Calling Kona Experts...

[Augustus]

I think I want a simple and light Steel Explosif frame.

I'm figuring that the 1994 era must be pretty light as the 'Race Lite' Cinder Cone i crashed into on my Trekker bent in two as it was so thin tubed. Was this a particularly light year or did they get considerably lighter?

And I reckon I want a 1 & 1/8th headtube, when did they first appear?

And how does Kona geometry size up? Got a friend with a 19in '99 Explosif that's smaller than my 17.5in Merlin frame. ???

Any info/ help greatly appreciated.

 

[cce]

kona measure Centre to top and drop the top tube pretty low, this means they come up fairly long for their top tube heights. 5ft 10 here and ride an 18in

1994 was the first year for slightly longer top tubes, geometry then stayed constant up to 1996/1997, with progressive refinements in materials over this time. explosif has always had a decent tubeset (except when it was scandium) i think columbus did the tubes for most of the years around 94-97 but someone will be along to correct me shortly

 

[JeRkY]

my 93 has 1 1/8th

 

[Geoff]

I think by and large they still kept getting lighter up to about 1998 if I recall correctly, by which time it was yummy 853.

 

[Will Palmer]

Both my '93 and '94 are 1 1/8th and 19" and 20" respectively (I'm 6'2")

I prefer the ride and the look of the 19" to be honest, even though the 20" should fit me better...

 

[Will Palmer]

Brochures for a fair bit of the 90's with dimensions and tubing materials can be found at.. http://www.konaretro.com/showarticle.php?path=articles/catalogues/

 

[Joe]

buy mine Wu

 

[Augustus]

buy mine Wu

Go on then...I dare you to sell it....

 

[Anthony]

Size-wise they made them half an inch longer from 1994 onwards, and I should have thought if your XLM is a 17.5 it would be the same as a 94-onwards size 19 Explosif. i.e., both with a c-c seat tube of 16ish, effective top tube quoted 23.4/23.5, head tube 4.75/similar.

Frame weight-wise, I have the impression that the 94/95 frames were the same and the 96/97 frames were the same, and the 96/97 sound like the lightest ever - when they went to 853 in 98/99 they made it burlier, so it was heavier than say a de Kerf 853 (and indeed than a Hot 853). Catalogue makes it sound as though 94 was the first year with db stays (but don't know for sure). 96/97 made with Columbus Max which I think is lighter (weight/strength) than Prestige. I agree with Geoff - I had a 92 Cinder Cone once and it was a nice frame, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near as light as the later ones.

 

[Mr. Zero]

There were only 2 differences between the 853 Explosifs and Hots which accounted for about ~100g weight difference in an 18" size*:

1. Explosif had seatstay mounted rear rack braze-ons, Hot did not.
2. Explosif dropouts were much more substantial, while the Hot sported very minimalist Ritchey dropouts.

It is my understanding that the 853 tube butting and diameter was the same on both models.
Either 853 model is a great handling light-weight frame. The Hot is just a little cleaner/racier. I recently traded in my 18" '98 Hot for a 17" '99 Explosif with no regrets.

I personally favor the 94/95 Kona frames constructed from the Tange Prestige Concept and Ultra Light tube sets. Prestige without a doubt is a lighter, more resilient tube set than 853. Beyond the marketing hype the reality of why 853 superseded Prestige in the late 90's was it was a comparable quality tube set at a significantly lesser price. Manufacturers were able to keep high-end steel relatively affordable in a period when it was beginning to fall out of favor. When builders started using 853 frame weight and stiffness went up on average compared to the same models previously built from Prestige.

I've not actually had a Columbus Kona frame on the scale, but I do know that the Columbus Max tubeset was typically heavier than Prestige.

*The weight comparison was carried out by me using a 18" '98 Hot frame compared to a 18" '99 Explosif frame.