Brooks Saddles

[Steve Hodgson]

I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card twitch at
the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a great
reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the shop I am
somewhat wary. I've no problem with the need to run them but given that the
swift has caught my eye I just want some reassurance that there is a good
probability that I will fall in love with it.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

 

[Bob Downie]

> the
>swift has caught my eye I just want some reassurance that there is a good
>probability that I will fall in love with it.
I bought a Swift about 6 months ago for my fixie. Compared to the
Professional on my tourer is a lot light lighter and I think that the
leather is thinner.

The plus is it was more supple than the Professional and needed little
breaking in (for me at any rate). The potential minus is that it doesn't
feel as sturdy and I may only get years of use from it instead of
decades .

I don't regret buying the Swift it for one second.

--
Bob Downie
Devotee of the wheel
please remove #n0spam# to reply directly

 

[Paul Cassel]

Steve Hodgson wrote:
> I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card twitch at
> the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a great
> reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the shop I am
> somewhat wary. I've no problem with the need to run them but given that the
> swift has caught my eye I just want some reassurance that there is a good
> probability that I will fall in love with it.

They have one now which is pre broken in. It's like buying a new Brooks
but with 5.000 km break in time already done. Ask for details at the
shop. This may make love at first sit for you.

 

[Tosspot]

Paul Cassel wrote:
> Steve Hodgson wrote:
>
>> I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card
>> twitch at the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have
>> a great reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in
>> the shop I am somewhat wary. I've no problem with the need to run them
>> but given that the swift has caught my eye I just want some
>> reassurance that there is a good probability that I will fall in love
>> with it.
>
>
> They have one now which is pre broken in. It's like buying a new Brooks
> but with 5.000 km break in time already done. Ask for details at the
> shop. This may make love at first sit for you.

Pah. They're only using bum sweat as a softening agent and you can do
that yourself...

Fwiw, to B17s were no problem, but the Professional I currently have,
well, the battle lines have been drawn, somewhere between my **** and
the seatpost.

Oh, very comfortable, I've not had the urge to move away from Brookes.

 

[John Horobin]

"Steve Hodgson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card twitch
>at
> the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a great
> reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the shop I
> am
> somewhat wary. I've no problem with the need to run them but given that
> the
> swift has caught my eye I just want some reassurance that there is a good
> probability that I will fall in love with it.

They are far better than those soft gel saddles - I would not buy anything
else.. Just be careful not to get one too narrow for your sit bones. The
standard B17 is fine for me but the narrow one half kills me!

John

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Steve
Hodgson ('[email protected]') wrote:

> I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card
> twitch at the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a
> great reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the
> shop I am somewhat wary. I've no problem with the need to run them but
> given that the swift has caught my eye I just want some reassurance that
> there is a good probability that I will fall in love with it.

They're very hard, and they're the most comfortable upright bike saddles in
the world - /providing they fit you/ and they don't fit everyone. You need
to measure the width across your ischeal tuberosities - bony lumps on the
back of your pelvis, otherwise known as sit-bones. You want a saddle
that's wide enough at the back to support both of them, but no wider.

For myself, the Brooks Professional model is simply the most comfortable
saddle there is. But if it isn't at least fairly comfortable on day one,
it isn't ever going to be right - all the nonsense about softening them up
is largely nonsense. They do mould themselves gradually to your shape over
time, but if you soften them too much they very quickly go out of shape.

Measure your width, get the right model for you, and try it.

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

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul Cassel
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Steve Hodgson wrote:
>> I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card
>> twitch at the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a
>> great reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the
>> shop I am somewhat wary. I've no problem with the need to run them but
>> given that the swift has caught my eye I just want some reassurance that
>> there is a good probability that I will fall in love with it.
>
> They have one now which is pre broken in. It's like buying a new Brooks
> but with 5.000 km break in time already done.

By someone with a different shaped **** from yours, and so it's going to
take at least another 5,000km before it adapts to you.

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

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]

 

[Peter Clinch]

Steve Hodgson wrote:
> I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card twitch at
> the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a great
> reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the shop I am
> somewhat wary.

As an owner and user of 3 Brooks, I'm often struck that a lot of
what is written about breaking them in to eventual comfort is
completely contrary to my own (repeated) experience.
In each case mine have been comfy out of the box, because they're
the right basic shape for me. If they're the right basic shape for
you they should be comfortable to start with: get the LBS to put
one on a bike and try it.
If it's just a bit hard, but the right general shape, it should be
fine. Wear a padded short for padding and you'll probably have no
regrets. If it /isn't/ the right general shape it'll be horrible,
and you might gradually break it in to "tolerable" in time. This
isn't worth it, you'd be better off finding something that fits to
start with rather than trying to bend something wrong to you.

The "breaking in" if it is the right shape takes a leather saddle
from being "merely" comfortable to being as comfortable as you can get.

<faq> Saddles come in different shapes, so do backsides, the secret
is matching them up in fitting pairs by trying them out, not asking
how someone else likes them. </faq>

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[hyweldavies]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Paul Cassel
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Steve Hodgson wrote:
> >> I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card
> >> twitch at the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a
> >> great reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the
> >> shop I am somewhat wary. I've no problem with the need to run them but
> >> given that the swift has caught my eye I just want some reassurance that
> >> there is a good probability that I will fall in love with it.
> >

I'd echo what others (eg PC) have said. Having been crippled doing 40
odd miles on my (then) new bike about 25 years ago, I was advised "get
a Brooks leather saddle". Went to bike shop and did just that. It was a
B17, though I didn't know then there were different models. Comfortable
from the word go, no "breaking in" or any of that rubbish. When I
recently bought my new, new bike, I bought their de-luxe titanium
framed B17 as the old one had by this time sagged abit and the
under-seat bolt had broked off. To tell the truth, I could have just
bought a new bolt and carried on with the old one, but the titanium one
just said "buy me" when I got the new bike. Again comfortable
straightaway. I don't even bother with padded shorts, just normal
trousers. However, some people don't get on with them at all, eg the
wife, who finally,and rather uncharacteristially, took my advice and
bought one but hated it. So if you've got a Brooks-compatible ****, as
I and many others have, it will be superb and you'll be a convert. If
not, then you may or may not get used to it, or get it used to you. As
there are different models I suppose your **** could suit one rather
than another - I was OK with the B17, so didn't risk another one when I
replaced it.

Another fallacy (in my opinion) is all this rubbish about not getting
them wet. When it rains, they get wet, and when it's dry, they dry out
again. So what? Leather shoes seem to survive after all. I even had my
(old) bike parked uncovered outside for a year and the saddle survived.
I even neglected it to the extent it was covered in mildew on more than
one occasion. Not that this is a recommended approach to saddle-care
but just to note they're pretty robust

Hywel

 

[Steve Hodgson]

On 2007-01-20 20:19:57 +0000, "John Horobin"
<[email protected]> said:

> They are far better than those soft gel saddles - I would not buy
> anything else.. Just be careful not to get one too narrow for your sit
> bones.

That's the bit that worries me. I look at the standard B17 and it seems
a bit wide - the Swift is actually slightly wider than my current WTB
gel-type saddle so should be okay.

So far the consensus seems to be Brooks 8 : Discomfort 0 so I think I
should go for it.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

 

[Mark Taylor]

Steve

I am another Brooks Swift user, after about 1000miles my saddle & ****
have come to an understanding. I found it realy critical to set up the
angle of the saddle, a few degrees out one way was agony but the other
was pressure on my arms sliding off the front and there's not much
between these extremes. But now it's worth the effort, I found that the
remaining pain was my shorts padding rubbing, so now I ride without any
padding - much more comfortable. OR have I now developed a Brooks
standard bottom?

Mark

> I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card twitch at
> the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a great
> reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the shop I am
> somewhat wary. I've no problem with the need to run them but given that the
> swift has caught my eye I just want some reassurance that there is a good
> probability that I will fall in love with it.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
>
> The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
> Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

 

[Andrew_S]

Steve Hodgson wrote:
> On 2007-01-20 20:19:57 +0000, "John Horobin"
> <[email protected]> said:
>
>> They are far better than those soft gel saddles - I would not buy
>> anything else.. Just be careful not to get one too narrow for your
>> sit bones.
>
> That's the bit that worries me. I look at the standard B17 and it seems
> a bit wide - the Swift is actually slightly wider than my current WTB
> gel-type saddle so should be okay.
>
> So far the consensus seems to be Brooks 8 : Discomfort 0 so I think I
> should go for it.

The width ranking goes Swift < Team Pro < B17 Std
(not sure about where a B17 narrow fits in)
When considering width, bear in mind that you don't want your sit bones
to be too close to the edge, where the metal horseshoe is right under
the leather.

I use a Team Pro, also find a B17 Std fine, but I didn't get on with a
Swift at all, and sold it on after a month or so (and a Colt (no longer
made?) was even worse). If I get on OK, they are fairly comfortable to
start with, and I've never bothered to go about breaking them in on
short rides, but just stick them on the bike and ride (400k max first ride).
If you haven't used a hard saddle before, there will be some getting
used to it to be done. Tenderised sit-bones are due to being unused to
hardness, and will pass off after a while, but other discomfort will
probably be down to the saddle being the wrong shape (provided the angle
is right).

Don't let Ti rails influence your choice, as all 3 are available with them.

Andrew

 

[Peter]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:24:59 +0000, Andrew_S wrote:

> The width ranking goes Swift < Team Pro < B17 Std
> (not sure about where a B17 narrow fits in)

In the '80s I used to get stuff from Whiskers. My girlfriend at the time
preferred a narrow B17 Std and I'd look through the box at Whiskers to get
the right one. There's quite a range of width within the same model (or was
then - automation might have standardised them).
It's well worth inspecting any leather saddle before buying it. One had
only half the thickness of leather on one side, so it would have become
distorted very quickly.
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

 

[Blonde]

I used Brooks B17s on both bikes and found them reasonably comfy
straight from the box. My problem with Brooks is that I NEED a saddle
with a cut out hole in the middle and Brooks do not reccomend doing
this to one of theirs - I know cos I rang 'em and asked.

I would say go for a Brooks if you like a firm saddle but don't require
a hole in the middle of it. If you do need one with a cut out, then
you'll have to find an alternative firm saddle. I now use a Specialized
Jett (women's version of the Avtar) which is OK. It's not as comfy on
the bum as the Brooks, 'cos it's a bit too soft, but it's the firmest
saddle I've yet found with a women's-bits shaped hole in, so I have to
go with that on the basis that a slightly hurty bum is better than very
hurty genitals...

 

[Sam Salt]

Blonde wrote:
> I used Brooks B17s on both bikes and found them reasonably comfy
> straight from the box. My problem with Brooks is that I NEED a saddle
> with a cut out hole in the middle and Brooks do not reccomend doing
> this to one of theirs - I know cos I rang 'em and asked.
>
> I would say go for a Brooks if you like a firm saddle but don't require
> a hole in the middle of it. If you do need one with a cut out, then
> you'll have to find an alternative firm saddle. I now use a Specialized
> Jett (women's version of the Avtar) which is OK. It's not as comfy on
> the bum as the Brooks, 'cos it's a bit too soft, but it's the firmest
> saddle I've yet found with a women's-bits shaped hole in, so I have to
> go with that on the basis that a slightly hurty bum is better than very
> hurty genitals...

Have you see these ?

Send 'em your Brooks and they will put a hole in it for you.

They are in the USA mind.

http://mcmwin.com/saddle shop new.htm

Sam Salt

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Steve Hodgson <[email protected]>:
>I was in one of my local LBS this afternoon, feeling my credit card twitch at
>the sight of a rack full of Brooks saddles. I know they have a great
>reputation for (eventual) comfort, but given how they felt in the shop I am
>somewhat wary.

Do you perceive a problem with your existing saddle? If not - don't
bother. Sure, a Brooks could work for you, but it might not, and if it's
not broke, why fix it?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.

 

[Peter Clinch]

David Damerell wrote:

> Do you perceive a problem with your existing saddle?

/Obviously/ it isn't New! and Improved! ;-)

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>
>> Do you perceive a problem with your existing saddle?
>
>/Obviously/ it isn't New! and Improved! ;-)

Smiley noted, but that's hardly plausible as a reason for wanting to
replace it with a Brooks - he's more likely to want Traditional and/or
Respected.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>> Do you perceive a problem with your existing saddle?
>> /Obviously/ it isn't New! and Improved! ;-)
>
> Smiley noted, but that's hardly plausible as a reason for wanting to
> replace it with a Brooks - he's more likely to want Traditional and/or
> Respected.

Touche! ;-) Or for the terminally status-confused there's the titanium
railed versions...

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Dan Gregory]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Touche! ;-) Or for the terminally status-confused there's the titanium
> railed versions...

The Swallow does look beautiful, very reminiscent of the Mansfield Bath
Road which was my all-time favourite.