The 97 Kilauea had a 28.6 top tube, as Ratbane's visibly has. The Lava Dome of that year and other years had a 31.8 top tube - it's easy to see from how far the top tube wraps around the seat tube. So that is definitely not a Lava Dome and there is no way whatsoever of passing off any Lava Dome as a 97 Kilauea.Wold Ranger":2q7bvc8b said:Sorry should have qualified, both only 16 inch frames, cindercone and lavadome both weigh just under 4.2 pounds bare weight, fully painted.
An 18 is considerably bigger than a 16, as the ctc on a 16 seat tube is only 13 inches and top tube 21. Both weighed on digital scales so won't be far out. I had an 18 which was too big and this weighed 4.6 on the same scale. But getting sidetracked here!
I was told by a dealer once that many Kona frames were re badged in the factory if they were short of a specific model and that only the components were different and the Explosif had different tubes. The Kilauea picture above has the same drop outs and detail as my more recent Lavadome, so maybe they were the same frame?
I gather it was luck of the draw sometimes you got a better or lower frame with different paint on it!
Anthony":25zwi6g8 said:The 97 Kilauea had a 28.6 top tube, as Ratbane's visibly has. The Lava Dome of that year and other years had a 31.8 top tube - it's easy to see from how far the top tube wraps around the seat tube. So that is definitely not a Lava Dome and there is no way whatsoever of passing off any Lava Dome as a 97 Kilauea.Wold Ranger":25zwi6g8 said:Sorry should have qualified, both only 16 inch frames, cindercone and lavadome both weigh just under 4.2 pounds bare weight, fully painted.
An 18 is considerably bigger than a 16, as the ctc on a 16 seat tube is only 13 inches and top tube 21. Both weighed on digital scales so won't be far out. I had an 18 which was too big and this weighed 4.6 on the same scale. But getting sidetracked here!
I was told by a dealer once that many Kona frames were re badged in the factory if they were short of a specific model and that only the components were different and the Explosif had different tubes. The Kilauea picture above has the same drop outs and detail as my more recent Lavadome, so maybe they were the same frame?
I gather it was luck of the draw sometimes you got a better or lower frame with different paint on it!
The dropouts on Ratbane's bike were used only for the Kilauea, Explosif and Hot in 1997. They weren't used on the Lava Dome until several years later.
It is illegal under US and other consumer protection legislation to pass off any item as something superior, so you're alleging that a huge firm like Giant would collude with Kona to break the law by painting inferior frames as more expensive ones whenever it suited Kona. Why would they take such a risk?
Ratbane's frame is definitely a genuine 97 Kilauea. The weight is 0.1lbs heavier than I would expect, but that is probably down to the scales used, it is still way too light for a Lava Dome.
And the difference in weight between a size 16 and 18 is c0.25lbs. In the case of a Lava Dome, 4.55 and 4.8 respectively.
Not for a fact, but I believe that a size 18 weighed c3.6lbs, and a King Kahuna maybe 3.9ishratbane":2ok7d51c said:Do you know how much the 99 Hei Hei weighed?
Hmm, the tubes were oval in 1995 as well. And the decals were square/silver grey. And there was a spiral on the head tube.ratbane":2ok7d51c said:What's your view on repainting in non-original colours. I'm pondering a '95 look in white. Not as a fake '95, (as the dropouts would be different), but purely from an aesthetics point of view. Is it sacrilege?
Anthony":2b16lkp3 said:Not for a fact, but I believe that a size 18 weighed c3.6lbs, and a King Kahuna maybe 3.9ishratbane":2b16lkp3 said:Do you know how much the 99 Hei Hei weighed?
Hmm, the tubes were oval in 1995 as well. And the decals were square/silver grey. And there was a spiral on the head tube.ratbane":2b16lkp3 said:What's your view on repainting in non-original colours. I'm pondering a '95 look in white. Not as a fake '95, (as the dropouts would be different), but purely from an aesthetics point of view. Is it sacrilege?
I'd never use the word sacrilege, it's only a bike, but my personal opinion is that if something looks like a fake then the intended effect is spoiled. So I personally would stick to the correct decals for the year of the frame, even if I was changing the colour. That way the bike would look like a white 97 Kilauea, and quite nice too. Whereas if it looked like a fake 95 Kilauea, I personally would be unimpressed. But that's just me.
My favourite 97 Kilauea is the extremely rare Kilauea SE, with Z2 fork and frame colour-matched to it, as below.
Mine is H7-H0 7321. So it is consistent, which is no surprise, but apart from that it just tells us that both frames were built at the Hodaka factory in 1997. Aside from the H7, I think the rest of the number has significance only for the Giant production process. It doesn't tell us that it is a Kilauea, and it doesn't mean anything to Kona.ratbane":33spta6l said:With the paint now off, I can see the frame number, which is H7N2 6498