Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm looking for a seatpost for a new bike build - Maverick American ML7. I don't really like the Thomson posts and they are very heavy, but I do trust them. I would prefer to use the USE Alien (Al or Ti) seatpost, but they don't make a 30.9 and I am concerned about strength for the steep seattube angle of the ML7. I weigh about 165 lbs. Would a 27.2 mm post and shim be safe?

Any other options that may work for this application? I'm really not interested in Extralite since I have not had very good luck with their products although I have never bent or broken a seatpost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
B R H said:
I'm looking for a seatpost for a new bike build - Maverick American ML7. I don't really like the Thomson posts and they are very heavy, but I do trust them. I would prefer to use the USE Alien (Al or Ti) seatpost, but they don't make a 30.9 and I am concerned about strength for the steep seattube angle of the ML7. I weigh about 165 lbs. Would a 27.2 mm post and shim be safe?

Any other options that may work for this application? I'm really not interested in Extralite since I have not had very good luck with their products although I have never bent or broken a seatpost.
Maybe Thomson makes a Masterlight in a 30.9.
I use a Syncros carbon in my 30.9, and I weight 165, but I don't have that steep seattube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Scanning the QBP catalog, your choices (just thru them....) are FSA, Kalloy, MaxM, Race Face, Ritchey, Syncros, Thomson, and Titec... all have posts available in that size.

The lightest of those would be the MaxM which is a carbon post....listed at 220 grams for a 400mm... the Thomson in 410mm is listed at 265 grams... and they have a reputation for being very damn solid. I am about 220 lbs and haven't had any issues with the one on my hardtail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the replies. I'll probably go with the Thomson because MA recommends it. I'm not sure the MaxM post has enough saddle tilt adjustment to make up for the slack seat tube angle, but I have one lying around somewhere to measure (of course it's the wrong size for the ML7).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
B R H said:
Thanks for the replies. I'll probably go with the Thomson because MA recommends it. I'm not sure the MaxM post has enough saddle tilt adjustment to make up for the slack seat tube angle, but I have one lying around somewhere to measure (of course it's the wrong size for the ML7).
I wouldn't even think of putting a lightweight carbon post on a bike like a Maverick! Look at the angle of your post! Why would you even think of puting a super light carbon post on a full suspension bike with that seatpost angle? Get the biggest toughest burleyest post you can get. Your bike is not a superlight bike, why try to put a superlight post on it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Because it all adds up! The bike will be under 24 lbs. MaxM said their post would be fine for this application so I assume the Easton EC70 would work too. If USE made a version of their carbon post in 30.9 mm, I'd get that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
B R H said:
Because it all adds up! The bike will be under 24 lbs. MaxM said their post would be fine for this application so I assume the Easton EC70 would work too. If USE made a version of their carbon post in 30.9 mm, I'd get that one.
I just bought a Maverick ML7 and will be using the Thomson post they recommend. I'm kind of with russw19 on this--the ML7 is a frame that puts the seatpost at an extreme rear angle, and the suspension design encourages taking hits while seated, so major stresses will be put on the seatpost. I am not a fan of USE posts. I had a CF one on my roadbike and found clamp adjustment to be cumbersome. The bond between the clamp and shaft failed in a crash, and getting the shaft out of my frame was a major headache. But if you find a light post that works with the ML7, please post a followup review after six months or so. Good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
What are the details on your setup? A 24 lb ML7 sounds like a nice bike. Mine will be heavier but hopefully sturdy:

Frame: Maverick ML7, black, size L, “Nevus”
Fork: Maverick DUC32, black
Headset: FSA Carbon
Stem: Maverick 90mm
Bar: Maxm MX-5 carbon riser
Crankset: Shimano XT Hollowtech
Shifters: SRAM X.9 Trigger
Front derailleur: Shimano XT E-type
Rear derailleur: SRAM X.0
Cassette: SRAM 9.0 11-34
Chain: Wipperman Connex stainless
Shifter cables: Nokon alloy
Front brakes: Hope Mono M4, 205mm rotor
Rear brakes: Hope Mono M4, 180mm rotor
Brake lines: Goodridge braided steel
Front wheel: Maverick 24mm thru-axle hub, 14/15 spokes, Mavic XM819 rim
Rear wheel: Hadley 10mm thru-axle hub, 14/15 spokes, Mavic XM819 rim
Seatpost: Thomson Elite 30.9mm
Tires: WTB Weirwolf 2.1 UST
Pedals: Crank Bros Candy
Grips: ODI Lock-On
Saddle: WTB Laser V Team DH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Most of the weight savings over your build comes from using 11-30 8-speed Gripshift and lighter wheels, pedals, & brakes. I don't have all the parts yet, so after I confirm all the weights, I'll post the final weight here. I'm pretty sure it will be just under 24 pounds even with bigger "play" tires.

Since you chose a large frame, I'm curious how tall you are and what your inseam is? I'm 5' 10.5" with a ~33.5" inseam (measured, not pants size). A large frame with DUC32 and the longest stem Maverick offers (105 mm?), was too short lengthwise and the bike was also too tall. The top tube lengths don't increase much with frame size, but the standover height jumps 2" between the mediium and large. I'm hoping a medium will work out with standard fork and 120 mm stem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I like the USE Alien posts and haven't had any problems with them yet. I had a carbon post but gave it to a friend since I needed a shim and that made it almost as heavy as the Ti version I use instead (also silver Ti color looked better).

I agree that a carbon post may be risky and that is why I asked. MaxM told me their post would be fine. I'll be trying both the Thomson and Easton EC70 carbon, but I think I'll need the carbon to get the cockpit length I want. The EC70 has alot of setback... hopefully not too much. I suppose this will also stress the post even more. I've tried contacting them to see if it will be OK, but their website refers to contacting dealers instead. One dealer, Wrench Science, didn't think it would be a problem if I could find a carbon post that would work (I assume they are worried about getting the seat angle right).

If it doesn't work out (i.e., it breaks), I'm sure you'll see a post here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
B R H said:
Since you chose a large frame, I'm curious how tall you are and what your inseam is? I'm 5' 10.5" with a ~33.5" inseam (measured, not pants size). A large frame with DUC32 and the longest stem Maverick offers (105 mm?), was too short lengthwise and the bike was also too tall. The top tube lengths don't increase much with frame size, but the standover height jumps 2" between the mediium and large. I'm hoping a medium will work out with standard fork and 120 mm stem.
I am 6' tall with a 32" jeans inseam. I bought a size L frame with the DUC32 fork and 90mm stem. I have not test-ridden the bike. The purchase was a big leap of faith, especially since it will be my first full-suspension bike. I'm sure it will take a lot of getting used to. I used to race a lot--cat 3 road, cyclocross, MTB XC years ago--but now I don't have time to train and want to ride for fun rather than competition. Night riding with my labrador retriever and stuff like that. So a do-everything trail bike like the ML7 really appealed to me. I'm sure my position on the Maverick will be very different than my racy Merlin XLM hardtail (17.5" frame, 13cm stem, flat bar, old SID 60mm fork).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Unless your arms are abnormally short or you wear pants that are really short :) , I think you'll be sitting quite upright compared to anything you may have raced. Maybe that's what you're after though. The DUC32 is going to feel like a motocross fork compared to that SID! It's a really tall fork (from an XC perspective at least). Very stiff and light though. I don't think you'll be disappointed with the frame (other than the minor cable routing & front derailleur quirks).

I can't wait to start getting mine put together this week. Below is my build data. The weights in red are not confirmed, but should be very close.

PS. Have you actually measured your height or inseam lately? I wear a size 32 pants and was 5' 11.5" tall not too long ago. I need to stop landing on my head!

ComponentYearModelWeightUnitsNotes
bar2002Easton EC70125.0g580 mm x 3 degree sweep, no rise, carbon fiber.
bar ends2003Extralite UltraEnds54.0gBlack.
bottle cage bolts2004Maverick American6.0g(4) M5 x 16 mm, alloy.
bottom bracket2004Race Face Dues XC111.0gX-type, includes L, R, sleeve.
brake (F)2003Formula B4SL+228.0gPump (Al), caliper (Al), line (cut), bolts (Al), pads, oil.
brake (R)2003Formula B4SL+240.0gPump (Al), caliper (Al), line (cut), bolts (Al), pads, oil.
brake rotor (F)2003Formula B4SL123.0g160 mm steel rotor, (6) steel bolts.
brake rotor (R)2003Formula B4SL97.0g140 mm steel rotor, (6) steel bolts.
cassette2002Shimano XTR CS-M950210.0g8 speed ak (11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30), including lockring.
chain2003SRAM PC89R Hollow Pin250.0g104 links, including masterlink, lubed.
chainring (large)2004Race Face Deus XC89.0g4 bolt @ 104 mm, 44 teeth, ramped & pinned, aluminum.
chainring (middle)2004Race Face Deus XC45.0g4 bolt @ 104 mm, 32 teeth, ramped & pinned, aluminum.
chainring (small)2004Race Face Deus XC23.0g4 bolt @ 64 mm, 22 teeth, aluminum.
chainring bolts (inner)2004Race Face4.0g(4) 8 mm, alloy.
chainring bolts (outer)2004Race Face8.0g(4) 8 mm with nuts, alloy.
chainstay protector2004Maverick American0.0gIncluded in frame.
computer2003Sigma BC80033.0gComputer (w/battery), sensor (wired), Shimano spoke magnet.
crank arms2004Race Face Dues XC523.0g175 mm, 4 bolt 104/64 mm.
crank bolts2004Race Face Deus XC21.0gDrive side bolt (aluminum), washer (steel), cover (aluminum).
derailleur (F)2004Shimano Dura Ace103.0gTriple, braze-on, model 7703.
derailleur (R)2002SRAM X.0207.0gMedium cage.
derailleur hanger2004Maverick American0.0gIncluded in frame.
fork2004Fox Float 100 RLT OE1612.0g100 mm, disc-only, 194 mm steerer.
frame2004Maverick American ML-72502.5gSize medium, anodized black.
gripsSchwinn Stinger ATB53.0gClear, cut down, includes bar end plugs (generic).
headset2004FSA Orbit CF Carbon62.0gIncludes cap & bolt.
hub (F)2003Chris King ISO Disc165.0g32 holes, silver.
hub (R)2003Chris King ISO Disc306.0g32 holes, silver.
hub skewer (F)2002Nashbar30.0gBolt-on (steel, black).
hub skewer (R)2002Nashbar35.0gBolt-on (steel, black).
miscellaneous5.0gZip ties, grease.
pedals2003Crank Brothers Eggbeater S270.0g
rim (F)2004Stan's ZTR 355368.0g559 x 24 mm, 32 holes, black.
rim (R)2004Stan's ZTR 355369.0g559 x 24 mm, 32 holes, black.
saddle2002Selle Italia SLR140.0gTi rails, black leather cover.
seatpost2004Easton EC70215.0g30.9 mm x 400 mm, carbon fiber.
seatpost clamp2004Maverick American0.0gIncluded in frame.
shift cables2002Gore RideOn Ultralight75.0g
shifters2002SRAM 9.0 Shorty167.0g8 speed, w/Amy grips.
shock2004Maverick American0.0gIncluded in frame.
shock bolts2004Maverick American0.0gIncluded in frame.
spokes (F)2003Sapim CX-Ray139.6g(16) 258 & (16) 260 x 2.3/0.9 mm, stainless steel, black & silver.
spokes (R)2003Sapim CX-Ray139.6g(16) 258 & (16) 260 x 2.3/0.9 mm, stainless steel, black & silver.
spoke nipples (F)2003Sapim Polyax11.1g(32) 2.0 x 14 mm, aluminum, black & silver.
spoke nipples (R)2003Sapim Polyax11.1g(32) 2.0 x 14 mm, aluminum, black & silver.
star-fangled nut11.0gSteel.
stem2003Syntace F99101.0g120 mm x 6 degrees, including titanium bolts.
stem spacers4.0g(2) 5 mm x 1.125", carbon fiber.
tire (F)2003Panaracer Fire XC Pro557.0g26" x 2.10", folding, blackwall.
tire (R)2003WTB WeirWolf 2.3 (52/58)744.0g
tire seal system (F)2003Eclipse A126U125.0gRimstrip, valve, tape, 75 grams sealant, air.
tire seal system (R)2003Eclipse A126U125.0gRimstrip, valve, tape, 75 grams sealant, air.
TOTAL10.84kg
TOTAL23.85lbs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
B R H said:
QUOTE]

Wow, you have really done your homework! Very impressive. There is not much room for losing weight on your planned bike without compromising durability/safety or really driving up costs. I think an XTR crankset might be lighter, and the triple-Ti version of your pedals would shave some grams, but that's about it without really changing things.

Have you used the Eclipse tubeless system? Is it better than Stan's? I haven't used either. Do you prefer converted normal tires to UST?

Anyways, good luck with the build. Hopefully both of us will be on the trail within a couple weeks on our new dream bikes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
B R H said:
Because it all adds up! The bike will be under 24 lbs. MaxM said their post would be fine for this application so I assume the Easton EC70 would work too. If USE made a version of their carbon post in 30.9 mm, I'd get that one.
My concern isn't the weight of the MaxM post, it's that it is a carbon post on the angle that a Maverick frame will put it on. Carbon posts are designed to be strong in the vertical plane based on the lay up of the carbon. With a post in a normal frame, it's not a big issue because the post is fairly close to vertical. But in that Maverick frame your post is going to be closer to a 45 degree angle, which now means there will be as much stress on the post in the vertical as well as the horizontal plane. That carbon post wasn't designed to be stressed like that. And of course MaxM is going to tell you it will be fine, they are trying to sell you a post. I, on the other hand, am not. So you don't have to take my advice, but if you really needed to save 45 grams and put a suspect post on, I would suggest you picked the wrong frame for your needs. Besides, how much do you weigh yourself? You said 165 and you are trying to get your bike to under 24, right? OK so let's look at the exact difference you will be making by picking the MaxM over a Thomson that Maverick actually recommends for their frame. *And remember, they are recommending it independent of their own interests because they don't have a financial interest in Thomson posts.*

So you plus bike equals 189 pounds. 189 pounds is 85.806 kgs. Drop 45 grams from that. So 85.761/85.806 means that you are saving 0.0524% by using the MaxM post. For the strength concerns that you will give up, I don't think you are doing yourself any favors by choosing the MaxM post. It's also about $40 more expensive than the Thomson. By the way, the 367mm Thomson post is only 10 grams heavier than the MaxM (which is now a 10th of a percent difference)

It's your bike and I am not trying to tell you what to buy or how to spend your money, but too many bike and component companies are bombarding consumers with this silly notion that lighter is better and lightweight carbon seatposts will make your bike better. It's a gigantic self serving lie. I am just trying to put things into perspective so that you make a smart choice based on something more than a few grams. I would choose a stronger post over a superlight carbon post based on that frame design and the post's angle. But again, it's your bike, not mine...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
Many of the parts are from my previous bike or are leftovers. According to the WW website, XTR would indeed be about 30 grams or so lighter than the Deus setup, but I got the Deus as a warranty replacement for my cracked Next LP. I've been considering trying one of these new external bearing cranksets since I've had no luck with ISIS, but the plan was to wait until the bugs were worked out while I went thru one more set of chainrings I had already purchased for the Next LP. I've been drooling over the triple Ti pedals ever since they came out, but I just can't get myself to spend that much on pedals. Maybe for the more race-oriented hardtail I hope to put together before spring.

I've been using Eclipse rimstrips for quite a while now (maybe 2 years?). They are a much nicer system. It doesn't rely on the compression of rubber and glue factor of the sealant to hold the bead. The rimstrip has ridges that make an inner beadlock to prevent tire burping. They are also about half the weight and the sealant doesn't stick to them. I've had zero flats due to punctures since I went tubeless (over 2 years now), but have certainly had my share due to cuts. Take that back. I had a 16 d nail skewer my tire in a race this summer. If I could have got the nail out fast enough, it may have sealed. You also only need to remove the valve with Eclipse (vs. the entire rimstrip with Stan's) to put a tube in (which is still a mess with either system but at least you don't have to pack up a slimy dripping rimstrip!). I still prefer Stan's sealant by a longshot though. I've never tried UST tires.

I can't wait to put it together... hopefully riding next weekend! Hope yours works out well for you too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Even standard seat tube angles place a substantial bending load on a post. I seriously doubt fiber orientation is as important as you assert considering the loads a post is designed to carry to begin with. I am a relatively light rider compared to someone over 200 lbs and I haven't seen any weight limit on carbon posts. I think the clamp bond to the quill would be the most likely failure point, but that's just a wild guess. It may very well turn out that the carbon post doesn't work out for other reasons like setback or seat angle adjustment. Since nobody can offer any direct experience, if it does fit, I guess I'm the guinea pig! Hopefully I won't end up bleeding like a stuck pig! That thought sort of gives new meaning to the phrase "a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!" :)

PS. I doubt MaxM would take such a risk to sell 1 seatpost. That's just silly. Have you seen any broken carbon seatposts? That would be much more useful information to share.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Wrench Science post recommendations

B R H said:
I like the USE Alien posts and haven't had any problems with them yet. I had a carbon post but gave it to a friend since I needed a shim and that made it almost as heavy as the Ti version I use instead (also silver Ti color looked better).

I agree that a carbon post may be risky and that is why I asked. MaxM told me their post would be fine. I'll be trying both the Thomson and Easton EC70 carbon, but I think I'll need the carbon to get the cockpit length I want. The EC70 has alot of setback... hopefully not too much. I suppose this will also stress the post even more. I've tried contacting them to see if it will be OK, but their website refers to contacting dealers instead. One dealer, Wrench Science, didn't think it would be a problem if I could find a carbon post that would work (I assume they are worried about getting the seat angle right).

If it doesn't work out (i.e., it breaks), I'm sure you'll see a post here.
I wouldn't get any posts that have Offset, which is one of the major reasons Maverick suggests the Thomson. We have used carbon and haven't had any failures, yet. USE's clamp is so ***** I wouldn't even think about using that. Easton is coming out with a new NO-offset carbon, Bontrager has a Triple XXX in carbon, but I haven't researched if they make them in 30.9, yet. I do have to agree that getting a carbon post may shave 20 grams, and yes if all added togetther you can trim so weight, but you also have to have some sense about putting the right parts on the bike for weight vs. durability. Form over fashion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Thanks for the info on the new Easton carbon post! I may give that a try when it comes out. I hope it has a single bolt design similar to the current one, although I don't know how they could pull that off. Another post that caught my eye was the Syncros carbon but I haven't been able to determine if it will have enough angle adjustment.

It turns out that the current EC70 comes up just a little short with the saddle angle adjustment. Another 5 degrees and it would be fine. The additional setback is too much at my saddle height. There was no way for me to know for sure until I tried it on the bike. I did some measuring on an ML7 I rented, but there were too many differences to be sure.

I like the Alien clamp but they don't offer a 30.9 and I wouldn't want to use a shim. I'm not sure if the clamp to post interface would be strong enough with the Alien though. I don't like the Thomson clamp at all. I'm usually not coordinated enough to get the saddle in there without taking it completely apart and then those 2 round nuts just roll all over the place. I trust the Thomson and it looks good even though I dislike the clamp and the fact that it is a tank.

PS. I'm not sure why people seem to think the ML7 fits a different need than any other light full suspension frame. It's almost 1/4 pound lighter than my Truth frame and almost certainly more durable too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Reply from Answer regarding their carbon seatpost:

"We have tested our Carbon seatpost from angles starting at 55deg to 75deg. This seatpost will be totally safe to be used in your frame."
 
1 - 20 of 24 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