Seatpost dilemma

Lysander":3libq12u said:
Ye'd also have to drill a hole @ 30mm down from the top of the post, and cut a slot down to it.........theoretically, if ye found two posts to fit, ye could do it, but ye might die.............. :p

Probably better to have two posts, longy for XC and shorty for DH, change them for what ridin' ye are doing.
I got an NC-17 telescope post off eBay for aboot £30- does the job and cheap enuff!

agreed, get a short strong one and a long light one!! you have a common size and saddles are cheap!
 
Lysander said:
ye could do it, but ye might die.............. :p quote]

:shock: Hhhhmmmm, might not be a good idea

Not to sure about having two setups, I really want to be able to ride to the top in comfort then drop the seat low enough so I dont damage the crown jewels when/if I land some big jumps and drop offs

Never seems to be anything 30.9 dia on ebay, ive looked lots :!:

I suppose I will just have to bite the bullet and pay out for a new telescopic seatpost :( Its gonna be painful as its going to cost more than my avid brakes cost from ebay......... such is life I spose
 
maybe you could put a WTD ad for a 30.9mm on here - I got a Ritchey for £9 posted in really good nick a couple of months back! Often folks sell them on to fund bling Thomson / Syncros WHY.

If your frame is anything like my Specialized Enduro you can run the seatpost pretty close to the spring as long as it doesn't touch it (for descents). Maybe get a long one, mark your max saddle height (for flat / uphill) and then chop it down with a hacksaw and a file (just make sure you leave a good 3" under your max height mark!)

or get a telescopic one - just concerned that you'll feel it flexing?!
 
My frame has a stop so I cant lower the post past the bottom of the seat stay.
There isnt enough movement to have the best of both worlds with a standard post
 
Although the black fork looks great, it's so long that I wonder whether you really need to be thinking about this 'dual-purpose' style of using it. You've changed the geometry hugely from what it was designed for, and I would guess that it's now better suited to downhill than to general/freeride uses.

The original specification shown on Bikepedia is a balanced design with 4.5"/115mm travel both ends and a zero bb drop.
http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/Bike ... &Type=bike
Your spec looks standard at the rear but 3-4" higher at the front, with consequently a well-negative bb drop. Also I would guess that fork is no lightweight.

I've never ridden a bike with a set up like that, so please don't take my word for it, but it looks to me like it's going to be great down a hill, but not so great on the flat, let alone uphill. And with such a high bb, is it really an advantage to have a long post?
 
Back
Top