HELP kikapu vs kona dawg, which to choose?

"Jonathan" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Spider" wrote in message
m...
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.

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

"David Damerell" skrev i en meddelelse
...
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.

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

/Jacob

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

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