Kona Explosif Frame Columbus Max OR?

[Anthony]

There's a certain amount of information on the thread on mtbr/kona, but I guess it bears repetition, and I'll do my best to answer your new questions.

The Kona brochure for 1997 states quite baldly that the frame is "Constructed entirely of Columbus Nivacrom Max OR tubing. Tubing wall thickness: Top - .7/.4/.7, Down - .8/.5/.8. The seat tube is custom drawn for Kona by Columbus with a wall thickness of 1.3/.6/.9. Columbus drawn, oversized seat stays dramatically improve braking performance." There's nowhere for them to hide there - all that must be substantially true.

The seat tube decal visible on the 1995 frame above says "Columbus Max main frame Kona DB cromo rear stays". The seat tube decal missing from the 1996 frame is the standard Columbus Max OR decal, which also appeared on the 97 frame.

But note Top-Ring's post - "OK - here's what Kona warranty says about the rear stays... Models prior to 97 had a heavier gauge rear end. The factory stays wound up too flexy and imprecise. When we got our new dropout in 97 that let us run a bigger stay. We spec’d the full tubesets from Columbus and the Reynolds....So much for guessing. The decal reads correctly for the 95. Odd that the yellow 96 sports the authentic Columbus tubeset decal with DB stays. So only the front triangle was Columbus on the 95 and 96 models."

I actually disagree with Top-Ring (Headtube on here) about that. I think the warranty is talking just about the stays - under US consumer law, a decal has to be true of what it is attached to, so the 96 seat tube must be Columbus, and really the 95 one should be as well. And you seem to have explained that now, if the standard Max seat tube was tapered - maybe that's what they used for 95, while the 96 and 97 seat tubes were 'custom drawn' (i.e., cheaper round things, if I know Kona!)

I don't think the decision to go to a round tube for 96 can have been related to top-swing, as the bikes were sold with conventional-swing mechs. But if it related to saving money, that would make a lot more sense.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=476320

 

[Anthony]

Incidentally, the 95 seat tube does bear a resemblance to the one on the 94 Cinder Cone below, which is why I thought they were both Tange, but maybe not and there's just a resemblance. Now that I look properly at a 94 Explosif, the Ultimate seat tube doesn't look like this, so I was wrong there.

 

[W W Biffta]

nice one dude, you are a gold mine.
assume it would be the same deal for the columbus cyber kilauea's?
incidentally, the seat tube on my tufftrax is ovalised (prestige tubes) looks just like that so it was a fair guess.

 

[CTK]

The last Columbus framed Kona (kilauea, full bike) I noticed on ebay went for a lot- £400 ish I think. I expect this will get around £140-£150...

...even though paint is untidy and I assume unoriginal as there is no Explosif decal.

 

[Anthony]

assume it would be the same deal for the columbus cyber kilauea's?

Pretty much, yes - the Kilauea frame was “Constructed entirely of Columbus Cyber MTB tubing. Tubing wall thickness: Top - .7/.4/.7, Down - .8/.5/.8 The seat tube is custom drawn for Kona by Columbus with a wall thickness of 1.3/.6/.9 Columbus drawn, oversized seat stays dramatically improve braking performance.”

Note however that the Kilauea has a 28.6 top tube and a 31.8 down tube, which are lighter than the Explosif’s (bi-ovalised) 31.8 TT and 34.9 DT. And yet the Explosif weighs fractionally less, 4.25 for a size 18, vs 4.3 (in both cases, the lightest that these models ever got). As the Explosif must be c80g heavier in the TT + DT, it must be c100g lighter elsewhere, but I don’t know where. Maybe in the stays, but could even be in unsuspected places like a lighter headtube.

I imagine that the grade of steel in Cyber was most likely identical to Max, both Nivacrom, and that the enhancement in the Max design was in the shaping, which must give greater stiffness and possibly even strength, but would have cost a lot to produce, especially 20 years ago (they still make Nivacrom incidentally, in the Zona tubeset).

The Kilauea obviously has a less exalted image than the Explosif, but the 96/7 ones were nevertheless high class frames that cost £399 new, c.f. the Explosif's £499.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

The Kona brochure for 1997 states quite baldly that the frame is "Constructed entirely of Columbus Nivacrom Max OR tubing. Tubing wall thickness: Top - .7/.4/.7, Down - .8/.5/.8. The seat tube is custom drawn for Kona by Columbus with a wall thickness of 1.3/.6/.9. Columbus drawn, oversized seat stays dramatically improve braking performance." There's nowhere for them to hide there - all that must be substantially true.

There isn't a little footnote somewhere along the lines of "specifications are subject to modification without notification"?

I agree, that seems pretty unambiguous.

The seat tube decal visible on the 1995 frame above says "Columbus Max main frame Kona DB cromo rear stays". The seat tube decal missing from the 1996 frame is the standard Columbus Max OR decal, which also appeared on the 97 frame.

Thanks.

I don't think the decision to go to a round tube for 96 can have been related to top-swing, as the bikes were sold with conventional-swing mechs. But if it related to saving money, that would make a lot more sense.

It seems too much of a coincidence to me that Kona chose to change to a round seat tube in the model year that Shimano introduced top-swing mechs, even if (as you say) Kona didn't fit them until the following year. How about this: Shimano notify the major manufacturers of the introduction of top swing mechs for the 1996 model year. Kona spec a (cheaper) round seat tube in readiness, then bag a grey-market deal on all of Trek's surplus bottom-swing mechs from the previous year, thus saving even more money. Everybody's happy.

 

[Anthony]

I don't think the decision to go to a round tube for 96 can have been related to top-swing, as the bikes were sold with conventional-swing mechs. But if it related to saving money, that would make a lot more sense.

It seems too much of a coincidence to me that Kona chose to change to a round seat tube in the model year that Shimano introduced top-swing mechs, even if (as you say) Kona didn't fit them until the following year. How about this: Shimano notify the major manufacturers of the introduction of top swing mechs for the 1996 model year. Kona spec a (cheaper) round seat tube in readiness, then bag a grey-market deal on all of Trek's surplus bottom-swing mechs from the previous year, thus saving even more money. Everybody's happy.

The even more significant development in 1996 was the introduction of V-brakes, but typically enough Kona didn't fit them until 1997. Just as, a few years earlier, they held onto thumbies longer than anyone else - they were a kind of retro brand even when they were modern. Or they were a bunch of cheapskates, one or the other. The green 96 frame above has a 96 number, indicating it was built in calendar 1996 and it has a rear V-stop. 96 Explosifs with 95 numbers (i.e., built the previous year) didn't have V-stops, which kind of indicates that Kona were slow to react to technological change.

I wonder whether the seat tube thing might originate with Columbus though. The Max tubeset came out in 1988 I believe and was very expensive. Too expensive for most big manufacturers to ever build with it. It therefore seems odd that Kona used it at all, but I guess by 1995 it was nearing the end of its market life and Columbus may have been willing to do a deal with Kona. But maybe they used up the last remaining seat tubes on the 95 production. And maybe rather than make another batch when, as you say the move to top-swing mechs was rendering their tapered design obsolete, they agreed to use Cyber seat tubes and call them 'custom drawn'. Worse things than that have happened in the ignoble history of OEM, far worse.

 

[W W Biffta]

man you guys are starting to put me off big time
anyway more info from the seller:

Hi Andy - It may well have been resprayed at some time I couldnt say, the frame is green not blue although this may not be the correct green. It definatley is Columbus tubing due to the flairing and ovalising. I know it came direct from Second Level the Kona distributor some years ago. Hope that helps. Matt

 

[yo-eddy]

In this case I'd allways ask if the seatpost is stuck allways seems a bit strange to remove all parts except the seatpost imho

 

[Anthony]

man you guys are starting to put me off big time
anyway more info from the seller:

Hi Andy - It may well have been resprayed at some time I couldnt say, the frame is green not blue although this may not be the correct green. It definatley is Columbus tubing due to the flairing and ovalising. I know it came direct from Second Level the Kona distributor some years ago. Hope that helps. Matt

Sorry about that old stick, but One-eyed-Jim is an encyclopedia of cycling knowledge, so if there are any tiny gaps in his database, it is the solemn duty of any citizen of this parish to help him plug them.

I now notice that it is almost certainly a 1996 frame, exactly like the green one I pictured above, as it has a rear V-stop. It can't be a 97 as it has cable stops for a bottom-pull front mech. The top tube and head tube decals are from 97 however, indicating a respray around then. It's just possible that it's an earlier 96 frame and the V-stop was added when it was resprayed, but it doesn't really matter, it's there, that's the main thing.