[norbar]

Yes, spesh did finally catch up[...]they all may say FSR, but they are different bikes, i dont see much change in the konas. I think canfield has a great design, i would like to see more companies do this, however that isnt up to me, its up to them.

Can i please get 1 more angry rant

So FSR is not equal to FSR but Faux bar = Faux bar? Because it looks similar and spec does not? They've changed their design over the years. Your logic is flawed.

 

[captainspauldin]

Awesomeness

^Agreed. Homeboy needs to stop drinking the bike marketing kool-aid

 

[dropmachine]

No MS DOS. No real computer stuff back then, so all their bikes were animated by hand. Disney I think.

Demo, you should learn the difference between and angry rant (not mad bro) and a lesson in common sense. Course, trying to teach common sense to those without...guess that was my bad.

 

[dropmachine]

Your logic is missing completely, and instead replaced with the marketing hackery of whatever company I like.

Fixed.

 

[jonKranked]

No MS DOS. No real computer stuff back then, so all their bikes were animated by hand. Disney I think.

there were so computers back then. Even if they were just being used to play text based RPG's after a few hits from the company bong.

 

[sbabuser]

No MS DOS. No real computer stuff back then, so all their bikes were animated by hand. Disney I think.

Demo, you should learn the difference between and angry rant (not mad bro) and a lesson in common sense. Course, trying to teach common sense to those without...guess that was my bad.

Funny, it read like a rant to me, too. And trying to teach common sense, well, that's just dumb...

 

[cableguy]

Also the old spec wheel solution was much better than the 150mm and as stiff. What you mentioned will NOT be noticable by the rider.

That is a big "tweak" to me. Especially for someone who has a 83mm/150mm setup and wants to transfer all components over to the new frame. Could be a deal breaker. Has little to do with whether the new ride is noticeable or not.

 

[norbar]

That is a big "tweak" to me. Especially for someone who has a 83mm/150mm setup and wants to transfer all components over to the new frame. Could be a deal breaker. Has little to do with whether the new ride is noticeable or not.

But were you really waiting for spec to go 150? Were you thinking " I wish the demos were 150mm because then that would by my #1 bike" ?



Jeff - Must spread rep before

 

[cableguy]

But were you really waiting for spec to go 150? Were you thinking " I wish the demos were 150mm because then that would by my #1 bike" ?



Jeff - Must spread rep before

You really got a negative view of the Demo/Specialized for some reason. I currently ride a Trek Session and am happy with it. But if I were to change frames, Demo would be on the list now (among several ), where as before it wouldn't because of the rear spacing. Simple as that.

 

[Dogboy]

Also the old spec wheel solution was much better than the 150mm and as stiff.

Please explain how it was a better solution. It used a 135mm wheel with a wonky, non-standard dish, an offset rear triangle, and a 73mm BB shell that required a 56mm chainline. Normal 135mm wheels could not be swapped back and forth and the only good non-Isis crank option was a Holzfeller/Howitzer combo - pretty limiting. So what if it was the same stiffness, the 83/150mm setup makes much more sense.

 

[jonKranked]

YAlso the old spec wheel solution was much better than the 150mm and as stiff.

they claimed it was as stiff. they even said they conducted testing, but to date i have not seen that test (protocol or results)

 

[dhr-racer]

Hey Demo... remember when Transition used Faux bar....oh wait...

In reality they are a single pivot with a linkage actuated shock. Just like Commencial, just like the old DHR, just like any other single pivot link actuated shock. The "Kona sucks" bandwagon is a little drawn out at this point and kind of pointless. If you dont like the bikes the brand makes don't drag it though the mud, it just shows your an ignorant small person who need to feel big by belittling something. If you can do it better then do it, otherwise STFU and ride. I know my Operator will be an fine replacement for my square tube.

 

[norbar]

You really got a negative view of the Demo/Specialized for some reason. I currently ride a Trek Session and am happy with it. But if I were to change frames, Demo would be on the list now (among several ), where as before it wouldn't because of the rear spacing. Simple as that.

You mistake not agreeing with you with disliking spec. I'm feeling quite positive about them, just don't agree with your love for their superior R&D.

Please explain how it was a better solution. It used a 135mm wheel with a wonky, non-standard dish, an offset rear triangle, and a 73mm BB shell that required a 56mm chainline. Normal 135mm wheels could not be swapped back and forth and the only good non-Isis crank option was a Holzfeller/Howitzer combo - pretty limiting. So what if it was the same stiffness, the 83/150mm setup makes much more sense.

For some reason I have many friends who used old and new saints on the 2010 demo with no problems. I don't see saint as a limited crank.
As for the rear - lighter, supposedly as stiff and there are more 135mm wheel options. Though It's my personal opinion. You are free to prefer standard 150 and for wheel swapping I agree 150mm is better.

 

[demo 9]

But were you really waiting for spec to go 150? Were you thinking " I wish the demos were 150mm because then that would by my #1 bike" ?



Jeff - Must spread rep before

Truthfully, i was, i also got a demo this year since it got swapped back to 150. (and to those wondering, you COULD NOT purchase a 150 sam hill rear end)

Is spesh FSR, yes, is kona faux bar, yes, but i think that there is a pretty big difference between a 2003 bighit, and a 2011 demo. IMO not a big difference between a 2003 stab and the operator, but you can freak out if i dont agree with you. Alot of people mention marketing, yes, there is alot of it, im also not too sure what each acronym actually ends up meaning, konas all look the same, specialized calls nearly every bike an FSR, and i dont see any similar trends. Does the kona design work, yes, so does any design thats built strong. My bottom line is, there is proof in many designs that goes beyond marketing, if you truely think that the trek has no better braking than anything else, than id assume that you dont believe in the Evil delta system, nor the DW link anti squat. There are designs that are proven to excel at something, and by proven, i mean with science/physics, i wont pretend to understand them all, but if somebody were to say (in this case) "the trek has great braking, the pivot is at the axle, it cant brake jack" That makes more sense TO ME, than "kona isnt out of business yet, its a good design"

If somebody says the demo 8 is amazing because sam hill rides it, thats marketing, however, if they say (and prove) the demo 8 rides really smooth because of XYZ formula and theory, thats science.

 

[captainspauldin]

If somebody says the demo 8 is amazing because sam hill rides it, thats marketing. However, if they say (and prove) the demo 8 rides really smooth because of XYZ formula and theory, thats science.

You make marketing sound like a crooked politician. Both of your examples are pure marketing, having fancy acronyms and scientific data just makes it more believable

 

[jonKranked]

Truthfully, i was, i also got a demo this year since it got swapped back to 150. (and to those wondering, you COULD NOT purchase a 150 sam hill rear end)

Is spesh FSR, yes, is kona faux bar, yes, but i think that there is a pretty big difference between a 2003 bighit, and a 2011 demo. IMO not a big difference between a 2003 stab and the operator, but you can freak out if i dont agree with you. Alot of people mention marketing, yes, there is alot of it, im also not too sure what each acronym actually ends up meaning, konas all look the same, specialized calls nearly every bike an FSR, and i dont see any similar trends. Does the kona design work, yes, so does any design thats built strong. My bottom line is, there is proof in many designs that goes beyond marketing, if you truely think that the trek has no better braking than anything else, than id assume that you dont believe in the Evil delta system, nor the DW link anti squat. There are designs that are proven to excel at something, and by proven, i mean with science/physics, i wont pretend to understand them all, but if somebody were to say (in this case) "the trek has great braking, the pivot is at the axle, it cant brake jack" That makes more sense TO ME, than "kona isnt out of business yet, its a good design"

If somebody says the demo 8 is amazing because sam hill rides it, thats marketing, however, if they say (and prove) the demo 8 rides really smooth because of XYZ formula and theory, thats science.

 

[cableguy]

You mistake not agreeing with you with disliking spec. I'm feeling quite positive about them, just don't agree with your love for their superior R&D.

Where do you get that I have a "love for their superior R&D"? If you can quote me saying that, please post. I did say that the differences between 2010 and 2011 models are more than not "that much" as you claim. Maybe you are confusing me with demo 9?

 

[demo 9]

You make marketing sound like a crooked politician. Both of your examples are pure marketing, having fancy acronyms and scientific data just makes it more believable

Wouldnt necessarily say it like that. Acronyms yes, but scientific data no, the world was once believed to be flat, science (more like common sense) proved it wrong, thats not marketing.(although the world wasnt for sale, yes yes i know i know) Science has proved that a standard true single pivot like a 224 has brake jack, thats true, saying its good(or bad) is marketing.

There is a big difference between trek saying, our braking does not influence the ride of the bike, compared to them saying, our braking is the best because it does not influence the ride. 1 is an opinion, the other is a fact (if proven)

Again, probably a poor explanation, but i assume you get the point.

jonkranked, where do you find these

 

[norbar]

Is spesh FSR, yes, is kona faux bar, yes, but i think that there is a pretty big difference between a 2003 bighit, and a 2011 demo. IMO not a big difference between a 2003 stab and the operato

Because the big hit and demo look moar different and stab / operator look moar similar. Great logic.

http://www.klassickona.com/oldgold/2k3/2k3_stab_primo.cfm

Kona 2003. You can find the operator.

As for the argument you will probably be trying to push "slightly moving the pivot point " in the single pivot is as much as "slightly changing the fsr suspension". The differances are the same.


I think you don't understand why we argue with you. We don't claim one bike is better than the other. Saying that kona or spesh did more improvements over the years wont really hurt any of the bikes
Personally I'd take demo over kona (though I don't really like any of them) because of the lifetime warranty, geo (I like bikes with long TT's ) and weight but what's a better bike is not really part of the discussion (at least not the part with you) so stop feeling butthurt and trying to convince us Spec reinvented the wheel. What are you Tony Ellsworth?





Cableguy - sorry. I'm sick and grupy so people melt together for me today

 

[Inclag]

Truthfully, i was, i also got a demo this year since it got swapped back to 150. (and to those wondering, you COULD NOT purchase a 150 sam hill rear end)

Is spesh FSR, yes, is kona faux bar, yes, but i think that there is a pretty big difference between a 2003 bighit, and a 2011 demo. IMO not a big difference between a 2003 stab and the operator, but you can freak out if i dont agree with you. Alot of people mention marketing, yes, there is alot of it, im also not too sure what each acronym actually ends up meaning, konas all look the same, specialized calls nearly every bike an FSR, and i dont see any similar trends. Does the kona design work, yes, so does any design thats built strong. My bottom line is, there is proof in many designs that goes beyond marketing, if you truely think that the trek has no better braking than anything else, than id assume that you dont believe in the Evil delta system, nor the DW link anti squat. There are designs that are proven to excel at something, and by proven, i mean with science/physics, i wont pretend to understand them all, but if somebody were to say (in this case) "the trek has great braking, the pivot is at the axle, it cant brake jack" That makes more sense TO ME, than "kona isnt out of business yet, its a good design"

If somebody says the demo 8 is amazing because sam hill rides it, thats marketing, however, if they say (and prove) the demo 8 rides really smooth because of XYZ formula and theory, thats science.

Jenny McCarthy says vaccines cause down syndrome. Now that's science!!

BTW, you ever been vaccinated demo?

 

[captainspauldin]

There is a big difference between trek saying, our braking does not influence the ride of the bike, compared to them saying, our braking is the best because it does not influence the ride. 1 is an opinion, the other is a fact (if proven)

Again, probably a poor explanation, but i assume you get the point.

Yeah, I get where you're going.. all I'm saying is Marketing isn't all lies and deceit, anything you see in a magazine/webpage ad is marketing whether it's misleadingly false or completely factual back by "science".

 

[4130biker]

Jenny McCarthy says vaccines cause down syndrome. Now that's science!!

BTW, you ever been vaccinated demo?

wasn't it autism?

...either way- there's a thread about that whole debaucle.

 

[slyfink]

stuff...

ok, so why don't you list the reasons you think the Kona is inferior to the Trek, based purely on quantifiable performance indicators. None of this "Kona doesn't do R&D" and "Kona is a sh!t company".

You mention brake jack. I will concede that. The Faux-bar is known to cause brake jack. Anything else?

I would say the geometry is dialled and the ride quality (which in reality really is un-quantifiable) is right up there with other top offerings (as per the Dirt review).

So therefore, it's a good value for a solid performer.

 

[was?]

wasn't it autism?

...either way- there's a thread about that whole debaucle.

there is a thread about demo9?

 

[Inclag]

wasn't it autism?

...either way- there's a thread about that whole debaucle.

Could be I suppose...

You know how that science is..... goes right over my head sometimes.


Why you trying to ruin this fun??

 

[jonKranked]

 

[demo 9]

ok, so why don't you list the reasons you think the Kona is inferior to the Trek, based purely on quantifiable performance indicators. None of this "Kona doesn't do R&D" and "Kona is a sh!t company".

You mention brake jack. I will concede that. The Faux-bar is known to cause brake jack. Anything else?

I would say the geometry is dialled and the ride quality (which in reality really is un-quantifiable) is right up there with other top offerings (as per the Dirt review).

So therefore, it's a good value for a solid performer.

I dislike the kona (and i guess all konas) for a few reasons. 1 of them being brake jack, yes a floater can fix it. However it does not come with one, and one can argue that its not that great since it needs to get 1 in the first place, and that if it was designed better it wouldnt need 1, but thats just merely an opinion.

I also am not a huge fan of the wheelpath (admittedly, im no engineer) It is a single pivot, starting nearly horizontal, working its way rearweards than working its way forward. (from a tad under 9-11 on a clock) I dont see this as ideal, as i would rather see verticle or rearwards the whole time, especially deeper in the travel.

I dont care all that much about geometry, that is a personal preference, i dont run super slack HAs, but fabien barel can rock a 59, its all preference.

To those of you claiming im autistic and than proceeded to make fun of me for it, thats pretty low, because unfortunately some people do have to deal with autistic kids, i happen to sit next to 1 at school, and i cant imagine how hard it must be for the parents, and for that matter, never know, could happen to you, could happen to me as well.

@capnspaulden, no hate towards you, but you have to realize, if you ride on the internet, you are made fun of for 2 reasons, believing marketing, or not believing it. Believe it and somebody will call you on it, dont believe it and somebody else will

 

[jonKranked]

I dislike the kona (and i guess all konas) for a few reasons. 1 of them being brake jack, yes a floater can fix it. However it does not come with one, and one can argue that its not that great since it needs to get 1 in the first place, and that if it was designed better it wouldnt need 1, but thats just merely an opinion.

if you're gettin brake jacked then git off da brakes!!

I dont see this as ideal, as i would rather see verticle or rearwards the whole time, especially deeper in the travel.

so you can get your magical extra acceleration?

I'd like to nominate demo_9 for the custom title "blinded by science"

 

[dropmachine]

Hey Demo, explain brake jack.

Second, compare the wheelpath of the Kona and the Demo, then explain how different they really are.

 

[demo 9]

Hey Demo, explain brake jack.

Second, compare the wheelpath of the Kona and the Demo, then explain how different they really are.

wheelpath wise they are not much different, but if you really think a kona rides anything like a demo, your nuts. Never though id see the day when a kona was the obvious choice over a trek or similar.

 

[was?]

sorry for beeing a douche, the autism comments were not ment de degrade those who are affected by it.
brake jack isn´t at all that bad. after all this thread was started by someone who just got into the sport. if you had something to contribute to this thread other than that the trek is superior, this could as well have been a helpful thread.
why does this always have to end as a clusterfvck of gigantic proportions...

it´s not the equipment it´s the commitment...

 

[demo 9]

sorry for beeing a douche, the autism comments were not ment de degrade those who are affected by it.
brake jack isn´t at all that bad. after all this thread was started by someone who just got into the sport. if you had something to contribute to this thread other than that the trek is superior, this could as well have been a helpful thread.
why does this always have to end as a clusterfvck of gigantic proportions...

it´s not the equipment it´s the commitment...

Well i do have opinions on why the trek is better, i may not agree with the masses, but ill say this, i think i have been more civil in it, many people agree with me, some too shy to post because of the **** show that will ensue if they dont agree. I think page 5 had a pretty good deal on why the trek is better, but its another jump on demo 9 thread so we can try to get green squares, most threads are, eventually it will be spring, everybody can be happy again, and it will all go to rest.

 

[IH8Rice]

Never though id see the day when a kona was the obvious choice over a trek or similar.

its $1000 cheaper than the Trek model and performs pretty close to it and its the guy's first DH bike

 

[4130biker]

Could be I suppose...

You know how that science is..... goes right over my head sometimes.


Why you trying to ruin this fun??

hahah! is science magic, too?

did not mean to ruin fun!

 

[jonKranked]

its $1000 cheaper than the Trek model and performs pretty close to it and its the guy's first DH bike

and when its your first DH bike, chances are you're not gonna be able to sense the subtle differences between the two frames, yet alone benefit from them.

 

[demo 9]

I can agree with some of those points, however, ill also say that first doesnt mean it shouldnt be treated as "just enough" I personally am a believer in do it right once, ride it for a long time, rather than just enough every time, but thats just me. I also think that braking performance would be paramount to a new rider (if he is new, not just to DH) With the logic that if he is going fast and gets off his line, he can grab a fist of brakes and stay in control, on the contrary he could be a fast learner and "outgrow" or "dislike" the kona within the first year. Hate if you want, but its my opinion and as you can see, flaming me isnt changing it.

 

[was?]

well, your advice would be to wait for the new superco to come out? weelpath may not be to your likeing, but...

 

[demo 9]

well, your advice would be to wait for the new superco to come out? weelpath may not be to your likeing, but...

Wheelpath on the superco is very much in my liking, i would love to see that come out, unfortunately i dont see that happening soon.

My advice was to pick the trek, based upon many reasons i am not posting again. For those curious, check the first few pages

 

[no skid marks]

Pfft, the Trek and the Kona with Floater are pretty much the same fricken bike. Shame Kona ditched the floater. I think the Kona is a fairly sound design. Chainline single pivots are the most common design, the Kona has a stiff rear, and a pretty sound design, not sure why they get hacked on so much. I have seen a couple of 2010 Konas crack, but they're doing at least an hours DH a day, and lasted a year.

 

[thom9719]

I can't believe I'm wasting my time replying to this(or even reading it for that matter)

I dislike the kona (and i guess all konas) for a few reasons. 1 of them being brake jack, yes a floater can fix it. However it does not come with one, and one can argue that its not that great since it needs to get 1 in the first place, and that if it was designed better it wouldnt need 1, but thats just merely an opinion.

Brake jack is a good thing. It tells you when you are riding the brake. Let go of it and either feather/pump the brakes, or go fast and shut it down later. Don't just ride the brakes. You don't go down a mountain pass in a car with the brakes on the whole way, a bike is no different. It is a good gauge to teach proper braking. I've ridden bikes with and without floating brake adapters. They add unneccessary weight and (usually) create added noise too without providing the rider with any benefit. *My one caveat to that would be if you only rode fall line trail, it would be a nice thing to have as some trails do require you to be on the brakes the whole time. However, that does not apply to someone who only rides Diablo.*

I also am not a huge fan of the wheelpath (admittedly, im no engineer) It is a single pivot, starting nearly horizontal, working its way rearweards than working its way forward. (from a tad under 9-11 on a clock) I dont see this as ideal, as i would rather see verticle or rearwards the whole time, especially deeper in the travel.

You have been swayed by marketing under the pretense of "science" You fail to see WHY. Correct, a single pivot bike arcs forward. Failure on your part is to determine why that is bad. Marketing has told you that is bad. Reality proves otherwise. How many world cup wins have been on rearward arcing bikes? Your Jedi has a rearward axle path. You believe the rouge marketing that that is a superior design. If it was superior, everyone would be riding it and it would be on every podium. It excels in certain situations and fails miserably in others. I don't like rearward axle paths. They make the bike corner like sh*t. You are the type of person that believes specialized has a vertical axle path (like they claim). As an engineer (or any third grader) will tell you, no matter how you do it, when you rotate a parallelagram linkage, it still creates an arc.

The Kona's design is proven to work and has been instituted on hundreds of bike designs. Even the last DH bike Trek produced used a similar wheel path. In fact, if you ever actually mapped out a wheelpath, you'd be amazed at how similar they all are. Even your precious rearward wheelpath is barely rearward. A derrailur can only allow for so much chain growth.

I dont care all that much about geometry, that is a personal preference, i dont run super slack HAs, but fabien barel can rock a 59, its all preference

.

You should care about geometry. Nowdays, our suspension choices are amazing. If the bike bends in the middle, Fox/RS can provide a tune that will make it ride well. Geometry is what affects the way a bike performs. Go ride a bike with a steep head angle and then one with a slack head angle and tell me which one corners better. For most trails, I'd rather have a steeper bike.

I've ridden everything from 68 degree headangles all the way to 61.5. There is a point (for me) in both directions. Even most of the world cup riders that I know run a steeper head angle than what RM thinks is cool. You'd be blown away with how "steep" some of the WC riders had their bikes set, even at Champery. I have a 62.5* head angle right now and it's much too slack. I don't feel like I can get enough weight over the front of the bike in corners and I feel like the front end washes out. It's awesome to be able to find where I percieve that line to be. Sometimes you have to quit drinking the marketing koolaid and go figure out what works for you, your skill level, and you riding location. I bet you'll find your ideal set up to be pretty much middle of the road geometry. Your riding style isn't cutting edge. Your riding location isn't anything special. Your bike set up should reflect that for maximum performance out of your equipment.

@capnspaulden, no hate towards you, but you have to realize, if you ride on the internet, you are made fun of for 2 reasons, believing marketing, or not believing it. Believe it and somebody will call you on it, dont believe it and somebody else will

Demo9, people dislike you online because you flaunt your bikes, ask dumb questions, then run your mouth like you are gods gift to cycling. I could care less, but I've been amazed (as an engineer) how you drink the marketing Kool-aid. The fact is, if 90% of the riders on this forum traded in their bikes for a 1999 Kona stinky and took the left over money and spent it on a riding camp/lessons, they would be much better riders than trying to have the latest and greatest parts. However, the racer in me enjoys the support of the industry that people like you contribute, so if it means I get to travel to races because you think you need a new bike every month, than so be it.

-KT