What do you guys think of Brooks saddles? Are they goofy or what?

[Stan Shankman]

Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
road bike?

I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
general?

Anyone?

- Stan Shankman

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:50:15 -0500, Stan Shankman >
wrote:
> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a
> new road bike?
>
> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> general?

This morning, I finally took a look at some leather saddles,
mostly Brooks, online. The posts I've seen regarding them
convinced me that they're worth a try.

Then, I saw pictures of them. Now, I'm not terribly shallow;
I take function over form anyday. However, they look to darn
silly to me, and I imagine I'd look at the bike and say to
myself "Naw, maybe I'll ride tomorrow instead".

I am quite comfortable in my plastic saddles, so I don't
find a need to change. If I find discomfort, I may yet
try a Brooks, ugliness [subjective, of course] be damned.

> Anyone?
>
> - Stan Shankman
--
Rick Onanian

[Naveed]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:50:15 -0500, Stan Shankman wrote:

> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a
> new road bike?
>
> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> general?
>
> Anyone?
>
> - Stan Shankman

I like my champion flyer alot. It is very comfortable. When i started to
ride, i had quite a bit of pain and tried a number of saddles and ended up
with this after reading various posts here. Though some people say they
are ugly, I think mine makes my bike look much better. I have the honey on
a black frame. If i were to do it again, I would get the B17 instead for a
cleaner look. The springs on back of the champion flyer look fine alone,
but when you add an under seat bag for tools, it looks a little silly. The
bag sits under the springs rather than nicely tucked under the seat.

This is on my commute bike that i ride to work everyday and is a mountain
bike altered for street use, so my experiece may be different from people
with road bikes.

Naveed

[Benjamin Lewis]

Stan Shankman wrote:

> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a
> new road bike?

Yes. They're comfortable and look cool.

However, I also think barcons and DT shifters are cool when compared to
those dorky STI jobs, so my aesthetics may not fit with prevailing
opinions.

--
Benjamin Lewis

To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland.
-- Jack Paar

[Jkpoulos7]

>Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
>road bike?

If you're serious about comfort, yes!!! Sure they do not look as sleek as the
"numnutter" saddles out there but for those interested in having no more pain
in the butt after hours on a bike get a Brooks.

>I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
>general?

Why be worried what others think? I put a Brooks on my Lemond and people have
only asked how comfortable it is. Riding in the rain is a concern though.

[Donald Gillies]

Rick Onanian > writes:

>Then, I saw pictures of them. Now, I'm not terribly shallow;
>I take function over form anyday. However, they look to darn
>silly to me, and I imagine I'd look at the bike and say to
>myself "Naw, maybe I'll ride tomorrow instead".

Did you look at the B17, Pro, or Swift ?? These saddles are almost
identical to the selle italia turbo or other selle italia saddles.

I've never felt a need to replace a brooks saddle, even a cheap $6.00
plastic saddle from brooks. I have replaced many other bad plastic
saddles.

Most brooks saddles do not have tabs for hanging a bag at the back of
the saddle. It used to be possible to buy these tabs from bike
nashbar which bolt on (they bolt onto the rails like a waterbottle
clamp, something else that is a forgotten part of cycling lore.)
These tabs make it easier to hang bags from the back of brooks (or in
my case unicanitor) saddle.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

[Per Elmsäter]

Jkpoulos7 wrote:
>> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building
>> up a new road bike?
>
> If you're serious about comfort, yes!!! Sure they do not look as
> sleek as the "numnutter" saddles out there but for those interested
> in having no more pain in the butt after hours on a bike get a Brooks.
>
>> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about
>> leather in general?
>
> Why be worried what others think? I put a Brooks on my Lemond and
> people have only asked how comfortable it is. Riding in the rain is
> a concern though.


Yes rain and leather saddles is a whle different story as you will soon see.
This fellow inherited a really fine bike with a genuine leather saddle on
it. The only thing he had to promise his old friend before he died was to
take good care of the bike and to always work vaseline into the saddle if it
was raining.
Well one day he's out riding and as chance has it he stops at a farm for
some water. They're nice people and invite him in for dinner. Before they
sit down at the table they tell him that they have only one rule and that is
that whoever speaks at the table does the dishes. Fair enough he thinks and
sits down with them. After a while he gets up, lays the wife on the table
and has his way with her. Nobody utters a single syllable. He goes back to
his seat and continues eating. Soon however he goes over to the daughter and
does the same thing. Still nobody utters a word.
At about this time it starts raining outside and remembering the promise to
his deceased friend he pulls a can of vaseline out of his pocket as he
slowly gets up.At this point the farmer shouts. OK, OK, I'll do the damn
dishes.


--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

[bfd]

"Stan Shankman" > wrote in message >...
> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
> road bike?
>
> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> general?
>
> Anyone?
>
For those who ride Brooks saddle, the word that's always used is
COMFORT. Despite the fact that leather saddles need more care and
break in time, there are scores of people who will ride nothing else.
In fact several riders used a Brooks in this year RAAM, including I
believe the winner, Allen Larsen:

http://www.raceacrossamerica.org/raam2003/2003racemain.htm

Of course, if you're comfortable with your plastic saddle, stay with
it. Plastic saddles are lighter, more "aero" (if that matters) and
definitely more durable. A good alternative is Avocet O2. It comes in
several width, including a "women's model" that can be used by men....

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

I have a Brooks B17 on my road tourer, a Champion Flyer (B17 with
springs) on my MTB. My tourer also has laced on leather over the H-bars
and brake hoods.

Yes. I like leather :-3)

May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!
Chris

Chris'Z Corner
"The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

[Rick Onanian]

On 13 Aug 2003 13:26:15 -0700, Donald Gillies > wrote:
>> Then, I saw pictures of them. Now, I'm not terribly shallow;
>> I take function over form anyday. However, they look to darn
>> silly to me, and I imagine I'd look at the bike and say to
>> myself "Naw, maybe I'll ride tomorrow instead".
>
> Did you look at the B17, Pro, or Swift ?? These saddles are almost
> identical to the selle italia turbo or other selle italia saddles.

While the shape is similar, it's not the shape that
bothers me. It's the material and the fasteners used.
It's a very subjective thing, but it just looks too
silly for me, at least, until I find that I'm not
comfortable on a plastic saddle.

And then, I have a Selle Italia Prolink that came on
my Giant TCR2, and the whole bike just looks so cool,
that I see it and want to ride. I don't care if other
people see it and think it's cool or not (obvious if
you see my stem, which rises way up, and my pedals,
which are Nashbar Special SPD pedals for mountain
bikes).

> I've never felt a need to replace a brooks saddle, even a cheap $6.00
> plastic saddle from brooks. I have replaced many other bad plastic
> saddles.

I've never felt a need to replace a brooks saddle,
but that's because I've never had one. ;)

I have replaced saddles before, but done with cheapies
from my LBS's take-offs bin.

> Most brooks saddles do not have tabs for hanging a bag at the back of
> the saddle. It used to be possible to buy these tabs from bike

It's easy enough to hang a bag from the saddle rails.

> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA
--
Rick Onanian

[Eric St. Mary]

Originally posted by Benjamin Lewis Stan Shankman wrote:

> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up
> a new road bike?

I did on my new Rivendell Rambouillet. I have to say it looks great;
even though I was highly sceptical it wouldn't.

Riding it the first time was the second most painful experience that
region had ever felt (the first was not seat related). After waiting a
hundred miles for the break-in to happen, I decided to go against the
Brooks code of conduct and dunk it. After dunking in cold water twice
and riding it immediatley afterwards, it has became the most comfortable
seat I have ever had. The angle adjustment is tricky though, as the nose
never seems to soften up.

As for riding in the rain throw a bag or seat cover over it and go. Your
bottom will cover it in sweat when you ride anyways.

Eric



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

(bfd) Wrote:

>Of course, if you're comfortable with
>your plastic saddle, stay with it. Plastic
>saddles are lighter, more "aero" (if that
>matters) and definitely more durable. A
>good alternative is Avocet O2. It comes
>in several width, including a "women's
>model" that can be used by men....

OK, how can a bicycle saddle be "aero"? Think about it, how much airflow
does it encounter?

Or are you reffering to the ones with the "f@&t slots"? ;-3)

May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!
Chris

Chris'Z Corner
"The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

[Lewis Campbell]

I've got two bikes at the moment and each of them has a BROOKS saddle.

One is a hybrid type bike, with an upright riding positon and it has a
Champion Flyer. Thats like a B-17 only it has a pair of coil springs.

The other bike has a B-17 'Narrow' and this bike has aero bars.

Lewis.

................................

"Stan Shankman" > wrote in message >...
> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
> road bike?
>
> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> general?
>
> Anyone?
>
> - Stan Shankman

[Lee]

"Stan Shankman" > wrote in message
i.com...
> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a
new
> road bike?
>
> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> general?
>

I've still got my Brooks Pro which I bought new in 1972. Haven't had it on a
bike in over 20 years, tho. Thinking about trying a new Brooks...but that
old one *never* molded to my butt.

My other concern is that I tend to slide out of position on a smooth saddle.
Right now I've got 3 or 4 San Marco Era K or San Marco Night Train saddles
with synthetic suede to keep me from sliding around.

And it's not a fit issue...I've gone through several bike fittings over the
years, I'm in the right position, but I just don't stay in the right place
with a smooth saddle.

Lee

[Rick Warner]

"Stan Shankman" > wrote in message >...
> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
> road bike?
>
> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> general?
>

Hey, the winner of the solo division of RAAM this year (Allen Larson) used
Brooks on his bikes; says it was more comfortable with less issues of
numbness than the saddle he used last year.

Anyway, some folks will not like them because they are retro, or heavy, or
they do not like the looks, or .... Some folks love them because they are
retro, they are comfortable, etc. You will have to find your own way,
grasshopper, and decide how YOU feel about a Brooks rather than going with
'popular consensus'.

- rick

[Cliff Weisgerber]

Rick Onanian > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:50:15 -0500, Stan Shankman >
> wrote:
> > Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a
> > new road bike?
> >
> > I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> > general?
>
> This morning, I finally took a look at some leather saddles,
> mostly Brooks, online. The posts I've seen regarding them
> convinced me that they're worth a try.
>
> Then, I saw pictures of them. Now, I'm not terribly shallow;
> I take function over form anyday. However, they look to darn
> silly to me, and I imagine I'd look at the bike and say to
> myself "Naw, maybe I'll ride tomorrow instead".
>
> I am quite comfortable in my plastic saddles, so I don't
> find a need to change. If I find discomfort, I may yet
> try a Brooks, ugliness [subjective, of course] be damned.
>
> > Anyone?
> >
> > - Stan Shankman

Buy it and ride it, you'll like it. Don't let it dry out. Wear
cycling shorts or black pants.

[Chalo]

"Stan Shankman" > wrote:

> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
> road bike?

Oh yes.

> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> general?

Brooks, Lepper, and other well-made leather saddles are generally much
heavier, much more expensive, and more difficult to maintain than most
quality plastic saddles. Many riders find the comfort of such a
saddle well worth the tradeoffs, and will not ride any other kind of
saddle. Others prefer the timeless appearance of a leather saddle
over that of a plastic one.

I'd say there is an analogous relationship between expensive,
high-quality handmade leather shoes and those which are
injection-molded from plastics. Both have their benefits and
shortcomings. Most folks who don't make a distinction wind up using
the plastic kind because they are cheap and require little to no
upkeep. And neither kind will be satisfactory unless it fits
properly.

Chalo Colina

[Steve]

"Stan Shankman" > wrote in message
i.com...
> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a
new
> road bike?
>
> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> general?
>
> Anyone?

Anyone - try everyone...

I have them on 4 bikes, all B17 black, on the full suspension mt. bike, the
tourer/commuter, the Heron road - goes everywhere bike and even on the new
Lemond titanium. Seems like a blasphemy to put a 500 gram leather saddle on
a double butted titanium frame, but my butt thinks otherwise.

They are the most comfortable saddle I've used, probably the reason I can
ride +5000 miles this year and 4,000 last year after 2 years of prostate
inflammations that was certainly cycling related. The leather, the width
and the shape does the best job I've found at supporting my ass without
causing pressure in the soft tissue. I've also tried the Terry Liberator,
Terry Fly, Specialized Body Geometry and assorted Flite style, plus assorted
Selle San Marco's, Vetta's, Bontragers, etc... Nothing is as comfortable as
the Brooks, mostly as I rely on the saddle to support me and the shorts to
pad me. Many saddles have too much padding which tends to compress the soft
tissue in the crotch, which you generally don't want.

That said, I did find that my sit bones press down onto the saddle right at
the edge of the seam of the chamois, causing blisters to form, resulting in
a move to XL padded shorts (from L). I also invested in the Carradace
covers for riding on hot/humid days and/or in the rain. A shower cap comes
along with me as well, as the Carradace is not totally water proof. I treat
every 2 mos. or so with Proofide to keep the saddles in shape. And as
others have said, the tilt is important and takes some experimenting. Nose
up higher then usual seems to be the best choice. Having a post that allows
very minute adjustment is important. Also note that they do not slide back
as far as a typical saddle, the result for me is an investment in Easton and
CLB seat posts that have more setback then is typical to get the saddle/seat
tube/reach position back to where it belongs.

Bottom line, if I didn't have to, I wouldn't use one, preferring a lower
maintenance and lighter saddle, and if your butt doesn't need it and is
comfortable on your current saddle, don't change.

Steve B.

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
"Stan Shankman" > wrote:

> Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building
> up a new road bike?
>
> I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about
> leather in general?
>
> Anyone?

Dis gots ta be a troll.

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
Rick Onanian > wrote:

> While the shape is similar, it's not the shape that bothers me.
> It's the material and the fasteners used. It's a very subjective
> thing, but it just looks too silly for me, at least, until I find
> that I'm not comfortable on a plastic saddle.
>
> And then, I have a Selle Italia Prolink that came on my Giant TCR2,
> and the whole bike just looks so cool, that I see it and want to
> ride.

Isn't this just one of the best demonstrations of why it's a good
thing that there is consumer choice?

I think those modern saddles look goofy as can be, with wierd
patchwork fabric tops and embroidery that is designed to increase the
friction between you and your bike. Saddles are supposed to be smooth
so that there is no movement between your shorts and your skin- all
the slippage should happen between the shorts and the saddle. If
you're slipping down the saddle- and need pseudo-velcro to keep your
butt in place- it's either the wrong saddle or it's poorly adjusted.

But if you like how they look and like how it feels to ride them, than
you should and I got *nothing* to say about it. It's your butt, not
mine and what fits me may not fit you. I'm happy to keep riding the
too-silly Brooks Team Pro I bought in 1977. What matters is riding
bike.

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
(Cliff Weisgerber) wrote:

> Buy it and ride it, you'll like it.

Or maybe he won't, on aesthetic, weight or comfort grounds.

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
(Chalo) wrote:

> Brooks, Lepper, and other well-made leather saddles are generally
> much heavier,

A Lepper Voyageur weighs a trifling amount more than most plastique
saddles. A B.17 or Pro weighs about 1 1/2 to 2x most plastic racing
saddles, and about the same as many gel saddles.

> much more expensive, and

Not so, in fact they are cheaper than many plastic saddles. At least
in the US. $50 or so for a B.17, compared to over $100 for many
plastic saddles.

> more difficult to maintain than most quality plastic saddles.

That's compared to "no maintenance" compared to plastic saddles.
Twice a years I spend about 10 minutes rubbing some Proofhide or
Obeneuf's into my Brooks saddles.

[Benjamin Lewis]

Richard Ney wrote:

> I use an Avocet O2 which is light, comfortable for 5+ hours, and holds
> up with no maintenance even though I ride it in the rain.

I use a Brooks B17, which is plenty light enough for my use, comfortable
for 35+ hours, and holds up with about 30 seconds of maintenance every six
months even though I ride it in the rain. :P

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening

[Benjamin Lewis]

> That's compared to "no maintenance" compared to plastic saddles.
> Twice a years I spend about 10 minutes rubbing some Proofhide or
> Obeneuf's into my Brooks saddles.

Why so long?

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
>general?

To me, the upside of leather is that the entire width of the saddle is usable.
Other saddles have a stiffened "rail" around the edges that eats into usable
width big-time - and I need all I can get. Look at the underside of a WTB
Speed-V sometime.

The downsides I see are weight, limited fore-aft adjustment, and that if they
get really soaked they're toast.

Weight's not an issue with me and I deal with the water issue by carrying a
coated nylon bag in my tool bag - I just pull it over the saddle when it's
really raining - keeps the mud off the under-saddle tool bag too...
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

[David L. Johnson]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:48:09 +0000, Steve wrote:

> Anyone - try everyone...

Not everyone

> They are the most comfortable saddle I've used, probably the reason I can
> ride +5000 miles this year and 4,000 last year after 2 years of prostate
> inflammations that was certainly cycling related.

?? This is a recommendation for saddles like yours? Thanks, but no
thanks.

> That said, I did find that my sit bones press down onto the saddle right
> at the edge of the seam of the chamois, causing blisters to form,
> resulting in a move to XL padded shorts (from L). I also invested in the
> Carradace covers for riding on hot/humid days and/or in the rain. A
> shower cap comes along with me as well, as the Carradace is not totally
> water proof. I treat every 2 mos. or so with Proofide to keep the saddles
> in shape.

You go through a lot of pain, and a lot of futzing, for such a wonderful
saddle. Mine, I put on the bike and forget about. No blisters, no
prostate problems.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can
_`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and
(_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. --
Glenn Davies

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:50:15 -0500, "Stan Shankman"
> may have said:

>Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
>road bike?
>
>I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
>general?
>
>Anyone?

Leather can be a good material for a lot of things, but it's not
something that I'd personally want on a bike seat; in this climate, it
would rot. Other than that, however, I find their designs to be
stodgy but logical in most respects. I've always preferred a sprung
saddle over an unsprung, but ones that are designed to be mountable in
the correct fore/aft location relative to the top of the seat post
are, in my experience, rare. I can get a narrow, unsprung saddle that
can be mounted far enough aft for me with trivial ease, but a *sprung*
unit seems to be too much to ask for. Goofy 1890s look or not, I'd
buy one of these if it was available with a molded, padded plastic
plate with no qualms, as long as I could afford it.


--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[CampyO]

>Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
>road bike?
>
>I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
>general?

I have Brooks saddles on two of my bikes (one saddle is a Swift and the other
is a Team Pro). The rail design makes it tough to get them far enough back on
the seatpost. I've had to "modify" the clamps on both posts. The Team Pro is
comfortable, but a boat anchor. The Swift is lighter, but not nearly as
comfortable (not after a few hundred miles, at least). If Brooks came out with
a Ti railed Pro, I'd buy it in an instant. I also have a B-17 (now sitting on
a shelf). It got way too soft way too fast. The older used Pro models that
I've seen on older bikes seem to have harder and thicker leather than the new
ones, but that's just my opinion. If I was building another "modern" road
bike, I'd just get a Flite (hopefully without the big Selle Italia embroidered
logos) or an old Turbo Matic II (NOT the III). I have both on other bikes and
like them. The Turbo Matic does a great job of filtering some of the harshness
of a CAAD3 Cannondale. I can understand why this saddle was a mainstay of the
peleton for years. As noted earlier, this is just one person's opinion.

[TBGibb]

In article >, "Stan
Shankman" > writes:

>Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
>road bike?

Yes. They conform to my sitting apparatus with time and become very
comfortable. You do need to keep them dry (shower cap will do).

Tom Gibb >

[Chalo]

Tim McNamara > wrote:

> (Chalo) wrote:
>
> > Brooks, Lepper, and other well-made leather saddles are generally
> > much heavier,
>
> A Lepper Voyageur weighs a trifling amount more than most plastique
> saddles. A B.17 or Pro weighs about 1 1/2 to 2x most plastic racing
> saddles, and about the same as many gel saddles.

The Lepper Voyager is the lightest leather saddle made AFAIK. At
340g, it weighs more than 3 1/2 times as much as the lightest plastic
saddles.

Brooks Professional and B17 are very much on the light end of the
offerings by that maker, having none of the springs or sub-frames that
characterize Brooks saddles.

The Brooks B90/3 weighs four pounds (1.7kg), more than many bike
frames. It is my favorite saddle; I have two.

> > much more expensive, and
>
> Not so, in fact they are cheaper than many plastic saddles. At least
> in the US. $50 or so for a B.17, compared to over $100 for many
> plastic saddles.

Again, let's compare apples with apples. The Brooks B17 is the least
expensive leather saddle generally available in the USA. It costs at
least $62 (incl. shipping) wherever I have found it. Compare to a
retail price of about $20 for a broad selection of decent quality
plastic saddles from established makers.

The Brooks Swift at $160 is the most expensive leather saddle I know
of. Very few plastic saddles cost that much, e.g. Selle Italia SLR
Carbon which weighs not much more than 1/4 what the Swift does.

> > more difficult to maintain than most quality plastic saddles.
>
> That's compared to "no maintenance" compared to plastic saddles.
> Twice a years I spend about 10 minutes rubbing some Proofhide or
> Obeneuf's into my Brooks saddles.

That's about how often I "feed" my Brookses and Leppers, too.
Meanwhile I have to lube them at the points of contact to keep them
reasonably quiet, each application lasting only a couple of outings.
Every so often I must tension them too, to keep my giblets off of the
saddle rails. And once in a while I must add tension to the
through-bolt of the saddle clamp lest it develop enough slack to slip
and strip the teeth from its interlocking discs.

The larger Brooks and Lepper saddles are mechanical beasts, bristling
with coil and hairpin springs and double or triple rails. I wouldn't
mind the comparative simplicity of the B17, but I need a larger saddle
top than that model provides. Along with a suitably large saddle top
I get a bunch of other, mostly benign to helpful paraphernalia.

I love my big ol' leather seats and I'll never go back to plastic
saddles for my best bikes. But I'll stand by my earlier assertion
that leather saddles are generally much heavier, much more expensive,
and more maintenance than plastic ones. We love them in spite of
these things.

Chalo Colina

[Tim McTeague]

I bought a Swift as I could not make the mental adjustment to the weight of
a Pro. The Swift is more of their "race" model but, as it is still wider
than most plastic saddles, I figured it was good enough. On my first ride
it was more comfortable than any of the many plastic types I have tried.
Good ones mind you like Flite, Turbomatic 4, Fly, Era, etc. The thought
that it should just get more so is exciting. I, too, was worried that I
would end up with my sit bones on the rivets but depressions are already
forming in the right spot. I am using an Easton EC70 carbon post that has
more setback than most though. I would rather have a light, no fuss, saddle
that looks sleeker but comfort takes priority here.

Tim McTeague

The Swift is lighter, but not nearly as
> >comfortable (not after a few hundred miles, at least). If Brooks came
out with
> >a Ti railed Pro, I'd buy it in an instant.
>
> yes indeed, what's the reason for this ?? The Swift is longer and
> thinner, and there would seem to be no earthly reason why the lightest
> of all brooks saddles (swift) should depart from the form factor of
> the most successful of all brooks saddles (team pro).
>
> anyone who really knows brooks, care to chime in ??
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA

[David Damerell]

Chalo > wrote:
>Tim McNamara > wrote:
>>A Lepper Voyageur weighs a trifling amount more than most plastique
>>saddles. A B.17 or Pro weighs about 1 1/2 to 2x most plastic racing
>>saddles, and about the same as many gel saddles.
>Brooks Professional and B17 are very much on the light end of the
>offerings by that maker, having none of the springs or sub-frames that
>characterize Brooks saddles.
>The Brooks B90/3 weighs four pounds (1.7kg), more than many bike
>frames. It is my favorite saddle; I have two.

But now you're not comparing like with like; the observation here is that
sprung saddles are heavier than unsprung saddles, not that leather saddles
are heavier than plastic saddles. It just so happens that many of the best
sprung saddles are made by a leather saddle manufacturer.

>>Not so, in fact they are cheaper than many plastic saddles. At least
>>in the US. $50 or so for a B.17, compared to over $100 for many
>>plastic saddles.
>Again, let's compare apples with apples. The Brooks B17 is the least
>expensive leather saddle generally available in the USA. It costs at
>least $62 (incl. shipping) wherever I have found it.

Mind you, the US isn't the place to be buying them - my B-17N set me back
about 25 quid, so around $40.

>>That's compared to "no maintenance" compared to plastic saddles.
>>Twice a years I spend about 10 minutes rubbing some Proofhide or
>>Obeneuf's into my Brooks saddles.
>That's about how often I "feed" my Brookses and Leppers, too.
>Meanwhile I have to lube them at the points of contact to keep them
>reasonably quiet, each application lasting only a couple of outings.

I think this is a function of you, not of the saddle - you would have to
do that even with a plastic saddle.

>But I'll stand by my earlier assertion
>that leather saddles are generally much heavier, much more expensive,
>and more maintenance than plastic ones.

I don't think so; I think a comparable leather saddle is only slightly
heavier and somewhat more expensive.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!

[Robin Hubert]

One thing I haven't heard about is the limited adjustability of the Brooks
saddles. From my exerience, on most modern seatposts, Brooks saddles give
you about 1/2" adjustment fore/aft, far less than most modern
plastic/leather saddles.

Why is this?


--
Robin Hubert >

[B. Sanders]

"Naveed" > wrote in message
du...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:50:15 -0500, Stan Shankman wrote:
>
> > Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a
> > new road bike?

Yes. I used to have a Brooks on my main ride, and it was surprisingly
comfy.

> > I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
> > general?

I believe in the philosophy of minimal friction between shorts and saddle.
For that, there is nothing better than the leather Brooks saddles.

> I like my champion flyer alot. It is very comfortable. When i started to
> ride, i had quite a bit of pain and tried a number of saddles and ended up
> with this after reading various posts here. Though some people say they
> are ugly, I think mine makes my bike look much better.

I agree. Brooks saddles look very no-nonsense and functional, which suits
certain types of bikes.

> I have the honey on a black frame.

My commuter bike is all black. A honey-brown Brooks would look sweet.

> This is on my commute bike that i ride to work everyday and is a mountain
> bike altered for street use

The only problem I have with using a Brooks for commuting is rain damage. I
hate having to put a plastic cover over my Brooks saddle. It's not a big
deal; but a bit of hassle. My Velo Plush has a weatherproof vinyl cover
that dries quickly, and isn't damaged by rain. It's exceedingly comfy, and
prostate-friendly as well. (Though it is a Velo saddle, it's sold by
Nashbar as the "Mens' 2x Gel Touring." Highly recommended!)

-Barry

[Chalo]

"Robin Hubert" > wrote:

> One thing I haven't heard about is the limited adjustability of the Brooks
> saddles. From my exerience, on most modern seatposts, Brooks saddles give
> you about 1/2" adjustment fore/aft, far less than most modern
> plastic/leather saddles.

If you use the seat guts furnished with any of their double or triple
rail saddles, the clamp bore can be rotated fore or aft of the post.
That gives more forward adjustment than most new stuff, though
sometimes not as much rearward adjustment.

Chalo Colina

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
Benjamin Lewis > wrote:

> > That's compared to "no maintenance" compared to plastic saddles.
> > Twice a years I spend about 10 minutes rubbing some Proofhide or
> > Obeneuf's into my Brooks saddles.
>
> Why so long?

It's a fetish.

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:11:35 -0500, Tim McNamara >
wrote:
>> And then, I have a Selle Italia Prolink that came on my Giant TCR2, and
>> the whole bike just looks so cool, that I see it and want to ride.
>
> Isn't this just one of the best demonstrations of why it's a good thing
> that there is consumer choice?
<snippage>

Well said!

> But if you like how they look and like how it feels to ride them, than
> you should and I got *nothing* to say about it. It's your butt, not mine
> and what fits me may not fit you. I'm happy to keep riding the too-silly
> Brooks Team Pro I bought in 1977. What matters is riding bike.

Very well said, especially:
> What matters is riding bike.
I second that motion!

I do indeed like how my saddle looks and feels. I can't say
for sure just how the aforementioned saddle feels, because
I can't remember. That _must_ be a good thing.

I remember when I bought the bike, I had been riding a wide
gel saddle on my MTB, and was afraid the narrow hard road
racing saddle would hurt. Well, I can't remember ever
noticing that the saddle is there. Like somebody else said
in a saddle discussion, if you didn't notice that it's
there, than it's the best saddle you could have.

I haven't ridden that bike in a couple of weeks; I will
ride it Real Soon Now, and try to be concious of the saddle.
I will then post my observations.

--
Rick Onanian

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>From my exerience, on most modern seatposts, Brooks saddles give
>you about 1/2" adjustment fore/aft, far less than most modern
>plastic/leather saddles.
>
>Why is this?

Dunno, but I've been thinking about taking one of my B-17s to a machine shop to
see if they can just press the rails straight up front to give me a little more
range. The further forward the clip goes, the greater the chance of breaking a
rail...but it seems like it's worth a try.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

[Steve]

"Patrick Lamb" > wrote in message

> ?? As I read the earlier post, Steve has ridden 9,000 miles the last
> two years without the prostate inflammations he had experienced
> previously. If it gets rid of the prostate problems and lets him ride
> that much, it sounds like a very good recommendation to me.


Correct

SB

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:50:05 GMT, "(Pete Cresswell)" > may have
said:

>RE/
>> in this climate, it
>>would rot.
>
>What location?

Houston. Consistently hotter than Hawaii for 6 to 8 months of the
year, wetter than the western ends of any of the islands, and mold
capital of the upper Texas coast. Concrete grows mildew here. Fungus
grows on camera lenses. People who ride horses spend entirely too
much time making sure their tack isn't getting green and furry. The
only place of my experience that's worse is South Florida, where a bag
of Fritos will go limp in an hour if poured out into a bowl. (Miami
is an extraordinarily good place to be from...very, very FAR from.)


--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
Rick Onanian > wrote:

> I do indeed like how my saddle looks and feels. I can't say for
> sure just how the aforementioned saddle feels, because I can't
> remember. That _must_ be a good thing.

As somebody- I think it was Jobst- said: if you're thinking about
your saddle while you're riding bike, you've got the wrong saddle.

[Tim McNamara]

In article
>,
(Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote:

> I'm surprised that, after all these years, Brooks hasn't designed a
> special waterproof cover for their saddles (Gore Tex maybe?).
> Something light enough to fold up and tuck into a bike bag, yet
> durable enough and perhaps somewhat form fitting.

Because Carradice makes one, I s'pose.

[peter z]

"Chalo" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The Brooks Swift at $160 is the most expensive leather saddle I know
> of. Very few plastic saddles cost that much, e.g. Selle Italia SLR
> Carbon which weighs not much more than 1/4 what the Swift does.


FWIW, I just ordered from Alfred E. Bike and it was only 123.99 + 6.50
shipping. Thsi is the best price I was able to find, by quite a margin.
Oddly, their other Brooks saddle prices are not nearly as competitive.

http://aebike.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=30&SKU=SA1230

NFI, blah blah blah.

-Peter

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
(Roy Zipris) wrote:

> With my small bike frame, I don't have room for that big device the
> Carradice cover stores in, not do I like the look.

Huh? Mine rolls up into a tiny cylinder. Fits in a pocket or in a
seat pack withouty any problem. You sure you're thinking of the
Carradice saddle cover, which looks like a glorified shower cap?

[Werehatrack]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:37:47 -0500, Tim McNamara
> may have said:

>In article >,
> (Roy Zipris) wrote:
>
>> With my small bike frame, I don't have room for that big device the
>> Carradice cover stores in, not do I like the look.
>
>Huh? Mine rolls up into a tiny cylinder. Fits in a pocket or in a
>seat pack withouty any problem. You sure you're thinking of the
>Carradice saddle cover, which looks like a glorified shower cap?

Without the flower-and-seashell print.

(I just checked, and the shower cap used by others in the household
happens to fit over my largest saddle with room to spare; I seem to
recall that it was obtained at a dollar store, though it has the
drawback that it *does* have the aforementioned flowers and
seashells.)

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Naveed]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:50:46 -0700, Roy Zipris wrote:

> I've often thought the same question and I've also thought about sewing
> up something of my own design. But until then, I still rely on a plastic
> bag from the supermarket: it stashes easily under the seat when not in
> use, it covers my B17 (top and bottom) and saddle bag completely, and it
> ties snugly above my blinkie, leaving the light visible. I don't notice
> the bag while riding, and as I've noted elsewhere, it's easily
> replaceable and the price can't be beat.
>
> With my small bike frame, I don't have room for that big device the
> Carradice cover stores in, not do I like the look. --Roy Zipris

I use a saran wrap bowl cover, medium size. This is like a thick plastic
bag with elastic around the edges. It fits perfectly over my champion
flyer. a little ugly though, but cheap and you can get them at the grocery
store.

[Russell Seaton]

I have an Avocet seat cover. Bought for $1 off the get rid of it
table at a local bike shop about 5 years ago. Very form fitting. Its
also bright green. These covers used to be much more common back in
the 1980s and earlier.

I would guess Brooks does not make a cover because it involves
cloth/rubber/plastic work. Brooks is experienced in working with
leather and steel/titanium tubing. Sewing together saddle covers
would require more capital investment and employee hiring/training
than they can afford. Remember about three years ago there was a
concern that Brooks would fold because Sturmey-Archer(?), the parent
company, went under. Companies on the verge of becoming extinct
probably should not waste money trying to start up a new and different
business line.

(Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote in message >...
> I'm surprised that, after all these years, Brooks hasn't designed a
> special waterproof cover for their saddles (Gore Tex maybe?). Something
> light enough to fold up and tuck into a bike bag, yet durable enough and
> perhaps somewhat form fitting.
>
> Perhaps an oversized shower cap with a draw string that could be tied
> around the seat post, sealing the saddle from the elements?
>
> May you have the wind at your back.
> And a really low gear for the hills!
> Chris
>
> Chris'Z Corner
> "The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
> http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

[Roy Zipris]

Tim McNamara > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Roy Zipris) wrote:
>
> > With my small bike frame, I don't have room for that big device the
> > Carradice cover stores in, not do I like the look.
>
> Huh? Mine rolls up into a tiny cylinder. Fits in a pocket or in a
> seat pack without any problem. You sure you're thinking of the
> Carradice saddle cover, which looks like a glorified shower cap?

No, I wasn't aware of this item. I find it amusing, however, that, on
the Rivendell page in the link below your post, the Rivendell folks
twice talk about using plastic bags to ensure against leaks. I already
got that covered (pun intended)! --Roy Zipris

Rivendell: "Paranoid cylists should place a plastic bag underneath
this -- not to imply that it isn't totally waterproof by itself, but
there is some stitching, so some leakage might happen.
.....
"If you have a leather saddle and you sometimes ride in the rain, you
ought to get one. At the very least, cover the saddle with a duct-tape
reinforced plastic bag."

[Paul1234]

I purchased a Brooks Swift 2 weeks ago and have been more than happy
with it. BTW if you buy from Wallingford you can return it before 6
months for a full refund if you don't like it.

Below is a copy of a letter I sent to MBR and English MTB magazine
last week:

"Being an avid reader of MBR since your first edition and a mountain
biker for the last 9 years, I recently went out in search of the
ultimate most comfy saddle for my new Santa Cruz Blur. Over the years
I've experimented with lots of fad products - some great, some good and
some just a waste of money! I have the plastic bins of obscure bike
parts in my garage to prove
it." "Which saddle should I buy - Gel? Cut-out for my Bits and Bobs?
Razor-sharp Carbon? Dental Floss...get the picture? So I did my
research scouring through all my bike mags and on the Internet to
find the most comfortable saddle for long distance mountain biking."
"I came across a company that I faintly remember when I must have
been a kid - "Brooks Saddles", England. I thought the company had
packed up years ago, NO! after 140 years they were still in business
making traditional leather saddles. This conjured up images in my
mind of men with cycling clips riding old touring bikes around the
countryside. Well my research revealed that these men ARE still
riding their bikes on Brooks Saddles, some of which they have had for
20 or 30 years." "Anyhow after seeking their advice, I took the
plunge and purchased a Titanium Swift Brooks Saddle, beautifully hand
made from fine leather and copper rivets, no plastic to be seen. It
turned out to be the most comfortable saddle I have ever experienced,
better than all these new Italian techno saddles and it looks totally
retro on my Blur." "The moral of this story is that the UK
fortunately still has a cottage industry of small specialist frame
builders and small bike component companies manufacturing high
quality products that have survived countless recessions and cheap
Far Eastern imports. I feel that some of these companies need a
helping hand from the cycling public, it would help them if mags such
as MBR were to review their products once in a while and bring their
products into the spotlight to the new generations of riders out
there with little or no knowledge of their existence. In this way, we
can secure a future for these companies and their workers for many
generations to come."



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
(Roy Zipris) wrote:

> No, I wasn't aware of this item. I find it amusing, however, that, on
> the Rivendell page in the link below your post, the Rivendell folks
> twice talk about using plastic bags to ensure against leaks. I already
> got that covered (pun intended)!

Yah, there have been some compaints about some seepage or leakage
through the Carradice cover. I've never had it happen, but I've never
been out with it on a long ride in the rain.

[Jim Adney]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:50:15 -0500 "Stan Shankman"
> wrote:

>Would anyone seriously consider using a Brooks saddle when building up a new
>road bike?
>
>I'm just wondering what the popular consensus is. What about leather in
>general?

My oldest saddle is also my favorite. It's a Brooks B-17 Champion
Narrow bought in 1968. I also have a Brooks Pro, which is almost a
year "newer", but that one has never softened up the slightest amount
and isn't nearly as comfortable.

I have one of the very first Unica-Nitors ever seen around here. It
has a perfectly smooth top with no holes. While it's clearly lighter
it's not nearly as comfortable.

I'm sure there are good modern synthetic saddles out there, but I
still prefer the classic Brooks.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

[Mike Latondresse]

Jim Adney > wrote in
:

>
> I'm sure there are good modern synthetic saddles out there, but I
> still prefer the classic Brooks.
>
No offence to Jim but I think that both the Brooks saddle and the
Speedplay pedal fans are a vocal but non representative segment of this
NG who, at any opportunity, support their choice but really do not
represent what most riders use and are quite satisified with. Thank you
for your attention.

[Tim McTeague]

Why do people get so touchy when others express their fondness of certain
products. They like Brooks, you like whatever. What is the problem?
Horses for courses. If plastic seats fit you, great, I wish they did me.
I'm just thankful that companies such as Brooks still put out quality
products for those of us that can't get along with cookie cutter product
where one size should fit all but in reality leaves many out. I never have
an issue with the true believers of "fill in the blank" product. What bugs
me is when they feel the need to constantly denigrate the competing product.
There are a few that never seem to resist to chance to slam Shimano for
instance. If something truly does not measure up, tell me, but supply the
facts, not prejudice.

Tim McTeague

> >
> > I'm sure there are good modern synthetic saddles out there, but I
> > still prefer the classic Brooks.
> >
> No offence to Jim but I think that both the Brooks saddle and the
> Speedplay pedal fans are a vocal but non representative segment of this
> NG who, at any opportunity, support their choice but really do not
> represent what most riders use and are quite satisified with. Thank you
> for your attention.

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
Mike Latondresse > wrote:

> Jim Adney > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > I'm sure there are good modern synthetic saddles out there, but I
> > still prefer the classic Brooks.
> >
> No offence to Jim but I think that both the Brooks saddle and the
> Speedplay pedal fans are a vocal but non representative segment of
> this NG who, at any opportunity, support their choice but really do
> not represent what most riders use and are quite satisified with.
> Thank you for your attention.

You may of course think what you like. Go to the races around here
and you'll see maybe 10 - 15% of the field riding Speedplay pedals.
Don't see too many Brooks saddes at the races, but if you go to the
brevets and the non-racing bike club rides, you'll see a very high
proportion of them.

Racers are not a representative sample of bike riders.

[Mike Latondresse]

"Tim McTeague" > wrote in
:

I am top-posting here purposely. If you read my post you will find that
at no time did I denigrate (either Brooks or Speedplay) while you on
the other hand, using terms such as "plastic seats", "cookie cutter
product" and "one size should fit all" certainly do. Someone reading
this thread could be misled into thinking that the majority of riders
use Brooks saddles, which of course is not the case, and as far as
being touchy, well your response seems to fill the bill.


> Why do people get so touchy when others express their fondness of
> certain products. They like Brooks, you like whatever. What is
> the problem? Horses for courses. If plastic seats fit you, great,
> I wish they did me. I'm just thankful that companies such as
> Brooks still put out quality products for those of us that can't
> get along with cookie cutter product where one size should fit all
> but in reality leaves many out. I never have an issue with the
> true believers of "fill in the blank" product. What bugs me is
> when they feel the need to constantly denigrate the competing
> product. There are a few that never seem to resist to chance to
> slam Shimano for instance. If something truly does not measure
> up, tell me, but supply the facts, not prejudice.
>
> Tim McTeague
>
>> >
>> > I'm sure there are good modern synthetic saddles out there, but
>> > I still prefer the classic Brooks.
>> >
>> No offence to Jim but I think that both the Brooks saddle and the
>> Speedplay pedal fans are a vocal but non representative segment
>> of this NG who, at any opportunity, support their choice but
>> really do not represent what most riders use and are quite
>> satisified with. Thank you for your attention.
>
>

[Gary Young]

"Tim McTeague" > wrote in message >...
> Why do people get so touchy when others express their fondness of certain
> products. They like Brooks, you like whatever. What is the problem?
> Horses for courses. If plastic seats fit you, great, I wish they did me.
> I'm just thankful that companies such as Brooks still put out quality
> products for those of us that can't get along with cookie cutter product
> where one size should fit all but in reality leaves many out. I never have
> an issue with the true believers of "fill in the blank" product. What bugs
> me is when they feel the need to constantly denigrate the competing product.
> There are a few that never seem to resist to chance to slam Shimano for
> instance. If something truly does not measure up, tell me, but supply the
> facts, not prejudice.
>
I agree with you that this kind of thing can get rather tiresome. But
the fault usually lies on both sides, in my experience. For instance,
by calling other saddles "cookie cutter," you probably meant that they
don't conform to one's shape the way a Brooks will. Even so, the
phrase comes across as a put-down, as does your sentence about "Brooks
still put out quality products," which seems to imply that other
companies are not putting out a quality product.

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

(Tim=A0McNamara) wrote:

>As somebody- I think it was Jobst- said:
>if you're thinking about your saddle while
>you're riding bike, you've got the wrong
>saddle.

And as many others have written, If it fits, and is comfortable, even
after hundreds of miles (or words to that effect) The saddle's perfect!

May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!
Chris

Chris'Z Corner
"The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner