Explosif questions!!

I'm looking for an Explosif to 'do' as a project. But not sure what year to go for. I don't want a frame that can take longer travel forks as that would increase the standover height too much for me on an 18. I'd also like to be able to run a 2.3 tyres if possible with P2 forks, so wonder about chainstay clearnace.

So, any thoughts as to what year? 1994-1996 I'd thought?

I am considering this...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/kona-explosif-mou ... 240%3A1318

But not sure about that seatpost!

Help to a 'noob' appreciated

Cheers

I like that vintage. But would ask for better pictures than that one shown.

If you want to run 2.3" tyres then forget about the '95 Explosif - chainstay clearance is just about enough for 2.1" but no more Of course you could always run 2.1 rear and 2.35 front ?

A few weeks ago I did ask whether the 96 and 97 Explosifs (with Columbus rear triangle) had any better clearance but no-one got back to me about it so I'm none the wiser. It's buried in here somewhere anyway -

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... t=explosif

I would suspect, from looking at photos, that the 96 and 97 do have slightly more tyre clearance -

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50927

if you notice, on this very, very nice 96 Explosif (and just my size too), the chainstay has been "crimped" on the inside to give more tyre clearance, the '95 doesn't have this.
I suspect that we'll be in competition for the same frame :roll: , as I'm still on the lookout for a 96 or 97 Explosif to replace my '95 for this very reason - in 17" ideally if anyone reads this

Andy R":3mi8k1w1 said:

If you want to run 2.3" tyres then forget about the '95 Explosif - chainstay clearance is just about enough for 2.1" but no more Of course you could always run 2.1 rear and 2.35 front ?

A few weeks ago I did ask whether the 96 and 97 Explosifs (with Columbus rear triangle) had any better clearance but no-one got back to me about it so I'm none the wiser. It's buried in here somewhere anyway -

Click to expand...

My 96/97 Columbus Explosif did not have enough clearance back in the day to run 2.1" Smoke tyres. Your limited to 1.95 or 2.0 if you want any kind of mud room - I usualy run 1.8" mud tyres or 1.95" - Panaracers Cinder/Fire/Mud.

Bit of a design flaw and one of the reasons I always planned to sell mine on at the time... until I put the huge dent in the top tube after owning it for two weeks that is

messiah":jrzya2t6 said:

My 96/97 Columbus Explosif did not have enough clearance back in the day to run 2.1" Smoke tyres. Your limited to 1.95 or 2.0 if you want any kind of mud room - I usualy run 1.8" mud tyres or 1.95" - Panaracers Cinder/Fire/Mud.

Bit of a design flaw and one of the reasons I always planned to sell mine on at the time... until I put the huge dent in the top tube after owning it for two weeks that is

Click to expand...

I thought that yours is a '95 :?: (the same as mine) - the "burgundy with blue decals" version with Columbus main triangle and generic DB stays.

If so, it won't have the crimps in the chainstays either, which is why they have such crap tyre clearance. I run 2.1" Trailrakers for 75% of the year and it's just about ok with them, but they measure up at only 2.0" anyway on Mavic 717's.

Andy.

I've corrected my post - mine is a 95/96 - It was bought late 95 and has the matt 96 paint but in a different colour to the 96 bikes.

The stays have a crimp but it makes little difference to the clearance - big tyres will struggle to fit.



Dreadful picture but you can see the nats-chuff clearance with 2.0 tyres

Andy R":2gvxscca said:

If you want to run 2.3" tyres then forget about the '95 Explosif - chainstay clearance is just about enough for 2.1" but no more Of course you could always run 2.1 rear and 2.35 front ?

A few weeks ago I did ask whether the 96 and 97 Explosifs (with Columbus rear triangle) had any better clearance but no-one got back to me about it so I'm none the wiser.

Click to expand...

I think the 95 and 96 chainstays are the same shape, with the kink in the tube giving you more width, but they didn't have that kink from 97 onwards (so the bridge itself is c5mm longer on a 97 Kilauea than on a 96 Explosif). However, measuring at 105mm from bb centre, which is where tyres are at their widest, I get 65mm for a 94 Kilauea, 71mm for a 96 Explosif, 70mm for the 97 Kilauea and back to 65mm on a 98 Explosif.

71mm seems similar to what you got on your 95, but I couldn't understand what you meant by saying it was less in the middle - on my bikes the kink is concave, so the clearance is greater in the middle.

Don't forget the classic Explosifs were designed to be racing bikes, they were never intended for freeride or whatever.

Messiah's bike is a 95 frame, but some of them were a slightly different colour from the bright red of earlier that model year. It has the seat tube ovalised at the join with the bb shell, whereas the 96 frames have a round seat tube. Both types have kinked chainstays.

Anthony":mosutdkz said:

71mm seems similar to what you got on your 95, but I couldn't understand what you meant by saying it was less in the middle - on my bikes the kink is concave, so the clearance is greater in the middle.

Click to expand...

What I meant (and didn't explain very well ) was that if you look at a cross-section of the chainstay at the point where it is deformed to increase tyre clearance, the inside face is still convex, albeit slightly flattened and so the available clearance is not as much as it appears to be when you look/measure at the top or bottom of the tube.

My frame is the same as Messiah's - it was originally the very same colour and has the ovalised seat tube. What these frames don't have is the concave "crimp" on the inside of the chainstays, which the later ones (certainly 96 anyway) have.

This might sound a bit odd, but like motorbikes perform better with certain tire brands more than others..i think certain frames perform better with the right size tire...................hardtail Kona's don't need big fat tires to be stable or perform well...whiles other brands might feel skittish with thinner tires...............i would go for a 94 Explosive.............the comfort / shock absorbing quality in these frames will make up for the need for big air chambers........