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

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

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!

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

"Naveed" wrote in message
news
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

"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

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.

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

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

"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

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.