[tobyson21]

Not sure if this will be helpful, but I recently was forced out of my 2004 Kikapu Delux and moved on to a GT Force 2.0. The Kikapu was a 3.75 inch cross country bike that I had ridden and tweaked and tuned for 3 years until it was stolen. Really, I could have been happy with the Kik for a long time.

Rider Facts:
I ride mostly XC but enjoy doing the occasional stunt or small drop (2-3 ft max). I also do the occasional ride up a ski mountain and back down, just for the feeling of satisfaction. I felt like I was reaching the upper limit of abuse that my Kik could take.
I'm 5'6 about 165 lbs and I'm not a "graceful" rider. More of a masher. I'd say I'm an ok rider at best. I'm one of those guys that will clean a section, but it'll look like I'm going to crash just about the entire way.

Review/contrast:
-The GT eats rock gardens for breakfast. The Kik always seemed to have trouble with them, I credit the suspension for not only keeping the back wheel having traction, but of course the extra travel helps. Possible the suspension on the GT seems more active?
-The Kik climbed slightly better. Really, it might just be me getting used to the GT (had it for about 2 weeks now), but I find the front wheel wants to come up a lot, so I have to be very far forward on the saddle to keep it down on really steep inclines.
-Obviously the GT is better going down. It just sucks up everything I throw at it. I haven't even tuned the suspension really and it just flies! It's also a very plush ride and for some reason I can man handle it around better than the 2008 Dawg Delux I test rode.
-The one thing I found was the responses of the GT are slower. For tight downhill single track switchbacks, it's a bit more of an effort on the GT. I did notice the GT has a much longer wheelbase than my 16" Kik. The responsiveness of the bike might improve as I get more used to the bike.


Overall, I'm very happy with the GT. It's a great "one tool fits all" bike for my style of riding. I would warn people who are "A frame" meaning their legs are the opposite of bow legged, to test ride the bike, as the top "tube" of the bike is wider than a regular bike. I've smacked my knee on it a couple of times.

The Kenda tires are great and the added labor going uphills doesn't bother me too much at all. The downhills are great.

Hope this review helps somebody.

Thanks,

Todd

 

[alf2]

Thanks for the review!
Since you seem to have a force in Size Small, it would be fine if you post a picture of it. I would like to know how it looks. I am 5'8" tall and I am not shure if I should take size S or M.

 

[tobyson21]

Unfortunately I don't have any pictures of it right now. I will say I'm 5'6" with a 29" inseam and the stand-over height is marginal, but the rest fits like a glove. Really, I would say the bike is on the large side for me. I think if you were 5'8" a small would be perfect.

I'll try and dig out my digital camera and snap some pics when I ride this week.

T

 

[gt jorgito]

This is my 2nd week on my Force 2.0 and I am really starting to dig it. I lowered the stem to make it more of an XC geometry but if I ever head out to Colorado for some lift ticket riding then the stem will come back up. I'm in Oklahoma and our local trails are mostly flat and very fast so the lower bar setup really works. I'm beginning to really love this bike. My 2001 I-drive Team is taking a break and I will only use it when I really wann go fast. I also noticed the slower response of the Force but I'm coming from a racing geometry to an all mountain all fun Force. I personnally don't like the Nevegals but I prefer a faster rolling tire instead of a really knobby tire. I am very pleased with GT. They did a great job with this one.