Trek Fuel 95, Kona Kikipu Deluxe or FSR-
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1

    Trek Fuel 95, Kona Kikipu Deluxe or FSR

    I don't "need" but would like to know other mtn bikers thoughts on which of these bikes I might be MOST happy with, considering what my perceptions and knowledge of the bikes are. First my purpose for THIS purchase is to get a light all-mountain bike that I can also race XC with and have a heck of a lot of fun riding all kinds of terrain.

    The Trek Fuel: Test rode a Demo from IMT here in Boise yesterday. Some steep singletrack climbs and fast singletrack descents over braking bumps. The bike felt like a great climber, with good climbing traction and balance with the Black set at 80mm. The bike also corners very well, I could compress the suspension and get a nice boost out of corners. The rear suspension maybe felt a bit short of travel over rocks and babyheads.
    I like the way the bike looks, and it appears to be exceptionally high in quality. Pivots are not sealed bearing types, but I don't think those are correct in this particular application. The rocker seems to be very stiff anyway, so development of play probably NOT an issue with proper maintenance.

    Kona Kikipu: only test rode one on the street. this was a 16" King Kikipu and I would ride the 18. It felt light, quick, and seems like it would climb well due to longer top tube. Specs say 70 deg head angle (with 100mm fork), and that is highly desirable vs. a steeper angle because I do tackle rock step drop ins and fall line descents whenver I can find them. What else........ bushings in the bottom pivot, and seatstay pivot. Sealed bearing in the main pivot.

    FSR: True horst link. I have several years experience since my first bike was an FSR. Excpetional traction on steep, loose, and technical seated climbs. Some play and flex in the rear but seems to handle square edge bumps, like climbing over rocks better than than the single pivot bikes I've owned.

    Soooo, tough decision. Please, any and all feedback appreciated and thank you!!!undefinedundefined

  2. #2
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004

    You choose

    The Fuel has less climbing bob but a little less sharp bump compliance than the Kona and FSR.

    All would work well all around. The Fuel and Kona feel less flexy to me than FSR XC's. But I'm 200 lbs. A Manitou Swinger air shock would work wonders on any of those bikes.

    - ray

  3. #3
    dws is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2004

    Check out the Epic

    More rear travel. Benfits of the FSR with less bob then the Fuel using the Brain shock.

  4. #4
    Lookin for that extra can
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Well, I can't speak to the other bikes, but I just purchased a Kona King Kikapu (frame and shock only) and have been very happy with it. It climbs very well and the fox float rl makes for a super nice descent. This is my first FS bike so I'm still getting used to it. Only complaint so far is the silly name... sounds like a Pokeman character or somethin'

Similar Threads

  1. The test: 2004 Racer X100 / 2004 Trek Fuel 100, The Verdict........
    By KMan in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-11-2004, 09:22 AM
  2. New member, old Trek Fuel 100
    By rpmrob in forum Trek
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2004, 03:00 PM
  3. Need help: Fuel 95 or Fuel 98
    By long1773 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-05-2004, 11:18 AM
  4. Palamino vs. Fuel 95
    By NtnyLions in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-03-2004, 01:08 PM
  5. trek 8500 vs. kona kula deluxe vs yeti arc...
    By pinkrobe in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-01-2004, 01:29 PM

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




© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.