I didn't understand the fork comment, just have to wait and see how it rides. The full lineup hits this weekend on Sunday with specs. I am waiting to see the new Rove/Sutra which are in my budget along with the alloy 105 Grade. It is really hard to find these types of bikes to test ride in person where I live. All the online data helps.
I don't think you can make a stylish front, lightweight steel fork with disc-brakes. I'm no frame builder, but I don't think it would be strong enough for that, which is why you never see it. You see disc brakes on some steel forks, but those are usually very heavily built - touring bikes and mountain bikes.
I'm curious if anyone has seen these bikes in person yet. The Sutra looks like more of a bikepacking cruiser. The Roadhouse strikes me as more of a toned down CX bike. Both are very nice looking, tho!
And from what I've been told, the Sutra is essentially a beefed up Rove with sturdier (stiffer) tubing. Which makes the Rove ST sort of the baby bear of the group.
I saw the Sutra LTD a few weeks back at a demo day here in Escondido. I took it around the (dirt) parking lot a couple of times. And a friend took it out for a very short demo run. It's a great looking bike and has the ability to run very large tires - 47c in the case of the demo though they looked more for road than trail. I can't remember what it had re braze-ons. I felt it would be a nice single track rigid setup but could probably do bike packing nicely as well.
The Roadhouse is a great looking bike in photos but that's all the lbs has. I own a 2015 Rove Aluminum with 1500 miles on it and am very happy with the frame. Frame,brakes and headset are only stock parts. I have to inform my LBS what Kona has in Road bikes because they are clueless. MTB yes Road no...lol
Your assessment seems spot on. The 2015 Rove Steel has a tapered head tube and a higher bottom bracket drop.(~5mm) The 2016 Rove and Sutra have a standard 1 1/8 top and bottom head tube, not tapered. The 2016 Steel Rove is an 11- speed (a bit expensive for what you get) The Rove has sportier Geometry than the Sutra shorter Wheelbase and chainstays and 45mm offset fork
The 2016 Sutra and LTD are the same frame with different paint and components.
With that said, I am strongly considering the 2016 Sutra as a dedicated tourer get lost in the world do it all bike. I was contemplating building up an LTD frame but the Frame game dealers play puts it out of my fun window.
Thanks for the input, DrSpoke. I'm looking for a bike that won't be a liability on fairly tame single track, but can be comfortable for 50 miles on the road. If the Sutra can do that, I assume the other two will do just as well. \n\nI put in a call on Monday to a lbs that carries Kona inquiring about all three models. Being a picky bastage, I wanted to see if they could get in either a Roadhouse (first choice) or Rove ST (second choice) but build it up with the Sutra LTD components. I figure a Roadhouse with the component change should cost about the same as the spec'd gruppo. But the bigger question seems to be availability. I'm still waiting on their reply. The lbs is pretty helpful but not at all speedy in returning calls. I'll let you know when I hear more.
The Roadhouse really keeps growing on me. I just sold my carbon road bike and am looking at replacing it with something like this. Is there any idea what the max tire clearance might be on this? I know it comes stock with 30's but I'm guessing that's probably close to max.
JoeFriday, I'll be interested in seeing what you find out, especially if you can get them with the Sutra LTD components.
Just got off the phone with my LBS. Some juicy info to share....
The Roadhouse is available as frame/fork, altho Kona doesn't advertise it. I wasn't given a price on anything yet, but I'd assume it's $999, which I'd read here http://pelotonmagazine.com/goods/kona-bikes-2016-images-review/ a while back. Availability (at least in my size... 49cm) is Dec/Jan. But since my LBS has a full bike on order already, they might be able to get me on one within a week and do a different build for me.
Tire clearance for the Roadhouse is 40c without fenders... 35 with... according to my LBS (quoting Kona).
At this point, I might ditch the custom build I had been thinking of, and going with a Roadhouse for half the cost. Altho I haven't been given any sort of actual cost on a full build, yet.
Wow, I had no idea the Roadhouse was available as a frame set, or that it could take up to 40c. That really makes this bike even more tempting. Fortunately, we have one Kona dealer in the area, so I might have to stop by and talk to them soon. Thanks for sharing this info!
I'm not trying to muddy things up any further here, but I emailed Kona directly about the tire clearance on the Roadhouse, and they replied saying they didn't build it for much more clearance than the stock 30c tires as it is a pavement based model. For bigger clearance, they recommended looking at the Rove or the Sutra LTD. I was kind of torn between this bike and the RLT 9 Steel. If only I could get both...
I'm glad you contacted them because I wasn't so sure that the info I was given was correct. From photos online, it doesn't look like 40s would be an easy fit, if even possible. \n\nAnd it suddenly makes sense that it would be a pavement bike, considering the name. \n\nAs it is, I won't be picking up a true GG for a while since I ordered a fattie today. I'd have to rule out the Roadhouse altogether for future reference.
I've been in the market for an adventure bike since about April. I sold my Cx bike and was looking for something with disc brakes and ability to run larger tires. I had pretty much decided on a Salsa Warbird carbon but delivery kept getting pushed back - from May to June to August to September and finally October. Then, when they were available, I found out by LBS couldn't get one, despite his continued reassurance, as he wasn't an authorized Salsa dealer. Then, Salsa couldn't tell me when the 2nd shipment was supposed to arrive.
So I went to plan B and was looking at Niner RLT and the like as a short term solution. Ridley had announced the X-Trail earlier in the Summer but no geo specs were available at the time. But they have since been released and looked very good. Sort of in between the Warbird and the Specialized Diverge. I've always liked Ridley so it was game on. I found a great deal at Performance, model CR1, and ordered it. The price was very good to begin with and I ordered it when they were offering double (20%) Performance Points worth $560. With the points, the net is about $2,240. I plan to use the points to upgrade to Di2 at which time I'll have a completely modern bike that, with 2 or 3 sets of wheels, can do about anything - carbon frame, Di2, 11-sp, hydraulic discs w/flat mount calipers and thru axles front and rear. And room for 40c tires.
If you're not committed to steel, take a look. They're offering double points this weekend too. And they have a pretty nice guarantee.
Outside of the steel options, the X-Trail was another bike that caught my eye earlier this summer, and I have also been looking at the one you posted on Performance's site. Do you mind telling me what size you ended up ordering? I'm just under 5' 10" and according to Ridley, this would put me on the large end of a Small, or the small end of Medium.
I'm about 5'8" and ride a 52cm or 53cm road bike. In generic sizing I was a M in a Santa Cruz mtn bike and a S on my Pivot (which run large). So generally, I think I'm about a Med but a Small in some models. Anyway, I ended up ordering an XS Ridley. So they seem to run very large. Of course, there weren't any X-Trails available when I ordered but my shop had the Fenix model in stock in both S and XS. The Fenix is their fondo or "comfort" road model and has similar geo to the X-Trail. Both the sales guy and I agreed the XS was a better fit. Plus, I like my frames a little small especially for the type of riding I plan to do and also like a slightly lower standover height.
I'm not sure I'd trust their size recommendations based just on height. At my height, I'm right in the middle of the S range. For road bikes I usually look for a 53cm +/- effective top tube and that's what I did here. Note that the Riddle geo charts have the Top Tube Length, Actual and Top Tube Length, Horizontal (Effective) transposed.
By the way, they told me the size S would be available in early November. Unfortunately, the XS won't be here until early Dec - so about a month from now for me. So you might be able to find one now. They also have a great guarantee - 100% refund prior to delivery and even after delivery if in good condition. So you could order one and return it if it didn't fit or you didn't like it.
That said, and I'm guessing, that you are sort of in between models but would guess a Small might be a better fit. But that would of course depend if you like a smaller bike or prefer to stretch out. And of course body proportions too.
Hey DrSpoke, thank you for the informative reply. I'm kind of leaning towards the Small myself, and I have also read that Ridley's tend to run large. That is interesting about the Ridley's Geometry charts being transposed. I might be reading into them too much, but I also noticed that the geo chart from Performance doesn't match Ridley's. For a size Small, Performance lists the Effective Top Tube length as 545, but Ridley's site state the effective top tube length as 530, and has the actual TTL as 545. Are you saying that the Small effective TTL is indeed 545? Sorry for all of the questions, but I just don't have the option of trying one of these in person, and I've never ordered a bike online before.
I wrote to Ridley re the geo specs, specifically the top tube lengths, and they replied saying they got it backwards. And they have not yet corrected it on the website as far as I can tell. For frames with a sloping top tube the effective or horizontal top tube length has to be longer than the actual top tube length - simple geometry. This is why their geo charts made no sense to me. What's even worse, I brought this up to two local bike shops, Performance and another. I basically got opposite recommendation as to what specification to use - one said to use actual and the other horizontal. And neither quite got it as to what I was trying to say. I'll say rather confusing at the time but it sort of all makes sense now. I'll check the Performance charts again but I thought they were the same as and consistent with those published by Ridley. Regardless, use the longer length for sizing purposes.
I just checked the Performance geo charts - they only list the Eff Top Tube measurement (and not the actual). For the X-Trail CR1 in size XS it is the same as the Ridley Top Tube Length, Horizontal @ 506mm. This is as it should be as those are two ways of saying the same thing. So the description and measurements are consistent, but according to Ridley, are both wrong. On the Performance site, I see the Eff Top Tube at 530mm for the S so not sure where you see the 545 measurement. Are you looking at the X-Trail CR1? I believe the Top Tube Length, Horizontal (Ridley) or Eff Top Tube (Performance) for size S is/should be 54.5 cm.
The nice thing about Performance is they have a very good guarantee program. If you don't like the bike you can cancel the order or even ride it for a while and return it for full refund. Or perhaps your dealer can get a size S so you can check it out before you buy. Either way, hold out the 20% Performance Points offer. They had it when I ordered mine, again last weekend, and I'm sure again in the future.
I'm glad to hear you contacted Ridley, and that they mentioned their charts are off. This just seems to get more confusing by the minute. To complicate things even FURTHER, Performance has the ETT listed differently for the CR1 and the CR2, at least for the Small Size. CR2 Small is listed as 530, and CR1 has 545 listed. That probably explains why we were seeing two different measurements. Thanks again for this information! At this point, I think I'm just going to order one size and exchange it if I need to.
