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.