Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    229

    Proprietary seatposts - Pinarello

    It irritates me when a manufacturer makes key parts of the bike unique to them, but maybe I'm just old school and used to everything being a "standard".

    I keep my bikes a long time, the bike this one is going to replace is 19 years old (1999 Schwinn/Serotta Paramount Ti). I am always wary of things that might be tough to replace, since my bikes tend to go through several iterations of components.

    Granted, I am looking at carbon and probably won't be keeping it 20 years, but still - almost all carbon Pinarellos use a proprietary carbon aero seatpost. I'm looking at a Pinarello Gan K that has absolutely everything I want - (Full Ultegra disc build, clearance for 30mm tires, proper thru axles front and rear, threaded BB, fairly decent wheels), but that seatpost, damn. I looked it up, and a replacement is $450! Obviously a seatpost does not "wear out", but I have broken a few in my long years of riding. I'm guessing ten years from now the bike is a throwaway if you break the post, since they will be impossible to find at any price.

    Am I over thinking this? I'd like some first hand experiences with the Gan/Dogma seatpost to help me get over this, or I'll just move on to a different bike. I posted on the Pinarello forum a few days ago but have no response.

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,590
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Am I over thinking this?
    No. You are wise.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Well, IF there's any good news, all the GANs and the Dogma use a seatpost with the same dimensions and they can be had with either 2.5 or zero set-back. The Dogma post is a bit lighter and even more expensive but same external dimensions. So... if you ever break one, you could just shop around EBay or Craigslist for any old GAN or Dogma and get both a replacement post and extra frame (or if someone breaks one, they might even sell the post).
    Well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion man. - The Dude

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChipper View Post
    Well, IF there's any good news, all the GANs and the Dogma use a seatpost with the same dimensions and they can be had with either 2.5 or zero set-back. The Dogma post is a bit lighter and even more expensive but same external dimensions. So... if you ever break one, you could just shop around EBay or Craigslist for any old GAN or Dogma and get both a replacement post and extra frame (or if someone breaks one, they might even sell the post).
    I did a little deeper googling around, and I read on a couple of places that the Dogma seatpost should not be used on a Gan, because it is thinner, and the Gan uses a wedge to hold the seatpost in place rather than a binder with set screws as on a Dogma.

    I think I'll pass. I get the whole aero thing, but the Gan K is a gravel/endurance bike that can take 35mm tires. An aero seatpost is not high on the list of wants for a gravel frame, at least not in my book.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,170

    Proprietary seatposts - Pinarello

    Your choice of course, though missing my point really... they use the same post on the GAN, GAN S, GAN RS, GAN K, GAN-etc. So, a lot of potential sources if you ever need to replace one (personally, jinxing myself now, Iíve never broken a seatpost in hundreds of thousands of miles; but, it could happen). Donít know if youíd want to spring for a Dogma post anyway unless someone wrecked their Dogma and was just selling the post cheap. The GAN and Dogma posts do put clamping force on opposite sides of the post though, a fair point, but given the safety factor designed into critical components, I donít know if Iíd stress over it if (unlikely) I broke my GAN post and (even more unlikely) found a Dogma post for cheap.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion man. - The Dude

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,850
    Run, run the other way!

  7. #7
    Happily absent RBR Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,940
    If the seat post is proprietary and comes with the frame, then it should be covered by the same warranty that covers the frame and fork.

    Seems like a bit of handwaving to object to the impractical seat post when we're talking about an Asian factory molded bike with a $4000 MRSP.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    If the seat post is proprietary and comes with the frame, then it should be covered by the same warranty that covers the frame and fork.

    Seems like a bit of handwaving to object to the impractical seat post when we're talking about an Asian factory molded bike with a $4000 MRSP.
    The 2017 Gan K with a full Ultegra build including crank and the proper RS685 hydraulic levers (instead of the bulbous RS585 levers that a lot of companies use to save money) and some decent wheels with good rotors, is $2400.

    What carbon bike in that price range is not an Asian factory molded frame?

    I've broken a couple of seatposts in my 40 years, it isn't unheard of, but if it happens again and I survive, it would be nice to be able to walk into any shop and find a replacement, rather than finding a Pinarello dealer and ordering one that may or may not show up for six weeks, and will cost $2-3-400.

    I guess I'm too old school for frames and components that you throw away when the warranty runs out.

  9. #9
    Happily absent RBR Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,940
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    The 2017 Gan K with a full Ultegra build including crank and the proper RS685 hydraulic levers (instead of the bulbous RS585 levers that a lot of companies use to save money) and some decent wheels with good rotors, is $2400.

    What carbon bike in that price range is not an Asian factory molded frame?

    I've broken a couple of seatposts in my 40 years, it isn't unheard of, but if it happens again and I survive, it would be nice to be able to walk into any shop and find a replacement, rather than finding a Pinarello dealer and ordering one that may or may not show up for six weeks, and will cost $2-3-400.

    I guess I'm too old school for frames and components that you throw away when the warranty runs out.
    I'm just pointing out that anything that could break your carbon post could also break your proprietary carbon fork or the carbon frame. If you just take the view that those components are part of a pricey unit it doesn't seem like a big deal. Just like a frame with a mast.

    $4000 or $2400 aren't expensive compared to some bikes, but that is still a rather large amount of money to spend on a bicycle. It is a luxury item. Just seems like if you were so concerned about this or that possibly going wrong an aluminum bike with Tiagra might feel better. But if an expensive bike makes sense to you, then just embrace the experience and stop sweating seat posts. Have you considered what happens if you break the front derailleur hanger or crash on that fork?
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    154
    I think you are overthinking this....
    Breaking a seat post is less likely than breaking the frame in a crash or breaking the front or rear derailleur mount which are most costly repairs - if even advisable.

    I would be more concerned about getting a proprietary seat post 10, 15 or 20 years later but this issue has been addressed above already.

    If you cannot live with that then take a different frame.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,387
    this move toward proprietary seat posts and bottom brackets has me thinking custom is more and more the way to go. i'm not sure but i think colnago is now following pinarello in the custom seat post thing. will find out feb 9th.

    and proprietary seat post probably means its not round which means that if you have an impact accident the seat post won't give which it is designed to do and more likely break.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    I'm just pointing out that anything that could break your carbon post could also break your proprietary carbon fork or the carbon frame. If you just take the view that those components are part of a pricey unit it doesn't seem like a big deal. Just like a frame with a mast.
    I get the point but think it's the 'two wrongs make a right' theory.
    My first high end bike had a proprietary fork and hard to get replaceable der. hanger (I learned, never again). Increasing the chances of being SOL years down the road, or paying a ton for a replacement, by adding a proprietary seat post to the package wouldn't help anything.

  13. #13
    Happily absent RBR Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    I get the point but think it's the 'two wrongs make a right' theory.
    My first high end bike had a proprietary fork and hard to get replaceable der. hanger (I learned, never again). Increasing the chances of being SOL years down the road, or paying a ton for a replacement, by adding a proprietary seat post to the package wouldn't help anything.
    I'm more taking the view that if it is already wrong, what's a little more wrong? If you want a Pinarello, or a Mercedes or a Rolex - get one. Just know that that the wear and tear might be more expensive than a "Motebecane", Kia or Timex and make you peace with that.
    Last edited by Kontact; 01-24-2018 at 11:56 AM.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    I'm more taking the view that if it is already wrong, what's a little more wrong? If you want a Pinarello, or a Mercedes or a Rolex - get one. Just know that that the wear and tear might be more expensive than a "Motebecane", Kia or Timex and make you piece with that.
    i get that bike manufacturers might want to experiment with 27.2 seat post sizes vs 31.6 but when they make it proprietary i think they are creating a problem that the buyer will have to deal with that the seller does not. the manufacturers would love to sell you an over-priced bike seat post or to make it more likely you buy a new bike in the future is my take

  15. #15
    Happily absent RBR Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Trek_5200 View Post
    i get that bike manufacturers might want to experiment with 27.2 seat post sizes vs 31.6 but when they make it proprietary i think they are creating a problem that the buyer will have to deal with that the seller does not. the manufacturers would love to sell you an over-priced bike seat post or to make it more likely you buy a new bike in the future is my take
    I think buyers really, really want to buy aero bikes and the seat posts are one of the most vertical, drag affected parts of the bike. If aero seat posts are unbearable, so are aero seat tubes that require braze on derailleurs.

    I get what you're saying, but the natural extension of your philosophy is that everyone should be riding an aluminum or steel bike with all round tubes to avoid any specialty component or expensive repair.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    I think buyers really, really want to buy aero bikes and the seat posts are one of the most vertical, drag affected parts of the bike. If aero seat posts are unbearable, so are aero seat tubes that require braze on derailleurs.

    I get what you're saying, but the natural extension of your philosophy is that everyone should be riding an aluminum or steel bike with all round tubes to avoid any specialty component or expensive repair.
    never said anyting about steel and aluminum, you might be building a strawman here, but you are correct that i'm not inclined to do an aero bike. if a manufacturer is designing an aero-bike maybe i could understand, otherwise don't throw in an aero seat post would be my point.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    I think buyers really, really want to buy aero bikes and the seat posts are one of the most vertical, drag affected parts of the bike. If aero seat posts are unbearable, so are aero seat tubes that require braze on derailleurs.

    I get what you're saying, but the natural extension of your philosophy is that everyone should be riding an aluminum or steel bike with all round tubes to avoid any specialty component or expensive repair.
    I agree that for a Tri bike or TT bike, or maybe even an aero road bike, the tiny advantage from an aero seatpost might be justified.

    Pinarello struck out on this one though. The Gan K is an endurance road/gravel bike. If you run 25mm tires, the gap between the front tire and the fork is enough to kill any aero advantage from the silly seatpost. Who knows what their thought process was, but I'm thinking it had more to do with making money than it did with an aero post making sense on a gravel bike. It is too bad, because they put enough thought into it to put a threaded BB and proper 12mm thru-axles on the frame, which are features that are difficult to find at any price.

  18. #18
    Happily absent RBR Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Trek_5200 View Post
    never said anyting about steel and aluminum, you might be building a strawman here, but you are correct that i'm not inclined to do an aero bike. if a manufacturer is designing an aero-bike maybe i could understand, otherwise don't throw in an aero seat post would be my point.
    The Gan K is arguably designed to be aero.

    The other thing that factors into this is ride quality. Seat posts are a huge frame member, and yet we expect frame manufacturers to not control the ride quality of this feature.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,387
    yea i remember now, aero endurance. what a dumb idea is all i recall thinking to myself.
    Last edited by Trek_5200; 01-24-2018 at 01:14 PM.

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    The other thing that factors into this is ride quality. Seat posts are a huge frame member, and yet we expect frame manufacturers to not control the ride quality of this feature.
    If engineering the ride is the concern (I've never noticed a difference from one post to the other but that's another topic) then round is probably the best shape to do that with as compared to what we see out there for proprietary. And given what can be done with carbon lay up I see no reason to do it with a non-standard diameter.

    And also, given that rider weight varies greatly as does amount of post sticking up, proprietary (one option for everyone) to address ride quality is a bit of a stretch I think.

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    If engineering the ride is the concern (I've never noticed a difference from one post to the other but that's another topic) then round is probably the best shape to do that with as compared to what we see out there for proprietary. And given what can be done with carbon lay up I see no reason to do it with a non-standard diameter.

    And also, given that rider weight varies greatly as does amount of post sticking up, proprietary (one option for everyone) to address ride quality is a bit of a stretch I think.
    dropping the diameter from 31.6 to 27.2 will achieve ride quality. the aero shape has nothing to do with ride quality. but diameter is a smaller contributor than say tire width and pressure

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Trek_5200 View Post
    dropping the diameter from 31.6 to 27.2 will achieve ride quality. the aero shape has nothing to do with ride quality. but diameter is a smaller contributor than say tire width and pressure
    Getting off topic but diameter alone had nothing to do with it. Some combination of diameter, wall thickness and material will determine flex/stiffness.

  23. #23
    Happily absent RBR Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    If engineering the ride is the concern (I've never noticed a difference from one post to the other but that's another topic) then round is probably the best shape to do that with as compared to what we see out there for proprietary. And given what can be done with carbon lay up I see no reason to do it with a non-standard diameter.

    And also, given that rider weight varies greatly as does amount of post sticking up, proprietary (one option for everyone) to address ride quality is a bit of a stretch I think.
    If that were true, then frames would also come in weight classes as well as sizes - a 56cm Heavy, please.


    Proprietary seat posts aren't primarily about ride quality, they are primarily about aero aesthetics. But if we are going to allow for aero posts, who better to design them for their ride qualities than the frame manufacturer?


    The cure for all of this would be manufacturers agreeing on some aero seat post standards that work across many brands. But we are moving away from aftermarket standard stems, forks and even brakes, so this sounds unlikely.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
    If that were true, then frames would also come in weight classes as well as sizes - a 56cm Heavy, please.


    Proprietary seat posts aren't primarily about ride quality, they are primarily about aero aesthetics. But if we are going to allow for aero posts, who better to design them for their ride qualities than the frame manufacturer?


    The cure for all of this would be manufacturers agreeing on some aero seat post standards that work across many brands. But we are moving away from aftermarket standard stems, forks and even brakes, so this sounds unlikely.
    I see you're just moving the goal posts now but frames do come in weight classes. They are called custom. And the only reason stock ones don't is cost and inventory control. And people can choose their frame and I was responding to a scenario where you said a seat post was about ride quality and people could not choose because it was proprietary.

    Just because the mainstream market does not have frames by rider weight does not mean everyone using the same seat post for the purpose of ride quality makes sense. A real stretch trying to make that connection.

  25. #25
    Happily absent RBR Member
    Reputation: Kontact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    I see you're just moving the goal posts now but frames do come in weight classes. They are called custom. And the only reason stock ones don't is cost and inventory control. And people can choose their frame and I was responding to a scenario where you said a seat post was about ride quality and people could not choose because it was proprietary.

    Just because the mainstream market does not have frames by rider weight does not mean everyone using the same seat post for the purpose of ride quality makes sense. A real stretch trying to make that connection.
    If it is a stretch that a frame maker would only have one post for ride quality, why isn't it a stretch that they only have one frame for ride quality? I'm not following that logic. Either frames AND posts could be designed for ride quality, or neither are.


    Yes, this is just a sidebar. For me personally, I prefer bikes that aren't full of proprietary stuff. But if you are willing to go down that road, I can't see objecting to just the seat post.
    Get a better saddle: www.kontactbike.com

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. klein proprietary stem?
    By steel515 in forum Components, Wrenching
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2007, 07:51 AM
  2. proprietary tires?
    By bmwrt in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-05-2006, 03:45 PM
  3. Cervelo proprietary seat post a concern?
    By Cog Neato in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2006, 05:11 PM
  4. Proprietary fork on '03 5900?
    By Coppi51 in forum Trek
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-28-2006, 08:12 AM
  5. Proprietary vrs. Name brand bikes and parts?
    By Jaybo in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-17-2005, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.