Saddle Sore Savior: Testing the Redshift Shockstop Pro Seatpost
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2024
- Saddle sores result from a number of factors, including friction and blunt force. Force = Mass x Acceleration. This video measures reduction in acceleration, and thus force smashed into our crotch, provided by the Redshift Shockstop Pro seatpost. This benefit is compared to changes in tire pressure. It looks to be a great choice to maximize comfort while without needing balloon tires set to sluggish pressures.
Updated version of the seatpost here:
redshiftsports.com/products/s...
Physics Toolbox Sensor Suite if you want to test on your own:
play.google.com/store/apps/de... - Спорт
I had hoped to see this sort of analysis for a long time, and I must admit some surprise at how much better the seatpost is compared to altering tire pressure.
Thank you! I expected it to outperform a 10 PSI drop from subjective experience, but I didn't expect such a large gap. I read some research on transport truck design, and they have separate elements of suspension from the wheels to the frame, frame to the cab (some times called floating cab), cab to the seat (air suspension seat), and then thick padding from the seat to the driver. Each has vastly different spring rates and damping mechanisms. It makes sense that what works best for the tire and the road doesn't necessarily work best for the human occupant.
I'm surprised this has been covered so little. Cycling About has similar tests on their website, although I think I've slightly advanced the methodology and data analysis. There are big voices in the cycling media space who care about comfort, and I would have expected them to have done this already. Perhaps there is difficulty with technical things and an anti-tech or anti-science stance that got in the way.
@@overbikedrandonneuring Yeah, your point about optimizing tire width/pressure for performance alone while addressing rider comfort separately is a very good one, and it has certainly changed the way I think about it. Kudos!
That was great! Thanks for putting in the hard yards and collecting this data. I'm currently using and loving the ShockStop Pro Race. I think it strikes a great balance between being sensitive enough to inputs while not feeling too bouncy underneath you. 👍🏻
Alee, thank you for tuning in. Your work in the bike touring space was an inspiration for me to start this channel for the niche of randonneuring.
I agree, my older Shockstop Pro isn't distracting in use, but the benefit is night and day versus a standard seatpost. Still going strong after about 20,000km. I'll be trying out a few alternatives in the near future, but the Shockstop Pro has set the bar really high.
Safe travels!
@@overbikedrandonneuring Glad to hear! I'm interested in playing with the Hoop Stress Equivalency Worksheet... is that one yours, and is it publically available?
@@Cyclingabout Yes, I made it using the σ = (P × d) / (2t) equation for thin-walled hoop stress. t isn't constant in real life, so the sheet can only compare tires of equal construction. It's fun to play with despite limitations. Let me know if the link works. You should be able to save a copy.
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vyb5NndPU9c1ps4-Fj7-U-y_HZHjqSiz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=102453294469175489726&rtpof=true&sd=true
@@overbikedrandonneuring The link works and I saved a copy. Thanks so much!
So glad your video popped into my feed. I love tests with actual data, logic and easy explanations. Something that's often buried by the large 'review' sites.
Liked and subscribed.
Many thanks! I hope you enjoy the channel content. Objective testing is rare, and I think that's because it's so hard to do in a valid way. I'll try to include objective data when possible. Cheers!
Excellent content. Love these videos.I have this product on order. I don't like my 45c gravel tyres to feel too squishy when riding on smooth gravel and road so having this for a tiny weight penalty looks to be a great addition. Looking forward to the detailed head to head of the Redshift Stem vs Vecnum Freequence. I'm torn between the two. Here in the UK the Redshift is half the price of the Vecnum, is lighter, looks sleeker, and can be flipped to use either way. Another UA-camr called CYCINGABOUT said the Redshift had more torsional stiffness than the Vecnum, so would be keen to hear your thoughts on that.
Two tips I could add for more comfort and zero weight penalty would be gel inserts under bartape, over shifters and using shorter cranks. I'm 181cm tall and use 165 cranks it puts much less strain on your back and knees.
Thank you for the kind words and for watching along.
Yeah, by design I would reckon the Redshift should have more torsional stiffness. 1 axis of movement and a large axle and bearing set vs 4 axis of movement and small axles/bearings. In practice, I've not noticed lateral flex with either stem, but my riding style wouldn't bring that issue to light. If you are looking to buy one of the two now before my video comes out (late summer?), the main reason to choose the Vecnum is the linear movement benefit when using aero bars and in the drops. Aero bars don't tilt down in use, and the drops see as much benefit as the hoods. It can also be run slightly softer without being noticed. External adjustment is convenient, but in practice I don't find myself changing it once set. If aero bars are a small or nonexistent part of your riding, the price, fit options, and appearance/packaging of the Redshift are quite appealing.
I am also in the 165mm crank club at 185cm tall. Love them.
@@overbikedrandonneuringThanks. If I'm considered medium to tall and ride a 165 crank, then I'd recommend a 160 for anyone noticeably shorter than me, and yet 160's(or anything shorter) are really hard to find, and never get fitted on new bikes. Shimano's GRX range don't even go below 170mm which just seems a bit bonkers to me!! Its a shame, the 48/31 paired with 11/36 means you can spin all day no matter the terrain.
Thanks for putting this together. They long term nature of the review and the real protocol are always welcome.
Great video, thanks for sharing all this data!
So true! i got the redshift stop shock seatpost on your recommendation. Did PBP #4 on it. Thanks!!
Congratulations on PBP 4! You are quite the prolific cyclist.
I own both the redshift pro and the canyon seatpost. The canyon obviously gets better the more it is exposed but I would say it is very close if not the same as the redshift one. On my road endurance bike I have the canyon and the redshift is on my gravel bike which feels fitting as that bike has a higher chance of crashing. The canyon needs a little more TLC because dirt can get I between but it’s a once in a year thing.
The canyon seatpost is a no go for me because I am obsessive about cleaning and having to take the seatpost out to clean it is absolutely crazy!
@@JimPudar I mean, it is a 2 min job max. you have to make the same TLC with the redshift one being aluminium and needing regreasing
@@I3ene1 Oh, I need to lube my reshift, then!
Thanks for the initial comment. I have the canyon seatpost and was wondering how they would compare. So far I have been very happy with it
Thanks for sharing! That pushes me towards just buying it for comparison, although I'll continue to scour the second hand market. No issues with a little TLC. Randonneuring bikes take a beating. The Shockstop Pro has just had a few shaft greasings. All the bushings are still free of play. I wouldn't mind some weight savings though.
Great content. If you haven't done so, I suggest using the Physics Toolbox FFT function to analyze your data. I used PT (when it first came out, ~2013?) to quantify/compare a steel and carbon fork vibration modes using a similar methodology. Keep up the cool work!!
I've had one for the past year. Highly recommended. As good as a full sus bike. Or better.
Hi, love your technical analysis. Sorry for off topic but i wonder if you would enlighten me about the relation of wheel sizes and crr in form of the equation? I'm always wondering if minivelos are slower or not than regular 700c bikes.
Cheers, thank you! I have put thousands of km on 406 size wheels (recumbent bikes/trikes) and more on my Brompton with 349 wheels. The general consensus is that the steeper angle that small tires hit road imperfections is less efficient and less comfortable than a larger tire. Or in other words, they are affected more by the environment. A partial solution to that would be wider tires at lower pressures than 700c wheels, although it may hinder maximum performance on smooth roads. That points neatly goes back to the video topic of maximizing tire performance and dealing with rider comfort separately.
Some brands promoting small wheels like Moulton and Greenspeed tried to prove their superiority with testing, but ultimately could not succeed.
Very fast bikes with 20" wheels like velomobiles tend to use rather wide tires, which are shielded from the wind. In very high speed contexts like Battle Mountain or velomobiles, tire packaging being small vastly outweighs penalties in crr. They are also useful in some recumbent bike designs to lower frontal area for track-only bikes and achieve a specific rider position and seat height for touring and casual designs. Some racey recumbent tricycles also opt for small wheels to reduce frontal area, including a recent hour record success story. For mini-velos, there are no real advantages to rider position or packaging to be gained from small wheels.
I reckon poor tire availability is a big barrier for small wheels to reach their best performance though. For now, choices like the Schwalbe Kojak and Greenspeed Scorcher are light years behind a modern road race tire. A 45mm small tire constructed like a GP5000 S would be very welcome in the small wheel community I bet. As would a wheelset that pairs with it aerodynamically.
I had changed the very aluminum seatpost, with a standard round carbon seatpost, with a set back. On my very stiff aluminum bike frame. It has enoughed flex for me anymore would throw me of the seat, but enough to make a significant dif difference. The only benefit of the red shift seatpost is, the suspension can be adjusted.
Other tests have shown standard round carbon posts can flex a lot, others a little, but all tend to outperform aluminum. Too much flex and in a front-to-back direction could cause that sensation of being bucked off you almost feel. I think heavy riders with a lot of seatpost exposed have reported that feeling with the Canyon VCLS models, for example. The Redshift Pro is unadjustable for the most part, but moves almost vertically. There is no feeling close to being thrown off despite a massive gain in comfort. I recommend test riding one if you get the chance, even if you are satisfied with your current setup. It is a nice experience.
Great stuff. Would you think a similar product would provide value on a 2.1 Thunder Burt? I run 20 PSI in the back. Oh and this is my gravel bike. I’m doing my first Ultra in Nov. and I do have a problem with chaffing, but rarely have trouble with saddle sores.
Cheers, thank you. I don't ride much gravel, but the Redshift was able to provide a measurable improvement (13.6%) on the smoothest roads I tested with my largest road tires (33mm), and 17.9% improvement on my 29mm road tires. Based on that, I suspect that even if your big tires and low pressure are well suited to your conditions, you would still get a benefit. For ultra distance, reduced fatigue will be a nice gain.
I don't know if regular chaffing can be solved by suspension though. I've found heavily applying chamois cream and reapplying every 4 hours to work really well. For very long rides, a shower at a hotel and washing/swapping bibs helps.
One acquaintance fought chaffing issues with chamois-less shorts and a Tioga Spyder saddle to stay as dry as possible. I've heard of a few ultra racers with a similar strategy, including enjoying the Infinity Saddle which seems quite breezy.
Very interesting and helpful analysis. I was interested in your comment on the updates to the Pro seatpost (which I'm guessing is what they now call/did cal the Pro V2 - see follow-up comment below). I was unable to find that video, and was frustrated in trying to find a clear explanation of these changes on Redshift's own site.
Of course, Redshift have now launched what appears to be two "new" models of seatpost - the Pro Race and the Pro Endurance. I contacted them and they clarified that the Pro Race is simply a re-badge of the Pro V2 (with no changes to design), and the Pro Endurance is a brand new seatpost. I've just purchased one of the latter and am hoping it's an improvement on the original Shockstop seatpost.
The Pro Race page has details like "Race-tuned progressive spring rate elastomers & coil springs" showing that an optional steel spring setup can be used. The details for the weight of either 2 elastomer or 1 elastomer + steel spring it are in the Specifications.
The video screen grab is from David Arthur visiting Sea Otter. He often changes video titles to suit the algorithm and get accidental second clicks.
@@overbikedrandonneuring thank you! Will head over to his channel and try to find it.
I’m also interested in a comparison between the pro and non-pro redshift posts. Many have touched on the differences, but I’d love to see it in the context of the data you collect. In my particular case, I have both the standard redshift post and a cane creek eesilk. The redshift is a bit too bouncy for me, while on the eesilk I still get saddle sores. I’ve wondered if pro represents a happy medium or leans towards one end of the spectrum or the other.
I'd enjoy such a test if possible. In particular, the Pro vs eeSilk are direct competitors and suitable for road riding. I skipped out on the regular Redshift seatpost because I expected it to be too active for road riding, and is more for actual gravel. It would probably perform better in my test numerically just by being softer, but then not feel right on the road. However, since you have two great options available, you could replicate my testing in your local conditions.
I have the regular redshift seatpost and I ride on the road with 40mm tires quite often. I know it flexs with each peddle stroke but I don't feel it at all. But on gravel I can feel it by the lack of bumpiness. The trick is to adjust the spring tension to a sweet spot for yourself.
Be interested if you could fact check Redshift's graph that indeed on max hits you can get up to a 70% reduction in force?
Vecnum has a similar 'up to 75%' claim for their stem. I'm sure it is possible to produce an impact that results in 70 or 75% reduction in force with either stem. Likely requires a very particular combination of stiffness settings, static load, and impact amplitude/force in a controlled setting. Pure marketing, but unlikely to be a lie in a technical sense. The graph makes for a useful visualization though.
My best attempt to manipulate data for a marketable outcome so far would be a 33% advantage for the Vecnum stem vs. rigid stem. This would be cherry picking the rigid stem test with harshest 5 entries (of ~53000) versus the softest setting Vecnum test with the least harsh top 5 entries (of ~53000). I bet I could come closer with 23c tires at 150 psi riding down steps, but I'll avoid that.
Actually, I avoided pumping my tires to 100 PSI for the test protocol because I suspected it would unrealistically bias the product benefits.
@@overbikedrandonneuring Makes sense, I would assume they can calculate forces required for maximum deflection and work backwards from there ignoring how unrealistic the scenario might be.
@@overbikedrandonneuring Btw just wanted to say a huge thank you for your videos!
Been getting terrible numbness in my wrists and just picked up Roubaix SL8 + Vision 4D + TFE setup
Actually kinda curious to double up and pair a Vecnum with the future shock system to just see what it's like, Meroca make a super cheap knockoff version of it
@@jonathanz9889 My pleasure. The 4D+TFE setup is on my wish list, I hope you enjoy it.
Doubling up would result in a springs-in-series system. No clue what that would feel, but would be a fun experiment. That Meroca looks like a Kinect stem knockoff.
@@overbikedrandonneuring I'll report back on how the TFE setup goes next week. I actually have the J-bends on my Cadex Tri and really appreciate the shape, there used to be some old school thought on the lower hand position being more aero which isn't true.
Recently we it's been said pretty often that it is actually a myth that narrow tyre posses better rolling resistance than wider tyres. I never saw any measurement. In my opinion there's a confusion between tyre rolling resistance and normalized rolling resistance, because that value is often normalized by the width and wider tyres may indeed have better normalized rolling resistance. What's your opinion?
A few of my videos talk about tires a bit. In 'Cracking the Code: Tire Optimization' I mention that some claims of wide tires rolling faster erroneously used equal PSI across tire sizes in their tests, which benefit wide tires unfairly. Tire pressure calculators and testing by Bicycle Rolling Resistance suggest that when equalized for hoop stress rather than PSI, tires of the same construction roll equally efficiently and are roughly the same comfort level. Wider tires will weigh more and be less aero, but offer safe access to lower pressures needed for optimum performance on rougher terrain, as well as grip benefits for cornering and braking. Tubeless allows access to lower pressures without a narrower tire too.
More testing is needed between tire sizes and hoop stresses, but my best advice now is to choose the tire with the best construction for your use case first, then choose the most narrow tire than can safely run pressures needed to avoid the impedance spike that happens when the terrain is too tough for the tire pressure. The impedance spike is explained well in Silca's blog 'Part 4B: Rolling Resistance and Impedance'.
Ideal width blending aero and rolling resistance will vary depending on rider weight, speed, and road conditions. I expect in coming years testing will result in ideal width for racers settling on ~28-30mm front 32-34mm rear, triathletes at 28mm front, 30-32 rear, and slower often heavier riders like randonneurs will be in the 30-36mm front, 32-38mm rear. Aero penalties and weight considerations will create a ceiling for width, even if wheel design is accounted for.
@@overbikedrandonneuring Thank you so much for this answer! I just stumbled upon your channel recently but I admire the engineering analysis depth.
How does it compare to a carbon seatpost?
It will depend on the model of seatpost, but most or nearly all round carbon seatposts will likely outperform the stock aluminum one in this test. I expect standard carbon seatposts to perform closer to the aluminum post than to the Shockstop Pro, but testing is needed. I'll continue to perform this test as I collect parts.
I have a item recommendation that you can try that doesn't need you to change your seat post but still have the benefit of a suspension seatpost accessory named "Air Seat" from Taiwan.
It looks interesting for sure. Do you have one? I'm sure it reduces vibration, but curious about how it feels subjectively for road riding. Have you noticed any unwanted lateral deflection? Is the fore-aft movement distracting or unsettling?
@@overbikedrandonneuring thanks for the inquiry and response, I'll write down my list and give you a follow-up reply :) please note that this is all subjective and i cant give you accurate data.
@@overbikedrandonneuring
I do have one, and I been using it for a year now.
Here's my subjective take:
- Your body weight, bike position(relaxed or aggressive) determine the type of "air seat" you need.
- Compatible for regular seatpost, and dropper posts.
- micro vibrations really lessened for concert roads, compact dry soil w/ small stone
- rumble strips, speed bumps, gravel roads drastically lessened the direct vibration.
- i think you would feel a drastic change if you didn't select the proper type of airseat designated from your weight and angle of riding that you would really feel how exaggerate/unsettling the suspension would move.
-horizontal movement it barely noticeable when riding, not sure if it's the saddle or suspension helping(will do a follow-up on this).
-I've observed that my saddles started to make a squeak(not sure if this is from wear and tear prior to air seat, but I'll purchase a new ergon saddle and test it out. )
- the airseat cannot be comparable to a full suspension bike, but this would help for long rides, or people who want a modern take for the Japanese bikes/brooks that have a spring on the saddle but more attuned for their weight and riding position.
Hope this helps.
@@PuddyIzzy Just want to let you know I got in touch with the folks at Air Seat and got one in to test. Initial data and impressions are quite favorable. Thank you for the tip! I'll get a video out after some mileage is put on it.
@@overbikedrandonneuring that's great news that the folks at airseat are kind to help you out! I cant wait for your data from the airseat and compare it with other suspension style seatpost.
Bike industry shoud focus more on regular people and comfort instead of pro athletes if they want it to be more popular
Nicely tested. Have to say im underwhelmed by the reduction in acceleration as a percentage even though you point out you would need a pretty big tire to get the same effect. 16% just doesnt seem like it would feel significant. I guess that is why they have a much higher number in their marketing as 16% wouldn't sell seat posts.
Thanks! Testing results are often pretty abstract and communicated poorly, and it seems especially problematic in the cycling space. I hope tire pressure is a good relative comparison tool here. I think 'grams of drag' is my least favorite bike related test metric, although 'X seconds faster than the previous model' without qualifying test conditions is up there too.
Id like to see how the Shockstop performs against the older Specialized CobbleGobbler seatpost in vibration dampening.
I forgot about that one. If one comes my way, I'll give it a shot.
KISS Principle: Brooks Professional saddle; need more shock resistance, Brooks B-17. Both saddles weigh less than the Shockstop seat post. Both saddles are cooler, breath better, and the leather flexes more than a synthetic plastic saddle. Experience level, 3X across U.S., once across EU, once on GDMBR. There is a reason Brooks has been making the B-17 for over 100 years. Qualifier: the leather Brooks must be broken in properly. Remove from box, apply thick coat of Brooks Profide conditioner to both sides of saddle, this will soak in quickly. Apply another thick coat underside only on saddle then go ride it for 25 miles. Next day, another light coat underside of saddle only, ride it again. Third ride, check to see if underside is dry and rough, if so apply another light coat of Profide and ride again. You will begin to see two light indentations for you Sit Bones after the third or fourth ride. You're now half way there. After two weeks your Brooks should be ready to carry you across the U.S.. Keep it dry in camp with a bread bag or trash bag. If it gets wet dry it off, and lightly treat it again. Don't let a Brooks get that hammock sling to it, then it's no good. Replace every 20,000 miles as a part of cycling expenses. Happy trails!
I got a chuckle at 'KISS' followed by a wall of text for care rituals.
Some folks get along with the Brooks. I used a b17 for over a year c. 2015. I loved the feeling of the surface, but found the only positions it supported were so upright that weight was too rearward for my preference. Aero bars were out of the question with the B17. Most randonneur friends of mine have ridden a Brooks for a significant period of time, but none ride them anymore. I suspect this is due to adopting more aggressive positions and perhaps the use of aero bars. Still, its a very nice feeling between the legs. Now that I think about it, our Brompton would be perfect for a B17...
FYI the Shockstop Pro is over 100g lighter than a Brooks Professional. The only maintenance over 2+ years has been to grease the shaft every 6months or so and it still rides as new. Cheers
You’ve gotta unflip your camera. Huge eyesore seeing everything backwards.
Cheers, I didn't notice that when editing. It looked more natural to me because it's how I look in the mirror. I'll see what I can do in the future.
lol these people with "gravel" bikes will do and invent anything just to not use a mountain bike.
My 'gravel' bikes is a cheap hardtail. This channel focused on randonneuring. The sport has time limited unsupported road rides of 200km-1000km called BRMs, and for the extra robust, LRMs are 1200km+.
If you haven't ridden such lengths before, you may not be able to appreciate the benefit a product like this provides. By all means, register with your local Audax/Randonneurs club and report back after you become complete a brevet series. I can direct you to your most local club if you'd like.
lol...gravel bikes kill MTB's for mixed surface riding,perplexing that some don't want to accept that.
@@timdixo lol, I know they are great at mixed surface, I got a gravel bike too just so you know. What I don't get is people turning their gravel bikes into pseudo MTB's. I mean suspension? Really? If that's what you're after, you know there's a proper bike for that. And that's a mountain bike. Not to mention the ridiculous price they are willing to pay for "suspension", and that is with recycled tech. I mean, you guys are just letting yourself be victims to the hype train. There's a term for that. You guys are suckers. hahaha
Sorry, sounds like a sponsored video as the product name is repeated at every opportunity
Sorry the video had the effect. It is very much unsponsored. The price I paid 2+ years ago appears in an icon at the beginning of the video.
It is important to differentiate the lighter Pro (updated design now called Pro Race) with 20mm of travel from the heavier 35mm travel models which now carry the Endurance name, but they are commonly confused. The Endurance models have a different use case than the Pro, and I would be unlikely to recommend them for the type of riding this channel focuses on. You can see this confusion happen in a comment below where a viewer referenced specs of the heavier Endurance model in a comparison.
@@overbikedrandonneuring Ok, fair enough, maybe food for thought for future videos
@@overbikedrandonneuring I'm interested in why you wouldn't recommend the Endurance for randonneuring (as I've just purchased one!) Is it because randonneuring is primarily on tarmac? (I've purchased the Endurance for mixed off-road riding on a vintage hardtail).
@@davidrowe8747 Yes, higher travel and a more active steel spring setup targets typical gravel conditions, but would risk too much bobbing around on tarmac. Disappearing from thought and being 'invisible' to senses is the best thing a suspension seatpost can do for tarmac riding.
@@overbikedrandonneuring thank you, I guessed it might be that. I was sorely tempted towards the Pro race but have just clicked Buy on the Endurance. I ride gravel plus some slightly more lumpy, bumpy riding on my hardtail (rarely road) so am hoping the Endurance will suit me better.