Kona frames weight???

[kram245]

Question for the kona buffs. How much lighter are the early 90's Kona frames that are butted cromoly, as oposed to the non-butted versions, like the hahanna and the fire mountain. I realise the bikes like the lavadome and cindercone are lighter bikes, but wondering how much is down to higher end components, generally?
Kram

 

[Augustus]

Anthony.......

 

[Anthony]

Well, unaccustomed as I am, if Wu-Tangled commands me to speak, I guess I must speak.

I have no personal experience of the Hahannas and Fire Mountains, and it's very difficult to generalise as Konas (and other makes) became much lighter between 1990 and 94, before stabilising at around 94 weights. I suppose I would expect the FM to weigh around a quarter of a pound more than the same year's Lava Dome/Cinder Cone and the H a quarter pound more again, but very happy to be corrected by those who actually know!

The LD/CC shared the same frame, but the FM and H frames differed from them and from one another, and also their specs differed from year to year. Usually the FM had a butted mainframe but with a lesser quality tubeset than the LD/CC spec (i.e., it had to be slightly thicker gauge to achieve the same strength factor). The H was generally plain-gauge. It's also worth bearing in mind that the LD/CC generally had triple-butted P2s, the FM seldom did and the H never did (and that makes a further half a pound difference).

As with most things about mtb weight, it isn't the actual ounces that matter so much as the ride quality. Some years the Hahanna had high-tensile steel stays for example, and that isn't as good news as cromoly for either weight or ride quality. But if weight per se is what you're interested in, I'm sure you're right to say that the weight of their components would have been a major factor in differences in overall weight.

 

[cce]

even a lava dome can build into a very light bike - i had mine with crossmax etc and i had to chain it to the garage floor to stop it flying off.


in addition to what anthony says, it pays to remember that

a) after 1994 the fire mountain and hahanna had a shorter top tube (this was everything else getting longer, not the FM/HH getting shorter)
b) most years, but some years not the fire mountain had project 2 sport forks with a different rake
c)the hahanna has p2 sport forks with a different rake

all adding up to them handling differently

 

[Tallpaul]

even a lava dome can build into a very light bike - i had mine with crossmax etc and i had to chain it to the garage floor to stop it flying off

My '92 Lava Dome weighs about 4.75lb as a bare frame and around 24lb as a complete bike.

 

[kram245]

Thanks for all the very knowledgeable replies. I fancy a retro Kona as a user, and at the moment have no intention on starting a collection.So, my thinking goes, if i'm going to have one, it might as well be a better specced, better material, frame-wise, version. I had read about the triple butted p2 forks, quite a saving in weight. I'm just trying to narrow down what models I am interested, and then keeping an eye on the ads for one to pop up. Thanks all, Kram.

 

[cce]

for a "mountain bike" i'd pick at least a lava dome

my cousin has a fire mountain as a commuter/street runner and it's really nice to ride though

 

[Anthony]

One view is that the high-end Konas are so cheap that there’s no logical argument for buying a low-end one. For example, a good 92 Explosif frame sold for £82 on eBay the other day. OK, it was size 16 which is too small for most, but for his or her £82 the buyer got the frame plus an Impact headset, triple-butted P2s, DX cantis with rear Joe Murray booster, DX chainset, XT bottom bracket, XT front mech and a seat post. If that’s what the best costs, why economise?

But that’s just the logical argument. The other side of it is that maybe there’s something a tiny bit pretentious about having an Explosif, whereas there’s nothing pretentious about a Lava Dome and for some indefinable reason owning a Lava Dome has always been cool. It seems that everybody who has ever owned a Lava Dome has liked it and regrets selling it. And of course it was the ultimate upgradeable bike – good frame for the price, rubbish components, but within a year you’d have replaced all the bits and you’d have a genuinely good bike.

 

[kram245]

Nice round up Anthony, and am going with cce's assesment of 'at least a Lavadome' for proper off road use. I believe the Cindercone is next up, which also looks a goer in terms of a proper user.

 

[lumos2000]

i have a cindercone built up with sids, crossmax and 07/08 xt and a explosif built up with tb p2's crossmax and xtr. orthough the explosif is lighter they dont feel that much diffrent, exept for the longer rake with the sids, though my singlespeed cindercone is really light with db p2s.