Brooks Swift/Swallow

[Andrew Price]

I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.

Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).

[[email protected]]

On Apr 1, 12:25 pm, Andrew Price > wrote:
> I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
> Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>
> Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
> Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
> marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).

Can't speak to the Swift-Swallow differences since I only own the
Brooks Swift. And Brooks Professional. And Brooks B17. Swift is on
the racing bike. Racing style bike. It is definitely narrower than
the Professional. Professional is on the brevet, long distance
bikes. Swift is fine for me up to 150 miles. Around that point I
prefer the wider Professional. Professional has been fine for me up
to 311 miles. Haven't ridden more than 311 at one time but I suspect
the Professional will be fine for longer. I plan to ride further than
311 at one go this year. Not much mileage on the B17 so can't comment
on how far its good for.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Andrew Price
') wrote:

> I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
> Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>
> Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
> Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
> marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).

Yup. One may be the width that fits your sitbones, in which case the other
isn't. However, without doing something decidedly personal and intimate,
we can't tell you which.

Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy. two years ago I had
Brooks Professionals on all my bikes; now I have Selle Italia SLRs, which
I personally find equally comfortable and which has saved 500 grammes per
bike.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.

[_]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:25:11 +0200, Andrew Price wrote:

> I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
> Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>
> Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
> Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
> marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).

Don't know about the modern versions but the Swallow I have (from some
decades ago) was very different to all the other Brooks - it has
folded-under leather sections one each side that are rivitted together with
a steel plate.

And it is extremely narrow.

And it - like all the Swallows I have seen - has cracked at the edges where
the folded-under section begins.

[Bob Downie]

In message >, Simon
Brooke > writes
>Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
>exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy. two years ago I had
>Brooks Professionals on all my bikes; now I have Selle Italia SLRs, which
>I personally find equally comfortable and which has saved 500 grammes per
>bike.
>
The Swift ain't so heavy. I have a Professional on one cycle and a Swift
on t'other. The Professional is dead comfy but if a bit of a lump. The
Swift is significantly lighter as it uses titanium rails and appears to
use a lighter grade of leather.

I like both but I have doubts about the longevity of the Swift because
of the more pliant leather. I've only had it a year and it moulded to me
more in that time than the Professional I've used for the last 8 years.
--
Bob Downie
Devotee of the wheel
please remove #n0spam# to reply directly

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:

> Can't speak to the Swift-Swallow differences since I only own the
> Brooks Swift. And Brooks Professional. And Brooks B17. Swift is on
> the racing bike. Racing style bike. It is definitely narrower than
> the Professional. Professional is on the brevet, long distance
> bikes. Swift is fine for me up to 150 miles. Around that point I
> prefer the wider Professional. Professional has been fine for me up
> to 311 miles. Haven't ridden more than 311 at one time but I suspect
> the Professional will be fine for longer. I plan to ride further than
> 311 at one go this year. Not much mileage on the B17 so can't comment
> on how far its good for.

For more than 300 miles, I'd need a Brooks Gulp.

Bill "slow afternoon" S.

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Andrew Price > wrote:

> I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
> Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>
> Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
> Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
> marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).

The width of the saddle should track the riding position.
Wider saddle for more upright position.
--
Michael Press

[A Muzi]

Andrew Price wrote:
> I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
> Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>
> Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
> Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
> marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).

Minimal in terms of width. Brooks Swift is not on the current price
list, former listings show 152mm wide.

The 2007 Swallow Special Edition lists at 153mm and has a new shape
under-saddle steel clip, sewn edges and a new scalloped titanium tension
bolt in comparison to the 2006 version.

Swift is a traditional cut with 'side flaps' [I made up that term just
now]. Swallows have always been folded under and either rivetted or
rivetted and clamped with several versions over many years.

Let us know your comments if you are able to ride both.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Ivar Hesselager]

Den 01.04.2007 kl. 19:25 Andrew Price > wrote:

> I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
> Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>
> Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
> Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
> marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).

Hello Andrew

I have a qualified opinon on that question: I have been riding brevets
for 4 years on a Swift - among those a P-B-P in 2003. And since march
2006 I have been riding 3000 km on a Swallow, 3000 km on the Swift and
3000 on a Team Profesional - approximately.
My experience of the difference between Swift and Swallow is simple and it
matches the psysical difference between the two saddles. The different
feel is visible and measurable:

The difference is, that the Swift has at bigger (ie longer) section that
support the sitbones. That means, that the Swift allows you to slide back
and forth approximately 1.5 cm and still have full support of you
sitbones. When I ride brevets (which are 200+ km) my aching back will
sometimes appreciate af slight change of sitting position. If you prefer
the saddle to offer you one right position, Swallow is there for you.

Apart from that, the two saddles feel the same, and they weigh the same
(while the Team Professional feels interely different.)

I am very fond of my three Brooks saddles, and I am planning to buy
another one - a B17 I think - for my fourth bike. But if I had to choose
between them, I would prefer the Swift.

Ivar

[mark]

Andrew Price wrote:
> I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
> Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>
> Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
> Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
> marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).
>
My new (as yet untested) Swift has a skirt (side flap) reaching almost
down to the saddle rails at the lowest point, but staying well clear of
the saddle rails for most of its length. The pictures I've seen of the
Swallow suggest that it has almost no skirt to speak of, and the leather
remains well clear of the rails for most of the length. The reduced
amount of leather would seem to account for most of the weight
difference between the Swift and the Swallow. I decided to save a few
bucks, haul a little extra weight around, and keep trying to reduce the
weight of the bike's power source.

mark

[Callistus Valerius]

> Hello Andrew
>
> I have a qualified opinon on that question: I have been riding brevets
> for 4 years on a Swift - among those a P-B-P in 2003. And since march
> 2006 I have been riding 3000 km on a Swallow, 3000 km on the Swift and
> 3000 on a Team Profesional - approximately.
> My experience of the difference between Swift and Swallow is simple and it
> matches the psysical difference between the two saddles. The different
> feel is visible and measurable:
>
> The difference is, that the Swift has at bigger (ie longer) section that
> support the sitbones. That means, that the Swift allows you to slide back
> and forth approximately 1.5 cm and still have full support of you
> sitbones. When I ride brevets (which are 200+ km) my aching back will
> sometimes appreciate af slight change of sitting position. If you prefer
> the saddle to offer you one right position, Swallow is there for you.
>
> Apart from that, the two saddles feel the same, and they weigh the same
> (while the Team Professional feels interely different.)
>
> I am very fond of my three Brooks saddles, and I am planning to buy
> another one - a B17 I think - for my fourth bike. But if I had to choose
> between them, I would prefer the Swift.
>
> Ivar
-------------
Having rode in brevets myself, and having my share of saddle sores, I'm
a recent convert to a Brooks B-17 and love the feel of the saddle, even
though there is a sizable weight penalty. But with all the other crap you
have to bring with you, it doesn't seem so bad, considering the pain saddle
sores cause. But here is my question on Brooks saddles. How do you deal
with them if you have ride in rain. I thought that Brooks saddles shouldn't
get wet, but as you know in long distance, it's impossible to avoid rain
sometimes when you are out there so long.

[davet]

On Apr 1, 8:15 pm, "Callistus Valerius" > wrote:
> > Hello Andrew
>
> > I have a qualified opinon on that question: I have been riding brevets
> > for 4 years on a Swift - among those a P-B-P in 2003. And since march
> > 2006 I have been riding 3000 km on a Swallow, 3000 km on the Swift and
> > 3000 on a Team Profesional - approximately.
> > My experience of the difference between Swift and Swallow is simple and it
> > matches the psysical difference between the two saddles. The different
> > feel is visible and measurable:
>
> > The difference is, that the Swift has at bigger (ie longer) section that
> > support the sitbones. That means, that the Swift allows you to slide back
> > and forth approximately 1.5 cm and still have full support of you
> > sitbones. When I ride brevets (which are 200+ km) my aching back will
> > sometimes appreciate af slight change of sitting position. If you prefer
> > the saddle to offer you one right position, Swallow is there for you.
>
> > Apart from that, the two saddles feel the same, and they weigh the same
> > (while the Team Professional feels interely different.)
>
> > I am very fond of my three Brooks saddles, and I am planning to buy
> > another one - a B17 I think - for my fourth bike. But if I had to choose
> > between them, I would prefer the Swift.
>
> > Ivar
>
> -------------
> Having rode in brevets myself, and having my share of saddle sores, I'm
> a recent convert to a Brooks B-17 and love the feel of the saddle, even
> though there is a sizable weight penalty. But with all the other crap you
> have to bring with you, it doesn't seem so bad, considering the pain saddle
> sores cause. But here is my question on Brooks saddles. How do you deal
> with them if you have ride in rain. I thought that Brooks saddles shouldn't
> get wet, but as you know in long distance, it's impossible to avoid rain
> sometimes when you are out there so long.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Use fenders, Proofide the underneath of the saddle and carry plastic
grocery bags as saddle rain covers.

[Simon Brooke]

in message . net>,
Callistus Valerius ') wrote:

> But here is my question on Brooks saddles. How do you deal
> with them if you have ride in rain. I thought that Brooks saddles
> shouldn't get wet, but as you know in long distance, it's impossible to
> avoid rain sometimes when you are out there so long.

This is frankly rubbish.

I've had a bike which (before my ownership of it) had been left out in the
rain for several years. The Brooks saddle on it restored perfectly well.
They certainly don't benefit from getting too wet too often, and if wet
benefit from being dried gently and slowly (e.g. in a cool shed). But it
isn't fatal, and certainly the amount of wetting your saddle is going to
get even in a week's very wet riding isn't going to do it any harm. Dry
out gently, apply a little proofide, and it will be fine.

Do not tighten the tension bolt on a wet saddle, if it has stretched it
will (naturally) shrink as it dries!

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

[[email protected]]

On Apr 1, 2:15 pm, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> in message >, Andrew Price
>
> ') wrote:
> > I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
> > Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>
> > Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
> > Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
> > marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).
>
> Yup. One may be the width that fits your sitbones, in which case the other
> isn't. However, without doing something decidedly personal and intimate,
> we can't tell you which.
>
> Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
> exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy.

Swift is about 380 grams with its titanium rails and nose piece.
Professional is about 580 grams with its steel undercarriage. Modern
plastic torture devices (Flite) are roughly 220 grams. Older plastic
torture devices (Rolls) are roughly 350 grams. Cutting edge (pun
intended) modern carbon torture devices can be 150 grams.

Its worthwhile to save weight in some places. Not worthwhile in other
places. Saddle weight is not a criteria I use for judging it.



two years ago I had
> Brooks Professionals on all my bikes; now I have Selle Italia SLRs, which
> I personally find equally comfortable and which has saved 500 grammes per
> bike.
>
> --
> (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Callistus Valerius >:
>sores cause. But here is my question on Brooks saddles. How do you deal
>with them if you have ride in rain. I thought that Brooks saddles shouldn't
>get wet, but as you know in long distance, it's impossible to avoid rain
>sometimes when you are out there so long.

Brookses aren't made of sugar - they don't like to get soaking wet, but of
course on a hot day they get plenty of sweat dropped into them. So it's
only necessary to keep most of the rain off, and of course your bottom
does that. I carry a plastic shopping bag (from BookMarks, at the moment,
which makes it nice and bright red) for protecting it when stopped.
--
David Damerell > flcl?
Today is First Olethros, April - a weekend.

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>,
') wrote:

> On Apr 1, 2:15 pm, Simon Brooke > wrote:
>> in message >, Andrew Price
>>
>> ') wrote:
>> > I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
>> > Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>>
>> > Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
>> > Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
>> > marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).
>>
>> Yup. One may be the width that fits your sitbones, in which case the
>> other isn't. However, without doing something decidedly personal and
>> intimate, we can't tell you which.
>>
>> Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
>> exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy.
>
> Swift is about 380 grams with its titanium rails and nose piece.
> Professional is about 580 grams with its steel undercarriage. Modern
> plastic torture devices (Flite) are roughly 220 grams. Older plastic
> torture devices (Rolls) are roughly 350 grams. Cutting edge (pun
> intended) modern carbon torture devices can be 150 grams.

And a Selle Italia SLR, which looks like a torture device but isn't, weighs
135 grammes (standard model) down to 76 grammes for the C64 model (which I
haven't tried and suspect may be a torture device.

> Its worthwhile to save weight in some places. Not worthwhile in other
> places. Saddle weight is not a criteria I use for judging it.

If two saddles are equally comfortable, pick the lighter. Mind you, one
problem I have noticed since switching from Brooks to Selle Italia -
Brooks saddles are exceedingly kind to your shorts; I'm wearing out shorts
quicker on the new saddles.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; First they came for the asylum seekers,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not an asylum seeker.
;; Then they came for the gypsies,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy...
;; Pastor Martin Niemöller, translated by Michael Howard.

[Andrew Price]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:15:40 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>Yup. One may be the width that fits your sitbones, in which case the other
>isn't.

Thanks, Simon. Yes, the width which fits is important (in this case,
both should be OK for me) although I wouldn't have though that the 3mm
difference between the Swift and the Swallow would be anywhere near as
noticeable as, say, the difference between the B17 I had on a hybrid,
and the B17N, with which I successfully replaced it.

>However, without doing something decidedly personal and intimate,
>we can't tell you which.

That too - I am also aware that the trial and error/hit or miss factor
is very important, and varies considerably from person to person.

>Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
>exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy.

That's a trade-off with which I haven't really come to terms. I
put a B17N and a Conquest on two other bikes without a moment's
hesitation, but the Orbea is a racer.

>two years ago I had
>Brooks Professionals on all my bikes; now I have Selle Italia SLRs, which
>I personally find equally comfortable and which has saved 500 grammes per
>bike.

The Selle Italia which my racer came ("XR Trans Am") isn't listed on
the current SI web-site, so I wonder if it was not a model made
specifically to Orbea specifications. I'd like to keep it, but
regretfully, it is not comfortable for me.

[Andrew Price]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:18:24 +0200, "Ivar Hesselager"
> wrote:

[---]

>Apart from that, the two saddles feel the same, and they weigh the same
>(while the Team Professional feels interely different.)

In what way did you find it different to the Swift and the Swallow -
comfort or merely the effect of its considerable extra weight?

>I am very fond of my three Brooks saddles, and I am planning to buy
>another one - a B17 I think - for my fourth bike. But if I had to choose
>between them, I would prefer the Swift.

Many thanks, Ivan, for an extremely detailed response, and to everyone
else who provided some feedback.

[Pete]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message . net>,
> Callistus Valerius ') wrote:
>
>> But here is my question on Brooks saddles. How do you deal
>> with them if you have ride in rain. I thought that Brooks saddles
>> shouldn't get wet, but as you know in long distance, it's impossible to
>> avoid rain sometimes when you are out there so long.
>
> This is frankly rubbish.
>
> I've had a bike which (before my ownership of it) had been left out in the
> rain for several years. The Brooks saddle on it restored perfectly well.
> They certainly don't benefit from getting too wet too often, and if wet
> benefit from being dried gently and slowly (e.g. in a cool shed). But it
> isn't fatal, and certainly the amount of wetting your saddle is going to
> get even in a week's very wet riding isn't going to do it any harm. Dry
> out gently, apply a little proofide, and it will be fine.
>
> Do not tighten the tension bolt on a wet saddle, if it has stretched it
> will (naturally) shrink as it dries!
>

And to add to this, leather saddles get plenty wet from sweat when you
cycle on them. The fact that they absorb this is one of their good
features. Leather is quite capable of dealing with rain, just don't
make it any worse than it has to be.

Pete

[Andrew Price]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:05:29 -0500, A Muzi >
wrote:

[---]

>Swift is a traditional cut with 'side flaps' [I made up that term just
>now]. Swallows have always been folded under and either rivetted or
>rivetted and clamped with several versions over many years.
>
>Let us know your comments if you are able to ride both.

Thanks, I will. I'm a happy user of Brooks saddles on other bikes
(B17N, Conquest) but as you might have seen from my response to Simon,
I'm still considering the trade-off of the extra weight. And still
surprised that the Selle Italia is so damned uncomfortable!

[A Muzi]

>> ') wrote:
>>> I'm considering buying one of these to replace the uncomfortable Selle
>>> Italia saddle I have on an Orbea racer.
>>> Could anyone let me know what the essential difference between the
>>> Swift and the Swallow is? All I can see is that one is very
>>> marginally wider than the other (155mm instead of 152mm).

>> Andrew Price wrote:
>> Yup. One may be the width that fits your sitbones, in which case the other
>> isn't. However, without doing something decidedly personal and intimate,
>> we can't tell you which.

> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>> Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
>> exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy.

wrote:
> Swift is about 380 grams with its titanium rails and nose piece.
> Professional is about 580 grams with its steel undercarriage. Modern
> plastic torture devices (Flite) are roughly 220 grams. Older plastic
> torture devices (Rolls) are roughly 350 grams. Cutting edge (pun
> intended) modern carbon torture devices can be 150 grams.
>
> Its worthwhile to save weight in some places. Not worthwhile in other
> places. Saddle weight is not a criteria I use for judging it.

Weight doesn't correlate to comfort or to popularity. Russell, I'm sure
you can think of examples on either side of that argument.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Don Whybrow]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
> exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy. two years ago I had
> Brooks Professionals on all my bikes; now I have Selle Italia SLRs, which
> I personally find equally comfortable and which has saved 500 grammes per
> bike.

So ... have your Brooks found new homes yet?, he asks covetously. Or are
they still Brooke's Brooks?

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Don Whybrow
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
>> exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy. two years ago I had
>> Brooks Professionals on all my bikes; now I have Selle Italia SLRs,
>> which I personally find equally comfortable and which has saved 500
>> grammes per bike.
>
> So ... have your Brooks found new homes yet?, he asks covetously. Or are
> they still Brooke's Brooks?

I believe there is still a Brooke's Brooks in the east wing attic. I've
given a couple away to good homes but I think there's one left. I'll have
a look for you...

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Andrew Price
') wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:05:29 -0500, A Muzi >
> wrote:
>
> [---]
>
>>Swift is a traditional cut with 'side flaps' [I made up that term just
>>now]. Swallows have always been folded under and either rivetted or
>>rivetted and clamped with several versions over many years.
>>
>>Let us know your comments if you are able to ride both.
>
> Thanks, I will. I'm a happy user of Brooks saddles on other bikes
> (B17N, Conquest) but as you might have seen from my response to Simon,
> I'm still considering the trade-off of the extra weight. And still
> surprised that the Selle Italia is so damned uncomfortable!

It's all a matter of fit - and we're a little coy about measuring our
situpons. Measure it, and get the right one.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Callistus Valerius:
> But here is my question on Brooks saddles. How do you deal
>with them if you have ride in rain.

I dunno how important it is to keep them from getting wet, but Brooks are all I
use... Having said that, I carry an plastic bag (the kind they put my
groceries in at the supermarket) in my wedge and slip it over the saddle if the
rain gets too heavy.
--
PeteCresswell

[Ivar Hesselager]

Den 02.04.2007 kl. 05:15 skrev Callistus Valerius >:

> I thought that Brooks saddles shouldn't
> get wet, but as you know in long distance, it's impossible to avoid rain
> sometimes when you are out there so long.
>

I rode a 400 km brevet four years ago with the rain pouring down at least
12 hours. She Swift was soaked, as was everything else on and around me.
The Brooks Swift dried up slowly during the following week, then I gave it
a treat of Proofide. No problem and no damage whatsoever..

Ivar of the Rainland



--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Ivar Hesselager]

Den 02.04.2007 kl. 19:23 skrev Andrew Price >:


>
> In what way did you find it different to the Swift and the Swallow -
> comfort or merely the effect of its considerable extra weight?
>


I have the Team Professional on my winter commuter bicycle which is rather
heavy with a flat bar and fenders, so the considerable weight doesn't
bother me.
Team Professional has a very thick leather, that keeps its shape and
doesn't personalise to my buttom anothomy. It is wider than the Swift and
gives a very firm support, without being too hard. Without my personal
dents, which give my Swift and Swallow their personality, the Professional
after three years still feels new and at bit slidy. it offers me several
sitting positions. I haven't ridden it for longer than 80 km, but I
believe it would be less comfortable than its more flexible cousins in the
long run.


Ivar

[Andrew Price]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 09:25:08 +0200, "Ivar Hesselager"
> wrote:

[---]

>Team Professional has a very thick leather, that keeps its shape and
>doesn't personalise to my buttom anothomy.

OK, many thanks, that's entirely logical, and parallels exactly my
experience with a Conquest, compared to a B17N. The Conquest has much
thicker leather, didn't really "personalise" itself, as you so aptly
put it, and has *never* been as comfortable as the B17N, even after
several thousand kilometres.

[Ivar Hesselager]

Den 01.04.2007 kl. 19:50
>:

Professional is on the brevet, long distance
> bikes. Swift is fine for me up to 150 miles. Around that point I
> prefer the wider Professional. Professional has been fine for me up
> to 311 miles. Haven't ridden more than 311 at one time but I suspect
> the Professional will be fine for longer. I plan to ride further than
> 311 at one go this year. Not much mileage on the B17 so can't comment
> on how far its good for.
>
Interesting that your interpretation of the Professional's qualities is
opposite to mine. (see my earlier posting in this thread) I have
anticipated the Professional to be more uncomfortable than the Swift on
very long distances, because the former is harder and "less personalised"
than the ladder. There seems to be a good deal of Brooks experience
represented in this thread, still it is difficult to add it up to clear
and common conclusions, since we either have different combinations of
Brooks saddles and/or have different actual experiences with the same
saddles. Now I will take the Professional out on a 200 km brevet on April
14, and pray that I was not interely right in my anticipation.

Ivar af Denmark

--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Michael Press]

In article <op.tp65j6dc1c91w4@d3q5wk2j>,
"Ivar Hesselager" > wrote:

> Den 02.04.2007 kl. 19:23 skrev Andrew Price >:
>
>
> >
> > In what way did you find it different to the Swift and the Swallow -
> > comfort or merely the effect of its considerable extra weight?
> >
>
>
> I have the Team Professional on my winter commuter bicycle which is rather
> heavy with a flat bar and fenders, so the considerable weight doesn't
> bother me.
> Team Professional has a very thick leather, that keeps its shape and
> doesn't personalise to my buttom anothomy. It is wider than the Swift and
> gives a very firm support, without being too hard. Without my personal
> dents, which give my Swift and Swallow their personality, the Professional
> after three years still feels new and at bit slidy. it offers me several
> sitting positions. I haven't ridden it for longer than 80 km, but I
> believe it would be less comfortable than its more flexible cousins in the
> long run.

I have two of the Professionals. One is fifteen years old
and has dents at the sit bones. One is three years old
and has not dented yet. Give it time.

Oh, the new one was comfortable out of the box.
--
Michael Press

[Simon Brooke]

in message <op.tp77ly181c91w4@d3q5wk2j>, Ivar Hesselager
') wrote:

> Interesting that your interpretation of the Professional's qualities is
> opposite to mine. (see my earlier posting in this thread) I have
> anticipated the Professional to be more uncomfortable than the Swift on
> very long distances, because the former is harder and "less personalised"
> than the ladder. There seems to be a good deal of Brooks experience
> represented in this thread, still it is difficult to add it up to clear
> and common conclusions, since we either have different combinations of
> Brooks saddles and/or have different actual experiences with the same
> saddles. Now I will take the Professional out on a 200 km brevet on
> April 14, and pray that I was not interely right in my anticipation.

I think the critical thing with Brooks is fit. As others have said, the
more upright your posture the wider the saddle you need, and I also
suspect that the more upright your posture the less critical fit becomes.
But in the sort of comfortable slouch you need for going reasonably fast
over long distances fit is decidedly critical, and millimetres do make a
difference.

There's this myth that Brooks adapt to you. Well, not quite a myth - they
do. But not any Brooks will adapt to any backside. If it's too narrow for
you when it's brand new, it's still going to be too narrow for you when
you've ridden 10,000 Km on it. And it's not going to be comfortable.

In my experience all my Brooks Professionals have been very comfortable
from day one; they've got more comfortable with time, but they started out
comfortable. And I'm pretty sure that if it isn't comfortable on day one,
it's because it's the wrong saddle for you, and nothing you do to it will
change that.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

[Andrew Price]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:16:34 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

[---]

>There's this myth that Brooks adapt to you. Well, not quite a myth - they
>do. But not any Brooks will adapt to any backside. If it's too narrow for
>you when it's brand new, it's still going to be too narrow for you when
>you've ridden 10,000 Km on it. And it's not going to be comfortable.

That's undoubtedly true. However, I also believe it to be true that
some Brooks saddles adapt quicker than others - in my experience, the
thin-leathered B17N, in Ivar's the Swift, adapted quicker than the
rather thicker Conquest and TP respectively.

[[email protected]]

The only Brooks that I've tried is the Team Professional. After 1200
miles of excruciating torture I finally gave up and returned to
plastic. I'm not happy with any of the plastic saddles that I've owned
either, but I find them much more bearable than that Team
Professional. I was looking for that "ultimate comfort" which I'd read
that others experienced on a Brooks, but it absolutely eluded me.
Reading this thread has piqued my interest in Brooks saddles again,
but I'd certainly like to avoid a repeat of my last experience. It was
mentioned earlier in the thread that your sitbone measurements have to
be right for the saddle. How does one go about measuring their
sitbones width? I spend about 100 miles per day in the saddle while
touring but, now, I keep my bars about 1 1/2"-2" below my saddle...
when I used the Team Professional I was sitting in a much more upright
position with my bars level with the top of my saddle. What I've read
here, about the thinner leather of the Swift breaking in quickly, has
great appeal to me... but I'd like to make certain that this model
fits my sitbones before settling on it.
Coors

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per :
> How does one go about measuring their
>sitbones width?

Sit on something that will take an impression, then measure the space between
the dents.

- A thin sheet of styrofoam on the corner of a counter top

- A piece of plain 8.5 x 11 paper on a rug of the proper texture

- One of the saddle makers (WTB?) actually makes a dedicated device.
--
PeteCresswell

[Nigel Cliffe]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per :
>> How does one go about measuring their
>> sitbones width?
>
> Sit on something that will take an impression, then measure the space
> between the dents.
>
> - A thin sheet of styrofoam on the corner of a counter top
>
> - A piece of plain 8.5 x 11 paper on a rug of the proper texture

You need a body posture which approximates to that cycling. Tucking knees up
whilst sitting will do.

>
> - One of the saddle makers (WTB?) actually makes a dedicated device.

Its Specialized who have the measuring device. Which is some foam which
deforms and holds its shape for a few minutes, so its easy to place a ruler
over it. Plus a chart which translates the measurement to which saddle from
Specialized range to use. Obviously the measurer can be used without
necessarily buying a Specialized saddle :-)


- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Nigel Cliffe]

wrote:
> The only Brooks that I've tried is the Team Professional. After 1200
> miles of excruciating torture I finally gave up and returned to
> plastic. I'm not happy with any of the plastic saddles that I've owned
> either, but I find them much more bearable than that Team
> Professional. I was looking for that "ultimate comfort" which I'd read
> that others experienced on a Brooks, but it absolutely eluded me.
> Reading this thread has piqued my interest in Brooks saddles again,
> but I'd certainly like to avoid a repeat of my last experience. It was
> mentioned earlier in the thread that your sitbone measurements have to
> be right for the saddle. How does one go about measuring their
> sitbones width? I spend about 100 miles per day in the saddle while
> touring but, now, I keep my bars about 1 1/2"-2" below my saddle...
> when I used the Team Professional I was sitting in a much more upright
> position with my bars level with the top of my saddle. What I've read
> here, about the thinner leather of the Swift breaking in quickly, has
> great appeal to me... but I'd like to make certain that this model
> fits my sitbones before settling on it.

The classic UK saddle for a drop-bar touring bike is the B17, or
alternatively the Flyer which is a B17 plus coil springs at the rear. As
well as different saddle rails (saving a few grams), the B17 comes in at
least three widths (narrow, standard and womens).

The B17 has considerably softer leather than some other Brooks models.
The "hard" ones include the Conquest & Team Professional.

A "Swift" is the same width as a "narrow B17". No idea how firm the leather
will be, but I'd expect it to be firmer than a B17.


One thing with a Brooks saddle, no matter which you choose, it isn't a
lightweight thing. Even the titanium swift is pretty heavy compared to
plastic and gell race/touring saddles.





- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[burt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The only Brooks that I've tried is the Team Professional. After 1200
> miles of excruciating torture I finally gave up and returned to
> plastic.

had the same problem with the last Professional I tried, but then went to
the Brooks Colt, which I've now got two of, and they have been comfortable
from day one. Not sure if Brooks still make them though?

[autopi]

> The B17 has considerably softer leather than some other Brooks models.
> The "hard" ones include the Conquest & Team Professional.
>
> A "Swift" is the same width as a "narrow B17". No idea how firm the leather
> will be, but I'd expect it to be firmer than a B17.
>

My experience has been the opposite--I have a Swift and a B17. The
leather on the B17 is very thick and very hard. The Swift, on the
other hand, was pretty manageable from the very first day. I rode the
B17 for something like 1000 miles with no noticeable change in the
saddle. I later "trimmed" the B17 to take off the skirts and, as a
result, the saddle became more pliant, and I like it much better.

[Donald Gillies]

I own a swift and team pro. I like them both, but i like the team pro
a little better. the swift is a little smaller in all dimensions, to
save weight. I am big (6'1.5") and do not have a narrow pelvis. The
swift is honestly a little too narrow for me.

According to wallbike.com, the B-17 standard is their most popular
saddle, and the one least oftened returned to wallbike.com. It's also
the widest unsprung saddle.

I come from an age when people learned to take severe bumps by flexing
their knees slightly to reduce saddle-shock. With this precaution,
most of the brooks saddles are comfortable. Another reason why brooks
saddles are so often recommended is that the hard and very slick
surface of these saddles does not produce chafing, which can be a big
problem with a plastic saddle and a 100 mile bike ride. With plastic
saddles there can be a stiction problem in hot weather or with sweat.

If all you do are 2 mile bike rides, plastic / nylon is perfectly
acceptable.

On certain classic british bikes, the Brooks Pro / Team Pro is the
most beautiful saddle ever made ...

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

[Dan Gregory]

Donald Gillies wrote:

> On certain classic british bikes, the Brooks Pro / Team Pro is the
> most beautiful saddle ever made ...

But if I can ever replace my Mansfield Bath Road saddle .....
:-((

[Bill Westphal]

(Donald Gillies) writes:

> I own a swift and team pro. I like them both, but i like the team pro
> a little better. the swift is a little smaller in all dimensions, to
> save weight. I am big (6'1.5") and do not have a narrow pelvis. The
> swift is honestly a little too narrow for me.
>
> According to wallbike.com, the B-17 standard is their most popular
> saddle, and the one least oftened returned to wallbike.com. It's also
> the widest unsprung saddle.
>
> I come from an age when people learned to take severe bumps by flexing
> their knees slightly to reduce saddle-shock. With this precaution,
> most of the brooks saddles are comfortable. Another reason why brooks
> saddles are so often recommended is that the hard and very slick
> surface of these saddles does not produce chafing, which can be a big
> problem with a plastic saddle and a 100 mile bike ride. With plastic
> saddles there can be a stiction problem in hot weather or with sweat.
>
> If all you do are 2 mile bike rides, plastic / nylon is perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> On certain classic british bikes, the Brooks Pro / Team Pro is the
> most beautiful saddle ever made ...
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA

I own 2 swifts and a pro. I like them both, but i like the swifts a
little better. I'm a little smaller, at 5'11.5", and seem to have a
width of ischial tuberosity just about between those two saddles.

I soak the leather for new saddles wit neatsfoot oil in a tinfoil
mold, as per http://www.sheldonbrown.com/leather.html (thanks
Sheldon!) which is more needed for the pro than the swift. Over time
and bumps the swift, for lack of leather, sags under weight, requiring
periodic tightening. On one swift I'm currently at the end of the
adjustment, the thing is somewhat more narrow as a result, I think,
and very long and awkward, but it's got some life still, although not
for long-haul rides. The swifts are definitely more cushy, while the
pro is a pretty substantial and immovable hunk of firm leather. The
most comfortable one is the one I haven't used for a while.

I find that if I "cycle" through saddles, never riding one more than a
few rides, or about 150 miles, whichever comes first, that the sore
"bits" caused by saddle "a" will not be directly impacted by saddle
"b", which will create other nearby separate sore "bits".

I even incororate Fizik alliante, gobi, and arione into the schedule,
for certain types of riding, such as shorter (< 2 hrs), or bumpy
(cross/mtn). These rides are a lot harder/faster, with my legs
holding up more of my weight, so you have less of a chance to get
sore. Also, you're sitting on a more generalized larger area, so the
plastic saddle cushion is kinder than hard leather pounding on
realatively small spots, and opening sores. I think (speculating
here!) people who only ride short, really fast on smooth surfaces,
like typical working training cat 2-5 USCF racers in the US can
survive just fine with plastic, but if you put on serious miles and
actually sit on the thing for up to 25 hrs/week, then the plastic just
doesn't cut it. I wonder if any European racers getting ready for
spring classics train at least partly on leather. I wonder what these
RAAM riders use.


Bill Westphal

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Bill Westphal > wrote:

> (Donald Gillies) writes:
>
> > I own a swift and team pro. I like them both, but i like the team pro
> > a little better. the swift is a little smaller in all dimensions, to
> > save weight. I am big (6'1.5") and do not have a narrow pelvis. The
> > swift is honestly a little too narrow for me.
> >
> > According to wallbike.com, the B-17 standard is their most popular
> > saddle, and the one least oftened returned to wallbike.com. It's also
> > the widest unsprung saddle.
> >
> > I come from an age when people learned to take severe bumps by flexing
> > their knees slightly to reduce saddle-shock. With this precaution,
> > most of the brooks saddles are comfortable. Another reason why brooks
> > saddles are so often recommended is that the hard and very slick
> > surface of these saddles does not produce chafing, which can be a big
> > problem with a plastic saddle and a 100 mile bike ride. With plastic
> > saddles there can be a stiction problem in hot weather or with sweat.
> >
> > If all you do are 2 mile bike rides, plastic / nylon is perfectly
> > acceptable.
> >
> > On certain classic british bikes, the Brooks Pro / Team Pro is the
> > most beautiful saddle ever made ...
> >
> > - Don Gillies
> > San Diego, CA
>
> I own 2 swifts and a pro. I like them both, but i like the swifts a
> little better. I'm a little smaller, at 5'11.5", and seem to have a
> width of ischial tuberosity just about between those two saddles.
>
> I soak the leather for new saddles wit neatsfoot oil in a tinfoil
> mold, as per http://www.sheldonbrown.com/leather.html (thanks
> Sheldon!) which is more needed for the pro than the swift. Over time
> and bumps the swift, for lack of leather, sags under weight, requiring
> periodic tightening. On one swift I'm currently at the end of the
> adjustment, the thing is somewhat more narrow as a result, I think,
> and very long and awkward, but it's got some life still, although not
> for long-haul rides.

One need not put oil on a leather saddle. Oil will
shorten the usable life of a saddle. The BP saddle
on my utility bike has ~20000 miles and three full
turns on the adjustment nut out of about of about 45.
A streched leather saddle saddle will prosper with
Brooks Proofide or the equivalent in a boot wax seal
formulation such as Sno-Seal.

--
Michael Press

[Bob in CT[_2_]]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:41:56 -0400, Michael Press >
wrote:

> In article >,
> Bill Westphal > wrote:
>
>> (Donald Gillies) writes:
>>
>> > I own a swift and team pro. I like them both, but i like the team pro
>> > a little better. the swift is a little smaller in all dimensions, to
>> > save weight. I am big (6'1.5") and do not have a narrow pelvis. The
>> > swift is honestly a little too narrow for me.
>> >
>> > According to wallbike.com, the B-17 standard is their most popular
>> > saddle, and the one least oftened returned to wallbike.com. It's also
>> > the widest unsprung saddle.
>> >
>> > I come from an age when people learned to take severe bumps by flexing
>> > their knees slightly to reduce saddle-shock. With this precaution,
>> > most of the brooks saddles are comfortable. Another reason why brooks
>> > saddles are so often recommended is that the hard and very slick
>> > surface of these saddles does not produce chafing, which can be a big
>> > problem with a plastic saddle and a 100 mile bike ride. With plastic
>> > saddles there can be a stiction problem in hot weather or with sweat.
>> >
>> > If all you do are 2 mile bike rides, plastic / nylon is perfectly
>> > acceptable.
>> >
>> > On certain classic british bikes, the Brooks Pro / Team Pro is the
>> > most beautiful saddle ever made ...
>> >
>> > - Don Gillies
>> > San Diego, CA
>>
>> I own 2 swifts and a pro. I like them both, but i like the swifts a
>> little better. I'm a little smaller, at 5'11.5", and seem to have a
>> width of ischial tuberosity just about between those two saddles.
>>
>> I soak the leather for new saddles wit neatsfoot oil in a tinfoil
>> mold, as per http://www.sheldonbrown.com/leather.html (thanks
>> Sheldon!) which is more needed for the pro than the swift. Over time
>> and bumps the swift, for lack of leather, sags under weight, requiring
>> periodic tightening. On one swift I'm currently at the end of the
>> adjustment, the thing is somewhat more narrow as a result, I think,
>> and very long and awkward, but it's got some life still, although not
>> for long-haul rides.
>
> One need not put oil on a leather saddle. Oil will
> shorten the usable life of a saddle. The BP saddle
> on my utility bike has ~20000 miles and three full
> turns on the adjustment nut out of about of about 45.
> A streched leather saddle saddle will prosper with
> Brooks Proofide or the equivalent in a boot wax seal
> formulation such as Sno-Seal.
>

I get about 2,000 miles on my Brooks before they go belly up.

--
Bob in CT

[Michael Press]

In article >,
"Bob in CT" > wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:41:56 -0400, Michael Press >
> wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Bill Westphal > wrote:
> >
> >> (Donald Gillies) writes:
> >>
> >> > I own a swift and team pro. I like them both, but i like the team pro
> >> > a little better. the swift is a little smaller in all dimensions, to
> >> > save weight. I am big (6'1.5") and do not have a narrow pelvis. The
> >> > swift is honestly a little too narrow for me.
> >> >
> >> > According to wallbike.com, the B-17 standard is their most popular
> >> > saddle, and the one least oftened returned to wallbike.com. It's also
> >> > the widest unsprung saddle.
> >> >
> >> > I come from an age when people learned to take severe bumps by flexing
> >> > their knees slightly to reduce saddle-shock. With this precaution,
> >> > most of the brooks saddles are comfortable. Another reason why brooks
> >> > saddles are so often recommended is that the hard and very slick
> >> > surface of these saddles does not produce chafing, which can be a big
> >> > problem with a plastic saddle and a 100 mile bike ride. With plastic
> >> > saddles there can be a stiction problem in hot weather or with sweat.
> >> >
> >> > If all you do are 2 mile bike rides, plastic / nylon is perfectly
> >> > acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > On certain classic british bikes, the Brooks Pro / Team Pro is the
> >> > most beautiful saddle ever made ...
> >>
> >> I own 2 swifts and a pro. I like them both, but i like the swifts a
> >> little better. I'm a little smaller, at 5'11.5", and seem to have a
> >> width of ischial tuberosity just about between those two saddles.
> >>
> >> I soak the leather for new saddles wit neatsfoot oil in a tinfoil
> >> mold, as per http://www.sheldonbrown.com/leather.html (thanks
> >> Sheldon!) which is more needed for the pro than the swift. Over time
> >> and bumps the swift, for lack of leather, sags under weight, requiring
> >> periodic tightening. On one swift I'm currently at the end of the
> >> adjustment, the thing is somewhat more narrow as a result, I think,
> >> and very long and awkward, but it's got some life still, although not
> >> for long-haul rides.
> >
> > One need not put oil on a leather saddle. Oil will
> > shorten the usable life of a saddle. The BP saddle
> > on my utility bike has ~20000 miles and three full
> > turns on the adjustment nut out of about of about 45.
> > A streched leather saddle saddle will prosper with
> > Brooks Proofide or the equivalent in a boot wax seal
> > formulation such as Sno-Seal.
>
> I get about 2,000 miles on my Brooks before they go belly up.

The wheels go underneath, the saddle upwards.

--
Michael Press

[David Damerell]

Quoting Bob in CT >:
>I get about 2,000 miles on my Brooks before they go belly up.

What do you _do_ to them? I reckon I've got at least 10K on the B-17
Narrow on my tourer...
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, April.

[Andrew Price]

Apologies for such a late follow-up, but it would be remiss of me if I
didn't thank Simon Brooke for the recommendation, which in fact I
didn't ask for in the first instance, but which was excellent.

Despite previous (and indeed ongoing) positive experience with Brooks
saddles on other bikes (a Conquest on one, a B-17N on another) the
Swift was not a success, and proved the rule that saddles are indeed
highly individual.

Due to the somewhat concave upper surface of the Swift, the nose could
only be set either a fraction too high (resulting in the well-known
syndrome of sending a certain part of my anatomy to sleep...) or, one
notch lower, it was slightly too low, and I tended to slide towards
the bars.

I put up with that, but the saddle was also too wide for me, and the
resulting pressure point produced an irritation of the perineum which
developed into a small cyst, so after 600 kms, I decided to cut my
losses and went back to see what Simon had said:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:15:40 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>Bear in mind, though, that Brooks saddles, while (if they fit you)
>exceedingly comfortable, are also exceedingly heavy. two years ago I had
>Brooks Professionals on all my bikes; now I have Selle Italia SLRs, which
>I personally find equally comfortable and which has saved 500 grammes per
>bike.

And that's what I replaced the Brooks with, and am extremely happy
with it. If only I had listened to the voice of experience in the
first place...

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Bob in CT:
>I get about 2,000 miles on my Brooks before they go belly up.

What is the failure mode?

Had that experience with a couple of B-72's where the
spring/rails would break, but that was when using them
inappropriately (MTB use).
--
PeteCresswell