HELP kikapu vs kona dawg, which to choose?



Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jonathan

Guest
Hi there,

I am planning to buy a new mountain bike in the fall. I was wondering if you could give me help with
reagrds to which bike to choose. I am 6'2", and weigh 180lbs. After carefully researching bikes from
several companies, I have narrowed my choices to the 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe
http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_kikapu_dlx.cfm , and the 2004 Kona Dawg
http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg.cfm.

I plan to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in Vancouver and surrounding areas, as
well as on trails. While I have riden toy bikes since childhood, I am not an agressive rider, nor a
brave rider, so I certainly don't expect to be taking the bike of any big drops, or anything of that
nature, but I do want to be able to plow down rough trailes without worry. I also want a reasonably
lightweight bike that will allow smooth confident hill climbing both on the trail and on the road.
While racing is not on my radar screen right now, it might be fun to try in the future. My immediate
inclination was to go for the 2004 Kikapu Deluxe, it has an great feature set and good looks.

My only concern stems from some reviews I have read at www.mtbr.com of previous and current model
Kikapus/Kahuna bikes, inluding the King Kikpau. Heavier riders have mentioned breaking thier frames
during basic cross country rides, and more than once has recomended that anyone over 160lbs look
towards the Bear/Dawg line of bikes instead because of the stronger frame.. Because I wiegh 180lbs,
I have been concerned about this, and have thus begun considering the 2004 Dawg instead, although it
the extra extra five pounds of weight doesn't thrill me.

I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style, and my weight, do you agree that I
would be better off to choose the Dawg?
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hi there,

[snip]

I used to own a Kona FS bike, and I liked it OK, but after doing a lot of research, I figured out
that they are quite overpriced for what you get. If you can get a deal on an '03 bike, it might
work out fine, but really - what does Kona provide that the other companies do not? Which bikes did
you research?

Normally, I won't get into a discussion over "what bike should I buy" because it's such a
personal thing, but your weight plus your stated riding style match mine, so I feel I can be of
some use to you. :)

Spider
 
"Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Hi there,
>
> [snip]
>
> I used to own a Kona FS bike, and I liked it OK, but after doing a lot of research, I figured out
> that they are quite overpriced for what you get. If you can get a deal on an '03 bike, it might
> work out fine, but really - what does Kona provide that the other companies do not? Which bikes
> did you research?
>
> Normally, I won't get into a discussion over "what bike should I buy" because it's such a
> personal thing, but your weight plus your stated riding style match mine, so I feel I can be of
> some use to you. :)
>
> Spiderwell, thank you for your concern about my finaces, but it's really
not a huge issuse to me. I have chosen to buy a Kona after researching bikes from Trek, Santa Cruz,
GT, DeVinci, Specialized, Norco, and probably a couple other MTB makers that I have forgotten to
mention. What I found was that most of these companies offered several bikes that could be a good
fit to me, if only I could mash them altogether into one! I have concluded that Kona is the best bet
for me, they have good lookibng bikes, proven designs, and so on. Also, when comparing the 2004
offerings to thier 2002 catalog, it appears that their prices have come down considerably. So please
don't try to persuade me that I should be buying a different brand, in this instance, my mind has
been made up. :)

On the other hand, if you can give me some much need advice about buying to correct frame for my
riding style/body size/weight, that would be very much appretiated, and a huge help to me.

Thanks in advance,

----
Hi there,

I am planning to buy a new mountain bike in the fall. I was wondering if you could give me help with
reagrds to which bike to choose. I am 6'2", and weigh 180lbs. After carefully researching bikes from
several companies, I have narrowed my choices to the 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe
http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_kikapu_dlx.cfm , and the 2004 Kona Dawg
http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg.cfm.

I plan to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in Vancouver and surrounding areas, as
well as on trails. While I have riden toy bikes since childhood, I am not an agressive rider, nor a
brave rider, so I certainly don't expect to be taking the bike of any big drops, or anything of that
nature, but I do want to be able to plow down rough trailes without worry. I also want a reasonably
lightweight bike that will allow smooth confident hill climbing both on the trail and on the road.
While racing is not on my radar screen right now, it might be fun to try in the future. My immediate
inclination was to go for the 2004 Kikapu Deluxe, it has an great feature set and good looks.

My only concern stems from some reviews I have read at www.mtbr.com of previous and current model
Kikapus/Kahuna bikes, inluding the King Kikpau. Heavier riders have mentioned breaking thier frames
during basic cross country rides, and more than once has recomended that anyone over 160lbs look
towards the Bear/Dawg line of bikes instead because of the stronger frame.. Because I wiegh 180lbs,
I have been concerned about this, and have thus begun considering the 2004 Dawg instead, although it
the extra extra five pounds of weight doesn't thrill me.

I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style, and my weight, do you agree that I
would be better off to choose the Dawg?
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Hi there,
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I used to own a Kona FS bike, and I liked it OK, but after doing a lot of research, I figured
> > out that they are quite overpriced for what you get. If you can get a deal on an '03 bike, it
> > might work out fine, but really - what does Kona provide that the other companies do not? Which
> > bikes did you research?
> >
> > Normally, I won't get into a discussion over "what bike should I buy" because it's such a
> > personal thing, but your weight plus your stated riding style match mine, so I feel I can be of
> > some use to you. :)
> >
> > Spiderwell, thank you for your concern about my finaces, but it's really
> not a huge issuse to me. I have chosen to buy a Kona after researching bikes from Trek, Santa
> Cruz, GT, DeVinci, Specialized, Norco, and probably a couple other MTB makers that I have
> forgotten to mention. What I found was that most of these companies offered several bikes that
> could be a good fit to me, if only I could mash them altogether into one! I have concluded that
> Kona is the best bet for me, they have good lookibng bikes, proven designs, and so on. Also, when
> comparing the 2004 offerings to thier 2002 catalog, it appears that their prices have come down
> considerably. So please don't try to persuade me that I should be buying a different brand, in
> this instance, my mind has been made up. :)
>
> On the other hand, if you can give me some much need advice about buying to correct frame for my
> riding style/body size/weight, that would be very much appretiated, and a huge help to me.
>
> Thanks in advance,

It was less a concern about finances than a "bang for the buck."

When it comes down to the operation and care of a bicycle, the components can make a big difference.
Small things, such as who made the wheel spokes, can make a difference between riding out after a
mistake, or walking out, or having to be carried out.

While that might be overstating it a bit, it's not completely outrageous to suggest that you might
find other manufacturers to offer more and better for the money. You seem to suggest that money is
no object. If that is the case, buying a Kona would be a big mistake.

If your mind is made up, then all you are doing is looking for validation of your choice. I'm not
going to give it to you, because I do not think either bike is the best choice for light XC /
trailbike antics.

Have fun with whatever you do, and good luck.

Spider
 
"Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > I used to own a Kona FS bike, and I liked it OK, but after doing a lot of research, I figured
> > > out that they are quite overpriced for what you get. If you can get a deal on an '03 bike, it
> > > might work out fine, but really - what does Kona provide that the other companies do not?
> > > Which bikes did you research?
> > >
> > > Normally, I won't get into a discussion over "what bike should I buy" because it's such a
> > > personal thing, but your weight plus your stated riding style match mine, so I feel I can be
> > > of some use to you. :)
> > >
> > > Spiderwell, thank you for your concern about my finaces, but it's
really
> > not a huge issuse to me. I have chosen to buy a Kona after researching
bikes
> > from Trek, Santa Cruz, GT, DeVinci, Specialized, Norco, and probably a couple other MTB makers
> > that I have forgotten to mention. What I found
was
> > that most of these companies offered several bikes that could be a good
fit
> > to me, if only I could mash them altogether into one! I have concluded
that
> > Kona is the best bet for me, they have good lookibng bikes, proven
designs,
> > and so on. Also, when comparing the 2004 offerings to thier 2002
catalog, it
> > appears that their prices have come down considerably. So please don't
try
> > to persuade me that I should be buying a different brand, in this
instance,
> > my mind has been made up. :)
> >
> > On the other hand, if you can give me some much need advice about buying
to
> > correct frame for my riding style/body size/weight, that would be very
much
> > appretiated, and a huge help to me.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> It was less a concern about finances than a "bang for the buck."
>
> When it comes down to the operation and care of a bicycle, the components can make a big
> difference. Small things, such as who made the wheel spokes, can make a difference between riding
> out after a mistake, or walking out, or having to be carried out.
>
> While that might be overstating it a bit, it's not completely outrageous to suggest that you might
> find other manufacturers to offer more and better for the money. You seem to suggest that money is
> no object. If that is the case, buying a Kona would be a big mistake.
>

No, I'm not suggesting that money is no object, far from it. What I am saying is simply that I do
not feel that Kona's lack bang for the buck, as I assume you do. As with any sport/hobby, we all
have our biases. I dabble in home theatre and photography as well, and it's no different, HT people
insist that Bose sucks, photogrpahy geeks argue day in and day out over Canon vs Nikon vs Olympus.

As I am new to mountain biking, I began my search with no bias. I looked at all the companies I
mentioned above. I ruled out Santa Cruz because I was simply to confused by thier offerings and
couldn't tell what was what. I ruled out Canonndale because thier mountain bikes seems to recieve
second billing next to thier road bikes. I ruled out Norco because of thier wacky suspension
schemes, horrendous looks, and so on and so on. I ruled out many other bikes as a result of reviews
I read from various sources, some mentioning excessive pedal bob, and other stuff like that.

I recognize that goo quality components are important, which is why I did not buy the Kahuna, which
I could afford now, and opted instead to wait until fall when I would have more money to spend.

I am glad you responded to my post, since you are the only one, but I think you misunderstodd my
purpose. My only real question was, for my size and weight, do you think the Dawg frame would be a
better choice than the Kikapu?

> If your mind is made up, then all you are doing is looking for validation of your choice. I'm not
> going to give it to you, because I do not think either bike is the best choice for light XC /
> trailbike antics.
>
> Have fun with whatever you do, and good luck.
>
> Spider
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I used to own a Kona FS bike, and I liked it OK, but after doing a
lot
> > > > of research, I figured out that they are quite overpriced for what
you
> > > > get. If you can get a deal on an '03 bike, it might work out fine, but really - what does
> > > > Kona provide that the other companies do not? Which bikes did you research?
> > > >
> > > > Normally, I won't get into a discussion over "what bike should I
buy"
> > > > because it's such a personal thing, but your weight plus your stated riding style match
> > > > mine, so I feel I can be of some use to you. :)
> > > >
> > > > Spiderwell, thank you for your concern about my finaces, but it's
> really
> > > not a huge issuse to me. I have chosen to buy a Kona after researching
> bikes
> > > from Trek, Santa Cruz, GT, DeVinci, Specialized, Norco, and probably a couple other MTB makers
> > > that I have forgotten to mention. What I found
> was
> > > that most of these companies offered several bikes that could be a
good
> fit
> > > to me, if only I could mash them altogether into one! I have concluded
> that
> > > Kona is the best bet for me, they have good lookibng bikes, proven
> designs,
> > > and so on. Also, when comparing the 2004 offerings to thier 2002
> catalog, it
> > > appears that their prices have come down considerably. So please don't
> try
> > > to persuade me that I should be buying a different brand, in this
> instance,
> > > my mind has been made up. :)
> > >
> > > On the other hand, if you can give me some much need advice about
buying
> to
> > > correct frame for my riding style/body size/weight, that would be very
> much
> > > appretiated, and a huge help to me.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > It was less a concern about finances than a "bang for the buck."
> >
> > When it comes down to the operation and care of a bicycle, the components can make a big
> > difference. Small things, such as who made the wheel spokes, can make a difference between
> > riding out after a mistake, or walking out, or having to be carried out.
> >
> > While that might be overstating it a bit, it's not completely outrageous to suggest that you
> > might find other manufacturers to offer more and better for the money. You seem to suggest that
> > money is no object. If that is the case, buying a Kona would be a big mistake.
> >
>
> No, I'm not suggesting that money is no object, far from it. What I am saying is simply that I do
> not feel that Kona's lack bang for the buck, as
I
> assume you do. As with any sport/hobby, we all have our biases. I dabble
in
> home theatre and photography as well, and it's no different, HT people insist that Bose sucks,
> photogrpahy geeks argue day in and day out over Canon vs Nikon vs Olympus.
>
> As I am new to mountain biking, I began my search with no bias. I looked
at
> all the companies I mentioned above. I ruled out Santa Cruz because I was simply to confused by
> thier offerings and couldn't tell what was what. I ruled out Canonndale because thier mountain
> bikes seems to recieve second billing next to thier road bikes. I ruled out Norco because of thier
> wacky suspension schemes, horrendous looks, and so on and so on. I ruled out
many
> other bikes as a result of reviews I read from various sources, some mentioning excessive pedal
> bob, and other stuff like that.
>
> I recognize that goo quality components are important, which is why I did not buy the Kahuna,
> which I could afford now, and opted instead to wait until fall when I would have more money
> to spend.
>
> I am glad you responded to my post, since you are the only one, but I
think
> you misunderstodd my purpose. My only real question was, for my size and weight, do you think the
> Dawg frame would be a better choice than the Kikapu?
>
>
> > If your mind is made up, then all you are doing is looking for validation of your choice. I'm
> > not going to give it to you, because I do not think either bike is the best choice for light XC
> > / trailbike antics.
> >
> > Have fun with whatever you do, and good luck.
> >
> > Spider

It is a shame to let the experience and expertise of the more seasoned riders in this group go to
waste because you think you are a good judge about something you know little about.

/Jacob
 
Dude the Dawg is more of a northshore kind of bike ,At 32lb it a hheeaavvyyy XC bike ,Good luck but
don't say you were not worned .The other bike mite be a little more for xc riding .And your not that
big I'm 6'1" 215 and ride xc .and don't like heavy bikes.Just my Opion??

--
J/O Trailblazer At large !!
 
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:58:39 +0200, Jacob Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is a shame to let the experience and expertise of the more seasoned riders in this group go to
> waste because you think you are a good judge about something you know little about.

It's a shame that you quoted that whole thread in your reply.

It's a cryin' shame that the poor guy can't get an answer to the question for which he actually
wants an answer.

Does nobody subscribe to the self-chosen-bike-gets-ridden-more theory? That is to say, I would be
more excited about, and therefore would ride more often, a bike that I chose from my own wants and
needs, rather than listening to an expert who knows the equipment better.

If the bike is $400 more than an equivelant bike from another manufacturer, but the dude is happier
to ride it, then I say he should definately buy the one he's excited about, even if he could get a
better bike cheaper.

If I remember the original post, here's my guess at the answer: You should go ahead and get the 5lb
lighter, 160lb-rated bike, even though you weigh 180. You said you wouldn't beat on it
horribly...and I expect that people reccommending you weigh less than 160 for it were factoring in
heavy beat-itis.

> /Jacob
--
Rick Onanian
 
"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:58:39 +0200, Jacob Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It is a shame to let the experience and expertise of the more seasoned riders in this group go
> > to waste because you think you are a good judge about something you know little about.
>
> It's a shame that you quoted that whole thread in your reply.
>
> It's a cryin' shame that the poor guy can't get an answer to the question for which he actually
> wants an answer.
>
> Does nobody subscribe to the self-chosen-bike-gets-ridden-more theory? That is to say, I would be
> more excited about, and therefore would ride more often, a bike that I chose from my own wants and
> needs, rather than listening to an expert who knows the equipment better.
>
> If the bike is $400 more than an equivelant bike from another manufacturer, but the dude is
> happier to ride it, then I say he should definately buy the one he's excited about, even if he
> could get a better bike cheaper.
>
> If I remember the original post, here's my guess at the answer: You should go ahead and get the
> 5lb lighter, 160lb-rated bike, even though you weigh 180. You said you wouldn't beat on it
> horribly...and I expect that people reccommending you weigh less than 160 for it were factoring in
> heavy beat-itis.
>
> > /Jacob
> --
> Rick Onanian

Thank you Rick! A real answer!
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

> >
> > It was less a concern about finances than a "bang for the buck."
> >
> > When it comes down to the operation and care of a bicycle, the components can make a big
> > difference. Small things, such as who made the wheel spokes, can make a difference between
> > riding out after a mistake, or walking out, or having to be carried out.
> >
> > While that might be overstating it a bit, it's not completely outrageous to suggest that you
> > might find other manufacturers to offer more and better for the money. You seem to suggest that
> > money is no object. If that is the case, buying a Kona would be a big mistake.
> >
>
> No, I'm not suggesting that money is no object, far from it. What I am saying is simply that I do
> not feel that Kona's lack bang for the buck, as I assume you do.

It's not about "feelings" but about hard data. Research is supposed to provide data.

> As with any sport/hobby, we all have our biases. I dabble in home theatre and photography as well,
> and it's no different, HT people insist that Bose sucks, photogrpahy geeks argue day in and day
> out over Canon vs Nikon vs Olympus.

True. But for someone who is very inexperienced, such as yourself, how can you possibly have a bias
rooted in fact? It doesn't make sense.

I've riden Kona, Trek, Giant, Specialized, Fisher, Klein, Rocky Mountain, GT, Cannondale and Diamond
Back MTBs. Ridden some more than others, but each enough to grasp the stengths and weaknesses, in a
general sense.

> As I am new to mountain biking, I began my search with no bias. I looked at all the companies I
> mentioned above. I ruled out Santa Cruz because I was simply to confused by thier offerings and
> couldn't tell what was what.

So, instead of getting some input to straighten out your confusion, you just chuck the whole mess?
The Blur might be a good bike for you.

> I ruled out Canonndale because thier mountain bikes seems to recieve second billing next to thier
> road bikes.

LOL. What does that have to do with what kind of riding you do?

> I ruled out Norco because of thier wacky suspension schemes, horrendous looks, and so on and so
> on. I ruled out many other bikes as a result of reviews I read from various sources, some
> mentioning excessive pedal bob, and other stuff like that.

As a beginner, bob is the least of your worries. And if you know how to pedal, bob is minimized.

> I recognize that goo quality components are important, which is why I did not buy the Kahuna,
> which I could afford now, and opted instead to wait until fall when I would have more money
> to spend.

Which would open up your options some.

> I am glad you responded to my post, since you are the only one, but I think you misunderstodd my
> purpose. My only real question was, for my size and weight, do you think the Dawg frame would be a
> better choice than the Kikapu?

Neither. I think that I made this pretty clear. There are better bikes for the money, more suited to
your build and riding style. I mentioned one already.

You can ignore or take my advice as you see fit, but in the end, it's your money, and not mine. If I
had it to do over again, I would not have bought the Kona. I would have spent just a little more for
a much better bike.

Spider
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:58:39 +0200, Jacob Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It is a shame to let the experience and expertise of the more seasoned riders in this group go
> > to waste because you think you are a good judge about something you know little about.
>
> It's a shame that you quoted that whole thread in your reply.
>
> It's a cryin' shame that the poor guy can't get an answer to the question for which he actually
> wants an answer.

The "poor guy" *did* get an answer - just not the one he wanted.

> Does nobody subscribe to the self-chosen-bike-gets-ridden-more theory? That is to say, I would be
> more excited about, and therefore would ride more often, a bike that I chose from my own wants and
> needs, rather than listening to an expert who knows the equipment better.

If there is a bike better suited to the task than the one you have chosen, but you don't *know* that
it's a better bike, how could you possibly know that you had made the right choice? Yes, I know
that's a confusing thought. For a beginner, the best choice is the bike most ridden. The question
becomes - is the bike chosen the best one, or is there one better, that will be ridden more?

> If the bike is $400 more than an equivelant bike from another manufacturer, but the dude is
> happier to ride it, then I say he should definately buy the one he's excited about, even if he
> could get a better bike cheaper.

If the cheaper bike is better (assuming that it is otherwise identical,) why wouldn't someone choose
the cheaper one? It doesn't make any sense, unless non-objective factors enter in, ones that are so
personal as to obviate asking questions in a public forum...

> If I remember the original post, here's my guess at the answer: You should go ahead and get the
> 5lb lighter, 160lb-rated bike, even though you weigh 180. You said you wouldn't beat on it
> horribly...and I expect that people reccommending you weigh less than 160 for it were factoring in
> heavy beat-itis.

But Konas, especially the lighter ones, have a reputation for breaking. I don't know if this is a
fair reputation or not. He might not be hucking with the thing now, but next year, he might be
riding harder and in more difficult terrain. A Titus LocoMoto might be a better choice. Or the SC
Blur. Or a Specialized FSR. Giant VT?

I think these are all better choices than either of the Konas, since the guy rides like I do
currently, and has a similar build.

Yeah, what the hell do *I* know, anyway? LOL!

Spider
 
"Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:58:39 +0200, Jacob Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > It is a shame to let the experience and expertise of the more seasoned riders in this group go
> > > to waste because you think you are a good
judge
> > > about something you know little about.
> >
> > It's a shame that you quoted that whole thread in your reply.
> >
> > It's a cryin' shame that the poor guy can't get an answer to the question for which he actually
> > wants an answer.
>
> The "poor guy" *did* get an answer - just not the one he wanted.

I have hung around USENET for long enough to recognize this attitude. Firstly, I do no consider
myself a poor guy. Secondly, while I did get an answer, it was not an answer to the question I
asked, and since this is not Jeopardy, it would make sense to wait until a specific question is
asked before providing and answer to it.

>
> If the cheaper bike is better (assuming that it is otherwise identical,) why wouldn't someone
> choose the cheaper one? It doesn't make any sense, unless non-objective factors enter in, ones
> that are so personal as to obviate asking questions in a public forum...

Well that's just it. Maybe I do have some un-objective factors at work. They must be subconcious
however, ad I am not aware of them. I asked a very specific question, it was a simple choice between
two bikes. I don't see why you felt the need to complicate things.

>
> > If I remember the original post, here's my guess at the answer: You should go ahead and get the
> > 5lb lighter, 160lb-rated bike, even though you weigh 180. You said you wouldn't beat on it
> > horribly...and I expect that people reccommending you weigh less than 160 for it were factoring
> > in heavy beat-itis.
>
> But Konas, especially the lighter ones, have a reputation for breaking. I don't know if this is a
> fair reputation or not. He might not be hucking with the thing now, but next year, he might be
> riding harder and in more difficult terrain. A Titus LocoMoto might be a better choice. Or the SC
> Blur. Or a Specialized FSR. Giant VT?

Just to humour you, I decided to check again on thos bikes you mentioned. The Santa Cruz blur, is
far more expensive that either the Kikapu or the Dawg. I assume it comes in cheaper if some things,
are left out, such as disc brakes, but I don't want to leave out disc brakes. Not only that, but I
will re-iterate that the SantaCruz website is such a mess that I can't figure out what goes with
what. Maybe I am being unfair, but if they can't present thier proiduct effectively, I feel no
obligation to give them my business.The specialized bikes use the same goofy suspension system as
Norco bikes, and after riding on my freind's Norco Fluid, and bobbing up and down on the hills, that
was ruled out. In addition when I aksed a similar question of two of these compnaies, and Kona, Kona
responded with a detailed explanation about why they thought one bike would be better for than the
other, whilst two of the ones you mentioned above simply told me that both bikes would be fine, a
response I consider grossly inadequate.

I think I will let this go now, and seek help elsewhere. Not that I do not think your intention was
to help, but I do not want to see my thread degenerate into pointless arguements that have little or
nothing to do with what was a very simple question.
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hi there,
>
> I am planning to buy a new mountain bike in the fall. I was wondering if
you
> could give me help with reagrds to which bike to choose. I am 6'2", and weigh 180lbs. After
> carefully researching bikes from several companies, I have narrowed my choices to the 2004 Kona
> Kikapu Deluxe http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_kikapu_dlx.cfm , and the 2004 Kona Dawg
> http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg.cfm.
>
> I plan to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in Vancouver and surrounding areas,
> as well as on trails. While I have riden toy bikes since childhood, I am not an agressive rider,
> nor a brave rider, so I certainly don't expect to be taking the bike of any big drops, or anything
> of that nature, but I do
want
> to be able to plow down rough trailes without worry. I also want a reasonably lightweight bike
> that will allow smooth confident hill climbing both on the trail and on the road. While racing is
> not on my
radar
> screen right now, it might be fun to try in the future. My immediate inclination was to go for the
> 2004 Kikapu Deluxe, it has an great feature set and good looks.
>
> My only concern stems from some reviews I have read at www.mtbr.com of previous and current model
> Kikapus/Kahuna bikes, inluding the King Kikpau. Heavier riders have mentioned breaking thier
> frames during basic cross country rides, and more than once has recomended that anyone over 160lbs
> look towards the Bear/Dawg line of bikes instead because of
the
> stronger frame.. Because I wiegh 180lbs, I have been concerned about this, and have thus begun
> considering the 2004 Dawg instead, although it the
extra
> extra five pounds of weight doesn't thrill me.
>
> I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style, and my weight, do you agree that I
> would be better off to choose the Dawg?

No.

For some ridiculous reason, I just re-read this entire thread. If you're dead-set on getting one of
these two bikes -- period -- then choose the Kikapu. (*YOU* said you wanted "reasonably light", for
"pleasure rides...both on pavement as well as trails", so why on earth even consider a 32-{bet it's
closer to 34}-pound bike?!?) Spider raised some excellent questions, but like I said if you're
dead-set then at least choose something that APPROACHES being suited to what you say you want.

Personally, I think you should look at entry-level hardtails (Giant Sedona and ilk)...so there! :)

You could even stick with a Kona by cracky, Bill
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I am planning to buy a new mountain bike in the fall. I was wondering if
> you
> > could give me help with reagrds to which bike to choose. I am 6'2", and weigh 180lbs. After
> > carefully researching bikes from several companies,
I
> > have narrowed my choices to the 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe
> > http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_kikapu_dlx.cfm , and the 2004 Kona Dawg
> > http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg.cfm.
> >
> > I plan to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in
Vancouver
> > and surrounding areas, as well as on trails. While I have riden toy
bikes
> > since childhood, I am not an agressive rider, nor a brave rider, so I certainly don't expect to
> > be taking the bike of any big drops, or anything of that nature, but I do
> want
> > to be able to plow down rough trailes without worry. I also want a reasonably lightweight bike
> > that will allow smooth confident hill climbing both on the trail and on the road. While racing
> > is not on my
> radar
> > screen right now, it might be fun to try in the future. My immediate inclination was to go for
> > the 2004 Kikapu Deluxe, it has an great
feature
> > set and good looks.
> >
> > My only concern stems from some reviews I have read at www.mtbr.com of previous and current
> > model Kikapus/Kahuna bikes, inluding the King Kikpau. Heavier riders have mentioned breaking
> > thier frames during basic cross country rides, and more than once has recomended that anyone
> > over 160lbs look towards the Bear/Dawg line of bikes instead because of
> the
> > stronger frame.. Because I wiegh 180lbs, I have been concerned about
this,
> > and have thus begun considering the 2004 Dawg instead, although it the
> extra
> > extra five pounds of weight doesn't thrill me.
> >
> > I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style, and my weight, do you agree that
> > I would be better off to choose the Dawg?
>
> No.
>
> For some ridiculous reason, I just re-read this entire thread. If you're dead-set on getting one
> of these two bikes -- period -- then choose the Kikapu. (*YOU* said you wanted "reasonably light",
> for "pleasure rides...both on pavement as well as trails", so why on earth even consider
a
> 32-{bet it's closer to 34}-pound bike?!?) Spider raised some excellent questions, but like I said
> if you're dead-set then at least choose
something
> that APPROACHES being suited to what you say you want.
>
> Personally, I think you should look at entry-level hardtails (Giant Sedona and ilk)...so there! :)

But I don't want a hardtail. Sheesh.
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > I am planning to buy a new mountain bike in the fall. I was wondering
if
> > you
> > > could give me help with reagrds to which bike to choose. I am 6'2",
and
> > > weigh 180lbs. After carefully researching bikes from several
companies,
> I
> > > have narrowed my choices to the 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe
> > > http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_kikapu_dlx.cfm , and the 2004
Kona
> > > Dawg http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg.cfm.
> > >
> > > I plan to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in
> Vancouver
> > > and surrounding areas, as well as on trails. While I have riden toy
> bikes
> > > since childhood, I am not an agressive rider, nor a brave rider, so I certainly don't expect
> > > to be taking the bike of any big drops, or anything of that nature, but I do
> > want
> > > to be able to plow down rough trailes without worry. I also want a reasonably lightweight bike
> > > that will allow smooth confident
hill
> > > climbing both on the trail and on the road. While racing is not on my
> > radar
> > > screen right now, it might be fun to try in the future. My immediate inclination was to go for
> > > the 2004 Kikapu Deluxe, it has an great
> feature
> > > set and good looks.
> > >
> > > My only concern stems from some reviews I have read at www.mtbr.com of previous and current
> > > model Kikapus/Kahuna bikes, inluding the King Kikpau. Heavier riders have mentioned breaking
> > > thier frames during basic cross country rides, and more than once has recomended that
anyone
> > > over 160lbs look towards the Bear/Dawg line of bikes instead because
of
> > the
> > > stronger frame.. Because I wiegh 180lbs, I have been concerned about
> this,
> > > and have thus begun considering the 2004 Dawg instead, although it the
> > extra
> > > extra five pounds of weight doesn't thrill me.
> > >
> > > I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style, and my weight, do you agree
> > > that I would be better off to choose the Dawg?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > For some ridiculous reason, I just re-read this entire thread. If
you're
> > dead-set on getting one of these two bikes -- period -- then choose the Kikapu. (*YOU* said you
> > wanted "reasonably light", for "pleasure rides...both on pavement as well as trails", so why on
> > earth even
consider
> a
> > 32-{bet it's closer to 34}-pound bike?!?) Spider raised some excellent questions, but like I
> > said if you're dead-set then at least choose
> something
> > that APPROACHES being suited to what you say you want.
> >
> > Personally, I think you should look at entry-level hardtails (Giant
Sedona
> > and ilk)...so there! :)
>
> But I don't want a hardtail. Sheesh.

So go buy the Kikapu and quit yer kickin'! (Shaun Rimmer would've added a 'poo' to that.)

If this were a photography group and you wanted to take simple snapshots, people would try to steer
you away from some heavy-duty pro SLR outfit, too.

Brownie Bill
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...
> "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Hi there,
> > > >
> > > > I am planning to buy a new mountain bike in the fall. I was
wondering
> if
> > > you
> > > > could give me help with reagrds to which bike to choose. I am 6'2",
> and
> > > > weigh 180lbs. After carefully researching bikes from several
> companies,
> > I
> > > > have narrowed my choices to the 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe
> > > > http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_kikapu_dlx.cfm , and the 2004
> Kona
> > > > Dawg http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg.cfm.
> > > >
> > > > I plan to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in
> > Vancouver
> > > > and surrounding areas, as well as on trails. While I have riden toy
> > bikes
> > > > since childhood, I am not an agressive rider, nor a brave rider, so I certainly don't expect
> > > > to
be
> > > > taking the bike of any big drops, or anything of that nature, but I
do
> > > want
> > > > to be able to plow down rough trailes without worry. I also want a reasonably lightweight
> > > > bike that will allow smooth confident
> hill
> > > > climbing both on the trail and on the road. While racing is not on
my
> > > radar
> > > > screen right now, it might be fun to try in the future. My immediate inclination was to go
> > > > for the 2004 Kikapu Deluxe, it has an great
> > feature
> > > > set and good looks.
> > > >
> > > > My only concern stems from some reviews I have read at www.mtbr.com
of
> > > > previous and current model Kikapus/Kahuna bikes, inluding the King Kikpau. Heavier riders
> > > > have mentioned breaking thier frames during basic cross country rides, and more than once
> > > > has recomended that
> anyone
> > > > over 160lbs look towards the Bear/Dawg line of bikes instead because
> of
> > > the
> > > > stronger frame.. Because I wiegh 180lbs, I have been concerned about
> > this,
> > > > and have thus begun considering the 2004 Dawg instead, although it
the
> > > extra
> > > > extra five pounds of weight doesn't thrill me.
> > > >
> > > > I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style, and
my
> > > > weight, do you agree that I would be better off to choose the Dawg?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > For some ridiculous reason, I just re-read this entire thread. If
> you're
> > > dead-set on getting one of these two bikes -- period -- then choose
the
> > > Kikapu. (*YOU* said you wanted "reasonably light", for "pleasure rides...both on pavement as
> > > well as trails", so why on earth even
> consider
> > a
> > > 32-{bet it's closer to 34}-pound bike?!?) Spider raised some
excellent
> > > questions, but like I said if you're dead-set then at least choose
> > something
> > > that APPROACHES being suited to what you say you want.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think you should look at entry-level hardtails (Giant
> Sedona
> > > and ilk)...so there! :)
> >
> > But I don't want a hardtail. Sheesh.
>
> So go buy the Kikapu and quit yer kickin'! (Shaun Rimmer would've added a 'poo' to that.)
>
> If this were a photography group and you wanted to take simple snapshots, people would try to
> steer you away from some heavy-duty pro SLR outfit,
too.
>
> Brownie Bill
>
>

Would they? See my question wasn't about hardtails vs FS, it was about the Kikapu vs the dog. If I
was really interested other poeples views about hardtails vs FS, which I am not, I would have
included more information realted to that choice in my post, such as the fact that I have a long
torso, and asa result suffer from a sore back, or that I have a tail bone injury.

No?
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:D[email protected]...
> > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am planning to buy a new mountain bike in the fall. I was
> wondering
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > could give me help with reagrds to which bike to choose. I am
6'2",
> > and
> > > > > weigh 180lbs. After carefully researching bikes from several
> > companies,
> > > I
> > > > > have narrowed my choices to the 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe
> > > > > http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_kikapu_dlx.cfm , and the
2004
> > Kona
> > > > > Dawg http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg.cfm.
> > > > >
> > > > > I plan to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in
> > > Vancouver
> > > > > and surrounding areas, as well as on trails. While I have riden
toy
> > > bikes
> > > > > since childhood, I am not an agressive rider, nor a brave rider, so I certainly don't
> > > > > expect to
> be
> > > > > taking the bike of any big drops, or anything of that nature, but
I
> do
> > > > want
> > > > > to be able to plow down rough trailes without worry. I also want a reasonably lightweight
> > > > > bike that will allow smooth
confident
> > hill
> > > > > climbing both on the trail and on the road. While racing is not on
> my
> > > > radar
> > > > > screen right now, it might be fun to try in the future. My
immediate
> > > > > inclination was to go for the 2004 Kikapu Deluxe, it has an great
> > > feature
> > > > > set and good looks.
> > > > >
> > > > > My only concern stems from some reviews I have read at
www.mtbr.com
> of
> > > > > previous and current model Kikapus/Kahuna bikes, inluding the King Kikpau. Heavier riders
> > > > > have mentioned breaking thier frames during basic cross country rides, and more than once
> > > > > has recomended that
> > anyone
> > > > > over 160lbs look towards the Bear/Dawg line of bikes instead
because
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > stronger frame.. Because I wiegh 180lbs, I have been concerned
about
> > > this,
> > > > > and have thus begun considering the 2004 Dawg instead, although it
> the
> > > > extra
> > > > > extra five pounds of weight doesn't thrill me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style,
and
> my
> > > > > weight, do you agree that I would be better off to choose the
Dawg?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > For some ridiculous reason, I just re-read this entire thread. If
> > you're
> > > > dead-set on getting one of these two bikes -- period -- then choose
> the
> > > > Kikapu. (*YOU* said you wanted "reasonably light", for "pleasure rides...both on pavement as
> > > > well as trails", so why on earth even
> > consider
> > > a
> > > > 32-{bet it's closer to 34}-pound bike?!?) Spider raised some
> excellent
> > > > questions, but like I said if you're dead-set then at least choose
> > > something
> > > > that APPROACHES being suited to what you say you want.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I think you should look at entry-level hardtails (Giant
> > Sedona
> > > > and ilk)...so there! :)
> > >
> > > But I don't want a hardtail. Sheesh.
> >
> > So go buy the Kikapu and quit yer kickin'! (Shaun Rimmer would've added
a
> > 'poo' to that.)
> >
> > If this were a photography group and you wanted to take simple
snapshots,
> > people would try to steer you away from some heavy-duty pro SLR outfit,
> too.
> >
> > Brownie Bill
> >
> >
>
> Would they? See my question wasn't about hardtails vs FS, it was about the Kikapu vs the dog. If I
> was really interested other poeples views about hardtails vs FS, which I am not, I would have
> included more information realted to that choice in my post, such as the fact that I have a long
> torso, and asa result suffer from a sore back, or that I have a tail bone injury.
>
> No?

No, because you OFFERED THE INFORMATION that you just wanted to take pleasure rides on pavement! To
quote someone who's becoming quite exasperating: "Sheesh."

For the love of King Kameamea (spell check blank) just go buy a friggin' Kona.

Aloha Bill
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:D[email protected]...
> > > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am planning to buy a new mountain bike in the fall. I was
> > wondering
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > could give me help with reagrds to which bike to choose. I am
> 6'2",
> > > and
> > > > > > weigh 180lbs. After carefully researching bikes from several
> > > companies,
> > > > I
> > > > > > have narrowed my choices to the 2004 Kona Kikapu Deluxe
> > > > > > http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_kikapu_dlx.cfm , and the
> 2004
> > > Kona
> > > > > > Dawg http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg.cfm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I plan to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in
> > > > Vancouver
> > > > > > and surrounding areas, as well as on trails. While I have riden
> toy
> > > > bikes
> > > > > > since childhood, I am not an agressive rider, nor a brave rider, so I certainly don't
> > > > > > expect
to
> > be
> > > > > > taking the bike of any big drops, or anything of that nature,
but
> I
> > do
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to be able to plow down rough trailes without worry. I also want a reasonably
> > > > > > lightweight bike that will allow smooth
> confident
> > > hill
> > > > > > climbing both on the trail and on the road. While racing is not
on
> > my
> > > > > radar
> > > > > > screen right now, it might be fun to try in the future. My
> immediate
> > > > > > inclination was to go for the 2004 Kikapu Deluxe, it has an
great
> > > > feature
> > > > > > set and good looks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My only concern stems from some reviews I have read at
> www.mtbr.com
> > of
> > > > > > previous and current model Kikapus/Kahuna bikes, inluding the
King
> > > > > > Kikpau. Heavier riders have mentioned breaking thier frames
during
> > > > > > basic cross country rides, and more than once has recomended
that
> > > anyone
> > > > > > over 160lbs look towards the Bear/Dawg line of bikes instead
> because
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > stronger frame.. Because I wiegh 180lbs, I have been concerned
> about
> > > > this,
> > > > > > and have thus begun considering the 2004 Dawg instead, although
it
> > the
> > > > > extra
> > > > > > extra five pounds of weight doesn't thrill me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style,
> and
> > my
> > > > > > weight, do you agree that I would be better off to choose the
> Dawg?
> > > > >
> > > > > No.
> > > > >
> > > > > For some ridiculous reason, I just re-read this entire thread. If
> > > you're
> > > > > dead-set on getting one of these two bikes -- period -- then
choose
> > the
> > > > > Kikapu. (*YOU* said you wanted "reasonably light", for "pleasure rides...both on pavement
> > > > > as well as trails", so why on earth even
> > > consider
> > > > a
> > > > > 32-{bet it's closer to 34}-pound bike?!?) Spider raised some
> > excellent
> > > > > questions, but like I said if you're dead-set then at least choose
> > > > something
> > > > > that APPROACHES being suited to what you say you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I think you should look at entry-level hardtails
(Giant
> > > Sedona
> > > > > and ilk)...so there! :)
> > > >
> > > > But I don't want a hardtail. Sheesh.
> > >
> > > So go buy the Kikapu and quit yer kickin'! (Shaun Rimmer would've
added
> a
> > > 'poo' to that.)
> > >
> > > If this were a photography group and you wanted to take simple
> snapshots,
> > > people would try to steer you away from some heavy-duty pro SLR
outfit,
> > too.
> > >
> > > Brownie Bill
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Would they? See my question wasn't about hardtails vs FS, it was about
the
> > Kikapu vs the dog. If I was really interested other poeples views about hardtails vs FS, which I
> > am not, I would have included more information realted to that choice in my post, such as the
> > fact that I have a long torso, and asa result suffer from a sore back, or that I have a tail
bone
> > injury.
> >
> > No?
>
> No, because you OFFERED THE INFORMATION that you just wanted to take pleasure rides on pavement!
> To quote someone who's becoming quite exasperating: "Sheesh."

True. I said that. But that's not all I said. I guess you didn't bother to read.
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > > > If this were a photography group and you wanted to take simple
> > snapshots,
> > > > people would try to steer you away from some heavy-duty pro SLR
> outfit,
> > > too.
> > >
> > > Would they? See my question wasn't about hardtails vs FS, it was about
> the
> > > Kikapu vs the dog. If I was really interested other poeples views
about
> > > hardtails vs FS, which I am not, I would have included more
information
> > > realted to that choice in my post, such as the fact that I have a long torso, and asa result
> > > suffer from a sore back, or that I have a tail
> bone
> > > injury.
> > >
> > > No?
> >
> > No, because you OFFERED THE INFORMATION that you just wanted to take pleasure rides on pavement!
> > To quote someone who's becoming quite exasperating: "Sheesh."
>
> True. I said that. But that's not all I said. I guess you didn't bother to read.

Sigh. And I quote:

"For some ridiculous reason, I just re-read this entire thread. If you're dead-set on getting one of
these two bikes ..."

I hereby retire (which remonds me, it's time to install the Geax's).

Letting Go Bill

PS: I'm going to buy a kitchen appliance this fall. After exhaustive research, I've narrowed my
choices to a walk-in freezer and an eggbeater. All I plan on doing is baking an occasional
potato. Which should I get?

Sorry, couldn't resist...
 
Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>If the cheaper bike is better (assuming that it is otherwise identical,) why wouldn't someone
>>choose the cheaper one? It doesn't make any sense, unless non-objective factors enter in, ones
>>that are so personal as to obviate asking questions in a public forum...
>Well that's just it. Maybe I do have some un-objective factors at work. They must be subconcious
>however, ad I am not aware of them. I asked a very specific question, it was a simple choice
>between two bikes.

It's Usenet, deal with it. "A or B" always invites the question "what about C?" - and if you haven't
already secretly made your mind up, sometimes C proves the best option.

>I think I will let this go now, and seek help elsewhere. Not that I do not think your intention was
>to help, but I do not want to see my thread

It is in no sense your thread.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.