• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

integrated seatposts (banned?)

Jul 24, 2009
142
0
0
Visit site
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.
 
Jul 16, 2009
201
0
0
Visit site
your on the button with the bars
only carbon and ultra thin alloy bars benefit from the larger diameter

the posts -all about stiffness
but if the UCI do ban- shows a complete disregard for the industry

so i wouldnt be surprised
 
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.

And it makes it impossible to pack the bike in a bike box. It IS a nice big place for a decal tho...another answer to a not asked question.
 
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
 
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.

Cool. Now there is no reason not to go back to traditional geometry frames and banish the ugly fashion crime that is compact frames to the dustbin of history.
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
2
0
Visit site
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

What's the justification for this rule change? I can't think of any advantage other than weight.
 

TRENDING THREADS