Kona Process 153
Wheel Size: 29’’ (Size M–XL) or 29’’ front / 27.5’’ rear (Size S)
Travel:
- Frame: 153 mm
- Fork: 160 mm
Geometry Highlights:
- Sizes Offered: S, M, L, XL
- Headtube Angle: 64.5°
- Reach (size Large): 480 mm
- Chainstay Length: 435 mm
Frame Material: Aluminum and carbon fiber versions available
Price: Complete bikes starting at $2,499 USD ($5,499 USD as tested)
Blister’s Measured Weight: 32.91 lb / 14.93 kg (Process 153 CR DL, Size Large)
Reviewers:
- Zack Henderson: 6’, 165 lbs / 183 cm, 74.8 kg
- David Golay: 6’, 160 lbs / 183 cm, 72.6 kg
Test Locations: Washington
Test Duration: 3 months
Intro
We’ve had Kona Process 153 CR DL in for testing over the past few months, and despite the general specifications looking like a lot of other long-travel Trail bikes out on the market, the Process 153 has proven to be a unique take on the segment. And while its spirited personality may stand out, we think it’s a bike that a large cross-section of riders could click with.
[For a lot more info on the design, geometry, and build specs of the Process 153, check out our First Look.]
Fit & Sizing
Zack Henderson (6’, 165 lbs / 183 cm, 74.8 kg): The Kona Process 153’s geometry is firmly in the realm of what we’d expect for a modern longer-travel Trail bike, but with a few slight outliers that ultimately drive a lot of its on-trail personality. Starting with the basics, our size Large test bike features a 480 mm reach, mated to a 64.5° head tube angle and 625 mm stack. While the reach and head tube angle are fairly average, the 625 mm stack is on the low side and doesn’t feel quite as confidence-inspiring in steeper terrain as a taller stack might — we ended up relying on a combination of stem spacers and a higher rise handlebar to bring the front end up a bit higher. I didn’t want to go too far in that regard though, as the short 435 mm chainstays had me mindful of keeping weight on the front tire.
While the reach figure is bang-on for what we might expect out of a size Large, the 628 mm effective top tube length is a bit on the longer side, owing to the slacker-than-average 76.7° effective seat tube angle. The actual seat tube angle is even slacker, meaning that differences in seat height can drive pretty sizable swings in seated cockpit length. At my seat height, I ended up sliding the saddle forward in an attempt to keep my hips a bit more forward toward the bottom bracket, but it still felt like a rather roomy seated cockpit — not necessarily a bad thing, as I often find that longer seated cockpits can make for more comfort on longer seated climbs or in rolling terrain that Trail bikes often see a lot of.
David Golay (6’, 160 lb / 183 cm, 72.6 kg): Zack and I are pretty much on the same page here. Kona’s recommended sizing chart puts us squarely on the Large frame, and I think that’s clearly the right call for my tastes — but the Process 153 fits a bit differently from many other bikes in its class.
Like Zack, I quickly settled on running a higher-rise bar than stock (a 30 mm Spank Spike), with a considerable stack of spacers underneath the stem (kudos to Kona for keeping the stock steerer tube pretty long). That got the front end to a height I was happy with, and while that big stack of spacers shortened the effective reach from the already not-crazy-long 480 mm figure, the moderately compact fit when standing up felt entirely appropriate for the Process 153’s demeanor on the way down. More on that in a minute.
I got along with the seated pedaling position fine too, but am fairly confident that I’d be a little more comfortable with a slightly steeper actual seat tube angle, particularly on steeper climbs. Though we’re the same height, I’ve got longer limbs and a shorter torso than Zack, and the higher seat height that my legs call for made the seated fit a little more stretched out than would be ideal, even with the seat slammed forward on the rails.
I say all that acknowledging that I (1) have pretty long legs for my height, (2) spend a lot of time on big Enduro bikes with steep seat tube angles and am used to the pedaling position they produce, and (3) live in a part of the world with lots of steep fire road climbs. If you find the steep seat tubes on a lot of modern longer-travel bikes to be a bit much — and there are plenty of folks in that camp — the Process 153 might just be the ticket. I’d characterize the seat tube angle as being on the slack end of things, but still very much within the realm of reason. The Process 153’s fit feels coherent, if not exactly what I’d pick if I were designing a bike for myself, but I’m all for having a range of options on the market to suit different folks.
Climbing
Zack: Right off the bat, the Process 153 impresses on both longer, steady-as-she-goes climbs and punchier technical ones. I initially found that the combination of slack seat angle and short chainstays could leave the front end feeling a bit light on particularly steep climbs, but bumping shock pressure slightly to bring sag to around 28% (measured at the shock) helped keep the front end tracking a bit more effectively, while also paying dividends on descents — more on that in a minute.
Our First Look has more details on suspension kinematics, but my on-trail impression is that Kona has balanced the anti-squat levels fairly well here. Anti-squat is around 110% at sag in the largest 52-tooth sprocket, meaning that the Process 153 does firm up a bit under pedaling forces, but not so much so that grip or bump compliance suffers. The suspension and handling have a certain liveliness that feels encouraging of trying to navigate questionably technical climbs.
On lower-angle climbs and more traversing trails, the Process 153 is happy to maintain a spirited pace and munch up the miles. I got along well with the somewhat stretched-out seated cockpit feel, and despite the relatively slack 64.5° headtube angle, the Process 153’s steering behavior felt more maneuverable and snappy than expected. The frame feels stiff and responsive too, and I suspect that riders who like a bike that rewards harder efforts may be surprised at how willing the Process 153 is to get up and go. It’s still a long-travel Trail bike, but for having 153 mm of rear travel, it does impressively well in many different climbing scenarios.
David: Zack covered things pretty well here. The Process 153 pedals fairly efficiently while still offering solid traction under power, and is quicker handling and more maneuverable at low speeds than I might have guessed. As I already touched on, I sometimes found myself feeling a little hunched over in order to keep the front wheel planted on really steep fire road climbs, but the Process 153’s not-super-steep seat tube makes it easier to get in and out of the saddle on punchier technical climbs without it getting in the way. All in all, the Process 153 is an excellent technical climber for a 150+mm-travel Trail bike.
Descending
Zack: When the trail turns downhill, the Process 153 maintains its surprisingly nimble and snappy feel. The reach feels a bit shorter than the advertised 480 mm length, likely due to the low stack warranting a few spacers under the stem, but that’s not to say it feels cramped. In fact, the compact feeling cockpit plays well with the 64.5° head angle and short chainstays to accentuate the Process 153’s playful nature. The Process 153 changes direction very quickly and is easily tossed around on jumps. The Process 153 does not feel like a big, numb bike that wants to run over stuff — instead, it’s precise and rewards riders who navigate technical bits of trail with intention.
I mentioned the short 435 mm chainstays earlier, and they make themselves known while descending, too. The rear end of the bike feels more “connected” to your feet, making it easy to load up through corners or when rolling up the face of a jump. The short rear center does mean that the Process 153 prefers a more active riding style with some weight over the front, but a 45 mm long stem seemed to go a long way towards helping weight the front without requiring major shifts in body position.
David: For context, I rode the Process 153 before Zack did, and after deciding that I wanted a higher-rise bar than the stock one, I paired that higher bar with the stock 40 mm stem. It was a step in the right direction for my taste, but I felt like I was having a little trouble weighting the front end at times — especially in flatter corners — and tried a 45 mm stem to pull myself forward a touch more. That did the trick, and I handed the bike off to Zack with that setup installed, along with the stock bar and stem so that he could experiment.
The Process 153’s preferred stance is a notch more forward than average (at least on the size Large — given that it uses the same 435 mm chainstays across the size range, I’d expect that to be more true on the larger sizes and less so on the smaller ones). Going to the longer stem helped me get weight on the front wheel without needing to consciously place my weight as far forward on the bike, which put me in a better position to move around on the bike effectively and soak up impacts without getting pitched forward.
Zack: Of course, the lively feel that I described is within the context of a 153 mm rear travel Trail bike — there is still ample travel for bigger hits or when speeds pick up. The RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate rear shock felt a bit overly eager to use its travel when I was running 30% sag (again, in terms of shock stroke), but dropping sag to 28% held the bike up a bit higher over bigger hits and helped to maintain geometry while better keeping up with the feel of the excellent Lyrik Ultimate fork. The Lyrik isn’t as stiff or secure-feeling as a Zeb and has a firmer initial stroke, but it suits the personality of the Process 153 quite well — it feels light and sporty, but still saved me a couple of times on poorly executed lines.
David: Zack pretty much nailed it there. The Process 153 stands out for being a relatively lively, sharp-handling bike that’s super easy and fun to throw around and ride with a playful approach, but is still stable and composed enough to make up for some mistakes, and not require that you ride with the utmost precision if you’re pushing it a bit. It just doesn’t have a particularly big top end if you want to go hard on the sorts of trails that truly call for a full-on Enduro bike.
If you’re looking for a focused, go-fast charger of a bike — even within this general travel bracket, setting aside more full-on Enduro bikes — there are better options. But the Process 153 is way more fun than those sorts of bikes tend to be if you want to slow down a touch and take a more creative, playful approach to the trail. It’s also notably engaging on more rolling, varied trails for a bike in its travel bracket, and its suspension does a nice job of feeling poppy and energetic while still having fairly good small bump sensitivity and grip.
Zack: For all of its advantages in feeling quick and fun, ultra-steep or ultra-rough trails begin to test the Process 153’s composure. On trails where brake control becomes critical, I noticed some additional feedback through my feet that I couldn’t totally pin down at first. It almost felt like the suspension was firming up, and square-edged hits felt occasionally harsher than expected when I was on the brakes.
After continuing to mess with shock settings without finding a total solution, I eventually came up with a possible explanation: higher levels of anti-rise. Despite multiple pivots, the lack of an additional pivot between the rear axle and lower main pivot means that the Process 153 technically has a single-pivot suspension design, albeit with a linkage to alter the leverage curve. These designs generally (but not universally) have higher anti-rise values, meaning that the suspension tends to more heavily resist extending under braking. Higher levels of anti-rise can lend a sensation of the suspension compressing slightly under braking forces, moving into the firmer part of the spring rate and making the suspension feel a bit harsher. While Kona doesn’t publish the anti-rise values for the Process 153, the traits of a design with high anti-rise felt present in instances of heavy or sustained braking.
That perceived harshness was usually subtle, but in certain scenarios did detract a bit from the Process 153’s composure on particularly steep and gnarly trails with lots of big holes and square-edged obstacles. Then again, that sort of riding still doesn’t feel like the Process 153’s sweet spot. It certainly can hang on those trails when called upon, but given the choice, I’d prefer to ride the Process 153 on faster trails with a mix of jumps, supported corners, a few tricky technical sections, and areas where carrying speed between features is key. For many riders I know, that starts to describe an ideal day out on the bike — it just so happens that those types of trails uniquely suit the Process 153, too.
David: I mostly agree with Zack about the sorts of terrain that the Process 153 does (and doesn’t) shine the most brightly in but I’ve got a bit of a different take on some of the details.
As longer-travel Trail bikes go, the Process 153 is just a bit less stable than average and requires more careful management of your body positioning to not get out of sorts if you’re really trying to push the pace on super steep trails in particular. Again, to be very clear, the Process 153 makes up for that by being notably lively and quick handling in less full-on terrain, so that’s not a complaint — it’s just a statement about what the bike does and doesn’t do best.
I didn’t find the rear suspension performance to be the limiting factor, though. If anything, I think the fact that the Process 153 has a bit more anti-rise than average is, at least in some ways, an asset in steep terrain where you’re consistently on the brakes. To me, it’s more a matter of the Process 153 just not being especially stable in its handling. I suspect largely because the wheelbase is on the shorter side for a size Large longer-travel Trail bike (1,244 mm), the Process 153 requires relatively precise management of your weight distribution and body positioning on the bike to not get unsettled, particularly on very steep descents.
And that’s the big reason that I think the Process 153’s somewhat high anti-rise is an asset in those scenarios — the Process 153 stays fairly flat and doesn’t pitch forward too badly under heavy braking, which in turn makes managing your position on the bike easier than I think it would be otherwise.
[For what it’s worth, a quick estimate puts the Process 153’s anti-rise at around 100% — so higher than average, but not that high.]
The Process 153 can still handle some pretty burly descents if you ride it with a bit of precision. It’s not a bike that’s all that eager to just steamroll whatever’s in front of it without much rider input, but by not being massively stable and planted, the Process 153 manages to be much more lively and energetic-feeling on more rolling, lower-angle terrain than most bikes that inspire appreciably more confidence when things get really steep.
I also spent a bit of time on the Process 153 in the optional mixed wheel configuration, and frankly I very much prefer the stock 29’’ setup. In 29’’ guise, the Process 153’s chainstays are already moderately short, at 435 mm. (At least that’s short-ish on the larger sizes; the Process 153 doesn’t have size-specific chainstays, so all four sizes get the same length.) Converting to a mixed-wheel setup lops a few millimeters off that figure, making them quite short, and as I’ve found across a wide range of bikes by this point, I personally find the handling of mixed-wheel bikes to be more intuitive with chainstays that are proportionally on the longer side, relative to the rest of the geometry figures.
The main reason for that preference is that the smaller rear wheel wants to turn in faster than the bigger front one, which in turn requires more steering input and corrections to “catch” the bike after you initiate a turn, when the time comes to start straightening out of it. I just generally prefer a more neutral turning behavior, and making the chainstays longer tends to help get there on mixed-wheel bikes.
But for folks who like quick turn-in and a lightfooted feel to the rear wheel, the Process 153’s mixed-wheel mode is there for you. Converting to the smaller rear wheel makes the Process 153 feel very quick-handling, and the rear end is more eager to turn in, making the back wheel easier to slash and drift around if you’re so inclined. The mixed wheel setup also shifts the Process 153’s preferred weight distribution forward a bit and requires more steering corrections through the bar to keep it tracking straight. If those sound like tradeoffs that you’re into, it’s a perfectly solid option.
The Build
Zack: The Process 153’s CR DL build leaves little to be desired in some areas, but doesn’t quite deliver in others. The RockShox suspension (Lyrik Ultimate fork / Super Deluxe Ultimate shock) performs well and is easy to set up, the DT Swiss 350 hubs are a favorite for reliability, and SRAM’s GX Transmission handled shifting duties without a hiccup. From a reliability standpoint, the Process 153 CR DL had no issues during our test.
There are a few less favorable bits, though. The RockShox Reverb dropper does thankfully have 200 mm of drop, but it still relies on the finicky hydraulic actuator and lever — the world has moved on to the tried-and-true cable configuration for a reason, and I’d love to see Kona opt for one of the myriad other dropper options on the market instead. The Kona house brand cockpit is fine, but I can imagine a lot of riders wanting a higher rise bar given the Process 153’s relatively low stack measurement.
My primary issue with the build is, unfortunately, a big one — the brakes. SRAM’s G2 brakes have largely fallen out of favor, and most brands seem to be springing for the modestly heavier but much more powerful Codes. Kona unfortunately used the underpowered G2s on this build, and we actually ended up pulling them off in favor of some Code Ultimate brakes. The Process 153’s capabilities easily overwhelm the G2s, and while riders on mellower trails or in flatter locales may get along fine with the G2s, I’d wager that many prospective Process 153 customers may be thinking about a brake upgrade fairly quickly after purchase.
David: Yeah, the G2 brakes are the one big miss on the build spec. Noah Bodman found them to be lacking when he reviewed the Process 153’s smaller sibling, the Process 134, last year — keeping that spec choice on a longer-travel, burlier bike doesn’t help matters. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were a COVID supply shortage era carryover that just came to market late due to Kona’s ownership headaches over the last couple of years — which thankfully seem to be in the rearview — but the Process 153 deserves something more powerful. I swapped in the aforementioned Codes after a couple of rides and found those to be a more appropriate pairing.
Zack: The frame itself has been impressively solid, with seemingly high-quality hardware and a rather nice paint job that has resisted scratches and signs of wear quite well. The cable routing has remained quiet, too. My one gripe is with the pocket in the downtube that the shock nests into, which becomes a half-inch-deep muddy pond during wet rides. While some other brands are guilty of this as well, having that lower eyelet bathed in muddy water will almost certainly toast that bushing a bit more quickly than other designs.
Who’s It For?
While lots of folks know the Pacific Northwest for its steep trails and big features, most trails here are some mix of awkward technical bits and faster, flowier sections. That sort of varied terrain is where the Process 153 feels best — the sorts of rides where the climbing is intermixed throughout, rather than just a winching up a fire road. It’s a shame that the “All Mountain bike” moniker seems to have faded out of popularity because the Process 153 is one of those through and through.
While the Process 153 rewards a more experienced and precise pilot who can make the most of its sharp handling, that’s not to say it’s punishing for folks who are still growing their skills. In fact, it stands out for how well it can approach different sorts of terrain and rarely feels totally out of place, and it would make a great trail partner for someone newer to the sport who is still exploring the wide world of trails in their local area.
Bottom Line
“Engaging” is the word that comes to mind when I think of how the Process 153 feels on most trails. The stealthy silver Kona still has your back on scarier trails, but it stands out on trails that might otherwise feel dull on a big travel bike — its ability to change direction, maintain speed, and cover ground quickly adds up to a high fun factor in a wide variety of terrain. The Process 153 is very versatile, and for the right rider, it’s one of few bikes in its class that provides such a balance of traits.
Deep Dive Comparisons
BLISTER+ members and those who purchase our Digital Access Pass can check out our Deep Dive comparisons linked below. Get our Digital Access Pass to view all our Deep Dives and Flash Reviews, or become a BLISTER+ member today to get access to that and a LOT more, including the best worldwide Outdoor Injury Insurance, exclusive deals and discounts on skis, personalized gear recommendations from us, and much more.
Deep Dive: Kona Process 153
We compare the Kona Process 153 to the Transition Sentinel V3, Knolly Fugitive 140, Marin Alpine Trail XR, Forbidden Druid V2, Deviate Highlander II, Norco Sight, Yeti SB165, Kona Process 134, Transition Smuggler, REEB Steezl, and Santa Cruz Bronson 5.
Blister’s Flash Reviews and Deep Dives are accessible to those who purchase one of our paid subscriptions
To get our comprehensive Deep Dives and our initial, unfiltered reports on new gear, become a member and receive many other services, deals, and discounts.
If you’re already an active member, please log in.
(If you’re already logged in and a member in good standing and seeing this message in error, please refresh this page in your browser.)