Bikeradar's soft-riding road seatposts test

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

RickyKong
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:31 am

by RickyKong

https://www.canyon.com/ko/accessories/# ... 6&id=60030

I think Canyon's VCLS 2.0 post(a.k.a S14 post) is same as Ergon.

Also I'm surprised at the test result of specialized... Cobble-Gobble has fake elastomer??

User avatar
dadoflam08
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:25 am
Location: Southern Great Southern Land

by dadoflam08

53x12 wrote:
Marin wrote:There are no pros riding the test winner post either :)


Interesting to go back and read the history of Zipp Wheels (Josh Poertner) trying to convince the classics riders to use carbon tubular wheels for the classic races. It was like trying to pull teeth as the pro riders had a false preconception (bias) about carbon rims vs. the traditional aluminum wheels they had been racing for so long. Now look at what kind of wheels the pros race.

Cycling is full of herd mentality and pros are no better. Too much old wives tales and incorrect opinions. However I agree that for comfort you can get more from proper wheels, tire, tire pressure, saddle, seatpost and quality bib shorts.


Pro cycling also features sponsor-driven inappropriate equipment selections. Amazing what sponsor dollars will do to riders' choices. Taking Zipp as case in point - when Cancellara's 303 rim split in the Paris Roubaix the only reason he won was O'Grady going back and towing him back into the race on box section alloys. At least the Indianna marketing monster had the good manners not to take credit for the success that year.

As an amateur riders I really don't see the point of using what the Pro's do - we are neither professional standard riders and we are not sponsored to make riding questionable equipment worth our while.

For the record I use the Syntace post - never been sure that it changed the ride quality and if I look at the test results I now know why.
'83 De Rosa+'11 Baum Corretto+'08 BMC Pro Machine >6kg+'86 Pinarello Team +'72 Cinelli SC +'58 Bianchi+'71 Cinelli SC+'78 Masi GC+'83 La Redoute Motobecane+'94 Banesto Pegoretti+'88 Bianchi X4 +'48 Super Elliott+'99 Look Kg281+'18 Pegoretti

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



racingcondor
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:22 pm

by racingcondor

Would have been nice to see the results with a cheap and a good quality standard post in the mix. The best thing I ever did for my comfort was changing from a cheap carbon wrapped alu post to a Deda SuperZero.

angryasian
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:04 am

by angryasian

TheKaiser wrote:I haven't seen any mention of the actual look of the BikeRadar charts. Can anyone who knows anything about that sort of thing chime in?

My assumption is that the very neat dotted lines are theoretical extrapolations of a deflection range based on actual readings that were taken over a much smaller range. The actual readings are reflected by the slightly messy solid lines that occupy the middle portion of the dotted lines.

But if that was the case, why did they only test actual deflection on the Specialized post over a 2lb range, but they tested others over a greater than 10lb range? And why did the they test each post under a dramatically different load (in the min insertion chart they seem to have loaded the Ergon from 160-172lbs, whereas the Specialized was loaded from 196-197lbs)?

It just doesn't make any sense for an supposedly objective lab test. There were over a half dozen comments relating to these topics posted on the Bikeradar page within a few hours of the article being published but now upon checking I suspiciously notice that the article has 0 comments. Maybe they are putting all of their efforts into censoring comments, and don't have time to double check their data. James Huang recently announced he was leaving Bikeradar, so I suppose he might have phoned this one in on his last day and no one else took ownership of it, to make sure it was up to snuff.

I'd also like to know more about the vibration test, like what was the frequency and amplitude of the vibration, etc...? That would help to determine its real world relevance.

EDIT: I just re-read the Velonews test (had originally seen it in 2012), also done at Microbac labs. It has a much more thorough account of the methods, which is nice, including describing the bumpy roller used for vibration tests. However, it seems to use a different methodology than the Bikeradar test for deflection, describing a full bike and a rider sitting aboard, rather than the jig and mechanical application of force shown by Bikeradar. I actually prefer the look of the Bikeradar deflection setup from a precision perspective.


Sorry, only seeing this now. BikeRadar's comment system is linked specifically to each article's regional page. In other words, the US-specific version of that article has no comments on it but the UK/Global one has 13, including an explanation from Richie Trent of Microbac why he put those graphs together the way he did.

------------------
James Huang
US Technical Editor
CyclingTips.com

TheKaiser
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:29 pm

by TheKaiser

angryasian wrote:
TheKaiser wrote:I haven't seen any mention of the actual look of the BikeRadar charts. Can anyone who knows anything about that sort of thing chime in?

My assumption is that the very neat dotted lines are theoretical extrapolations of a deflection range based on actual readings that were taken over a much smaller range. The actual readings are reflected by the slightly messy solid lines that occupy the middle portion of the dotted lines.

But if that was the case, why did they only test actual deflection on the Specialized post over a 2lb range, but they tested others over a greater than 10lb range? And why did the they test each post under a dramatically different load (in the min insertion chart they seem to have loaded the Ergon from 160-172lbs, whereas the Specialized was loaded from 196-197lbs)?

It just doesn't make any sense for an supposedly objective lab test. There were over a half dozen comments relating to these topics posted on the Bikeradar page within a few hours of the article being published but now upon checking I suspiciously notice that the article has 0 comments. Maybe they are putting all of their efforts into censoring comments, and don't have time to double check their data. James Huang recently announced he was leaving Bikeradar, so I suppose he might have phoned this one in on his last day and no one else took ownership of it, to make sure it was up to snuff.

I'd also like to know more about the vibration test, like what was the frequency and amplitude of the vibration, etc...? That would help to determine its real world relevance.

EDIT: I just re-read the Velonews test (had originally seen it in 2012), also done at Microbac labs. It has a much more thorough account of the methods, which is nice, including describing the bumpy roller used for vibration tests. However, it seems to use a different methodology than the Bikeradar test for deflection, describing a full bike and a rider sitting aboard, rather than the jig and mechanical application of force shown by Bikeradar. I actually prefer the look of the Bikeradar deflection setup from a precision perspective.


Sorry, only seeing this now. BikeRadar's comment system is linked specifically to each article's regional page. In other words, the US-specific version of that article has no comments on it but the UK/Global one has 13, including an explanation from Richie Trent of Microbac why he put those graphs together the way he did.

------------------
James Huang
US Technical Editor
CyclingTips.com


Thank you for taking the time to chime in on this one James, and congratulations on the new job! I didn't realize that comments were regionally specific on BikeRadar, which now makes sense as, depending on the device I am using at the time, will default to different region.

I did read Richie Trent's comment that you referenced and see he had over 100 data points for each post which is a lot better than it looked on the charts. It sounded like he performed the test in that way because he wanted it to be "non-destructive" and so he applied less force to the flexier posts for fear that they would break if run to the same load as the stiffer ones. That makes some sense I suppose, but only if you don't know what a realistic and reasonable real world load range would be. If you do know a realistic load range it seems you could safely test that without question, as otherwise the posts would be unsafe, and you would also get the most relevant data for the types of conditions riders are concerned with.

Anyway, that is all water under the bridge at this point, but hold the engineers feet to the fire for me a bit next time around to make sure we are getting the best test practical. Thanks again for taking the time, and I look forward to reading some of your stuff on cyclingtips.

User avatar
CBJ
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Brooklyn

by CBJ

Ideally if you are really uncomfortable would the correct solution be to get bigger tires as in the bike bouncing thus hurting comfort and rolling resistance?

I have tried previous version of the Specialzed seatpost with the insert and I did not feel any difference going to a normal post. I have also ridden a Roubaix and Tarmac both sl3 S-works and I did not feel any difference between bikes. Where I have felt a difference is going to bigger tires and more complaint tires like Conti 4 Season vs 4000.

angryasian
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:04 am

by angryasian

TheKaiser wrote:
angryasian wrote:
TheKaiser wrote:I haven't seen any mention of the actual look of the BikeRadar charts. Can anyone who knows anything about that sort of thing chime in?

My assumption is that the very neat dotted lines are theoretical extrapolations of a deflection range based on actual readings that were taken over a much smaller range. The actual readings are reflected by the slightly messy solid lines that occupy the middle portion of the dotted lines.

But if that was the case, why did they only test actual deflection on the Specialized post over a 2lb range, but they tested others over a greater than 10lb range? And why did the they test each post under a dramatically different load (in the min insertion chart they seem to have loaded the Ergon from 160-172lbs, whereas the Specialized was loaded from 196-197lbs)?

It just doesn't make any sense for an supposedly objective lab test. There were over a half dozen comments relating to these topics posted on the Bikeradar page within a few hours of the article being published but now upon checking I suspiciously notice that the article has 0 comments. Maybe they are putting all of their efforts into censoring comments, and don't have time to double check their data. James Huang recently announced he was leaving Bikeradar, so I suppose he might have phoned this one in on his last day and no one else took ownership of it, to make sure it was up to snuff.

I'd also like to know more about the vibration test, like what was the frequency and amplitude of the vibration, etc...? That would help to determine its real world relevance.

EDIT: I just re-read the Velonews test (had originally seen it in 2012), also done at Microbac labs. It has a much more thorough account of the methods, which is nice, including describing the bumpy roller used for vibration tests. However, it seems to use a different methodology than the Bikeradar test for deflection, describing a full bike and a rider sitting aboard, rather than the jig and mechanical application of force shown by Bikeradar. I actually prefer the look of the Bikeradar deflection setup from a precision perspective.


Sorry, only seeing this now. BikeRadar's comment system is linked specifically to each article's regional page. In other words, the US-specific version of that article has no comments on it but the UK/Global one has 13, including an explanation from Richie Trent of Microbac why he put those graphs together the way he did.

------------------
James Huang
US Technical Editor
CyclingTips.com


Thank you for taking the time to chime in on this one James, and congratulations on the new job! I didn't realize that comments were regionally specific on BikeRadar, which now makes sense as, depending on the device I am using at the time, will default to different region.

I did read Richie Trent's comment that you referenced and see he had over 100 data points for each post which is a lot better than it looked on the charts. It sounded like he performed the test in that way because he wanted it to be "non-destructive" and so he applied less force to the flexier posts for fear that they would break if run to the same load as the stiffer ones. That makes some sense I suppose, but only if you don't know what a realistic and reasonable real world load range would be. If you do know a realistic load range it seems you could safely test that without question, as otherwise the posts would be unsafe, and you would also get the most relevant data for the types of conditions riders are concerned with.

Anyway, that is all water under the bridge at this point, but hold the engineers feet to the fire for me a bit next time around to make sure we are getting the best test practical. Thanks again for taking the time, and I look forward to reading some of your stuff on cyclingtips.


When I talked to Richie about this, he told me his reasoning for the different applied loads was because the flex patterns of the seatposts were SO different. The Ergon CF3/Canyon VCLS 2.0, for example, was super soft but the Specialized was really firm.
James Huang
Soon-to-be something-or-other at EscapeCollective.cc

wingguy
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

TheKaiser wrote:It sounded like he performed the test in that way because he wanted it to be "non-destructive" and so he applied less force to the flexier posts for fear that they would break if run to the same load as the stiffer ones.


That wouldn't make sense. If some of the seatposts were likely to break under real world riding load, that would be extremely useful to know from a comparison test. If the loads being worried about were much higher than real world riding loads, what would be the point of testing them on any of the posts?

TheKaiser
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:29 pm

by TheKaiser

wingguy wrote:
TheKaiser wrote:It sounded like he performed the test in that way because he wanted it to be "non-destructive" and so he applied less force to the flexier posts for fear that they would break if run to the same load as the stiffer ones.


That wouldn't make sense. If some of the seatposts were likely to break under real world riding load, that would be extremely useful to know from a comparison test. If the loads being worried about were much higher than real world riding loads, what would be the point of testing them on any of the posts?


I hear you on that one man. It doesn't make sense to me either. Maybe I am misinterpreting what he said, but that was my interpretation, and then James offered a bit more insight above too in his 2nd comment, which doesn't seem too far off what I was thinking. I have taken the liberty of pasting the test engineers comment from the BikeRadar UK article below. What is your take on it?

The testing was meant to be non-destructive, thus a deflection limit was set for the static-loading portion of the tests. The Ergon and Canyon posts deflected a lot so a lower loading range was selected, but it was still clear that they were more sensitive (deflected more) to increasing loads than the others. We were trying to get a range of deflection/load values at similar applied loads, and most interested in the slope of the line. The slope indicates each seatposts' sensitivity to increasing loads. The data sets for each post were comprised of over 100 points and we felt confident in the extrapolated lines.

kylesw
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:31 am

by kylesw

This thread and the article are now 4 years old, but probably more relevant now than it was then given the number of compliant features being advertised.

What is everyone riding for a seatpost on your road or gravel bike? Was compliance a deciding factor for you?

What new options exist? (without going to suspension posts)
There's the new pro discover: https://www.pro-bikegear.com/global/en- ... r_Seatpost

And the likes of other carbon posts like the EC90 SL and Whiskey No.7 that riders claim feel more compliant, especially compared to a stiffer aluminum post.

Either way I'm coming from a Thomson Elite so I'm looking to add some softness to my ride!

Post Reply