Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Kona Rove 2016 - wihich framesize?

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 92 Posts

Steel Calf

· Registered
Joined
·
2,858 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 · (Edited)
>>> dear admin PLEASE fix / change the thread title to "Kona Rove ST 2016" thanks! <<<
================================

Hello guys, I'm considering a Kona Rove ST 2016 as a gravelbike!

I`m 5'11" with a 34" inseam (e.g. pretty long legs!)

I'm torn between M/L (54) and L (57) framesizes.

On a roadbike I'd normally get a 56 frame but numbers alone don't add up here as the Rove comes with a slightly slacker headangle and thus shorter stem from factory which shortes the overall seating length by quite a bit. Meaning you have to factor in the shorter stem when considering overall cockpit length based on top tube measurements like on traditional roadbike geometry.

both pictures show about my seatpost extension. I could only testride the M/L (54) frame. I'd run the stem upside down (not upwards like on the pictures) as it looks kinda silly on such a bike and is only considered as my last resort if handlebar is still too low.


I'm a bit worried about the M/L (54) beeing maybe too small?? The handlebar drop is already about 2" on the L (57) with all these spacers underneath the stem, the M/L has got about 3" drop. Ok that doesnt sound a lot but I'm coming from a MTB background and not used to it. On the other hand I heavily favour the smaller frame which might come handy when riding rougher areas but might hate the increased handlebar drop and short overall lenght over time who knows?

Maybe I'm overthinking things here just looking for some advice from more experienced riders!

So... which framesize should I get??
 
#2 ·
Servus, saw your post also over at bikeboard.at but am only a user here:

I am 175cm tall with a 82cm inseam (5'9" and 32"), so of similar proportions. I test-rode the M and the ML last weekend (AL version, but gemetries appear to be identical). The M was definitely too small (kept sliding behind the saddle). The M/L was a perfect fit. Note that the reach is almost the same in sizes M, M/L, and L. The number that changes is the seat angle and as a result the top tube length, ergo: How far you sit behind the bottom bracket.

So: Did you feel the length of the M/L suited you? If yes, you should be fine. The smaller frame felt more responsive to me but was too short. If in doubt, try to find an AL version in L, as the geometry is claimed to be identical.
 
Discussion starter · #3 · (Edited)
benja-man said:
Servus, saw your post also over at bikeboard.at but am only a user here:

I am 175cm tall with a 82cm inseam (5'9" and 32"), so of similar proportions. I test-rode the M and the ML last weekend (AL version, but gemetries appear to be identical). The M was definitely too small (kept sliding behind the saddle). The M/L was a perfect fit. Note that the reach is almost the same in sizes M, M/L, and L. The number that changes is the seat angle and as a result the top tube length, ergo: How far you sit behind the bottom bracket.

So: Did you feel the length of the M/L suited you? If yes, you should be fine. The smaller frame felt more responsive to me but was too short. If in doubt, try to find an AL version in L, as the geometry is claimed to be identical.
Click to expand...
Hello thank you for your comment!

Although it seems as if reach measurements across the different framesizes are all to be within close reach (pun intended) they're much further apart because you have to factor in different stack heights.

If you project the same 603mm stack height of the L frame onto the two smaller framesizes the corrected reach values are:

M: 370 (385-44/tan71.5)
M/L: 381 (388-19/tan71.5)
compare to L: 392

it's like virtually putting a lot of spacers on the smaller frames so all three framesizes have the same handlebar height before comparing reach. (edit: close but not 100% accurate as spacers grow the stack height parallel to head angle whereas the stack itself is measured at 90°)

Although I did test ride the M/L I cannot say if it was too small as I've never been on a road bike before. It definitely felt a bit too low with 7cm saddle-handlebar drop (all spacers were underneath the stem) but other than that I didn't desire a longer frame.
 
#4 ·
I see. To me, the handlebars on the M/L seemed rather high and I'll probably lose some spacers. But when comparing handlebar drop, we have to talk about the purpose of the bike: I plan on touring and went for the more relaxed riding position. For offroad use a more aggressive riding position makes sense. Do you plan on using the drops?

EDIT: Shouldn't it be (diff_reach)=(diff_stack)/tan(ht_angle) ?
 
Discussion starter · #5 ·
I can imagine the handlebar feeling too high for you as your inseam measurement is 6cm less than mine (82 vs 88) so that would bring the bars at about level with your saddle height

You sound like an experienced rider so if the M/L frame fits you it will sure be too small for me?

I also plan on long range touring but using the bike for off road riding too - what do you mean by more agressive position? Longer reach with more handlebar drop?
 
#6 ·
Steel Calf said:
I can imagine the handlebar feeling too high for you as your inseam measurement is 6cm less than mine (82 vs 88) so that would bring the bars at about level with your saddle height
Click to expand...
That makes sense.

You sound like an experienced rider so if the M/L frame fits you it will sure be too small for me?
Click to expand...
Nah, I just sound that way.

I also plan on long range touring but using the bike for off road riding too - what do you mean by more agressive position? Longer reach with more handlebar drop?
Click to expand...
I consider a position more aggressive if it is rotated forwards around the bottom bracket, so:
- less reach
- more drop
- saddle moved forward

All in all, my personal experience would suggest that if you felt too bent over on the M/L, the L probably fits better. As you say, the fact that I am ~5cm shorter all around supports that you should go one size up compared to me. On the other hand you should watch out not to go too long on the reach. But since you plan on riding with little handlebar drop, you could still be OK (see above).
 
Discussion starter · #8 ·
benja-man said:
I consider a position more aggressive if it is rotated forwards around the bottom bracket, so:
- less reach
- more drop
- saddle moved forward

All in all, my personal experience would suggest that if you felt too bent over on the M/L, the L probably fits better. As you say, the fact that I am ~5cm shorter all around supports that you should go one size up compared to me. On the other hand you should watch out not to go too long on the reach. But since you plan on riding with little handlebar drop, you could still be OK (see above).
Click to expand...
I just tried a 57cm frame with similar dimension to the Kona Rove L. Jesus that's big man. I never thought 3cm would make such a huge difference! 82cm Standover height - no way!!

And as you said the M/L frame offers a more aggressive riding position suited for off road riding and I plan to ride the hell out of that bike so I'll either settle with the M/L now or give up on that whole road/gravel bike thing.

Would you mind sharing some pictures of your bike?
 
#10 ·
You could also look for frames with steeper top tube slope. The Rove is going for an "almost horizontal" approach, which I like for a touring/road bike but when rididing offroad, a lower standover mixed with a taller head tube makes a lot of sense. Unless you want to race cx, where you regularly shoulder and carry your bike.

I'll post pictures of my bike as soon as I have it. It could be some weeks until it's delivered to my shop though.
 
Discussion starter · #11 ·
benja-man said:
You could also look for frames with steeper top tube slope. The Rove is going for an "almost horizontal" approach, which I like for a touring/road bike but when rididing offroad, a lower standover mixed with a taller head tube makes a lot of sense. Unless you want to race cx, where you regularly shoulder and carry your bike.
Click to expand...
All Rove frames except the two biggest sizes L / XL have a sloped top tube (e.g. Seat tube is significantly shorter than top tube measurement)

The 54cm is more like a 56cm frame from other manufacturers while the 57 equals a 58cm. Konas sizing scheme appears to be confusing at first as they use seat tube length instead of top tube length to classify frame size number!
 
#12 ·
Not sure if I'm too late to this party, but I've just got my hands on a Sutra LTD.
I'm also around 5'11'' and have gone with the Large.

Had my first ride this morning and any concerns about size disappeared about 2 minutes in. The Large was spot on, they don't feel super long in the reach, so you would be fine.

In case you were wondering, I loved it. I've purchased mine for more offroad style fun and the stock Schwalbe tyres will not cut it. Once I put some better tread on, it will be a bike capable of anything.
 
Discussion starter · #14 ·
Commonaeros said:
Not sure if I'm too late to this party, but I've just got my hands on a Sutra LTD.
I'm also around 5'11'' and have gone with the Large.

Had my first ride this morning and any concerns about size disappeared about 2 minutes in. The Large was spot on, they don't feel super long in the reach, so you would be fine.

In case you were wondering, I loved it.
Click to expand...
Just in case you were wondering, you just spoiled my day - I hate you!! (I was about to order the Rove in M/L size this very afternoon!)

I know the Sutra has got a very upright geometry but frame and wheels look heavier too. What is your bike weight?

any pictures to share? I would like to see your riding position (e.g. seat post extension + saddle-handlebar drop)
do you know your inseam?
 
#15 ·
Steel Calf said:
Just in case you were wondering, you just spoiled my day - I hate you!! (I was about to order the Rove in M/L size this very afternoon!)

I know the Sutra has got a very upright geometry but frame and wheels look heavier too. What is your bike weight?

any pictures to share? I would like to see your riding position (e.g. seat post extension + saddle-handlebar drop)
do you know your inseam?
Click to expand...
Hi,

there's a Sutra available for testing at the Bikestore in Langenzersdorf. Not sure about the size though, but it was quite heavy.
Also, they have two Rove AL, both in M though. I tested one today, felt good sizewise (I'm 179 cm) and also handling wise. Component spec of the AL is a bit of a drag even at that pricepoint...square taper BB :( . The AL does have double brake levers though (roadbike + mtb style), which I liked. Weight of the Rove AL was approx 12.5kg with pedals. The Sutra was of course heavier, with the steel frame, sturdy racks and metal fenders.
I'm also coming from an MTB background, and found the geo comfortable compared to an old Bianchi roadbike I use from time to time. I plan to use the Rove for commuting in Vienna, mainly.

Dere, Rynee
 
Discussion starter · #16 ·
Rynee said:
Hi,

there's a Sutra available for testing at the Bikestore in Langenzersdorf. Not sure about the size though, but it was quite heavy.
Also, they have two Rove AL, both in M though. I tested one today, felt good sizewise (I'm 179 cm) and also handling wise. Component spec of the AL is a bit of a drag even at that pricepoint...square taper BB :( . The AL does have double brake levers though (roadbike + mtb style), which I liked. Weight of the Rove AL was approx 12.5kg with pedals. The Sutra was of course heavier, with the steel frame, sturdy racks and metal fenders.
I'm also coming from an MTB background, and found the geo comfortable compared to an old Bianchi roadbike I use from time to time. I plan to use the Rove for commuting in Vienna, mainly.

Dere, Rynee
Click to expand...
Thank you for the tip pal I'll call them tomorrow! Btw I testrode the heavy as lead 2015 Rove AL in size 56 and the ride felt harsh and uninspired compared to the steel Rove ST.

Are you sure you tried a 2016 Model in M (51) and not M/L (54) ? (The M/L says "MD" on the Head tube which is irritating)
The M sure looks a bit too small for you...

the "double brake levers" can easily be upgraded later on but I dig the cleaner look of the ST for now

I wonder when the other guy is finally gonna share some pictures or if I scared him away?? (yes I'm still pissed damn you but wanna see some pictures...haha)
 
#17 ·
Thanks for the info regarding the M/L - MD topic, I wasn't aware and I don't recall what was written on the head tube. According to their website,both the M and M/L are promptly available at the store. Maybe I did actually test the M/L.
Yes I'd prefer the steel version actually (I'm on a steel Honzo and an older Explosif as well), but my budget is constrained for now...
Regarding the weight, the AL was 12.5kg with pedals, which for me is acceptable at that pricepoint. Maybe I could run the wheels tubeless to shed a few rotating grams.

Let me know what you think of the Sutra!

cu
rynee
 
1 - 20 of 92 Posts
About this Discussion
91 Replies
8 Participants
Last post:
Steel Calf
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion