RE: [CR]GREAT binder bolt treatment NOW Or is None Better?

(Example: Framebuilding:Restoration)

Subject: RE: [CR]GREAT binder bolt treatment NOW Or is None Better?
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:09:24 -0800
In-Reply-To: <70e14d4c0612010546w76a65864xa5aa1ff6df69935c@mail.gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [CR]GREAT binder bolt treatment NOW Or is None Better?
thread-index: AccVTyqo+KxwJx0uSQCcflxtc8YSkQAEjElw
From: "Mark Bulgier" <Mark@bulgier.net>
To: "Angel Garcia" <veronaman@gmail.com>, "CLASSIC RENDEZVOUS" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>


Angel Garcia wrote:
>
> So, I've picked up a quite beautifully made, let's call it an
> Italian KOF bike, that doesn't use a binder bolt at all. I
> like how clean it looks.
> The seatpost is kept in place through an expander at the
> bottom of the post.
> Other than difficulty in finding another seatpost in the
> future are there any downsides to this type of design?

The seat tube is unbutted there, thin tubing - not like a steerer which gets expanded by the stem despite being thick. Sometimes the seat tube will show a bulge where the seatpost expands.

Seatposts are always, by necessity, a little smaller than the hole they go into, so a binderless frame will have a somewhat loose fit at the top, allowing rainwater and crud in a bit easier and allowing a little squirm or rocking, with the post pivoting at the bottom. This is not a real problem, pretty theoretical.

This type of seatpost will always be heavier, by more than the weight you save on the frame.

Height adjustments are more difficult.

Yeah this is all nit-picking, but you asked!

Aesthetically, for me, looks wrong. Alex Singer made some frames this way, and though I'd love to own just about any Singer, that would not be my choice. Gimme a binder.

Mark Bulgier
Seattle WA USA