> > Mike wrote:
> > > Why they ever went 27.4 we'll never know, but apparently they thought better of it eventually.
> "Todd Kuzma" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > They used a thinner-walled 853 seatmast. It's plenty strong and saves a little bit of weight.
> > Their frames now use a
> > 27.2 post, but even during the days of the 27.4 post on the 1200 and 2200 frames, they would
> > build for 27.2 upon request.
"bfd" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Does this mean that Waterford is now using a "heavier" seat tube to accomodate 27.2 seat post?
"Heavier"? "Standard"? It's all semantics isn't it? For a hundred years or so, a 28.6 outer diamter
with a 25.4 post was "standard". Among Reynolds and similar frames, 27.2 seatposts have been the
'standard" gauge for some forty plus years. Tangential to the concurrent discussion about
"improvements", Waterford's designers were able to shave a few grams with impunity by going to 27.4
seatposts. Here, we thought that was reasonable. But apparently there was a crowd of whiners such
that Waterford relented.
I recall the first time I saw a 27.4 - a BobJackson Lugano time trial bike - and thinking that was a
clever way to drop a tad of metal. But I was young and impressionable.
--
Andrew Muzi
http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971