|gtx: our experiment . . .||morrison|
Jan 17, 2002 10:34 AM
|was a predictable failure (or success, depending on the results you wanted to obtain.)
There is a four mile loop in SD that many of us use for time trials, etc.. It's very flat (16 ft change in elevation throughout course), and the back side has a pretty rough surface.
I rode the loop 4 times. I started w/ al frame / al post. Second time, I switched to ti post. No discernible difference. Third time, ti frame, al post. Big difference. Fourth time, ti frame, ti post. No discernible difference.
In other words, the frame composition changed the feel dramatically, however, when I swapped out the seat posts, it didn't seem to make a bit of difference.
Of course, this was not exactly a scientific study.
|A couple of thoughts...||Cima Coppi|
Jan 17, 2002 10:59 AM
|Your idea for the experiment was a good one, but in my mind failed in the attempt to realistically evaluate all variables. I would not have expected to find a conclusion that a Ti seat post is radically different from an ALU post, since both have the same outer diameter, and probably close the same wall thickness. If I were to do this experiment, I would have added a carbon fibre post to the mix, and see if the "marketing" of CF really holds true to the seat post industry.
Ti seat posts are marketed as weight saving components, but not comfort increasing components. CF posts are marketed as both.
You have a good start, but more should be added to get a realistic answer to the question.
|re: gtx: our experiment . . .||gtx|
Jan 17, 2002 11:03 AM
|Hey, thanks! Good info. BTW, what where the frames and posts?
After my post, I saw that Santa Cruz was at least hyping this theory with their Roadster frame--stiff AL compact frame combined with a carbon fiber post. According to their marketing people. "We built it with a sloping top tube and spec'd a long carbon fiber seatpost so the bike will absorb road shock better than any hideously expensive ti frame."
Links here--the second is a "review" by Cycling Plus, which claims that the carbon post "acts as a simple but effective rider suspension system."
I was originally thinking ti post (like the Moots, which is known to be comfy and is popular with mtb riders) but maybe a special carbon post would be even better. Anyway, thanks again for your trouble.
Jan 17, 2002 3:05 PM
|I happen to have a Roadster. I love the bike. It is fast, light, nimble and wicked cool looking. As far as the post is concerned I have done the Thomson elite and the CT2 and really prefer the CT2 over the Thomson on this bike. It may be the fact that there is so much seat post exposed due to the very compact frame. I'm not sure. But there IS a noticable difference between Al and Carbon on this frame.
BTW, it is interesting to see all the negative comments on this post (ct2). I have one on my MTB as well and have not had any problems what-so-ever. I also intstalled it according to Eastons directions. IE: no grease, degrease seat tube, bla bla bla. Anyway I would recommend the post. And I weigh a scant 195....
|Thanks for doing the test.... so adding haiku to science...||PdxMark|
Jan 17, 2002 11:07 AM
|Ride ti and al frames
And add ti and al seat posts
Feel frames, not seat posts
ok, it's bad haiku, but a good test... thanks again