New posts

2014 Kona Operator Supreme Carbon Fiber Prototype

Feb. 21, 2013, 12:52 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: June 12, 2004

^ he did mention that particular front triangle was stress tested 2000 cycles and ridden for 2 years by an employee.

so that's something to factor in i suppose.

Feb. 21, 2013, 12:52 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 13, 2011

funny. kona seems to be one of the few remaining companies that make bikes that look (and in some cases are) built like heavy machinery. Of all the above posted carbon DH bikes, this one, with as few curves as possible, is IMO by far the nicest / toughest looking. Kona made a carbon anvil. which is good of them.

Feb. 21, 2013, 1:04 p.m.
Posts: 1081
Joined: Jan. 1, 2011

^ he did mention that particular front triangle was stress tested 2000 cycles and ridden for 2 years by an employee.

so that's something to factor in i suppose.

Fair enough, and totally something to factor in. I'm just talking more about the cracking noises themselves. I'm sure there would be some similar sounds made by a fresh carbon frame put through those same tests to failure.

I guess it's just the catastrophic nature of carbon failure that scares me. Metal seems to crack or bend or otherwise deform before failure. Most of the time you have some idea metal is about to fail, and you should probably stop riding it. With carbon you should stop riding it when you're picking your teeth up off the trail…

funny. kona seems to be one of the few remaining companies that make bikes that look (and in some cases are) built like heavy machinery. Of all the above posted carbon DH bikes, this one, with as few curves as possible, is IMO by far the nicest / toughest looking. Kona made a carbon anvil. which is good of them.

I have always liked the functionality, durability and fun factor of Kona bikes vs the weight wars other brands seem to engage in.

Ride, don't slide.

Feb. 21, 2013, 1:06 p.m.
Posts: 8256
Joined: Nov. 21, 2002

I'll pipe down over here, haha… but I'll be pulling out a measuring tape on Gwin's bike if I ever get my hands on it!

No you're right, thats a short rear end, so is the Demo. New school DH geometry. Lots are still in the 430-450 range.

Thats a good-looking Kona.

WTB Frequency i23 rim, 650b NEW - $40

Feb. 21, 2013, 1:21 p.m.
Posts: 1055
Joined: Jan. 31, 2005

Not to hijack the thread, but do you mean this video?

I don't know. The alu failed the first test at 1,464lbs, but you could clearly hear cracking in the carbon frame at around the 800lb-900lb mark and getting worse and louder until it broke. Sure it broke at the 2,050lb mark, but the amount of cracking going on gives me the heebie jeebies. Is there any structural compromise at the point you start to hear the cracking? If they stopped the test at 1,900lbs would you feel comfortable riding that frame still? At least you'd have some visual confirmation on a metal frame that it had been super stressed. The carbon frame would likely look perfectly fine if they had stopped at the 1,900lb mark, but I sure as heck wouldn't ride it…

I think if I heard one of those cracks in my frame I'd stop riding it.
However, those final yield numbers are really high, but obviously if you were riding an aluminum bike and had that sort of impact it would fail catastrophically too.

There's nothing better than an Orangina after cheating death with Digger.

Feb. 21, 2013, 1:37 p.m.
Posts: 2116
Joined: Aug. 4, 2009

Carbon V10's have been out long enough that if carbon did fail as people are scared that it does, we would be seeing it by now.

Feb. 21, 2013, 3:52 p.m.
Posts: 1046
Joined: May 30, 2004

"104mm wide BB and a 157mm spaced rear end."

I don't keep up w/the latest [HTML_REMOVED] greatest,but when/where did a 104mm BB come from (Surly pugsley uses 100mm) [HTML_REMOVED] I thought that the agreed upon rear spacing "standard" for bikes now is 142 for little bikes [HTML_REMOVED] 150 for big bikes. Are they going for a zero dish wheel? For reference I have a Super 8 in my grudge right now w/a 160mm rear hub/zero dish wheel which is sweet except for the tiny 73mm bb (124 axle) which plays hell w/the shifting/chainline. Maybe now they finally have it right?

The BB is a press fit bearing system which they measure to the outside of the bearing so it likely takes your normal 83mm crankset.

The 157mm rear end is the 142 system for 150mm wide hubs. For each system they've just added 3.5mm on each side to allow it to slot into the frame for easier wheel installation. The wheel dish stays the same.

Feb. 21, 2013, 3:54 p.m.
Posts: 1046
Joined: May 30, 2004

I think if I heard one of those cracks in my frame I'd stop riding it.
However, those final yield numbers are really high, but obviously if you were riding an aluminum bike and had that sort of impact it would fail catastrophically too.

Yes, those loads are really high. I wouldn't and possibly couldn't ride anything after a hit like that.

Feb. 21, 2013, 3:55 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: June 30, 2011

Twitter: Stephen_matthws
Instagram: stephen_matthews

Feb. 21, 2013, 4:04 p.m.
Posts: 1081
Joined: Jan. 1, 2011

"104mm wide BB and a 157mm spaced rear end."

I don't keep up w/the latest [HTML_REMOVED] greatest,but when/where did a 104mm BB come from (Surly pugsley uses 100mm) [HTML_REMOVED] I thought that the agreed upon rear spacing "standard" for bikes now is 142 for little bikes [HTML_REMOVED] 150 for big bikes. Are they going for a zero dish wheel? For reference I have a Super 8 in my grudge right now w/a 160mm rear hub/zero dish wheel which is sweet except for the tiny 73mm bb (124 axle) which plays hell w/the shifting/chainline. Maybe now they finally have it right?

104mm is to 83mm as 92mm is to 73mm. Meaning they are using a Shimano press-fit 104mm BB, which will be compatible with Shimano style cranks for 83mm BB shells with external thread on bottom brackets.

DH Press fit BB: SM-BB71-41C (58mm chainline; 104.5x41 BB shell)

The 157mm rear end is a Trek thing, like 142mm was. It adds 3.5mm per side to the hub to accomidate slots on the frame for easier fitting of the rear wheel. It should have the same flange width and dish as a normal 150mm wheel, as 135mm and 142mm hubs are identical, save for the axle width.

EDIT: bogey beat me to it.

Ride, don't slide.

Feb. 22, 2013, 4:07 p.m.
Posts: 3518
Joined: Dec. 17, 2003

Pipe down. It's not a Ghost.

Feb. 22, 2013, 4:09 p.m.
Posts: 3518
Joined: Dec. 17, 2003

The 157mm rear end is a Trek thing, like 142mm was. It adds 3.5mm per side to the hub to accomidate slots on the frame for easier fitting of the rear wheel. It should have the same flange width and dish as a normal 150mm wheel, as 135mm and 142mm hubs are identical, save for the axle width.

EDIT: bogey beat me to it.

And a Norco thing, and a Specialized thing and …..

Makes putting a thru axle in much easier and faster on my Aurum than pretty much any other thru axle'd bike i've owned.

Changes nothing about the hub, other than the additional length on the axle.

Feb. 22, 2013, 4:09 p.m.
Posts: 2116
Joined: Aug. 4, 2009

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Kona-Carbon-Operator-first-look.html

Aggie's bike

Feb. 22, 2013, 4:33 p.m.
Posts: 10309
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

schmexy…

Check my stuff for sale!

Feb. 23, 2013, 12:29 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: April 14, 2011

I used to be a bit of a carbon hater BITD but seeing that I spot a cracked aluminum frame every week at work, I'm now glad to see companies moving away from coke cans and onto something with more integrity. Being a grumpy old git, I'd still love a steel DH bike though.

^^ this

had no time for carbon fibre, thought it was hype, however since owning 2 carbon frames (mountain bike and road bike) I completely understand why its a superior material for frame construction

would still not catch me going anywhere near carbon fibre handlebars, seat post, stem or cranks though….

at my work? I am undertaking warranty work every week on both alumininum alloy and carbon fibre frames

what I have come to understand is that the majority of the aluminium alloy frames have failed due to long term fatigue, whilst the majority of the carbon fibre frames have been involved in a serious impact (i.e. rider hit by a vehicle) which then becomes a "crash replacement" procedure with some $$$ changing hands

I see very few carbon fibre frames for genuine "warranty", compared to aluminium alloy frames typically 3-5 years old

Forum jump: