# Kona Kilauea 1994



## jowul (Feb 1, 2011)

I am new to mtbr since I ride mostly on the road. I am the original owner of a 1994 Kona Kilauea MountainShock. The original Marzocchi shock was changed since the seal and seal kit were leaking. The cantis were replaced with V-brakes.
I am considering replacing this bike with a newer version but I am not sure if I should stay with a hard tail or replace it with a full suspension bike. Sould I consider a Kona full suspension bike or are there better units, say in the $ 2,000 range?
I am also not sure if trading in the old bike or posting it on e-bay is the way to go.
Any advise would be appeciated


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Stick with what you've got, that's a quality steel frame you have there. Drop some $$$ on a Fox F80 fork, that Dart 100mm is too long for the frame, heavy and has no adjustment.


----------



## jowul (Feb 1, 2011)

Thanks for the advise. The Dart 2 was really an "interim" solution to get the bike in proper working order. Looking at the Fox 80 it looks like its price will be more than the bike is worth?


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

You can pick up a used one for much less than the MRSP, or hunt around for a demo or old-stock model at your LBS. You shouldn't think of it in terms of your bike's financial worth, If you love to ride that bike and believe you need front suspension then the expenditure is worthwhile - a good modern air fork can be a revelation if you haven't ridden one before.


----------



## jowul (Feb 1, 2011)

mechagouki said:


> You shouldn't think of it in terms of your bike's financial worth, - a good modern air fork can be a revelation if you haven't ridden one before.


Thanks mechagouki, that is a wise advise. On the rode I ride a 14.7 lbs Parlee so I should think similarly when it comes to mountain bikes. I did go to the LBS and they had many very light racing forks, mostly RockShox with 80 mm travel which I can get reconditioned for about $ 150.00 with 1 1/8" steerer about 7 3/4" long, exactly what I need. I will try one of those.


----------



## jowul (Feb 1, 2011)

mechagouki said:


> Stick with what you've got, that's a quality steel frame you have there. Drop some $$$ on a Fox F80 fork, that Dart 100mm is too long for the frame, heavy and has no adjustment.


I looked at the Dart 2 fork again and it does have adjustment. But it definetly is heavy. I took it off today and I will see what I can replace it with. I probably should look like 80 mm travel, although I believe the original Marzocchi had 63 mm?


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Actually the original fork had just 50mm of travel I have two of them in my "what shall I do with these?" pile. the thing is, modern forks are not commonly made in travel lengths below 80mm. You can search eBay for a 63mm Rock Shox SID, which would be closer to the original, but by setting up the sag correctly on a good 80mm fork you can minimise geometry issues. Here is the original catalog page for your bike, the image is from the archive at www.konaretro.com


----------



## jowul (Feb 1, 2011)

Hi Mechagouki. I really apreciate you posting that information. Matter of fact I just come back from the LBS and they have a Rock Shox SID in good condition in their shop. It looks like a 63 mm travel. You think that is a good replacement for the original Marzocchi?
It looks like the length from drop-out to crown is only a little over 16". I am not sure that this is an important measurement. But it would be approximately 2 1/2" shorter than the Dart 2 which is over 18" long in that area.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

A 63mm SID should be fine, the early ones (1998 - 2002) I think can be a little flexy for some people's tastes, but I run a 1998 on my GT and it doesn't bother me at all. Super light too - sub 3lb.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

There is no need to look for a 63mm fork, you would be much better off with an 80mm.

There are two problems with your current set up. Firstly the Dart is not good enough for that frame. Secondly you are running far too long a stem. A long stem paired with a long fork is a major no no.

Although the frame was designed for a 50-60mm fork, the point to bear in mind is that Kona kept exactly the same shape frames right up until the last few years. For example, a 2008 Kula Deluxe was equipped with a 100mm Reba and had the same shape frame as your Kilauea, but Kona compensated for the longer fork and slacker head angle by fitting a shorter stem and swept riser bars. The longer fork and slacker head angle makes the steering slower, a shorter stem livens it up again. It's good enough for Kona, it's good enough for you.

Very roughly the equation seems to be mm for mm in swapping stem length for fork length. i.e., if we reckon the 1994 design centred around a 120mm stem, lose 20mm of that if you fit an 80mm fork, or lose 40mm of it if you stick with a 100mm fork. 

The only issue with a 100mm fork on a 94 frame would be the strength of the head tube welds. I have seen [email protected] say yes it's no problem, but I've seen [email protected] say no you could rip the head tube off, stick to 80mm. Partly depends on what kind of riding you do I guess, but if you hammer a 100mm fork it does create big changes in head angle as it compresses, hence Tech's concerns. 

But whatever you do, get a good quality fork!


----------



## jowul (Feb 1, 2011)

Thanks for the thorough explantions. I will stay with an 80 mm fork. The stem I have now is 100 mm so it should be OK for the 80 mm fork.
I ride single track and logging roads but nothing with any significant jumps so the head tube should be fine.
One more question: are the older 80 mm SID (or similar) forks compatible with V-Brakes?


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

jowul said:


> Thanks for the thorough explantions. I will stay with an 80 mm fork. The stem I have now is 100 mm so it should be OK for the 80 mm fork.
> I ride single track and logging roads but nothing with any significant jumps so the head tube should be fine.
> One more question: are the older 80 mm SID (or similar) forks compatible with V-Brakes?


I apologise - I thought your stem looked around 120mm c-c, but my poor old eyes aren't quite what they once were.

I think SIDs and Floats had V-posts until c2005, also early Rebas did too, although you would usually find them for sale on eBay with blanks in the holes - you can buy ti posts separately.

You don't have to have any travel at all of course. This is mine from a year later, but mine is a Race Light so it has always had a Project 2 fork, whereas your Mountain Shock has always had suspension. Frames are identical though.


----------



## Williwoods (May 3, 2004)

anthonyinhove said:


> There is no need to look for a 63mm fork, you would be much better off with an 80mm.
> 
> There are two problems with your current set up. Firstly the Dart is not good enough for that frame. Secondly you are running far too long a stem. A long stem paired with a long fork is a major no no.
> 
> ...


hmm really? kona never re-designed any of their frames around longer travel forks? They just kept the numbers from 1994 and all they did was run shorter stems from 50mm to 60mm to 70mm to 80mm to 100mm travel forks with no geometry adjustments to compensate for many years?

I dont know about that...I would love to see where you got that information.


----------



## jowul (Feb 1, 2011)

I see you also changed to V-Brakes. I replaced my cantis within the first year after I wound up in the bushes a couple of times on very steep downhills, unable to stop. The quill stem and threaded head set was replaced when I installed the Rock Shox. Somewhere in between I installed the raiser bar. Now I need to find a decent 80 mm fork and I am back in business. Thanks for your comments and advise and I realized that I have a lot to learn about montain bikes. Have been riding road for the last 50 + years.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

Williwoods said:


> hmm really? kona never re-designed any of their frames around longer travel forks? They just kept the numbers from 1994 and all they did was run shorter stems from 50mm to 60mm to 70mm to 80mm to 100mm travel forks with no geometry adjustments to compensate for many years?
> 
> I dont know about that...I would love to see where you got that information.


[email protected] confirmed it on this website in a discussion a couple of years back, probably in the Kona forum. But it's also apparent if you look at the quoted head angles, although Kona disguised it up until c2005 by always quoting a 71 degree head angle for xc bikes. Tech explained that they didn't want to confuse people, so they quoted 71 on say the Kula Primo on the basis that that's what the head angle would be if you fitted a 41cm a-c P2 fork. Even though it wasn't available with a 41cm a-c P2 fork. If you've never followed [email protected], he's so laid back he's pretty much horizontal, so I won't say that he gave a fully detailed scientific analysis, but that was the bottom line.

And if you look at the geometry charts, you see it confirmed - from 2005 onwards, suddenly they're quoting 69 or 68.5. That was the topic of the conversation if I remember correctly, 'why have Kona gone to slack head angles' and Tech was explaining that they hadn't made any change to the frames, just to the way they quoted the head angles. It was quite a long thread if you want to go searching. People saying they didn't like the sound of it, and Tech saying 'hey it works, ask the race team' and 'you were happy before, be happy now - all we've changed is the marketing spiel'.

Most other makes have done the same or similar, they just didn't say so.


----------



## datasurfer (Nov 24, 2006)

anthonyinhove said:


> [email protected] confirmed it on this website in a discussion a couple of years back, probably in the Kona forum. But it's also apparent if you look at the quoted head angles, although Kona disguised it up until c2005 by always quoting a 71 degree head angle for xc bikes. Tech explained that they didn't want to confuse people, so they quoted 71 on say the Kula Primo on the basis that that's what the head angle would be if you fitted a 41cm a-c P2 fork. Even though it wasn't available with a 41cm a-c P2 fork. If you've never followed [email protected], he's so laid back he's pretty much horizontal, so I won't say that he gave a fully detailed scientific analysis, but that was the bottom line.
> 
> And if you look at the geometry charts, you see it confirmed - from 2005 onwards, suddenly they're quoting 69 or 68.5. That was the topic of the conversation if I remember correctly, 'why have Kona gone to slack head angles' and Tech was explaining that they hadn't made any change to the frames, just to the way they quoted the head angles. It was quite a long thread if you want to go searching. People saying they didn't like the sound of it, and Tech saying 'hey it works, ask the race team' and 'you were happy before, be happy now - all we've changed is the marketing spiel'.
> 
> Most other makes have done the same or similar, they just didn't say so.


Hmm. Makes me happy that my Hot is from 1994. However, that year's catalog points towards geometry changes that were already in effect:

"With the advent of well-designed suspension forks, we have refined our trademark sloping top tube design to accommodate this important element into a unified package. First, we tailored the basic design to accommodate the extra length of a shock for; this is what most companies consider 'suspension specific geometry'. However we then lengthened all the toptubes by 1/2" to compensate for the wheelbase shortening that occurs with suspension forks. Even these adjustments were not enough, we then tweaked the stem lengths to maintain the correct reach and balance for every size.

For those who still prefer the lightness and ride of the rigid Project two, we have a subtle trick up our sleeve. We increased the clearance of the Project Two and spec a larger 2.3" A-Drive tire."

In the same vein, I run a 1.9" tire in the rear and a 2.1" tire on the front on my Hot.

Had Joe Murray departed Kona to join Voodoo at this point?


----------



## jowul (Feb 1, 2011)

The original tires on my Kilauea are 2.0" front and back. The original stem was 120 mm with the Marzocchi fork, and is now at 100 mm which I assume will be adequate for an 80 mm fork.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

datasurfer said:


> Hmm. Makes me happy that my Hot is from 1994. However, that year's catalog points towards geometry changes that were already in effect:
> 
> "With the advent of well-designed suspension forks, we have refined our trademark sloping top tube design to accommodate this important element into a unified package. First, we tailored the basic design to accommodate the extra length of a shock for; this is what most companies consider 'suspension specific geometry'. However we then lengthened all the toptubes by 1/2" to compensate for the wheelbase shortening that occurs with suspension forks. Even these adjustments were not enough, we then tweaked the stem lengths to maintain the correct reach and balance for every size.
> 
> ...


I haven't seen an explanation for the new geometry, but it seems like there are two new trade-offs in there. You get a longer top tube, an even shorter stem and a longer head tube. I can't think of a dynamic explanation for the longer head tube/more sloping top tube, but it looks good so who's complaining? I guess the trade-off between longer top tube and shorter stem maintains the reach, and secondly the longer top tube and constant angles lengthen the wheelbase which makes the handling less lively, so the even shorter stem is a trade-off against that and maintains the handling?

I haven't seen either the exact history of when Joe Murray wandered off into the wilderness (I don't think he joined Voodoo until a while later), but it wasn't any later than early 93. However 1994 Konas went on sale in the autumn of 93 and must have started to get built in early 93, so the design and protyping must have been in 92. So although I don't know it for a fact, I've always assumed the redesign for 1994 was Joe Murray's work. Although your Hot was built by Tom Teesdale, I believe he stuck exactly to Kona's design specification.


----------

