# Down to three: Kona Cindercone (2010 + 2011) vs Steely



## YukonPeddler (May 22, 2011)

Alright. So I've done a bit more research and I've tossed my FS options out the window. I figured to save some money while at the same time getting some better components for the money. Plus, I'd like to learn the ins and outs of a bike so that I can tune and upgrade on my own. I'll also be riding the bike everyday for a short commute to work and back so an HT will be a bit nicer. I was even thinking of getting some slicks or semi-slicks for the weekdays and then throwing the knobbies on for the weekend, but that'd be down the road a bit.

So yah, outside of the short commutes, I'd like a XC, light mountain able bike. I'll be doing mostly XC, nothing too gnarley. I'm more of the fly down the trail and mess around type than the downhill type, although I do like to bomb when the hill is there. I'm not afraid to huck myself but I won't be going too crazy on one of these bikes. 5'6", 29.5" inseam, 150lb.

The options:

Kona Cindercone 2010 @ $750 (link to specs)

Kona Cindercone 2011 @ $1100 (link to specs)

Kona Steely 2011 @ 1100 (link to specs)

I'm super diggin' the looks of the Steely. Also, although it's billed as a "dirt jump/trail" bike, it seems it's geared more towards a trail bike looking at the geometry? The angles are similar to the Cindercone and reading around it seems the fork can be set at 100mm for a the same head angle (68.5) as the Cindercone. I'm also diggin' the steel which will help out with smoothing out the rough stuff. The weight, according to one of the threads here, is around 34lb, although I'm not sure what size that was. Would this be very noticeable compared to a bike closer to 29-30lb like the Cindercone? Probably on the uphills I imagine.

Suggestions? Best price/performance? Lookin' at the specs it seems the Cindercone was upgraded, but I'm not sure how well those upgrades translate with the prices.

Cheers!


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

For your stated purposes, I would go with the 2010 Cindercone. The spec is pretty close to the 201. The Recon Silver is more or less the same as the Tora SL. I think I would go for the Shimano disc brakes on the 2010 over the Juicy 3's on the 2011 if given a choice.

The Steely has a 67* HTA, and is more what I would call a trailbike, which means it's is going to be a little more at home on rougher trails than a more XC type bike.

The riding you have stated that you will be doing can easily be handled by the Cindercone, and then some. The Cindercone will also ride better in those conditions. If you are really diggin' the Steely for whatever reason, it would work for what you want, I just wouldn't consider it the best choice based on design, parts spec, and cost.


----------



## moronm (Mar 23, 2011)

I was faced with a similar situation, although it was just between 2010 and 2011 cindercone.

I ended up picking the 2010. It is pretty tough to beat the price discount, and the specs between the two are comparable, with some trade-offs in difference areas between the two.

I also liked the 2010 paint better (not that it really matters)

I brought mine home a couple months ago and haven't looked back, you will be happy with either choice.

$350 in your pocket is always a good thing


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

You like the look of the Steely and depending on your definition of "huck" then it certainly doesn't sound like an out of place option for your list. Without knowing any better I would guess that the steel will be a bit heavier than the Cinder cones and the slack head angle will be better suited to higher speeds or steeper trails. Personally, I really prefer a slack head angle, but it truly is personal preference. 

Have you had an opportunity to test ride the bikes? It will probably help you make up your mind rather quickly riding them back to back.


----------



## fireball_jones (Mar 29, 2009)

4 pounds isn't much, although in the future you could probably upgrade the cindercone and make it even lighter.

I wouldn't call the Steely a dirt jumper. The chainstays are a normal length (16.7''), but it does have a slacker head angle. You could, in the future, put an even bigger fork on it.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

OP - try riding the Steely up a hill, if there's one near your shop. The slacker head angle may have an effect on ease of maintaining a line on the way up. That's the price of a little better stability on the way down, and (hopefully) a more forgiving ride if you don't line up a landing right.

The Steely you're looking at has adjustable travel, so it's also not like you're committed to having that 67 degree head angle. Depending on the kind of trails you're on, you may find you set it to an amount you like and forget about it, or shorten up the fork to climb and then let it out to descend. Or whatever works for you.

Even for someone who weighs 150 lb, 4 lb is not that much. It's the weight of the system that's important - so 150 lb for the rider, 30 or 34 lb for the bike, 3 lb of water, and presumably you have clothes on and carry a few tools, so let's guesstimate another 5 lb to cover all that. Now you're looking at a 188 or 192 lb system. Does that 4 lb still seem important? That being said, if it's concentrated in the fork or the rims, you'll notice a difference in handling.

Get whichever bike has the best ride.  Certainly they'll have a different character.


----------

