Paul Seat Post

[danielpack22@ma]

Saw the new Paul seat post on their site this morning. Looks pretty nice!
http://www.paulcomp.com/seatpost.html

[rugbysecondrow]

I like it, and it is $100, not a bad price IMO.

[ericspin]

Yeah, I like that as well. And I agree that the price seems fair. A bargain compared to my Eriksen Sweetpost........but maybe not as sweet.

[phcollard]

Nice and looks well made. That's quite a setback though...

[AngryScientist]

looks nice, unfortunately my short legs demand a zero setback post.

[woolly]

Decent setback, two-bolt micro-adjust, looks good. For me, this would remove any reason for suffering the aesthetics of the setback Thomson model (and in general I like Thomson stuff, but those bent posts are hideous).

[rugbysecondrow]

Decent setback, two-bolt micro-adjust, looks good. For me, this would remove any reason for suffering the aesthetics of the setback Thomson model (and in general I like Thomson stuff, but those bent posts are hideous).


Booya...agree.

[quehill]

Oh man, that is seriously nice.

[blantonator]

Oh man, that is seriously nice.

Looks good, but heavy!

[rpm]

Ooh, those look nice. I need a lot of setback and I've been using an FSA alloy post for several years, and it's looking a bit beat-up. One of these would be a fine replacement.

[jeduardo]

Just a "tad" portly at 320g for at only 360mm (235g X 330mm Thomson Elite) & quite expensive, but more than likely there is a market for this post since it looks so nice

Looks good, but heavy!

[Louis]

Guys, the only part you see on the bike is the shaft... ;)

However, I agree, it would look better than a bent Thomson.

[palincss]

How does it compare with the Nitto S83, I wonder?

[spacemen3]

That clamp looks a little archaic IMHO. I think I'd still purchase a Ritchey Classic seatpost and remove the graphics.

[Aaron O]

That clamp looks a little archaic IMHO. I think I'd still purchase a Ritchey Classic seatpost and remove the graphics.

I love it, but it reminds me of those old NR two bolts which were a PITA to work with (especially with modern saddles).

[palincss]

I love it, but it reminds me of those old NR two bolts which were a PITA to work with (especially with modern saddles).

I can't imagine why. The NR bolts had their head on top, not underneath, and you needed a special wrench to get under the saddle skirt and up over the top of the bolt head. Here, you need an allen key and the bolts are accessible from underneath. What's more, the biggest problem with the Campagnolo was that the screws had an ultra fine thread, and it took many, many turns to tighten them down. That's great for fine tuning, of course, easy to nail a fraction of one degree; but not so nice for the initial installation.

I haven't ever seen the Paul in person, but I do own a Nitto S83, which has the same type of clamp arrangement, and that's the easiest seatpost I've ever worked with, both to install the saddle in the first place, and to nail the correct angle. If I were Paul Price, knowing what we know now about the Nitto and the Campagnolo seatposts, I would make mine like the Nitto rather than the Campagnolo. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I'd assume that's exactly what he's done.

As a general statement, I believe two bolt seat posts are easier to work with than one bolt posts. It's easier to make a minor angle adjustment -- very important for a B.17 user -- and typically when you adjust either the angle or fore-aft position of the saddle, you don't lose the other setting. Compare that with the typical one-bolt post, where when you undo the tension, you lose angle and fore-aft position all at once.

In fact, most one-bolt posts rely on serrations to retain the angle, and they typically provide a number of integer-like discrete angles but no way to get an angle in between the discrete positions. I'm not sure who that actually works for, but I know it doesn't work for me.

Two bolt posts are also more secure. One bolt posts easily slip; with two bolt posts it's almost impossible for the angle to accidentally slip.

Regarding the setback of the post, that's intentional. According to the Paul Components web site, this seatpost was designed with Brooks saddle users in mind: "If you ride a Brooks saddle that you can't get quite far enough back you'll love this seat post... If you do not like setback in your seat post do not buy this one."

[keevon]

Uh oh:

...the head is machined separately before being screwed and glued into the shaft.
Be leery of two-piece seatposts. Dura Ace 7410 seatposts are notorious for the bond breaking between the head and shaft. However, I don't know if those were mechanically fastened in addition to being bonded.

The Nitto S83 has the upper hand, since it's forged as a single piece.

[Aaron O]

I can't imagine why. The NR bolts had their head on top, not underneath, and you needed a special wrench to get under the saddle skirt and up over the top of the bolt head. Here, you need an allen key and the bolts are accessible from underneath. What's more, the biggest problem with the Campagnolo was that the screws had an ultra fine thread, and it took many, many turns to tighten them down. That's great for fine tuning, of course, easy to nail a fraction of one degree; but not so nice for the initial installation.

I haven't ever seen the Paul in person, but I do own a Nitto S83, which has the same type of clamp arrangement, and that's the easiest seatpost I've ever worked with, both to install the saddle in the first place, and to nail the correct angle. If I were Paul Price, knowing what we know now about the Nitto and the Campagnolo seatposts, I would make mine like the Nitto rather than the Campagnolo. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I'd assume that's exactly what he's done.

As a general statement, I believe two bolt seat posts are easier to work with than one bolt posts. It's easier to make a minor angle adjustment -- very important for a B.17 user -- and typically when you adjust either the angle or fore-aft position of the saddle, you don't lose the other setting. Compare that with the typical one-bolt post, where when you undo the tension, you lose angle and fore-aft position all at once.

In fact, most one-bolt posts rely on serrations to retain the angle, and they typically provide a number of integer-like discrete angles but no way to get an angle in between the discrete positions. I'm not sure who that actually works for, but I know it doesn't work for me.

Two bolt posts are also more secure. One bolt posts easily slip; with two bolt posts it's almost impossible for the angle to accidentally slip.

Regarding the setback of the post, that's intentional. According to the Paul Components web site, this seatpost was designed with Brooks saddle users in mind: "If you ride a Brooks saddle that you can't get quite far enough back you'll love this seat post... If you do not like setback in your seat post do not buy this one."

I should have been more clear, I didn't mean in functionality, I meant in aesthetics. It looks like one of the old NR two bolts and makes me shudder with the association.