al-onestare":2nrrchdf said:
In my mind they are identical frames, unlike the Kilauea and Explosif of course! Looking forward to being proved wrong
You just knew that I wold rise to the challenge on this one
.
The AA was definitely elevated within the Kona hierarchy during its' 4 years of production from 1994 - 1997.
In 1994 the Kula was made from superior Easton Varilite ProGram Aluminium compared to the AA's heavier Alcoa T6 7005. The Dropouts are also neater on the Kula, with smooth transition into the Stays, compared to the clunkier version on the AA with visible TIG welding.
1994 AA:
Rather interestingly, both the Kula and the AA in 1994 have replaceable Gear Hangers, which was quite advanced thinking at the time - well done Kona. However, the next 3 years production of Kula and AA reverted to integral Gear Hangers, which I think puts some people off Aluminum frames.
Anyway, onwards. The 1995 Kula was superior with it's Easton ProGram 3 Elan tubing compared to the heavier AA's Generic 7005 Aluminium. Once again the Dropouts on the 1995 Kula are less clunky than those on the AA, with smooth transition into the Stays.
1995 AA:
By 1996 however, the AA's frame had been improved to the same spec as the Kula, with the same Tubing and dropouts. There is a very slight difference in the quoted weights between the two models, but we know how vague these can be. Anthony commented on these two models a while back saying; "I'm not even sure there was a difference between the 96 AA and Kula.They were both made of Easton Elite and though the catalogue says they weighed 3.5lbs and 3.4 respectively, I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Could be just a marketing ploy."
Sorry that this example of a 1996 AA is a bit lacking, but you can see that it shares the same tubing and Dropouts as the 1996 Kula:
So in answer to your point Alasdair, by 1997 at least, both the Kula and AA frames do indeed appear to have identical tubing, dropouts and quoted weight.
Pip