Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:07 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What size 92 Explosif?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:32 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Lochaber
I've sought out one or two threads on this topic so apologies for starting another one :?

I have a 1992 Explosif pro frame and matching TB fork of correct length for non-suspension adjusted frame. Centre of BB to top of seat tube is around 19", but I read that older Kona measure from outside of BB shell to top and this is 18". Effective top tube is about 22.5" and axle to axle is 42" also suggesting 18" frame. Head tube is 5". So.........18"?

Thing is although not properly built up it feels a tad short - hence the 125mm stem, layback post and saddle fully back. I'm 5'11" with long arms and legs, gibbon style. Am wondering if I should seek out a larger size :(
Would be a bit gutted as it is avery cool frame, but I want to be comfy and it won't be used on anything very technical. Thoughts appreciated.


Attachments:
P8140001 (2).jpg
P8140001 (2).jpg [ 248.32 KiB | Viewed 359 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:09 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16736
Location: Yorkshire, England
That's a short stem for that era, sort of thing you'd find on the titchy bikes. Look for 135/140

Personally I would say it's too small, but then I like the larger frame. A fraction smaller than you but ~34 legs. So ride 20/19 inch of that era.

People opinions and personal comfort vary of course.
Try it and find out.
Most the stuff will fit in another frame anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:41 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:22 pm
Posts: 7305
Location: Hove
Yes it is a size 18 and from what you say it may well be that a size 19 is the best size for you. Size 18 is for up to 6-0, so it would normally be ok, but if you have long arms it could be shorter than ideal.

Although Ben may have a point about a longer stem giving a preferable fit, it would also deaden the handling. If you fit that stem onto a size 19 frame, it would handle better than that frame with a 140 stem. The size 19 also has a 2cm longer head tube, which may give you a more comfortable position (although it would mean that P2 wouldn't fit of course).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:58 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Lochaber
Thanks guys. Yeh - I think a 140 stem would be long. I don't think it would look right either - 92 Kona catalogue seems to show a relatively short stems on the Explosif. Nice to have frame size confirmed.

Thanks for the heads up on the headtube Anthony. How long is the headtube on a 19 or 20" - I guess if I sourced a bigger frame I'd need to know how long a steerer I'd need. I have a nasty feeling this may go for sale or swap. Shame - I love the ovalised tubes and slightly sparkly paint.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:59 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:22 pm
Posts: 7305
Location: Hove
On the other hand, could it be a bit premature to give up on the thing before you've actually given it a try? I just went out on one of my bikes that's a different length than the ones I've been riding recently and it took me all of three minutes to get used to it and then I was perfectly comfortable. The 19 is only half an inch longer than the 18, and it wouldn't surprise me if your posture soon adapted to the 18. Anyway, the older you get, the more upright you need to be as your back won't take that stretched out quasi-roadie position forever.

In 1992, I believe the head tube lengths were 16 = 11cm, 18 = 13cm, 19 = 15cm and 20 presumably 17cm. i.e., all 2cm longer than they would be from 1993 onwards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:46 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Lochaber
Yeh - I've considered building 'er up and having a go. I'm no spring chicken and do have a bad back, but it hurts more when I'm cramped than when I'm a bit stretched, hence the concern. Thanks again for top info Anthony.
This is a dilemma but I guess the worst that can happen is that i end up selling a frame and seeking a new one. All good fun, even if it does keep me from riding my other bike or catching mackerel (lots around here the noo).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:59 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 4309
Location: In trubble'fsumthin r'uther....North Warwickshire
Gt85 will get the girls.......mackerel guts won't......the way forward seems clear to me!.......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:05 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Lochaber
Dunno about that. My girl likes when I bring her fish. But then she's Norwegian.......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:54 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16736
Location: Yorkshire, England
jonthefish wrote:
Thanks guys. Yeh - I think a 140 stem would be long. I don't think it would look right either - 92 Kona catalogue seems to show a relatively short stems on the Explosif. Nice to have frame size confirmed.

Thanks for the heads up on the headtube Anthony. How long is the headtube on a 19 or 20" - I guess if I sourced a bigger frame I'd need to know how long a steerer I'd need. I have a nasty feeling this may go for sale or swap. Shame - I love the ovalised tubes and slightly sparkly paint.


1993 the 18/19 used 130mm stems. 20/21 used 150mm stems on the Kona. So steering shouldn't be to effected with 135/140 lengthening it a bit over the targeted average for that size. They where certainly not uncommon length. Your arm length and position is possibly quite different to Anthonys so would find the larger swing better over the shorter twitchy 125 length.
Still proof is in the pudding and riding it. I have 130/135's on my 17/18/19/20 frames, rigid to period suspension. The only one shorter is the newer Kona but it has longer forks on. Still its down at 120mm ('97 era)

The 17" needs to be shorter as its for them wife, but for me its good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:29 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Lochaber
Hmmm. Right enough - just looked at the '93 catalogue and just as you say. Annoyingly, the 92 catalogue does not give stem length for the older frames. Still, as you and Anthony both say, there's no great great harm in building it up and seeing how it feels. Thanks again.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: vwbluethunder and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group