The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
ihavenolimbs said:If so, good riddance I say. Integrated seatposts tend to:
1/ Have poorer shock absorption
2/ Have worse aero properties (round posts are typically the most aero since the legs generate a lot of turbulence.)
3/ Have reduced adjustability range, including height, making it harder to be fit correctly and reducing resale value.
4/ Be ugly.
Another stupidity that seems to be everywhere is the moronic 31.8 mm handlebar clamps. Why oh why? The 26 mm clamps tend to be stronger in fatigue tests. They are lighter and more aero too. I can't understand why 31.8 mm clamps are so popular.
Tugboat said:My intepretation is that the rule dictates that the top tube must join at the top of the seat tube, although there is an allowance for a sloping top tube to join at a height 8cm lower than the top-tube/head-tube junction which could allow for integrated/semi integrated types providing the top of the seat tube is not higher than the top/head tube junction.
Tugboat said:In answer to the OP... my understanding is that seat posts are exempt from the rule 1.3.020 crackdown (1:3 ratio and frame design) until 1 Jan 2010.
My intepretation is that the rule dictates that the top tube must join at the top of the seat tube, although there is an allowance for a sloping top tube to join at a height 8cm lower than the top-tube/head-tube junction which could allow for integrated/semi integrated types providing the top of the seat tube is not higher than the top/head tube junction.
Could be way off the mark though. Full rules are here... http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34033&LangId=1
richwagmn said:What's the justification for this rule change? I can't think of any advantage other than weight.