Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 289
  1. #251
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    With only 2" of seatpost inserted while weighing 200 lbs? Fuck. That. Shit. I don't think you fully appreciate the amount leverage generated by a seatpost that has an extended length:inserted length ratio >3.
    Sure. What situations will i be in where that seatpost has a good amount of shear force or torque applied to it when in the up position? Maybe im thinking about it wrong, but sitting and spinning, with occasional out of saddle efforts all while going less than 5mph doesnt wouldnt seem to impart much non-normal force on the post.

    Physics would say that the ratio you talk about doesnt really matter as the pivot point of the moment arm is at the seatpost collar- so 6" above with 6" inserted is the same moment arm as 6" above and 2" below.

  2. #252
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    Physics would say that the ratio you talk about doesnt really matter as the pivot point of the moment arm is at the seatpost collar- so 6" above with 6" inserted is the same moment arm as 6" above and 2" below.
    You're only looking at half the equation. You're right that the load you put into the frame doesn't change with insertion, but the frame's ability to resist it sure does.

  3. #253
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    13,654
    Thread has devolved into a physics discussion.


  4. #254
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Danno View Post
    Nope. But TBH, my dropper is pretty shitty (KS eTen) and is slow AF, so I am guessing that is part of why I feel like I am not in need of a dropper. Because the notion of seeing a corner coming up and having the time to hit the dropper in time for anything to happen, then to hit it again to return to a pedaling position seems ludicrous to me. But I'm also a complete hack on the bike, so YMMV.
    BikeYoke*




    *but not "budget"

  5. #255
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382
    You can apply only normal force when you ride a sagged / suspended bike’s seat tube??? When climbing uphill?

    What magical frame is this that sags to a 105 degree effective seat tube angle???

    The fun part about physics and engineering is that we can actually calculate estimated shear force and bending moment caused by a 200 pound rider carrying a 10 pound pack, distributing anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 body weight force onto an 8” post with 2” of insertion, for a 71-degree sagged full suspension bike climbing up over a root at a 20-25 degree pitch angle. And that’s just a static load, just wait until we analyze the weight transfer from bottom bracket to seatpost and calculate the dynamic effects! But if you’re talking Columbus SL steel then there’s no point, because that shit is magic.

    Since all my graduate texts are downstairs in storage and I don’t have Matlab installed anymore ... I’ll just armchair e-chuckle at the ensuing discussion instead.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  6. #256
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    Physics would say that the ratio you talk about doesnt really matter as the pivot point of the moment arm is at the seatpost collar- so 6" above with 6" inserted is the same moment arm as 6" above and 2" below.
    From your example, the force from that 6" lever is distributed over either 6" or 2" of plastic.

    Put another way, you have 6 inches of leverage on the frame while it has 6 inches of leverage on you, or you have a 4 inch advantage over the frame.

    But I agree that it *might* not matter.

  7. #257
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    From your example, the force from that 6" lever is distributed over either 6" or 2" of plastic.

    Put another way, you have 6 inches of leverage on the frame while it has 6 inches of leverage on you, or you have a 4 inch advantage over the frame.

    But I agree that it *might* not matter.
    I see where you are coming from. My thought is that the post below the seatpost collar is 'loose' within the frame. The seatpost collar acts as a fixed connection, thus not allowing any moment below. If the whole seattube, all the way down, clamped down on the post, then i would agree with you, but my understanding is that only a small amount of the seattube, right around the collar would actually be holding the post in place. The seatpost collar is not a hinged connection, it is a fixed connection, that assuredly does not extend 4-6" past the collar.

    In anycase, I just don't see much force (relative to the rest of MTB) being transferred to my seatpost when sitting and spinning on fairly smooth trail.

  8. #258
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,896
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    bike climbing up over a root at a 20-25 degree pitch angle. .
    Only Hulks climb up over roots on a 20-25degree pitch while still seated haha. That shit is a trials move. On any techish climb, only a portion of my weight is actually on my seat at any one time, if its on my seat at all.

  9. #259
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382
    Fine, how about seated 15 degrees over small root/rock step-up - I do that all the time. The rest of my pontification is still largely valid, especially the dynamic force transfer part of it.

    But mainly we are talking about bike park seated climbing, like when doing the low angle traverse to get to your trail - you're not exactly wrenching on it, and you're not looking for your optimal highest seated position on a heavy bike with heavy wheels built to stand up in the bike park. So in that use I'm sure it's fine.

    For roots and all that other shit, I wouldn't fuck with 2" of seatpost insertion (well maybe I personally would I weigh 135 lbs). I'm also still on the fence about whether 2" of insertion would be okay in the gravel grinder situations (assuming no roots and all potholes being avoidable), but again if that shit is good quality steel then I could be convinced after seeing the numbers showing dynamic load transfers wouldn't get too close to factor of safety on the seat tube's yield strength. For the seatpost, a softer modulus and higher yield strength tube is also probably better for dampening dynamic load transfers to the frame's seat tube.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  10. #260
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,896
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    Fine, how about seated 15 degrees over small root/rock step-up - I do that all the time. The rest of my pontification is still largely valid, especially the dynamic force transfer part of it.

    But mainly we are talking about bike park seated climbing, like when doing the low angle traverse to get to your trail - you're not exactly wrenching on it, and you're not looking for your optimal highest seated position on a heavy bike with heavy wheels built to stand up in the bike park. So in that use I'm sure it's fine.

    For roots and all that other shit, I wouldn't fuck with 2" of seatpost insertion (well maybe I personally would I weigh 135 lbs). I'm also still on the fence about whether 2" of insertion would be okay in the gravel grinder situations (assuming no roots and all potholes being avoidable), but again if that shit is good quality steel then I could be convinced after seeing the numbers showing dynamic load transfers wouldn't get too close to factor of safety on the seat tube's yield strength. For the seatpost, a softer modulus and higher yield strength tube is also probably better for dampening dynamic load transfers to the frame's seat tube.
    Maybe ive been biking wrong all these years, but im not plopped on my saddle when riding over roots, steps, or anything remotely tech. My dead weight is only in the saddle when its pretty darn smooth. Otherwise im always moving around the bike with only a portion of weight on the saddle.

    Another random thought... how much of your actual weight is on the saddle when pedaling up a steep climb. A lot of it has to be on the pedals and a good amount on the bars.

  11. #261
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    4,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    BikeYoke*




    *but not "budget"
    If the ks is slow, your cable needs to be shorter.

    Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk

  12. #262
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    The seatpost collar is not a hinged connection, it is a fixed connection, that assuredly does not extend 4-6" past the collar.
    The point where your seat tube flexes is below the bottom of the post (assuming it's above the toptube)

  13. #263
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SLCizzy
    Posts
    3,554
    Oh for fucks sake, if dude doesn’t want want to run a dropper - let him. He’s clearly dug in - we’re not gonna convince him.

    It seems that he also can’t be convinced that standard 3” insertion depth is not an Illuminati plan to sell longer seatposts, and that’s fine too


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  14. #264
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382
    Aww, what a buzz killer. This stay at home dad needs more entertainment when the baby is sleeping. Back to Netflix and bike building I guess ...
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  15. #265
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,896
    Quote Originally Posted by joetron View Post
    Oh for fucks sake, if dude doesn’t want want to run a dropper - let him. He’s clearly dug in - we’re not gonna convince him.

    It seems that he also can’t be convinced that standard 3” insertion depth is not an Illuminati plan to sell longer seatposts, and that’s fine too


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Do you also strictly believe that more than 3 mounts on a ski is unsafe for EVERYONE because that is industry standard? The seatpost insertion thing to me smells of unnecessary overdesign for most peoples situation. Lots of industry standards out there that can be broken (within reason) with no ill effects if you arent pushing the equipment to its absolute limit. Personally, im not pushing a carbon 6" superbike to its limit while seated spinning up a smooth climbing trail. YMMV.

  16. #266
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    5,013
    I’d run way more post inserted than you’re suggesting. Countless broken steel, aluminum and carbon frames came through. Even on light weight kids.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  17. #267
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,896
    Quote Originally Posted by detrusor View Post
    Countless broken steel, aluminum and carbon frames came through. Even on light weight kids.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    from lack of seatpost insertion depth?

  18. #268
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    5,013
    Yeah.

    Cracked frames at the top tube seat tube junction.

    I would say post needs to be an inch below the bottom of the top tube minimum. Personally I go way more.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  19. #269
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    FTR, I agree that for JRA you'd likely be fine. I've done way crazier stuff with motorcycles and I'm still alive. But you'd have to be conscious of it rather than not even thinking about it, which is the state I'd rather be in - especially if it's a long way back to the trailhead.

  20. #270
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    If the ks is slow, your cable needs to be shorter.

    True, but my answer is still BikeYoke.

    And if we're talking budget, I'd take a pnw over a ks every day of the week.

  21. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,896
    Interesting. If i am understanding correctly, the argument is that the seat tube relies on the addition of the seatpost to gain its structural integrity. Meanwhile everywhere else on the frame (including all the normal high stress spots) are fine with the normal hollow frame? I am just trying to envision how it would fail, and how a seat tube inserted all the way down actually would help.

    From what i understand, in order to gain full design strength, you would just need to insert the post far enough that it extends the full length of clamping surface. Since i know that the whole length of seatube isnt clamping, i would assume it wouldnt be much more than an couple inches from the actual collar. Additionally, each frame (and material) would have a different length of clamping surface, so why do all posts come with a standard insertion length?

  22. #272
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    so why do all posts come with a standard insertion length?
    Lawyers.

  23. #273
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382
    Probably it’s more like a seat tube that extends above the top tube and doesn’t have a gusset relies on minimum insertion depth to transfer shear load to the top tube.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  24. #274
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    That's definitely it. I was just being glib.

  25. #275
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    17,891
    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    Interesting. If i am understanding correctly, the argument is that the seat tube relies on the addition of the seatpost to gain its structural integrity. Meanwhile everywhere else on the frame (including all the normal high stress spots) are fine with the normal hollow frame? I am just trying to envision how it would fail, and how a seat tube inserted all the way down actually would help.

    From what i understand, in order to gain full design strength, you would just need to insert the post far enough that it extends the full length of clamping surface. Since i know that the whole length of seatube isnt clamping, i would assume it wouldnt be much more than an couple inches from the actual collar. Additionally, each frame (and material) would have a different length of clamping surface, so why do all posts come with a standard insertion length?
    I should take Joe's advice and be done here, but since you seem genuinely curious I'll bite. You are fundamentally misunderstanding how the seat post acts as a lever inside the tube, as well as the scale of the forces created by a 200 lb guy just sitting on it. I don't feel like explaining why further when someone with a graduate degree in engineering and someone who has seen these failures repeatedly in a shop both disagree with you.

    It is entirely possible that you may not break your frame running 2" of insertion. But, you are absolutely running a very real risk of doing so, and for what gain (I am not arguing that you should run a dropper)? If you have a warranty, that is something that Rocky probably would not cover.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •