Seatpost question
Moderator: robbosmans
-
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:36 pm
Is there any benifit to a set back vs no set back seatpost?
Also, with the differnt diameter options what do you think is ideal?
This would be for a fully custom Ti road frame, so what do you think?
Thanks!
Also, with the differnt diameter options what do you think is ideal?
This would be for a fully custom Ti road frame, so what do you think?
Thanks!
2019 Baum Ristretto
Pain is my friend!
Pain is my friend!
- wheelbuilder
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:10 am
27.2 with a lot showing is my choice. Definitely aids compliance. (if carbon)
Never cheer before you know who is winning
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:36 pm
How much is "a lot"?? I am wanting a HZ TT so I don't think I will get heaps of post showing, but that is not a big deal to me as I suspect I will get all the compliance I want with a Ti frame that is fully butted to spec.wheelbuilder wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:56 am27.2 with a lot showing is my choice. Definitely aids compliance. (if carbon)
2019 Baum Ristretto
Pain is my friend!
Pain is my friend!
- vejnemojnen
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:11 pm
setback posts can be more comfortable due to greater compliance, esp if you ride with your saddle placed back as well. and look 99% of the time better.
I've found them more knee friendly, comfortable, and enables me to use my hamstrings and glutes more (and these muscles in my case far superiior to my quads)
I'd get a setback post.
I've found them more knee friendly, comfortable, and enables me to use my hamstrings and glutes more (and these muscles in my case far superiior to my quads)
I'd get a setback post.
+1 on a setback post which will be more compliant. However a setback post that is barely showing will still be way less compliant than a zero setback post with a lot showing. The key to compliance is a small diameter post and a lot of post showing.
Frame compliance/ride quality on a Ti frame is determined by tubing diameter and geometry. Butting will have a very little effect on compliance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Frame compliance/ride quality on a Ti frame is determined by tubing diameter and geometry. Butting will have a very little effect on compliance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 3669
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
R5 RCA would beg to differ...LionelB wrote:A road bike should always be designed around a setback post for proper look and rear tire clearance too.
Using Tapatalk
I am talking about a proper road bike.Nefarious86 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:46 amR5 RCA would beg to differ...LionelB wrote:A road bike should always be designed around a setback post for proper look and rear tire clearance too.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 3669
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Last time I checked they were a proper bike... Unless you're caught up in the nostalgia of poor geometry and compromised biomechanics.
Using Tapatalk
Last time I checked that was a joke
-
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:36 pm
I was thinking using a setback post was just to compensate for a frame that is a bit small? I guess my question is if I have custom geometry I can get the same position with either post by changing the frame dimensions, so is there much benefit to either option? We can leave asthetics out of the discussion as that’s not my question at this point.
Thanks
Thanks
2019 Baum Ristretto
Pain is my friend!
Pain is my friend!
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 3669
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Straight post is lighter.
Using Tapatalk
The RCa was specifically designed around a zero setback seatpost, and has slacker seat tube angles than a “proper” road bike in the same size would typically have. Simply a design choice by Vroomen and Co. But slacker seat tubes decrease the amount of clearance for the rear tire, particularly where shorter chainstays are being used. Setback posts have been used traditionally for years simply because on average, they were needed in order to get the rider in the most optimal riding position while maintaining a nice tight road race geometry. Today I think a lot of basic reasons for design have been either forgotten, ignored, or simply thrown out the window for some stupid marketing reason in an attempt to depart from the norm to sell more bikes to the easily swayed consumer. In the case of zero setback seatposts, that reason might be lighter weight for example, a dumb reason to compromise fit. And nothing looks dumber than a saddle clamped at either extreme of the rails. Well, I suppose there are much dumber things but don’t get me started.Nefarious86 wrote:R5 RCA would beg to differ...LionelB wrote:A road bike should always be designed around a setback post for proper look and rear tire clearance too.
As for skinny 27.2mm posts, they are fine but I don’t like the aesthetics of them sticking out of today’s rather large diameter seat tubes. Positionally, if you really want to get aero, then that will often require moving the saddle forward some, and a zero setback post may be fine, at the expense of a more traditional (and comfortable) position. I think very few people have such morphological abnormalities that makes a zero setback post a preferred option on a normal road bike. Mostly I think some folks might think it looks cooler (I don’t), or they don’t really have an ideal fit.
For the OP, who is getting a custom frame with a horizontal top tube, my personal opinion would absolutely be to go with a setback post. Especially with today’s trend of larger tires you want to keep as much clearance between the tire and seat tube as possible. Thus, all else equal the builder can go with a slightly steeper seattube than would be possible if the bike was being designed around a zero setback post.
Go with the setback post.
Last edited by Calnago on Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Agreed completelyCalnago wrote:The RCa was specifically designed around a setback seatpost, and has slacker seat tube angles (than a “proper” road bike) in the same size would typically have. Simply a design choice by Vroomen and Co. But slacker seat tubes decrease the amount of clearance for the rear tire, particularly where shorter chainstays are being used. Setback posts have been used traditionally for years simply because on average, they were needed in order to get the rider in the most optimal riding position while maintaining a nice tight road race geometry. Today I think a lot of basic reasons for design have been either forgotten, ignored, or simply thrown out the window for some stupid marketing reason in an attempt to depart from the norm to sell more bikes to the easily swayed consumer. In the case of zero setback seatposts, that reason might be lighter weight for example, a dumb reason to compromise fit. And nothing looks dumber than a saddle clamped at either extreme of the rails. Well, I suppose there are much dumber things but don’t get me started.Nefarious86 wrote:R5 RCA would beg to differ...LionelB wrote:A road bike should always be designed around a setback post for proper look and rear tire clearance too.
As for skinny 27.2mm posts, they are fine but I don’t like the aesthetics of them sticking out of today’s rather large diameter seat tubes. Positionally, if you really want to get aero, then that will often require moving the saddle forward some, and a zero setback post may be fine, at the expense of a more traditional (and comfortable) position. I think very few people have such morphological abnormalities that makes a zero setback post a preferred option on a normal road bike. Mostly I think some folks might think it looks cooler (I don’t), or they don’t really have an ideal fit.
For the OP, who is getting a custom frame with a horizontal top tube, my personal opinion would absolutely be to go with a setback post. Especially with today’s trend of larger tires you want to keep as much clearance between the tire and seat tube as possible. Thus, all else equal the builder can go with a slightly steeper seattube than would be possible if the bike was being designed around a zero setback post.
Go with the setback post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk