Suspension Seat Post for Road/Touring

[Mark Thompson]

Done a bit of googling the group and reading the reviews on
bikemagic, but both paint a bit of a confusing picture. For
road use, what can I expect from a suspension seat post?
Will it smooth out the ride entirely, or will it just take
the edge off the bigger bumps? Somebody somewhere claimed he
found the suspension qualities indistinguishable from a
carbon seatpost with titanium saddle rails. Is he right?

Looking in the catalogue, there's a s.seatpost with MCU and
coil spring travel. What's MCU?

The same company do another for twice the price (£50) with
'Norglide self- lubing brushing'. What on earth is that?

To summarise, what can I expect from an 'on road' suspension
seatpost, how does this compare with carbon post + titanium
rails, and what's all the jargon mean?

Mark.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Mark Thompson wrote:
> Done a bit of googling the group and reading the reviews
> on bikemagic, but both paint a bit of a confusing picture.
> For road use, what can I expect from a suspension seat
> post? Will it smooth out the ride entirely, or will it
> just take the edge off the bigger bumps?

I can only comment on the one I've got fitted to my tourer -
Post Moderne Bracer (Road) (£50): It provides a subtle
smoothing effect, subtle to the point of being
disappointing, frankly. Edge of big bumps is taken off only
slightly. It might work better for heavier riders. Still, I
don't intend taking it off. The saddle clamp is good and
there's no downside apart from a little extra weight and
maintenance. Other types/makes/models are bound to be much
more effective, but too far the other way would result in
inefficiency and annoyance. The one I have is a saddle-
setback type. Inline types may work better.

> Somebody somewhere claimed he found the suspension
> qualities indistinguishable from a carbon seatpost with
> titanium saddle rails. Is he right?

I've not tried carbon or ti saddle rails but I suspect
that view is an exageration. And I'm skeptical about
alternative saddle rail material affecting ride to any
significant degree.

> Looking in the catalogue, there's a s.seatpost with MCU
> and coil spring travel. What's MCU?

I've forgotton what MCU stands for but it's an elastomer
type of thing: a long cylinder of squashable plastic at
bottom of tube that acts as a spring. It's less springy that
a real spring, though!

> The same company do another for twice the price (£50) with
> 'Norglide self- lubing brushing'. What on earth is that?

That's probably meant to be "bushing". Sus posts have a
shaft that moves up and down through a bushing (something to
hold it in place and prevent play). These are normally
require regular manual greasing. I don't know how the
Norglide manages to lubricate itself.

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

I wrote:
>.......Edge of big bumps is taken off only slightly.

Thinking about that more, the suspension does do quite a lot
on the really big hits - but you don't get many of those on
road. The common bumps that you get all the time still jar.

~PB

 

[Julian]

Mark Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Done a bit of googling the group and reading the reviews
> on bikemagic, but both paint a bit of a confusing picture.
> For road use, what can I expect from a suspension seat
> post? Will it smooth out the ride entirely, or will it
> just take the edge off the bigger bumps? Somebody
> somewhere claimed he found the suspension qualities
> indistinguishable from a carbon seatpost with titanium
> saddle rails. Is he right?
>
> Looking in the catalogue, there's a s.seatpost with MCU
> and coil spring travel. What's MCU?
>
> The same company do another for twice the price (£50) with
> 'Norglide self- lubing brushing'. What on earth is that?
>
> To summarise, what can I expect from an 'on road'
> suspension seatpost, how does this compare with carbon
> post + titanium rails, and what's all the jargon mean?
>
> Mark.

If you are using a road bike you don't really need any sort
of suspension at all - the tyres and saddle should be
sufficient unless you you have some sort of peculiar bum
condition.

Julian

 

[David Brown :O\]

> > Somebody somewhere claimed he found the suspension
> > qualities indistinguishable from a carbon seatpost with
> > titanium saddle rails. Is he right?
>
> I've not tried carbon or ti saddle rails but I suspect
> that view is an exageration. And I'm skeptical about
> alternative saddle rail material affecting ride to any
> significant degree.

90% of my riding is off road on riverbanks and I've not
tried a suspension seatpin for any decent length, but I've
just bought one of these saddles
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/?ProductID=5300003517 and it's
absolute luxury. I'm not sure what 'Vanox' is or if this
makes any difference to the comfort but I would have no
hessitation in recommending it. It is fitted to a carbon
seatpin on a steel hardtail. See http://www.bikemagic.com/
for reviews.

--
David Brown )
http://kitemap.co.uk/stack

 

[Pete Biggs]

Julian wrote:
> If you are using a road bike you don't really need any
> sort of suspension at all - the tyres and saddle should be
> sufficient unless you you have some sort of peculiar bum
> condition.

Nevermind peculair bum conditions (!!), the potential
advantage of a suspension post is to enable the use of
narrower and harder tyres than would otherwise be required
to get reasonable comfort. This can increase speed and save
trouble with close-clearance frames/brakes/mudgaurds.

One works to some extent with my old touring bike when using
25 and 28mm tyres. Actually, the more I think about it, the
more I realise the post is doing quite a bit. It's just that
you get used to it immediately and still expect more. They
don't (at least the one I've got doesn't) provide a magic
carpet ride.

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

David Brown ) wrote:
> 90% of my riding is off road on riverbanks and I've not
> tried a suspension seatpin for any decent length, but I've
> just bought one of these saddles
> http://www.wiggle.co.uk/?ProductID=5300003517 and it's
> absolute luxury.

Good grief, you must have soft tyres. There's practically
nothing to that saddle.

~PB

 

[Peter Clinch]

Julian wrote:

> If you are using a road bike you don't really need any
> sort of suspension at all - the tyres and saddle should be
> sufficient unless you you have some sort of peculiar bum
> condition.

Try a bumpy road... Also note that the less the unsprung
weight the more efficient the bike will be over rough
surfaces, because less energy is wasted moving the rider up
over every bump.

I can easily catch my (fitter) friend's carbon framed Look
Serious Racer on particularly poor roads despite being on a
heavy tourer, because I have full suspension and she has
none, even though most times she's out of sight any time she
wants. It can be about speed as well as comfort when you're
on back roads with a good enough supply of potholes.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Brown :O\]

> > 90% of my riding is off road on riverbanks and I've not
> > tried a suspension seatpin for any decent length, but
> > I've just bought one of these saddles
> > http://www.wiggle.co.uk/?ProductID=5300003517 and it's
> > absolute luxury.
>
> Good grief, you must have soft tyres. There's practically
> nothing to that saddle.

I do have 2.0" MTB tyres and run them about 40-50 on
hardpack and 50-60 on road, so none of your 100+psi roadie
stuff. The looks of the saddle are incredibly deceiving
tho', it feels pretty hard on the road but seems much
softer off road. I'm not sure if this is down to flex in
the rails or not, but it seems to work. I'm not sure if it
will wear out through fatigue but it won't bother me too
much as long as it lasts a year or so..... small price to
pay for a comfy bottom.

--
David Brown )
http://kitemap.co.uk/stack

 

[Peter Storey]

Mark Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Done a bit of googling the group and reading the reviews
> on bikemagic, but both paint a bit of a confusing picture.
> For road use, what can I expect from a suspension seat
> post? Will it smooth out the ride entirely, or will it
> just take the edge off the bigger bumps? Somebody
> somewhere claimed he found the suspension qualities
> indistinguishable from a carbon seatpost with titanium
> saddle rails. Is he right?

When it comes to on-road suspension, the best value for
money is larger tyres (if you can fit them). The next best
is a sprung Brooks saddle. You do have to pay for the
(corresponding unsprung) saddle, but the springs are
essentially free.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Simon Brooke wrote:

>>> Looking in the catalogue, there's a s.seatpost with MCU
>>> and coil spring travel. What's MCU?
>>
>> I've forgotton what MCU stands for but it's an elastomer
>> type of thing: a long cylinder of squashable plastic at
>> bottom of tube that acts as a spring. It's less springy
>> that a real spring, though!
>
> Since there's also a real spring the elastomer is probably
> there for its damping qualities.

Right, but some other sus posts (like the one I have) don't
have any springs at all.

~PB

 

[lou_n]

Well I spoiled myself this year and bought both the NitroPro suspension seatpost (http://www.nitropro.com) and the 'world-renowned', much-hyped Brooks B17 leather saddle.

Big bucks, but after years of touring (road bike) decided to see what the hype is about. And if they didn't work out, off they go to Ebay to put the money towards something else (new tent, maybe....)

My Brooks seat is still in its' 'break-in' period (around 100 miles on it so far) and as warned the first few rides were somewhat similar to riding on an inverted frying pan. However, it's starting to soften nicely and I think I'm going to love this seat. If the reviews are any indication, it should be a dream in a few hundred miles. You may want to consider a good seat as an alternative to suspension seatpost, talk to Brooks owners if you can and get some feedback.

The NitroPro suspension seatpost is VERY expensive, provides some 'isolation' although with my bike geometry (seat quite far back) it can't work to it's fullest potential- because the NitroPro is a telescoping design, it works best when as vertical as possible with the weight directly over the seatpost.
Still, I notice an improvement with it, big bumps are definitely smoothed, small bumps less noticeable (although the Brooks should take care of those eventually anyway, once it's worn in).
But what I like about the NitroPro is what it DOESN'T do-- it doesn't have the 'boinginess' and stiction that other designs do.
It does the job it's supposed to do and nothing more.
I'm not sure that the cost is justifiable, for a slight increase in comfort, but I've tried cheaper suspension seatposts that were downright annoying to ride on. Don't buy a cheap one. They just pogo you all over the place, you'll notice them working against you when you don't want them working.

And forget gel seats. I've tried many, and they were great for 5 miles, torture after 20 miles without fail. The gel collapses where the most pressure is- leaving you with no support where you most need it.
My two bits.

Lou

 

[Davy]

Lou,

If I could just put in my 'two bits'; I wonder how you would
have faired without the suspension seatpost but with the
sprung version of the Brooks B17?

Davy

"lou_n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well I spoiled myself this year and bought both the
> NitroPro suspension
seatpost (http://www.nitropro.com) and the 'world-renowned',
much-hyped Brooks B17 leather saddle.
>
> Big bucks, but after years of touring (road bike) decided
> to see what the hype is about. And if they didn't work
> out, off they go to Ebay to put the money towards
> something else (new tent, maybe....)
>
> My Brooks seat is still in its' 'break-in' period (around
> 100 miles on it so far) and as warned the first few rides
> were somewhat similar to riding on an inverted frying pan.
> However, it's starting to soften nicely and I think I'm
> going to love this seat. If the reviews are any
> indication, it should be a dream in a few hundred miles.
> You may want to consider a good seat as an alternative to
> suspension seatpost, talk to Brooks owners if you can and
> get some feedback.
>
> The NitroPro suspension seatpost is VERY expensive,
> provides some 'isolation' although with my bike geometry
> (seat quite far back) it can't work to it's fullest potential-
> because the NitroPro is a telescoping design, it works
> best when as vertical as possible with the weight directly
> over the seatpost. Still, I notice an improvement with it,
> big bumps are definitely smoothed, small bumps less
> noticeable (although the Brooks should take care of those
> eventually anyway, once it's worn in). But what I like
> about the NitroPro is what it DOESN'T do-- it doesn't have
> the 'boinginess' and stiction that other designs do. It
> does the job it's supposed to do and nothing more. I'm not
> sure that the cost is justifiable, for a slight increase
> in comfort, but I've tried cheaper suspension seatposts
> that were downright annoying to ride on. Don't buy a cheap
> one. They just pogo you all over the place, you'll notice
> them working against you when you don't want them working.
>
> And forget gel seats. I've tried many, and they were great
> for 5 miles, torture after 20 miles without fail. The gel
> collapses where the most pressure is- leaving you with no
> support where you most need
> it. My two bits.
>
> Lou
>
>
>
> --

 

[Pete Biggs]

Davy wrote:
>
> If I could just put in my 'two bits'; I wonder how you
> would have faired without the suspension seatpost but with
> the sprung version of the Brooks B17?

I've tried the sprung version of the B17, namely the B66
Champion. It's a bouncy bugger! Nothing like (my) suspension
seatpost (Post Moderne Bracer Road). Something in between
would be good.

~PB

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Pete Biggs <pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> typed:
> Davy wrote:
>>
>> If I could just put in my 'two bits'; I wonder how you
>> would have faired without the suspension seatpost but
>> with the sprung version of the Brooks B17?
>
> I've tried the sprung version of the B17, namely the B66
> Champion. It's a bouncy bugger! Nothing like (my)
> suspension seatpost (Post Moderne Bracer Road). Something
> in between would be good.
>
I found mine was very comfortable and I've just realised
that that's what I'm missing on the bike I replaced that one
with. I'll put it on the 'to buy' list.

A

 

[lou_n]

I would say that so far I haven't ruled out the B17 as all you need for touring, and forget the suspension seatpost- but I'm giving both of them one full season to decide. Let you know as the season progresses.
I didn't consider the 'sprung' B17 (the B66) because I'd already bought the NitroPro at that time. I think my personal preference would be for an unsprung seat, tho. There are people who swear by their B66, so it comes down to what works for you (and your backside).
Cheers
Lou

 

[Peter Clinch]

lou_n wrote:

> didn't consider the 'sprung' B17 (the B66) because I'd
> already bought the NitroPro at that time. I think my
> personal preference would be for an unsprung seat, tho.
> There are people who swear by their B66, so it comes down
> to what works for you (and your backside). Cheers Lou

I have a B17 on the rigid MTB and a B66 on the cargo bike
(used to be on my tourer before I decided to get something
/really/ comfy and bought a recumbent), plus the Brompton
Brooks (like a B17) on the folder. And I like them all. The
B66 is the most comfortable, but it's also the oldest so
best worn in, though they've all been reasonably comfortable
from the start. The 66 had a slight edge for initial comfort
IMHO, but for the most part the only major difference is the
springs creaking a little as I go along. I hadn't originally
considered a 66 as they look a bit retro, but I got given
one for Christmas by my sister and decided to give it a try
rather than swap it for a B17. Quickly decided that people
that worry too much what their saddles look like (as I had)
are berks...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[lou_n]

Originally posted by Peter Clinch
lou_n wrote:
. Quickly decided that people
that worry too much what their saddles look like (as I had)
are berks...

OK I'll guess that berk meaning Bicycling Jerk?

I agree, when it comes to long-distance touring, it's function over form. The Brooks fits in with my rig perfectly, (drop handlebars, fenders, trailer, flags, definitely not a 'cool' setup) it's not the latest style but provides far better function for my needs. When the miles add up, comfort becomes more than a consideration, it's a necessity.
Actually it's survival, since if you're fatigued you make mistakes and being uncomfortable all day definitely adds to the fatigue. If you're adjusting your riding position to compensate for pain or discomfort, you're likely riding in a position with less control of the bike.

I've read several reviews that would indicate that the Brooks removes the need for any suspension, and I prefer to ride a hardtail road bike while towing the YAK trailer (stiff rear handles the trailer much better). I'll stay with the NitroPro and the Brooks this summer, but I may find the NitroPro redundant for road riding.
Another note- my rig is a less desirable target for thieves, due to its retro look. The Brooks works for that reason too.
Lou

 

[Peter Clinch]

lou_n wrote:

> OK I'll guess that berk meaning Bicycling Jerk?

No, a berk is general UK parlance and could generally be
substituted for "fool".

> I've read several reviews that would indicate that the
> Brooks removes the need for any suspension

It depends what you mean by "need". You could quite
reasonably argue that no bikes *need* suspension, except
possibly downhill MTBs, since they've got by without it
for decades.

The above also ignores the value of suspension to make the
bike more efficient over bumpy surfaces where the rider is
in the saddle, though a sprung Brooks will be better in that
regard than an unsprung one.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:38:31 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

> lou_n wrote:
>
>> OK I'll guess that berk meaning Bicycling Jerk?
>
> No, a berk is general UK parlance and could generally be
> substituted for "fool".

And it has an interesting derivation. Berk is a short
form of the rhyming slang Berkely Hunt, so berk means
c... [NO CARRIER]

Colin