Descending The Process X has a big presence on the trail – it's definitely not as much of an all-rounder as the Process 153. It's happiest at higher speeds, and on terrain where there's room to let it run. That's largely due to the wheelbase length, the result of that long reach and slack head angle.
Reach numbers keep creeping up, and head angle numbers keep going down as companies try to find the limits without going too far. I've been wrong before, but I'd be surprised if bikes go much past the 490mm mark on a size large, and much below a 63-degree head angle for non-DH bikes. Longer, slack bikes do provide ton of stability, but they can be a handful at slower speeds, and the extra effort to maneuver can get taxing by the end of a long ride.
With the Process X, those sentiments held true. When I was on my A-game and everything was clicking I had some great rides, but there were other times when I found myself getting a little frustrated with the amount of work I had to put in to get the X to wake up. In fact, I'd potentially consider sizing down (gasp) if I was planning on using the X as an enduro race bike, in order to make it a little easier to get through tight, awkward bits.
The X is happiest on high speed, rough trails, and it's also a good jumper, at least on bigger jumps. It's not overly eager to hop and pop over little trail obstacles, but put a healthy lip and a decent sized gap in front of it and it'll soar quite nicely. I unfortunately wasn't able to make it up to Whistler this year, but I'd have no qualms about using the X as a park bike; it's the sort of bike that can seamlessly go between smoother machine-made jump trails and chunky natural tracks without raising a fuss.
All of my time was spent with the Process in the 29" mode, but I did try both chainstay positions. Altering that length makes a very noticeable difference – the longer, 450mm setting transforms the bike into even more of a speed demon, and by the end of testing it ended up being the position I preferred due to the more balanced feel it delivered. In the shorter chainstay setting it was easier to break the back end free while cornering, as opposed to the longer setting, which was less drifty and more locked in. It felt like I could push harder, and also get away with a mistake every once in a while without losing traction.
Suspension FiddlingI spent more time than usual trying to find the sweet spot for the Kona's rear suspension settings. Initially, I found myself using more travel than I wanted, even with a bunch of volume spacers and 25% sag. The bike felt good in steep, rough terrain, but when things flattened out a bit that extra-deep feeling was much more noticeable – there wasn't much of a platform to push off of or into when jumping or cornering.
I eventually decided to try a MegNeg air can (something that would need to be purchased aftermarket for approximately $90) in order to try and find that missing mid-stroke support. That upgrade did the trick, and with 2 bands in the negative chamber and no volume spacers installed I was right where I wanted to be. I ran 185 psi to get 30% sag, and the overall feel was one of a much more supportive shock. There was still good traction, and I could use all of the travel when warranted, but it no longer felt like I was sitting too far into the travel.
Something big is coming, and PB knows, just do not want to tell us.
If a little is good, then a lot must be great, right?
Old Evo = 63.5 or 64 HA, New Evo = 64.5 stock, adjustable from 63 - 65.5 if desired.
2021 Supreme DH 63.8 HA for all sizes now
At the end of the day, both brands leaned steeper instead of slacker with the new models.
But if you like what's working now, why mess with it?
That said, I rode the base aluminum model, and it was HEAVY! By the end of the weekend on it, I felt that. I personally would try to go with the higher-end model to lighten it up a bit.
If you do get one, only major criticism is the stock wheels. They suck. I got the CR/DL, and they barely lasted a month on the rear. So be ready for that.
I have a G2 Process 153 29'er, in the base model AL version. Can confirm "heavy". I think mine was over 36lbs out of the box with EXO tires. I think I'm up around 37lbs and change with proper tires on it. I believe the wheelset is over 2400g alone.
Ridden in Whistler bouble blacks no problem, it's never been the bike holding me back; maybe a longer slacker bike could've made it easier, but at the cost of making it clumsier everywhere else? nah
I don't buy the idea of "balance," that having a long reach means you want longer chainstays. For being bad in twisy techical stuff, wheelbase if your biggest enemy, and if your reach is correct at 515, lengthening chainstays will only make it more of a challenge.
The only way I can imagine short chainstays being a huge deal is riders descending at high speed and or climbing techy stuff while dead on the saddle. Nothing wrong with wanting that, but it isn't the way everybody rides or wants to ride. Glad to have choices for short CS's on larger bikes.
I'm generally in the "long chainstay", or at least the "proportionally adjusting chainstay length" camp.
But I'll agree that its good to have options. I love that the Process X has adjustable chainstay length, as it lets it work for a wider range of riders.
I'm 6'1", and ride a 2018 G2 P153 29'er. I have no complaints with the short chainstays when climbing. But on the downs it feels like it has a very narrow sweet spot, and I struggle to keep the front end weighted enough. And I've already swapped to a 50mm stem, a lower rise bar, and moved all the spacers out from under the stem. I probably need a bit more reach/stack/span in all honesty.
My biggest issue with the 153 was keeping my front weighted in flat turns, but that went away when I worked on my attack position more, and got ride of some of my habits built on a 26er with no dropper.
The stock WTB wheels are garbage though, saving for carbon rims. Also find the shock to not be very supportive or progressive enough, going to meg neg it or put a cascade link on next summer. I run 30% sag to get the grip/feel I need but am always bottoming it out all over the place and pushing the Oring right off the bottom of the shock. This is an older deluxe with no piggyback. Running it at less than 30% makes it harsh and even skitterier than it already is with its 425mm stays. I have overforked it to 170 with a 2021 air spring in a Yari and its been really good, a bit more of a wheelie machine on the climbs but not bad. Very fun, very agile bike and while not the lightest thing I dont really notice it. Super solid feeling frame.
I'm on a Large. I've also got got a solid 36in inseam, so its pretty easy for me to get "off the back" of the bike.
I alternate between wishing I'd gone for the XL to get more reach, and relief that I went with the Large to keep the front/rear balance a bit more... balanced.
I have worked on my attack position, and that has helped for sure. As has the longer stem, lower handlebar, and lowering of the stem. Still though, its a very conscious effort to keep the front end weighted, and the front from feeling super vague.
Some of that is probably the old habits from 26in hardtails, as you say.
I also think some of it is because I grew up riding dirt bikes. So almost any bike feels small/twitchy in comparison.
I've been looking at bikes like this Process X, Stumpjumper Evo, Banshee Titan, GG Gnarvana as potential "longer chainstay" options that I'd love to test ride, and see if a longer rear center does what I think it might do for my confidence when cornering.
Let me know what you find out on some test rides, that list looks like a bunch of awesome bikes...
lighter wheels really help liven the bike up, even if it will never be a lightweight
It feels like cheating on the descents & climbs very well, considering, it loves berms & jumps
My G1 650b Process was more fun in the park if Im being honest but this is the better all round bike
And it is a damn sexy-looking bike.
That being said, if you had another, lighter trail bike, and the Meta was only used for big mountain stuff, then yea, saving $2500 is 100% worth it.
maybe having riding that is steep and straight up then steep and straight down means im missing out on where those weight differences really matter, but id say the $2500 is worth it regardless of having a light trail bike.
During a normal year, you could almost always count on online retailers clearing out end-of-year Kona’s for 20-40% off
I wonder what their sales are like on theses top-tier complete bikes?
"Not only did the shorter bikes record faster times, they also allowed our test riders to change direction more quickly and position themselves better before corners to carry their speed through them. On top of that, the agile handling of compact bikes is usually more fun. Anyone who thinks that these bikes aren’t composed at high speeds can rest assured: handling stability is heavily determined by the suspension and all the bikes on test performed brilliantly in this regard."
Now that we've jumped the shark on the longer/slacker thing...I wonder what's next for MTB geometry? Or does it stabilize somewhere near what we have now now. The Ripmo V2 is one of the ultimate aggro trail bikes, and the Altitude is getting it done as an Enduro bike...both have fairly similar to geometry (aside from travel). I'm guessing most be there in the future aside from some outliers and more typical trail geometry like Switchblade (ripmo v1 clone) and following.
The main thing I took away from that though, was that more balanced bikes (front/rear center ratio) tended to be easier to maneuver with less physical input.
And since EWS is both ridden "more" blind (only one practice run), and is a bit more of an endurance event (1-2 days, 15-25min of timed runs), anything that conserves energy, and lets them to respond to unexpected/half remembered features quickly makes for a faster bike.
So, on some bikes like the SB150, that meant a smaller bike to make the front/back more balanced. The Nukeproof Mega though, did the same sort of thing, with a longer rear center on a size large.
The Meta 29 was the big loser (slowest lap times), with 433mm CS combined with 1285mm WB (size L). With the same model in a smaller size (M), they found it a lot better (433CS|1258WB). They found the SB150 was better in M too (433|1248 in L, vs 433|1223 in M). I suspect that the Meta 29 would be even better in S (433|1231) if they could still fit on it.
I suspect that something similar is going on in this test. 435|1268 in L is questionable. Maybe switching the CS to 450 in L (1283WB) would've given Mike Kazimer a better impression. I agree that downsizing to M (435|1238WB) would've been an improvement over the L in 435mm CS in this case, but not all cases. Kona bikes have been historically a little long and I love it, since I ride medium.
His complaints are more about its long WB. A long WB requires speed to "wake up". If the speed is not gravity-fueled, it takes pedaling. If you don't have fitness, you'll be spending a large percentage of your riding time in the long bike's crappy low-speed handling zone.
IMO, wheelbase deserves way more attention. A 145mm FS bike with 1185mm WB (423CS) will be nicer to ride on tamer stuff, esp if you want flickability and playfulness. A 145mm FS bike with 1250mm WB (440CS) will be nicer for higher speed and plowing over stuff. I'd build up the short bike lighter, and the long bike heavier with a big fork and reinforced tires. Plenty of separation between the two despite having the same rear travel. Travel should be more about how much of the trail/impact feedback you want to feel, or how little you want your movements absorbed.
taking the” Remy line” by the looks of it .
Having that Nomad is what made me "upgrade" from a medium v1 Sentinel (450mm reach) to a large v1 Senti (475mm reach). Both at 435mm stays. Works great as a "pedal long days, go super fast and race 2-3x a year" bike. I probably won't go any longer than that*.
*foot in mouth in 3 years when the grim donut is my primary bike
I personally hate that shape. It will only hit easier with any big rock at least its not as ugly as the ripmo
I am in the market for a new bike to finally replace my trusty orange steed after 6 yrs of service, and so I was quite excited to hear about the Process X. I was praying that this would be similar to my 2015 model, just with a bit more travel. But sadly it doesn't seem like this is the case....
KONA - Why do you have to copy everyone making bikes longer/slacker? And 29" wheels only? Come on.... As someone from a dirtjump/skatepark background, the deciding factor that made me buy my 153 was that it felt like a big-bmx, not a mini-DH bike (like basically every other competitor I tested). The beauty of the 153 is how playful and poppy it is. I can manual forever, and bunnyhop 180 almost as easily as my hardtail. It's a bike that is equally at home on dirtjumps as it is on steep gnarly trails. This Process X offering just feels like a boring copy of every other enduro bike. Lame
See the reviews of the 2013 Process 153, which your bike is based on. And get a used 27.5 G2. It’s a kiss slacker and still the little whip that you love. Most smiles-per-miles bike I’ve ever owned.
I test rode a 27.5" and a 29" and the latter actually felt better. Sure, flat and off-camber turns feel a little weird at first but the handling everywhere else more than makes up for it. I know you're worried about wheelsize, but just know that things have gotten better than they were in that regard. for reference, I still put the majority of my ride-time in on my BMX riding street and park. I usually only clock 4-6 hours on the big bike per week before the rainy season.
Thank you Kona. f*ck you the rest of the industry.
Well said. And an often unnoticed benefit of longer stays.
I came here to read a review of how it rode when you swap out to a 27.5" or back and forth. This isn't a review. It's an 'overview'
“Travel: 161mm”
But the brake mount doesn't move? So it's potentially ~7mm off the standard in each position? This has potential for portions of the brake pad to miss the rotor and thus never get worn down, and eventually stop the pads from actually fully contacting the rotors when those non-worn portions of the pad touch each other, in which case you have little to no braking power.