HELP kikapu vs kona dawg, which to choose?

[Jonathan]

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?

[Spider]

"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

[Jonathan]

"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?

[Spider]

"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

[Jonathan]

"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

[Jamie]

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 !!

[Rick Onanian]

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

[Jonathan]

"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.
>
> 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!

[Spider]

"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

[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

[Sorni]

"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

[Sorni]

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

[Jonathan]

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

[David Damerell]

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!

[Spider]

"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

[Rick Onanian]

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

[Spider]

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

[Rick Onanian]

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

[Spider]

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

[Jacob Andersen]

"Rick Onanian" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> 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

[Jacob Andersen]

"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

[Jacob Andersen]

"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

[Jonathan]

> > 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.

[Jonathan]

"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.

[Sorni]

"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?!?

[Spider]

"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