HELP kikapu vs kona dawg, which to choose?

Hi there,

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

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

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

I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style, and my
weight, do you agree that I would be better off to choose the Dawg?

"Jonathan" wrote in message ...
Hi there,

[snip]

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

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

Spider

"Spider" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
Hi there,

[snip]

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

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

Spiderwell, thank you for your concern about my finaces, but it's really
not a huge issuse to me. I have chosen to buy a Kona after researching bikes
from Trek, Santa Cruz, GT, DeVinci, Specialized, Norco, and probably a
couple other MTB makers that I have forgotten to mention. What I found was
that most of these companies offered several bikes that could be a good fit
to me, if only I could mash them altogether into one! I have concluded that
Kona is the best bet for me, they have good lookibng bikes, proven designs,
and so on. Also, when comparing the 2004 offerings to thier 2002 catalog, it
appears that their prices have come down considerably. So please don't try
to persuade me that I should be buying a different brand, in this instance,
my mind has been made up. :-)

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

Thanks in advance,

----
Hi there,

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

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

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

I guess my queston is, given my description of my riding style, and my
weight, do you agree that I would be better off to choose the Dawg?

"Jonathan" wrote in message ...
"Spider" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
Hi there,

[snip]

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

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

Spiderwell, thank you for your concern about my finaces, but it's really
not a huge issuse to me. I have chosen to buy a Kona after researching bikes
from Trek, Santa Cruz, GT, DeVinci, Specialized, Norco, and probably a
couple other MTB makers that I have forgotten to mention. What I found was
that most of these companies offered several bikes that could be a good fit
to me, if only I could mash them altogether into one! I have concluded that
Kona is the best bet for me, they have good lookibng bikes, proven designs,
and so on. Also, when comparing the 2004 offerings to thier 2002 catalog, it
appears that their prices have come down considerably. So please don't try
to persuade me that I should be buying a different brand, in this instance,
my mind has been made up. :-)

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

Thanks in advance,

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

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

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

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

Have fun with whatever you do, and good luck.

Spider

"Spider" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
"Spider" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
Hi there,

[snip]

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

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

Spiderwell, thank you for your concern about my finaces, but it's
really
not a huge issuse to me. I have chosen to buy a Kona after researching
bikes
from Trek, Santa Cruz, GT, DeVinci, Specialized, Norco, and probably a
couple other MTB makers that I have forgotten to mention. What I found
was
that most of these companies offered several bikes that could be a good
fit
to me, if only I could mash them altogether into one! I have concluded
that
Kona is the best bet for me, they have good lookibng bikes, proven
designs,
and so on. Also, when comparing the 2004 offerings to thier 2002
catalog, it
appears that their prices have come down considerably. So please don't
try
to persuade me that I should be buying a different brand, in this
instance,
my mind has been made up. :-)

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

Thanks in advance,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Have fun with whatever you do, and good luck.

Spider

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

--
J/O Trailblazer At large !!

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:58:39 +0200, Jacob Andersen wrote:
It is a shame to let the experience and expertise of the more seasoned
riders in this group go to waste because you think you are a good judge
about something you know little about.

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

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

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

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

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

/Jacob
--
Rick Onanian

"Rick Onanian" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:58:39 +0200, Jacob Andersen wrote:
It is a shame to let the experience and expertise of the more seasoned
riders in this group go to waste because you think you are a good judge
about something you know little about.

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

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

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

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

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

/Jacob
--
Rick Onanian

Thank you Rick! A real answer!

"Jonathan" wrote in message ...
"Spider" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...


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

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

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


No, I'm not suggesting that money is no object, far from it. What I am
saying is simply that I do not feel that Kona's lack bang for the buck, as I
assume you do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which would open up your options some.

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

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

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

Spider

Rick Onanian wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:58:39 +0200, Jacob Andersen wrote:
It is a shame to let the experience and expertise of the more seasoned
riders in this group go to waste because you think you are a good judge
about something you know little about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spider