Originally Posted by
twocicle
My stoker's desire for a Body Float varies depending on the time of day, direction of wind, and of course if we have just ridden a particularly punishing section of bombed out pavement. No kidding. Today after the first 20 miles of smooth, the answer was NO... I'm fine (with the Pave carbon post and Terry Butterfly carbon seat). Then after 10 miles of banging frost heaves every 20 feet, she whimpered a - Well maybe we should think about it cause I'm bruised.
Other than the carbon post and 2 accessories (adjustment screw and cover bag) in the 3.0 package, what is the diff between that and the Alum post 2.0 other than the carbon costing a lot more and bling? Given the entire top section is the same, I doubt there is much of a weight variation and no need for carbon damping since the float takes care of all that. The Alum post might actually have more facility for attaching a post rack (should not do this with a carbon post).
The two posts are functionally the same, with the carbon posts being slightly lighter. According to Cirrus, "both models have the same basic mechanism. BF 2.0 is our base Aluminum model. The BF 3.0 has either a Carbon Fiber or Titanium shaft and are etched with additional fine-tuning post height and saddle angle indicators as well as a hand control knob."
I suspect that Cirrus offers the BF 3.0 because some captains are weight weenies, and are willing to spend more to get the lightest ride. It's the same reason that some teams (ie. the captain) are willing to buy Dura Ace, carbon wheels, Calfee Dragonfly, etc. The hand control know is only $16 if you buy the 2.0, and is more convenient than using a Allen wrench for on-the-fly tuning.
After test riding the Bodyfloat 3.0 (with Charlie Heggam as captain), I'm fairly certain that you'll be happy with either version. It manages to be stable and plush, which is not easy to do. The Bodyfloat is like a low-travel version of high quality mtn bike rear shocks (eg. Fox Float, Rockshox Monarch, Cane Creek DB Inline).