Kona Explosif 1997 team edition

[bills_shack]

Re: Kona Explosif 1997 team edition: building & collecting

Enjoying watching this come along.

I do have a question. If the team bikes were all re-painted by the same company why are the decals not all in the same place ? i have noticed the Kona decal on the down tube is much lower on this frame than the others that have been shown in this thread ?

 

[al-onestare]

Re: Kona Explosif 1997 team edition: building & collecting

I do have a question. If the team bikes were all re-painted by the same company why are the decals not all in the same place ? i have noticed the Kona decal on the down tube is much lower on this frame than the others that have been shown in this thread ?

We talk about this earlier in the thread: different painters and / or knocked up in a rush = variances.

Have you thought about painting your Z2's or just going to leave them? im suprised they didnt paint them yellow to match the front of the bike!
And does this mean you are up and running now? looking forward, as i expect you are, to seeing it finished

Also, on the painted Ti frames, is there any purpose to leaving the rear dropouts and stays unpainted? or was it just asthetics!?

Mark

I also mentioned earlier in the thread that I won't be repainting anything. It's only original once plus to get the exact colour match would be nigh-on impossible. But more importantly, Roland and others were riding on slime green Z2's, so that's good enough for me!

Pip kindly covered the rear drop-outs. I think, certainly to start with, they made a conscious decision to paint the entire frame because it was easier. It also 'disguised' the frames but I really don't buy into that story anymore. Anyone with a decent knowledge of frames, certainly the producers, would have seen the differences a mile away. After that, and the variances, all sorts of reasons I suspect: preference, whoever and whomever was painting them, etc, etc.

 

[al-onestare]

Re: Kona Explosif 1997 team edition: building & collecting

Little incoming progress update.

Shifters are on their way, really pleased I got the exact ones I was after (no indicator windows for me thanks!) along with a fresh new pair of black Yeti grips (the normal, non lock-on type). I need to check the stash to see what cables I have left before I order anything new along with the chain.

In the meantime, here's a picture of Pete Wedge, another of the team riders from 97 from the Canadian nationals. Spot the jersey sleeve variance from the normal retail version.

 

[Pipmeister]

Re:

Slightly off topic from the build of this bike, but definitely related to the Team Riders and their bikes mentioned so far.

In this period 1996 – 1998, have we seen any riders on a Green and Yellow Rasta Flame King Kahuna?

My understanding is that some, but not all Team Riders found the Hei Hei too flexy, which gave rise to the development of the somewhat stiffer King Kahuna model introduced in 1996.

We can see how the 1997 Columbus Explosif was developed with presumably the same objective in mind. Some owners of the 1997 Explosif admit to it being too harsh compared to its predecessors – indeed Al, I have read your comments of how it can kick like a mule! I assume that the professional riders were pushing the bikes harder than ever by now with the development of more efficient forks, so I can see how any frame’s forgiving ride qualities would be a disadvantage when trying to win a race - regardless of all day riding comfort.

I recall reading some time back that the 1997 Rasta K.K. owned by Canuck could be an ex-Team Rider’s bike.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19592&start=850

As more pictures of these bikes are being discovered, it is interesting to note that the Hei Heis are looking decidedly more ridden and used compared to the King Kahunas that we have seen.

Pip.

 

[Adam_S]

Re: Kona Explosif 1997 team edition: building & collecting

My understanding is that the difference between the 96 and 97 Explosif is more due to the 96 having a nasty tendency to fail around the droupouts.

Incidentally the 97 stays are not a standard Columbus tube. I found this out the hard way when trying to get a new chainstay welded into a '97 so either they're good old 4130 or Kona managed to get Columbus to custom draw some tubes for them.

 

[al-onestare]

Re: Re:

Slightly off topic from the build of this bike, but definitely related to the Team Riders and their bikes mentioned so far.

In this period 1996 – 1998, have we seen any riders on a Green and Yellow Rasta Flame King Kahuna?

My understanding is that some, but not all Team Riders found the Hei Hei too flexy, which gave rise to the development of the somewhat stiffer King Kahuna model introduced in 1996.

We can see how the 1997 Columbus Explosif was developed with presumably the same objective in mind. Some owners of the 1997 Explosif admit to it being too harsh compared to its predecessors – indeed Al, I have read your comments of how it can kick like a mule! I assume that the professional riders were pushing the bikes harder than ever by now with the development of more efficient forks, so I can see how any frame’s forgiving ride qualities would be a disadvantage when trying to win a race - regardless of all day riding comfort.

I recall reading some time back that the 1997 Rasta K.K. owned by Canuck could be an ex-Team Rider’s bike.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19592&start=850

As more pictures of these bikes are being discovered, it is interesting to note that the Hei Heis are looking decidedly more ridden and used compared to the King Kahunas that we have seen.

Pip.

Great question Pip and a good summary. Logic would say that at some point, they did ride them. By the time we reach the 1999/00, Dario, Ryder and the others were definitely riding KK - it was the only weapon of choice to be fair, but what a weapon.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGqJRc_m34w[/youtube]

http://cog.konaworld.com/tituesday-dari ... ng-kahuna/

Rewinding to 97/98, they were defo on Hei Hei. Even on the sketchiest of shots, we usually get a good look at the headtube and there's no gusseting. That said, I'm sure they tried it out and eventually switched...and if anyone has any shots of those, please share them!

My understanding is that the difference between the 96 and 97 Explosif is more due to the 96 having a nasty tendency to fail around the droupouts.

Incidentally the 97 stays are not a standard Columbus tube. I found this out the hard way when trying to get a new chainstay welded into a '97 so either they're good old 4130 or Kona managed to get Columbus to custom draw some tubes for them.

Interesting. Obviously there's the drop-out differences but reading the wealth of information on this site, particularly from Anthony, there is a general sentiment that the 97 was too stiff compared with the 96. Others say the 97 was the best version they made, and the 98 was too heavy. I'm sure I read somewhere that the 97 was the only one made entirely with Columbus tubing which, would explain the stiffness, I'm convinced it's not 4130 because of that and the weight.

That all said, this was a transitional era!

 

[Pipmeister]

Re: Re:

I'm sure I read somewhere that the 97 was the only one made entirely with Columbus tubing which, would explain the stiffness, I'm convinced it's not 4130 because of that and the weight.

That all said, this was a transitional era!

It would appear that the 1997 Explosif Stays and Seat Tube were indeed custom drawn by Columbus to Kona's spec.

I believe that this was in a post by Anthony that I saved.

Constructed entirely of Columbus Nivacrom Max OR tubing.

Tubing wall thickness:
• Top - 0.7/0.4/0.7,
• Down - 0.8/0.5/0.8
• Seat Tube - 1.3/0.6/0.9 custom drawn for Kona by Columbus.
• Columbus drawn, oversized seat stays.

Pip.

 

[Adam_S]

Re: Re:

Interesting. Obviously there's the drop-out differences but reading the wealth of information on this site, particularly from Anthony, there is a general sentiment that the 97 was too stiff compared with the 96. Others say the 97 was the best version they made, and the 98 was too heavy. I'm sure I read somewhere that the 97 was the only one made entirely with Columbus tubing which, would explain the stiffness, I'm convinced it's not 4130 because of that and the weight.

That all said, this was a transitional era!

I can't imagine that the 98 is heavier than the 97. IIRC it was 853 at the front and something like 731 at the back. What might have added a bit of weight were the components it was specced with. Bomber Z2's weren't exactly light back in the day and I don't remember it having particularly amazing wheels either.

97 v 96. Hmm. Obviously I'm biased here as I've been riding my 97 for 19 years now and love it to bits. I've never found it too stiff over bumps and I've always run 1.8" or 1.9" tyres at about 60 psi. It's definitely stiff and responsive to bursts of power which I guess comes from that cross ovalised front triangle. I have another bike which is a Rock Lobster Ti cyclocross bike and compared to the Explosif it's mushy as anything when you stomp on the pedals. When I've had a go on the Mrs' 853 Explosif it's not had quite the same feel as the 97 either.

I guess I'm going to have to get on with building up the 96 I acquired and go for a spin to compare with the 97. Looking at the back end it's got to be a bit more supple over the bumps but it'll be interesting to see how it compares in terms of flex around the bottom bracket.

Out of interest, do we know for certain what the back end of the 96 is made of?

 

[Pipmeister]

Re:

A quick search of this site resulted in the following:

>1996 Columbus Max - 4.22lbs / 1.914kg
>1997 Columbus Nivacrom Max OR - 4.40lbs / 1.995kg
>1998 Reynolds 853 Maintubes & 725 Stays - 4.45lbs / 2.018kg
>1999, the '853' Explosif had gone down to generic 4130 non heat-treated stays and weighed 4.5lbs / 2.041kg

I'm still searching to see what the rear end of a 1996 was made from.

Pip

 

[mk one]

Re: Re:

A quick search of this site resulted in the following:

>1996 Columbus Max - 4.22lbs / 1.914kg
>1997 Columbus Nivacrom Max OR - 4.40lbs / 1.995kg
>1998 Reynolds 853 Maintubes & 725 Stays - 4.45lbs / 2.018kg
>1999, the '853' Explosif had gone down to generic 4130 non heat-treated stays and weighed 4.5lbs / 2.041kg

I'm still searching to see what the rear end of a 1996 was made from.

Pip

Love this site just out of curiosity, as we are on the subject of materials, are the dropouts made from the same material as the tubeset?
And Pip, you would'nt happen to have the wall thickness, or a link, of any other years, '96 for example?

Cheers

Mark