STW seatpost law

Home Forum Bike Forum STW seatpost law

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 54 total)
  • STW seatpost law
  • PeterPoddy
    Member

    Up to the max mark on a 400mm post. Any more and you have the wrong size frame!

    highclimber
    Member

    as much as you want so long as it isn’t

    A) carbon composite
    or
    B) Chrome

    Dunno, I always need a 400mm post though, why do bike companies supply 350mm ones, they’re useless!

    Premier Icon Teetosugars
    Subscriber

    PeterPoddy – Member
    Up to the max mark on a 400mm post. Any more[b] less[/b] and you have the wrong size frame!

    FIFY. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    thomthumb
    Member

    seatpost length = bar width/pi

    brakes
    Member

    doesn’t matter as long as it’s Thomson
    but not the bent one

    highclimber
    Member

    depends on if you are going up or down.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    as long as the post goes at least an inch below the bottom of the seat-tube/top-tube junction, you can have an arm length of post out the frame.

    RealMan
    Member

    I’d say about 1/3 to 1/2 of the seat tube length.

    Premier Icon specializedneeds
    Subscriber

    What is the maximum amount of seatpost one can show, according to STW law?

    cynic-al
    Member

    There’s a complex system of rules depending on bike size, whether top tube slopes or not, type of bike etc.

    I’ll configure a matrix and post it up.

    Premier Icon Moe
    Subscriber

    doesn’t matter as long as it’s Thomson
    but not the bent one

    …… wassa madder with the bent one!? ๐Ÿ˜

    RealMan
    Member

    Both ends of the spectrum:

    RealMan
    Member

    …… wassa madder with the bent one!?

    It’s wrong, because you can do this with it.

    However, fitted the right way, on certain bikes, it can look alright.

    Elfinsafety
    Member

    I think all really long people should have small frames with loooooads of seatpost sticking out (whilst claiming they have the correct frame size ๐Ÿ˜† ), as they look really odd on their bikes and it amuses me. ๐Ÿ™‚

    oldboy
    Member

    What about freaks like me with long legs and a relatively short body? It has to be a long seatpost on a short toptube frame. Not quite up to the maximum mark on a 410mm Thomson, though!

    Elfinsafety
    Member

    What about freaks like me with long legs and a relatively short body?

    Larger ‘women’s geometry’ frame?

    Premier Icon specializedneeds
    Subscriber

    My 250mm protruding is pretty normal then!

    Mister P
    Member

    I like a small frame as it’s “chuckable” ๐Ÿ™„

    ilovemygears
    Member

    mine but i have a reverb now…….

    Premier Icon ahwiles
    Subscriber

    do i detect mockery MrP?

    normally, i’d probably agree with you, but…

    i could be wrong, but i think that’s a 19″ cotic soul, and that’s as big as they come, despite Cy being some kind of giant.

    or, is it your bike? and i’ve got the wrong end of the stick again?

    this, however, looks stunning:

    (sshhh! – it’s got them funny new 29″ wheels…)

    i think the wheel height/saddle height ratio is more critical to aesthetics than ‘amount of seatpost out of frame’

    chvck
    Member

    Not a great picture but that’s how much I run when I’m riding XC. I’m not going to lie, the frame is too small but I like it, I am half-looking out for one in L (16.5″!) though.

    GW
    Member

    PeterPoddy – Member
    Up to the max mark on a 400mm post. Any more and you have the wrong size frame!

    at almost (I use flats) full leg extension I run mine above the mark by about an inch on a 410mm post. (still inserts to below the lower TT/ST weld so it’s fine. and the frame fits perfecty and I run it slammed to about 4″ showing most of the time.

    Mister P – Member

    I like a small frame as it’s “chuckable”
    HTF can that Gate be considered small?

    mamadirt
    Member

    What is the maximum amount of seatpost one can show, according to STW law?

    4″ 8) . How the heck I used to ride with the recommended 6″ bitd I have no idea ๐Ÿ˜† (my frames were bigger then too)

    oldboy
    Member

    Larger ‘women’s geometry’ frame?

    I don’t think so.

    No, I like running a long seatpost. When I first started in this game the bike shop advised me to run the smallest frame I could get away with, and I still see no reason to question that advice.

    Premier Icon specializedneeds
    Subscriber

    The mark on a seatpost is to try to limit the bending moment on the seatpost, not protect the frame. They have to make an assumption on the weight of the rider and include a safety margin so you’re obviously getting away with it!

    beanieripper
    Member

    small hardtail + long seatpost = more comfy that large hardtail + short seatpost ..

    d45yth
    Member

    Surely when going downhill, having the seatpost way higher than the handlebars can’t be too good for your centre of gravity?

    flow
    Member

    Stw law #3

    You should choose a frame that is way to small for you, ride it with a excessively long seatpost, and claim you prefer riding smaller bikes because they are more “chuckable”.

    Then, in true Stw style, start a thread cluelessly asking why your top tube has departed from your seat tube.

    Edit: Special needs, the max height is to make sure you have enough post in the frame to stop you cracking it at the seat/top tube weld.

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    Edit: Special needs, the max height is to make sure you have enough post in the frame to stop you cracking it at the seat/top tube weld.

    That makes an assumption about all frames having similar layout and being designed around a similar post insertion.

    Surely its up to the frame manufacturer to suggest minimum insertion depth for frame integrity ,and post manufacturer for post integrity?

    Marge
    Member

    I managed to snap this one off last week.
    There was around 25mm off post above the min. insert line in the frame.

    I assumed that if a seatpost was sold as 400mm length including a min insertion line that anything more than that would be fine. I am not the lightest rider though at 87kg.

    Perhaps I have shouldn’t have used such a lightweight seatpost but I guess I’ve learnt this lesson now.

    tang
    Member

    So my saddle is level with my bars. I do have a low and long steel frame 29er and I’m partial to a bit seatpost showing….
    [/url]
    Stealth by tangwyn, on Flickr[/img]
    This looks good.

    GW
    Member

    That makes an assumption about all frames having similar layout and being designed around a similar post insertion.

    Surely its up to the frame manufacturer to suggest minimum insertion depth for frame integrity ,and post manufacturer for post integrity?
    QFT!

    I forget which # the stw law is that states “Flow” will usually add something retarded to most bike forum threads .

    Premier Icon letmetalktomark
    Subscriber

    Goes off to sit on the naughty step

    400mm post but a layback ….. but more than 100mm in the frame – does that make it right?

    Still a bit high on this 20” frame too I guess:

    flow
    Member

    Ahhh, because all frames come with minimum seatpost insertion marks dont they, dumbass.

    jedi
    Member

    mine stays slammed most of the time ๐Ÿ™‚

    GW
    Member

    common sense, simple common sense! Flow ๐Ÿ™„

    Premier Icon schmiken
    Subscriber

    @Marge – that seatpost (if it’s a KCNC) does have an 85kg limit for XC. Are you 87kgs in the morning or fully kitted up and ready to ride?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 54 total)

The topic ‘STW seatpost law’ is closed to new replies.