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?
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?