Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007

    Rockhopper Comp Disc OR Kona Hoss

    I am sort of set on the Kona Hoss which I will have to order, however, I am going to first look at the Rockhopper Comp Disc. I am looking for input on the comparison of these 2 bikes.

    I am 5' 11" 250lbs, use to ride quite a bit 10 years ago and will do 70% road and the rest on the desert trails here in AZ.

    I tried to compare the component groups, but I am not up to speed enough to know which bike is the better deal.

    thanks for your input.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SlipperyPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Quite a bit has been compared about the two bikes in the Clyde section of the forum, if you root around a little.

    The biggest difference that you'll probably notice is in the forks. The Hoss uses a dirt jump style fork and the Rockhopper uses a cross country style.

    If you're riding cross country, I'd lean towards the Rockhopper. You may find the Hoss's fork to be too stiff.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    The Hoss's fork should not be stiffer than the Rockhopper's. In fact it's likely more plush, but using full travel will be more difficult (the DJ's are more progressive to resist bottoming out). Both are quite good forks though, and the Rockhopper's will be lighter.

    I'd generally lean towards the Hoss myself. It's built with bigger guys in mind, and that definitely shows in the brakes and the fork. But given 70% road riding, the lockout on the Rockhopper's fork looks like the deal-maker, lockout is a feature you'll want if road-riding a lot.

    So go for the 'Hopper.

  4. #4
    Making fat cool since '71
    Reputation: ImaKlyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Hoss. The fork is more clyde friendly (more precise steering) in that it is more "burley". The spring rate is what determines if it is "stiff" or not (how easily it compresses). Oil height (and weight) can be played with to make it more/less progressive (the bottom-out mentioned earlier). The Hoss is made for clydes. You weigh 60-75 pounds more than the "average" (term used lightly, settle down) mtb'er. Kona figured that in when building the Hoss. Special(iz)Ed didn't. That isn't to say the Special(iz)Ed is a crappy bike, it's just not as good a bike for us.

    Also, the Special(iz)Ed has a headangle of 70 I think and the Kona is 68-ish (for sure). That can be important to some (it is to me).

    The drivetrains are almost identical. The Specal(iz)Ed has 2.0 tires (narrow tires=less footprint=less area for a fatboy to grip the dirt), the Hoss has 2.35s (better). Kona has scaled down hydraulic Hayes (so, so modulation, decent power), Special(iz)Ed has Avid mechanicals (bb5; very little modulation, decent power). Rims are pretty much the same quality. I believe the Konas are 1 or 1.5mm wider but don't quote me. They are both double wall (?).


    editors note: a 250 pound rider's main concern should probably not be which bike is a pound (or two) lighter. I *should* be which bike fits and will withstand their riding style, ability and tendencies. It's easier for "us" to skip a donut or two and answer the call of nature to shed a pound than worry about a 4.3lb oem fork versus a 4.8lb oem fork. BTW, Special(iz)Ed: 29.5lbs, Kona: 32lbs (large).
    Are the wheels roundish? Ride it.

    Disciples Of Dirt, come ride with us.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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



VISIT US AT and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.