George

If my sit bones are 4" center to center and 6" overall and the b17 is 6 1/4", would I be better off with the b67 at 8 1/2" wide. Thanks George

serotta

I don't know George, but I was wondering who you get to do the measuring for you?

George

I sat on a 1/2" piece of foam that they insulate houses with and it left the dents in it. Do it in your shorts and you'll get a pretty clear view, George

BluesDawg

Something about that just doesn't sound right

Digital Gee

George

How else would you do it. I read somewhere that is the way they did it. I'd like to know myself if that's not the way. Thank's George

Digital Gee

George, read your sentence, "Do it in your shorts, and you'll get a pretty clear view," slowly, and out loud. It will dawn on you why we're teasing you. Trust me. All in good fun, btw...

George

From the trailer on the website - "In chapter 7, author Joshua Cohen gets to the heart of the matter, explaining in practical terms how to put seat selection theory into practice. In this passage, he describes a do-it-yourself way to make certain a saddle is wide enough for your sitting area.In order to avoid high levels of pressure on the soft perineal tissues, the width of the rear of a bicycle seat needs to be at least as wide as the center to center distance between the sit bones. This distance varies slightly from person to person and can be (relatively) easily measured with a straight ruler.To do so, lie on your back with your knees elevated. Place the end of the ruler in the approximate left outside edge of your left ischial tuberosity and mark the distance to the approximate right outside edge of the other ischial tuberosity with your other hand. It is important to do so lying on your back, with your knees bent, and your feet flat on the floor, in order to avoid activating the hamstring muscles which will make it more difficult to feel. [The book has an illustration.] A seat slightly wider than this distance will be able to distribute the pressure over a larger area and minimize any hot spots.Now that you have the distance measured, you can measure the rear portion of any seat to determine if it is wide enough for your anatomy. [So far so good. But Cohen goes on to explain two critical caveats that must be considered when applying your measurement to any given seat.]"

George

You're right is was funny, sorry George

Big Paulie

George,

I have a friend who is a well-respected designer in a field outside of cycling, and whenever anyone begins to bug him about what they should or shouldn't do, he screams out, "Try it and see, dammit!" Of course, after 35 years of hearing this, everyone laughs when he says it...but the kernal of truth in his attitude is perrenially valid.

If all the registerees (is that a word?) of the Bike Forums pooled the money they've spent on saddles that didn't work out for them, it would easily be in the millions. Seriously. It's just one of the things that makes cycling a unique club. You just have to try saddles and see. They defy being an exact science. Even the pros are constantly changing saddles trying to find the perfect fit.

Carusoswi

You lost me at the first tuberosity. I just hop onto my Arione and ride.

Caruso

jcm

George,
You can rely on our collective sense of humor around here, especially the cheap shot variety. The nefarious Digital Gee started a thread awhile back on Haiku. Got pretty silly.

Seriously, the foam impression method works as well or better than some others. And, yes, you want a saddle that has enough material 'left over' to fully support the sitbones and the adjacent tissue. That's why I prefer a B67/66 type for riding in a non race posture. That is, when a majority of my weight is on the saddle.

If you have ischials that are 6" apart overall, you could experience the a$$-hatchet effect on a 17. They are only 6.7" wide. Personally, I prefer more material beyond my sitbones for support.

Direct answer to your question: IMO, yes, you would be better off on a 67. Mostly because of the bike you ride and how it will distribute your weight. You will like the springs, too. Not very supple, but they do work.

cyclezealot

Very simple serotta. All one needs get is a but print.Some believe even the most innane subjects can be reduced to math.

Baggsy

Well George, to get back to the question...and I almost forgot what it was. I think the B-67 is suited to riders with a more upright position, cruisers, hybrids, comfort bikes. The B-17 is a road-bike seat, designed for more comfort in the aero postion, riding in the drops, tucked, etc. That said I have a B-67 on a Schwinn Varsity commuter bike that is comfortable beyond reproach for anything town can throw at it. They are heavy, OCP roadies scowl at them, and you won't see anyone riding the TDF with one. But they are nice, make no mistake about that. More retro than the B-17 for classics, but not quite what the balloon tire bunch want, they prefer the old hair-pin leather seats.

Me, I lean toward the Swift as being dead-sexy...clean lines, simple, classic...but I don't have one. With my luck it'd be as comfortable as sitting sideways on a split rail fence...

BluesDawg

George,
Sorry to send the thread off in a spin earlier, but it struck me as unintentinally funny.

I believe that in other threads you have mentioned that between you and your wife you already have both of these saddles. Why not try them both and see which works best for you? Analysis is fine, but nothing beats seat-of-the-pants (literally) experience.

Kenal0

If you are riding a road bike and care about weight then the sprung saddle would be out of place.
If you are riding a hybrid then throw the B67 on and give it a shot. Just the fact that it has the springs and is wider is going to almost be a garauntee that it is going to be more comfortable.
Kenal0