bouncy saddle or seatpost , which is best

I had been looking at getting a suspension post, but mention of the
brooks flyer made me wonder which is best. Any views would be
appreciated.

I weigh 15st and after ,say, 100miles the saddle area does get
painful, especially if terrain or wind compel much sitting and
spinning. I like the B17 best and wondered whether some suspension
might extend the comfort time. But at my weight one is pointed towards
harder elastomers, which seems rather unfair. I suppose I could eat a
bit less, but failing that am I to go for springy saddle or seatpost?
The advantage of the seatpost could be that the nose of the saddle is
as bouncy as the rest, which is not the case for the Flyer.

Or do people who have tried this find that reducing the shocks is not
useful because the main problem is the length of time one is
subjecting ones rear to a pressure that progressively causes a build
up of problems that hurt?

Terry Jones

TerryJ writtificated

I had been looking at getting a suspension post, but mention of the
brooks flyer made me wonder which is best. Any views would be
appreciated.

The advantage of the suspension seatpost is that, if you get an expensive
one, you can dial it onto your weight.

Or do people who have tried this find that reducing the shocks is not
useful because the main problem is the length of time one is
subjecting ones rear to a pressure that progressively causes a build
up of problems that hurt?

That's what gets me. After five or six hours I start to experience
discomfort. I expect that this is more 'cos I'm not doing much cycling any
more.

Sheldon Brown has some great tips for making saddles comfy - amazing how
much difference even a small adjustment can make.

www.sheldonbrown.com/saddles.html

TerryJ wrote:
I had been looking at getting a suspension post, but mention of the
brooks flyer made me wonder which is best. Any views would be
appreciated.

I weigh 15st and after ,say, 100miles the saddle area does get
painful, especially if terrain or wind compel much sitting and
spinning. I like the B17 best and wondered whether some suspension
might extend the comfort time. But at my weight one is pointed towards
harder elastomers, which seems rather unfair. I suppose I could eat a
bit less, but failing that am I to go for springy saddle or seatpost?
The advantage of the seatpost could be that the nose of the saddle is
as bouncy as the rest, which is not the case for the Flyer.

Or do people who have tried this find that reducing the shocks is not
useful because the main problem is the length of time one is
subjecting ones rear to a pressure that progressively causes a build
up of problems that hurt?

I have suspension seatposts on all of my bikes. I am of a similar (but,
importantly, lesser :-) ) weight to you. I have found them a great boon
over both short and quite long (40 miles plus) distances. However,
unlike yourself, I never cycle over 100 miles in a day. I use quite
hard, unsprung saddles.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

TerryJ wrote:
I had been looking at getting a suspension post, but mention of the
brooks flyer made me wonder which is best. Any views would be
appreciated.

I weigh 15st and after ,say, 100miles the saddle area does get
painful, especially if terrain or wind compel much sitting and
spinning. I like the B17 best and wondered whether some suspension
might extend the comfort time. But at my weight one is pointed towards
harder elastomers, which seems rather unfair. I suppose I could eat a
bit less, but failing that am I to go for springy saddle or seatpost?
The advantage of the seatpost could be that the nose of the saddle is
as bouncy as the rest, which is not the case for the Flyer.

Or do people who have tried this find that reducing the shocks is not
useful because the main problem is the length of time one is
subjecting ones rear to a pressure that progressively causes a build
up of problems that hurt?

Yes. And....

1. Most suspension seatposts are "inline" and don't allow you to set the
saddle back as far as you can with a normal seatpost. The Post Modern one I
tried with setback didn't seem to provide any suspension.

2. There aren't very many sprung saddles, and some of them are too bouncy
for serious use. It's important to maximise your choice of saddles to get a
decent chance of finding one that suits you well.

~PB

On 18 Jun, 17:57, TerryJ wrote:
I had been looking at getting a suspension post, but mention of the
brooks flyer made me wonder which is best. Any *views would be
appreciated.

I have a suspension post on my commuter and like the way it reduces
those horrible spine-jarring shocks when you hit an unexpected
pothole, but I don't think it makes any difference to saddle-soreness.

Do you use padded shorts?

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
TerryJ wrote:

I had been looking at getting a suspension post, but mention of the
brooks flyer made me wonder which is best. Any views would be
appreciated.

Suspension seatposts do a different job than sprung saddles - the
seatpost is mostly immobile but retracts when you hit a big bump, the
saddle is constantly moving under your weight (no preload).

I weigh 15st and after ,say, 100miles the saddle area does get
painful, especially if terrain or wind compel much sitting and
spinning. I like the B17 best and wondered whether some suspension
might extend the comfort time. But at my weight one is pointed towards
harder elastomers, which seems rather unfair. I suppose I could eat a
bit less, but failing that am I to go for springy saddle or seatpost?
The advantage of the seatpost could be that the nose of the saddle is
as bouncy as the rest, which is not the case for the Flyer.

You're not sitting on the nose of the saddle (unless you're riding
hard on the drops, in which case a race bike would be a better choice)
so that doesn't really matter.

Or do people who have tried this find that reducing the shocks is not
useful because the main problem is the length of time one is
subjecting ones rear to a pressure that progressively causes a build
up of problems that hurt?

When I used to regularly ride that sort of distance (and weighed
14-15st) I'd get a tired lower back but not saddle problems. I suspect
you're just tiring and placing more weight on the saddle. A sprung
saddle may reduce fatigue, but may increase it as you'll be moving
around more.

Rob Morley wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
TerryJ wrote:

I had been looking at getting a suspension post, but mention of the
brooks flyer made me wonder which is best. Any views would be
appreciated.

Suspension seatposts do a different job than sprung saddles - the
seatpost is mostly immobile but retracts when you hit a big bump, the
saddle is constantly moving under your weight (no preload).
I weigh 15st and after ,say, 100miles the saddle area does get


When I used to regularly ride that sort of distance (and weighed
14-15st) I'd get a tired lower back but not saddle problems. I suspect
you're just tiring and placing more weight on the saddle. A sprung
saddle may reduce fatigue, but may increase it as you'll be moving
around more.


Thanks for all the comments.
I agree with the idea of fatigue in a long ride making one sit firmly
down more and bringing on the ischaemic (oxygen lack) ache .That was
pretty much what I found recently in the highlands with camping gear .
the more I had to protect my legs and the stronger the headwind the
sooner the saddle-ache came on.
I had two sets of shorts.'Best' pair had a new one piece moulded pad
which is quite thick and comfy.They were murder on the only long day I
wore them.They effectively widened the saddle nose, which was itself not
good and instead of my ischial tuberosities bearing the weight it was
spread out by the deep padding onto the soft tissues of the saddle area.
Reminiscent of gel or foam saddles.
I wore my spare shorts with the thin pad the rest of the trip.
My guess is that springs on the saddle or seatpost might encourage
sitting , causing pain to start earlier rather than later.
I am going to keep asking audaxers what their experience is.There are
usually a few with suspension on a ride.
..
TerryJ

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:51:30 +0100
TerryJ wrote:

I had two sets of shorts.'Best' pair had a new one piece moulded pad
which is quite thick and comfy.They were murder on the only long day
I wore them.They effectively widened the saddle nose, which was
itself not good and instead of my ischial tuberosities bearing the
weight it was spread out by the deep padding onto the soft tissues of
the saddle area. Reminiscent of gel or foam saddles.
I wore my spare shorts with the thin pad the rest of the trip.

Unless it was really warm I mostly used to ride in tights (dodgy
knees don't like the cold) that had only an extra layer of lycra in the
seat area - IME if your saddle and setup are right you don't really need
more.

On 20 Jun, 06:07, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:51:30 +0100


Unless it was really warm I mostly used to ride in tights (dodgy
knees don't like the cold) that had only an extra layer of lycra in the
seat area - IME if your saddle and setup are right you don't really need
more.

I have come across two racers down the years who rode with no pad,
just tights, having decided that was best.I alwys thought that was
odd, but perhaps they had a point.
Terry

TerryJ wrote:
I had been looking at getting a suspension post, but mention of the
brooks flyer made me wonder which is best. Any views would be
appreciated.

I weigh 15st and after ,say, 100miles the saddle area does get
painful, especially if terrain or wind compel much sitting and
spinning. I like the B17 best and wondered whether some suspension
might extend the comfort time. But at my weight one is pointed towards
harder elastomers, which seems rather unfair. I suppose I could eat a
bit less, but failing that am I to go for springy saddle or seatpost?
The advantage of the seatpost could be that the nose of the saddle is
as bouncy as the rest, which is not the case for the Flyer.

Or do people who have tried this find that reducing the shocks is not
useful because the main problem is the length of time one is
subjecting ones rear to a pressure that progressively causes a build
up of problems that hurt?

Terry Jones

Just wondering whether your problems are being caused by low frequency high
amplitude "bumps" which a suspension post would reduce, or the high
frequency "buzz" from the road. If it's the latter then maybe a carbon post
with its material-level damping might be best.

--

Nigel