Kona Explosif Frame Columbus Max OR?

[one-eyed_jim]

The even more significant development in 1996 was the introduction of V-brakes, but typically enough Kona didn't fit them until 1997.

...

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.

It seems they weren't alone in that. There isn't a V-brake to be seen in the 1996 Cannondale catalogue, for example:

http://www.vintagecannondale.com/year/1996/1996.pdf

even on the full suspension bikes. Only the very fanciest Treks get them, even where the rest of the group is XT:

http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/Bike ... Brand=Trek

I know that V-brakes weren't available to customers until the very end of 1995. It could be that the OEM supply for the '96 model year was limited to those manufacturers with shorter lead times or particularly favourable relations with Shimano.

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.

The nice thing about Retrobike is there's always something old to learn!

 

[Anthony]

I guess this must be an example of a tapered Columbus Max seat tube, so I wonder if those with sharper eyes than mine can tell whether it's the same as a 95 Explosif?

 

[Andy R]

Nice frame anyway - the Columbus Max Explosif is the most desirable version (well - in my opinion it is, which isn't saying much I know).

I think that the only negative is very skimpy chainstay/tyre clearance. OK if you never want to use anything over 2.0" or 2.1" at most. I'm sure .25" more would have been possible (and a great improvement).
Or is it only the '95 that suffers from this and the '96 and '97 versions are better in this respect?

 

[Err]

Looks very similar to me.

 

[Anthony]

I think that the only negative is very skimpy chainstay/tyre clearance. OK if you never want to use anything over 2.0" or 2.1" at most. I'm sure .25" more would have been possible (and a great improvement).
Or is it only the '95 that suffers from this and the '96 and '97 versions are better in this respect?

Well I don't know, but take a ruler to your chainstays and measure how far apart they are the point where they're kicked in to make room for the tyre - it's at 4.5" from the centre of the bottom bracket shell. On the 96 Explosif, the chainstays are 73mm apart, as they are on a 94 Kilauea. But on a 97 Kilauea they are 80mm apart, suggesting maybe that's what they are on a 97 Explosif. Maybe that 7mm is what you're looking for?

A 97 Explosif size 18 needing a respray just sold the other day for not much at all, why didn't you buy that?

 

[Andy R]

Well I don't know, but take a ruler to your chainstays and measure how far apart they are the point where they're kicked in to make room for the tyre - it's at 4.5" from the centre of the bottom bracket shell. On the 96 Explosif, the chainstays are 73mm apart, as they are on a 94 Kilauea. But on a 97 Kilauea they are 80mm apart, suggesting maybe that's what they are on a 97 Explosif. Maybe that 7mm is what you're looking for?

A 97 Explosif size 18 needing a respray just sold the other day for not much at all, why didn't you buy that?

Why didn't I buy it ? Because I didn't see it, that's why and ideally I'd like to find a 17" one. Probably I won't have much luck there though...
Did the 18" one sell on here or eBay ?

Anyway, I'll get the verniers on my '95 frame tomorrow and let you know how it measures up.

Thanks anyway,

Andy.

 

[Andy R]

Well I don't know, but take a ruler to your chainstays and measure how far apart they are the point where they're kicked in to make room for the tyre - it's at 4.5" from the centre of the bottom bracket shell. On the 96 Explosif, the chainstays are 73mm apart, as they are on a 94 Kilauea. But on a 97 Kilauea they are 80mm apart, suggesting maybe that's what they are on a 97 Explosif.

Ok Anthony, a bit more Explosif trivia.....

On the 95 frame, measured at 4.5" (108.5mm) from the centre of the bottom bracket, you get the following results.
The deformation of the stays apparently gives a spacing of around 72mm but this is only at the top and bottom of the stays. Because the inner face of the manipulated area is still slightly radiused this reduces to about 66mm at the narrowest point (the centre line of the tube).

To make matters even worse the widest point (your 4.5" reference, where I have the pencil mark on the frame) isn't where it is most needed for tyre clearance - this point is more like 95mm back from the BB centre (depending on tyre profile - squarer will be further forward still) where the space between the stays is more like only 58mm measured on the tube centre.

So, I'm using (at the minute) Panaracer Trailraker 2.1" tyres, but luckily on Mavic 717 rims they only come up at about 50mm (so just under 2.0" then). Even so, this only leaves about 4mm clearance each side..

So - it's that dimension between, say, 90mm and 100mm back from BB centre that's the really important (and inadequate :roll: ) one. I'd be interested to know what that is on the '96 and '97 frames (and the later 853 ones, come to that).
A good job that I like the Trailrakers for wet conditions (most of the year then...) and that Fire XC Pro 1.95" are good for me too when it's a bit drier.

Andy.

 

[Harryburgundy]

Too rich for me...outbid...never mind