Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What is the consensus on these? Are they stiffer& more comfortable, with the seat elastomer like look595? Will all bikes be like this in future?
what about Trek's ISP which doesn't require cutting?
 

·
eminence grease
Joined
·
18,559 Posts
steel515 said:
What is the consensus on these? Are they stiffer& more comfortable, with the seat elastomer like look595? Will all bikes be like this in future?
what about Trek's ISP which doesn't require cutting?
My consensus of 1 is that I like my 595 pretty darn well. I doubt that my unbridled affection for it has anything to do with the seat tube. That elastomer is <1 cm of softer plastic, I suspect it does more to keep the two raw CF edges from abrading than anything for the ride. Rather it's more than likely due to the excellent design, fit and materials.

I don't think an ISP does much for the ride.

I doubt that all bikes will be like that in the future.

Trek - doesn't matter to me that it doesn't need to be cut.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,573 Posts
integrated seat tube bikes ........................are for sissies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
... one thing fer shur... you can market almost anything to cyclists as long as you put words like "lighter" or "stiffer" in the schpeal!

I'm not totally against the concept, but it does beg the question of what happens in resale (I know some allow the use of a standard 27.2 after cutting, but there goes your weight, and to some degree, stiffness advantage) or if your body morphology changes during your ownership (us oldtymers done shrunk in height, and our flexibility might lessen over the years).

Also, I kinda like the idea of being able to swap parts out over the lifetime of the frame... which hopefully, will last a lifetime!

Next up, BB30 or some other bottom bracket system... 1.5" lower bearings on forks... real men don't have balls of steel, but of clay...
 

·
eminence grease
Joined
·
18,559 Posts
Blue CheeseHead said:
...until resale time. If you ever think you might sell your bike, it would nice to know that there is some adjustability in the frame in order to make it fit a wider range of potential purchasers.
This comes up all the time in ISP discussions, and from my perspective it's a red herring. First of all, the likelihood that a person looking for an XL frame is going to be wildly different in their size and confirmation is low. Secondly, the Look system allows for about 2 CM of adjustment, post cut. Thirdly, I for one don't buy bikes expecting to have to sell them, I buy them to ride. If I have a problem selling it down the road, so be it. It's not like I'll have to tell my kids to quit school and get a job to cover the $1000 residual value in a used frame.
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
Akirasho said:
. . .if your body morphology changes during your ownership (us oldtymers done shrunk in height, and our flexibility might lessen over the years).
I don't think many people grow in the inseam as they age though.

If ISPs are a solution looking for a made-up problem, most of the the arguments against them (re-sale, imagined lack of adjustability) are made up problems. The only good argument I have heard is for people who want to pack their bikes for travel.

I don't buy any of the claimed benefits, but I do like the looks of the Looks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
I don't think many people grow in the inseam as they age though.

If ISPs are a solution looking for a made-up problem, most of the the arguments against them (re-sale, imagined lack of adjustability) are made up problems. The only good argument I have heard is for people who want to pack their bikes for travel.

I don't buy any of the claimed benefits, but I do like the looks of the Looks.
... true that your inseam rarely grows, but as my hip sockets wear away, I don't wanna be out there with a moto tool grinding away my frame!

I guess time will tell... just like threadless nee integrated or oversized handlbarz.
 

·
Domokun!
Joined
·
476 Posts
I have to say that they do look cool. Even being an old, old skool guy.

Although I'd never buy one.

On another note fat guys like me blow that carbon $*(# up!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
Most of high end frames these days seem to come with ISP's (see Look, Ridley etc) so I guess there is a real advantage to it otherwise they would have offered a similar model without the ISP as some of the non-designer brands such as Giant do. As for travelling - you can still fit them in a bike bag unless you got long legs (size S & M are usually ok).
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,249 Posts
designed to counter

the inherent 'issue' with compact geometry

(putting the majorityof weight '-rider-' away from support structure)

so to counter the lowered fulcrum they double or reenforce the tube(s) to move the virtual fulcrim higher)

a bad design option to counter a bad design
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,249 Posts
well let's see

toonraid said:
And the relevance of compact to ISP is .................?
first mfrs to use ISPs (besides Merckx on some very unique bikes in the 90s and Colnago on some of their Freuler frames) were all mfrs of sloping TT frames
Look, Ridley....

you don't see ISPs on many traditional frames as they are really not needed
Treks IMHO was to appear to be on the marketing trend but they still only went halfway
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
My opinion: this is a solution looking for a problem. Or, something that was invented to boost sales of high-end frames. Not a good feature for real world (i.e. outside professional peloton).

I would never buy a road bicycle with a seatpost that needs to be cut to a size or depend on a proprietary post. It might work in professional peloton where they get several free bikes per season but wont work anywhere else.

my reasons for disliking this feature are:

1. hard to pack to travel into bicycle suitcase.
2. resale poor
3. inability to use a common 3rd party seatpost with different set-back, i.e. more or less setback to get seat in optimal position
4. if you get your seat height wrong (made it too short) you may be stuck. And many riders do change their seat heights even after years of riding. For example you got new pair of shoes or new pedals or bibs with more thick chamois or insoles or shims, etc. There is some adjustability, sure, but still much less the conventional designs. You always have to be more careful.
5. proprietary seat-post saddle clamp/heads which may be hard to use to fine tune the angle for the tilt of the seat (depending on their design). I.e. you want the nose down 1 or 2 degree or up 1 degree etc.
6. for some riders the nose of seat needs to be off-centre, just a touch. Some ISP wont allow this but round seatposts will. Most people are not 100% symmetrical.
7. possibly, a less a comfortable ride (on some frames).

Madone solution is only marginally better because you are still stuck with a special Trek-only seat-post. If it works for you, great, but it wont work for as big a percentage of riders as a conventional 27.2mm *round* seat-post that Madone used before 2007.

Time Translink uses a round tube so if you cut it wrong you can stick a conventional 27.2 seat-post in it. But this begs the question - why bother in the first place?

I am sure my list is not complete.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top