HELP kikapu vs kona dawg, which to choose?



Status
Not open for further replies.
"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:[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?

You may want to consider a toaster oven, or spend a little more for a microwave oven. As your
cooking skills increase, your microwave oven will be more suited to the cooking task.

> Sorry, couldn't resist...

Me either, LOL!

Very funny analogy, BTW. Thanks.

Spider
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "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.

Just not long enough to "get over yourself."

> Firstly, I do no consider myself a poor guy.

I was quoting the previous poster. Which is why the "poor guy" was in quotes.

> 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.

Again, get over yourself. You're a rank beginner, and you're getting answers from a guy with more
experience than yourself. Most wise folks would shut up and listen, instead of complaining that the
answer wasn't in the form of a question.

> >
> > 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.

Or refuse to admit you have them. After all, you cannot elucidate exactly *why* only these two bikes
will fit the bill.

> 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.

Because you and I have the same stated riding style (I don't do much pavement, but I do *some*) and
weight. Our proportions are close to the same. Therefore, I felt my experience would be helpful to
you, and maybe get you to expand your search a little to include such bikes as you might not have
considered before.

The Turner 5-Spot at JensonUSA, fer example.

> > > 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.

Why? V-brakes are lighter, cheaper and the wheelsets that go along with are the same way.

If you are just riding the road and some light trails, disks are more a fashion statement than a
requirement.

> 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.

As if that means anything to the suitability of a bike for the task.

> Maybe I am being unfair, but if they can't present thier proiduct effectively, I feel no
> obligation to give them my business.

Since it's not really a material reason to ignore the product, I guess you can grasp at any straw to
dismiss a particular bike.

Trek Fuel?

Fisher Sugar?

> 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.

That's not the bike, but your pedalling. Sorry, but smooth pedalling can eliminate bob. Even a
single-pivot design can be pedalled smoothly enough to all but eliminate bob. It also depends on
what chainring you are in - an experience thing that you don't have.

BTW, the suspension on the FSR and the Fluid are not exactly alike. So much for your
careful research.

> 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.

So, their marketing guys made the decision for you. Fair enough, but then why seek validation in a
public forum? If you know what you want, buy the damn thing already! LOL!

> I think I will let this go now, and seek help elsewhere.

Oh, I think we both know that you aren't looking for help, but for validation on your choice. It's
OK, there's no shame in admitting it.

> Not that I do not think your intention was to help

You are alone in your perception, as it seems.

> 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.

One that you already answered yourself. It just so happens that I think your choice was a poor one.
But what do I know? LOL!

Try this one, just for grins:

www.castellanodesigns.com

That's what I replaced my Kona with. Smartest MTB move I've made yet.

Spider
 
On 28 Jul 2003 17:32:29 -0700, Spider <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

The answer wasn't an answer to the question he asked.

> 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

While all else being equal, a given bike might be better than another, it's no good if he spends a
load of money on it and doesn't get excited about riding it.

If he sees it sitting there and says "Oh boy I can't wait to ride", then it's better than the one he
sees sitting there and says "I bought the better bike" but doesn't ride.

> 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...

Non-objective factors enter in, and DO matter.

> 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

Ah! Some useful information. You might have mentioned it in your first reply.

> 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?

All good suggestions, but he's excited about the Kona.

I was excited about my 1997 GT Outpost when I bought it, and I could have probably done better, but
my GT has resulted in much riding and much fun, and I don't regret it one bit.

> 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.

More information that you may or may not have mentioned, but I don't remember you saying it.

Is it necessary to argue about this? How about you just say that you reccommend against Konas for
the reasons mentioned, and also that you can't offer any advice on choosing between the two Kona
models in question, but you can offer the advice that you did.

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

You know what you like, and what works for you, and that being excited about a bike doesn't cause
you to ride it any more than if you've bought the logical bike that you were less interested
in.

You know that you are built similarly and ride in similar conditions to the original poster, and you
know what HAS worked for these conditions.

As such, your advice is valuable. That does not mean that an answer to the original question as
asked is valueless.

> Spider
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 28 Jul 2003 17:32:29 -0700, Spider <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> The answer wasn't an answer to the question he asked.

Which matters to you, how?

> > 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
>
> While all else being equal, a given bike might be better than another, it's no good if he spends a
> load of money on it and doesn't get excited about riding it.

I would tend to agree. I would hope that someone would buy a bike because they are excited about
*biking*, not merely because of the bike.

If it's merely because of the bike, then why bother asking any questions in a public forum? Except
to seek validation, of course.

> If he sees it sitting there and says "Oh boy I can't wait to ride", then it's better than the one
> he sees sitting there and says "I bought the better bike" but doesn't ride.

I would suggest that such a person would quickly "fall out of love" no matter which bike they
purchased.

I get your point, it just that I don't give it much credibility.

> > 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...
>
> Non-objective factors enter in, and DO matter.

Then why bother asking in a public forum? If it's that personal, then what's the point of seeking
validation?

> > 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
>
> Ah! Some useful information. You might have mentioned it in your first reply.

You need to carefully read the original two posts in this thread - his, and my reply.

Since you are whining about my advice, what is your contribution, ATM?

> > 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?
>
> All good suggestions, but he's excited about the Kona.

So, if they are good suggestions, what's your malfunction?

> I was excited about my 1997 GT Outpost when I bought it, and I could have probably done better,
> but my GT has resulted in much riding and much fun, and I don't regret it one bit.

That's where you and I differ. I bought a Kona FS bike a few years back, for reasons I will not
mention (non-objective, to say the least) and I do regret it. While the bike gave me decent service,
I leapt at the chance to give it to someone who wanted it.

> > 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.
>
> More information that you may or may not have mentioned, but I don't remember you saying it.

See my first rply, again.

> Is it necessary to argue about this?

It seems you have a bone to pick, so I'm guessing your answer to that question is "yes."

> How about you just say that you reccommend against Konas for the reasons mentioned, and also that
> you can't offer any advice on choosing between the two Kona models in question, but you can offer
> the advice that you did.

Thank you for your suggestion. I'm glad that you can police up my reply so nicely. Since you are
chiding me about my response to Jonathan, I will just give you this one word to consider:

Hypocrite.

> > Yeah, what the hell do *I* know, anyway? LOL!
>
> You know what you like, and what works for you, and that being excited about a bike doesn't cause
> you to ride it any more than if you've bought the logical bike that you were less interested
> in.

Right. And that my body type and his are alike (as I stated in my first post in this thread, if you
had bothered reading it before jumping all over my butt) and that I have a similar riding style as
he stated his would be, AND that I have owned a Kona previously.

What experiences, exactly, do you have to offer? Other than your philosophical mumbo-jumbo?

> You know that you are built similarly and ride in similar conditions to the original poster, and
> you know what HAS worked for these conditions.

Yes, which might actually give me insight into a better choice than Kona, maybe?

> As such, your advice is valuable.

Except you have spent the entire post telling me how valueless it was. Make up your mind already.

> That does not mean that an answer to the original question as asked is valueless.

Oh, but that's where you are wrong. Because my answer to it is "neither."

I understand that this answer is not the answer that was sought, nor was it welcome. It a risk one
takes when one asks a question in USENET.

Spider
 
On 29 Jul 2003 14:20:27 -0700, Spider <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The answer wasn't an answer to the question he asked.
>
> Which matters to you, how?

It doesn't, I suppose. It's just a reflex-action on my part to try to clear up unclear
communications.

> I would tend to agree. I would hope that someone would buy a bike because they are excited about
> *biking*, not merely because of the bike.

Yes, they should buy _a_ bike because they're excited about _biking_, but _which_ bike to buy should
be based at least partially on what excites them.

>> If he sees it sitting there and says "Oh boy I can't wait to ride", then it's better than the one
>> he sees sitting there and says "I bought the better bike" but doesn't ride.
>
> I would suggest that such a person would quickly "fall out of love" no matter which bike they
> purchased.

That's possible...but then that's his problem for weighing too much on intangible feelings and too
little on logic.

> I get your point, it just that I don't give it much credibility.

I can accept that.

>> Non-objective factors enter in, and DO matter.
>
> Then why bother asking in a public forum? If it's that personal, then what's the point of seeking
> validation?

He wasn't asking "What bike should I get?". I can see now that he used the wrong language; he
question should have been phrased: "Will the Kona [whichever one] break while I'm riding it?" rather
than "Should I get the Kona [whichever], or should I get the other Kona, due to breakage issues?"

>> > 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
>>
>> Ah! Some useful information. You might have mentioned it in your first reply.
>
> You need to carefully read the original two posts in this thread - his, and my reply.

Your reply said this about Konas: "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."

You did not mention breakage at all.

So, you got rid of the bike because you decided that you had originally paid too much for it? Isn't
it a little too late at that point?

> Since you are whining about my advice, what is your contribution, ATM?

I took a guess and suggested he go with the lighter bike that made him excited, figuring that he
probably wouldn't break it.

>> > 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?
>>
>> All good suggestions, but he's excited about the Kona.
>
> So, if they are good suggestions, what's your malfunction?

My malfunction is that I'm butting in where I no longer belong. I probably ought to butt out.

>> I was excited about my 1997 GT Outpost when I bought it, and I could have probably done better,
>> but my GT has resulted in much riding and much fun, and I don't regret it one bit.
>
> That's where you and I differ. I bought a Kona FS bike a few years back, for reasons I will not
> mention (non-objective, to say the least) and I do regret it. While the bike gave me decent
> service, I leapt at the chance to give it to someone who wanted it.

If it gave you decent service, what did you regret about it?

Quantifying that may cause the original poster to say "Oh ****, I don't want one of those! It
does THAT!"

>> Is it necessary to argue about this?
>
> It seems you have a bone to pick, so I'm guessing your answer to that question is "yes."

My bone is that you are telling him what to do -- buy a bike that _you_ like better (for your own,
more logical reasons).

Your bone, I suspect, is that I'm damn near telling you what to do -- stop busting the poor dude's
balls, give him the useful advice you have, and leave it at that.

It's your right to go ahead and say whatever you want and bust his balls; and it's my right to bust
YOUR balls about that, because this group isn't moderated.

>> How about you just say that you reccommend against Konas for the reasons mentioned, and also that
>> you can't offer any advice on choosing between the two Kona models in question, but you can offer
>> the advice that you did.
>
> Thank you for your suggestion. I'm glad that you can police up my reply so nicely. Since you are
> chiding me about my response to Jonathan, I will just give you this one word to consider:
>
> Hypocrite.

You're right. I stand corrected. It's no more my place to tell you to be nice to the guy than it is
your place to insist that he do what YOU say.

I hereby rescind my suggestion as to what you should say. While it would make usenet a nicer place
to be, a little spice probably keeps everybody on their toes.

> Right. And that my body type and his are alike (as I stated in my first post in this thread, if
> you had bothered reading it before jumping all over my butt) and that I have a similar riding
> style as he stated his would be, AND that I have owned a Kona previously.

Out of three above things that you say are in your first post, only your previous ownership of a
Kona is present.

See http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF- 8&threadm=vi880hbkn12t71%40corp.supernews.com-
&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DRe%253A%2BHELP%2Bkikapu%2Bvs%2Bkona%2Bdawg%252C%2Bwhich%2Bto%2Bchoose%25-
3F%26ie%3DISO- 8859-1%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch

> What experiences, exactly, do you have to offer? Other than your philosophical mumbo-jumbo?

I've bought and ridden bikes, and I've seen other people do it.

In my experience, an exciting bike gets ridden more than a perfectly logical bike. It's not
mumbo-jumbo, just an observation.

How is getting rid of a bike because you figured out that you paid too much for it anything other
than mumbo-jumbo?

>> You know that you are built similarly and ride in similar conditions to the original poster, and
>> you know what HAS worked for these conditions.
>
> Yes, which might actually give me insight into a better choice than Kona, maybe?

Yes, and that's why you are qualified to comment on the Kona. However, I'm qualified to upgrade your
computer, but I'm here doing this instead because you haven't asked me to upgrade it.

>> As such, your advice is valuable.
>
> Except you have spent the entire post telling me how valueless it was. Make up your mind already.

I didn't say your advice was valueless. I found your tone, and your insistence that nobody should do
anything any different than you'd do it, to be rather offensive.

>> That does not mean that an answer to the original question as asked is valueless.
>
> Oh, but that's where you are wrong. Because my answer to it is "neither."

If you want to read his question very literally, then "neither" is an answer that functions...and
that's okay.

When I said: "It's a cryin' shame that the poor guy can't get an answer to the question for which he
actually wants an answer." I was trying to nudge somebody into providing an answer to his question,
one that he could actually use based on his plans.

Why would I butt in like that? Partly as a reflex (which has gotten me bitten more times than
I'd prefer), but also partly because people have done it for ME often enough, and I'm returning
the favor.

> I understand that this answer is not the answer that was sought, nor was it welcome. It a risk one
> takes when one asks a question in USENET.

Agreed.

> Spider
--
Rick Onanian
 
"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...

> Your bone, I suspect, is that I'm damn near telling you what to do -- stop busting the poor dude's
> balls, give him the useful advice you have, and leave it at that.
>
> It's your right to go ahead and say whatever you want and bust his balls; and it's my right to
> bust YOUR balls about that, because this group isn't moderated.

Oh, great...another Brock Bailey thread!

Bollocks Bill
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 29 Jul 2003 14:20:27 -0700, Spider <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The answer wasn't an answer to the question he asked.
> >
> > Which matters to you, how?
>
> It doesn't, I suppose. It's just a reflex-action on my part to try to clear up unclear
> communications.

Well, considering that you are having problems reading my postings, I think it is best that
glass-house dwellers avoid pitching rocks, hmmm?

> > I would tend to agree. I would hope that someone would buy a bike because they are excited about
> > *biking*, not merely because of the bike.
>
> Yes, they should buy _a_ bike because they're excited about _biking_, but _which_ bike to buy
> should be based at least partially on what excites them.

I agree. What part is occupied by emotion and what part is occupied by logic is a very personal
thing. Frankly, the ride excites me, not the mount.

> >> If he sees it sitting there and says "Oh boy I can't wait to ride", then it's better than the
> >> one he sees sitting there and says "I bought the better bike" but doesn't ride.
> >
> > I would suggest that such a person would quickly "fall out of love" no matter which bike they
> > purchased.
>
> That's possible...but then that's his problem for weighing too much on intangible feelings and too
> little on logic.

So, maybe dragging a little logic into the discussion might have merit, hmmm?

> >> Non-objective factors enter in, and DO matter.
> >
> > Then why bother asking in a public forum? If it's that personal, then what's the point of
> > seeking validation?
>
> He wasn't asking "What bike should I get?". I can see now that he used the wrong language; he
> question should have been phrased: "Will the Kona [whichever one] break while I'm riding it?"
> rather than "Should I get the Kona [whichever], or should I get the other Kona, due to breakage
> issues?"

I would have answered in the same way with the info given. I have made it clear that my *opinion*
happens to be that for his skill level, and body type, and riding style, neither Kona is the best
choice. I do not know why this simple concept is so difficult to grasp.

> >> > 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
> >>
> >> Ah! Some useful information. You might have mentioned it in your first reply.
> >
> > You need to carefully read the original two posts in this thread - his, and my reply.
>
> Your reply said this about Konas: "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."
>
> You did not mention breakage at all.

He did in his very first post. Like I said, read the postings before you start jumping up and down.
Did I not *just* suggest you read BOTH posts? I am wondering, seriously, if you have reading
comprehension problems.

> So, you got rid of the bike because you decided that you had originally paid too much for it?
> Isn't it a little too late at that point?

No, I got rid of the bike because my skills outgrew it. And because my nephew loved it. What the
heck? We both get a new bike!

> > Since you are whining about my advice, what is your contribution, ATM?
>
> I took a guess and suggested he go with the lighter bike that made him excited, figuring that he
> probably wouldn't break it.

But that is not a given, and it would seem to me that a guy of his mass might wish to look into a
bike beefier than the XC bike, and less massive than the freeride rig.

That leaves out Kona.

> >> > 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?
> >>
> >> All good suggestions, but he's excited about the Kona.
> >
> > So, if they are good suggestions, what's your malfunction?
>
> My malfunction is that I'm butting in where I no longer belong. I probably ought to butt out.

I would venture a guess that you really didn't "belong" in the first place. You really haven't
offered anything more than a vague **** in my direction.

> >> I was excited about my 1997 GT Outpost when I bought it, and I could have probably done better,
> >> but my GT has resulted in much riding and much fun, and I don't regret it one bit.
> >
> > That's where you and I differ. I bought a Kona FS bike a few years back, for reasons I will not
> > mention (non-objective, to say the least) and I do regret it. While the bike gave me decent
> > service, I leapt at the chance to give it to someone who wanted it.
>
> If it gave you decent service, what did you regret about it?

I outgrew it too quickly. And I could have spent the money so much more wisely.

> Quantifying that may cause the original poster to say "Oh ****, I don't want one of those! It
> does THAT!"

Unfortunately, it's hard to quantify. That's why I went in the direction I did. But thanks for the
advice - it was worth every penny I paid for it.

> >> Is it necessary to argue about this?
> >
> > It seems you have a bone to pick, so I'm guessing your answer to that question is "yes."
>
> My bone is that you are telling him what to do

No, I am offering suggestions, and have from the beginning. Overstating it in the imperative doesn't
mean that it was stated that way to begin with. Reading comprehension, again.

> -- buy a bike that _you_ like better (for your own, more logical reasons).

No, again. Since you have mis-read what I have written (on purpose to make a point?) - I will
clarify for you: There are other options rather than Kona. Better options.

> Your bone, I suspect, is that I'm damn near telling you what to do -- stop busting the poor dude's
> balls, give him the useful advice you have, and leave it at that.

That is an accurate statement. You are taking me to task for something over which you have no
control, and you are looking more silly with every passing post.

> It's your right to go ahead and say whatever you want and bust his balls;

I realize it's useful for you to recast the discussion this way, but I'm not busting any balls, I'm
just giving alternatives, and real ones, too. Purchased with real-life experience.

> and it's my right to bust YOUR balls about that, because this group isn't moderated.

Yes, it is. Except that you're just a hypocrite for doing what you complain that I do. Time to get
off your high horse now.

> >> How about you just say that you reccommend against Konas for the reasons mentioned, and also
> >> that you can't offer any advice on choosing between the two Kona models in question, but you
> >> can offer the advice that you did.
> >
> > Thank you for your suggestion. I'm glad that you can police up my reply so nicely. Since you are
> > chiding me about my response to Jonathan, I will just give you this one word to consider:
> >
> > Hypocrite.
>
> You're right. I stand corrected. It's no more my place to tell you to be nice to the guy than it
> is your place to insist that he do what YOU say.

There you go again. I never insisted anything. It's pure invention on your part. Try again?

> I hereby rescind my suggestion as to what you should say. While it would make usenet a nicer place
> to be, a little spice probably keeps everybody on their toes.

While you're just pissing on this parade, my advice to the guy might actually be of some use other
than just saying, "yeah, do what you want, you're gonna anyway."

> > Right. And that my body type and his are alike (as I stated in my first post in this thread, if
> > you had bothered reading it before jumping all over my butt) and that I have a similar riding
> > style as he stated his would be, AND that I have owned a Kona previously.
>
> Out of three above things that you say are in your first post, only your previous ownership of a
> Kona is present.
>
> See http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF- 8&threadm=vi880hbkn12t71%40corp.supernews.c-
> om&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DRe%253A%2BHELP%2Bkikapu%2Bvs%2Bkona%2Bdawg%252C%2Bwhich%2Bto%2Bchoos-
> e%253F%26ie%3DISO- 8859-1%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch

Let me quote from that article:

"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. :)"

Is that crow tasty, or would you like some salt?

> > What experiences, exactly, do you have to offer? Other than your philosophical mumbo-jumbo?
>
> I've bought and ridden bikes, and I've seen other people do it.

Konas? Any of the other bikes I've mentioned?

No, probably not. You're just mad because I dared challenge the guy's narrow thinking.

> In my experience, an exciting bike gets ridden more than a perfectly logical bike. It's not
> mumbo-jumbo, just an observation.

In my experience, the most exciting bike is the most logical bike. But please, since you bring up
observation, let's hear some stories to illustrate your point. It would be better if they were based
in fact, BTW.

> How is getting rid of a bike because you figured out that you paid too much for it anything other
> than mumbo-jumbo?

It's called "20/20 hindsight." Surely you've heard of it?

> >> You know that you are built similarly and ride in similar conditions to the original poster,
> >> and you know what HAS worked for these conditions.
> >
> > Yes, which might actually give me insight into a better choice than Kona, maybe?
>
> Yes, and that's why you are qualified to comment on the Kona. However, I'm qualified to upgrade
> your computer, but I'm here doing this instead because you haven't asked me to upgrade it.

Actually, I'm quite competent in that field as well. What's more, it's a terrible analogy because it
has nothing to do at all with bicycles. Try again?

> >> As such, your advice is valuable.
> >
> > Except you have spent the entire post telling me how valueless it was. Make up your mind
> > already.
>
> I didn't say your advice was valueless.

In a pedantic way, that is true. The one could infer something completely different, however.

> I found your tone, and your insistence that nobody should do anything any different than you'd do
> it, to be rather offensive.

LOL! Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE have I insisted anything. You are really having trouble reading my
posts, aren't you?

>
> >> That does not mean that an answer to the original question as asked is valueless.
> >
> > Oh, but that's where you are wrong. Because my answer to it is "neither."
>
> If you want to read his question very literally, then "neither" is an answer that functions...and
> that's okay.

If it's OK, maybe you are the one who needs to have his mind expanded, hmmm?

> When I said: "It's a cryin' shame that the poor guy can't get an answer to the question for which
> he actually wants an answer." I was trying to nudge somebody into providing an answer to his
> question, one that he could actually use based on his plans.

Frankly, he can use all of my answers. Just because they are to your liking does not mean they
aren't useful. Again, with the inferrence of "valueless."

> Why would I butt in like that? Partly as a reflex (which has gotten me bitten more times than
> I'd prefer), but also partly because people have done it for ME often enough, and I'm returning
> the favor.

I see. Since you liked it so much when someone else pulled this **** on you, you thought you'd
have a little fun at my expense? How's that working for you, Rick? Didn't quite go as you
planned, I'd bet.

Here's a hint - if you don't like a particular behavior, don't engage in it.

> > I understand that this answer is not the answer that was sought, nor was it welcome. It a risk
> > one takes when one asks a question in USENET.
>
> Agreed.

And it's a funny thing about that - sometimes the answer given is better than the one sought.

The ones I gave may or may not be better - but I figured I try. Who knew I'd run into the USENET
Lone Ranger?

Spider
 
> > I took a guess and suggested he go with the lighter bike that made him excited, figuring that he
> > probably wouldn't break it.
>
> But that is not a given, and it would seem to me that a guy of his mass might wish to look into a
> bike beefier than the XC bike, and less massive than the freeride rig.
>
> That leaves out Kona.

Why does that leave out Kona? First of all, the Dawg is not a freeride bike, it is a XC-freeride
hybrid. The Kona Stinky series are true freeride bikes, and the Kona Stab series are downhill bikes.

It seems to me that for me, as a new rider, that the Dawg, which is a sort of jack of all trades,
good at XC, good for freeriding, good for downhill, though perhaps not outstanding for either, would
be a good choice for me. At this point, I am only able to tell you what I plan to use the bike for,
which is pavement riding, and cross country trail riding. But who knows where that will lead me? If
I can't say, then you certainly can't. If my persuits lead me to a place that requires a diferent
bike, I can cross that road when i come toit.

In addition I believe you have assumed to much. Assumptions are alway dangerous. For instance, with
very little information, you have assumed that we have the same body type, which may well be true,
but could just as easilly be wrong. My Dad is the same weight as me, an the same height, and yet he
is very big boned, has long legs, a short torso, and large thick hands. I have more slender bones,
average length legs, a long torso, and large slender hands.

You also assumed that are riding styles are similar. Perhaps they are, but to be sure you would have
had to have asked more questons, because my definition of cross country may be far different that
yours, due to geogrpahical factors, and the variable of perception.

You also assumed that I was so enthralled with the Kikapu that I was looking for someone to validate
that choice above all else. Not so, in fact, from the feedback I have been getting from all those I
asked, including Konas tech people, I do not think the Kikapi is a good choice for me. A Kona rep
told me that he had ridden both the frame extensively, and being the same weight as me, found that
although he had never broken one, that the Kikapu frame was very flexy and probably not a good
choice for British Columbia terrain, given my size. Was he putting me on? I don't think so since he
also recomended saving my money and not opt for the new "Pro Pedal" shock from Fox, saying they
would not make much of a difference with Kona's particular suspension system.

Finally, I have not based all of my research on specs sheets from the internet. I have riden a
friends, Norco Fluid, another friends Gary Fisher FS(forgot the model), and finally a friends rather
low end Kona Kahuna. I liked the feel of the Kona the best, even though the other two were more
expensive bikes.

So yeah, I am stuck on Kona, I admit it. But it is not becuase I haven't given other bikes a
fair chance.

Rick is a little fuzzy with the details, but he has said one thing that is very true, I do need to
be excited about the bike. That is my nature and it is a part of who I am. Like you say, a bike is
very personal. I did not come here seeking validation for my choice, as I had not yet made a choice
that could be validated. I asked if that Kikapu frame was to light for my weight, and if there was a
danger of it breaking under me. I was hoping to hear answers from people who had direct experience
with this issue. In the end I have chosen neither the Dawg or the Kikapu, but I will keep my final
choice private to avoid a further waste of precious time. :)

I would also like to add that at no time have I felt as though you were "busting my balls", or
telling me what to do, or insisting anything. While I did not find your advice directly helpful, I
did consider to be honest, polite, and well meaning, and so it was very much appretiated.
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:90s*[email protected]...
> 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.

That's his problem. He has made his mind up (not secretly though)

/Jacob
 
"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse news:eek:[email protected]...
> It's a cryin' shame that the poor guy can't get an answer to the question for which he actually
> wants an answer.

This is a newsgroup. People respond according to their idea of what the OP NEEDS to know, not what
he wants to know. Good things often follow.

>
> 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.

That expert probably also knows your needs better than you do. Apparently you are very stubborn. I
think other people might be happier about owning the best bike their money can get them.

>
> 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.

You'll be happier riding the bike that handles the best. If that is the Kona for him, then so be it.

/Jacob
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.

You seem to miss a certain point about advice. If your question is based on a misunderstanding or
misinformation then it is only fair to lead you in the right direction. If both bikes suck (they
don't, but might relatively to other bikes) the most helpful answer will not be to recommend either
as per your request. It will be to give you the better alternative. Who the hell comes to a
newsgroup as a newbie without wanting to recieve any advice other than a pig-headed fool?

/Jacob
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > I took a guess and suggested he go with the lighter bike that made him excited, figuring that
> > > he probably wouldn't break it.
> >
> > But that is not a given, and it would seem to me that a guy of his mass might wish to look into
> > a bike beefier than the XC bike, and less massive than the freeride rig.
> >
> > That leaves out Kona.
>
>
> Why does that leave out Kona? First of all, the Dawg is not a freeride bike, it is a
> XC-freeride hybrid.

I do not agree. By weight and by component spec, I would indeed call it a freeride bike. Now,
whatever *Kona* calls it is immaterial - marketing spin doesn't mean anything.

> It seems to me that for me, as a new rider, that the Dawg, which is a sort of jack of all trades,
> good at XC, good for freeriding, good for downhill,

These are a continuum of uses, from easiest on equipment/rider to hardest (roughly speaking.) If
it's good at downhill, then it's not going to be good at XC, and vice-versa. It may be that you are
confused about the terminology or the application of product to use.

> though perhaps not outstanding for either, would be a good choice for me.

It may be, but your original info led me to believe you were looking for a stoutly constructed rig
for XC and non-stressful pavement use.

> At this point, I am only able to tell you what I plan to use the bike for, which is pavement
> riding, and cross country trail riding. But who knows where that will lead me? If I can't say,
> then you certainly can't.

Your XC riding *might* lead you to try more difficult, but still XC, trails. For this reason alone,
I had in mind a bike that might (might) go there too, without putting you in danger, AND without
requiring a serious cash infusion to make it thusly capable.

> If my persuits lead me to a place that requires a diferent bike, I can cross that road when i
> come toit.

Indeed. Except that this is *exactly* the mistake I made, and if I had instead purchased a
more-capable bike, I would not have been looking to offload my Kona. All I was trying to do was to
help you avoid that same mistake.

But if you are hell-bent on doing what you want, then my time here has been utterly wasted. Not that
I didn't sort of assume that from my very first post.

> In addition I believe you have assumed to much.

I can only go by what you tell me, and extrapolate from there.

[snip body type]

I can see that I assumed correctly on the body type similarities.

> You also assumed that are riding styles are similar. Perhaps they are, but to be sure you would
> have had to have asked more questons, because my definition of cross country may be far different
> that yours, due to geogrpahical factors, and the variable of perception.

If you throw around technical terms, I have to assume you know what they mean. Certainly, if you
want information, you have to be clear up-front with your terminology.

XC covers a wide variety of terrain. From flat, hardpack doubletrack to loose, narrow, technical
singletrack, and everything in between. But the implications for bikes and bike builds is remarkably
similar, because there is not a ton of jumping, hucking etc. The doubletrack scenario would be
analogous to pavement, and at it's extreme, singletrack can turn into hellacious downhill. So I
assume you are going to ride, as a beginner, somewhere toward the milder end of the spectrum, if for
no other reason than to keep yourself whole while you learn how to ride.

I do not think that this is an unreasonable assumption, and you will have difficulty convincing me
otherwise.

> You also assumed that I was so enthralled with the Kikapu that I was looking for someone to
> validate that choice above all else. Not so, in fact, from the feedback I have been getting from
> all those I asked, including Konas tech people, I do not think the Kikapi is a good choice for me.

I think you are reading something I haven't written. I assumed you were enthralled with Kona, and
were trying to match one of their products to your intended use.

> A Kona rep told me that he had ridden both the frame extensively, and being the same weight as me,
> found that although he had never broken one, that the Kikapu frame was very flexy and probably not
> a good choice for British Columbia terrain, given my size.

Well, the rep is going to tell you what you want to hear - he's trying to sell a bike. (Indirectly.)

But he is correct in that the frame is not really suited to a person your size. And, considering
that you are going to be riding singletrack in BC, your idea and my idea of singletrack are pretty
close, considering I also live in the Northwest, and grew up west of the Cascades.

> Was he putting me on? I don't think so since he also recomended saving my money and not opt for
> the new "Pro Pedal" shock from Fox, saying they would not make much of a difference with Kona's
> particular suspension system.

Frankly, it won't make much of a difference with any well-designed suspension system, provided you
know how to pedal.

A simple, single-pivot Marin TARA FS from Adrenaline Bikes, with a ProPedal or Romic shock, and
you'd be able to get all-mountain type performance out of a pretty inexpensive package. Which would
allow better components.

The new Fisher Cake, or the Trek Liquid might be where you are headed.
The Liquid, while a nice bike, is probably out of your price range.

> Finally, I have not based all of my research on specs sheets from the internet. I have riden a
> friends, Norco Fluid, another friends Gary Fisher FS(forgot the model), and finally a friends
> rather low end Kona Kahuna. I liked the feel of the Kona the best, even though the other two were
> more expensive bikes.

Ahhh, fit. Bike fit is paramount. Which is why you ride and ride and ride all the different kinds of
bikes (and not just in the parking lot) until you find one that feels the best. That's the bike
that's going to be ridden - even if you are excited about a different bike. How do I know? I've seen
it quite a few times.

> So yeah, I am stuck on Kona, I admit it. But it is not becuase I haven't given other bikes a
> fair chance.

That depends on the definition of "fair chance," I suppose.

> Rick is a little fuzzy with the details, but he has said one thing that is very true, I do need to
> be excited about the bike. That is my nature and it is a part of who I am. Like you say, a bike is
> very personal. I did not come here seeking validation for my choice, as I had not yet made a
> choice that could be validated. I asked if that Kikapu frame was to light for my weight, and if
> there was a danger of it breaking under me. I was hoping to hear answers from people who had
> direct experience with this issue. In the end I have chosen neither the Dawg or the Kikapu, but I
> will keep my final choice private to avoid a further waste of precious time. :)

Well, my time is mine to waste, and your time would probably be best spent just giving some of the
bikes I mentioned a little spin. Especially if it doesn't cost anything. You get to ride bikes, talk
with knowledgeable folks, and see what kinds of things you like, and things you don't. It's quite a
useful exercise, even if you stick with Kona.

> I would also like to add that at no time have I felt as though you were "busting my balls", or
> telling me what to do, or insisting anything. While I did not find your advice directly helpful, I
> did consider to be honest, polite, and well meaning, and so it was very much appretiated.

Well, at least SOMETHING good came of this.

When you finally go out, keep a few things in mind:

1.) Think about joining IMBA. They are pretty good about advocacy for MTBing.
2.) Trails don't appear out of nowhere, and aren't static in the realm of maintenance. If you ride
it, volunteer to maintain it. If the opportunity arises to help build more legal trail, take it!
3.) Stay in control at all times. IOW, if you can't see around the next bend, slow down so that you
can stop if you have to.
4.) Yield to hikers always, and bikers going uphill. Have a smile and a warm greeting - MTBers get a
bad rap from those losers who are rude to other trail users.
5.) Keep it on the trail! This is probably the most important thing. If you can't ride it, there is
no shame in walking it. Making cheater lines around obstacles, avoiding puddles, etc. makes the
trail wider, and more subject to erosion.
6.) Be kind to the trail. Riding in the mud leaves ruts, and can make a trail unusable. Being out of
control and skidding causes rapid erosion, and leads to trail closure. Don't be a skidiot! :)

No matter what you choose, stay safe and have fun. After all, that's what this bike-riding thing is
all about!

Spider
 
> > A Kona rep told me that he had ridden both the frame extensively, and being the
same
> > weight as me, found that although he had never broken one, that the
Kikapu
> > frame was very flexy and probably not a good choice for British Columbia terrain, given my size.
>
> Well, the rep is going to tell you what you want to hear - he's trying to sell a bike.
> (Indirectly.)

Is he? Because when I asked the question, I wanted him to tell me "the Kikapu will be fine, we doubt
it will break, if it does, we will replace it, we promise. But he didn't say that.....

>
> But he is correct in that the frame is not really suited to a person your size.

Well, would you look at that! You finally answered my question! ;-)

> > Was he putting me on? I don't think so since he also recomended saving my money and not opt for
> > the new "Pro Pedal" shock
from
> > Fox, saying they would not make much of a difference with Kona's
particular
> > suspension system.
>
> Frankly, it won't make much of a difference with any well-designed suspension system, provided you
> know how to pedal.

I would imagine you are correct. Still the point I was trying to make was that the Kona rep was
being honest...

>
> A simple, single-pivot Marin TARA FS from Adrenaline Bikes, with a ProPedal or Romic shock, and
> you'd be able to get all-mountain type performance out of a pretty inexpensive package. Which
> would allow better components.

Better components? I think that can be subjective. For instance, one of my friends insists on using
only XTR components, and yet they keep breaking because the structure has been compromised in favour
in lighter weight, he is constantly replacing his ultra expensive XTR components. This would seem to
be common if you go by the reviews on mtbr.com. So in my mind, XT or even LX components are better
than more expensive XTR.

>
> The new Fisher Cake, or the Trek Liquid might be where you are headed.
> The Liquid, while a nice bike, is probably out of your price range.

I took a look at the Trek Liquid 20. It is not out of my price range, but for the life of me I can
not see the difference between it at the Kona Dawg. The components are similar, the frame is very
similar as well. Trek doesn't seem to list the bikes weight, but I am gonna guess that it can't
possibly be much lighter than the Dawg Dee-lux's http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg_dlx.cfm
28.9 pounds.

The only differecnes I can see are Trek's ZR9000 alloy, and the fact that is has very slightly more
travel at both ends. It also has some things that I don't want, such as tubeless tires.
Nevetheless, if you can convince me that this really is vastly different from the Dawg Dee-lux, I
will certainly listen.

>
> > Finally, I have not based all of my research on specs sheets from the internet. I have riden a
> > friends, Norco Fluid, another friends Gary
Fisher
> > FS(forgot the model), and finally a friends rather low end Kona Kahuna.
I
> > liked the feel of the Kona the best, even though the other two were more expensive bikes.
>
> Ahhh, fit. Bike fit is paramount. Which is why you ride and ride and ride all the different kinds
> of bikes (and not just in the parking lot) until you find one that feels the best. That's the bike
> that's going to be ridden - even if you are excited about a different bike. How do I know? I've
> seen it quite a few times.

No doubt you have seen it. But I have rideen a lot more than just in the parking lot. The Norco I
road in the park near my niehgbourhood for most of an afternoon, same with the GaryF, and the Kahuna
I road all day long, as it was my friends secondary bike that he leant to me (his other bike is a
hardtail Kona that he uses for racing, and he won't let me touch it).

> > I would also like to add that at no time have I felt as though you were "busting my balls", or
> > telling me what to do, or insisting anything.
While I
> > did not find your advice directly helpful, I did consider to be honest, polite, and well
> > meaning, and so it was very much appretiated.
>
> Well, at least SOMETHING good came of this.
>
> When you finally go out, keep a few things in mind:
>
> 1.) Think about joining IMBA. They are pretty good about advocacy for MTBing.
> 2.) Trails don't appear out of nowhere, and aren't static in the realm of maintenance. If you ride
> it, volunteer to maintain it. If the opportunity arises to help build more legal trail, take it!
> 3.) Stay in control at all times. IOW, if you can't see around the next bend, slow down so that
> you can stop if you have to.
> 4.) Yield to hikers always, and bikers going uphill. Have a smile and a warm greeting - MTBers get
> a bad rap from those losers who are rude to other trail users.
> 5.) Keep it on the trail! This is probably the most important thing. If you can't ride it, there
> is no shame in walking it. Making cheater lines around obstacles, avoiding puddles, etc. makes
> the trail wider, and more subject to erosion.
> 6.) Be kind to the trail. Riding in the mud leaves ruts, and can make a trail unusable. Being out
> of control and skidding causes rapid erosion, and leads to trail closure. Don't be a skidiot! :)
>
> No matter what you choose, stay safe and have fun. After all, that's what this bike-riding thing
> is all about!

Yes, agree 100%!

Now if you could explain the difference between the Daw and the Liquid, I am all ears. I really do
want to know these things.
 
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.)

Added a 'poo' to what Sorni?

',;~}~

Shaun aRe - apparently dumping **** in threads he ain't posted in yet, heheheheh...........
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I took a look at the Trek Liquid 20. It is not out of my price range, but for the life of me I can
> not see the difference between it at the Kona
Dawg.
> The components are similar, the frame is very similar as well. Trek
doesn't
> seem to list the bikes weight, but I am gonna guess that it can't possibly be much lighter than
> the Dawg Dee-lux's http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg_dlx.cfm 28.9 pounds.

Ah, very sneaky! The FIRST Dawg Link you posted was to a 33-pound Saint Bernard. If your only
alternatives are that and a 28-lb-ish Kikapu, and objective is PAVEMENT RIDING (and maybe some light
trails), then 95% of the people here would recommend the latter model -- but ONLY because they're
the only two choices. (Most would suggest something better suited to what you want to do, and drag
this interminable thread out even longer!)

If you'd used THIS link, so that both bikes were very similar in weight, then we'd all have more of
our lives back and not wasted all this bandwidth.

Ifs & Buts Bill
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > I took a look at the Trek Liquid 20. It is not out of my price range,
but
> > for the life of me I can not see the difference between it at the Kona
> Dawg.
> > The components are similar, the frame is very similar as well. Trek
> doesn't
> > seem to list the bikes weight, but I am gonna guess that it can't
possibly
> > be much lighter than the Dawg Dee-lux's http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg_dlx.cfm 28.9
> > pounds.
>
> Ah, very sneaky! The FIRST Dawg Link you posted was to a 33-pound Saint Bernard. If your only
> alternatives are that and a 28-lb-ish Kikapu, and objective is PAVEMENT RIDING (and maybe some
> light trails)

No one is being sneaky here.Certainly not me. Of course your a thick headed ass, because I never
said PAVEMENT riding and "light trails" I said, and I quote myself here, "I plan to ride the bike
both on pavement, for pleasure rides in Vancouver and surrounding areas, as well as on trails.....
......but I do want to be able to plow down rough trails without worry."

Nowhere did I ever state that it would only be "light" trail riding.

As for me swapping the links out, I certainly don't see how that could be considered sneaky, in
fact, I think I was rather blatent about it.
 
"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]...
> > > I took a look at the Trek Liquid 20. It is not out of my price range,
> but
> > > for the life of me I can not see the difference between it at the Kona
> > Dawg.
> > > The components are similar, the frame is very similar as well. Trek
> > doesn't
> > > seem to list the bikes weight, but I am gonna guess that it can't
> possibly
> > > be much lighter than the Dawg Dee-lux's http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg_dlx.cfm
> > > 28.9 pounds.
> >
> > Ah, very sneaky! The FIRST Dawg Link you posted was to a 33-pound Saint Bernard. If your only
> > alternatives are that and a 28-lb-ish Kikapu, and objective is PAVEMENT RIDING (and maybe some
> > light trails)
>
> No one is being sneaky here.Certainly not me. Of course your a thick
headed
> ass

Here's a hint, MENSA: when resorting to name calling, don't reveal your stupidity by using "your"
for "you're".

> because I never said PAVEMENT riding and "light trails" I said, and I quote myself here, "I plan
> to ride the bike both on pavement, for pleasure rides in Vancouver and surrounding areas, as well
> as on trails..... ......but I do want to be able to plow down rough trails without worry."
>
> Nowhere did I ever state that it would only be "light" trail riding.
>
> As for me swapping the links out, I certainly don't see how that could be considered sneaky, in
> fact, I think I was rather blatent about it.

Blatent(sic)? You drew absolutely no attention to it! Your first post postulated a choice between a
*33* (32.9, which I said before is more likely 34+) -pound bike and a 28-ish XC bike for "pleasure
rides". Now you show a 29-pound version of the Dawg. Sure seems a little sneaky (or at least a
change of ground rules) to me.

Go buy the fvcking bike* already.

Blatant Bill

*or did you imply later in thread that you already bought something, but for reasons known only to
you the make/model shall remain a secret? How are we supposed to sleep at night without knowing?!?
 
"Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > A Kona rep told me that he had ridden both the frame extensively, and being the
> same
> > > weight as me, found that although he had never broken one, that the
> Kikapu
> > > frame was very flexy and probably not a good choice for British Columbia terrain, given my
> > > size.
> >
> > Well, the rep is going to tell you what you want to hear - he's trying to sell a bike.
> > (Indirectly.)
>
> Is he?

Of course he is. It is naive to think otherwise.

> > But he is correct in that the frame is not really suited to a person your size.
>
> Well, would you look at that! You finally answered my question! ;-)

I answered it previously. The fact that the answer was not to your liking does not mean it wasn't
an answer.

> > > Was he putting me on? I don't think so since he also recomended saving my money and not opt
> > > for the new "Pro Pedal" shock
> from
> > > Fox, saying they would not make much of a difference with Kona's
> particular
> > > suspension system.
> >
> > Frankly, it won't make much of a difference with any well-designed suspension system, provided
> > you know how to pedal.
>
> I would imagine you are correct. Still the point I was trying to make was that the Kona rep was
> being honest...

All of the manufacturers could say it with a straight face. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true
for all users at all skill levels.

He may have been honest, or not. It's not really possible to know without an outside referee.

> > A simple, single-pivot Marin TARA FS from Adrenaline Bikes, with a ProPedal or Romic shock, and
> > you'd be able to get all-mountain type performance out of a pretty inexpensive package. Which
> > would allow better components.
>
> Better components? I think that can be subjective.

Now you are being pedantic. LX is better than Deore, which is Better than Avilio, and XT is better
than LX...

> For instance, one of my friends insists on using only XTR components, and yet they keep breaking
> because the structure has been compromised in favour in lighter weight, he is constantly replacing
> his ultra expensive XTR components.

This is why my bike has XT components, except for the cassette and the front derailleur. Those are
XTR. (They are not as subject to breakage as the rear der.)

> This would seem to be common if you go by the reviews on mtbr.com. So in my mind, XT or even LX
> components are better than more expensive XTR.

For the money, LX is really tough to beat. You don't save much weight with XT, but you spend quite
a bit more.

> > The new Fisher Cake, or the Trek Liquid might be where you are headed.
> > The Liquid, while a nice bike, is probably out of your price range.
>
> I took a look at the Trek Liquid 20. It is not out of my price range, but for the life of me I can
> not see the difference between it at the Kona Dawg.

Then your research is faulty. The suspension design is completely different.

> The components are similar

This much is true - it's a toss up. I would say that the crankset, wheels and brakes for the Liquid
are of better quality, the fork better on the Dawg, the rear shock better on the Liquid.

> the frame is very similar as well.

Hardly.

> Trek doesn't seem to list the bikes weight, but I am gonna guess that it can't possibly be much
> lighter than the Dawg Dee-lux's http://www.konaworld.com/2k4bikes/2k4_dawg_dlx.cfm 28.9 pounds.

I put it on the LBS scale and it weighed almost exactly 29 lbs. A little over, IIRC.

> The only differecnes I can see are Trek's ZR9000 alloy, and the fact that is has very slightly
> more travel at both ends. It also has some things that I don't want, such as tubeless tires.
> Nevetheless, if you can convince me that this really is vastly different from the Dawg Dee-lux, I
> will certainly listen.

Vastly? No. I think it has an edge in components, especially when it comes to Raceface Prodigy vs.
Bontrager. The Prodigy line for RF is not nearly as high-quality as the rest of their stuff, and is
over-priced for what you get. Par for the course on Konas, I guess.

If I were given the choice between the two, I'd grudgingly take the Trek, all the while looking at a
Marin TARA bike (Wolf Ridge,) or even their 4-bar FRS bike (Mount Vision, I think.)

If the Mount Vision were one of the choices, I'd take it in a second over the other two.

Of the FRS line, the Rift Zone would be one of the best bargains of the bikes under discussion.

But the Mount Vision has far and away the best component set of all the bikes, and the up-charge is
not too shabby. I think that Adrenaline Bikes (on the web) could get you a much better deal than the
MSRP on the Marin website.

For that same kind of money, a Titus LocoMoto with a lot of really great components could be had,
just for reference.

> > > Finally, I have not based all of my research on specs sheets from the internet. I have riden a
> > > friends, Norco Fluid, another friends Gary
> Fisher
> > > FS(forgot the model), and finally a friends rather low end Kona Kahuna.
> I
> > > liked the feel of the Kona the best, even though the other two were more expensive bikes.
> >
> > Ahhh, fit. Bike fit is paramount. Which is why you ride and ride and ride all the different
> > kinds of bikes (and not just in the parking lot) until you find one that feels the best. That's
> > the bike that's going to be ridden - even if you are excited about a different bike. How do I
> > know? I've seen it quite a few times.
>
> No doubt you have seen it. But I have rideen a lot more than just in the parking lot.

That's key to finding the right bike.

> The Norco I road in the park near my niehgbourhood for most of an afternoon, same with the GaryF,
> and the Kahuna I road all day long, as it was my friends secondary bike that he leant to me (his
> other bike is a hardtail Kona that he uses for racing, and he won't let me touch it).

He'd have to kill you if you crashed his featherweight baby. LOL.

> > > I would also like to add that at no time have I felt as though you were "busting my balls", or
> > > telling me what to do, or insisting anything.
> While I
> > > did not find your advice directly helpful, I did consider to be honest, polite, and well
> > > meaning, and so it was very much appretiated.
> >
> > Well, at least SOMETHING good came of this.
> >
> > When you finally go out, keep a few things in mind:
> >
> > 1.) Think about joining IMBA. They are pretty good about advocacy for MTBing.
> > 2.) Trails don't appear out of nowhere, and aren't static in the realm of maintenance. If you
> > ride it, volunteer to maintain it. If the opportunity arises to help build more legal trail,
> > take it!
> > 3.) Stay in control at all times. IOW, if you can't see around the next bend, slow down so that
> > you can stop if you have to.
> > 4.) Yield to hikers always, and bikers going uphill. Have a smile and a warm greeting - MTBers
> > get a bad rap from those losers who are rude to other trail users.
> > 5.) Keep it on the trail! This is probably the most important thing. If you can't ride it, there
> > is no shame in walking it. Making cheater lines around obstacles, avoiding puddles, etc. makes
> > the trail wider, and more subject to erosion.
> > 6.) Be kind to the trail. Riding in the mud leaves ruts, and can make a trail unusable. Being
> > out of control and skidding causes rapid erosion, and leads to trail closure. Don't be a
> > skidiot! :)
> >
> > No matter what you choose, stay safe and have fun. After all, that's what this bike-riding thing
> > is all about!
>
> Yes, agree 100%!
>
> Now if you could explain the difference between the Daw and the Liquid, I am all ears. I really do
> want to know these things.

One of the things you should do is actually go to the websites of the bike makers I list above, (and
www.castellanodesigns.com, just for grins) and compare the suspension philosophies of the bikes.
From single pivot to four-bar to flexible seat stay, there's a lot going on. Just because things
LOOK similar does not mean they are!

You'll see what I mean.

Spider
 
Status
Not open for further replies.