Specialized CG-R seatpost

Curious if anyone has experience (positive or negative) with the Specialized CG-R seatpost?

Thanks!

I had one for several years.  It works, but have since gone away from it.  Proper psi in tires does a much better job of smoothing out the ride.  ATMO

mrad2181 wrote:I had one for several years.  It works, but have since gone away from it....

Same thing here, ran one for a couple of years then went to the Cirrus Kinekt for a while which was a big improvement.  I'm now using the Cane Creek EE Silk which is a step up from the Cirrus, in my experience.

It's a strong and light but doesn't add as much compliance as they claim.  Less than my Ritchey flexlogic or the funny shaped Giant D-Fuse, but maybe a tad more than my Eriksen Ti post.  

The Ergon CF3 is another great option.

I had one.  Before I bought it I saw a Specialized video with them pushing on the saddle and showing how it flexed.  When I installed it and pushed  on the saddle there was no flex at all.  Riding it seemed to give no extra comfort either.  So I sold it and got an Ergon CF3, and it is amazing.

I've used one for about 4 years now and I'm satisfied with it.  Maybe not ecstatic, but I definitely have a hard time justifying replacing it.  I'm a little bigger (6'5", 170 lbs) and I run my saddle well aft of the seat clamp with a fair bit of the post exposed, all of which I've heard helps with the post's compliance.  I can definitely notice it working on medium bumps, particularly ones that would otherwise require colo-rectal surgery to remove a properly rigid post.  On huge bomb craters like you find on popular ATV routes, it doesn't do much, but nothing really does.  Small stuff I don't really notice, but that might mean it's working or that I've finally let enough air out of my tires.  Sometimes, it works a little too well and I get a kind of Pogo stick thing going.

I've thought about switching to a Redshift or eeWings post but they're both more expensive, weigh more (though not much more in the case of the latter), and I like the fact that the CGR generally pedals as efficiently as a normal post.  I've thought about going to another carbon post, but the "extra cush to cost" ratio doesn't work out.  I could see where lighter or shorter riders wouldn't get as much out of the post as I do.  If you're in my area, size-wise, I recommend it.  If not, then listen to the shorter or lighter guys chiming in and get something that's more sensitive.

I had one.  Before I bought it I saw a Specialized video with them pushing on the saddle and showing how it flexed.  When I installed it and pushed  on the saddle there was no flex at all.  Riding it seemed to give no extra comfort either.  So I sold it and got an Ergon CF3, and it is amazing.

That is pretty much my experience.  That video was a lie.  I went to the store to try to flex some of the "newer" models thinking there was something wrong with mine, but I can't get any of then to flex at the V (at 175lbs).   But I noticed on the store bikes, there was a lot of seat post exposed, and the seat post itself (not the V) does flex if there is enough of it exposed.  But with less than 12" of seat post exposed, it doesn't do much.

Ironically when I bought a Canyon bike I didn't know what I was getting with the seat post.  I was planning on putting the CG-R on the new bike (and using a Thudbuster on rougher rides), but the Ergon/Canyon seat post is so much better that it has replaced both the CG-R and the thudbuster - best of both worlds, no drawbacks.

(well one drawback - until I got used to it I kept thinking I was losing air in the rear, it was so smooth.  I kept stopping to check my tire pressure, lol).

Thank you all for your responses. Much appreciated! 

Had one on my CX bike, which was brutal with 23/25c road tires. Worked great at taking hard impacts down a notch. It was not bouncy at all. Works better than the bendy thing on my Trek Checkpoint IMO. Probably wouldn't do anything if you're running sub 80psi tires.

It did make the front ride quality feel harsh as it pronounced the difference between F & R until I put flexy bars on the front. It is also more offset rearward than the specs suggest. Your weight would greatly impact your experience. 

chas wrote:

• It has no where near the flex that they claim – that was just a bold lie.

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/five-soft-riding-road-seatposts-tested-in-the-lab-and-on-the-road/

 

That report explains a lot and confirms my “seat of the pants”.  Canyon/Ergon are off the charts compared to the CGR.   That and it shows the CGR does nothing much when inserted to a minimum depth.  It needs more than 4” (going by memory) seat post exposed, and at that point it is doing NOTHING to absorb bumps. 

 

I was using a lot more exposed post, and it was clear it was working with road tire riding down a concrete sidewalk in my back to back test.  I think the Z section just let them put the rubber in there for dampening and make it visually different.

On the test shown above, I think it's a bad test or bad data representation.  This looks to only be showing vertical movement, not horizontal movement, and you want (and most of these deliver about 45deg downward/rearward movement. 
This test also had a pretty limited weight range. I'm 195lb and probably have 60% of my weight on my backside.  A pot hole or serious pavement joint is ~4.5g of impact depending on where you look.  That's  a 500lb instant compression undampened.  18mm is at the extreme edge of what that seatpost can do for sure, but it's likely not a lie. Looking at the spring rates of these posts, it's clear the CG-R wouldn't do much unless you're on road tires. The Canyon might be too bouncy for a heavier person.


Is much better than a normal carbon offset seat post? The numbers I've seen in some German magazines lead me to believe it's not better than the D shaped posts or thin ones. It was about 50% softer than a good normal round  post. (~80n/mm installed vs 125n/mm installed). Seeing the numbers in this test (300n/mm @200lb) lead me to believe this is a flawed test. For example, the piston applying pressure doesn't allow for any lateral rearward movement, meaning you're mostly testing the clamp tilt stiffness.

Based on most people’s experience I would say the bike radar test is not flawed, it shows exactly why it works so poorly.  The only flaw is in the design of the post.  Have you even seen the Specialized video showing it flex?  The actual post does not do this.  It’s a junk post and Specialized used deceptive marketing to sell them.

Sorry you had a bad experience with it. I didn’t. If I put my thumb on the rubber bit, you could definitely feel it move. It’s not a lot of motion, but that’s the point here.

Take a look at Tour Int Magazine 12/2018. They’ve got a better rig which doesn’t have the bind the other test does, shows spring/deflection rates, and test them to failure. The design absolutely works despite your bad experience. If I'm looking at the same video you saw, that's the saddle moving, which is misleading.  The CG-r has 2x the spring rate of the Canyon, which is better for some people, but also has a much lower (half) spring rate that the more conventional posts and last far more cycles (destroyed all the other units in durability, some were quite fragile).
https://www.tour-magazin.de/komponenten/sattelstuetzen/sattelstuetzen-test-tour-1218/a46939.htmlhttps://imgur.com/2FzBgc7

https://imgur.com/2FzBgc7

I have one, it’s ok. I get good flex, but I weigh 192lbs, run my seat back far and have a fair bit of exposed post. 

My Cannondale SAVE post on my other bike feels way more compliant, is almost 70 grams lighter at the same price. I had wanted the EE Silk, but it was out of my range at the time. To do it over, I would try it. I think the Silk weighs less as well.  

Oh - I notice the CG-R’s compliance the most at speeds over 18mph or so. 
I run 40s, 42s or even 53s (these have their own compliance due air volume). 
When I put road wheels on with 30mm tires, it does feel smoother on the rough tarmac where I live.