Kona boffins- frame geometry and recommended size

[Anthony]

l dont believe anybody would be able to tell the difference between the frames riding characteristics if the two frames were to go head to head with the same spec.

No Matt, you've met one, very much so too.

It just goes to show how impressions differ. All my frames have had various specifications, and I would say that not only does each of the frames have a different feel, but also to me each frame's feel is the same regardless of which specification it has.

Of the Columbus Max Explosifs, I have only ridden the 1996 version. I think it isn't generally known that, while each of the three versions had the same top and down tubes, the three types of rear triangle were completely different - and I would imagine they contribute to noticeable differences in the ride characteristics. I believe that the 95 frame had the same stays as the 94 Explosif, while the 96 frame had exceptionally slender seat stays, which give a much smoother, more sophisticated feel. The 97 frame apparently had Columbus stays (possibly the same as the 97 Kilauea?) and they are much more beefy.

If you compare the 96 Explosif to the 97 Kilauea, the Explosif has fatter/stiffer/heavier top and down tubes, but the slender stays that I mentioned make its ride still very smooth and its weight a fraction lighter. So if the 97 Explosif is a combination of the 96 front end and the 97 Kilauea's stays, I would expect it to be stiffer overall, and quite a racey bike. Whether that makes it the best of the three, as Andy suggests, is a matter of personal taste. But I think he is/was a racer, so for him probably it would be.

 

[unkleGsif]

All I know, is that I love my 2001 Kilauea, if not partly because it's different from all the other, far more common, pre '98 Kilauea's

G

 

[konaman1]

l dont believe anybody would be able to tell the difference between the frames riding characteristics if the two frames were to go head to head with the same spec.

No Matt, you've met one, very much so too.

It just goes to show how impressions differ. All my frames have had various specifications, and I would say that not only does each of the frames have a different feel, but also to me each frame's feel is the same regardless of which specification it has.

Of the Columbus Max Explosifs, I have only ridden the 1996 version. I think it isn't generally known that, while each of the three versions had the same top and down tubes, the three types of rear triangle were completely different - and I would imagine they contribute to noticeable differences in the ride characteristics. I believe that the 95 frame had the same stays as the 94 Explosif, while the 96 frame had exceptionally slender seat stays, which give a much smoother, more sophisticated feel. The 97 frame apparently had Columbus stays (possibly the same as the 97 Kilauea?) and they are much more beefy.

If you compare the 96 Explosif to the 97 Kilauea, the Explosif has fatter/stiffer/heavier top and down tubes, but the slender stays that I mentioned make its ride still very smooth and its weight a fraction lighter. So if the 97 Explosif is a combination of the 96 front end and the 97 Kilauea's stays, I would expect it to be stiffer overall, and quite a racey bike. Whether that makes it the best of the three, as Andy suggests, is a matter of personal taste. But I think he is/was a racer, so for him probably it would be.

Maybe that was too big a generalisation, l should have put l dont believe that the majority of riders would be able to tell the difference between between the frames riding characteristics if the two frames were to go head to head with the same spec. (A slight back pedal)

The '97 does indeed have much thicker seat/chain stays and they end in the later socket/lug style drop out. This was probably to address the weak point on the earlier frames. We have seen a few on here that have cracked where the chainstay meets the dropout.

The '95 that l have is a lighter frame than the '97, 4.2lbs to 4.4lbs. Another thing to note is that the on the '95 the top tube and seat tube junction is much neater, the bi ovalised tube is actually curved to meet the seat tube, were as the later Columbus Max frames it is cut off and filled.

 

[parma_ham]

Someone has offered me a 1997 17" explosif on here but it's too much for me atm. What year was your exploif Stevo? Were both bikes fully rigid or hard tails? Did the explosif just feel too stiff. the geometry is pretty similar no?

Ben

My Explosif pictured on the first page here is actually the Reynolds 853 framed '98 model but I justify including it in the >'97 threads by virtue of the fact it was available from September '97, therefore the bike was made in '97 and the frame itself even earlier

Why is the cut off date 1997 for being retro? Did things suddenly change in the industry around this time ?

there's a 17.5" explosif ine the ads section

G

Am I going mad, where :? ?

 

[parma_ham]

double post

 

[parma_ham]

Triple post :roll:

sorry

 

[FluffyChicken]

...
Am I going mad,...

Given the last few posts, not hard to tell

 

[parma_ham]

Just get it or, if you don't want it, pass the details on to me .

The seller has had a change of heart and has decided to keep it after all. Shame, if the condtion really was good I think I would have bought it. I might take a punt on that 16" 1998 kilauea on the bay at the moment.

Ben

 

[We_are_Stevo]

Nice Reynolds 631 frame, but I'd be tempted to wait for a Columbus tubeset??

 

[Anthony]

The seller has had a change of heart and has decided to keep it after all. Shame, if the condtion really was good I think I would have bought it. I might take a punt on that 16" 1998 kilauea on the bay at the moment.
Ben

It's a size 18.