Brooks saddle lengths men vs. women ?

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 05:09:43 GMT, Retro Bob
wrote:

Why are brooks women's saddles about 30mm shorter than the comparable
men's model ? I understand "wider", but what's behind the "shorter.
I would think that everyone would benefit from shorter... and it might
even reduce the mail "numbness" (careful spelling :-) problem.

Comments ?

In my experience, on smaller bikes sometimes the nose of the saddle
hits the rider's butt when they're standing. I think this is because
the smaller frame has less set back. A shorter saddle can help reduce
the chance of "butt interference" when out of the saddle.

"Retro Bob" wrote in message
...
Why are brooks women's saddles about 30mm shorter than the comparable
men's model ? I understand "wider", but what's behind the "shorter.
I would think that everyone would benefit from shorter... and it might
even reduce the mail "numbness" (careful spelling :-) problem.

Comments ?
I can't address the differences between the male and female Brooks, but
'numbness' isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when using a Brooks saddle.

Retro Bob wrote:

Why are brooks women's saddles about 30mm shorter than the comparable
men's model ? I understand "wider", but what's behind the "shorter.
I would think that everyone would benefit from shorter... and it might
even reduce the mail "numbness" (careful spelling :-) problem.

dianne_1234 wrote:

In my experience, on smaller bikes sometimes the nose of the saddle
hits the rider's butt when they're standing. I think this is because
the smaller frame has less set back. A shorter saddle can help reduce
the chance of "butt interference" when out of the saddle.

Interesting theory, could well have some basis.

My own theory is that it has to do with not poking the front of the
rider's skirt out in an unsightly manner.

Sheldon "Doesn't Usually Ride In A Skirt" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, |
| it's good enough for me! |
| -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa 1920) |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

In article ,
Sheldon Brown wrote:

Retro Bob wrote:

Why are brooks women's saddles about 30mm shorter than the comparable
men's model ? I understand "wider", but what's behind the "shorter.
I would think that everyone would benefit from shorter... and it might
even reduce the mail "numbness" (careful spelling :-) problem.

dianne_1234 wrote:

In my experience, on smaller bikes sometimes the nose of the saddle
hits the rider's butt when they're standing. I think this is because
the smaller frame has less set back. A shorter saddle can help reduce
the chance of "butt interference" when out of the saddle.

Interesting theory, could well have some basis.

My own theory is that it has to do with not poking the front of the
rider's skirt out in an unsightly manner.

Skirt bulges are unslightly? Someone needs to go tell all of those
Scottish ladies!
runs away

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net

Sheldon Brown wrote:

Sheldon "Doesn't Usually Ride In A Skirt" Brown

USUALLY, Gracie?

Bill "just on Halloween...right?" S.

"Retro Bob" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:08:37 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
wrote:

I can't address the differences between the male and female Brooks, but
'numbness' isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when using a Brooks saddle.


Well, dare I divert my own thread... I managed to eliminate my issue
with that by decreasing the angle of the seat slightly. :-)

Exactly! Brooks are very sensitive to 'nose up' angle. All too many folks
trying a Brooks for the 1st time get it all wrong and set the saddle and
level; rear and front of the seat on the same horizontal plane. Brooks,
being made from hard leather, allow the rider to slide forward, putting much
pressure on the 'soft bits' and causing said rider to try to push away from
the handlebars, further causing pain in the arms, shoulders and neck.
Depending on your bar height in relation to the saddle and your riding
style, a Brooks should have it's nose elevated somewhat with the rear
"sitting-on' portion of the saddle mostly horizontal.

I'm a recent (a year ago) convert to Brooks and have installed them on all
my bikes. Now "numbness" or "butt-ache" is no longer a factor when planning
how far to ride. See my latest he
http://www.serotta.com/forum/showthr...?t=3170&page=2

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:26:20 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
wrote:


"Retro Bob" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:08:37 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
wrote:

I can't address the differences between the male and female Brooks, but
'numbness' isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when using a Brooks saddle.


Well, dare I divert my own thread... I managed to eliminate my issue
with that by decreasing the angle of the seat slightly. :-)

Exactly! Brooks are very sensitive to 'nose up' angle. All too many folks
trying a Brooks for the 1st time get it all wrong and set the saddle and
level; rear and front of the seat on the same horizontal plane. Brooks,
being made from hard leather, allow the rider to slide forward, putting much
pressure on the 'soft bits' and causing said rider to try to push away from
the handlebars, further causing pain in the arms, shoulders and neck.
Depending on your bar height in relation to the saddle and your riding
style, a Brooks should have it's nose elevated somewhat with the rear
"sitting-on' portion of the saddle mostly horizontal.

I'm a recent (a year ago) convert to Brooks and have installed them on all
my bikes. Now "numbness" or "butt-ache" is no longer a factor when planning
how far to ride. See my latest he
http://www.serotta.com/forum/showthr...?t=3170&page=2


Hi Dave,

I agree completely with your suggestion about the Brooks setup.

Perhaps you can help me make sense of the Rivendell suggestion:

"Adjust yours so that rear portion is higher than the neck and nose.
Not by a lot, not so that the nose looks angled downward, but just a
little, as the maker intended."

I know that whenever I have tried that approach, I have regretted it
after only a few miles.

In many respects, the Rivendell folks seem to get it right, but their
Brooks setup suggestions have always left me baffled.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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

"Kenneth" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:26:20 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
wrote:


"Retro Bob" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:08:37 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
wrote:

I can't address the differences between the male and female Brooks,
but
'numbness' isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when using a Brooks
saddle.


Well, dare I divert my own thread... I managed to eliminate my issue
with that by decreasing the angle of the seat slightly. :-)

Exactly! Brooks are very sensitive to 'nose up' angle. All too many folks
trying a Brooks for the 1st time get it all wrong and set the saddle and
level; rear and front of the seat on the same horizontal plane. Brooks,
being made from hard leather, allow the rider to slide forward, putting
much
pressure on the 'soft bits' and causing said rider to try to push away
from
the handlebars, further causing pain in the arms, shoulders and neck.
Depending on your bar height in relation to the saddle and your riding
style, a Brooks should have it's nose elevated somewhat with the rear
"sitting-on' portion of the saddle mostly horizontal.

I'm a recent (a year ago) convert to Brooks and have installed them on
all
my bikes. Now "numbness" or "butt-ache" is no longer a factor when
planning
how far to ride. See my latest he
http://www.serotta.com/forum/showthr...?t=3170&page=2


Hi Dave,

I agree completely with your suggestion about the Brooks setup.

Perhaps you can help me make sense of the Rivendell suggestion:

"Adjust yours so that rear portion is higher than the neck and nose.
Not by a lot, not so that the nose looks angled downward, but just a
little, as the maker intended."

I know that whenever I have tried that approach, I have regretted it
after only a few miles.

In many respects, the Rivendell folks seem to get it right, but their
Brooks setup suggestions have always left me baffled.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

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

I would tell you to set the seat in the most comfortable position for you,
regardless what anyone else (including me) says. I run my bars at, or only
slightly below saddle height, so I set my seat so the nose more 'up'. If I
were to lower my bars, or set my seat back further in the post, I would have
to lower the nose accordingly. I've not had to 'break-in' a Brooks, mine
seem to be fine from the get-go.

The main reason why women's saddles are shorter is that women riding a
"lady's bike", i.e. with an open frame, can slip off the saddle
towards the front more easily and then pull their leg through the
frame. This is the normal set-up here in Germany where the vast
majority of women use this kind of frame for everyday use and leisure
cycling.(Right or wrong of this is not standing to debate here.)
However there is a great disadvantage,too, to women's saddles. Being
shorter the rails are shorter,too and often so short that there is not
really any room to adjust the riding position. This is of course a
great disadvantage and tends to push women very far forward making it
difficult to assume a comfortable pedalling position. It is also, in
my opinion, the origin of the theory that women have longer thighs
than men and need special frames found in any number of books and
magazines. A German frame builder had this investigated in standard
works of anatomy and could find so confirmation of this idea. Once you
then start setting up bikes with suspension seat posts which clamp
further forward than traditional seat posts, riding a lady's bike gets
less and not more comfortable. A pity, all that work!I think the
saddle industry should do some thinking about this, but I have not got
anybody really interested so far.If you are riding in a narrow skirt
you need a Dutch "Roksattel", with no or just a very tiny nose. This
may seem strange to Americans, but if women ever start riding the Koga
Miyatas around town that Sheldon Brown is selling with 8 speed hubs
etc women's saddles will not seem so strange any more.


Sheldon Brown wrote in message ...
Retro Bob wrote:

Why are brooks women's saddles about 30mm shorter than the comparable
men's model ? I understand "wider", but what's behind the "shorter.
I would think that everyone would benefit from shorter... and it might
even reduce the mail "numbness" (careful spelling :-) problem.

dianne_1234 wrote:

In my experience, on smaller bikes sometimes the nose of the saddle
hits the rider's butt when they're standing. I think this is because
the smaller frame has less set back. A shorter saddle can help reduce
the chance of "butt interference" when out of the saddle.

Interesting theory, could well have some basis.

My own theory is that it has to do with not poking the front of the
rider's skirt out in an unsightly manner.

Sheldon "Doesn't Usually Ride In A Skirt" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, |
| it's good enough for me! |
| -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa 1920) |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

After riding on a Brooks saddle for over a year and a few thousand
miles, I also find it more comfortable with the nose a tiny bit higher
than the saddle's rear. I arrived to this conclusion empirically
after many adjustments, trials, and lots of errors.
I suppose this could explain why many leather saddles I see in photos
of old bikes seem to point upwards too. I always thought it was just
the camera perspective.

r.b.

"Dave Thompson" wrote in message

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

I would tell you to set the seat in the most comfortable position for you,
regardless what anyone else (including me) says. I run my bars at, or only
slightly below saddle height, so I set my seat so the nose more 'up'. If I
were to lower my bars, or set my seat back further in the post, I would have
to lower the nose accordingly. I've not had to 'break-in' a Brooks, mine
seem to be fine from the get-go.