a fine? solution to the ever present Brooks setback issue

[eddief]

gorgeous, $$$$.

makes me not want to use a seat pack ever again.

http://www.rivbike.com/#product=11-048

[dave thompson]

It looks surprised. :eek:

[catulle]

Huh...? I'd rather not, I think...

[duke]

Just think of the wheelies you could do....
duke

[MilanoTom]

Huh...? I'd rather not, I think...

You don't think they could have found a worse looking saddle, do ya?

[paczki]

It looks surprised. :eek:

I think it looks like it will eat your leg once it's done with the seat. Or worse. Scary. :eek:

[goonster]

The clamp portion, which looks like a frog, is the same on the age-old NJS certified SP72 post that the fixie kids get all moist over.

That photo, with the Selle Anatomica, presents the most extreme possible setback example. This post is intended to solve an issue with certain Brooks saddles, whose rails don't allow them to be pushed back very far.

[Too Tall]

Thanks Goonie.
Nice idea and the worst picture ever. Why wouldn't they show it with the saddle centered? This gives lunk heads who slam their saddle all the way back hope fer cryin' out loud that's just wrong :rolleyes: Plane wrong.

[jthurow]

I think this is the same post Soma posted on their blog (http://somafab.blogspot.com/2008/02/first-picture-of-el-toro.html) in Feb. The pic on their blog didn't show the amount of setback but I had no idea it'd be that much.

jimi

[barry1021]

Thanks Goonie.
Nice idea and the worst picture ever. Why wouldn't they show it with the saddle centered? This gives lunk heads who slam their saddle all the way back hope fer cryin' out loud that's just wrong :rolleyes: Plane wrong.

Exactly. Where the saddle would actually partially hide the clamp in this case and completely with other saddles, which is what makes this idea interesting to me.....

[sevencyclist]

Looks like there is no tilt angle adjustment, though I might be wrong.

I believe they took that picture to show how much setback it could have. I agree that this post would make the bike setup look "wrong". If you need that much setback, perhaps a different bike top tube length is needed.

[goonster]

Looks like there is no tilt angle adjustment, though I might be wrong.

Tilt can be adjusted. No worries.

If you need that much setback, perhaps a different bike top tube length is needed.

Well, yeah, but there are folks who go to rides with the top tube they have, not the top tube they'd like.

[Ken Robb]

Thanks Goonie.
Nice idea and the worst picture ever. Why wouldn't they show it with the saddle centered? This gives lunk heads who slam their saddle all the way back hope fer cryin' out loud that's just wrong :rolleyes: Plane wrong.
I read the description that Grant wrote in the catalog. He says this is a post to make a too-small frame fit if you just can't bear to give the frame up. The photo has it at the extreme to show just how far it can go. He doesn't really expect it to be ridden that far back by many people.

[palincss]

Looks like there is no tilt angle adjustment, though I might be wrong.

I believe they took that picture to show how much setback it could have. I agree that this post would make the bike setup look "wrong". If you need that much setback, perhaps a different bike top tube length is needed.

Wouldn't be much point in a seatpost with no tilt adjustment, would there? That's the same "head" as on the Jaguar and the S-83, I think; a very nice 2-bolt microadjusting head.

[MilanoTom]

The clamp portion, which looks like a frog, is the same on the age-old NJS certified SP72 post that the fixie kids get all moist over.

That photo, with the Selle Anatomica, presents the most extreme possible setback example. This post is intended to solve an issue with certain Brooks saddles, whose rails don't allow them to be pushed back very far.

It's a great idea. I had a lousy time getting Brooks saddles back far enough. After performing grinder surgery on some seat clamps with mixed results, I evenutally bought a Selcof Bi-Position. When I tightened it down, I discovered that the tilt didn't have a wide enough adjustment (which was "solved" by a thick shim under the clamp). If I was still using a Brooks, I'd spring for one of these.

Regards.
Tom

[goonster]

Grant has been lobbying Brooks to extend the clampable portion of the rails, I think they've agreed to do this on some models, but the change is a small one.

[Too Tall]

I read the description that Grant wrote in the catalog. He says this is a post to make a too-small frame fit if you just can't bear to give the frame up. The photo has it at the extreme to show just how far it can go. He doesn't really expect it to be ridden that far back by many people.
Again, bad freakin' idea. The post itself is brilliant in itself as a way to have a very nice post under a very old saddle design. The opposite of that notion is to suggest the post is a solution for a poorly fitting bike. Plane awful idea.
PS- I'd man hug Grant any day :)

[rsl]

It looks surprised. :eek:

Dave - I think you're on to something. That should be the official "wayback seatpost" icon from now on...

[Dustin]

It's a great idea. I had a lousy time getting Brooks saddles back far enough. After performing grinder surgery on some seat clamps with mixed results, I evenutally bought a Selcof Bi-Position. When I tightened it down, I discovered that the tilt didn't have a wide enough adjustment (which was "solved" by a thick shim under the clamp). If I was still using a Brooks, I'd spring for one of these.


I had the same issue with the Selcof. If your STA is 72.5 or shallower, it's hard to get the nose of the brooks down far enough. It would suck to spend close to 200 bucks on the new Riv seatpost to discover a similar issue.

[Ken Robb]

Again, bad freakin' idea. The post itself is brilliant in itself as a way to have a very nice post under a very old saddle design. The opposite of that notion is to suggest the post is a solution for a poorly fitting bike. Plane awful idea.
PS- I'd man hug Grant any day :)

Grant didn't say riding a too small bike was a good idea. Heck we all know he is the leader of the "bigger-is-often-betterand get those bars up there" school of bike fit. He just said this post could help if you wanted to ride a too-small bike.

[MilanoTom]

I had the same issue with the Selcof. If your STA is 72.5 or shallower, it's hard to get the nose of the brooks down far enough. It would suck to spend close to 200 bucks on the new Riv seatpost to discover a similar issue.

I don't think my STA was close to that shallow, and I had problems.

I got the Selcof to work by cutting a shim (or two, I might have stacked them) out of a cheap threadless stem shim. The radius was just about perfect, and as I tighened it down, the shim(s) pretty much bent to fit. The only catch was that the rear adjusting bolt pushed so tight against the clamp that it started to bend in the middle. I expected it to break at some point (who knows - it still might). When I switched saddles, I just took out the post, complete with saddle.

Regards.
Tom

[Ahneida Ride]

Kinda makes the Thompson look good .... ;)

[SoCalSteve]

Kinda makes the Thompson look good .... ;)

Or the FSA with 3.5 cm of setback and a 2 bolt system...

Just sayin'

Steve

[Tobias]

Huh...? I'd rather not, I think...+1
There is no way that if a rider hit a bump while sitting towards the back of that saddle that he wouldn't bend or break something.

[Ahneida Ride]

The Brooks B17 Ti is manufactured with rail placement that offers more fore and aft adjustment.

(Least I belive this to be so. please someone correct me)

One does not require a special spanner to adjust the tension either.
The B17 Ti is far more adjustable then my B67.