kona cinder cone vs explosif

[norton]

Hey,

Spec:
'95 Cinder Cone, size 18, kona DB - 1965g - 4.338 lbs
'97 Explosif, size 18, Columbus MAX OR - 1985g - 4.382 lbs

is it possible that exp heavier than the cc? we measured both frame on the same scale at LBS. cinder cone is very reasonable as the price was the half of the exp...

 

[FluffyChicken]

What's wrong with that ?
While the weight has stayed the same the Explosive's characteristics are what you pay for.

My 20" Kona Explosif 1997 weights quite a bit more. Yet the frame would have cost the same as your 18".. You're all being had riding small bikes

 

[norton]

nothing wrong but a bit surprised

 

[cce]

my 1996 kilauea was definitely lighter than my 1996 lava dome - and the lava dome and cinder cone share a frame

 

[Anthony]

Hey,

Spec:
'95 Cinder Cone, size 18, kona DB - 1965g
'97 Explosif, size 18, Columbus MAX OR - 1985g

is it possible that exp heavier than the cc? we measured both frame on the same scale at LBS. cinder cone is very reasonable as the price was the half of the exp...

There were changes over the years, and frames got heavier as the use of suspension led to greater forces being imposed on them. However I find both figures surprising.

My 96 Explosif, size 18, almost identical spec, weighs 1.915kg. Others I know about weigh much the same.

The Cinder Cone is even more surprising because it is less than Kona's claim, and Kona claimed weights appear to have been taken without paint, to put it kindly. It is also less than my 95 Kilauea, size 17, which weighs 2.033kg, suggesting that a size 18 would weigh c 2.09kg.

Some of that may be attributable to the pearlescent paint finish with thick clearcoat, but even so there is no logic to the 95 Cinder cone being significantly lighter than the 95 Kilauea, because the Kilauea is made of a lighter tubeset. There's no magic about it, a 28.6 x 8-5-8 tube is lighter than a 31.8 x 9-6-9 tube.

 

[norton]

to confirm I measured it in the other LBS. same. very happy with this CC frame

 

[Woodsman]

What's with all the kg weights - you know it should be lb's.

 

[Tad]

What's with all the kg weights - you know it should be lb's.

retro weights and measures now too, boy you have got it bad!

 

[norton]

updated, sorry mates...

 

[Woodsman]

ha ha Tad! no, more like that's how I understand it!

Thanks norton - I've no idea either but that's interesting finding.