Right, who’s got one, what do you think about it? What forks can it take – its listed with 120mm but some people are running it with 150mm? And finally what’s the tyre clearance like? Thank you very much! 😀

Edit: Am planning on SS it

I got very interested in this as pretty much every steel hardtail available is just too short. I reckon if you are going to rag a steel hardtail round the Lakes it’s not enough to be slack, it needs to be long too, properly long.

The Explosif fitted the bill or so I thought…..

Here’s Kona’s reply when I asked if I could run 150mm forks on it

Hi, the Explosif tops out at 120mm fork. You really do need to keep it the travel it
was made for. It’s the most travel we find to me reasonable on a hardtail; longer and the
handling gets very strange as you go through the travel.

When Dr Dew draws up a frame the first thing in the picture is the fork. After that the frame
follows. A longer fork will slacken he angles of the frame and cause the steering to wander on
climbs and the tire to push and loose traction on descents.

Also since the fork is no longer held at it’s ideal angle to function extra energy will go into
bending it instead of compressing it. Plus since most forks use a bushing submerged in oil the
loose knocking feel when the fork is topped out will be increased. And last since the longer fork
is a longer lever in a big impact or overload the chance of that force being sent into the frame
and damaging it is greater.

Also we don’t spec the bikes with a less than ideal travel fork; holding a few percent back so
owners have to change that later. It comes out of the box with its right geometry ready to roll.

So while putting the longer fork on won’t break your bike immediately it will increase the
fatigue cycle and reduce the frame lifespan. We have put a lot of energy into testing this
situation and stock is where it’s at.

Happy Trails!

Fair enough for warranty but quite frankly telling people that a hardtail can’t have more than 120mm travel without it’s handling being crap is jibberish. Then they tell us the fork stops compressing and starts flexing instead? Eh?

So to cut a long story short if you run long forks it will probably be ok but if it isn’t you won’t get a warranty. What a shame, Kona (like everyone else) very nearly got it right.

What most steel hardtail riders want that I know is a Cotic Soul or Stanton Slackline with the new Kona length and an ability to run 140-150-160mm forks. That’s riders that mainly ride in the Lakes so a 120mm Explosif may be fantastic elsewhere but not enough for my ageing carcass.

Honzo ti, then ….

Although from a personal point of view I would agree with Kona..
I’ve yet to ride a LTHT that doesn’t feel like an orrible, divey, marketing trick..
Especially the frames with geo for 100mm – 120mm of travel like the early 456s etc
Proper steep technical riding with too much travel up front and none in back feels like riding a bucking bronco

Plus, your B.B. will end up in the stratosphere. Better off with something designed for LT forks, BFe?

Honzo ti, then ….

Why? That’s a 29er and

relatively slack 68 degree head angle

is about 4 degrees too steep.

Proper steep technical riding with too much travel up front and none in back feels like riding a bucking bronco

Exactly, that’s why it needs to be really slack and really long to compensate.

Curtis AM7 custom?

Yikes, over £1000 for a bike based on a Reynolds 520 chromoly frame???!

Think my Fire Mountain from 16 years ago was 520 chromoly and that was about £400 at the time….

Yikes, over £1000 for a bike based on a Reynolds 520 chromoly frame???!
Think my Fire Mountain from 16 years ago was 520 chromoly and that was about £400 at the time.

The Explosif is a great specced bike. Your Fire Mountain was from a time when every bike company were knocking out steel frames so no wonder it was cheap.

Hmmm.. I’m not a huge fan of that reply, I’ve ridden some excellent hardtail bikes at 140mm that haven’t felt out of place at all. Although their frame, their logic.

I’m actually not sure about the length, keeping it compact keeps the bike really flickable – its a different riding style to FS, the latter style is currently what (I feel) is being replicated with the longer top tube.

IMHO I think this changes again if you’re SS – the balance for steep climbs is not based on someone sitting down, but standing up. Then the weight balance focus is for flat/gradual inclines.

It’s strange it does cost that much compared to say a cotic soul in 853, but this dropouts/geometry..

I’m actually not sure about the length, keeping it compact keeps the bike really flickable – its a different riding style to FS, the latter style is currently what (I feel) is being replicated with the longer top tube.

I find the fickability comes from the chainstay length not the reach. Hardtails geometry changes a lot when the fork compresses unlike a full suspension so it needs to be slack and long to compenstate and keep the body in a neutral position. If the reach is short it just throws your weight too far forward and to compensate you ride too far over the back which makes a slack bike wander.

I think Kona have got the reach spoton at 460mm for the large, that’s the same as the Process 153 and ideal without being Chris Porter absurd.

BFE feels sh1te at anything over 140 (compromised at that), feels like you have only just got away with an OTB when bottoming out on steep chutes, where the same terrain feels like nothing with a short travel FS IME.

I am inclined to agree 120-140 max for a HT without very slack geo! where handling will be compromised elsewhere.

I have one, a 17″ frame and have been running it with Pikes 120-150mm and it has been fun. Only flick it up to150mm on steep down hills and it feels fine on that.

Frame size is funny, I went for a 17″, but changing to a 19″ one due to it feeling to squashed up (I’m 5’10”).

Great bike

.I find the fickability comes from the chainstay length not the reach.

Agree