Saddle soreness

[Michael MacClancy]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:46:32 -0000, Trevor Appleton wrote:

> Been cycling 40 years. Sometime 100 mls per week. Once 1000 mls over three
> weeks. Currently one 24 mile trip per week. I have ALWAYS had my cycling
> spoilt by a sore backside, which kicks in during the second mile.
>
> Got a Brookes saddle.
>
> Any solution?

The problem might not be the saddle itself but its position (height,
position backwards and forwards). Try changing these variables to see if
they improve comfort. If you want to do a proper job go to a bike shop
that has a fitting jig, get measured up and get the bike set up
accordingly.
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
> Doesn't have to be designer stuff ;-) Just a normal pair of padded cycle shorts
> (Lycra ones are very good for being worn under longs of various types.

Though note that there's cycle shorts and cycle shorts, and you
generally get what you pay for against a normal diminishing returns
curve. Better ones have more panels in the construction to allow a
better fit (though do try them on) and better quality and more shaped
padding inserts.
Over any sort of distance on a Brooks (I run Brooks on 3 bikes) they
make a /big/ difference to comfort.

>>I cycle to college. I would therefore have to wear cycling short
with my
>>normal 'longs' over them, - sopunds a bit hot in a centrally heated
>>environemnet.

So take them off once you get there. Or do you wear gloves and jacket
all day long too? ;-)

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Trevor Appleton wrote:
> "Steve W" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>Try a recumbent, perhaps like this:-
>>http://ryanownersclub.com/scrapbook/stevewatkin/

Wouldn't be my personal choice of model (see
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cycling.htm for what I ride),
but the basic suggestion is a good one.

> Those things look SO uncomfortable

Please stop and think about this... On your conventional bike you're
sat on a small triangle of leather that is cut away to let you pedal and
gives no support to anything other than your sit bones. On a recumbent
you are sitting on a large padded seat which supports your weight the
whole way up your spine as well as better support for your backside. On
most UK uprights you're leaning onto your arms, which are not good at
taking weight. On a recumbent there's no weight on your arms so they
can be totally relaxed.

Where does the discomfort come in?

> (and so low I imagine no driver would see them).

How low is low? Mine puts me at the same height as a typical car seat
so it's actually better for eye contact with most drivers than my
upright bikes. If a driver can see another car, he can see me. IME
they do see me, even give me extra space as they're not used to seeing
recumbents and take extra care.

> Think I'll stick with my 27" frame I had made in 1975 (Condor, Grays
> Inn Road, London)

This is the one that seems to contribute in some measure to a sore ****
every time you cycle anywhere?

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/

 

[Dave Larrington]

Trevor Appleton wrote:

> Those things look SO uncomfortable (and so low I imagine no driver
> would see them).

About as uncomfortable as lying in the bath with your feet resting next to
the taps (I've only got a ickle bath). This is something I do frequently
and with great pleasure.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Doki]

Trevor Appleton wrote:
> Been cycling 40 years. Sometime 100 mls per week. Once 1000 mls over
> three weeks. Currently one 24 mile trip per week. I have ALWAYS had
> my cycling spoilt by a sore backside, which kicks in during the
> second mile.
>
> Got a Brookes saddle.
>
> Any solution?

Try different saddles until you get one you like. My £4 one off Wiggle is
surprisingly comfy, though as I'm MTBing, I'm not in it all the time.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Trevor
Appleton ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Been cycling 40 years. Sometime 100 mls per week. Once 1000 mls over
> three weeks. Currently one 24 mile trip per week. I have ALWAYS had my
> cycling spoilt by a sore backside, which kicks in during the second
> mile.
>
> Got a Brookes saddle.
>
> Any solution?

Get a saddle that fits /you/. I also ride on Brooks saddles, in my case
Brooks Professionals. They happen to fit me very well and are
consequently very comfortable, but different people are different. The
key measurement is the distance between your ischeal tuberosities, or
'sit bones' - the bony lumps on the back of your pelvis which actually
take your weight when sitting. The saddle needs to be wide enough to
support these. How to measure? Either get a very good friend to have a
prod around your backside to find them and measure them, or find a bike
shop which sells Specialized saddles and has one of their
****-measuring gizmos.

Obviously the tilt of the saddle is also important - I have mine
perfectly horizontal but some people have the nose of the saddle a tad
lower than the skirt - but I imagine you've experimented with this.

Finally, don't be tempted to get a soft or padded saddle. As your
sit-bones sink into the padding more weight is transferred onto soft
tissue and that is what hurts (the same thing, obviously, happens if
the saddle you use is too narrow for your sit-bones).

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

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Dave Larrington wrote:

> About as uncomfortable as lying in the bath with your feet resting next to
> the taps (I've only got a ickle bath). This is something I do frequently
> and with great pleasure.

The case for a [quasi] lowracer. Without the crank up above the seat
about as uncomfortable as lying in the bath with your feet resting
against the end (our bath isn't /huge/, but my legs aren't that long...).

I won't generally have the large G&T on the bike, and do endeavour to
keep my eyes open, so not /quite/ as relaxing.

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/

 

[Doki]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>> Hardly shorts weather, threes snow on the way!
>
> Do as I do, wear them under the Bikesters.

Or as I do, under my waterproofs. Breathable bike trousers = BEST INVENTION
EVER.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> Or as I do, under my waterproofs. Breathable bike trousers = BEST INVENTION
> EVER.

I might agree if they were stretchy enough to move /with/ me, didn't
rustle and actually vented vapour at anything like the rate I produce it :-(

Sufficiently ghastly that I generally prefer to get wet and dry out
unless it's Serious Rain and/or close to freezing.

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]

Mike Causer wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:34:14 +0000, Trevor Appleton wrote:
>
>>> Try a recumbent, perhaps like this:-
>
>> Those things look SO uncomfortable
>
>Uncomfortable?? What's uncomfortable about reclining in a soft chair with
>your feet up? How many chairs in your house resemble a B17? (Brookes
>not Boeing.)

Not in my house, but if anyone does want such a thing, from a posy design
house with a slow web site: http://www.littlewonder-design.com/stool.html
There's a picture of it on http://mocoloco.com/archives/000714.php too.

(Actually I quite like the look of some of their stuff. Horribly slow
graphics intensive web site though, I hate to think what it would be
like over dialup.)

>
>
>> (and so low I imagine no driver would see them).
>
>Oh they do see them. Visibility is more a matter of "What's that?" than
>height. On an upright a cager will see you, recognise, and dismiss in
>milliseconds. On a recumbent they have to take a longer look, almost to
>the point of driving into opposing motor traffic (which they've
>already seen, recognised and dismissed...) When recumbents become the
>most common bi/tri/kes visibility would become a problem, but the
>cagers will be busy watching out for arial porcines too.
>
>
>Mike

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:34:14 -0000, "Trevor Appleton"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Those things look SO uncomfortable

Yeah, just like an easy chair - uncomfortable as anything. Everyone
knows that a hard wooden stool is the only comfortable seat.

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

 

[Trevor Appleton]

"Mike Causer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:34:14 +0000, Trevor Appleton wrote:
>
>>> Try a recumbent, perhaps like this:-
>
>> Those things look SO uncomfortable
>
> Uncomfortable?? What's uncomfortable about reclining in a soft chair with
> your feet up? How many chairs in your house resemble a B17? (Brookes
> not Boeing.)
>
>
>> (and so low I imagine no driver would see them).
>
> Oh they do see them. Visibility is more a matter of "What's that?" than
> height. On an upright a cager will see you, recognise, and dismiss in
> milliseconds. On a recumbent they have to take a longer look, almost to
> the point of driving into opposing motor traffic (which they've
> already seen, recognised and dismissed...) When recumbents become the
> most common bi/tri/kes visibility would become a problem, but the
> cagers will be busy watching out for arial porcines too.
>
>
> Mike


what on earths a 'cager'?

 

[David Martin]

On 18/11/04 4:47 pm, in article
[email protected], "Trevor Appleton"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Mike Causer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:34:14 +0000, Trevor Appleton wrote:
>>
>>>> Try a recumbent, perhaps like this:-
>>
>>> Those things look SO uncomfortable
>>
>> Uncomfortable?? What's uncomfortable about reclining in a soft chair with
>> your feet up? How many chairs in your house resemble a B17? (Brookes
>> not Boeing.)
>>
>>
>>> (and so low I imagine no driver would see them).
>>
>> Oh they do see them. Visibility is more a matter of "What's that?" than
>> height. On an upright a cager will see you, recognise, and dismiss in
>> milliseconds. On a recumbent they have to take a longer look, almost to
>> the point of driving into opposing motor traffic (which they've
>> already seen, recognised and dismissed...) When recumbents become the
>> most common bi/tri/kes visibility would become a problem, but the
>> cagers will be busy watching out for arial porcines too.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> what on earths a 'cager'?

Someone who travels in a cage. Also known as a mobile death greenhouse as
they have lots of glass all the way round and have a significant risk of
killing people when misused.

...d

 

[Doki]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Doki wrote:
>
>> Or as I do, under my waterproofs. Breathable bike trousers = BEST
>> INVENTION EVER.
>
> I might agree if they were stretchy enough to move /with/ me, didn't
> rustle and actually vented vapour at anything like the rate I produce
> it :-(
>
> Sufficiently ghastly that I generally prefer to get wet and dry out
> unless it's Serious Rain and/or close to freezing.

Mine seem fine. They do rustle, but I don't end up with sweaty legs.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> Mine seem fine. They do rustle, but I don't end up with sweaty legs.

Lucky you. One of those occasions when being in a clear minority is a
/Good/ 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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[davek]

Trevor Appleton wrote:
> I've never owned any 'designer' cycle wear

I've never owned any 'designer' cycle wear but I do like to dress
appropriately for the occasion.

After all, I wear swimming trunks when swimming, even though I could
wear a 'normal' pair of shorts. I wear football boots when playing
football, even though I could wear the 'normal' everyday shoes I wear to
work.

etc.

d.

 

[davek]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> gives no support to anything other than your sit bones

Of course.

It's the saddles that try to support more than just the sit bones that
cause discomfort.

d.