Elkhound

People criticize the "Easy Seat" (there's a picture lower on the page) because of the lack of a horn, which they claim is essential to steering. (Although I don't see how; I don't know about you, but I use my handlebars and/or leaning my body to steer; the horn on the saddle has little or nothing to do with it.) This, you see has a horn.

bkaapcke

I used a similar seat for about a year. It definately solved prostate irritation problems. However, the seatpads ride on the opper part of your leg instead of under your butt. This changes your body geometry and puts a lot of pressure on your wrists. After a while, my wrists screamed for mercy. The Spiderflex seat works better. A LWB recumbent was the ultimate answer for me. bk

bbwolfy

I tried one yesterday on a mountain bike. I agree with bkaapcke the seat pads do dig into my leg. The lack of a horn did not affect my steering but it did become quite noisy.

Nycycle

Datsa big seat,,,,,,,

jimisnowhere

I always feel naked sitting on one of those things, like I'm about to slide off my bike.

Elkhound

This is what I have on my bikes at present:

https://www.heartlandamerica.com/brow...D31B40&DL=IVU1

Boo-Boo

lol

roughrider504

Nobody should need to use a seat like that. Fit problems and a wrong width saddle [sitbone width] are the real problems. A wide seat with no horn will not solve them.

kjmillig

Those things look scary. I have a Brooks.

Elkhound

A Brooks? You might want to have kids some day.

wahoonc

Dayum...someone better tell my two adult kids that they are a figment of someone's imagination....I ride more Brooks than anything else and have for over 35 years, and come to think of it Dad did too and had four of us little monsters

Aaron

Elkhound

Well, my experience with Brooks is that they pinch and squeeze things that ought not to be pinched or squeezed.

tfahrner

O give it a rest Elkhound. Brooks makes dozens of very different saddles, with widely varying widths and top profiles to support a variety of riding styles and pelvic shapes. Maybe you sat on a too narrow one, or perhaps it had been ridden unproofed and wet so was deformed, etc. Which models did you try before you formulated the preposterous allegation that "Brooks" saddles make people impotent? Or are you just repeating something you read on the InterWebs?

Elkhound

I am repeating what I have read in scientific journals of the medical specialty of urology. Respected, peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps you are content to ask your local shaman to shake his rattle over you to drive away the demons but I prefer to be guided in matters of health by science, rather than superstition.

Tom Stormcrowe

I'm familiar with the study you are referring to, Elk, and there wasn't a noncycling control group, and the statistics for cyclist/noncyclist don't have a significant statistical deviation. Properly adjusted, a hard leather saddle like the Brooks won't cause issues, with the following codicils.

1. Proper width
2. Proper angle

Don't sweat it, and ride your choice of saddle, but remember, there is other evidence than what you cited. The Urologist made his conclusions off of skewed data

gosmsgo

Elkhound -

My brooks solved any numbness problems I was having and when my wife switched from her old gel saddde with a huge whole in the middle to her brooks it solved her soft tissue problem as well.

About 3 weeks ago I rode 140 miles in a day with just my regular shorts and underwear without a single saddle sore. At times as I was riding I would think, "my butt feels fantastic!"

I sort of doubt that you have ridden a brooks. Most people with your attitude are the ones that only look at brooks, declare them too hard, and never ride one.

mupedalpusher

My 10 year old rides 20-25 miles with us each Sunday after church and her only complaint this summer was that her "bottom" hurt. I put my womens Brooks B17 on her bike and got a new Brooks for myself. I haven't heard one word out of her about her "bottom" since! She rode 20 miles yesterday and not one complaint. My husband and I are riding the Flyer sprung saddle. I won't say it's perfect yet (my new one isn't broken in) but it's far better than anything I've ridden. I found that for myself I need the longer mens version, the womens was too short and didn't taper correctly at the nose for me.
We have friends that want to join us each week but they said they can't ride more than 5 miles because of their saddles. I showed her my Brooks and her eyes nearly popped out of her head. She said "how do you stand that thing". Long story short, I'm still trying to convince her that the super-plush saddles are not the answer.

gosmsgo

You are very wise.

God made cows so that we could have nice bike saddles.....and milk too I guess.

tfahrner

when you sink into the padding, the padding sinks into you.

or rather, when your hard parts sink in, your soft parts are left to bear the rest of the load, compress, lose circulation, heat up, chafe. padded saddles are a cynical, cruel pandering to what novice cyclists think they want. and when they discover that it hurts, they buy a hole where it hurts most.

Doug5150

So what do you call it when a Brooks "breaks in", and your sit bones stretch and make two dents in the leather?

It would seem to me that ONLY a dual-pad seat like the Easy Seat would positively ensure that your sit bones carried the load, and no other parts were subjected to any pressure. Is that not the objective?

-----

I would agree that gel and leather saddles feel different, but I maintain that the problem is not the amount of cushioning that gel saddles provide. The popular explanation is nonsense, it says a Brooks is good for the exact same reason that an overstuffed seat is bad.

Leather saddles have existed since before the safety bicycle was invented, and alternate-shaped saddles have existed about as long too. Leather as a saddle material simply isn't any automatic cure.
~

gosmsgo

What is the furthest you have ridden in one day?

I need to know who I am dealing with before arguing. I know people who swear by the walmart slip on gel pads but they only ride 2 miles at a time.

tfahrner

they don't acquire pronouned "dents" before they're worn out, after many tens of thousands of miles with care. the leather just becomes a bit more compliant near the contact points, yes, spreading the load over a larger area, say from the size of a penny to the size of a quarter. this is not comparable to the loaded area of a cushy saddle, which is the size of a big mac, or 2.

I suppose it is possible to design a decent noseless saddle, and that for a very small number of people with very unusual bodies, it could be virtually necessary. Might also be a good idea for people who can't manage to select and adjust a saddle of more conventional design so that their perineum isn't bearing weight. The latter group is much bigger than the former. And then there are the people who think hard saddles just look scary, and sound scary when you rap on them, and remember having read something about some study by some urologist about how traditional saddles will leave you impotent so better buy one with a hole in it, or a recumbent. This group is even bigger. And then there's Elkhound who alleges that Brooks saddles in particular, some or all of the dozens of widely varying models, have somehow been implicated in peer-reviewed scientific studies as a threat to the survival of humankind, or at least one's chances of parenthood. He's a small group; only so many fit under a bridge.

Of course not. The most uncomfortable saddle I ever sat on was leather; it was just too narrow for me, and my posture too upright. Fit and adjustment is paramount. And it doesn't appear that these variables played any identifiable role in the "studies" Elkhound refers to, beyond vagueries like "narrow" and "wide."

wahoonc

I will make no bones about it, I prefer the Brooks saddles over any others I have ever ridden. I have bikes with the older style vinyl mattress saddles on them, they are fine for a few miles. For day in and day out comfort a broken in Brooks is the only way to go, for me. Brooks makes multiple styles of saddles...I wonder if it has something to do with one size doesn't fit all I have one bike that actually has a "womans" Brooks Saddle on it, because that was what it took to make it comfortable to ride. I have also had a B17 that never broke in. All I can figure is that it came from one tough cow, that saddle was removed from service and replaced with another one. I tried a bike with the Easy Seat on it and was unable to spin at my normal cadence. It may be that it could be adjusted to where it would work, but based on a short 3 mile ride I was more than happy to get back on my Brooks equipped bike. YMMV

Aaron

Doug5150

I think when you sit on a bicycle saddle, you are sitting on quite a bit more area than "two quarters".
~

Doug5150

About 70 miles is the most I can remember, but that was on a recumbent bike. I don't recall the farthest distance I ever rode any upright bike, but I'd guess it was significantly under 70 miles. It's been ~4 years since I've owned any upright bikes and I stopped riding them long distances several years before that, mostly due to riding discomfort. The last saddle on the last upright bike I owned (a full-suspended MTB with slicks) was one of the wider Avocet saddles with the gel pads built onto it.

The question of ergo seats on upright bikes has been asked before, and I have responded a couple times.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ight=ergo+seat
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ight=ergo+seat
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ight=ergo+seat

I never commented on the slip-on gel seat covers which I have never tried, but that I would expect would have the problem of shifting on the saddle in use.
~