Kona Process 134 Review: All Are Welcome – Travis Engel | The Radavist | A group of individuals who share a love of cycling and the outdoors.

Over a decade ago, Kona helped spark The Mountain Bike Geometry Revolution. Their Process line of aggressive full-suspension models were some of the first to get the “longer, lower, slacker” treatment that is so ubiquitous today. And although the 2024 Kona Process 134 harbors the same rebellious spirit as its ancestors, Travis found it was uniquely approachable.

As a rule, I don’t pay much attention to the “legacy” of a given bike brand or any of its models. Tastes change, technology evolves, and bikes should follow. For example, it first seemed weird that Moots would make a carbon fiber e-gravel bike. But practically speaking, carbon is probably the best fit for that category. Later, I was surprised to see Specialized had strayed so far from the trail-bike category for the most recent Stumpjumper update. But when judged on its own terms, the current-gen Stumpy is a triumph. And the new Kona Process 134 demanded a similar shift in perspective. To explain why, we need to take a look back.

The year 2013 marked the beginning of a revolution in mountain bike frame geometry. Mainly, top tubes were getting longer and stems were getting shorter, but the era also saw lower bottom brackets, slacker head angles, and shorter chainstays. Of course, the preceding decades were dotted with influential outliers, so there’s no one singular auteur to thank (or blame, some might say) for the shape of the modern mountain bike. But two popular front runners are Mondraker, with the Foxy XR, and Kona, with the Honzo.

Progressive brands like Geometron, Pole, and Transition have all contributed to the trend since, but discussions of its origins usually come back to one of these two bikes. The Honzo was introduced in late 2012, and the Foxy XR in early 2013. It’s hard to find any high-profile examples that predate them. The full-suspension Foxy XR famously had a zero-length stem to offset its leap in frame reach. The hardtail Honzo wasn’t quite so unorthodox, but was still a departure from the rest of Kona’s designs, with a low bottom bracket, short chainstays, and no front-derailleur compatibility. The next year, Kona ported the Honzo’s concept to the Process 153 and Process 111.

These bikes were unapologetic in their commitment to evolution. Beyond their long and low silhouettes, they again eschewed front-derailleur compatibility. That might have been ok for a kooky steel hardtail, but it was quite a bold move for a full-suspension trail bike. This was 2014, and SRAM Eagle 12-speed wouldn’t be released for another two years.

The Process 111 was especially bold for combining such aggressive geometry with such short (111 mm) rear travel. Back when I reviewed it, it challenged my assumptions about what actually makes one bike more “capable” than another. It also challenged my body position, suspension setup, and cornering practices. Flash forward to 2024, and my experience on the new Kona Process 134 was anything but challenging … at least not in the way I expected it to be.

Geometry

The most obvious reason is that this is 2024. So, like most of us, I’ve acclimated to the geometry trends set in motion by Kona, Mondraker, and others. And this third-generation Process 134 is evidence that those trends have leveled off. The reach numbers are only 5 mm longer than they were in the second generation. That puts the XL at 515 mm, which is long, but not long enough for me to bump down to a large like I did on recent review bikes from Norco, Canyon, or Ibis. I almost did, but I’ll get into that later.

Kona Process 134 CR/DL Quick Hits:

134 mm of rear travel, 140 mm front
Full carbon front and rear triangle
Alloy builds available
Linkage-driven single-pivot “four-bar” suspension
Mixed-wheel compatible via flip-chip
Available in five sizes, small through XL
33.1 lbs (XL)
$5,499

The 66.5° head angle is only a half-degree slacker than that of the previous generation, though it’s not that simple. The Kona Process 134 used to run on a 51mm-offset fork, while just about every contemporary 29” suspension fork has around 44 mm of offset. “Offset” is the distance from the front axle to the fork’s steering axis. All else being equal, shorter-offset forks offer more stable steering at speed. It has a similar effect to slackening head-tube angle, but a shorter offset shifts the front wheel backward, not forward. That makes it easier to keep your body weight on the front wheel, which helps maintain traction in turns.

The list of perfectly reasonable geometry numbers keeps going, and the current shortest-travel Kona Process is no longer the outlier that it used to be. The rest of the field has caught up to Kona. Because of course it has. It shouldn’t surprise me that a trendsetter has set a trend. But what did surprise me is that this iteration of the Process seems to have made modern geometry more approachable than ever.

Sizing

I normally wouldn’t give this topic its own subheading, but sizing played an important role while I got to know the Process 134. Again, I opted for an XL. Its reach is only 4 mm longer than that of my personal bike, which has similar suspension travel, stack height, and top-tube length. So, I figured it was safe to base my size preference on reach measurement alone. The comparison does get a little murky, because my bike is currently rockin’ a forward-offset Drop Best UC saddle clamp. I have a taste for steep seat tube angles, but thankfully, I had a spare Drop Best I could install if I wanted to move the Kona’s saddle forward to match. And sure enough, soon after my first ride, that’s exactly what I did.

I change components on review bikes all the time. Like, I didn’t run the stock grips or stock handlebars on the Process 134. But I don’t expect anyone reading this wants to install a $145 saddle clamp on a brand-new bike. So, first, I should mention that this may just be a tall-person problem. Kona doesn’t steepen seat tube angles on larger frames like Norco, Ibis, Santa Cruz, and others now do. And second, I should mention that a longtime friend at Kona had told me I should be testing a large instead of an XL.

I do stand by my decision, though. My augmented saddle position and shorter cockpit made the Process feel like home. And I appreciated the XL’s longer wheelbase. Except, the more I rode it, the more I realized I didn’t need that longer wheelbase, and I’ll explain what I mean when I finally get to how this bike descends. My point is that, if you’re truly stuck between sizes on a Process 134, consider sizing down, not up. Don’t think of it as a shred sled. Think of it as a mountain bike.

Climbing

Kona’s full-suspension bikes use a linkage-driven single-pivot. Meaning, the rear wheel attaches to the front triangle via a swingarm, and then the shock is actuated by some combination of rockers and stays. This is often considered one of the “simpler” linkage designs on the market, though it doesn’t necessarily have any less or more moving parts than popular concepts like DW-Link, VPP, or the now ubiquitous Horst Link.

Those concepts claim to offer finely tunable, context-sensitive control over how pedaling or braking will affect suspension, or vice-versa. And they technically aren’t even patented anymore, so Kona could have adopted a whizbang buzzword linkage years ago. But whizbang buzzwords aren’t really Kona’s schtick. And anyway, the single-pivot platform allows Kona to focus on how the suspension responds at various points in the travel. And they’ve got that part pretty dialed.

The suspension feel on those earlier Process models was just as groundbreaking as the geometry. They introduced me to the concept of a “supportive mid-stroke,” and today’s Kona Process 134 carries on that legacy. It doesn’t sink easily under pedaling force. The suspension does compress under load, of course, but there’s a consistent, predictable platform to resist that load when it increases.

This is important for single-pivot bikes because there’s less witchcraft afoot in the linkage, working to balance bump sensitivity with pedaling efficiency while climbing. The bike that best nailed that balance for me was the Revel Rascal. The (patented) witchcraft specific to Revel’s bikes creates a unique axle path that pretty perfectly isolates suspension forces and pedaling forces. You don’t lose suspension action while putting the power down, and you don’t lose power when the suspension is in action. But not only does the lowest-price Process 134 cost $4,000 less than the lowest-price Rascal, the Kona’s pedaling demeanor was actually quite a bit more lively.

Although multi-speed single-pivot bikes can’t achieve that always-perfect balance between pedal power and suspension action, they can be designed to favor one or the other. In the Process 134’s early- to mid-stroke, Kona gave power a slight priority over plushness. That meant I wasn’t necessarily floating indifferently through sustained high-torque efforts over bumpy terrain. Instead, while climbing on moderate grades, the suspension stayed firmer. Less “active,” as they say.

I should mention that my kooky saddle setup did keep me higher in the rear travel, where pedaling support was greatest. But again, this setup might only offer perks for the 6’2”-and-over club. Shorter, lighter riders who naturally have less weight cantilevered over the back end on climbs will still reap the benefits of Kona’s kinematics. And that’s especially beneficial for riders like me who run flat pedals. Hoverbikes like the Revel Rascal work best when you can spin calm circles clipped-in. The Process 134, on the other hand, responded excellently to mashing.

It was only on steep, chunky, widowmaker climbs where I found the suspension would readily yield to bumps, regardless of pedal torque. And that happens to be when it’s most important. When you’re franticly grasping for momentum, cranking up and over shelfy rocks or roots. The rest of the time, I would want a bike like the Process 134 to lean towards a firm, predictable platform, a sensation in which the aforementioned mid-stroke support plays a big role. And I mean something pretty specific by “a bike like the Process 134.” If you’re a rider with a diverse taste for many types of terrain, but want one bike that’ll feel at home in all of them, this is that bike.

Descending

There are countless ways to design an aggressive mid-travel trail bike. On the most capable end of the spectrum is the Forbidden Druid I rode earlier this year. That thing would be (and often is) at home on an enduro race course. But on the other end are bikes like my Canyon Spectral 125. That thing would be downright terrifying on an enduro race course. I happen to like that about it, but it ain’t for everyone. It is not a forgiving bike, despite having the same head angle as Ritchie Rude’s EWS-winning Yeti SB 160. The Kona Process 134 strikes an interesting balance between these two approaches to speed and danger.

For one thing, the rear suspension’s behavior is anything but “simple.” I do a lot of fiddling with sag settings and volume spacers during my reviews, and within reason, every configuration I tried on this bike had its merits. For my home trails, I usually opt for slightly deeper rear sag and a tad more volume reduction than stock. Modern geometry has taught me to lean forward, so that approach keeps me in the rear travel’s sweet spot. Plus, I don’t shred hard enough to be plagued by frequent bottom-outs. In that setup, I couldn’t believe this bike only had 5 mm more rear travel than mine does. That feeling manifested equally over small-bumps and big bumps. It floated as well on the descents as the Revel Rascal I tested … The $9,200 Revel Rascal I tested.

Then, when I took a pilgrimage to some undulating, jibby terrain a few hours north of me, I went for slightly shallower sag and faster damping. I was inspired to do a lot more sprinting, mashing and popping than on the uninterrupted 15-minute descents I have at home. And yet, with more supportive settings, I didn’t feel like I was ever leaving travel on the table. In those scenarios, I was occasionally landing flat and picking bad lines while goofing off. And again, it felt like there was more than 134 mm of squish between me and disaster. But that’s all suspension talk. I started this by rambling on about geometry.

Bikes like my Spectral, or the venerable Chromag Darco seem to be built to make up for their short travel. Again, they’re very long and slack. But the Process 134 is surprisingly normal in the numbers department, at least for 2024. It’s quite similar to that Revel Rascal I keep mentioning, which I praised for its supernatural versatility. That undulating terrain where I took the Process 134 is much more fun when the bike geometry keeps you engaged.

And I think that’s where my sizing conundrum comes back into play. If most of my riding were in that undulating terrain, where I’m managing technical situations both in and out of the saddle, I probably would opt for the large, not XL. As it has been since the beginning, the Process’s suspension is so adept at managing input from both rider and terrain, that you don’t need the chassis to behave like a monster truck. That’s what the longer-travel Process 153 and Process X are for.

I’m not saying this bike is as quick and rewarding to sprint around on as a Transition Spur or Yeti SB120. I’m saying it takes a more versatility-focused approach to the moderate-travel trail bike. It’s capable enough to ride just about anywhere. That longtime friend at Kona sent me some photos of his son shredding the Process 134, and let’s just say I was humbled. But at the same time, thanks to the lessons we’ve learned in the years since The Mountain Bike Geometry Revolution began, Kona’s approach to geometry actually isn’t that extreme. In the right package, it’s downright practical.

Design Touches

To segue from ride impressions to some nuts-and-bolts details, I appreciate that the Process 134 offers mixed-wheel compatibility via a flip chip. It’s a feature sorely lacking among mid-travel bikes, where I feel small rear wheels play to the category’s strengths. I also appreciate that the small sizes come out of the box set up mixed-wheel. I just didn’t have a compatible wheelset on hand to try it out.

I love that accessory mounts are becoming so common these days. Using my Wolf Tooth B-Rad base, I was able to fit all my ride essentials in the frame, as well as the full-sized water bottle that fits on all sizes. It’s consistent with Kona’s focus on practicality. And believe it or not, that’s also true of their continued use of a press-fit bottom bracket. It might seem like a rather un-Kona thing to do, but I talked to them about it a few years ago, and that conversation convinced me to be much more tolerant of the practice. Kona’s approach to press-fit is stout, straight, and frees them up to make sturdier, more durable pivots.

Value and Spec

This is a tricky time to talk about bike value. I still insist that we’re getting more for our money than we ever have, but the glut of closeout bikes on the market can make current non-discounted bikes seem overpriced. That said, there’s a clear commitment to affordability across the entire Process 134 lineup. I’ll start with the CR/DL model I tested, which is currently the range’s top tier at $5,500.

Compare that to the previous generation CR/DL, which got a comparable Pike Ultimate fork and Super Deluxe rear shock, but did not get a wireless SRAM Transmission drivetrain, and was still significantly pricier at $6,100.

Really, there were only a few components on the current Process 134 CR/DL that leave me wanting. There’s the discontinued Reverb Stealth dropper, which had some nagging issues with air bleed during my test (though RockShox will continue to offer product support for years to come). And there’s the WTB KOM Team i-30 rims. Like many OEM rims they’re good enough, but the bike is worthy of something lighter and stronger.

Thankfully, they’re laced to time-tested DT Swiss 350 hubs, which are also quite worthy. I’d also say the bike deserved Code brakes over the specced G2, but I’m kinda reaching for that one. The dual 200mm rotors, plus the fact Kona sprung for the more powerful RSC levers kept me from ever truly out-riding their capability.

Down the line, the $4,200 CR model (far left) is probably even more impressive. Still a full carbon frame, but with cable-actuated GX drivetrain and slightly less adjustable Fox suspension. Both of which, some riders may actually prefer. Kona even goes all the way down to $1,900 for the base alloy model (far right), though it’s got underpowered SRAM Level brakes, a simple RockShox Recon fork, and a relatively narrow-range drivetrain. For the budget-conscious, the $3,000 alloy DL model (center) is a better bet in the long run.

And I think the Kona Process 134 truly is a “for the long run” sort of bike. Not just because Kona’s bikes have always been workhorses, but because this particular workhorse can do so much. It’s agile enough for the technical, twisty trails, efficient enough for punchy, challenging climbs, and capable enough to go big whenever you build up the courage. Plus, my time testing it has me thinking that The Mountain Bike Geometry Revolution has finally finished its job. The Kona Process, which was once edgy and controversial, now seems perfectly suited for mass consumption.