RobD

Hi all,

I'm just starting to get into mountain biking and am looking to buy my first bike (I've just been borrowing friends bikes up to this point).

I'm looking for a hard tail Cross Country/Back Country bike that'll last me many years.

I've shopped around and the 2 bikes that I've like the best are the Kona Caldera ($1049) and Kona Kula ($1349). The Kula has better parts, but I just wanna know if its worth the extra 300.

The biggest difference that I can see between these bikes is the fork, the Kula has a better fork with Rebound control. Is rebound control a big issue? Is it something that a beginner or intermediate rider would use or is it more of an expert thing?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.


The specs. for each bike are here:

https://www.konaworld.com/bikes/2k7/KULA/index.html
https://www.konaworld.com/bikes/2k7/CALDERA/index.html

junkyard

I believe the step up from the Caldera to the Kula also provides you with a different frame. Up to the Caldera, most of the hard tails in that line are the same frame with differing levels of components. As I recall, though, the Kula provides you with a lighter frame plus better components. As far as if it's worth it... if you can afford the extra $300, yes it is worth it. If you cannot, then the Caldera is a nice bike as well.

taylor p

i think the caldera is made to take more abuse (wheight more) than the kula not to say that the kula wont

The Flying M

Kula for sure. Better components + lighter frame = more reliable + quicker climing = more fun. Plus, you could race that frame if you feel like it after a while. But I have a Kula Primo so I'm biased =P