Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Integrated seat pillars

Started by nbfman · · Last activity · 4 posts · 1,481 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
2 October 2008
Last activity
4 October 2008
Original author
nbfman
Posts
4
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,481
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–4 of 4
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Just wanted to see what people thought of integrated seat pillars. I noticed that companies like Look (595) and Giant (TCR Advanced) were moving in that direction, and I thought it would be a growing trend. Integrated pillars seem like they would eliminate problems with slippage or over-tightening at the clamp. Also, aero shapes seem easier to implement. Admittedly, these are probalby minor issues. Colnago appears to have stayed with the conventional approach in their 2009 range.

    What are your thoughts on the pros/cons of each? Maybe no clear advantage to either, and it's whatever looks best to you?

  2. They are a "cost is not object" type design.

    If you want to travel with your bike, they are a problem
    If you want to sell your bike they are a problem (once cut you can't make them longer again).
    The tooling required right up the post is larger, that pushes frame cost up.

    I'd say there are less frame makers out there using integrated posts than those that don't.

    I like the aero post design Giant are now using. Only down side is you can only use one brand of post.

  3. nbfman said:

    Just wanted to see what people thought of integrated seat pillars. I noticed that companies like Look (595) and Giant (TCR Advanced) were moving in that direction, and I thought it would be a growing trend. Integrated pillars seem like they would eliminate problems with slippage or over-tightening at the clamp. Also, aero shapes seem easier to implement. Admittedly, these are probalby minor issues. Colnago appears to have stayed with the conventional approach in their 2009 range.

    What are your thoughts on the pros/cons of each? Maybe no clear advantage to either, and it's whatever looks best to you?

    Like 'compact' for most riders, it does nothing in terms of performance, or making your ride better. It is a way to differentiate your frame from another, then making wild claims of performance advantages, in order to sell your frame rather than the other guy's frame. 'Problems' of slippage or overtightening are not really problems that needed to be addressed by this design. For a small bike shop, it makes it tough to have proper frames to test ride. For MO, it makes it tough to sell over the phone/internet, not only to pack but also to sell the proper seat height. Drives the buyer to a bike shop, something MO doesn't want you to do.

    Like 1.5 inch lower HS bearings and propriatary BB shells, it is for selling, the thing of the marketeers. There is a whole list of goofy stuff that comes on bikes these days and the list just keeps getting longer.

  4. Thanks for your thoughts. It was a stretch to think of strong reasons for them, and the comments seem to confirm that there are none. Not that they don't work. Don't mean to offend any owners.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.