Re: Brooks saddle lengths men vs. women ?



D

Dave Thompson

Guest
"Retro Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why are brooks women's saddles about 30mm shorter than the comparable
> men's model ? I understand "wider", but what's behind the "shorter.
> I would think that everyone would benefit from shorter... and it might
> even reduce the mail "numbness" (careful spelling :) problem.
>
> Comments ?

I can't address the differences between the male and female Brooks, but
'numbness' isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when using a Brooks saddle.
 
"Retro Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:08:37 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I can't address the differences between the male and female Brooks, but
> >'numbness' isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when using a Brooks saddle.

>
>
> Well, dare I divert my own thread... I managed to eliminate my issue
> with that by decreasing the angle of the seat slightly. :)


Exactly! Brooks are very sensitive to 'nose up' angle. All too many folks
trying a Brooks for the 1st time get it all wrong and set the saddle and
level; rear and front of the seat on the same horizontal plane. Brooks,
being made from hard leather, allow the rider to slide forward, putting much
pressure on the 'soft bits' and causing said rider to try to push away from
the handlebars, further causing pain in the arms, shoulders and neck.
Depending on your bar height in relation to the saddle and your riding
style, a Brooks should have it's nose elevated somewhat with the rear
"sitting-on' portion of the saddle mostly horizontal.

I'm a recent (a year ago) convert to Brooks and have installed them on all
my bikes. Now "numbness" or "butt-ache" is no longer a factor when planning
how far to ride. See my latest here:
http://www.serotta.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3170&page=2
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:26:20 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Retro Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:08:37 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I can't address the differences between the male and female Brooks, but
>> >'numbness' isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when using a Brooks saddle.

>>
>>
>> Well, dare I divert my own thread... I managed to eliminate my issue
>> with that by decreasing the angle of the seat slightly. :)

>
>Exactly! Brooks are very sensitive to 'nose up' angle. All too many folks
>trying a Brooks for the 1st time get it all wrong and set the saddle and
>level; rear and front of the seat on the same horizontal plane. Brooks,
>being made from hard leather, allow the rider to slide forward, putting much
>pressure on the 'soft bits' and causing said rider to try to push away from
>the handlebars, further causing pain in the arms, shoulders and neck.
>Depending on your bar height in relation to the saddle and your riding
>style, a Brooks should have it's nose elevated somewhat with the rear
>"sitting-on' portion of the saddle mostly horizontal.
>
>I'm a recent (a year ago) convert to Brooks and have installed them on all
>my bikes. Now "numbness" or "butt-ache" is no longer a factor when planning
>how far to ride. See my latest here:
>http://www.serotta.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3170&page=2
>


Hi Dave,

I agree completely with your suggestion about the Brooks setup.

Perhaps you can help me make sense of the Rivendell suggestion:

"Adjust yours so that rear portion is higher than the neck and nose.
Not by a lot, not so that the nose looks angled downward, but just a
little, as the maker intended."

I know that whenever I have tried that approach, I have regretted it
after only a few miles.

In many respects, the Rivendell folks seem to get it right, but their
Brooks setup suggestions have always left me baffled.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
 
"Kenneth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:26:20 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Retro Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:08:37 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I can't address the differences between the male and female Brooks,

but
> >> >'numbness' isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when using a Brooks

saddle.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, dare I divert my own thread... I managed to eliminate my issue
> >> with that by decreasing the angle of the seat slightly. :)

> >
> >Exactly! Brooks are very sensitive to 'nose up' angle. All too many folks
> >trying a Brooks for the 1st time get it all wrong and set the saddle and
> >level; rear and front of the seat on the same horizontal plane. Brooks,
> >being made from hard leather, allow the rider to slide forward, putting

much
> >pressure on the 'soft bits' and causing said rider to try to push away

from
> >the handlebars, further causing pain in the arms, shoulders and neck.
> >Depending on your bar height in relation to the saddle and your riding
> >style, a Brooks should have it's nose elevated somewhat with the rear
> >"sitting-on' portion of the saddle mostly horizontal.
> >
> >I'm a recent (a year ago) convert to Brooks and have installed them on

all
> >my bikes. Now "numbness" or "butt-ache" is no longer a factor when

planning
> >how far to ride. See my latest here:
> >http://www.serotta.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3170&page=2
> >

>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I agree completely with your suggestion about the Brooks setup.
>
> Perhaps you can help me make sense of the Rivendell suggestion:
>
> "Adjust yours so that rear portion is higher than the neck and nose.
> Not by a lot, not so that the nose looks angled downward, but just a
> little, as the maker intended."
>
> I know that whenever I have tried that approach, I have regretted it
> after only a few miles.
>
> In many respects, the Rivendell folks seem to get it right, but their
> Brooks setup suggestions have always left me baffled.
>
> All the best,
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."


I would tell you to set the seat in the most comfortable position for you,
regardless what anyone else (including me) says. I run my bars at, or only
slightly below saddle height, so I set my seat so the nose more 'up'. If I
were to lower my bars, or set my seat back further in the post, I would have
to lower the nose accordingly. I've not had to 'break-in' a Brooks, mine
seem to be fine from the get-go.
 
After riding on a Brooks saddle for over a year and a few thousand
miles, I also find it more comfortable with the nose a tiny bit higher
than the saddle's rear. I arrived to this conclusion empirically
after many adjustments, trials, and lots of errors.
I suppose this could explain why many leather saddles I see in photos
of old bikes seem to point upwards too. I always thought it was just
the camera perspective.

r.b.

"Dave Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

>
> I would tell you to set the seat in the most comfortable position for you,
> regardless what anyone else (including me) says. I run my bars at, or only
> slightly below saddle height, so I set my seat so the nose more 'up'. If I
> were to lower my bars, or set my seat back further in the post, I would have
> to lower the nose accordingly. I've not had to 'break-in' a Brooks, mine
> seem to be fine from the get-go.