1996 Kona Hot

[Geoff]

The 98 Explosif definitely had rack mounts, see here:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Kona-Explosif-199 ... 286.c0.m14

I'm gonna go looking for a 97 now...

Edit again:

Found some! A Hot I say!

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL433/16 ... 313002.jpg

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

Also, wow, Thorpie's one is in great nick!

 

[KonaHoathy]

so i guess its reasonably safe to say the 97' one did too, and my frame does not have them, so i guess it is a hot... either '96 or '97?

 

[Geoff]

Cable routing would normally indicate 96, not sure with the Hots though, I guess could be slightly different depending on what batches were build when, and if Altitude swapped routings at the same time as the normal Konas.

 

[Anthony]

The 95-97 Explosifs were made of Columbus Max which has biovalised and tapered top and down tubes, whereas the Reynolds 853 on the 96-98 Hots is a round tube. The 97 Hot and Explosif both had top tube routing for the front mech. The 98 Hot and Explosif both had top tube routing for both mechs. The 95 Hot was made by Tom Teasdale out of Tange Prestige.

Safe to conclude then that this is a 96 Hot made by Altitude Cycles of Chico, California. I think the 96 Hot was one of the first mtbs ever to be made out of 853 incidentally. Although it's fair to say that the revolutionary properties of 853 have always been rather exaggerated (but that's marketing for you). 853 is in fact very similar to 753, but the formulation was changed to allow it to be TIG-welded, whereas 753 could only be brazed which wasn't really a commercial proposition by that time.

Nevertheless, 12 years is quite a long time for 853 to have reigned as arguably the benchmark tube for steel mtbs (although Columbus wouldn't agree!)

 

[KonaHoathy]

well, i am glad the title is correct.

 

[andrewl]

looking at it i think is a retro-fit, the stop is ever so slightly different, and isn't fitted exactly straight, the brazing looks different too.

I thought it looked out of line, but wasn't sure if it was just the photo.

I can't believe there's been so much discussion about the frame, when really the finer details really say that it can't be anything else other than a 96 Hot.

Anyway how does it ride with the new fox forks??

 

[KonaHoathy]

Ah ha! thats the real question isn't it. I haven't been able to ride it still! Its not been a good week for time. But it's OK, I am going to the Isle of Wight for 2 weeks tommorow and taking it with me! Should be awesome.
Do people think that an 80mm fork is really too long for it? it doesn't seem out of place.

 

[Thorpie]

Re: ?

looks like a 1997 explosif with Hot decals on!?

might be wrong of course.

Here's a 97 Explosif for comparison. Clearly shows the Columbus Max ovalised tubing.

Trevor.

 

[andrewl]

Do people think that an 80mm fork is really too long for it? it doesn't seem out of place.

I'd say 80mm is the ideal length fork for it, but as others will point out I find a 100mm Z1 perfectly acceptable on my King Kahuna.

Either way the fox will be lighter, stiffer and have better damping than anything made in 96, but they do need regular maintenance (oil in the left leg in particular) to avoid scoring the anodising from a lack of bushing lubrication.

 

[Anthony]

Do people think that an 80mm fork is really too long for it? it doesn't seem out of place.

As Andrew says, it's a matter of taste and the fact that the Fox works hugely better than the elastomer Judy XC that the Hot was designed for will go a long way to compensate even for those who like their 71 degree head angle and wouldn't ever want to see it reduced. I would guess that the Fox has an A-C of c45.5cms, while the Judy was c43, so taking account also of greater sag, the head angle with the Fox is going to be 69.5-70. Too little for some, perfectly fine for others. And certainly not outlandishly low for anybody. And if you liked the bike with Dukes, it's bound to be better with these!