Johnny, The seat post was not really a bad design at all, but you must understand how things are manufactured to see why. When this type of post was made, the type of machinery needed to make it was not that sophisticated. Hence the design seams less than ideal from our stand point, because CNC mills and lathes are the norm. We can easily and cheaply make parts that would have cost thousands 50+ years ago.
Look at the evolution of the crank set and bottom bracket. The cotter'd BB is by far the simplest to make. I could make one with my 1910 South Bend lathe. The tapered square bb spindle is much harder to make, and you'll need more sophisticated equipment to produce these. Now we have the out board bearings and hollow crank arms, these parts exploit the use of CNC machinery. And I'd like to add to my review that the Nitto SP-60 is heavier and less adjustable than just about every other modern seat post. I wanted one for the look and just because none of my bike club friends have one (most never seen one!) I have other bikes with Campagnolo seat post, Thomson, and other Nitto models, so a little diversity was needed. On Aug 22, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Johnny Alien wrote: > I am a bit lost on this as well. While they look great I always > thought the two part seatposts of the past were a bad design > decision. Past nostalgia what would be the benefit of this post? James Valiensi, PE Northridge, CA H818.775.1847 M.818.585.1796 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
