Cyclist0100

The Gilles Berthoud Aravis and the Selle Anatomica H2 are very different saddles. This comparison is not intended to declare a "winner", nor will I try to tell anyone which saddle is "better". My intent is to simply share some information about my experience with these two saddles. If your considering one or the other, or if you're just trying to gather anecdotal information about leather saddles I hope this post is helpful.

Gilles Berthoud Aravis
- Manufactured in house from thick natural, pre-softened vegetable tanned leather
- Backplate made of technical material providing solidity and flexibility for maximum comfort
- Polished titanium rails
- Weight: 440g
- No stated rider-weight limit
- Length: 278mm x Width: 157mm
- Cutout: No

Selle Anatomica H2
- Full Grain leather top with dual reinforcing laminate layers
- Cast aluminum frame
- Stainless steel tubular rails
- Weight: ~420g
- Designed for cyclists who ride more than 100 miles per week and/or weigh between 180 and 250 pounds
- Length: 290mm x Width: 155mm
- Cutout: Yes

As you can see from the specs listed above almost everything but the saddle weight is pretty different. The construction of the leather tops is diffeent; the frame and rail materials are different. Selle Anatomica has a patented cutout on the H2 called "Flex-Fly", which is allows the left and righ sides of the saddle to move independently with the rider's shifting weight during the pedal stroke. The Aravis has no cutout, but each saddle top is formed in CNC-machined molds to create a very consistent quality.

OK, but how do they feel and how do they ride? What are the key differences?

Selle Anatomica H2
The H2 has a pronounced hammock-shape and feels fairly wide for its stated 155mm. I attribute the wide feel (in part) to the shape, but also to the long cutout (which is specifically designed to allow each side of the saddle to flex and move). I believe the long cutout also allows the saddle to spread slightly under the rider's weight, therefore giving it a wider feel.

I have the saddle set up in a slightly nose-up position. However, I did not do this to prevent forward slippage. That's simply where it felt level and comfortable.

As for positional flexibility, the H2 is not a saddle that allows the rider to shift positions. Due to the hammock shape the rider is pretty much planted in one position, making the rider feel like s/he is IN the saddle as opposed to being ON the saddle.

Right out of the box I found the H2 quite comfortable. Selle Anatomica claims the saddle does not need to be broken-in, and I concur. I've suffered no chafing nor any saddle sores since day 1, even for century rides.

The leather tops is not as thick as the Gilles Berthoud Aravis, but it is substantial and should provide for thousands of miles (or kilometers) before needing replacement. I did have to retension the saddle once within the first 500 miles of riding, but I assume that's normal.

Living in Florida this saddle has already been exposed to light rain from normal riding, but I've not noticed any color-bleed.





Gilles Berthoud Aravis
The Aravis has a flatter profile (front to back) with a center crown and a slight rise at the rear of the saddle. Right out of the box the leather top on the Aravis is very hard. When I tapped on it with my knuckes it sounded like I was knocking on wood. This led me to assume it would be uncomfortable (at leat initially) and the beak-in period might be a little rough... and I was 100% wrong. From day 1 the Aravis has been extremely comfortable. Yes, it is a very hard saddle. However, the hardness combined with the shape makes you feel like you're ON the saddle rather than IN the saddle. My sit bones are very well supported and there is minimal pressure on my soft tissue areas. At 157mm (2mm wider than the H2) it feels narrower than the H2, which I attribute the the shape and the lack of a coutout.

I initially set the saddle up to be perfectly level using a spirit level, but because the rear of the saddle is slightly ramped the nose was in fact slightly up. On my first ride, which was intended to be 50 miles but ended up being 122 miles, I started to feel some pressure on my pireneum at around the 80-mile mark. By the end of the ride there was some discomfort, but by the next day it had resolved itself. I then adjusted the saddle to be slightly nose-down by about 2-3mm, but in this position the nose is actually pretty flat.

As for positional flexibility, the Aravis allows the rider to easily shift positions front to back. The Aravis also feels quite lively and spring-like. It doesn't flex anything like the H2 during the pedal stroke, but when traveling over road chatter, small bumps, rocks, etc. the saddle top flexes to dampen the impact.

While the Aravis has been comfortable from day 1 it does go through a lengthy break-in period. It took roughly 400 miles before the saddle started to mold to my sit bones; and at 1,500 miles the Aravis is continuing to slowly break-in. However, so far it has retained most of its harness (which I really like). The Aravis does not feel any "softer" than it did when new. It's simply molding to my shape as I log more miles, and I've has no need (as of yet) to retension the top. Similar to the H2, I've suffered no chafing nor any saddle sores since day 1, even for century rides.

When the saddle gets wet there is some color-bleed from the vegetable dye, but it's pretty minor and does not stain my riding shorts. I mention it because I've noticed it, but it's a non-issue.




Final Thoughts
Both the Selle Anatomica H2 and the Gilles Berthoud are excellent saddles. The feel of the saddles is also distinctly different. If you like a very hard saddle that really supports your sit bones and provides positional flexibility then the Aravis is the better option. If you prefer a saddle with a softer feel, a hammock-like shape and need (or prefer) a cutout than you'll likely prefer the H2. I think it really comes down to personal preference. One saddle is not inherrently better than the other.

After riding both saddles the Aravis is the clear winner for me. While I don't frequently change poisitons on the saddle, I do prefer the feeling of being on top of the saddle along with a more narrow feel. I also prefer the lively, springy feel of the Aravis. The Aravis provides a level of comfort over long distances that I've not previously experienced. My longest ride so far on the Aravis is 152 miles and I'm currently planning my first-ever double century. I love this saddle so much I ordered a 2nd.

Paul Barnard

Man, I will never even own a saddle of that type, but I read it and appreciate the effort you put into the write-up. You should cross-post down in touring. You'll find a very interest audience there. I wonder why vegetable tanning.

kingston 

Great review. The Aravis/Aspin is my favorite saddle when new, I like to move around on the saddle, so the flat/hard top works really well for me too. Unfortunately, after 5-6k miles the cover shapes to the contour of my sit bones and becomes a completely different saddle, one that I don't like. I liked the first one so much I bought another one, but after couple of seasons decided that replacing the cover every year is more than I want to spend on a saddle, so I've gone back to using covered/padded saddles. If you like that broken-in/worn-out contoured feel, it takes a pretty long time to get there, and if you like the firm support of the new saddle it doesn't last very long. Just something to consider.

Cyclist0100

You comment is greatly appreciated. I'm like you and prefer the support of the "new saddle" over the broken-in/worn-out contoured feel, so time will tell if I ultimately end up in the same place as you. Which saddle are you currently using and how do you like it?

Cyclist0100

Thanks for the suggestion.

Koyote

So, it takes on that banana-shape? And adding tension doesn't compensate enough?

kingston 

Not a banana-shape. A contoured shape, and the tension bolt doesn't do anything about that. It's hard to capture in a photo, but see how the top has those deep indentations and isn't flat anymore? Once it gets those indentations it's not a bad saddle, but it looses the qualities that I liked about it in the first place. Your sit bones get stuck in those indents and it becomes a one-position saddle. That position is still pretty comfortable, even for reasonably long rides, so it's not terrible, but on 400k+ rides, I prefer to be able to move around a little.



I have a few friends who have ridden the same saddle and the same thing happens, so it's only a matter of distance. Here's a picture of Jan's saddle and it's the same thing. The saddle I have ridden the most this season is a fizik airone. It has a flat-hard top like a new aspin/aravis but doesn't wear out. It's been working really well for me.

Koyote

kingston Got it. I have seen some old Brooks saddles that have taken on the very pronounced U shape (like a banana) and wondered how they would be comfortable, but I had not considered how the dimples (from your sitbones) would gradually force you into the same position on a saddle. I'm like you: I like to shift around a bit. So, a saddle like that may not work for me.

Thanks for the explanation!