Carbon seatposts - comfort & weight considerations

[scottcw]

Currently using the Salsa seatpost, which I love because of the micro-adjustments on the angle. I am looking at carbon seatposts and have some questions... are they really more comfortable than others - do they absorb the road better? are there any rider weight issues? finally, do any have a great system for locking in the fore/aft adjustment and the angle adjustment separately?

[Ozz]

carbon posts are a couple grams lighter than alloy, they tend to crack easily during installation, and there is anecdotal evidence that they absorb road shock. However, there is just as much evidence that they do not.

On the plus side, they are much more expensive...so you have that going for you! ;)

Just my humble opinion.... :cool:

[scottcw]

Thanks! guess I will stick with ye olde Salsa.

[JackL]

I've never owned a carbon seatpost, but seriously wonder how much a seatpost can contribute to shock absorbtion compared to the saddle and rails. I can push on my saddle and see it flex at the rails, and can see the saddle shell deform; I certainly can't see the seatpost deflecting. I suppose it could move a bit in the fore & aft direction.

I did see a carbon Record seatpost that was snapped at the collar due to overtightening. I believe the posts were designed to resist bending and axial loads but not circumferencial crushing from a seatpost collar. Maybe this problem has been fixed in newer carbon posts.

[jrm]

Just bought one and can tell a difference from my thomson. It feels a lot like the feedback you get from a carbon fork. Definitely worth it I think. :banana:

[djg]

I've had. Although I guess you can get a black anodized alloy post if you look around.

By and large, cf posts are a bit lighter than alloy posts. Depending on what post you are contemplating replacing, this may be a truly minor bit of weight savings. Cf posts tend to cost more than alloy posts. And CF posts tend to look different.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend any CF post based on anticipated performance enhancement. One possible exception is the Look ergopost, which provides a ton of fore/aft adjustability, which is useful for those who need it (for whom it's useful) and not so much for others.

[va rider]

I had an Easton cf post. After 2 seasons (5k miles), it broke on my on a ride. I had to empty water bottle upside down on the post to finish the ride. Easton replaced it at cost, $55. I traded it to my lbs for a Thomson alloy post (The setback on the Easton was too much).

Anyway, I can't tell the difference between the two posts. As far as weight, the Thomson weighs about 12 grams more than the cf posts. If 12 grams matters, go with the cf. Otherwise, I would bet that you couldn't tell the difference between the two, only your wallet can.

[dave thompson]

I've had a half-dozen different carbon posts through the years. However for the past two years Thomson Elite posts have graced all our family bikes. They're strong, light, durable, easy to deal with and I can tell no difference in ride quality between them and all the other carbon posts.

[Elefantino]

I had a USE Alien. Didn't think it was that much better than my Record stick, but it was carbon. Then I ad a chance to pick up a new Thomson Elite for cheap, thinking that I'd sell it on eBay. Tried it, liked it, sold Alien.

For my rear, no difference. Except people no longer come up to me and say, "Boy, that's a cool carbon seatpost. You must be really cool, too."

[lewislw1]

Anyone have experience with the Thompson Elite Masterpiece? (The lighter version of their standardd one) In particular, any comments about practical rider weight limits or whether 190-195 is too much for this lightweight Al alloy post?

Len