PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
Kona Process 153 CR/DL 29
"I was in the air and manualing on the Kona more than on any other bike."
Words by Mike Levy, photography by Trevor LydenKona deserves credit for embracing the new-school, long and slack geometry years before most other brands made the jump, but things have moved on since then and so has the Process lineup. Five years removed from that first Process launch and we have the latest version of their enduro bike in for the
Pinkbike Field Test, this time in carbon fiber (alloy chainstays) and with 29" wheels.
The rather bland-colored but swoopy-looking Process 153 CR/DL 29 sports 153mm out back, 160mm up front, and a $5,999 USD price tag that gets you a RockShox Super Deluxe RCT shock, Lyrik RC2 fork, and a set of Descendant Carbon cranks.
Process 153 CR/DL 29 DetailsIntended use: all-mountain / enduro
Travel: 153mm
Wheel size: 29''
Frame construction: carbon fiber
Head angle: 66-degrees
Chainstay length: 425mm
Sizes: med (tested), lrg, xlrg
Weight: 31.7 lb (w/o pedals)
Price: $5,999 USD
More info:
konaworld.com You don't need to spend that kind of coin to get onto a big-travel, big-wheeled Kona, though, with the aluminum entry point being Process 153 29 that goes for $2,999 USD. Prefer small wheels? The aluminum Process 153 27.5 starts at the same price as the 29er and options go up to $5,999 USD as well.
The Process' suspension is a linkage-driven single pivot layout that’s about as time-proven and gimmick-free as it gets these days, but you know it needs a name regardless. This ‘Beamer’ layout, as Kona calls it, is said to be easily tunable by their designers, and can be made to perform many different ways. Conventional wisdom says that this design isn't as active on the brakes or gas as other systems, but the fact of the matter is that some of the best, most successful bikes in history have used a similar system.
Kona used to have reach numbers that we thought were enormous back in 2013, but a lot can change in five years time, and now other brands are taking things even further. Our medium-sized tester sports a 450mm front-end that’s maybe just a touch compact for my 5'10" height, but the large has a 475mm number that, while working just fine, is a bit too roomy for my preferences. Thing is, the 406mm seat tube length on the medium had the bike looking like a meter of seat post was showing.
ClimbingWe're guilty of overusing using that tired ''This enduro bike climbs better than expected!'' trope that seems to apply to basically all the latest machines in this category, but while a lot of them are more than good enough to pass the test, the big Process is a cut above most competitors. The bike's rear suspension stays largely unfussed while you spin the cranks around, and it also feels like it sits nice and high in its travel.
Further helping the Kona's cause are its 29'' wheels and not too relaxed head angle, all of which makes the Process a pretty darn good climber relative to its direct competitors, and I'd go so far as to say that the 153 would be my pick of the litter if I had loads of human-powered ascending in my future.
A lot of enduro types are okay with just getting to the top of the mountain, and that's just fine. But if you're the kind of person who revels in a cleaned climb while also taking all the wild lines on the way back down, the Process is worth adding to the short list.
Descending The Process spent most of its time in the Whistler being pointed down all sorts of rocky, rooty, and often muddy chutes that are scattered throughout the valley, and the way it deals with that type of terrain is a little different than some other bikes of similar travel. First off, it could be the most solid feeling platform that I've had under me. That in itself might make you think that the Kona is a bit like that giant boulder that chases Indiana Jones through the jungle, but it's anything but a straight-line monster truck of a bike. Instead, it's quite easy to get airborne on the Process, and while its 153mm of travel isn't the deepest feeling out there - even at 35-percent sag - the flipside is that it makes for a bike that's always down for some bonus air or a sneaky manaul on either wheel.
The Kona brand has always had an air of fun-loving whatever-ness, and I think this bike exemplifies precisely that. The Process doesn’t feel like an out-and-out enduro race bike to me, and I mean that as a compliment. While a lot of these types of bikes are morphing into gooey, deep-feeling sleds that do nothing but mute the ground below you, the big Kona gives you all the travel you need without taking away the fun aspects of a bike that provides you with some feedback. It's not the most supple or active system out there, though.
Relatively speaking, it can also feel a bit chattery and rough when those same words could be applied to the trail, which is likely the flip side to those great pedaling manners. That means that I might not choose it as my race bike, but I'd certainly choose it as my fun bike.
ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb16638156/p5pb16638156.jpg
Also, thanks PB for doing this series. Two bikes in amd really digging the reviews!
@g-42 The 111 was just ...an anomaly. That short back end that wanted to pop off of every little rise in the trail, and felt like hanging on to a bucking horse at times--yet (mine) was a heavy tank of a bike. Nothing about it really made 'sense' at the time, but the smile-per-mile on the 111 probably ranks the highest out of any bike I've ever ridden. I should have had the good sense to just hang onto it! I haven't ridden the 153 since they introduced it in 29. I know people who traded in their Hightower for the HTLT and swear it feels just like the same bike just with extra travel when you need it. We are living in a golden era of suspension, ha. If you ever get some trail time on the 153 29r shoot me a message, would love to hear about it man. This review hear makes me reeeeally curious.
Thanks!
So far i love the bike just a shame the Weather has turned to shit !!
For example, comparing a size large Bronson with a 455mm reach to a medium Process with 450mm of reach is crazy! The wheelbase of the large Bronson is 1215 and the wheelbase of the medium Process is just 1190... but if you look at the large Process, it's wheelbase is 1219 with a reach of 475 vs Bronson's 455. So, very similar wheelbases but quite different reach numbers... That's what I want compared... c'mon!!
A large Process with the 1219 wheelbase would definitely have felt more stable at speed. I'm not trying to defend the Kona, I just bought a different bike... I'm just worried about the consistency of your results. I love the format, but maybe next year compare the same sizes.
When you look at Santa Cruz's and Kona's sizing charts, they're basically the same.
You're like the people who get free shi* then complain that it is not the color you like...
Clearly these guys don't compare geo numbers on there own. All of these bikes are designed around short stems and the manufactures listed sizes do not matter. For bikes with similar stack such as these reach is a great way to compare. For example the Evils 2018 bikes vs Yeti's 2019 bikes are about a size apart until the Offering was released and they stretched the geo out.
I also tried not to be too much of a complainer... it's still great content, complimented them on the format... but unfortunately the fact is that the reviews are invalidated somewhat by guys riding the wrong size bikes. If I was Kona who probably built an awesome and stable at high speed bike, when you're riding the right size... I'd be pissed off. You know how may people read and watch these reviews, then go out and buy bikes based on them? Lots.
If I want a racebike, I size up (as long dropper stil fits). If I want a bike to play around, I size down.
Now that seat tube lengths are getting shorter, I'd say it's better to look at reach numbers before locking yourself into a certain size.
And @michaeldorian, that's a great suggestion. I'll add that info in.
The goal of these videos is to give a general overview of the bike in order for readers to get an idea of how it rides, and its pros and cons. Whether we tried a large or medium isn't going to change that outcome - the handling difference wouldn't have been that drastic.
A test ride of your own is obviously the way to go if you're seriously considering a bike.
As long as the reach of similar stack bikes are compared it does work! You can not use reach to compare say how a Epic will compare to a Enduro because the stack will be off by multiple inches.
There’s an article for Pinkbike that you could ask us to vote on!
Pinkbike Readers - Do we need a better Bike Sizing Standard?
Are you happy with the current bike sizing confusion between brands?
Yes or No?
Would you like to see all brands adhere to the same human measurements to base each size on so that size recommendations are universal?
Yes or No?
Would you like to see the industry adopt a International Bike Sizing standard so that a size from one brand (generally) fits the same as one from the other brands?
Yes or No?
Would you like all brands state their sizes accordingly XS, Small, Medium, Large, X-Large, XX-Large (even if they don’t make XS, X-Large, or XX-Large...)?
Yes or No?
Again the direct comparison of the Process and Bronson. A 5'11" person is directed to the large bike by both manufacturers... (Yes the Kona chart does say "medium/large" but their chart is much more general for the whole line of bikes. More telling is the fact that they only make the process 153 29r in Medium, Large and Xlarge. To me that says the Process Medium is meant for smaller riders, the Large for most people and the XLarge for big riders.) Both bikes in large have almost identical wheelbases, yet 475 and 460 reach numbers and 425 and 430 chainstays.
To me, this points to a divergence in philosophy from a design standpoint, not that you should up or downsize because of it. Kona wants a person of the same size that would ride a large Bronson to have their weight more forward or stretched out, which would make the shorter chainstays make more sense... vs the Bronson with a shorter reach and longer chainstays, designed their bike with the rider a little further back. The designer is placing a certain sized rider in a certain position on the bike to experience their design. Changing sizes to get a reach you like messes with this.
Yes as a consumer, you might demo various sizes and like a bike better at a certain size. But that's not what you're trying to achieve here. You're trying to give the public a review and comparison of bikes "like to like". You ride the Process a size down and call it fun and poppy, but less stable at high speed. You could have done the same thing with the Bronson, moving to medium gives you again the same wheelbase as the Process at a medium... I'll be that bike would have felt more fun and poppy and less stable at high speeds.
Anyway, it's still great content and very interesting... you guys do awesome work... thanks you for it and keep it coming!!
Don't forget that you're comparing a 29er to a 27.5" bike here. I'd be willing to bet that the reason there's no small Process 29 is because there wouldn't be enough rear wheel clearance, and most smaller riders would be better suited by a 27.5" bike anyways.
maybe another approach: PB could design an online bike fit calculator, with all the different makes and models to get you in the ballpark. Mike, check out the Projector Calculator Pro on Projector Central’s website to see a great example of what i mean. People could measure torso, femur, legs, arms... enter in riding style, level... then
I don’t get why people are giving them so much crap for testing bikes based on reach. It just works!
To anyone talking crap go get a professional bike fit(by someone who knows MTB). They will tell you where your saddle and grips should be located. Reach is prettt much this exact number as swat tube angle don’t vary much anymore.
that is why comparing reach is best. The label associated with a size doesn't really mean anything. It's the numbers that matter.
Having recently demoed several bikes, I have to say that bikes with the same reach can vary in fit dramatically depending on the seat angle and comparing the distance between saddle and bars (i.e. effective top tube) is the best indication of what will fit correctly.
To me the long reach and therefore longer wheelbase gives me the opposite feeling. Very stable and confidence inspiring. At 5'10'' I ride the process 29 in large and would not think a second of downsizing. (I came from a Nomad 3 in large and it is a game changer I never expected).
Otherwise, the field test itself is great. Thanks for that!
First of all, great job and I enjoy reading/watching your tests.
But I'll have to agree with the critique in this thread.
It's as simple as that: Kona designed the process to be exceptionally long for a given height of rider in line with the current geometry trends and creating a long, stable bike (with a short rear end). It was meant to be longer in reach than other 'L' sized bikes not to fit someone taller, but to suit the same height riders with different preferences.
Now you've downsized the bike and Mike Levy is telling the world that the Kona is a short, twitchy bike with a conservative reach number compared to competitors. Which is wildly inaccurate. Someone will read this and think that if they want a long bike they should get the Bronson and if they want a short one, Process is for them, when it is 100% the other way around.
Look at the wheelbase numbers and the comparison becomes just ridiculous (plus Mike complaining about the length of seatpost sticking out), the bike is plainly too small. Mike should have ridden the right size for him even if it meant saying "I don't like bikes this long, but it is what it is and if you do, like e.g. Paul Aston, you'll love it". Him downsizing to his preference is something one would do in a shop, not in a group test (or rather while renting and forced to choose the one too small, because in a shop one would choose a better suited make and model).
I get all the arguments about choosing the bike *for you* based on reach *if you already have a preferred number*, but a test like this should give readers an idea what each brand thinks is better, longer or shorter for a given size, and how it works on the trail. Not PB telling people "if you're this tall you need this reach number regardless of bike model, size and preferences". Seriously, by this logic people of certain heights wouldn't be able to buy from certain brands or would be forced into the wrong sizes. Not how it works.
It basically comes down to the fact that he's between sizes, a fairly common scenario for riders in the 5'10" to 5'11" range.The bike was also ridden by Daniel Sapp, who's 5'9", and the bike was a good fit for him.
As for having a preferred reach number being the wrong way to go about things, I'd disagree. How is that any worse than telling someone that they always need to buy the same size bike? It's not.
There would be a noise machine using the rear wheel to make creepy crow sounds.
The longer reach of the size L Kona is intentional and part of the overall design and handling of the bike and is critical to making it perform as Kona intended.
Otherwise might as well test a size Small Pole Machine and call it a super nimble XC rig. See the problem here?
Pinkbike Readers - Do we need a better Bike Sizing Standard?
Are you happy with the current bike sizing confusion between brands?
Yes or No?
Would you like to see all brands adhere to the same human measurements to base each size on so that size recommendations are universal?
Yes or No?
Would you like to see the industry adopt a International Bike Sizing standard so that a size from one brand (generally) fits the same as one from the other brands?
Yes or No?
Would you like all brands state their sizes accordingly XS, Small, Medium, Large, X-Large, XX-Large (even if they don’t make XS, X-Large, or XX-Large...)?
Yes or No?
The fact that not all bikes fit the same isn't really that big of an issue, because not all people are the same. Variety is the spice of life, or however that saying goes...
Look at the geometry numbers and go on a few test rides and it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what works best for you.
Then you get into different types of bikes - your Hardtail XC race bike with steep ST and HA in Medium is not going to be anywhere near - in almost any measurement - to the Medium 180mm Enduro bike that's slacker than a DH bike, with a wheelbase as big as a bus.
At the moment reach is the "best" standard measurement to look at - though that does mean finding it for yourself first.
What do you think the designers had in mind? You can either move your weight around enough, to change the weight distribution on the wheels, or you can't.
Have had 3 other friends get denied warranty frames due to cracks. Kona just doesn't want to stand behind their product. What makes this worse is that their BBB (Better Business Bureau) rating is a D-. There are numerous complaints filed and recorded, but no one seems to care.
My LBS have hinted to ditching them as a supplier and i hope that happens. Would be happy to see more locals riding bikes, then sitting around arguing with the manufacture.
Haven't cracked a frame, so I don't know what they'd do then. The frame must be pretty damn solid, given that I'm 230# and not shy about taking my bike to the park once in a while, and am far from cat like when descending.
As a company that builds our bikes with reliability and durability in mind, we take customer service very seriously and are sorry to hear that you’ve had a negative experience. We definitely always try to ensure we provide fair and efficient service to all of our customers. We’d like to hear more about your individual experience. Please shoot us an email at tech@konaworld.com so we can help get things sorted out for you. Thank you!
@eddycheever I haven´t had any experience with kona, but I have with other brands, and it seems that many, many are bullshit at customer service.
2 Honzo frames & 1 Entourage chainstay sent/warrantied in 10+/- days each time.
When you say the Process is a better climber than MOST competitors, which competitors are the top climbers?
Similarly, when you say the suspension doesn't feel as supple or deep as other bikes.....which bikes?
An occasional reference point when speaking about certain riding characteristics would go a long way to helping people make meaningful decisions on which bikes might suit them best
www.pinkbike.com/news/orbea-rallon-m-ltd-review.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/review-ibis-ripmo.html
Excellent content, and great work!
(Before you flame me, I own a Kona.)
Glad to see it getting some positive press. I'm biased though because my bro in law is the engineer behind this design.
really, really like it, & agree with the review, stiff silent and fun, climbs waaay better than my old 153 mkI did. Its also getting me down steeper stuff than before, it feels like cheating.
Stock the bike was limited by heavy wheels & a crap damper in the Yari, but they were 2 easy fixes and its great, Ive been caught out a couple of times on jumps, so much pop & speed carried through berms found myself getting air way above my skill level allows me to land!
And it’s also a race bike .
Oddly enough, a Large Altitude (452mm reach) felt uncomfortably large for me, despite having a shorter reach. I think that may have been in my head, due to the abusurdly low standover of the Process (818mm vs . 720mm resp.).
ALSO, I have to say that having a reasonable BB height (346mm) on the Process is a godsend for hamfisted people like me. I had no pedal strikes while riding the 153 29er, while on the Lg Orbea Rallon (343/336mm w/ flip chip) I had half a dozen or more. Maybe some of that is sag, but having a 10mm higher BB is better for people like me. Partially why I still run a 160mm fork on my 134.
With this new expected standard for pedaling efficiency, maybe going with the new average, we can have about half of the 140-160mm rear travel bikes as below average pedaling bikes, and about half above average.
Cause the way I read the reviews, they are ALL above average, which is statistically impossible!
look at my sag, hucking bottom out.
For example, my seat clamp is about 3" further forward on my hardtail (with a 75* STA), than it would be on this bike!! It's disappointing for tall people that this is so often the case.
The differences? The process is heavier by about 2lb but It rides better , rear end sits higher in the stroke , is so much more stable and confident to ride than the Bronson ever was , on average I rode the Bronson twice a week maybe more for four years from Surrey to Scotland and Wales, it had a ton of use but was twitchy and unstable even with a topaz and lyrik fitted
and 30mm rims and 2.4 tyres.
To be honest I would not go back to a SC, the process climbs better and descends miles better , I’ve fitted a scre together hope bb for reliability and carbon bars and cranks but when riding the weight difference feeling is marginal, if anything the Bronson felt too light if that makes sense, feel free to ask any questions!
I personally haven't ridden the new bronson. Have any of you?
However the G2 sounds as fun as my G1 + climbing has improved signifcant.
I really love my 2015 G1, but it climbs like a tank..thanks to kinematik designed for 22t chainrings..
Good review.. Can't wait to get my G2 27.5 frame which is just shipped above the big pot :-)
So I hope I will be the first one creating the 30 lbs build with a G2 153 frame during the coming winter month..
I was looking at the Process 153 but it came up short for my liking.
www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2480875
Not interested in the componentry but the difference in 3 yrs worth of frame changes.
And they say it is stiff. I have SC Nomad and totally love it and i was looking for 29 and bought Giant Trance 29 and Key me tell you it rides so so. Suspension ok but lack of stiffness is very visible on turns. I even said to myself never Giant again. Maybe Kona ????. I kind of waiting for Nomad 29 but Kona is fun ????
Full disclosure: I live in Bellingham, know a lot of Kona folks, and might be a bit of a homer. But I really think it's worth giving them a second look.
Be fun to see how the 165 version would feel with a 29" wheel combo . Any idea if the 27.5 and 29 frames are the same with different pivot bushings ?? @mikelevy
I’d still rather have real metal back there myself.
@iqbal-achieve: pretty sure the cabon frames had aluminium chainstays
The Kona though, nice but can get the same/better bike a lot cheaper elsewhere.
Me: I got to this link from an Instagram video showing those forks flop like spaghetti
Anyone else?
www.pinkbike.com/photo/16333602
And remember, it used to be the lowest spec on most bikes was a 32mm fork with 150mm travel that felt like a noodle, a set of garabage Hayes brakes, some ditchwitch foldable rims, and a 3x9 that you had to spend $30 to put a bash guard on.
I love the current crop of low end rigs. So much better than anything we ever had before. Too bad they cost $1000 more than the old low end.
You guys at PB ever take a moment to make the comparison?
cheers
Not sure what to do