Brooks saddles
View Full Version : Brooks saddles
Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are supposed
to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and are
uncomfortable to start with.
Can anyone tell me more about them, and the upsides/downsides, or how to treat them etc.
On 2 Oct 2003 12:12:34 -0700, graham.leah@talk21.com (Graham) wrote:
>Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are supposed
>to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and are
>uncomfortable to start with.
>
>Can anyone tell me more about them, and the upsides/downsides, or how to treat them etc.
This is one of those classic, 'you've just got to try 'em'.
If you buy one, get some proofide as well and follow instructions as necessary. 'They say' that a
new Brooks needs a few hundred miles to break in, for the leather to shape to your ****. For me
personally, I've never got on with it at all, despite giving it plenty of time and miles. So much
so, that I took it off my 'town bike' on Sunday and replaced it with a spare I had lying around.
Much better.
Plenty of other people love 'em though.
Saddles?...The search goes on for me..
Garryb
Graham wrote:
> Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are
> supposed to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and
> are uncomfortable to start with.
>
> Can anyone tell me more about them, and the upsides/downsides, or how to treat them etc.
I'm a philistine so I soaked it in neatsfoot oil when it was new, to speed up the process. Warning -
this turns a "honey" saddle into a dark brown one! To be honest my bottom gets on with most saddles
[1], so I can't really comment on whether it's good or not even after 1,000 miles, but virtually
everyone in the CTC seems to have one...they just look right on a touring bike.
[1] except a Club Roost Dude, which is well padded but turns out to be EVIL to sit on :-(
Graham wrote:
> Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are
> supposed to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and
> are uncomfortable to start with.
Opions vary from comfortable "straight out of the box" to never comfortable and eveything
in between.
> Can anyone tell me more about them
Find more info via the Brooks website and their dealers: eg. Sheldon Brown, St John Street Cycles.
> , and the upsides
No too-soft padding to sink into and squash things that you don't want squashed. Some natural
suspension from the leather (some models have springs as well).
> /downsides
Heavy, not waterproof, no padding - which is supposed not to be a problem because the leather is
supposed to support your backside pefectly as it conforms to shape and provides suspension. Hasn't
really worked for me so far.
note. Various shapes and sizes are available - always check dimensions when comparing models (width
being most important). Some models have thicker leather than others (eg. B17: thinner than most) and
the honey coloured versions are supposed to break in sooner. If interesting in a sprung version, the
B66 Champion's top is similar in size to the B17 - just so you've got a reference point. (B66
Champion = narrower version of B66).
> or how to treat them
See the Brooks website. Only use neatsfoot oil as a last desparate resort.
~PB
"Graham" <graham.leah@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:4dde5dee.0310021112.5c0f6552@posting.google.com...
> Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are
> supposed to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and
> are uncomfortable to start with.
>
> Can anyone tell me more about them, and the upsides/downsides, or how to treat them etc.
I had one on my school bike 30 years ago. Had the bike second hand, never applied anything except my
ars* to it, perfect ;-).....My wife bought me one
(B17)in March this year a week before I rode 920 miles in 10 days. It seemed perfect from day 1.
I've proofided it a few times...seems ok. I carry a plastic carrier bag around with me, with my
tools and use it to cover the saddle when I'm out and away from the bike. Protects it from the
wet stuff and prying eyes (would hate to come back to find it had gone 'walkies' ). It is
certainly better than any other saddle I've tried, but as others have said, it appears to be a
very personal thing. Cheers, Dave.
Garry Broad <somebloke@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >Can anyone tell me more about them, and the upsides/downsides, or how to treat them etc.
>
> This is one of those classic, 'you've just got to try 'em'.
>
> If you buy one, get some proofide as well and follow instructions as necessary. 'They say' that a
> new Brooks needs a few hundred miles to break in, for the leather to shape to your ****. For me
> personally, I've never got on with it at all, despite giving it plenty of time and miles. So much
> so, that I took it off my 'town bike' on Sunday and replaced it with a spare I had lying around.
> Much better.
>
> Plenty of other people love 'em though.
Such as me, mine was comfortable out of the box, was even more so within 100 miles and 1000 miles
later I don't even notice it after 50+ miles.
In article <bli2pg$c7db1$1@ID-144931.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Pete Biggs"
<pbiggmellon{remove_fruit}s2000@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> Heavy, not waterproof
After > 12 years, mine's definitely waterproof. And definitely bum-shaped; well, fits my bum anyway.
The difference between it and the std padded saddle (I have one on the Brompton; can't be bothered
to keep swapping them round) is quite noticeable.
--
Sak Wathanasin Network Analysis Limited http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk (http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk/)
"Graham" <graham.leah@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:4dde5dee.0310021112.5c0f6552@posting.google.com...
> Can anyone tell me more about them, and the upsides/downsides, or how to treat them etc.
Mine is 200-300 miles old and OK. Not great but OK.
I've had to try new everything (height, angle, back/front etc.) but we are getting there.
Previous Brooks have been a dream -- this one will submit (or my **** will).
T
Graham wrote:
> Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are
> supposed to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and
> are uncomfortable to start with.
"it depends". My first one was a B66, a Christmas present to replace an Avocet gel saddle I'd
thought was pretty good. The B66 was at *least* as good straight away, and got consistently better.
That one is now the most comfortable saddle I have ever used. Subsequently decided the "comfort gel
saddle" on the MTB had to go, with a B17 in to take its place. Better out the box than the one it
replaced (not that that was too hard!), and has also worn in to be amazingly comfortable as saddles
go. Got one for the Brompton too, since that's ridden more upright (so more weight on the **** than
a crouch with some weight on the arms) and I never bother with cycle shorts for the sort of ride I'm
using it for it is fairly hard, but IME rather better than the original equipment and I have no
plans to change it. A friend with a Specialized Body Geometry saddle on her MTB borrowed the Brom
for a short trip and she was *amazed* at how comfortable the Brooks saddle was.
The "not waterproof" bit is rather overstated, I think. They're not, but so what? Mine's never
suffered after getting wet, just don't force dry them, like any leather. Mine are all proofided to
keep the worst off, but IME it's not something to worry too much about.
But all saddles are dependent to some degree on basic shape of you vs basic shape of them. A Brooks
will mould itself to its owner over time, but if the basic shape is wrong they'll be agony to start
with, and pretty much stay that way (flip side is you don't have to worry if anyone else uses
yours). So try before you buy: if the basic shape is okay then it should be fine to start with, and
then get progressively better over time.
But if you want to be *really* comfortable then a good recumbent seat is an order of magnitude more
comfortable than the best saddle.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Originally posted by Graham
Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle
Someone once said that owning a brooks saddle is a hobby in itself!
I bought one because I liked the look of them and after borrowing my dad's bike for a week which has a team pro and finding it comfortable. My old gel saddle was fine, it just didn't look nice. Mine was comfortable out the box. Put plenty of proofide (or whatever) on the underside and more sparingly on the top. They are heavy (except for the expensive Ti railed ones) but I am very happy with mine (functionally and aestheticaly). My sis had a pro bought as a present and found it a complete ass-hatchet for ages until she turned it upside down, filled it up with dubbin and put it in a low oven until it had absorbed the lot then it was fine. Mine is honey, hers is black, they say that black takes longer to soften up but then there are as many opinions about them as there are people. When you are riding them the rain is kept off. If you have to park in the rain use a plastic bag or a saddle cover. If it gets wet let it air dry.
ymmv but it probably helps if you *want* to like it in advance
In article <4dde5dee.0310021112.5c0f6552@posting.google.com>, Graham <graham.leah@talk21.com> writes
>Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are supposed
>to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and are
>uncomfortable to start with.
>
>Can anyone tell me more about them, and the upsides/downsides, or how to treat them etc.
Do you like the idea of paying a premium price for a saddle, then spending a long time shaping it
with your backside, and hoping it eventually becomes comfortable? If you do, then try one.
When I first sat on my Brooks Conquest, it was like sitting on a rock. After 1,000 miles, and a
bucket of Proofide, I gave up on it and put it on my "pop into town" bike. It had by that time
become fairly comfortable, but the basic shape was wrong for me - I prefer a flatter saddle - and no
amount of sitting on it was going to change that.
--
Roger Barker roger@peaksysNOSPAM.co.uk Boston, UK
graham.leah@talk21.com (Graham) writes:
> Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are
> supposed to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and
> are uncomfortable to start with.
>
> Can anyone tell me more about them, and the upsides/downsides, or how to treat them etc.
I don't think there are any downsides. Yes, they do get more comfortable over time, but the myth
that they're uncomfortable to start with is a lot of rubbish. I bought a new Brookes Professional
for my new hill bike, put it on, and it was comfortable immediately - not quite as comfortable the
ten year old one on my road bike but a lot more comfortable than the fancy soft leather over foam
over hard plastic shell 'fizik' thing that the bike came with.
Don't let it get too wet too often. Carry a plastic carrier bag with you to put over the saddle if
you have to leave the bike out in the rain. Polish it with Brooks Proofide (wierd pink wax stuff)
once a month or so.
With this sort of care they last forever and get better and more comfortable with age. For male
riders anyway, simply the best and most comfortable saddle for a conventional bicycle.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'
Roger Barker wrote:
> Do you like the idea of paying a premium price for a saddle, then spending a long time shaping it
> with your backside, and hoping it eventually becomes comfortable?
Not really. But since I find them basically comfy to start with I don't mind paying the money.
Subsequent shaping has made a good thing even better.
> but the basic shape was wrong for me
And therein lies the problem. As with any saddle, if it's not the right basic shape then it won't be
much fun. If a Brooks is about right then trying a new one in a shop shouldn't be a horrible
experience. If it is a disaster from the word go then avoid, but if it feels okay remember it will
only ever improve.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
In article <3F7D2E3F.3070403@dundee.ac.uk>, Peter Clinch wrote:
> Graham wrote:
>> Hello there I'm thinking about getting a Brooks leather saddle as I've heard that they are
>> supposed to be very comfortable. But I've also heard that they take a long time to "break in" and
>> are uncomfortable to start with.
>
[snip]
>
> The "not waterproof" bit is rather overstated, I think. They're not, but so what? Mine's never
> suffered after getting wet, just don't force dry them, like any leather. Mine are all proofided to
> keep the worst off, but IME it's not something to worry too much about.
>
[snip]
The compensation for "not waterproof" is that if you sweat a lot the water evaporates from the
underside of the saddle as you ride. For me this is a big plus and makes Brooks indispensable for
riding more than a few miles, especially in summer.
AC
--
<<|
| http://www.acampbell.org.uk/cycling/
_________ ,___o / \ __________ _\ <;_ / \ OCD Cycloclimbing ___________ (_)/ (_) / \
http://www.ocd.org.uk (http://www.ocd.org.uk/)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:40:35 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>And therein lies the problem. As with any saddle, if it's not the right basic shape then it won't
>be much fun. If a Brooks is about right then trying a new one in a shop shouldn't be a horrible
>experience.
You will also find that there is a degree of variation in shape among the range of Brooks saddles.
Note the comments on the Harris Cyclery web pages about the B17:
"The B17 is most appropriate for cyclists who set their handlebars about the same height as their
saddles, or a bit lower"
and the Professional:
"The Professional series is most appropriate for vigorous cyclists who set their handlebars somewhat
lower than their saddles"
In my experience "somewhat lower" means about 2 inches. The B17 that came on my 2nd hand Dawes
Galaxy was not very comfortable at all - I could feel my soft bits being squashed every time I went
onto the drops. Also, even with the saddle angled nose up, I was still sliding forward on the saddle
and this was putting alot of extra weight on my hands. I swapped this with my old Team Pro, that I
have had for 4, years and everything was fine. If have put the B17 on my tandem, which has a far
more upright position and it is as comfortable as the Team Pro on the Galaxy.
John T Remove the singers of Spam before replying
Sheldon Brown/Harris Cyclery have some useful pages at:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles.html
They detail the specific riding style suited to each model and should be able to supply to
Canada too.
I've got two Conquests on MTBs, a B17 on my Moulton Mk3 and a B17N on my racer. I've also got a B66
on a Raleigh Twenty. They're all great and I've never experienced any discomfort during the initial
breaking in period.
Regards
TB
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
