Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Doomrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    20

    Kona Dawg Deluxe vs. BMC Trailfox

    I'm going to be picking up a new frame at some point soon.

    I can get the Dawg Deluxe frame from Wheel World, the BMC Trailfox from Jenson. Both frames with rear shocks go for $599 on closeout.

    I ride technical single track in Massachusetts and Connecticut. I have an XC bike now, 4" of travel so I'm a fan of climbing.

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dnlwthrn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,230
    Don't know about the Deluxe, but I rented a base level Dawg (Dawgma) last summer. Compared to my Blur, it sucked while climbing. Otherwise, it was a pretty decent bike. I think part of the issue may have been that I didn't spend enough time playing with air pressure in the shock.

    Don't have any info on the BMC...

  3. #3
    all about the ride down
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    360
    I have a Dawg Deluxe and love it. It's a great rig for all sorts of terrain. The 4bar linkage really tracks well over rocks, etc. when climbing. Very comfortable bike on long climbs and all day epics. Really a very strong frame. I'm a clyde, I break everything! I've had my Dawg for 7 seasons and going into the eighth when the snow melts.

    Sorry, I know nothing about BMC either.
    The More People I Meet the More I Prefer Dogs!

  4. #4
    low speed, high drag
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    317
    If you're doing a bit of climbing, go with the BMC. I have one and it's a very efficient bike. Light and stiff and pedals very well thanks to it's VPP link. I've gotten up Mt. Tam(2500') in less than an hour on it, and I have heavy components...It has steepish race geometry, but it descends pretty well, especially with a longer fork(130-140mm) And some of the trails I ride are really steep with a fair bit of rocks and roots. The Dawg is probably a sweet descender geared towards more big hit stuff while the TFox is better for all day rides and tight, twisty singletracks which I'm guessing are pretty common in your area.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by Ouroboros
    If you're doing a bit of climbing, go with the BMC. I have one and it's a very efficient bike. Light and stiff and pedals very well thanks to it's VPP link.
    Allow me to disagree. I have a bike built on the 2007 BMC Trailfox TF02 frame from JensonUSA. I built mine with somewhat cheap components and it weighs in at around 32lbs. At that weight, climbing is a weak point in my opinion. The bike just feels very heavy to me and there's more pedal-induced bob than I'd like when the shock is open. Locking out the shock helps, but then you lose suspension compliance. Descending isn't bad, though I wouldn't mind if the HTA were a bit more slack.

    Ultimately, I stumbled across upon a smokin' deal on a 2008 Stumpjumper Pro and I'm how getting ready to liquidate the Trailfox. The TF02 wasn't a bad bike, but certainly not in the same league as the SJ. If anyone wants a 17" 2007 TF02 frame for $375+shipping, send me a PM

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,905
    konas climb just fine. they're just not as forgiving to pedal mashing. if you pull the seat up, and spin smoothly with clipless pedals, you'll get up anything.

    its not the best rear suspension, but its not bad.. it is probably the slackest 5 inch trail bike you're gonna find. not many options for super slack 5 inch bikes!

  7. #7
    low speed, high drag
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by sstorkel
    Allow me to disagree. I have a bike built on the 2007 BMC Trailfox TF02 frame from JensonUSA. I built mine with somewhat cheap components and it weighs in at around 32lbs. At that weight, climbing is a weak point in my opinion. The bike just feels very heavy to me and there's more pedal-induced bob than I'd like when the shock is open. Locking out the shock helps, but then you lose suspension compliance. Descending isn't bad, though I wouldn't mind if the HTA were a bit more slack.

    Ultimately, I stumbled across upon a smokin' deal on a 2008 Stumpjumper Pro and I'm how getting ready to liquidate the Trailfox. The TF02 wasn't a bad bike, but certainly not in the same league as the SJ. If anyone wants a 17" 2007 TF02 frame for $375+shipping, send me a PM
    Sounds more like the components. The frame with shock is 6.5lbs. It's not an Ibis Mojo, but not what you'd call heavy. I think the suspension is great. Doesn't seem super reactive to pedaling unless I'm out of the saddle which I figure is to be expected. Overall, I'm satisfied, especially considering I paid less than half the msrp. I'll probably be replacing it with a Marin Mt. Vision at some point though.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by Ouroboros
    Sounds more like the components. The frame with shock is 6.5lbs. It's not an Ibis Mojo, but not what you'd call heavy. I think the suspension is great. Doesn't seem super reactive to pedaling unless I'm out of the saddle which I figure is to be expected.
    Sounds like you have different expectations than I do.

    My BMC weighs a hair over 32lbs. That's not bad! But it's twice what my rock-solid carbon-fiber road bike weighs and a good 5-6lbs more than the Stumpjumper I just bought. To me, it just feels a bit heavy, though I realize that much of the competition weighs the same or more.

    Pedal bob on the BMC isn't bad but, again, it's just enough that I find it annoying; just slightly worse than the Giant Trance X2, I'd say. In comparison, I can't get the Stumpy to bob no matter what I do. Even climbing out of the saddle, the Stumpy feels like a hard-tail. Replacing the BMC's Ario 2.2 shock with a Fox RP23 would probably make me like the bike better, but that's a pretty big expense.

    Ultimately, I think the BMC is a good bike, especially given the price! It just didn't end up being the right bike for me. I'd characterize the Trailfox as more of an All Mountain bike versus the XC/Trail-oriented Stumpjumper. For the type of riding that I do and the type of feel I'm looking for, the Trailfox doesn't quite hit the mark...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: red bank rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by sstorkel
    Allow me to disagree. I have a bike built on the 2007 BMC Trailfox TF02 frame from JensonUSA. I built mine with somewhat cheap components and it weighs in at around 32lbs. At that weight, climbing is a weak point in my opinion. The bike just feels very heavy to me and there's more pedal-induced bob than I'd like when the shock is open. Locking out the shock helps, but then you lose suspension compliance. Descending isn't bad, though I wouldn't mind if the HTA were a bit more slack.

    Ultimately, I stumbled across upon a smokin' deal on a 2008 Stumpjumper Pro and I'm how getting ready to liquidate the Trailfox. The TF02 wasn't a bad bike, but certainly not in the same league as the SJ. If anyone wants a 17" 2007 TF02 frame for $375+shipping, send me a PM
    Check your PM

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Doomrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    20
    The climbing isn't too bad out here, it's nothing like the epic climbs that I did riding in California for a year. The trails in the area are really technical with short uphills and downhills. I ride a 4" XC bike now, which climbs great but I wouldn't mind the extra travel.

    I've owned a Kona Coiler in the past, which is a whole different animal, but Kona's in general seem to be built really solid and can take a beating. The local shop here swears by BMC but they were known in the west coast riding circle as "Badly Made Cycles", ha! I'll have to take a ride on a BMC frame before I pull the trigger on either one.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomrider
    I've owned a Kona Coiler in the past, which is a whole different animal, but Kona's in general seem to be built really solid and can take a beating. The local shop here swears by BMC but they were known in the west coast riding circle as "Badly Made Cycles", ha! I'll have to take a ride on a BMC frame before I pull the trigger on either one.
    Actually, BMC is known for making very nice road bikes. Nobody seems to know they make mountain bikes, though. The Trailfox seems to be as solid as anything else I've seen or ridden...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    145
    I have a BMC Trailfox that I got for the same deal at Jenson that your talking about. The Trailfox is literally the only decent $500 FS frame you can find, unless you want to get into the Jamis XLT tanker territory. I find that the frame doesn't bob much at all when climbing unless, like others have stated, that you get out of the saddle and mash. Even then it's not so bad. If your looking for a lightweight XC-style bike, the trailfox can certainly be built along those lines. In terms of build quality too, the BMC is very well manufactured. The welds look like a stack of dimes and so far the bearings and bushings haven't given me any complaints. That being said, I'll have to agree with others in saying that I'll probably move onto a more expensive frame with different geometry at some point, likely next season when I feel I've outgrown the frame.

    Anyways, my opinion is that the Kona is going to be more descent oriented with the slacker HA and the BMC is going to climb better and feel more like an XC bike, assuming you opt for a 110-120mm fork and lightweight parts.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6
    I own an '08 Trailfox 02, and I rode a Dawg in Moab for a couple days last year. The Trailfox is efficient, and I think the geometry is great for technical single track. It's a good climber because of the light weight and little pedal bob.
    IMO, the Dawg felt heavier and sluggish compared to the Trailfox, although part of that was due to low-end components.
    Since you're riding technical single track and want to climb, I would go with the BMC.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,905
    the stock dawg IS heavy. the xc600 fork cant possibly be its claimed 4.2lbs.. it feels more like 6. the stock tires are 1600 grams for the pair and roll like mud (yet climb surprisingly poor). it feels super sluggish stock.

    mine stayed stock for about 30 minutes when i got it, the new tires and 20mm fork make the bike much faster, and a better climber. i think i shaved 3lbs off with those changes.

    its not the fastest, most efficient, or lightest bike.. but damn its fun. its my definition of "trail bike". it rips up the trail and is just a blast to ride, not a handful, not twitchy and not overbearing. just fun.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bomble37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    11

    ... and if we just ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oregonism
    I have a BMC Trailfox that I got for the same deal at Jenson that your talking about. The Trailfox is literally the only decent $500 FS frame you can find, unless you want to get into the Jamis XLT tanker territory. I find that the frame doesn't bob much at all when climbing unless, like others have stated, that you get out of the saddle and mash. Even then it's not so bad. If your looking for a lightweight XC-style bike, the trailfox can certainly be built along those lines. In terms of build quality too, the BMC is very well manufactured. The welds look like a stack of dimes and so far the bearings and bushings haven't given me any complaints. That being said, I'll have to agree with others in saying that I'll probably move onto a more expensive frame with different geometry at some point, likely next season when I feel I've outgrown the frame.

    Anyways, my opinion is that the Kona is going to be more descent oriented with the slacker HA and the BMC is going to climb better and feel more like an XC bike, assuming you opt for a 110-120mm fork and lightweight parts.

    You want to move on to a more expensive frame? what a 2010? Cause don't these frames MSRP at $2K plus...and you got this for $500?? When you say you'll outgrow the frame, do you mean when you're bored of it and will want a newer one? Cuz I dont really see how you can outgrow such a nice frame execpt for when newer technology starts showing up. Sorry just a little confused is all.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,936
    Quote Originally Posted by bomble37
    You want to move on to a more expensive frame? what a 2010? Cause don't these frames MSRP at $2K plus...and you got this for $500?? When you say you'll outgrow the frame, do you mean when you're bored of it and will want a newer one? Cuz I dont really see how you can outgrow such a nice frame execpt for when newer technology starts showing up. Sorry just a little confused is all.

    From looking closely at an '09 BMC Fourstroke frame (5.01 lbs), I'd say BMC gives up nothing in quality to any production frame. Bearings, triple butted, nice welds, thoughtful engineering and hydroforming, impeccable finish.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KAHAIKAPU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    229
    1 MORE FOR THE DAWG....
    Respect the Aina....Aloha

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    592
    I've been looking at BMCs, and they really have made some changes to their geometry, the BMC frames that were on closeout on jenson, had pretty retarded geometry, they had very short top tubes (23.5 on a large) and very long chainstays. the redesigned frames are much nicer, with much better geometry, I hate to say it guys but there's a reason those frames were on clearout.

  19. #19
    low speed, high drag
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by timms
    I've been looking at BMCs, and they really have made some changes to their geometry, the BMC frames that were on closeout on jenson, had pretty retarded geometry, they had very short top tubes (23.5 on a large) and very long chainstays. the redesigned frames are much nicer, with much better geometry, I hate to say it guys but there's a reason those frames were on clearout.
    Competitive Cyclist is selling the 09 complete for $1400.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •