[B R H]

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.

 

[danK]

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.

 

[russw19]

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.

 

[B R H]

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).

 

[russw19]

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?

 

[B R H]

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.

 

[dyg2001]

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!

 

[dyg2001]

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

 

[B R H]

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.

 

[B R H]

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.

 

[Esben]

What about an Extralite the post UL. 30,9 X 36 = 183 gr . I works nice on my Epic.

Esben

 

[dyg2001]

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).

 

[B R H]

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!

Component	Year	Model	Weight	Units	Notes
bar	2002	Easton EC70	125.0	g	580 mm x 3 degree sweep, no rise, carbon fiber.
bar ends	2003	Extralite UltraEnds	54.0	g	Black.
bottle cage bolts	2004	Maverick American	6.0	g	(4) M5 x 16 mm, alloy.
bottom bracket	2004	Race Face Dues XC	111.0	g	X-type, includes L, R, sleeve.
brake (F)	2003	Formula B4SL+	228.0	g	Pump (Al), caliper (Al), line (cut), bolts (Al), pads, oil.
brake (R)	2003	Formula B4SL+	240.0	g	Pump (Al), caliper (Al), line (cut), bolts (Al), pads, oil.
brake rotor (F)	2003	Formula B4SL	123.0	g	160 mm steel rotor, (6) steel bolts.
brake rotor (R)	2003	Formula B4SL	97.0	g	140 mm steel rotor, (6) steel bolts.
cassette	2002	Shimano XTR CS-M950	210.0	g	8 speed ak (11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30), including lockring.
chain	2003	SRAM PC89R Hollow Pin	250.0	g	104 links, including masterlink, lubed.
chainring (large)	2004	Race Face Deus XC	89.0	g	4 bolt @ 104 mm, 44 teeth, ramped & pinned, aluminum.
chainring (middle)	2004	Race Face Deus XC	45.0	g	4 bolt @ 104 mm, 32 teeth, ramped & pinned, aluminum.
chainring (small)	2004	Race Face Deus XC	23.0	g	4 bolt @ 64 mm, 22 teeth, aluminum.
chainring bolts (inner)	2004	Race Face	4.0	g	(4) 8 mm, alloy.
chainring bolts (outer)	2004	Race Face	8.0	g	(4) 8 mm with nuts, alloy.
chainstay protector	2004	Maverick American	0.0	g	Included in frame.
computer	2003	Sigma BC800	33.0	g	Computer (w/battery), sensor (wired), Shimano spoke magnet.
crank arms	2004	Race Face Dues XC	523.0	g	175 mm, 4 bolt 104/64 mm.
crank bolts	2004	Race Face Deus XC	21.0	g	Drive side bolt (aluminum), washer (steel), cover (aluminum).
derailleur (F)	2004	Shimano Dura Ace	103.0	g	Triple, braze-on, model 7703.
derailleur (R)	2002	SRAM X.0	207.0	g	Medium cage.
derailleur hanger	2004	Maverick American	0.0	g	Included in frame.
fork	2004	Fox Float 100 RLT OE	1612.0	g	100 mm, disc-only, 194 mm steerer.
frame	2004	Maverick American ML-7	2502.5	g	Size medium, anodized black.
grips		Schwinn Stinger ATB	53.0	g	Clear, cut down, includes bar end plugs (generic).
headset	2004	FSA Orbit CF Carbon	62.0	g	Includes cap & bolt.
hub (F)	2003	Chris King ISO Disc	165.0	g	32 holes, silver.
hub (R)	2003	Chris King ISO Disc	306.0	g	32 holes, silver.
hub skewer (F)	2002	Nashbar	30.0	g	Bolt-on (steel, black).
hub skewer (R)	2002	Nashbar	35.0	g	Bolt-on (steel, black).
miscellaneous			5.0	g	Zip ties, grease.
pedals	2003	Crank Brothers Eggbeater S	270.0	g
rim (F)	2004	Stan's ZTR 355	368.0	g	559 x 24 mm, 32 holes, black.
rim (R)	2004	Stan's ZTR 355	369.0	g	559 x 24 mm, 32 holes, black.
saddle	2002	Selle Italia SLR	140.0	g	Ti rails, black leather cover.
seatpost	2004	Easton EC70	215.0	g	30.9 mm x 400 mm, carbon fiber.
seatpost clamp	2004	Maverick American	0.0	g	Included in frame.
shift cables	2002	Gore RideOn Ultralight	75.0	g
shifters	2002	SRAM 9.0 Shorty	167.0	g	8 speed, w/Amy grips.
shock	2004	Maverick American	0.0	g	Included in frame.
shock bolts	2004	Maverick American	0.0	g	Included in frame.
spokes (F)	2003	Sapim CX-Ray	139.6	g	(16) 258 & (16) 260 x 2.3/0.9 mm, stainless steel, black & silver.
spokes (R)	2003	Sapim CX-Ray	139.6	g	(16) 258 & (16) 260 x 2.3/0.9 mm, stainless steel, black & silver.
spoke nipples (F)	2003	Sapim Polyax	11.1	g	(32) 2.0 x 14 mm, aluminum, black & silver.
spoke nipples (R)	2003	Sapim Polyax	11.1	g	(32) 2.0 x 14 mm, aluminum, black & silver.
star-fangled nut			11.0	g	Steel.
stem	2003	Syntace F99	101.0	g	120 mm x 6 degrees, including titanium bolts.
stem spacers			4.0	g	(2) 5 mm x 1.125", carbon fiber.
tire (F)	2003	Panaracer Fire XC Pro	557.0	g	26" x 2.10", folding, blackwall.
tire (R)	2003	WTB WeirWolf 2.3 (52/58)	744.0	g
tire seal system (F)	2003	Eclipse A126U	125.0	g	Rimstrip, valve, tape, 75 grams sealant, air.
tire seal system (R)	2003	Eclipse A126U	125.0	g	Rimstrip, valve, tape, 75 grams sealant, air.
TOTAL	10.84	kg
TOTAL	23.85	lbs

 

[dyg2001]

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.

 

[russw19]

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...

 

[B R H]

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!

 

[B R H]

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.

 

[zaxxon]

Wrench Science post recommendations

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.

 

[B R H]

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!

 

[B R H]

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."