The most comfortable saddle I ever had...

In article <[email hidden]>

Jim D said:

When I was in Florida back in the 1980s, I stumbled across a
second-hand saddle in a bike shop. It looked as though it would be
really comfortable, so I paid $5 and put it on my bike. I was right;
it was amazingly comfortable. I just wish I knew what the make and
model was... then I might stand a chance of getting another one.

I have reflected on that saddle over the past day or two, and I
realise now why it was so comfortable... It was designed along the
same principles as a Brooks leather saddle, but rather than using
leather, they had used some kind of rubber with a gel-like quality.

Unlike a Brooks leather saddle, which takes a while to break in and
conform to your shape, this American saddle 'broke in' instantly, as
soon as you sat on it. You felt as though you were sitting *in* it,
with your butt bones, etc., were suspended in a slightly elastic
hammock that was the perfect fit. The load was distributed very
perfectly and evenly, with no points of excessive pressure. Imagine a
Brooks saddle of your ideal size, where the leather has been swapped
for some rubber of the same thickness...

I have searched the web (well, eBay, and a couple of UK bike shops, at
least) and have not seen anything quite the same.

If anyone knows the saddle (or an equivalent), I'd be extremely
grateful is you could let me know. The one I had was shaped roughly
like a Brooks B17 if I remember it correctly.

I know the sort you mean, but I can't remember who made it and I don't
think I've ever seen more than a couple. You can get 'aged' (pre-
softened) Brooks saddles which break in quicker than the regular ones.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 17:19:23 -0000, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I know the sort you mean, but I can't remember who made it and I don't
think I've ever seen more than a couple. You can get 'aged' (pre-
softened) Brooks saddles which break in quicker than the regular ones.

It's a shame they are so expensive though. (Not only because of the
cost but because of the increased likelihood of theft.) They were
two-a-penny when I was a kid. I think if I acquire one, I will soak it
in water before use, for a quicker break-in. That should ilicit some
comments...

Jim D

B17 is only about 30 quid.............seems to suit lots of bums. Mine has
been reasonably comfortable since new
and it seems to be getting better each time I ride.

SW

"Jim D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 17:19:23 -0000, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I know the sort you mean, but I can't remember who made it and I don't
think I've ever seen more than a couple. You can get 'aged' (pre-
softened) Brooks saddles which break in quicker than the regular ones.

It's a shame they are so expensive though. (Not only because of the
cost but because of the increased likelihood of theft.) They were
two-a-penny when I was a kid. I think if I acquire one, I will soak it
in water before use, for a quicker break-in. That should ilicit some
comments...

Jim D

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:52:46 -0000, "Steve Watkin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

B17 is only about 30 quid.............seems to suit lots of bums. Mine has
been reasonably comfortable since new
and it seems to be getting better each time I ride.

SW

Ditto here, just been out for my first ride on a new B17. Much better than the
sculpted, slotted, gell filled piece of junk it replaced. First time in 6 months
of cycling I've not had a sore [censored] after the first 10 miles 🙂

Cheers

Neil

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:49:50 +0000, rothers <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ditto here, just been out for my first ride on a new B17. Much better than the
sculpted, slotted, gell filled piece of junk it replaced. First time in 6 months
of cycling I've not had a sore [censored] after the first 10 miles 🙂

If I wasn't so worried about it getting it swiped, I'd probably order
one tomorrow...

I'd rather have one of the cheap-looking things my original post was
about. It looked like a piece of junk at a glance, but was actually a
dream to use.

Jim D

[Regarding a B17 saddle]

Quoted message said:

If I wasn't so worried about it getting it swiped, I'd probably order
one tomorrow...

Why would anyone nick a B17? Broadly speaking, the only people that
appreciate them are mumble-year old audax riders and the like.

In article <[email hidden]>
Mark Thompson

pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:

[Regarding a B17 saddle]

Quoted message said:

If I wasn't so worried about it getting it swiped, I'd probably order
one tomorrow...

Why would anyone nick a B17? Broadly speaking, the only people that
appreciate them are mumble-year old audax riders and the like.

But they're just the sort of people who would swipe your fruit cake.
:-)

On 6 Nov 2006 10:23:14 GMT, Mark Thompson

pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:

Quoted message said:

If I wasn't so worried about it getting it swiped, I'd probably order
one tomorrow...

Why would anyone nick a B17? Broadly speaking, the only people that
appreciate them are mumble-year old audax riders and the like.

Anyway... ragardless of whether the most likely nicker is gonna be an
umpty-three year-old, or the bloke who can remember "when Tootin'
Carmen was a pedestrian", can we now please establish (seriously)
which is most preferable: a sprung Brooks saddle or a non-sprung one?
I'm guessing that the answer would always be "the sprung one", except
for the weight issue... am I right?

Jim D (of the sore bot)

In article <[email hidden]>

Jim D said:

On 6 Nov 2006 10:23:14 GMT, Mark Thompson

pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:

Quoted message said:

If I wasn't so worried about it getting it swiped, I'd probably order
one tomorrow...

Why would anyone nick a B17? Broadly speaking, the only people that
appreciate them are mumble-year old audax riders and the like.

Anyway... ragardless of whether the most likely nicker is gonna be an
umpty-three year-old, or the bloke who can remember "when Tootin'
Carmen was a pedestrian", can we now please establish (seriously)
which is most preferable: a sprung Brooks saddle or a non-sprung one?
I'm guessing that the answer would always be "the sprung one", except
for the weight issue... am I right?

Jim D (of the sore bot)

If you're sore because of saddle fit then a saddle of the right
shape/resilience should be comfortable anyway - springs just take the
edge off bumps. Good position and technique (i.e. not putting too much
weight on the saddle, and using your legs as springs on bumpier bits)
achieve this reasonably well without the extra weight (and possible
adverse effects of the saddle moving around as you pedal).

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:35:22 -0000, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why would anyone nick a B17? Broadly speaking, the only people that
appreciate them are mumble-year old audax riders and the like.

Anyway... ragardless of whether the most likely nicker is gonna be an
umpty-three year-old, or the bloke who can remember "when Tootin'
Carmen was a pedestrian", can we now please establish (seriously)
which is most preferable: a sprung Brooks saddle or a non-sprung one?
I'm guessing that the answer would always be "the sprung one", except
for the weight issue... am I right?

Jim D (of the sore bot)

If you're sore because of saddle fit then a saddle of the right
shape/resilience should be comfortable anyway - springs just take the
edge off bumps. Good position and technique (i.e. not putting too much
weight on the saddle, and using your legs as springs on bumpier bits)
achieve this reasonably well without the extra weight (and possible
adverse effects of the saddle moving around as you pedal).

Thanks... I'm left with the impression (as a non-sportster) that a
springy saddle is worth the few extra ounces. Perhaps that's because
I'm of the age where my bones are teetering towards the brittle end of
the scale and away from the rubbery end...

As an aside.. I remember when I gleefully garnered the attention of
all and sundry when I sported a sticker saying "Bone-Shaker" in
luminous lettering on my first bike... It was one of those ubiquitous
black things with rod-operated brakes, and a chain guard designed to
stop .303 bullets. I think it even sported a basket on the front... It
must have weighed all of a ton...

Jim D

In article <[email hidden]>
Jim D <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Thanks... I'm left with the impression (as a non-sportster) that a
springy saddle is worth the few extra ounces. Perhaps that's because
I'm of the age where my bones are teetering towards the brittle end of
the scale and away from the rubbery end...

If you think that springs are going to make the difference between
enjoying your cycling and avoiding the bike then by all means get a
sprung saddle. I know that my unsprung stiff-as-a-board saddle is
comfortable for me, but it's a personal thing.
Regular exercise can halt or even reverse bone loss - strength training
is probably more effective than the sort of workout you get on a bike,
but cycling is better for cardiovascular health and some arthritic
conditions.

Quoted message said:

As an aside.. I remember when I gleefully garnered the attention of
all and sundry when I sported a sticker saying "Bone-Shaker" in
luminous lettering on my first bike... It was one of those ubiquitous
black things with rod-operated brakes, and a chain guard designed to
stop .303 bullets. I think it even sported a basket on the front... It
must have weighed all of a ton...

It's a shame so many of those were stripped down and tarted up when they
became 'old-fashioned' - the hub gears, rod brakes, oil-bath chaincase
and heavy-duty frame meant they really were capable of surviving a lot
of neglect, and they still make good utility bikes in original form.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:31:37 -0000, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's a shame so many of those were stripped down and tarted up when they
became 'old-fashioned' - the hub gears, rod brakes, oil-bath chaincase
and heavy-duty frame meant they really were capable of surviving a lot
of neglect, and they still make good utility bikes in original form.

Yes. I wish now I had saved mine, just for the saddle! Oh, and the
Sturmey Archer 4-speed hub!

The next bike I acquired was a dark green Raleigh something-or-other
(with 3-speed Sturmey Archer hub). The bike came with a free 45 rpm
single with a really cheesy song on it called "Bike Beat".

It was a birthday present from my pa and cost about £35, new. It was
about 3 weeks before I'd had enough of looking like a goof on wheels,
and replaced the straight bars with cowhorns, remove the mudguards,
put a track tyre on the back, and replaced the saddle which what must
have been a Brooks Swift or suchlike (off my older brother's "Javelin"
racing bike). Finally, quick blast or two with some metallic gold
spray paint, and hey-presto, I was King of the Road...

Jim D

Quoted message said:

can we now please establish (seriously)
which is most preferable: a sprung Brooks saddle or a non-sprung one?

IMHO the sprung saddles stop your back being jarred and smooth out the
bumps, rather than help your rear end. However, if you've an upright
position they're the thing to go for. A rider with bars lower than the
saddle takes less weight on his [censored], has the back bent so jolts don't, er,
jolt so much and can lift his bottom up more easily.

For the sportier/faster cyclist a non-sprung saddle will be best.

For those trundlies who cycle in a upright position (rather than hunched
over drops) the sprung saddle will prolly be better.

--
We're all trundlies, if the ride is long enough.

On 9 Nov 2006 10:37:58 GMT, Mark Thompson

pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:

For those trundlies who cycle in a upright position (rather than hunched
over drops) the sprung saddle will prolly be better.

Thanks. That makes sense. Looks like the sprung ones are for me then.

Jim D

In article <[email hidden]>
Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

For those trundlies who cycle in a upright position (rather than hunched
over drops) the sprung saddle will prolly be better.

If you're 'hunched' over drops your position is wrong - probably stem or
top-tube too short, or saddle too far forward. You should be leaning
forward comfortably, not contorted.

Rob Morley said:

If you're 'hunched' over drops your position is wrong - probably stem or
top-tube too short, or saddle too far forward. You should be leaning
forward comfortably, not contorted.

Semantics, I'd think. If you're leaning forwards, whether hunched,
elegantly or however, that will tend to put more weight off the saddle
and onto your arms, so bumps will affect your bum less (though your
wrists more, of course...).

This chimes in with my B66 and B17, the B17 being on my stretched-out
MTB and the sprung B66 on the relatively upright 8Freight.

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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Rob Morley said:

If you're 'hunched' over drops your position is wrong - probably stem or
top-tube too short, or saddle too far forward. You should be leaning
forward comfortably, not contorted.

Semantics, I'd think. If you're leaning forwards, whether hunched,
elegantly or however, that will tend to put more weight off the saddle
and onto your arms, so bumps will affect your bum less (though your
wrists more, of course...).

The objective should be to put more weight on your bottom bracket, and less
on either bum or hands. Indeed, if it does transfer much weight to your
hands, you're probably doing it wrong.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal

Quoted message said:

The objective should be to put more weight on your bottom bracket, and
less on either bum or hands. Indeed, if it does transfer much weight
to your hands, you're probably doing it wrong.

Um, I'm a bit confused. Do you mean "pedal harder"?

in message <[email hidden]>, Mark
Thompson ('pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com'😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The objective should be to put more weight on your bottom bracket, and
less on either bum or hands. Indeed, if it does transfer much weight
to your hands, you're probably doing it wrong.

Um, I'm a bit confused. Do you mean "pedal harder"?

Not necessarily, though how hard you can pedal is a function of how much
weight you can put on the pedals. But if your weight is fundamentally
taken on your legs (which are, after all, evolved to take that weight)
with your bum and hands serving mainly to steady you and locate you on the
bike, you'll be comfortable.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563