Brooks B90 mod. How did they do that?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by [email protected], May 11, 2006.

  1. Tags:


  2. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...

    > I like the saddle shell size, but the "boing boing" spring action is a
    > bit too much.
    > Removing the springs would lighten it too.
    >
    > Has anyone here modified a B90 with good results?


    Haven't tried it myself, but looking under my Brooks saddles, the
    rails and spring assemblies simply bolt together, so it should be
    easy to replace them with solid rails. Bending up solid rails
    wouldn't be hard with a good jig.

    --
    [email protected] is Joshua Putnam
    <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
    Braze your own bicycle frames. See
    <http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
     
  3. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On 11 May 2006 19:21:15 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >http://translate.google.com/transla...&start=10&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&sa=N
    >
    >I sure would like to know how they did this mod.
    >
    >I like the saddle shell size, but the "boing boing" spring action is a
    >bit too much.
    >Removing the springs would lighten it too.


    Note that the subject of the page is their use of a suspension post to
    provide the boing that the seat no longer supplies.

    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  4. "Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 11 May 2006 19:21:15 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>http://translate.google.com/transla...&start=10&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&sa=N
    >>
    >>I sure would like to know how they did this mod.
    >>
    >>I like the saddle shell size, but the "boing boing" spring action is a
    >>bit too much.
    >>Removing the springs would lighten it too.

    >
    > Note that the subject of the page is their use of a suspension post to
    > provide the boing that the seat no longer supplies.
    >
    > --
    > Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    > Some gardening required to reply via email.
    > Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.


    I think they simply used a Brooks Professional Saddle myself
    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/saddles/brooks-professional.html
    They were probably thinking about the Professional but all they could think
    of was the older sprung B90's.

    You do realize that they could have used a sprung saddle like the B67 or
    something and then they would not have had to use a suspension seatpost.
     
  5. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Fri, 12 May 2006 05:16:14 -0500, "Earl Bollinger"
    <[email protected]> wrote:


    >You do realize that they could have used a sprung saddle like the B67 or
    >something and then they would not have had to use a suspension seatpost.


    I could be wrong, but in taking a second look, it appeared that the
    whole point was to demo the suspension post itself. The choice of the
    unsprung saddle might have been intentional, or it might have been the
    reason for the use of the sprung post; I didn't read the whole thing,
    so I can't tell. There's a difference in the action of a suspension
    post and a sprung Brooks seat, though; the suspension post moves in a
    linear fashion, while the sprung seat pivots downward at the back. I
    know that the sprung Brooks on my old Puch is a less satisfactory than
    it could be because of this. Still, for casual riding on ordinary
    neighborhood streets with their minor irregularities, it's better than
    a paving brick taped to the top tube.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  6. I'm running 2.35 tires so I'm already have plenty of suspension. What
    I'm like about the mod is that they removed the springs and made the
    saddle lighter. Simpler. Less squeaking too. The inset box in the
    article does mention the saddle is a B90 with "steel feathers and
    springs" removed.

    New fabricated rails (Joshua's suggestion) could work.
     
  7. Per [email protected]:
    >Has anyone here modified a B90 with good results?


    No, but I've been wanting to do that to a B66 or B72 for a few years now.

    248 is *really* wide.... the B66/72's are 210. For reference, the B-17 is
    170 and the B-17 narrow is 152.

    Also, for years, have been wondering where the B19 is? (i.e. Brooks offers
    widths of approximately 150, 160, 170, 210, 250... there seems tb a gap between
    170 and 210 and 210 and 250. I can't imagine there's a similar notch in
    sit-bone-width curve...

    For my money, Brooks is missing out on something. The market has moved on and
    they have not: full suspension bikes and suspension seatposts call for
    solid-rail saddles.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  8. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    Joshua Putnam wrote:
    >
    > [email protected] says...
    > >
    > > Has anyone here modified a B90 with good results?

    >
    > Haven't tried it myself, but looking under my Brooks saddles, the
    > rails and spring assemblies simply bolt together, so it should be
    > easy to replace them with solid rails. Bending up solid rails
    > wouldn't be hard with a good jig.


    That could work, but it would be a much tidier solution if the set of
    solid rails that are already under there (above all the springy stuff)
    went away in the conversion.

    The saddle at the link appears to be precisely what I've wanted from
    Brooks for as long as I've used their saddles: a B17 the size and shape
    of a B90.

    Chalo Colina
     
  9. On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:05:27 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >For my money, Brooks is missing out on something. The market has moved on and
    >they have not: full suspension bikes and suspension seatposts call for
    >solid-rail saddles.


    Please god no. Or at least not exclusively. Moving the springs from the
    saddle to the seatpost is both very expensive and useless.

    Jasper
     
  10. Per Jasper Janssen:
    >Please god no. Or at least not exclusively. Moving the springs from the
    >saddle to the seatpost is both very expensive and useless.


    But on an FS it has to make sense.

    Also, I've tried a Brooks B-66 on my hard tail MTB and A/B'd it with a B-17 on a
    ThudBuster sus post. For pavement use, there's no question that the ThudBuster
    is wretched excess and the B-66 is more appropriate - in fact, even a B-72
    (smaller stiffer springs) works very well - better even because the stiffer
    action gives a better sense of control while still soaking up enough of the
    bumps.

    OTOH, when I A/B'd the two for off road riding the B-66 with it's coil springs
    came up short. There isn't enough control to soak up those occasional bumps
    that happen when the rider fails to see something and takes it sitting on the
    saddle, relaxed - i.e. it bottoms out too easily.

    Also, one more plug for Sus posts: they unbundle the springing function from the
    saddle. i.e. it frees the rider who wants a little springing under him to
    choose from a vast array of saddles, and not just those with integrated springs.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  11. Per (PeteCresswell):
    >But on an FS it has to make sense.


    Solid rails instead of any springs at all.... that is...
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  12. Per (PeteCresswell):
    >OTOH, when I A/B'd the two for off road riding the B-66 with it's coil springs
    >came up short. There isn't enough control to soak up those occasional bumps
    >that happen when the rider fails to see something and takes it sitting on the
    >saddle, relaxed - i.e. it bottoms out too easily.


    And, I should add, I've broken two B-72's off road. The four-wire setup just
    can't take it.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  13. On Sun, 14 May 2006 20:14:04 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Per Jasper Janssen:
    >>Please god no. Or at least not exclusively. Moving the springs from the
    >>saddle to the seatpost is both very expensive and useless.

    >
    >But on an FS it has to make sense.


    Yeah, saddle or seatpost springs on an FS are redundant.

    >Also, I've tried a Brooks B-66 on my hard tail MTB and A/B'd it with a B-17 on a
    >ThudBuster sus post. For pavement use, there's no question that the ThudBuster
    >is wretched excess and the B-66 is more appropriate - in fact, even a B-72
    >(smaller stiffer springs) works very well - better even because the stiffer
    >action gives a better sense of control while still soaking up enough of the
    >bumps.
    >
    >OTOH, when I A/B'd the two for off road riding the B-66 with it's coil springs
    >came up short. There isn't enough control to soak up those occasional bumps
    >that happen when the rider fails to see something and takes it sitting on the
    >saddle, relaxed - i.e. it bottoms out too easily.


    Possibly, but then it *is* a road saddle.

    >Also, one more plug for Sus posts: they unbundle the springing function from the
    >saddle. i.e. it frees the rider who wants a little springing under him to
    >choose from a vast array of saddles, and not just those with integrated springs.


    Ah, but see, in the ideal world -- one we haven't actually left all that
    long ago -- all seats have springs under them. It's just recently[1] that
    this trend has come to move the springs from where they should be -- and
    removing the last bastions of springs-where-they-should-be would be a
    crying shame, since it would deny me, us, the *choice*.

    There are motorcycles that have perfectly functional suspension seatposts,
    with or without a pivoting front attachment -- but they have *very* beefy
    seatposts, and a lot less problem with using heavy stuff. It's my
    contention that the vast interchangeability of bike parts that you have
    these days is responsible for not only a very nice aftermarket-parts
    industry, but also for stifling innovation in some ways. For example,
    these days you've got bottom bearings with the bearins outside the shell
    because the shell isn't big enough -- but we surely couldn't alter the
    size or threading of the shell, Oh Noes. Similarly, we sure can't change
    the interface between the frame and headset, or headset and fork, in more
    than trivial ways. Similarly the way axles are attached.


    Jasper

    [1] Well, longer than I've been alive, in the USA, but a lot shorter than
    that over here.
     
Loading...
Loading...