Explosif Dream

[markwashington]

Reynolds 853 is retro (dates back to 1995). Shimano's 98 range is retro (virtually identical to 1996).

Surprised so many people want to shunt bikes off to the quiet end of the forum on the technicality of "98 colours".

I know where my 98 Klein will appear (frame and most parts launched in late 1995). Sue me :mrgreen:

If the 1998 Explosif frame was the same as the 1997 Explosif frame (like the 1998 and 1999) then I'd say fair enough, but they're made of a totally different steel. That and the Kona 1998 range is one of the prime examples of why the 1997-1998 split is valid, just look at the specs on the bikes from 1997 to 1998 and you'll see a move towards riser bars and freeride (whatever that is).

I own a 1998 Explosif and it's a 1998 bike.

 

[We_are_Stevo]

No-one is saying the two frames are the same...

...but even though it is a '98 model it was available for the whole of the last quarter of '97 so why shouldn't it (and mine for that matter) be showcased here?

It's just sour grapes to suggest otherwise IMO :|

 

[al-onestare]

It a '98 frame so it a 1998 modern Retrobike. Hence 1998+
The other stuff is irrelevant.

Bike world is in model years ;-)

And there we have it. If this is incorrect Mods then please let us know. By the way I love this bike. I also love a bit of structure and orderof things ;-)

 

[FluffyChicken]

No-one is saying the two frames are the same...

...but even though it is a '98 model it was available for the whole of the last quarter of '97 so why shouldn't it (and mine for that matter) be showcased here?

It's just sour grapes to suggest otherwise IMO :|

because bike model years are easier to talk about than digging and working out serial numbers to find when a frame was actually made. if it is good enough for the bike world then its good enough for here... a bike website.
there is a cut off, get over it. make that section what you want, if you don't post your bikes in there then it'll never kick off with the newer modern retrobikes and just be flooded with people thinking its a nice place to put there brand new nowt to do with Retro bikes in there. they should still be in offtopic in my opinion, but that is up to the mods of there.

 

[Barneyballbags]

It's a lovely bike, irrespective of which section of the forum it should go in.

Personally I'd put it in post 1997, purely because the frame is a '98.

 

[FluffyChicken]

as for the bike... I like it some nice choice parts. be nice to talk about it outside of the in here/there talk.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I don't even agree with the 97 'retro' concept, but as it is the accepted policy here it is clearly 98 as a build, but you are correct in suggesting there is interest in the components, so as long as you are talking about them I guess it is cool.

 

[shaun]

Does anyone know if a 98 bike will ever be classed as a retro, or will it ALWAYS only be pre 97 even in say 5 years time. :?: :?:

 

[Midorimage]

My 1998 Kona Kilauea is in the 1998 section, but I think the frame is retro and not at all modern. It has the classic Kona steel geometry and the frame lacks disc tabs. I feel there are plenty of bikes that are retro in the newer section. Anyways.. if you look at the names of the sections, Reader's Bikes 1998 --> and Reader's MTBs --> 1997... it doesn't mention, 'Retro', just dates. I think the moderators feel there needs to be a cut off date somewhere, just so people to know where to post their builds. Anyways a nice bike is a nice bike.. I wouldn't think any less of a bike if it was in the post 1998 section.

 

[magas]

pre or post 97, I don't care. All I'm interested in is, how the build is going on and how the bikes sits at them moment.