I have a 2007 Kuota Kalibur that I used for racing in 2007 and 2008. I then took a seven year hiatus from triathlon and focused on running. I got back into it this year, and did IMMT last month. Wandering through transition I did not see any Kuotas, although I did see two on the course, both of which involved me passing a guy and hearing “nice bike!” from someone on a Kalibur.
So my question is this: In perusing the forums, I have come across comments to the effect of how the Kalibur had turned out to be a not-so-great design, how it only sold because Stadler (I think) was pushing it, it not being all that aero, etc. Can someone help me understand what is “wrong” with it? Is it the funky top tube? The beefy head tube? Other design flaws? Is it the sort of deal where I’m giving up a few watts, or are some of the newer bikes that much better? I understand that it is nearly ten years old, but I’m curious if I’m missing something apart from the age of the bike.
And please note that I’m certainly not looking for a reason to buy a new bike…
I have not owned one but I was looking, years ago. The big drawback for me was the seatmast. As I do travel, sometimes internationally, it would have been difficult if not impossible to get into my bike box. Also, cutting the mast could affect resale value.
‘’ Is it the funky top tube? The beefy head tube? Other design flaws?‘’
Yes, not to insult your bike, but I never thought Kuota’s were anything special. Actually, I thought they were open mold frames that were painted in Kuota colors. Now, ten years later, triathlon bikes have taken a big leap forward, leaving even the best bikes from back then behind.
Not only the bikes themselves, but the rider position they afforded (or rather, didn’t).
Normann was SO strong on the bike, he could ride a Huffy and still outbike almost everybody else.
(and in riding the Kuota, he kinda did
If you still like the bike, and are looking to complete triathlons, then you’re all set.
If you want to be competitive, or at least go the fastest you possibly can now - you’re leaving a non-trivial amount of time on the table w/ that bike, vs. almost anything newer.
Doesn’t even need to be some crazy spendy superbike - a P2 or similar would be a massive upgrade over that.
Even one of the new aero road bikes would be a lot more aero.
There’s a lot of aero weenieness and nitpicking that goes into these frame discussions. In the grand scheme of things there’s not an enormous difference between today’s slickest framesets (like the Trek SC, Felt IA, Cervelo P5, Dimond, whatever) and an aero brick like a Kuota or a Guru or whatever. It’s not like my Dimond is 500% better in the tunnel than your Kuota but when nitpicking for a couple of minutes or seconds… it absolutely matters. That’s why someone like Crowie got a lot of crap for riding that Orbea or Potts for riding a Kestrel. They potentially gave up a couple of minutes over 112 by riding far inferior bikes to their competitors. And Potts went double stupid for riding both a shit bike and shit tires… and loses Kona by a couple of minutes.
That matters!
Now ditching a Kuota for a 2016 superbike isn’t going to make a 6:30 Ironman biker into a 5:30 Ironman biker but it will potentially shave off a few minutes.
I have a 2007 Kuota Kalibur that I used for racing in 2007 and 2008. I then took a seven year hiatus from triathlon and focused on running. I got back into it this year, and did IMMT last month. Wandering through transition I did not see any Kuotas, although** I did see two on the course, both of which involved me passing a guy and hearing “nice bike!” from someone on a Kalibur**.
So my question is this: In perusing the forums, I have come across comments to the effect of how the Kalibur had turned out to be a not-so-great design, how it only sold because Stadler (I think) was pushing it, it not being all that aero, etc. Can someone help me understand what is “wrong” with it? Is it the funky top tube? The beefy head tube? Other design flaws? Is it the sort of deal where I’m giving up a few watts, or are some of the newer bikes that much better? I understand that it is nearly ten years old, but I’m curious if I’m missing something apart from the age of the bike.
And please note that I’m certainly not looking for a reason to buy a new bike…
ha ha, that was me. i rarely see Kalibur in either races or out in training. I might see one or two in a year
Now ditching a Kuota for a 2016 superbike isn’t going to make a 6:30 Ironman biker into a 5:30 Ironman biker but it will potentially shave off a few minutes.
K-Factor owner here (and in the process of building up a P3). Kuota ditched the US market a number of years ago, so that in part explains the absence of Kuota bikes. What some of the commentators seem to forget is that at the time, Kuota bikes were one of the most affordable all carbon bikes out there–and the xs K-Factor was one of the best value options for small riders: http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Old_reviews/Old_bike_reviews/2nd_step_tri_bikes_695.html
ha ha, that was me. i rarely see Kalibur in either races or out in training. I might see one or two in a year
That’s funny - maybe it was you passing me?
Now ditching a Kuota for a 2016 superbike isn’t going to make a 6:30 Ironman biker into a 5:30 Ironman biker but it will potentially shave off a few minutes.
I guess that is what I’m trying to quantify, just how much time/speed/watts I’m giving up. I hear terms like “aero brick” and I think I am riding a Huffy from Walmart, but if it’s a matter or a minute or two over 112, then I guess I’ll have to live with it. This year was just about getting back into it and doing IMMT for fun, but next year I’d like to get back near 11 hour territory, so if a bike upgrade would make a huge difference, I might want to consider it.
Somebody mentioned the positioning on the Kalibur - I find it very hard to stay aero for long periods of time, and I’ve had multiple fittings and tweaks to my position. Is there something about the design that may make it less comfortable for many riders?
My first tri bike was a Queen K and it served me well for a few years.
Kuota’s sales never took off after an aggressive push post-Stadler, and it was taken over by their factory.
The original owners started a new brand (Kemo Bikes) a few years ago.
The frame design by itself doesn’t hold you back as much as you not being able to stay aero. I’m a short torso/long arms and legs guy and the Kalibur did not work for me (even though I REALLY wanted it to). The slack seat tube angle wouldn’t allow the forward position that I liked and the short head tube made it tough on my neck and shoulders when in the aero position.
Try getting your fit numbers and shop around for frames that better work with you. You’ll go faster AND have more fun!
But I have fond memories of my 2008 Kuota K-Factor bought 3 seasons ago when I got into triathlon.
It was a vast improvement over my hybrid bike that I showed up with at my first team practice (time trial, haha).
It looked sexy then, and still looks nice! Although my 2013 BMC TM02 is not that shabby either.
If you can fit wider than 23mm tires at reduced pressures, you will will more than gain back the 5mins lost to those other bikes with narrow tires at higher pressures. You’ll also be less beaten up, which will help on the run.
Remember your KK might be a brick, but you’re a wall/house sitting on top of it! So, optimise what you’ve got.
I guess that is what I’m trying to quantify, just how much time/speed/watts I’m giving up. I hear terms like “aero brick” and I think I am riding a Huffy from Walmart, but if it’s a matter or a minute or two over 112, then I guess I’ll have to live with it. This year was just about getting back into it and doing IMMT for fun, but next year I’d like to get back near 11 hour territory, so if a bike upgrade would make a huge difference, I might want to consider it.
Somebody mentioned the positioning on the Kalibur - I find it very hard to stay aero for long periods of time, and I’ve had multiple fittings and tweaks to my position. Is there something about the design that may make it less comfortable for many riders?
To my knowledge, there’s nothing “wrong” with the KK. It’s just old.
I think you’re getting some good answers on the aero brick question, so you’ll have to decide $ for you. Swapping out aerobars and hydration might close the gap a bit, but only so much. I’m like you in that I’m “stuck” with my P2SL, and am pretty happy with that decision made so many years ago. Not the fastest frame, but it’s no Huffy. The Kuota would probably fit into a similar category if it were me.
Regarding your position–that’s a bigger concern. There’s no major issue that I know of WRT the Kaliber being bad for position/comfort; just whether the saddle, aerobars/stem, and cranks (3 contact points) are a good match for you. With a little work I bet we could straighten out your position and find 10-20 min for an IM bike (I’m being quite serious). But we need a critique my fit thread for that.
If you can fit wider than 23mm tires at reduced pressures, you will will more than gain back the 5mins lost to those other bikes with narrow tires at higher pressures. You’ll also be less beaten up, which will help on the run.
Remember your KK might be a brick, but you’re a wall/house sitting on top of it! So, optimise what you’ve got.
I agree about rider position being more critical than the bike.
Just letting the OP know what the gain from getting a newer bike would be, then they can decide if 5min. in an IM is worth the $$$. $300 on a good fit is def. money well spent (the trick is finding the right fitter).
Regarding tires, most of the wheels today are optimized around 23mm tires (Zipp, HED, FLO, ENVE, etc.). A larger tire will reduce rolling resistance slightly, but not enough to offset the aero penalty. Most older wheels (pre-firecrest Zipps, HED trispokes, etc.) are fastest with a narrower tire (ex. 20mm).
