HELP kikapu vs kona dawg, which to choose?

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Sorni" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
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

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Sorni" wrote in message
news
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Sorni" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Sorni" wrote in message
news
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Sorni" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
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 wrote:
"Spider" 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 Distortion Field!

"Sorni" wrote in message . ..
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Sorni" wrote in message
...

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

On 28 Jul 2003 17:32:29 -0700, Spider 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 wrote in message ...
On 28 Jul 2003 17:32:29 -0700, Spider 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 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%2 Bdawg%252C%2Bwhich%2Bto%2Bchoose%253F%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 wrote in message ...
On 29 Jul 2003 14:20:27 -0700, Spider 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 ****ing 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.com&rnum =1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DRe%253A%2BHELP%2Bkikapu%2Bvs%2Bkona%2 Bdawg%252C%2Bwhich%2Bto%2Bchoose%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 crap
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

"Rick Onanian" skrev i en meddelelse
news
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