All things lovely and cool on the bum - Page 2

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
> [Brooks]
>
>> I'm still not convinced about them, especially not the bit where you
>> have to wear them in ;-)
>
>
> If you have a backside that is broadly the right shape then you don't
> actually need to do any breaking in, they'll be comfortable out of the
> box. What the breaking in period does is take them from being pretty
> comfortable to about as comfortable as it's possible for a saddle to get.
>
>> And the fact that I'm not a blokey, and while I know brookes do ladies
>> saddles, I've found it very hard to find a ladies saddle narrow enough
>> till I found the selle italia oktavia ldy...
>
>
> Don't get hung up on "women's specific design" item necessarily being
> best. Things are modelled on some version of a tailors' dummy (possibly
> a digital CAD one, but nevertheless a model of a "typical" person) and
> if and only if that dummy happens to have a frame similar to yours is it
> really relevant to how good it is for you. Now, averages will suggest
> that a female dummy is more likely to be like you than a male one, but
> people come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes and the /only/
> way to be sure what works for you is to try things.

Oh I'm not. I knew hte blokes san marco rolls saddle that shipped with
the bike was only JUST too narrow for me - almost all the womens saddles
I looked at apart from this one were WAY too wide. I have a narrow
pelvis (I'm small-boned, just big-flabbed) so knew I was looking for a
narrow saddle, just a centimetre wider than the blokes ones, which made
it very hard to find a ladies to suit - all the others were just too
wide across the beam.

>
> Case in point, a female pal of mine has a Specialized BG WSD saddle,
> which she found a bit narrow. I tried it for a few miles, and /I/ found
> it a bit narrow. She also was amazed by how comfy my standard Brompton
> Brooks saddle (no concessions to gender As far as I know) was for her when she
> borrowed it for a quick hack (OTOH Roos doesn't like it much at all).

Yeah, I can't judge a saddle on a quick hack - my san marco rolls was
comfy enough on less than 5 miles. I don't do that sort of riding
though, it went from 10 miles very quickly up to 30 miles+, and a saddle
killing me cos only one sit bone was on, and the other one *just* not
quite on was a literal pain in the **** after about 10 miles.

>
> So there's really nothing to be gained by only trying out saddles that
> are so-called "women's specific" or the like. Next time you're on a
> ride having a break and there's a Brooks about, ask for a seat and see
> how it feels. Or if you're in a bike shop and there are a few on
> display ask for a try while you wait for whatever. And don't forget they
> do different widths before ruling any Brooks you have a quick try on
> entirely in or out. People generally seem to take to them pretty
> quickly /if/ they're the basic right shape, and you'll know within a few
> seconds if that is the case. Especially on a new one, don't forget it's
> shape and not hardness that's most important.
>

I might try that, though on a ride, it'd be hard to actually get on a
bike with one on - everyone else seems to be taller/on much bigger bikes
than me!! I'm not the sort that can give a slightly too large bike a
quick spin either!

>> FWIW, the friction was from the shorts rucking up slightly on the
>> inside of the leg, not the saddle itself ;-)
>
>
> But such rucking /may/ be caused by the saddle, of course, in which case
> it's a moot point. The smooth leather on the Brooks gives very little
> friction for this sort of thing to develop, another thing I like about
> them.
>

Yep, I did think that might be the case, but it's not - it's that the
shorts were settling into a ruck after a few miles, not cos the saddle
was rubbing against them, but cos the shorts weren't able to flex with
the travel of my legs as well as they should have been.

Maybe I'm just masking the symptoms rather than fixing the problem, but
it may well be down to the fact that I think I have rather long cranks
on the bike for the size of it and me, but they suit my legs, even if
they do lead to what is probably a lot more travel of movement over a
pedal revolution than other riders who have their seats a little higher
than mine, and pedal with the toes-down at the bottom of the stroke (I'm
ankles-down to be able to set off while seated on the saddle and not
knacker my knees when putting more power in - lengthens the leg more at
the lower half of the pedal stroke than I'd otherwise manage).

Anyway, I thought I'd flag it as being Good Stuff. I think the other
half was quite pleased with it too, and he's a Serious Cyclist not given
to such things normally, being more of a just get on and go do it type ;-)

I would like to thank those who said cycling short distances would help
with the sit bones pain though ;-) I'm pretty sure it's my bum that's
got used to it, not the saddle breaking in, but the almost daily cycling
(of 5-10ish miles, depending on the type of training I've been looking
to get out of it) I've been doing over the last 5 weeks or so has meant
that there has been negligable sit-bone ache after sunday before last's
48 miler, and absolutely none after sunday just gone's 32 miler.

Now all I have to do is work on the aching wrists - but they're
improving too now that my core body strength is getting better, I can
support the torso (and the not negligable girly attributes!) better with
the stomach/back/side muscles which is helping to take the weight off
the hands for more of the ride.

(I'm even entertaining vague ideas that I might soon be able to signal
all the time with the right hand, I can sometimes do it now!, and maybe
manage signalling with the left before the end of hte year, too!)

> Pete.


--


Velvet

On 19/7/04 1:30 pm, in article cdgelt$922$1@dux.dundee.ac.uk, "Peter Clinch"
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> Also note that if you insist on a trike then a Kettwiesel might be a
> delta, but so what? It's size adjustable which a Windcheetah isn't (so
> a 2nd hand one is much less likely to fit you) and it costs a /lot/ less
> ("only" £1,450 new).

Or go for a KMX X-series which would be even cheaper still..

...d

David Martin wrote:

> I must grovel and ask for a spin on a brooks saddle at some point. I am
> trying to find a decent saddle and have been rejecting almost everything as
> too squishy.

I've got a cat-sitting job on Gardener Street this week so could drop
the 17 off on the way, just email me the house # and a good time (but
not today).

> What is the difference between the B66 and the B17? Is the B66 the B17 with
> springs?

Pretty much. My 66 has the older twin rail mount while the 17 fits a
modern micro-adjust. The 66 is a little nicer but partly it has more
miles on it, and it weighs quite a bit more so would be a bit silly on
anything sporting. The 17 is the Cannonical Brooks Saddle and easiest
to come by. Since the 17 is on the MTB and I don't use that much I'll
loan you that one, which gives you a few days (at least) to play.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
>> Not got a spare 'bent lurking around have you that's fit to donate to
>> the 'get velvet completely ensnared in the darkside' campaign?
>> Only criteria is it must be a tadpole and preferably a windcheetah (I
>> think!)
>
>
> 'Fraid not, but in any case don't get too hung up on exactly what you
> want in advance of trying out a load more. Remember that Guy went to
> Futurecycles with more or less the expressed intent of buying a
> Windcheetah and came out with a bike instead...
> And a Windcheetah wouldn't really have worked in a few spots we were on
> last week, like sections of old railway that amounted to boggy
> singletrack and the Sensible Track for one's wheels was no more than a
> few inches wide. And those £$%&* gates to stop yoof on mopeds using the
> tracks would be more of a faff too. Two sorts, the ones where you have
> to pick up and carry through a restricted space, and the ones where you
> can just about squeeze a 'bent bike through without dismounting, and
> neither would get easier with an extra wheel.
>
> Also note that if you insist on a trike then a Kettwiesel might be a
> delta, but so what? It's size adjustable which a Windcheetah isn't (so
> a 2nd hand one is much less likely to fit you) and it costs a /lot/ less
> ("only" £1,450 new). You can get the Stein trikes from Westcountry
> Recumbents that are tadpoles but /much/ less than the (admittedly nicer
> looking) AVDs and Tricen. I'm sure Carol will furnish you with more
> details on request.
>
> Get too hung up on Windcheetahs and you might end up passing over a gift
> horse, and not only that but a gift horse with perfect teeth as well.
> IME it's difficult to be completely sure in advance about what will work
> well. Roos' first reaction to a Fiero was it was too low and she
> probably wouldn't be able to tour on one, to the extent that the first
> test ride was just an afterthought for a Quick Larf before we left the
> shop. She did 300 miles loaded for camping on hers last week, including
> sections that are by-passed by sensible alternatives for loaded tourers...
>
> Pete.

Heheheh, yes, I know I'll be trying it out before I buy, and probably
doing the rounds of several first... I'm certain I want three wheels
though - I'm slow on hills on the upright, and would be even slower on a
recumbent, so to be able to twiddle up slowly I want that third wheel so
I don't need to balance - and I'll go downhill MUCH faster with three
than two - again, the balance/stability on bumps issue.

I've tried a tadpole, can't remember which one now - mesh seat, fairly
upright, not that low, USS, suspension on back wheel, rented from
futurecycles for an afternoon's fun along the forest way. Wasn't a
trice, I think it was t'other half that had the trice out - I'll know
the name when I hear it, but it's none of the above.

From that, I like the two-handed braking, and steering, though am
intrigued by the single-handedness of the windcheetah and feel this
could be a definite advantage for signalling whilst careering downhill
;-) On the other hand, it may be that my wrist strength would mean
under such circumstances it's a bit borderline on having total control
over it, so I'm quite prepared to have my hopes of a windcheetah dashed
when/if I find that out.

I know I'm looking for something lower and definitely more reclined than
the one I tried - it was too upright - I drive in a lying back type
position, despite my short height, and want the same out of a 'bent. If
I end up going piling into a situation, I'd rather go in feet first than
head first, logical or not ;-)

Re the gates and anti-bike measures - I'm no big fan of off-road cycle
paths as it is, having discovered that they're sometimes more dangerous
than being on the road, and also sometimes a lot more faffing around
than being on the road! I'd be fairly happy to stick to the road route
even if it's a bit longer, to be honest, to avoid the barriered routes.

As yet, my cycling leanings are toward tarmac rather than trail, though
I do love the countryside, I'm really not the right disposition or build
for the mountainbike/trail type stuff, though I thoroughly enjoyed the
rattling along the forest way path, but that's really good as off-road
surfaces go, I think.

I have money in the bank that could be spent on a bent from new, I doubt
I'd find a second-hand to fit unless it was an adjustable-boom one - I'm
short, so I've already come to terms with the fact it'd probably be a
new one and lots of wonga. However, I really need to hang on to that
money till I've:

a) cleared off debts,
b) been at my new job long enough to have a bit of security
c) saved up enough to have something to fall back on if the worst
happens, and
d) put down a deposit and finally got a mortgage going instead of renting.

All of which means a 'bent of any shape of form is still just a pipe
dream far far in the future... in some ways I wish I'd not tried the
whateveritwas out from FC - I know for certain now that I want one,
whereas before I thought I might like one but wasn't sure ;-)

Having experienced the silly grin while hurtling down hill and then
laughing when I manage to just about lock the wheels on the loose gravel
at the bottom (not a scary moment in sight, normally even the prospect
of this on my upright leads to panic and fear) I know at some point I'll
have to have one ;-)

Oh, and it'd have to live outside till I buy my own house, too, cos
there's NO WAY I can lug it up the stairs and inside.. so another reason
not to get one quite yet. Though if anyone does feel the need to donate
one, I'm sure I can chain it to the iron stairs and construct a tarp
shelter for it somehow... ;-)

--


Velvet

David Martin <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> writes:

>(If you like fresh fruit and veg I could let you loose in the allotment ..
>loads of broad beans and raspberries at the moment)

You may regret that offer....

Roos - looking forward to raspberry muffins

Velvet wrote:

> Now all I have to do is work on the aching wrists

I never completely dispelled those with a riding position leaning a fair
chunk of my weight on them over a few hours. It was tolerable,
certainly, but my happy ride limit on drops or straights with bar ends
but a forward lean was about 60 miles due to wrist and elbow discomfort
becoming too distracting at that point. Good cork tape and padded mitts
helped, but the only real /solution/ is not to lean on things for hours
which haven't evolved to take continuous weight. Which means either
change position to sit up straighter (but that means you catch the wind
more) or... well, you know what the other solution is by now! ;-) (for
me the extra arm/wrist/neck comfort on the 'bent is probably a more
significant comfort difference than the Comfy Chair replacing a wee
perch on a pole).

> (I'm even entertaining vague ideas that I might soon be able to signal
> all the time with the right hand, I can sometimes do it now!, and maybe
> manage signalling with the left before the end of hte year, too!)

Good stuff. Aside from signalling you'll be able to take a drink
whenever you want without stopping, which IME makes a lot of comfort
difference on a long ride.
I actually took a few "action shots" while riding last week, camera in
right hand and control with the left. Will probably find out soon they
weren't any good, but worth a go... It's quite odd doing your steering
while looking through a compact's viewfinder! Not one to try quite yet,
but taking a cool drink while spinning up a big hill is a Really Useful
Thing :-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
>> (I'm even entertaining vague ideas that I might soon be able to signal
>> all the time with the right hand, I can sometimes do it now!, and
>> maybe manage signalling with the left before the end of hte year, too!)
>
>
> Good stuff. Aside from signalling you'll be able to take a drink
> whenever you want without stopping, which IME makes a lot of comfort
> difference on a long ride.
> I actually took a few "action shots" while riding last week, camera in
> right hand and control with the left. Will probably find out soon they
> weren't any good, but worth a go... It's quite odd doing your steering
> while looking through a compact's viewfinder! Not one to try quite yet,
> but taking a cool drink while spinning up a big hill is a Really Useful
> Thing :-)
>
> Pete.


Heh, yeah... that's something that gets to me at the moment, though I
find that when I have to stop on the hills, it's normally about right
for downing another sizeable amount of fluid - then I'm ready to go
again, both in the hydration and legs dept ;-) Longer rides on flatter
terrain though, and it gets annoying to have to stop just to drink, so
yes, I'm looking forward to managing that at some point. And being able
to reach round to my back pocket on the jersey for nibbles.

I've managed to signal right a couple of times, though still not all
that confident about doing it, and has to be nice smooth tarmac surface
or the front of hte bike twitches uncontrollably with just one hand.
Mirror adjustment is now a cinch, and I can even manage that while
pedalling. I've also once managed to get left hand off to poke my HRM
mounted on the bars, which was a major and somewhat surprising
acheivement. And it was ace to parp a complete idiot in a car with my
airzound with the right hand a couple of weeks back. I went for the
bell (much easier to reach and can still have hand on bars) then thought
sod it, before I realised what I'd done, good long toot on the airzound,
and I thought blimey, couldnt' do that before, and promptly got hand
back on hood before I fell off in shock ;-)
--


Velvet

Velvet wrote:

> Heheheh, yes, I know I'll be trying it out before I buy, and probably=20
> doing the rounds of several first... I'm certain I want three wheels=20
> though - I'm slow on hills on the upright, and would be even slower on =
a=20
> recumbent, so to be able to twiddle up slowly I want that third wheel s=
o=20
> I don't need to balance - and I'll go downhill MUCH faster with three=20
> than two - again, the balance/stability on bumps issue.

While it's true you can winch yourself up anything on a suitably low=20
geared trike, in practice there can be more to it than that. If you=20
just don't have a hill in your legs then spinning very low gears may=20
still be too much, and in practice walking pace on a bike with a few=20
rest stops may prove easier than constant progess at a total crawl. I=20
don't think a Windcheetah would take a rear geared hub to really take=20
things down monster-low because of the monostay rear, as it happens.

But down a big hill, don't be too sure about balance and stability. A=20
Windcheetah (and many other trikes) don't have suspension where a lot of =

bikes do, and that makes them smoother, faster and more efficient down=20
imperfect surfaces. Soaking the bumps up in suspension is often going=20
to be a better solution than just adding another wheel, or Mad Bastards=20
on descent trails would all be on trikes.

> From that, I like the two-handed braking, and steering, though am=20
> intrigued by the single-handedness of the windcheetah and feel this=20
> could be a definite advantage for signalling whilst careering downhill =

> ;-) On the other hand, it may be that my wrist strength would mean=20
> under such circumstances it's a bit borderline on having total control =

> over it, so I'm quite prepared to have my hopes of a windcheetah dashed=
=20
> when/if I find that out.

On /any/ 'bent the steering is far less affected by one-handedness=20
because you're not leaning any weight onto the bars by default. They=20
just rest/hang there with nothing to do but steer (no weight bearing to=20
do), so taking one hand away doesn't immediately put the steering out of =

balance by leaning on one side and not the other. The only effective=20
difference from one or two handed control a lot of the time is the=20
brakes and gears you have access to at any point. Good brakes,=20
especially hydraulics, mean you can stop with finger pressure so wrist=20
strength should be a non-issue on any 'bent.

> Re the gates and anti-bike measures - I'm no big fan of off-road cycle =

> paths as it is, having discovered that they're sometimes more dangerous=
=20
> than being on the road, and also sometimes a lot more faffing around=20
> than being on the road! I'd be fairly happy to stick to the road route=
=20
> even if it's a bit longer, to be honest, to avoid the barriered routes.=


I agree with a lot of what you say there, but if the alternative is a=20
busy road and I'm not in a hurry I'm less interested in taking it. The=20
safety issue isn't really the main one, I just don't really enjoy being=20
overtaken by streams of nosiy traffic that render side-by side cycling=20
and conversation impossible.

> As yet, my cycling leanings are toward tarmac rather than trail, though=
=20
> I do love the countryside, I'm really not the right disposition or buil=
d=20
> for the mountainbike/trail type stuff, though I thoroughly enjoyed the =

> rattling along the forest way path, but that's really good as off-road =

> surfaces go, I think.

I do very little MTB stuff, but most bikes are quite capable of taking=20
inb a little bit of rough stuff. It just opens up your options more if=20
you /can/ go down that sort of thing. Last week's tour was started off=20
with a couple of days of mainly off-road on old railways and they were=20
certainly slow, but nonetheless enjoyable.

> new one and lots of wonga. However, I really need to hang on to that=20
> money till I've:

<snip>
All very good reasons, to which you can add that you've already got a=20
very nice bike that will do everything you need.

> All of which means a 'bent of any shape of form is still just a pipe=20
> dream far far in the future...

As it was for me, until a chance conversation revealed an ex-dem one=20
going near here for =A3250. It wasn't what I'd outlined the Right 'Bent =

For Me was going to be, but at that price it was Rude Not To and it=20
turned out to be much better for my sort of riding than I'd anticipated.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, 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 <cdghkc$b2v$1@dux.dundee.ac.uk>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>Velvet wrote:
>
>> Now all I have to do is work on the aching wrists
>
>I never completely dispelled those with a riding position leaning a fair
>chunk of my weight on them over a few hours. It was tolerable,
>certainly, but my happy ride limit on drops or straights with bar ends
>but a forward lean was about 60 miles due to wrist and elbow discomfort
>becoming too distracting at that point. Good cork tape and padded mitts
>helped, but the only real /solution/ is not to lean on things for hours
>which haven't evolved to take continuous weight. Which means either
>change position to sit up straighter (but that means you catch the wind
>more) or... well, you know what the other solution is by now! ;-)

Tri-bars to lean on your elbows as a change from the wrists? ;-)

Peter Clinch:
>Last week's tour was started off
with a couple of days of mainly off-road on old railways and they were
certainly slow, but nonetheless enjoyable.

And let's not forget some of the roads covered in the early stages of /the/
tour (and to an even greater extent every year in the Paris-Roubaix).

d.

davek wrote:

> Peter Clinch:
>
>>Last week's tour was started off
>
> with a couple of days of mainly off-road on old railways and they were
> certainly slow, but nonetheless enjoyable.
>
> And let's not forget some of the roads covered in the early stages of /the/
> tour (and to an even greater extent every year in the Paris-Roubaix).
>
> d.
>
>

Indeed! I thought of the cobbled sections as I was wobbling bouncing
and bone-shaking across really crap bits of tarmac yesterday, and
reminding myself no matter HOW bad it felt, the cobbles MUST have been
worse... and if they could stay upright then dammit so could I!

--


Velvet

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:04:15 +0000, Velvet wrote:

>
> not to get one quite yet. Though if anyone does feel the need to donate
> one, I'm sure I can chain it to the iron stairs and construct a tarp
> shelter for it somehow... ;-)

I sposted the tale on this group of the 'bent which was nicked from
southwark Park. The thieves cut through the railings rather than the lock.
Not mine, I hasten to add. Bikefix staff member spotted it for sale
in a Brixton second hand shop, and it was retrieved.

So, sorry to be such a nanny, but if outside, get a ground anchor and a
motorcycle type chain, or a STURDY shed.
I know to my cost that ordinary garage doors can be opened with a swift
boot. That cost being my lovely black Trek 820. Bastards.

John Hearns wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:04:15 +0000, Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>not to get one quite yet. Though if anyone does feel the need to donate
>>one, I'm sure I can chain it to the iron stairs and construct a tarp
>>shelter for it somehow... ;-)
>
>
> I sposted the tale on this group of the 'bent which was nicked from
> southwark Park. The thieves cut through the railings rather than the lock.
> Not mine, I hasten to add. Bikefix staff member spotted it for sale
> in a Brixton second hand shop, and it was retrieved.
>
> So, sorry to be such a nanny, but if outside, get a ground anchor and a
> motorcycle type chain, or a STURDY shed.
> I know to my cost that ordinary garage doors can be opened with a swift
> boot. That cost being my lovely black Trek 820. Bastards.

Oh, I was planning looping very substantial mbike-like chain around not
the railings, but the actual side wall of the stairs - a large lump of
metal in itself.

--


Velvet

in message <XZNKc.3152$3F4.29826144@news-text.cableinet.net>, Velvet
('velvet@not.a.valid.domain') wrote:
>
> I'm still not convinced about them, especially not the bit where you
> have to wear them in ;-)

That's a myth. They do improve with age, but I've always found mine
comfortable from day one (and I expect that if they're not comfortable
from day one it's because they aren't right for your **** anyway).

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:09:43 GMT, Velvet <velvet@not.a.valid.domain>
wrote in message <XZNKc.3152$3F4.29826144@news-text.cableinet.net>:

>I'm still not convinced about them, especially not the bit where you
>have to wear them in ;-)

No, no, you've got it all wrong. The saddle stays the same shape,
it's your bum that gets broken in :-)

(a serial Brooks owner writes from experience here).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University