[Classicrendezvous] Re: SL vs. old Record seatposts was[Other Campy Mysteries]

Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PY-10

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:37:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
To: Marc Boral <mbikealive@earthlink.net>
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [Classicrendezvous] Re: SL vs. old Record seatposts was[Other Campy Mysteries]


I have just discovered this group, and I have so many questions... I know I should take a minute to introduce myself, but I'll do that under a seperate cover. I'm trying to organize all this Campy info in my head, and I hope you can help me by confirming my interpretation of what you have to say about Campy posts. 1) GS and Record are similar except for the limit line and the shape of the nuts. 2) SL was a lightened Record differing in the ways that you previously detailed. 3) The SR was introduced as an SL with flutes and thinned-down front and rear brackets (and different bolts and cradles?) 4) The NR came out AFTER the SR and was essentially a Record shaft with all the hardware from the SR.

This still leaves me with some unanswered quetions: A) when did the alloy left and right cradles come along and which models did they appear on? B) Are all front and rear brackets made or steel? Are there just the two (GS/R/SL and SR/NR) types? c) I've seen two types of nut. One is camfered, or counterbored, the other has a half-round (bullnose?) edge on the visible face. These are probably the same nuts you refer to as beveled and radiused, respectively. If so, it looks like the heavier-looking (radiused) one goes on the old Record and the lighter (beveled) one goes on the GS. Is this correct? What goes on the SL, the SR, and the NR? d) You indicate that the L&R cradles and bolts of the SR were also adopted for the NR. How do these parts differ from those found on the GS, R, and SL? e) When were the SL, SR, NR posts introduced?

--- Marc Boral wrote:

> Hi John,


\r?\n> I disagree on just a few of your observations. I

\r?\n> measured a few NOS SL and

\r?\n> a few NOS old Record seatposts of the same diameter.

\r?\n> Here are the

\r?\n> differences with my test batch:


\r?\n> The SL:

\r?\n> a) wall thickness is approx. 2.4 mm., and the Rec.

\r?\n> is approx. 3.0 mm.

\r?\n> b) weighs only 20g. less than the Rec.

\r?\n> c) inside bore was same length as Rec.

\r?\n> d) always has an obvious bevel at the top of the

\r?\n> polished cylinder.

\r?\n> e) is mirror polished whereas the Rec. has signs of

\r?\n> lathe machining.

\r?\n> f) pivot boss for supports (cradle) is bored

\r?\n> through, Rec. is solid.


\r?\n> John, are you sure aren't mistakenly using a G.S.

\r?\n> seatpost in your

\r?\n> comparison? But then even if you were, the G.S.

\r?\n> seatposts I checked, have

\r?\n> the same length of bore that the old Rec. & SL have.

\r?\n> It could be as simple

\r?\n> as a running manufacturing change as to the

\r?\n> difference in bore

\r?\n> length................who knows.


\r?\n> Here is a little more info for those of you out

\r?\n> there that care: The Gran

\r?\n> Sport post is the same as the old Rec. post, EXCEPT

\r?\n> the G.S. has a limit

\r?\n> line, and its fixing nuts (#703) have the inside

\r?\n> beveled ends as opposed to

\r?\n> the inside radiused ends. The stampings,

\r?\n> brackets/supports, and finish are

\r?\n> the same as the old Rec. So for all intensive

\r?\n> purposes, once the post is in

\r?\n> the seat tube, 99 % of Campy enthusiasts would be

\r?\n> fooled.


\r?\n> Another interesting tidbit regarding Campy

\r?\n> seatposts: When Campy first

\r?\n> introduced the Super Record seatpost, they slimmed

\r?\n> down the frt. & rear

\r?\n> brackets (#698/699), and assigned them new part #s

\r?\n> (4054/4055). They were

\r?\n> still made of steel. These brackets then became

\r?\n> standard issue on the NR

\r?\n> seatpost upon its debut, but did not retain their

\r?\n> 4054/4055 numbers.

\r?\n> Instead, Campy used the part #s for the old style

\r?\n> brackets. So since then,

\r?\n> we are faced with two different parts (brackets for

\r?\n> old Rec/SL/G.S and

\r?\n> slightly different ones for NR) that are cataloged

\r?\n> with the same part #.

\r?\n> This same sort of thing between the SR & NR happened

\r?\n> with the fixing bolts

\r?\n> and L & R supports. I am very happy that Campy made

\r?\n> catalogs, but remember

\r?\n> not to view them as the definitive last word.


\r?\n> Marc Boral




\r?\n> John wrote:


\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > > As for Campy mysteries, you didn't give me the

\r?\n> scoop

\r?\n> > > on the SL seatpost. I've heard of those, but I

\r?\n> have

\r?\n> > > never seen one (that I noticed). Is there a

\r?\n> hole

\r?\n> > > through the pivot where the cradle attaches? Is

\r?\n> the

\r?\n> > > post beveled at the top of the cylindrical

\r?\n> portion?

\r?\n> > > Are there alloy parts in place of steel?

\r?\n> Inquiring

\r?\n> > > minds want to know.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > The only differences that I can tell are that the

\r?\n> bore from the

\r?\n> > bottom-up goes about 1.5 cm further on the SL,

\r?\n> and the cradles are

\r?\n> > alloy. Otherwise the wall thickness is the same,

\r?\n> and everything else

\r?\n> > seems to be the same. The cradle pivot looks the

\r?\n> same. The NR post

\r?\n> > weighs 330 gm and the Superleggera weighs 275 gm!

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > John Barron

\r?\n> > Minneapolis