, 28mm 36 H Stans rims, Shimano hydraulics, nice setback on the seatpost, 720 mm wide bar, the crankarms even look like longer ones. Someone was doing some good thinkin'. I'd be all over one of those if I was in the market for a new hardtail.

It appears to have been added as a 2015 model.


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

Yeah man , I actually saw it in last months mountain bike action magazine. They printed a khs 2015 catalog in the mag.


----------



## TKG27 (Aug 5, 2011)

As an owner of a KHS Flite 747 road bike, I was very interested in this bike when it came out. I was in the market for a new mountain bike and my LBS brought this to my attention. Great specs for a clyde and the price seems reasonable. My only concern was the stand-over height. For a MTB, it seems ridiculously high to me and I'm 6'6". I ended up buying a Salsa Mukluk on year-end clearance and am very happy with it in the dirt and in the snow.

Jeff


----------



## Woody79 (Nov 30, 2014)

I'm 6'8" and looking to get my first mountain bike. I'm a triathlete so I've spent quite a bit of time on a road bike, but i'm really excited about the idea of doing some xterra races. I was pretty fixed on the specialized crave pro in xxl because it seemed like a decent hard tail that would fit me that wouldn't break the budget. Looking at the geometry of this bike, compared to the specialized crave xxl, with the exception of standover height, this bike looks very similar geometry. (true or false?) Assuming that both bikes would fit me equally well can someone with more knowledge about Mountain bike components/construction give me any insight into what would be a better race bike for me? I noticed that the KHS is a steel frame, while the crave is aluminum. I'm assuming that the aluminum would be lighter. Any insight is appreciated.


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

Woody79 said:


> I'm 6'8" and looking to get my first mountain bike. I'm a triathlete so I've spent quite a bit of time on a road bike, but i'm really excited about the idea of doing some xterra races. I was pretty fixed on the specialized crave pro in xxl because it seemed like a decent hard tail that would fit me that wouldn't break the budget. Looking at the geometry of this bike, compared to the specialized crave xxl, with the exception of standover height, this bike looks very similar geometry. (true or false?) Assuming that both bikes would fit me equally well can someone with more knowledge about Mountain bike components/construction give me any insight into what would be a better race bike for me? I noticed that the KHS is a steel frame, while the crave is aluminum. I'm assuming that the aluminum would be lighter. Any insight is appreciated.


I'd go with the Crave as a race bike.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Woody79 said:


> I'm 6'8" and looking to get my first mountain bike. I'm a triathlete so I've spent quite a bit of time on a road bike, but i'm really excited about the idea of doing some xterra races. I was pretty fixed on the specialized crave pro in xxl because it seemed like a decent hard tail that would fit me that wouldn't break the budget. Looking at the geometry of this bike, compared to the specialized crave xxl, with the exception of standover height, this bike looks very similar geometry. (true or false?) Assuming that both bikes would fit me equally well can someone with more knowledge about Mountain bike components/construction give me any insight into what would be a better race bike for me? I noticed that the KHS is a steel frame, while the crave is aluminum. I'm assuming that the aluminum would be lighter. Any insight is appreciated.


The KHS is different in a couple ways as far as geo. MUCH higher BB, combined with a longer chainstay and top tube (corresponding to a shorter stem) in a given size. It's designed around a more upright riding position, and wants to approach obstacles coasting where the crave wants to be already moving fast to manage obstacles. The KHS fit might suit your riding style or trails, but it's slower in most conditions under an experienced rider.

The component spec continues the story- steel frame, taller/stiffer/ better-damped fork, high volume tires, 36 spoke wheels vs 24/28... the KHS is built to offer hours of fun, not good lap times. I'd consider the KHS a better bike for most folk over 6'3 thanks to the sturdy parts spec, but the crave is a faster bike. Of course, you might be a candidate for the XXXL KHS, and if so then that's gonna be the best option since a well-fitting bike is almost always faster.

The KHS has a much more confidence inspiring front end for the downhills. Stiffer/longer/better damped fork, longer front center, wider bars, sturdier wheels/tires... much better for making mistakes. The much lower crave might still be faster under a light, smooth rider though.


----------



## nate-roth (Aug 28, 2010)

I would love to ride one of the XXXL's in person. At 6'7" even on the Specialized XXL 23"
bikes I have 300+ mm of seat post. It's very nice to see a stock bike that big.


----------



## davidcondor (May 26, 2010)

Woody79: 
First things first: You are 6'8". I am 'only' 6'5" and am completely sold on the KHS xxl. I don't own one yet, but I am a proud owner of its kindred Flite 747. Both bikes are big, yes, and this is of course a benefit to taller riders. But that's not really what makes these bikes so great. 

What makes these bikes so great are the 200mm crankarms. Yes - 200mm cranks! The bottom bracket, of course, is raised to accommodate these fabulous leg levers. All I know is that I finally have a bike that feels right. No more knee pain, for one thing. 

Even though the 747 is heavy for a road bike, I couldn't care less. If I had the cash, I'd build up a custom Zinn titanium bike. But I don't, and neither do a lot of tall riders. KHS makes these bikes for regular folk who happen to be lanky. 

I'm guessing the xxxl would be just right for you. Anyway - yes, the Specialized will be lighter. Does that mean it will be faster? Maybe, and maybe not. In my mind, spec-ing a xxl bike with 175mm cranks is a joke. Seriously, in what way does this make sense? I personally wouldn't even consider the Specialized for this reason alone. Viva bnt!


----------



## Cantronite (Feb 10, 2014)

For those folks looking at this bike, be sure you are well suited to the longer crank arms and increased standover, that's really all about your inseam. There's a lot of people that compare their height to another person and start making assumptions about bike fit. That's a potentially huge mistake. The taller/lankier you get, the weirder the combinations of leg/torso/arm length.

I'm speaking from experience @ 6'10" with 7'2" arm span and 41" inseam. My dad, on the other hand, is 6'9" with 6'9" arm span and 38" inseam, longer torso and neck. We fit on bikes very differently from each other.

I agree the most unique/important spec on these bikes is the crank arms and the fact the geometry is designed around the cranks. There are no other non-custom bikes on the market with a BB height taylored to 200+mm cranks. (I've read the xxxl comes with 210mm cranks)

Specialized, in particular, tends to design their hardtail bikes around a lower BB height. I'd be very hesitant to run anything longer than the stock cranks on the geometries I've reviewed.

If your inseam warrants a 200mm crank, there's just no comparison to the feet-on-pedals cost of this bike to any other option that will accommodate that length without clearance issues.

FWIW Zinn had a hand in designing these things.


----------



## sirsam84 (Sep 20, 2006)

My 2 cents...I'm 7 feet and have tried longer cranks (190mm) and now regular length on my Ventanas...I didn't notice a ton of difference between the two. The Ventana frames had different BB heights, though, which was quite noticeable. For me, a taller BB height feels less stable with a higher COG than the lower...not a good trade off for running longer cranks, IMHO.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

That geometry... yikes!


----------



## Cantronite (Feb 10, 2014)

Gigantic said:


> That geometry... yikes!


What exactly do you mean?


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Cantronite said:


> What exactly do you mean?


71° HTA and most of the weight up high and forward. Where i ride, that will make for a lot of otb adventures. Personally, I'd rather see more trail oriented geometry: a 69°HTA, slightly longer top tube, shorter stem, and short chain stays for better all around performance and flickability.


----------



## Cantronite (Feb 10, 2014)

Gigantic said:


> 71° HTA and most of the weight up high and forward. Where i ride, that will make for a lot of otb adventures. Personally, I'd rather see more trail oriented geometry: a 69°HTA, slightly longer top tube, shorter stem, and short chain stays for better all around performance and flickability.


Doesn't the HTA change with a longer travel fork? Would that change also put your weight further back as it impacts STA at the same rate? Now.... I'd think this would all be more useful in on a FS bike.

Do you typically ride a hard tail on on your trails?


----------



## Cantronite (Feb 10, 2014)

HOWEVER... the chain stays and top tube would remain as issues.

They're probably marketing this frame to a more casual/trekking oriented rider.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Gigantic said:


> 71° HTA and most of the weight up high and forward. Where i ride, that will make for a lot of otb adventures. Personally, I'd rather see more trail oriented geometry: a 69°HTA, slightly longer top tube, shorter stem, and short chain stays for better all around performance and flickability.


That's great, but you're not the target customer for this bike. It's an XC bike. Most riders going for a 24+ inch frame are not shredding the gnar. 
I would also suggest that shorter stays make less sense the taller you are. The further up and back the saddle is , the closer it is to being directly over the rear axle, so the harder it is to keep the front end down.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

typically ride a fully rigid bike:








i race XC, both in this config and with fat wheels on it. I wouldn't claim to be a rider who "shreds the gnar," at 44, I may be too old for that, but my local trails tend to be rocky, rooty and quite technical. My 2 previous bikes had geo similar to this KHS and I found myself going otb regularly, because the geometry left me with a high cog and a LOT of weight placed up hight and over the front axle. With a relatively slack, 69º HTA and a dropper post, I rarely go OTB even on very technical rocky descents and my confidence doing so has risen exponentially. I may be an outlier due to my weight and geography, but for clydes, I think that traditional XC geometry is not quite ideal and a longer top tube and slightly slacker HTA makes for a more versatile bike. ymmv


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Your dropper post is giving you far more of an advantage than 2 deg on the head tube.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

even before I added the post, i noticed the HTA. That, and a relatively short stem (70mm) made a huge difference in handling and control for me. That's not to say that there haven't been some compromises- one of the trails that i ride most regularly has an old-school technical layout. The guy responsible for building them rides a vintage, 26" XC bike with even steeper geometry. As a result, I occasionally struggle to get through some of the tighter sections that he has deliberately laid out in the interest of making them challenging. With the slacker HTA and stupid long chain stays, getting trough tight corners requires either trials-like handling, or dabbing a foot down, but it more than makes up for it going over logs and rocks.


----------



## klydesdale (Feb 6, 2005)

Cantronite said:


> HOWEVER... the chain stays and top tube would remain as issues.
> 
> They're probably marketing this frame to a more casual/trekking oriented rider.


How long are the chainstays and top tube on your 9zero7?


----------



## Cantronite (Feb 10, 2014)

Gigantic said:


> even before I added the post, i noticed the HTA. That, and a relatively short stem (70mm) made a huge difference in handling and control for me.....


I'll preface this with the fact that I'm 6'10" with long arms and legs...

It sounds like you're describing the G2 approach to XC geometry.

I found the Trek G2 geometry gave me too much top tube (about 1" more than the BTN at the closest size [email protected] [email protected]) and had me too stretched out to get sufficient weight over the front wheel while seated causing a lot of finicky handling/washout situations up front.

Had i to do it again, i'd probably try a SUPER short stem, but instead went with an Access XCL 29er with 1" more seat tube, more moderate top tube length (650cm), 71deg HTA, 72.5 STA, and 455mm CSl... It handles much better (more stable AND "flickable" because I don't feel like it's trying to throw me) for my body mechanics... and happens to have almost identical effective geometry to the KHS save the lower BB and shorter cranks.

I'm looking at the 907 site and it looks like the largest frame they carry is a 21" with 642mm ett, 468mm csl. but a fatbike frame is apples/oranges, especially when you put the big tires on!

Trek
X-Caliber 6 - Trek Bicycle

Access
https://media.performancebike.com/images/performance/productinfo/30-8234-SIZING.gif

907
9:Zero:7 Fat Tire Bikes from Alaska - 190mm Aluminum Frame


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

klydesdale said:


> How long are the chainstays and top tube on your 9zero7?


my only complaint about my 907 is the ridiculously long chain stays, necessary for running 2x setups and derailleur clearance. +18" chain stays have been the industry standard and when I got the frame, there were no other options available. My next frame will have short stays. The longer CS make it a little harder to manual, as well as difficult to stand on the pedals while climbing- the rear tire wants to break free unless you're seated on a climb.


----------

