Saddle recommendation

[Yum]

I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I would
like
to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
TIA.

[Dave Thompson]

"Yum" > wrote in message
...
> I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
> It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
> Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I
would
> like
> to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
> TIA.
>
I have Brooks B-17 saddles on all my bikes. They've been made for almost 100
years now, have a reputation of lasting for decades, and eliminate the butt
as a factor in how long you can ride. I've ridden back-to-back century rides
in comfort on a B-17. Randonneurs, ultra long-distance riders, often use
Brooks saddles.
They're not expensive, $60~$70, classically handsome and make your bike that
much more enjoyable.

Available here: http://www.wallbike.com/ here:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html here:
http://www.bicycleclassics.com/saddles.html here: http://www.permaco.com and
many other places.

[Dave Thompson]

"Yum" > wrote in message
...
> I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
> It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
> Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I
would
> like
> to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
> TIA.
>
I have Brooks B-17 saddles on all my bikes. They've been made for almost 100
years now, have a reputation of lasting for decades, and eliminate the butt
as a factor in how long you can ride. I've ridden back-to-back century rides
in comfort on a B-17. Randonneurs, ultra long-distance riders, often use
Brooks saddles.
They're not expensive, $60~$70, classically handsome and make your bike that
much more enjoyable.

Available here: http://www.wallbike.com/ here:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html here:
http://www.bicycleclassics.com/saddles.html here: http://www.permaco.com and
many other places.

[GaryG]

"Dave Thompson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Yum" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long
ride.
> > It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
> > Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I
> would
> > like
> > to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
> > TIA.
> >
> I have Brooks B-17 saddles on all my bikes. They've been made for almost
100
> years now, have a reputation of lasting for decades, and eliminate the
butt
> as a factor in how long you can ride. I've ridden back-to-back century
rides
> in comfort on a B-17. Randonneurs, ultra long-distance riders, often use
> Brooks saddles.
> They're not expensive, $60~$70, classically handsome and make your bike
that
> much more enjoyable.

"Classically handsome"? Hmmm...that's a matter of opinion. One could say
the same thing about tail fins, whitewall tires, etc. Personally, I find the
old school look (leather and big copper rivets) clashes aesthetically with
most modern road bikes. Kind of like hanging fuzzy dice off the mirror of a
BMW Z4.


For the OP - saddles are highly individualized items. A saddle that I find
comfortable for all day riding, you might find to be torturous. You'll
probably need to try several before finding one that fits you properly.
Also, give your body and butt enough time in the saddle to "harden"
(especially if you've just started riding), before making any saddle
changes.

FWIW - I tried 4 different brands of saddles before finding the Selle Italia
SLR. It's a "minimalist" design, but fits my rear just right and is
comfortable on rides up to and including centuries.

GG

>
> Available here: http://www.wallbike.com/ here:
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html here:
> http://www.bicycleclassics.com/saddles.html here: http://www.permaco.com
and
> many other places.
>
>

[GaryG]

"Dave Thompson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Yum" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long
ride.
> > It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
> > Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I
> would
> > like
> > to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
> > TIA.
> >
> I have Brooks B-17 saddles on all my bikes. They've been made for almost
100
> years now, have a reputation of lasting for decades, and eliminate the
butt
> as a factor in how long you can ride. I've ridden back-to-back century
rides
> in comfort on a B-17. Randonneurs, ultra long-distance riders, often use
> Brooks saddles.
> They're not expensive, $60~$70, classically handsome and make your bike
that
> much more enjoyable.

"Classically handsome"? Hmmm...that's a matter of opinion. One could say
the same thing about tail fins, whitewall tires, etc. Personally, I find the
old school look (leather and big copper rivets) clashes aesthetically with
most modern road bikes. Kind of like hanging fuzzy dice off the mirror of a
BMW Z4.


For the OP - saddles are highly individualized items. A saddle that I find
comfortable for all day riding, you might find to be torturous. You'll
probably need to try several before finding one that fits you properly.
Also, give your body and butt enough time in the saddle to "harden"
(especially if you've just started riding), before making any saddle
changes.

FWIW - I tried 4 different brands of saddles before finding the Selle Italia
SLR. It's a "minimalist" design, but fits my rear just right and is
comfortable on rides up to and including centuries.

GG

>
> Available here: http://www.wallbike.com/ here:
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html here:
> http://www.bicycleclassics.com/saddles.html here: http://www.permaco.com
and
> many other places.
>
>

[Kenneth]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:26:24 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> wrote:

>
>"Yum" > wrote in message
...
>> I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>> It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>> Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I
>would
>> like
>> to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
>> TIA.
>>
>I have Brooks B-17 saddles on all my bikes. They've been made for almost 100
>years now, have a reputation of lasting for decades, and eliminate the butt
>as a factor in how long you can ride. I've ridden back-to-back century rides
>in comfort on a B-17. Randonneurs, ultra long-distance riders, often use
>Brooks saddles.
>They're not expensive, $60~$70, classically handsome and make your bike that
>much more enjoyable.
>
>Available here: http://www.wallbike.com/ here:
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html here:
>http://www.bicycleclassics.com/saddles.html here: http://www.permaco.com and
>many other places.
>

Howdy,

I, too, ride only Brooks, but would add...

If they fit, they feel fine on the first ride, and get better after
that.

I have know many folks who find them uncomfortable out of the box, but
somehow decide to "tough it out" in the hope that things will get
better. They won't. It's just like a good leather shoe: It is not
going to become a good fit down the road.

And finally, the tilt matters. If you happen to have a micro-adjusting
post, all the better. Start with the saddle level (not by eye, using a
level). Ride a bit (and by that I mean a mile or so.) Sense if you are
sliding fore, or aft, and if you are really "sitting" on the wide rear
of the saddle. Adjust the tilt accordingly, and ride another mile.
Repeat until you have no tendency to slide. Then leave it be.

If you are not happy in the first ten miles, put the saddle back in
the box, and try another brand. I would also mention that there are a
number of online shops that will take Brooks saddles back for full
refund on such a return.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Kenneth]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:26:24 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> wrote:

>
>"Yum" > wrote in message
...
>> I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>> It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>> Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I
>would
>> like
>> to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
>> TIA.
>>
>I have Brooks B-17 saddles on all my bikes. They've been made for almost 100
>years now, have a reputation of lasting for decades, and eliminate the butt
>as a factor in how long you can ride. I've ridden back-to-back century rides
>in comfort on a B-17. Randonneurs, ultra long-distance riders, often use
>Brooks saddles.
>They're not expensive, $60~$70, classically handsome and make your bike that
>much more enjoyable.
>
>Available here: http://www.wallbike.com/ here:
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html here:
>http://www.bicycleclassics.com/saddles.html here: http://www.permaco.com and
>many other places.
>

Howdy,

I, too, ride only Brooks, but would add...

If they fit, they feel fine on the first ride, and get better after
that.

I have know many folks who find them uncomfortable out of the box, but
somehow decide to "tough it out" in the hope that things will get
better. They won't. It's just like a good leather shoe: It is not
going to become a good fit down the road.

And finally, the tilt matters. If you happen to have a micro-adjusting
post, all the better. Start with the saddle level (not by eye, using a
level). Ride a bit (and by that I mean a mile or so.) Sense if you are
sliding fore, or aft, and if you are really "sitting" on the wide rear
of the saddle. Adjust the tilt accordingly, and ride another mile.
Repeat until you have no tendency to slide. Then leave it be.

If you are not happy in the first ten miles, put the saddle back in
the box, and try another brand. I would also mention that there are a
number of online shops that will take Brooks saddles back for full
refund on such a return.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Larry Coon]

Retro Bob wrote:

> Well, I have to take the other side. I got a brooks B17N in 1973.
> It was hard. Way too hard. Oiled it, loosened the bolt, oiled it
> some more, hammered it with a mallet (off the bike, but I kid you
> not).

Wasn't the old advice to soak it in Neatsfoot oil
for a few days, then put it on an old seatpost,
clamp the seatpost in a vise, and beat it with a
baseball bat?


Larry Coon
University of California

[Larry Coon]

Retro Bob wrote:

> Well, I have to take the other side. I got a brooks B17N in 1973.
> It was hard. Way too hard. Oiled it, loosened the bolt, oiled it
> some more, hammered it with a mallet (off the bike, but I kid you
> not).

Wasn't the old advice to soak it in Neatsfoot oil
for a few days, then put it on an old seatpost,
clamp the seatpost in a vise, and beat it with a
baseball bat?


Larry Coon
University of California

[Bob Wheeler]

Retro Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:03:57 -0400, Kenneth
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I have know many folks who find them uncomfortable out of the box, but
>>somehow decide to "tough it out" in the hope that things will get
>>better. They won't. It's just like a good leather shoe: It is not
>>going to become a good fit down the road.
>
>
>
> Well, I have to take the other side. I got a brooks B17N in 1973.
> It was hard. Way too hard. Oiled it, loosened the bolt, oiled it
> some more, hammered it with a mallet (off the bike, but I kid you
> not). I kept hearing "it'll break in, it'll break in". Well, it
> took about 4 years. I rode a lot in those days. It still took
> 4 years.
>
> I still have it 30 years later and it is a wonderful saddle. I would
> not trade it for anything. But, there was a _very_ long break in.
>
> One thing I will point out is that too many riders don't adjust
> the stretch clamp to loosen the leather a little... I think that
> was the key to making mine start to break in.
>
>

Mention saddles and blow up a tempest -- it always happens.

I have three Brooks, also acquired in the 70's, but I can't recall ever
having to break them in. I do recall that the first one was a little
hard for a while, but that went away when my bottom toughened up. One of
the advantages of a leather saddle, that I don't recall anyone
mentioning, is the fact that they flex on impact. I have on occasion hit
a break in the pavement that I wasn't expecting and my leather saddles
have always kept me safe; in contrast to a plastic saddle that I had for
a while on my commuter bike. When I hit a bump with that one, I hurt.

--
Bob Wheeler --- http://www.bobwheeler.com/
ECHIP, Inc. ---
Randomness comes in bunches.

[Bob Wheeler]

Retro Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:03:57 -0400, Kenneth
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I have know many folks who find them uncomfortable out of the box, but
>>somehow decide to "tough it out" in the hope that things will get
>>better. They won't. It's just like a good leather shoe: It is not
>>going to become a good fit down the road.
>
>
>
> Well, I have to take the other side. I got a brooks B17N in 1973.
> It was hard. Way too hard. Oiled it, loosened the bolt, oiled it
> some more, hammered it with a mallet (off the bike, but I kid you
> not). I kept hearing "it'll break in, it'll break in". Well, it
> took about 4 years. I rode a lot in those days. It still took
> 4 years.
>
> I still have it 30 years later and it is a wonderful saddle. I would
> not trade it for anything. But, there was a _very_ long break in.
>
> One thing I will point out is that too many riders don't adjust
> the stretch clamp to loosen the leather a little... I think that
> was the key to making mine start to break in.
>
>

Mention saddles and blow up a tempest -- it always happens.

I have three Brooks, also acquired in the 70's, but I can't recall ever
having to break them in. I do recall that the first one was a little
hard for a while, but that went away when my bottom toughened up. One of
the advantages of a leather saddle, that I don't recall anyone
mentioning, is the fact that they flex on impact. I have on occasion hit
a break in the pavement that I wasn't expecting and my leather saddles
have always kept me safe; in contrast to a plastic saddle that I had for
a while on my commuter bike. When I hit a bump with that one, I hurt.

--
Bob Wheeler --- http://www.bobwheeler.com/
ECHIP, Inc. ---
Randomness comes in bunches.

[Kenneth]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:40:06 -0400, Bob Wheeler >
wrote:

>Mention saddles and blow up a tempest -- it always happens.
>
>I have three Brooks, also acquired in the 70's, but I can't recall ever
>having to break them in. I do recall that the first one was a little
>hard for a while, but that went away when my bottom toughened up. One of
>the advantages of a leather saddle, that I don't recall anyone
>mentioning, is the fact that they flex on impact. I have on occasion hit
>a break in the pavement that I wasn't expecting and my leather saddles
>have always kept me safe; in contrast to a plastic saddle that I had for
>a while on my commuter bike. When I hit a bump with that one, I hurt.

Hi Bob,

I agree with you on all counts...

It is particularly strange that when it comes to leather saddles
people often discard everything that is known about the proper
treatment of leather.

No one in their right mind would expose a fine leather shoe or
briefcase to the sorts of torment one often hears suggested to "break
in" a Brooks.

Beyond that, would you not think that the good folks at Brooks would
have learned by now that the best way to enjoy one of their saddles is
to first soak it for a few days in 90 weight gear oil, beat the crap
out of it with a truck tire iron and then tumble it in a commercial
clothes drier at maximum heat for a few hours?

Hey, this Usenet thing sure beats TV...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Kenneth]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:40:06 -0400, Bob Wheeler >
wrote:

>Mention saddles and blow up a tempest -- it always happens.
>
>I have three Brooks, also acquired in the 70's, but I can't recall ever
>having to break them in. I do recall that the first one was a little
>hard for a while, but that went away when my bottom toughened up. One of
>the advantages of a leather saddle, that I don't recall anyone
>mentioning, is the fact that they flex on impact. I have on occasion hit
>a break in the pavement that I wasn't expecting and my leather saddles
>have always kept me safe; in contrast to a plastic saddle that I had for
>a while on my commuter bike. When I hit a bump with that one, I hurt.

Hi Bob,

I agree with you on all counts...

It is particularly strange that when it comes to leather saddles
people often discard everything that is known about the proper
treatment of leather.

No one in their right mind would expose a fine leather shoe or
briefcase to the sorts of torment one often hears suggested to "break
in" a Brooks.

Beyond that, would you not think that the good folks at Brooks would
have learned by now that the best way to enjoy one of their saddles is
to first soak it for a few days in 90 weight gear oil, beat the crap
out of it with a truck tire iron and then tumble it in a commercial
clothes drier at maximum heat for a few hours?

Hey, this Usenet thing sure beats TV...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Dave Thompson]

"Retro Bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:03:57 -0400, Kenneth
> > wrote:
>
> >I have know many folks who find them uncomfortable out of the box, but
> >somehow decide to "tough it out" in the hope that things will get
> >better. They won't. It's just like a good leather shoe: It is not
> >going to become a good fit down the road.
>
>
> Well, I have to take the other side. I got a brooks B17N in 1973.
> It was hard. Way too hard. Oiled it, loosened the bolt, oiled it
> some more, hammered it with a mallet (off the bike, but I kid you
> not). I kept hearing "it'll break in, it'll break in". Well, it
> took about 4 years. I rode a lot in those days. It still took
> 4 years.
>
> I still have it 30 years later and it is a wonderful saddle. I would
> not trade it for anything. But, there was a _very_ long break in.
>
> One thing I will point out is that too many riders don't adjust
> the stretch clamp to loosen the leather a little... I think that
> was the key to making mine start to break in.
>
Interesting...my B-17s, none of them, required any break-in to be
comfortable from the get-go. They became better as time wore on. Now I have
a Pro, which has thicker leather and it DOES require some break-in time, but
it's coming along and I certainly wouldn't soak it in oit, beat it or
anything else other than the 'normal' Proofide application and riding.

The key to Brooks saddles is proper attention to set-up; tilt (nose up/down)
and left/right angle. Like I said earlier, they've been around for a hundred
years so they must be doing something right. That said, not every saddle is
good for everyone. It will sometimes take a little searching and tryout to
find the best one. But on the whole, Brooks saddles have proven through time
and use to be good, durable and comfortable for many, many riders throughout
the years.

[Dave Thompson]

"Retro Bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:03:57 -0400, Kenneth
> > wrote:
>
> >I have know many folks who find them uncomfortable out of the box, but
> >somehow decide to "tough it out" in the hope that things will get
> >better. They won't. It's just like a good leather shoe: It is not
> >going to become a good fit down the road.
>
>
> Well, I have to take the other side. I got a brooks B17N in 1973.
> It was hard. Way too hard. Oiled it, loosened the bolt, oiled it
> some more, hammered it with a mallet (off the bike, but I kid you
> not). I kept hearing "it'll break in, it'll break in". Well, it
> took about 4 years. I rode a lot in those days. It still took
> 4 years.
>
> I still have it 30 years later and it is a wonderful saddle. I would
> not trade it for anything. But, there was a _very_ long break in.
>
> One thing I will point out is that too many riders don't adjust
> the stretch clamp to loosen the leather a little... I think that
> was the key to making mine start to break in.
>
Interesting...my B-17s, none of them, required any break-in to be
comfortable from the get-go. They became better as time wore on. Now I have
a Pro, which has thicker leather and it DOES require some break-in time, but
it's coming along and I certainly wouldn't soak it in oit, beat it or
anything else other than the 'normal' Proofide application and riding.

The key to Brooks saddles is proper attention to set-up; tilt (nose up/down)
and left/right angle. Like I said earlier, they've been around for a hundred
years so they must be doing something right. That said, not every saddle is
good for everyone. It will sometimes take a little searching and tryout to
find the best one. But on the whole, Brooks saddles have proven through time
and use to be good, durable and comfortable for many, many riders throughout
the years.

[Kenneth]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:06:22 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> wrote:

>Now I have
>a Pro, which has thicker leather

Hi Dave,

This caught my eye...

I have three Pros, and a B17. One of the Pros is current and the other
two are Pro Selects that are probably 20 years old, or older.

The leather on the pros is all the same thickness to the eye, and the
thumb.

The leather on the B17 is perhaps 60-70% as thick and a push with the
thumbs says the same. The difference is obvious.

Now the interesting part:

Recently, I sent some emails to the folks at Brooks. To my amazement,
they responded that the leather they spec is identical for all their
saddles and was unchanged for very many years.

The gentleman who wrote to me went further: He explained that the
thickness of the leather had to be the same because of the dies that
were used to form the saddles. He said that were the leather thinner
it would not properly fill the void, and, thus, could not be properly
formed.

Hey, maybe I should have my eyes (and thumbs I suppose) checked...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Kenneth]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:06:22 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> wrote:

>Now I have
>a Pro, which has thicker leather

Hi Dave,

This caught my eye...

I have three Pros, and a B17. One of the Pros is current and the other
two are Pro Selects that are probably 20 years old, or older.

The leather on the pros is all the same thickness to the eye, and the
thumb.

The leather on the B17 is perhaps 60-70% as thick and a push with the
thumbs says the same. The difference is obvious.

Now the interesting part:

Recently, I sent some emails to the folks at Brooks. To my amazement,
they responded that the leather they spec is identical for all their
saddles and was unchanged for very many years.

The gentleman who wrote to me went further: He explained that the
thickness of the leather had to be the same because of the dies that
were used to form the saddles. He said that were the leather thinner
it would not properly fill the void, and, thus, could not be properly
formed.

Hey, maybe I should have my eyes (and thumbs I suppose) checked...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Jeff Starr]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:06:57 -0700, "Yum" > wrote:

>I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I would
>like
>to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
>TIA.
>

Hi, I have been happy with the Selle Italia Basic Prolink. I have them
on both my bikes. They have some give to them, when hitting bumps and
a contour that seems to keep me in place.
That's what works for me. I must admit, I am tempted to try a Brooks,
someday. Of course I am also tempted to try a Selle Italia SLR.

I have a Selle Italia Prolink Genuine Gel, in decent condition, that I
would be willing to swap for a similar condition SI SLR or Brooks.
Any takers?


Life is Good!
Jeff

[Jeff Starr]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:06:57 -0700, "Yum" > wrote:

>I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I would
>like
>to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
>TIA.
>

Hi, I have been happy with the Selle Italia Basic Prolink. I have them
on both my bikes. They have some give to them, when hitting bumps and
a contour that seems to keep me in place.
That's what works for me. I must admit, I am tempted to try a Brooks,
someday. Of course I am also tempted to try a Selle Italia SLR.

I have a Selle Italia Prolink Genuine Gel, in decent condition, that I
would be willing to swap for a similar condition SI SLR or Brooks.
Any takers?


Life is Good!
Jeff

[Dave Thompson]

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:06:22 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> > wrote:
>
> >Now I have
> >a Pro, which has thicker leather
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> This caught my eye...
>
> I have three Pros, and a B17. One of the Pros is current and the other
> two are Pro Selects that are probably 20 years old, or older.
>
> The leather on the pros is all the same thickness to the eye, and the
> thumb.
>
> The leather on the B17 is perhaps 60-70% as thick and a push with the
> thumbs says the same. The difference is obvious.
>
> Now the interesting part:
>
> Recently, I sent some emails to the folks at Brooks. To my amazement,
> they responded that the leather they spec is identical for all their
> saddles and was unchanged for very many years.
>
> The gentleman who wrote to me went further: He explained that the
> thickness of the leather had to be the same because of the dies that
> were used to form the saddles. He said that were the leather thinner
> it would not properly fill the void, and, thus, could not be properly
> formed.
>
> Hey, maybe I should have my eyes (and thumbs I suppose) checked...
>
> All the best,
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
Interesting. The Brooks guy is correct. I took my micrometer and measured
the thickness at the same place on each saddle, by the first rear rivet. The
leather thickness of the B-17 and Pro are within .01 of each other. Perhaps
it's because the Pro/Swift etc., are narrower and the seating length is
shorter and they are built on a smaller frame, therefore stiffer and have
less give to the 'thumb test' that they feel thicker. I always assumed the
Pro was thicker because of the stiffness. I wonder if the treatment to the
leather is any different on the various models.

[Dave Thompson]

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:06:22 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> > wrote:
>
> >Now I have
> >a Pro, which has thicker leather
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> This caught my eye...
>
> I have three Pros, and a B17. One of the Pros is current and the other
> two are Pro Selects that are probably 20 years old, or older.
>
> The leather on the pros is all the same thickness to the eye, and the
> thumb.
>
> The leather on the B17 is perhaps 60-70% as thick and a push with the
> thumbs says the same. The difference is obvious.
>
> Now the interesting part:
>
> Recently, I sent some emails to the folks at Brooks. To my amazement,
> they responded that the leather they spec is identical for all their
> saddles and was unchanged for very many years.
>
> The gentleman who wrote to me went further: He explained that the
> thickness of the leather had to be the same because of the dies that
> were used to form the saddles. He said that were the leather thinner
> it would not properly fill the void, and, thus, could not be properly
> formed.
>
> Hey, maybe I should have my eyes (and thumbs I suppose) checked...
>
> All the best,
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
Interesting. The Brooks guy is correct. I took my micrometer and measured
the thickness at the same place on each saddle, by the first rear rivet. The
leather thickness of the B-17 and Pro are within .01 of each other. Perhaps
it's because the Pro/Swift etc., are narrower and the seating length is
shorter and they are built on a smaller frame, therefore stiffer and have
less give to the 'thumb test' that they feel thicker. I always assumed the
Pro was thicker because of the stiffness. I wonder if the treatment to the
leather is any different on the various models.

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>...comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.

If your butt isn't too narrow, one you could try is a Brooks B-72.
Four wires with little curlyque springs in the back. Just enough sus to take
the edge off, but solid enough for good control. I had one of these on my road
bike for about five years. Every so often, I'd take it off and try a "real"
saddle...lasted about one ride...thought my molars were gonna get jarred right
out of my jaw.

Another (maybe better) is to find a good sus post. That would give you the
protection against jarring but leave you a wide choice of saddles depending on
your dimensions/preferences.
--
PeteCresswell

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>...comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.

If your butt isn't too narrow, one you could try is a Brooks B-72.
Four wires with little curlyque springs in the back. Just enough sus to take
the edge off, but solid enough for good control. I had one of these on my road
bike for about five years. Every so often, I'd take it off and try a "real"
saddle...lasted about one ride...thought my molars were gonna get jarred right
out of my jaw.

Another (maybe better) is to find a good sus post. That would give you the
protection against jarring but leave you a wide choice of saddles depending on
your dimensions/preferences.
--
PeteCresswell

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>Interesting...my B-17s, none of them, required any break-in to be
>comfortable from the get-go. They became better as time wore on.

From reading past threads, I get the impression that Brooks is not exactly noted
for the consitancy of the leather they use. Mostly people are happy with their
new Brooks, but every so often somebody gets one that's made from extra-stiff
leather.
--
PeteCresswell

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>Interesting...my B-17s, none of them, required any break-in to be
>comfortable from the get-go. They became better as time wore on.

From reading past threads, I get the impression that Brooks is not exactly noted
for the consitancy of the leather they use. Mostly people are happy with their
new Brooks, but every so often somebody gets one that's made from extra-stiff
leather.
--
PeteCresswell

[Kenneth]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:38:50 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> wrote:

>
>"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:06:22 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Now I have
>> >a Pro, which has thicker leather
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> This caught my eye...
>>
>> I have three Pros, and a B17. One of the Pros is current and the other
>> two are Pro Selects that are probably 20 years old, or older.
>>
>> The leather on the pros is all the same thickness to the eye, and the
>> thumb.
>>
>> The leather on the B17 is perhaps 60-70% as thick and a push with the
>> thumbs says the same. The difference is obvious.
>>
>> Now the interesting part:
>>
>> Recently, I sent some emails to the folks at Brooks. To my amazement,
>> they responded that the leather they spec is identical for all their
>> saddles and was unchanged for very many years.
>>
>> The gentleman who wrote to me went further: He explained that the
>> thickness of the leather had to be the same because of the dies that
>> were used to form the saddles. He said that were the leather thinner
>> it would not properly fill the void, and, thus, could not be properly
>> formed.
>>
>> Hey, maybe I should have my eyes (and thumbs I suppose) checked...
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth
>>
>Interesting. The Brooks guy is correct. I took my micrometer and measured
>the thickness at the same place on each saddle, by the first rear rivet. The
>leather thickness of the B-17 and Pro are within .01 of each other. Perhaps
>it's because the Pro/Swift etc., are narrower and the seating length is
>shorter and they are built on a smaller frame, therefore stiffer and have
>less give to the 'thumb test' that they feel thicker. I always assumed the
>Pro was thicker because of the stiffness. I wonder if the treatment to the
>leather is any different on the various models.
>

Hi Dave,

I will mike the two saddles tomorrow... We shall see.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Kenneth]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:38:50 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> wrote:

>
>"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:06:22 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Now I have
>> >a Pro, which has thicker leather
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> This caught my eye...
>>
>> I have three Pros, and a B17. One of the Pros is current and the other
>> two are Pro Selects that are probably 20 years old, or older.
>>
>> The leather on the pros is all the same thickness to the eye, and the
>> thumb.
>>
>> The leather on the B17 is perhaps 60-70% as thick and a push with the
>> thumbs says the same. The difference is obvious.
>>
>> Now the interesting part:
>>
>> Recently, I sent some emails to the folks at Brooks. To my amazement,
>> they responded that the leather they spec is identical for all their
>> saddles and was unchanged for very many years.
>>
>> The gentleman who wrote to me went further: He explained that the
>> thickness of the leather had to be the same because of the dies that
>> were used to form the saddles. He said that were the leather thinner
>> it would not properly fill the void, and, thus, could not be properly
>> formed.
>>
>> Hey, maybe I should have my eyes (and thumbs I suppose) checked...
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth
>>
>Interesting. The Brooks guy is correct. I took my micrometer and measured
>the thickness at the same place on each saddle, by the first rear rivet. The
>leather thickness of the B-17 and Pro are within .01 of each other. Perhaps
>it's because the Pro/Swift etc., are narrower and the seating length is
>shorter and they are built on a smaller frame, therefore stiffer and have
>less give to the 'thumb test' that they feel thicker. I always assumed the
>Pro was thicker because of the stiffness. I wonder if the treatment to the
>leather is any different on the various models.
>

Hi Dave,

I will mike the two saddles tomorrow... We shall see.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Ed]

In article >, Retro Bob says...

>Well, I have to take the other side. I got a brooks B17N in 1973.
>It was hard. Way too hard. Oiled it, loosened the bolt, oiled it
>some more, hammered it with a mallet (off the bike, but I kid you
>not). I kept hearing "it'll break in, it'll break in". Well, it
>took about 4 years. I rode a lot in those days. It still took
>4 years.

Maybe it wasn't the saddle, maybe it was you. I have a leather saddle from may
years ago, so long in fact it came with the bike. It was painful to ride even
after I treated it with several kinds of goop. Then I began to ride more,
thousands of miles rather than hundreds of miles per year, and now it is
perfectly comfortable. But so is my thinly padded plastic saddle.

[Ed]

In article >, Retro Bob says...

>Well, I have to take the other side. I got a brooks B17N in 1973.
>It was hard. Way too hard. Oiled it, loosened the bolt, oiled it
>some more, hammered it with a mallet (off the bike, but I kid you
>not). I kept hearing "it'll break in, it'll break in". Well, it
>took about 4 years. I rode a lot in those days. It still took
>4 years.

Maybe it wasn't the saddle, maybe it was you. I have a leather saddle from may
years ago, so long in fact it came with the bike. It was painful to ride even
after I treated it with several kinds of goop. Then I began to ride more,
thousands of miles rather than hundreds of miles per year, and now it is
perfectly comfortable. But so is my thinly padded plastic saddle.

[M D]

Howdy Yum, Yes, you'll get a 1000 opinions on this, as our "Butts" are
a very personalized thing. No two are alike!

As another poster mentions, the old school saddles (Brooks, San Marco
Regal, and Rolls) perhaps don't look right on a modern bike, but I
myself wouldn't hesitiate a bit if that's what works. Agreed, the new
Selle SLR's and Fizik's have a very nice sleek minimalist look to them,
but if they don't work for you, then they aren't worth a dime. I like
the old school Steel Frame bikes myself like the Sachs, Waterford,
Columbine, Masi, Merckx, Paramounts, etc, but I would not hesitate in a
minute to put a traditional Brooks Swift, Pro, orTeam Pro, or perhaps a
San Marco Rolls/Regal on a brand spankin new Colnago C40, Trek 5.9
Carbon frame Bike, etc (That's if I had the cash to afford one!)

Most of these Modern Saddles have Plastic/Carbon Shells underneath thier
padding, and in essence if they don't feel right, or good to you right
out of the box, it's doubtful that they'll feel any different, or better
10,000 miles later. I'd stay away from the cheaper Selle Saddles like
the Tri-Matic. (Unless your not planning on having any children)

Usually, you won't find $100 saddles for $25 unless they're used, or
maybe get lucky on Ebay.

If you have a good bike shop in your area that has good inventory, this
will really be a great help finding a saddle that fits you, and fits
your budget too. See if you can examine various brands/models, and
perhaps even take some test rides on some new bikes at a dealer
concentrating on the various saddles themselves.

Where I live in Southwest USA, my town is small, and many people just
won't shell out big bucks for items like this, so the shops carry just a
few "Dealer" Brand saddles, nothing over $40.

On one bike I own, I use a Brooks Swift Ti, and yes it was a bit hard,
and took some breaking in, lots of Proofhide conditioner at first
inside, and out, and some getting used to, and having the saddle start
to conform to my own Butt-break-in, but it is coming along just fine,
and I much prefer this Saddle over some of the cheaper Selle's I've
have/had.

Hope you make out well, and make the right choice first time out. Mark

[M D]

Howdy Yum, Yes, you'll get a 1000 opinions on this, as our "Butts" are
a very personalized thing. No two are alike!

As another poster mentions, the old school saddles (Brooks, San Marco
Regal, and Rolls) perhaps don't look right on a modern bike, but I
myself wouldn't hesitiate a bit if that's what works. Agreed, the new
Selle SLR's and Fizik's have a very nice sleek minimalist look to them,
but if they don't work for you, then they aren't worth a dime. I like
the old school Steel Frame bikes myself like the Sachs, Waterford,
Columbine, Masi, Merckx, Paramounts, etc, but I would not hesitate in a
minute to put a traditional Brooks Swift, Pro, orTeam Pro, or perhaps a
San Marco Rolls/Regal on a brand spankin new Colnago C40, Trek 5.9
Carbon frame Bike, etc (That's if I had the cash to afford one!)

Most of these Modern Saddles have Plastic/Carbon Shells underneath thier
padding, and in essence if they don't feel right, or good to you right
out of the box, it's doubtful that they'll feel any different, or better
10,000 miles later. I'd stay away from the cheaper Selle Saddles like
the Tri-Matic. (Unless your not planning on having any children)

Usually, you won't find $100 saddles for $25 unless they're used, or
maybe get lucky on Ebay.

If you have a good bike shop in your area that has good inventory, this
will really be a great help finding a saddle that fits you, and fits
your budget too. See if you can examine various brands/models, and
perhaps even take some test rides on some new bikes at a dealer
concentrating on the various saddles themselves.

Where I live in Southwest USA, my town is small, and many people just
won't shell out big bucks for items like this, so the shops carry just a
few "Dealer" Brand saddles, nothing over $40.

On one bike I own, I use a Brooks Swift Ti, and yes it was a bit hard,
and took some breaking in, lots of Proofhide conditioner at first
inside, and out, and some getting used to, and having the saddle start
to conform to my own Butt-break-in, but it is coming along just fine,
and I much prefer this Saddle over some of the cheaper Selle's I've
have/had.

Hope you make out well, and make the right choice first time out. Mark

[Jeff Wills]

I've tried various Brooks with a variety of break-in procedures- from
nothing to beating on it with a tire iron. None has ended up as
comfortable as the WTB saddles (http://www.wtb.com/saddles.html) I
have on several of my bikes. The WTB saddles *for me* have ended up
being all-day comfortable.

Saddles are an individual thing, as is bike fit. If you're having
trouble with a particular saddle, you may need nothing more than a
proper bike fitting. Before swapping out saddles, have your
adjustments checked by a professional bike fitter.

Jeff

[Jeff Wills]

I've tried various Brooks with a variety of break-in procedures- from
nothing to beating on it with a tire iron. None has ended up as
comfortable as the WTB saddles (http://www.wtb.com/saddles.html) I
have on several of my bikes. The WTB saddles *for me* have ended up
being all-day comfortable.

Saddles are an individual thing, as is bike fit. If you're having
trouble with a particular saddle, you may need nothing more than a
proper bike fitting. Before swapping out saddles, have your
adjustments checked by a professional bike fitter.

Jeff

[Ronsonic]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:06:57 -0700, "Yum" > wrote:

>I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I would
>like
>to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
>TIA.

I'm still looking. Even occasionally getting cheap ones off of eBay. I figure I
might find something and say "hey, this is good enough to go buy a new one."

Ron

[Ronsonic]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:06:57 -0700, "Yum" > wrote:

>I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I would
>like
>to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
>TIA.

I'm still looking. Even occasionally getting cheap ones off of eBay. I figure I
might find something and say "hey, this is good enough to go buy a new one."

Ron

[Ronsonic]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:59:24 -0400, Kenneth >
wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:40:06 -0400, Bob Wheeler >
>wrote:
>
>>Mention saddles and blow up a tempest -- it always happens.
>>
>>I have three Brooks, also acquired in the 70's, but I can't recall ever
>>having to break them in. I do recall that the first one was a little
>>hard for a while, but that went away when my bottom toughened up. One of
>>the advantages of a leather saddle, that I don't recall anyone
>>mentioning, is the fact that they flex on impact. I have on occasion hit
>>a break in the pavement that I wasn't expecting and my leather saddles
>>have always kept me safe; in contrast to a plastic saddle that I had for
>>a while on my commuter bike. When I hit a bump with that one, I hurt.
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I agree with you on all counts...
>
>It is particularly strange that when it comes to leather saddles
>people often discard everything that is known about the proper
>treatment of leather.
>
>No one in their right mind would expose a fine leather shoe or
>briefcase to the sorts of torment one often hears suggested to "break
>in" a Brooks.
>
>Beyond that, would you not think that the good folks at Brooks would
>have learned by now that the best way to enjoy one of their saddles is
>to first soak it for a few days in 90 weight gear oil, beat the crap
>out of it with a truck tire iron and then tumble it in a commercial
>clothes drier at maximum heat for a few hours?
>
>Hey, this Usenet thing sure beats TV...

Ya know, with premiums being paid for "distressed" and "relic" versions of newly
manufactured items it wouldn't ber at all a surprise to see something like that.
Guitars even are being sold pre-worn. What's up with that, I don't know.

Damn, hope we didn't give them any ideas.

Ron

[Ronsonic]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:59:24 -0400, Kenneth >
wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:40:06 -0400, Bob Wheeler >
>wrote:
>
>>Mention saddles and blow up a tempest -- it always happens.
>>
>>I have three Brooks, also acquired in the 70's, but I can't recall ever
>>having to break them in. I do recall that the first one was a little
>>hard for a while, but that went away when my bottom toughened up. One of
>>the advantages of a leather saddle, that I don't recall anyone
>>mentioning, is the fact that they flex on impact. I have on occasion hit
>>a break in the pavement that I wasn't expecting and my leather saddles
>>have always kept me safe; in contrast to a plastic saddle that I had for
>>a while on my commuter bike. When I hit a bump with that one, I hurt.
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I agree with you on all counts...
>
>It is particularly strange that when it comes to leather saddles
>people often discard everything that is known about the proper
>treatment of leather.
>
>No one in their right mind would expose a fine leather shoe or
>briefcase to the sorts of torment one often hears suggested to "break
>in" a Brooks.
>
>Beyond that, would you not think that the good folks at Brooks would
>have learned by now that the best way to enjoy one of their saddles is
>to first soak it for a few days in 90 weight gear oil, beat the crap
>out of it with a truck tire iron and then tumble it in a commercial
>clothes drier at maximum heat for a few hours?
>
>Hey, this Usenet thing sure beats TV...

Ya know, with premiums being paid for "distressed" and "relic" versions of newly
manufactured items it wouldn't ber at all a surprise to see something like that.
Guitars even are being sold pre-worn. What's up with that, I don't know.

Damn, hope we didn't give them any ideas.

Ron

[John Thompson]

On 2004-10-13, Ronsonic <> wrote:

> Guitars even are being sold pre-worn. What's up with that, I don't know.

Must be where Willie Nelson got his...

--

-John )

[John Thompson]

On 2004-10-13, Ronsonic <> wrote:

> Guitars even are being sold pre-worn. What's up with that, I don't know.

Must be where Willie Nelson got his...

--

-John )

[David James]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:06:57 -0700, "Yum" > wrote:

>I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I would
>like
>to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
>TIA.
>


I recently purchased the Specialized Alias Pro. Very comfortable and
engineered to provide relief from those sensitive areas. Has good
padding for where your sit bones hit. Comes in three widths for a
good fit.
http://tinyurl.com/3o5jf
Good luck.
David James

[David James]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:06:57 -0700, "Yum" > wrote:

>I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long ride.
>It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but I would
>like
>to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle ?
>TIA.
>


I recently purchased the Specialized Alias Pro. Very comfortable and
engineered to provide relief from those sensitive areas. Has good
padding for where your sit bones hit. Comes in three widths for a
good fit.
http://tinyurl.com/3o5jf
Good luck.
David James

[Alan Acock]

"Dave Thompson" > wrote in
:

>
> "Yum" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long
>> ride. It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>> Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but
>> I
> would
>> like
>> to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle
>> ? TIA.
>>
> I have Brooks B-17 saddles on all my bikes. They've been made for
> almost 100 years now, have a reputation of lasting for decades, and
> eliminate the butt as a factor in how long you can ride. I've ridden
> back-to-back century rides in comfort on a B-17. Randonneurs, ultra
> long-distance riders, often use Brooks saddles.
> They're not expensive, $60~$70, classically handsome and make your
> bike that much more enjoyable.
>
> Available here: http://www.wallbike.com/ here:
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html here:
> http://www.bicycleclassics.com/saddles.html here:
> http://www.permaco.com and many other places.
>
>
>

Rivendell has a special version of the B-17. It has thicker leather and
the big rivets. Its rails have a copper coating for some reason. The
standard B-17 is a relatively low price point in Brooks and I've not
liked them as well. They have little rivets that can get "pokey" after a
few years and I think there thinner leather is more sensitive to riding
in rain.

Alan Acock

[Alan Acock]

"Dave Thompson" > wrote in
:

>
> "Yum" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am looking for a not inexpensive but comfortable saddle for a long
>> ride. It is for a road bike. Weight is not very important.
>> Any recommendation.? Yes, I understand it is individual thing, but
>> I
> would
>> like
>> to hear your opinion before spending. What is your favorate saddle
>> ? TIA.
>>
> I have Brooks B-17 saddles on all my bikes. They've been made for
> almost 100 years now, have a reputation of lasting for decades, and
> eliminate the butt as a factor in how long you can ride. I've ridden
> back-to-back century rides in comfort on a B-17. Randonneurs, ultra
> long-distance riders, often use Brooks saddles.
> They're not expensive, $60~$70, classically handsome and make your
> bike that much more enjoyable.
>
> Available here: http://www.wallbike.com/ here:
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html here:
> http://www.bicycleclassics.com/saddles.html here:
> http://www.permaco.com and many other places.
>
>
>

Rivendell has a special version of the B-17. It has thicker leather and
the big rivets. Its rails have a copper coating for some reason. The
standard B-17 is a relatively low price point in Brooks and I've not
liked them as well. They have little rivets that can get "pokey" after a
few years and I think there thinner leather is more sensitive to riding
in rain.

Alan Acock

[John Thompson]

On 2004-10-14, Retro Bob > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:29:24 -0500, Alan Acock >
> wrote:
>
>>Rivendell has a special version of the B-17. It has thicker leather and
>>the big rivets. Its rails have a copper coating for some reason. The
>>standard B-17 is a relatively low price point in Brooks and I've not
>>liked them as well. They have little rivets that can get "pokey" after a
>>few years and I think there thinner leather is more sensitive to riding
>>in rain.

> I don't know that the thicker leather is a feature. The regular B-17
> leather seems to last a good 30 year plus (still counting here). Also,
> I think the thinner leather is likely to break in faster. I did a lot
> of riding with wet shorts on one seat... it seems to have broken in
> nicely although I'm not certain if the wet riding helped or hurt.
>
> If you really don't like the small rivets, you can get a set of 1/2"
> copper ones at the local hardware store for under a dollar and do your
> own replacement. That's not for everyone and most might prefer to just
> buy the saddle with them factory installed. But, if you find a nice
> older saddle with the small rivets, you might want to consider an
> upgrade.

IIRC, Brooks didn't start using the large rivets until a significant
aftermarket developed in refitting the big rivets to older saddles.

--

-John )

[John Thompson]

On 2004-10-14, Retro Bob > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:29:24 -0500, Alan Acock >
> wrote:
>
>>Rivendell has a special version of the B-17. It has thicker leather and
>>the big rivets. Its rails have a copper coating for some reason. The
>>standard B-17 is a relatively low price point in Brooks and I've not
>>liked them as well. They have little rivets that can get "pokey" after a
>>few years and I think there thinner leather is more sensitive to riding
>>in rain.

> I don't know that the thicker leather is a feature. The regular B-17
> leather seems to last a good 30 year plus (still counting here). Also,
> I think the thinner leather is likely to break in faster. I did a lot
> of riding with wet shorts on one seat... it seems to have broken in
> nicely although I'm not certain if the wet riding helped or hurt.
>
> If you really don't like the small rivets, you can get a set of 1/2"
> copper ones at the local hardware store for under a dollar and do your
> own replacement. That's not for everyone and most might prefer to just
> buy the saddle with them factory installed. But, if you find a nice
> older saddle with the small rivets, you might want to consider an
> upgrade.

IIRC, Brooks didn't start using the large rivets until a significant
aftermarket developed in refitting the big rivets to older saddles.

--

-John )

[Alan Acock]

Retro Bob > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:29:24 -0500, Alan Acock >
> wrote:
>
>>Rivendell has a special version of the B-17. It has thicker leather
>>and the big rivets. Its rails have a copper coating for some reason.
>>The standard B-17 is a relatively low price point in Brooks and I've
>>not liked them as well. They have little rivets that can get "pokey"
>>after a few years and I think there thinner leather is more sensitive
>>to riding in rain.
>
>
> I don't know that the thicker leather is a feature. The regular B-17
> leather seems to last a good 30 year plus (still counting here). Also,
> I think the thinner leather is likely to break in faster. I did a lot
> of riding with wet shorts on one seat... it seems to have broken in
> nicely although I'm not certain if the wet riding helped or hurt.
>
> If you really don't like the small rivets, you can get a set of 1/2"
> copper ones at the local hardware store for under a dollar and do your
> own replacement. That's not for everyone and most might prefer to just
> buy the saddle with them factory installed. But, if you find a nice
> older saddle with the small rivets, you might want to consider an
> upgrade.
>
> Bob
>
The thicker letter takes a bit longer to break in, but all my Brooks
saddles (4) have been more comforatable from the first mile than the
plastic saddles with foam. I appreciate that this is an individual thing
and have friends who have ridden a Brooks for 1,000 miles and hated
every mile. I live in a place where we get considerable rain (Oregon)
and have had my saddles get soaked more than once because I failed to
put a cover on them when they were outside.

I really like the big rivets and did appreciate not having to put them
in myself.

Alan Acock

[Alan Acock]

Retro Bob > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:29:24 -0500, Alan Acock >
> wrote:
>
>>Rivendell has a special version of the B-17. It has thicker leather
>>and the big rivets. Its rails have a copper coating for some reason.
>>The standard B-17 is a relatively low price point in Brooks and I've
>>not liked them as well. They have little rivets that can get "pokey"
>>after a few years and I think there thinner leather is more sensitive
>>to riding in rain.
>
>
> I don't know that the thicker leather is a feature. The regular B-17
> leather seems to last a good 30 year plus (still counting here). Also,
> I think the thinner leather is likely to break in faster. I did a lot
> of riding with wet shorts on one seat... it seems to have broken in
> nicely although I'm not certain if the wet riding helped or hurt.
>
> If you really don't like the small rivets, you can get a set of 1/2"
> copper ones at the local hardware store for under a dollar and do your
> own replacement. That's not for everyone and most might prefer to just
> buy the saddle with them factory installed. But, if you find a nice
> older saddle with the small rivets, you might want to consider an
> upgrade.
>
> Bob
>
The thicker letter takes a bit longer to break in, but all my Brooks
saddles (4) have been more comforatable from the first mile than the
plastic saddles with foam. I appreciate that this is an individual thing
and have friends who have ridden a Brooks for 1,000 miles and hated
every mile. I live in a place where we get considerable rain (Oregon)
and have had my saddles get soaked more than once because I failed to
put a cover on them when they were outside.

I really like the big rivets and did appreciate not having to put them
in myself.

Alan Acock

[Andrew Webster]

I agree about WTB saddles. Best I've used. SST 2K is my favourite
(though a couple of my occasional use bikes have got SST's with
plastic -vinyl?- covers. All are comfortable, but leather covered
saddles are well worth it. Of course, it may just be that the SST
shape suits me, and may not be intrinically better.

Andrew

(Jeff Wills) wrote in message >...
> I've tried various Brooks with a variety of break-in procedures- from
> nothing to beating on it with a tire iron. None has ended up as
> comfortable as the WTB saddles (http://www.wtb.com/saddles.html) I
> have on several of my bikes. The WTB saddles *for me* have ended up
> being all-day comfortable.
>
> Saddles are an individual thing, as is bike fit. If you're having
> trouble with a particular saddle, you may need nothing more than a
> proper bike fitting. Before swapping out saddles, have your
> adjustments checked by a professional bike fitter.
>
> Jeff

[Andrew Webster]

I agree about WTB saddles. Best I've used. SST 2K is my favourite
(though a couple of my occasional use bikes have got SST's with
plastic -vinyl?- covers. All are comfortable, but leather covered
saddles are well worth it. Of course, it may just be that the SST
shape suits me, and may not be intrinically better.

Andrew

(Jeff Wills) wrote in message >...
> I've tried various Brooks with a variety of break-in procedures- from
> nothing to beating on it with a tire iron. None has ended up as
> comfortable as the WTB saddles (http://www.wtb.com/saddles.html) I
> have on several of my bikes. The WTB saddles *for me* have ended up
> being all-day comfortable.
>
> Saddles are an individual thing, as is bike fit. If you're having
> trouble with a particular saddle, you may need nothing more than a
> proper bike fitting. Before swapping out saddles, have your
> adjustments checked by a professional bike fitter.
>
> Jeff

[Mike DeMicco]

(Andrew Webster) wrote in
om:

> I agree about WTB saddles. Best I've used. SST 2K is my favourite
> (though a couple of my occasional use bikes have got SST's with
> plastic -vinyl?- covers. All are comfortable, but leather covered
> saddles are well worth it. Of course, it may just be that the SST
> shape suits me, and may not be intrinically better.

Too bad they stopped making the SST. I have a number of these saddles, but
they all seem to rip under the nose of the saddle along the sharp bottom
edge. These are leather covered saddles too. The rest of the cover is fine.
Now I'm faced with having to replace these saddles or trying to convince
WTB to give me replacements.

--
Mike DeMicco >

[Mike DeMicco]

(Andrew Webster) wrote in
om:

> I agree about WTB saddles. Best I've used. SST 2K is my favourite
> (though a couple of my occasional use bikes have got SST's with
> plastic -vinyl?- covers. All are comfortable, but leather covered
> saddles are well worth it. Of course, it may just be that the SST
> shape suits me, and may not be intrinically better.

Too bad they stopped making the SST. I have a number of these saddles, but
they all seem to rip under the nose of the saddle along the sharp bottom
edge. These are leather covered saddles too. The rest of the cover is fine.
Now I'm faced with having to replace these saddles or trying to convince
WTB to give me replacements.

--
Mike DeMicco >

[Yum]

It looks like Brooks saddle is the most popular.
I wonder if anybody can comment thid saddle.
www.ergo-theseat.com
Thanks

[Dave Thompson]

"Yum" > wrote in message
...
> It looks like Brooks saddle is the most popular.
> I wonder if anybody can comment thid saddle.
> www.ergo-theseat.com
> Thanks
>
I've never tried the ergo-seat, but I am a big Brooks fan having them on all
my bikes. There have been many seats such as the ergo ,but they don't seem
to have caught on. One factor may be that as a cyclist gains experience and
tries many different seats, they find the less-soft ones that have a nose
will give them more comfort and control. The ergo seat seems like it would
work for those who ride upright and place a majority of their weight on
their butt. A properly set-up performance oriented bike has the rider weight
on the saddle, pedals and handlebars more equally that an upright rider.

By contrast a Brooks saddle is rock-hard, yet there are many (including
myself) who ride them for 50, 75, 100 miles or more at a time and find them
very comfortable. Brooks has been making bicycle saddles for over 100 years,
so there must be something to their design.

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>It looks like Brooks saddle is the most popular.
>I wonder if anybody can comment thid saddle.
>www.ergo-theseat.com


No horn means no thigh control....or at least that you have to learn to use the
top tube instead.
--
PeteCresswell