Firstly,

Let me apologize in advance for another boring "which bike is better" thread. To all who plan to reply, "Try them both and get the one that feels right!" - I can't. I have exhausted every local dealer in my area (Boston, MA) and no one has anything close to my size (61 cm). I never realized it would be so difficult to try a bike before deciding on buying it. Let me start by listing the reasons I have narrowed my search to these two fine steeds. Both are:

1. steel, drop bar bikes with clearance for wider (at least 38mm tires)
2. priced around $1600
3. disc brakes (both have mechanical - Pro Max for the All City and Spyre for the Kona Rove
4. 1x11 drivetrains (I currently ride a Schwinn Voyageur 3x7 and never change out of the middle 42t ring
5. rack and fender mounts

While I love the paint job on the new Macho Man - check it out if you haven't yet -
Macho Man | All-City Cycles , the spec leaves something to be desired. Paying $100 more than the Rove for a bike with inferior disc brakes seems silly, even if the frame shows more of an artist's touch.

Does anyone own one of these bikes? Would anyone who is more adept than I am at reading geometry charts care to share any insight?

They seem to share much of the same geometry:

AC

Size 61cm
Head Tube Angle (A) 72.5
Seat Tube Angle (B) 72.5
Top Tube Length (C) 605
Seat Tube Length (D) 635.3
Chainstay Length (E) 435
Bottom Bracket Drop (F) 70
Fork Offset (G) 45
Total Fork Length (H) 395
Head Tube Length (I) 200
Standover (J) 880
Wheelbase (K) 1059
Stack (L) 633.4
Reach (M) 405.3
Handlebar Width 44
Stem Length 120
Crank Arm Length 175

SIZE 58
1 ST LENGTH 580
2 TT LENGTH 599
3 REACH 400
4 STACK 630
5 STANDOVER 840
6 HT ANGLE 71.5
7 HT LENGTH 189
8 ST ANGLE 72.5
9 CS LENGTH 435
10 BB DROP 70
11 BB HEIGHT 282
12 WHEELBASE 1064
13 FRONT CENTER 639
14 FORK LENGTH 405
15 FORK OFFSET 45

The obvious difference I see is that the Macho Man has a more level top tube, creating the various geometrical differences highlighted. Head tube angle on the Macho Man is also 1% steeper. Any and all comments appreciated!

Say... I don't know much about either of these but I HAVE read that Spyres are good brakes. It sounds to me like you may have entered the very familiar 'analysis paralysis' state where one starts obsessing over the smallest of details, hoping someone else comes with with the answer for them. My guess is that you can probably get either bike and if it's a comfortable ride (and from the geometry it seems like either both or neither will be comfortable) then you will never regret your purchase. But maybe someone will come up with good advice regarding the geometries... let's see.

Hey, you said any comments...

P.S. Any way you can hunt down a 2017 version?

The first thing that comes to mind is that $1600 should get you much more bicycle than a steel-framed bike with a 1x drivetrain.

As you point out the seattube length and standover height is the biggest difference in geometry between the two, so I you are certain about stack and reach both will fit you. The head tube angle might make the the All City at bit more nimble to steer.

In my head it is not stupid to pay $100 more for a frameset you like the look and paint job of. Your bike should make you happy when you see it!

But as others have said buying a new 2018 bike at list price is newer going to be the best value. For that you have to look at 2017 bikes or wait some more.

the only thing i can offer is with reference to the brakes. being 255 pounds - i went from Tektro crappy brakes to TRP Spyre SLC's. at first, i definitely thought they were the same if only a bit more finnicky to set up because of the tighter tolerances i saw causing disc rub. but, once the pads got a chance to bed in, the difference was great. being that you're taller doesn't imply that you're heavier per se, but brakes are a big deal to me commuting daily and being heavier. i wanted fully hydro but couldn't afford it. i felt this was a good compromise for me and i'm happy with them. figure an additional $150.00 if you go with the bike that doesn't have the Spyres to upgrade if you so choose.

I would never buy a bike called Macho Man, so any comparison between the two is pointless.

I will cast a Macho vote.

That bike looks so much better, I think that (based on the fact that you noticed it), you will notice and enjoy the look every time you get on it. You can save up to replace the brakes with Hy/rd (mechanically actuated hydraulic calipers, so you don't need to change levers) later.

Sure, you could 'enjoy' better brakes every time you brake, but you can't make the decent-looking Kona look as awesome as the Macho Man without replacing basically the whole bike.

thank you all for the input! I have indeed entered into the paralysis by analysis (actually this is my natural state). Alan - I encourage you to look at the macho man! If you are the curmudgeon you play on the internet, it might actually appeal to your old school sensibilties. Apparently the paint job was inspired by Japanese bikes from the 80s. The Kona really was more of a compromise - it does boast thru axles but as I’ve never had them I am not sure how important they’d be, especially on a commuter. I am so picky I probably will never find a production bike that checks every box at a reasonable price. I’ve also heard that hydro discs make a huge differnece but every drop bar bike outfitted with these comes in at at least 2k. Hell, the only bikes I’ve ever ridden have been 25+ year old Schwinns and they’ve gotten me from A to B (I say as I true the rear wheel for the umpteenth time)...

Wow, that toothbrush paint job came straight out of the Nineties

If you don't like the build of the Macho Man you can also buy just the frameset and build it up with the brakes etc. that you want. The price for just the frame is fair enough, I think.

My take on thru axles:

* Best feature #1: easier wheel changes, don't have to worry about mushing QR springs anymore
* Best feature #2: better wheel retention against a front disc brake.

Look it up (or think about it), with the front disc brake mounted on the back of the fork, the act of braking causes the axle to want to pop out of the QR. Disc braking also causes your QR to rotate/loosen; my wife had it happen regularly on her mtb. You should re-snug your front QR on a disc-brake bike every ride.

I can't really help you decide, but my wife has a Macho Man from a few years ago, and I'm quite envious. It's a super bike, capable of just about anything.

Anyone know the weight of both of these? Just curious...

I was thinking you were making a joke about yourself

and then it just got sad

BOTH of them? I'd guess about 50 pounds.

!

According to google, the Macho Man weighs 237 lbs...

BF commuters in rare form this week

No, last I checked I was 241

A 1x drivetrain has no business on a bike like that. Even if it offers the same range, riding on the road requires tighter gearing. A compact or semi compact double is a much better choice. I would expand your search; Jamis, Specialized, Salsa, and Surly all make what you're looking for in addition to the two brands you're looking at.

1 by is the new thing , Sram has killed off the IGH division, to pursue it , more money to be made, there, apparently.

I’ve converted a commuter bike and MTB to 1x11, and couldn’t be more pleased with the results. With the gearing I chose, the main loss is on the high end. For commuting and mountain biking, the loss is not significant. My top end commuting is 25 mph and MTBing is around 18 mph.

My next MTB will be 1x. In fact, I expect I will never acquire another bike with a front derailleur.

Already on my 2x9 commuter (50/34 x 11-32) I almost never use the big ring. A 46 x 11-42 would give me almost exactly the same range.

Sounds like user error. I have over 2,000 miles on my 60+ pound steel e-bike commuter/utility bike, with mechanical 160mm Avid BB7 disc brakes, and the QR skewer and lever have never moved a millimeter. Not even on steep hills with 100 pounds of kid + tag-a-long bike behind me.