Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
Bikes: 19 road bikes & 1 Track bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not much difference from a 70s paramount... maybe a pound more at very most. Figure 6-1/2# = Paramount frameset... 7# to 7-1/2# = 11.8 frameset... and just a hair over 8# = the Larger size KM complete frameset. So, you might save 1/2 to possibly 1 pound with the 11.8. But, I don't understand how you could make any sort of useful comparison to the weight (or the intended purpose and handling) of a KM.
The KM might make a good frame for a motorcycle. It is an ultra stiff compact MTB frameset with big beefy heavy oversized steel tubing and a fork which looks as thick and heavy as sewer pipe plumbing, all intended to use with massively wide and heavy 29" MTB wheels, and made even more rigid for possible use of disc brakes as an alternative to cantilever brakes. Designed to take a sustained beating where even massive oversized aluminum would be too wimpy to survive.
The Schwinn was intended to be one of Schwinn's very lightest weight steel road bikes, made for comfortable riding on smooth roads - not climbing over a rocky trails, bounding down unpaved fire roads or hopping over curbs. The only thing vaguely similar would be the basic chemical composition of the raw steel.
I think the KM might compare better to a gas pipe 1950s Schwinn cruiser bike. In fact, probably why the very early 80s MTB originators used cruiser bikes rather than racing bike frames.
Just look at the fork differences.
In fact, sounds like a spooky build up to me. I try to imagine my Paramount morphed together with chunky all-terrain bike components... and it seems like something more unpleasant than I'd ever want to experience. The thin curved front fork alone could make you feel like you're on a pogo stick... for however long it survives. ... Ever think about why MTB framesets are very different than road bike framesets?