Thomson Aluminum Seatpost in a Carbon Fiber Frame

I have a new Lemond Buenos Aires carbon fiber bike, and I have decided that I'll prefer to use my old Thomson Elite aluminum seatpost instead of the Bontrager carbon seatpost spec'd with the bike.

Is it okay to use a thin film of Park Tool grease on the seatpost before inserting the post in the seat tube, as I am worried about galvanic corrosion?

Thanks for all responses.

Super

 

ONLY post/frame match that doesn't like grease is carbon/carbon and for those we use the Tacx carbon specific stuff. I have heard others say that do not grease aluminum post in carbon frame and vice versa but I have seen a few posts stuck in carbon frames and you cannot take them out like you do with a metal frame. Cut and ream the remnants out.

 

So are you saying a very thin film of grease on the Thomson seatpost would be fine?

Thanks.

 

yep.

 

Thanks Peter.

Super

 

Don't frame manufacturers address this stuff? Honest question, I don't know.

Curious: what is it about the aluminum post that you prefer over the carbon fiber. Obviously cost is not factor, probably not weight either since you already own both. Just curious because I have a Bontrager carbon post and an old cannondale aluminum post. I prefer he saddle angle adjustment of the Cannondale (two hex key bolts - fore and aft) vs. the Bontrager. But the Bontrager weighs a lot less, fwiw. Can't tell any confort difference, which is the line an LBS "expert" gave me in my ignorance I believed him. Next time I buy a post it will be primarily on the basis of saddle adjustment, and then weight for the amount I care to spend.

 

IMO Al posts are more durable than CF because of the way posts are mounted. CF is prone to damage by compression forces of an over-tightened clamp, or notching due to a clamp with a burred edge or from notches or burrs inside the seattube.

When looking at weight vs cost, don't forget about strength and durability. A seat post isn't something that should need replacement every year or two, or that you have to worry about every time you hit a big bump in the road. Just making something light is easy; light and strong enough to last "forever" is much harder.

 

I just like Thomson products period. Their seatposts and stems have been more than reliable for me. I do not ever want to wonder about the reliability of my seatposts or stems.

I am sure carbon seatposts are okay for some, but for me, I'll stick with the Thomsons. Another thing about the Thomsons is that they are well-engineered.

Super

 

I have been using a Thomson Masterpiece in carbon frames (Trek 5200 for several years, and recently Look 565) with no grease and no problems. The absence of grease means a bit more friction and that means a bit less torque on the clamp with less chance of either damage to the top of the seat tube or slippage of the post. Just pull out the seatpost occasionally (mark it first), wipe the post and inside of the seat tube (especially if you've been in the rain), and you'll have no problems.

Thomson posts can't be beat, and the Masterpiece is lighter than most carbon posts!

 

Saddle adjustment, and fit in general is way more important than weight and as you can see, carbon seatposts (and handlebars for that matter), don't do anything for 'comfort'. 'Weighs a lot less', doesn't mean the aluminum one is heavy and a teeny fraction of the rider/bike 'package'.

 

I had a carbon post, but it broke, so I replaced it with an American Classic titanium i bought from a friend for $40 (he is a lot taller than I, and didn't like the ti in his compact Bianchi frame). I like the clamping mech on it, and I never have to worry about it breaking. So NEENER!


I'm curious about the new AC 'candy cane' posts...anyone?

 

Which standard are people supposed to apply to "light and strong": the one from 1980? 1990? 1995? 2000? 2004? "Light and strong" is about as vague as a statement can get. It's equally hackneyed.

If people are going to give advice and tuition about materials, you'd think they'd at least expend the minimal effort to learn about the evolution, from the first blessed and holy steel bike to today's deathly fragile CF contraptions, of said materials and the techniques of working said materials. Of course that doesn't happen. No, people just throw out that ol' chestnut about light weight, durability, blah, blah, blah, without putting it into any context or defining what the standards are for qualification as "durable" or "strong."

So? What's "strong" and what's "durable?" Someone, quick, give me some values so that I can write them down for use when I go buy something.

The idea that a CF post has to be retired after 1 or 2 years flies in the face of everything except mistaken ideas about the material. Big bumps are worrisome? The last 2 posts I saw break were aluminum posts. What does that say about aluminum? Or is that just an aberration to the "strength and durability" of aluminum posts? FWIW, they weren't lightweight aluminum wonder posts. Now, that makes me all worried. Now I have to worry about aluminum posts and CF posts. Dagnabit. I guess I'll have to get me a seatpost made of Reynolds 531, since something that old must be strong. Plus it's steel which according to all the experts is real and has no weaknesses at all. Plus, the steel seatpost will be lively, responsive, and more comfortable than a feather bed.

It's amazing what you can learn on the internet tubes.

FWIW, if a CF seatpost is a bit too tight or difficult to insert in a CF seat tube, you can put grease on it. The idea that you can't is fucking ridiculous.

Y'all think thems Formula 1 drivers is or is they ain't afeared 'cuz there be grease all over the place 'round those carbon fiber suspensions pieces? Why, I'm surprised that grease don't cause thems things to explode at every race. I don't knows why they just don't use some big ol' heavy leafsprings like is in my old Ford out back on the cement blocks.

Yeeeeeehaaawwwww.