Re: [CR]Exhaustive/Exhausting discussion of two-bolt Campy posts

(Example: Bike Shops:R.E.W. Reynolds)

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:22:25 +1300
From: "Wayne Davidson" <wayne.collect@xtra.co.nz>
Cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]Exhaustive/Exhausting discussion of two-bolt Campy posts
References: <495234.81951.qm@web55909.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <495234.81951.qm@web55909.mail.re3.yahoo.com>


hi all, while I enjoyed all the good info on the seat posts, I did say to myself, I've never seen factory black anno lower craddles, I've done a couple of sets myself without ever knowing the factory did them, just done it to highlight the red/black ALAN I had, also I've never seen an alloy one break before. Another method of highlighting one of these posts is to use the nice chrome plated lower craddles from the older steel posts, that does look good, but does add weight. I've used OMAS alloy bolt/nut kits to all my posts with NO ill affects, and apart from lowering the weight also reduces the rust potential. various kits were made by Cobra, OMAS Arnold etc over the years as well as a few rip offs from the Japanese country, always a great source of alloy parts to reduce the weight of your 2 bolt seatpost, I've even bored out the ID a little agin I've never broken one yet, or seen signs of cracking..............wayne davidson Invers NZ.....

Tom Dalton wrote:
> Paul Kemp asked about the parts in the early SR post:
>
> According to Campy Cat. 17a, the upper rail clamps and the bolts
> should be unique on the S.R. post too (perhaps alloy and Ti?).
>
> Paul,
>
> Here's my best answer, others are more than welcome to add to it:
>
> The SR post had revised upper clamps, bolts, barrel nuts, and lower c radles. The camfered barrel nuts and alloy lower cradles are easy to ide ntify, due to obviously different shape and material, respectively. The upper clamps and the bolts are not as easy to identify. The clamps are j ust pared down a little; there's just less steel there. The bolts are a similar situation in that the material is still steel, but they are trimm ed a bit (the heads are of lower profile). The confusion really mounts b ecause sometime after the c 1973 intro of the SR post Campy eventually be gan to use all these parts on some or all of the Record posts. I don't k now if this was an immediate thing, something that they transitioned to,
   or perhaps something that they only started to do after the intro of the
   later 1-bolt SR post c. 1978.
>
> As an aside, the alloy cradles, camfered nuts, etc. are often attribu ted to the Record SL post that was introduced c 1971. The original SL us ed the same hardware as Record, but had thinner walls, a camfer at the to p of the shaft and a boring through the pivot (all these features carried
   over to SR, if I'm not mistaken, plus the flutes were added). All the r evised lightweight parts only came about later, when SR was introduced. Later Record SL posts apparently came with some or all of the lightweight
   parts that were introduced with the SR. The really confounding part is that none of the parts or packages are dated, so you could get an old Rec ord (or later GS... but that's another matter) with all the "heavy" parts
   and a new Record SL with the light parts and make the reasonable conclus ion that the "light" parts were SL-specific and date back to 1971. They are not and do not, as far as I can tell. They are an SR thing dating ba ck to 1973 and they later found their way
> to the Record and Record SL models.
>
> One reason that few people know much about the Record SL might be bec ause it only appeared in the 1971 catalog 16 supplement. The next catalo g (17) included SR, and the SL post was gone. Based on my experience, an d some of the detail changes in the SL (such as the addition of a min ins ertion line and the use of the SR parts), Campy continued to make it avai lable after removing it from the catalog. Also, the details of the SL post are hard to gather from the catalog because it does not include part
   numbers for the hardware, but only for the complete post.
>
> Finally, a few of the earliest SR posts had black anodized lower crad les that are very rare. The early catalog depiction of the SL shows a g raduated scale engraved on the post. They seem to be beyond rare, never actually made (some panto places did a similar treatment, however).
>
> Okay, really for real my final comment. Alloy bolts, nuts and upper clamps for the 2-bolt Campy posts were made by aftermarket suppliers like
   OMAS. Some people have mistaken these parts as original equipment on ce rtain Campy posts, leading to more confusion. Other than the post itself
   and the SR-style lower cradles, the Campy post parts are steel. FWIW, g iven that I've broken an alloy lower clamp, I would not take things to th e next level by using the aftermarket alloy bolts, nuts, or upper clamps.
>
> Tom Dalton
> Bethlehem, PA USA