TallRider

I'd sometimes wondered why my Brooks Team Pro saddle felt like it was too far forward. I had it on a seatpost with some setback, yet was always wishing I could push it further back on the rails. Yes, I'm quite tall, and may have long femurs, but haven't found myself wishing this with other saddles.

It turns out that Brooks saddles - at least the B17 and Team Pro - have shorter "clamping area" on the rails than most saddles. And this clamping area is proportionately toward the back of the saddle, compared to most saddles. As a result, these Brooks saddles should ideally be used with an extra-setback seatpost.

Here is a picture comparing the rails of the Brooks Team Pro with two other (hopefully representative) saddles, the Specialized Avatar and the Selle Italia Turbo. Even if the saddles are not quite lined-up perfectly, it's fairly clear that the Brooks Pro has notably shorter clamping area on the rails, and that this area is further back on the saddle.



I have a B17 and a Team Pro. While the Team Pro is shown in this photo, the B17 has the clamping area of its rails in exactly the same spot as the Team Pro. Based on photos, the Swallow and Swift saddles may have a more "normal" clamping area that extends further forward.

I recently purchased (but haven't yet received) a Velo Orange seatpost with extra setback. Here are pictures of a B17 mounted on the Velo-Orange seatpost, and my Team Pro saddle (slid as far back as possible on the typical/slight-setback post). Note how my Team Pro still looks too-far-forward in comparison.

Hopslam

I have the same b17 & VO seat post (2 bolt model) they had a issue with the top clamp on the older models cracking . They sent me a new top clamp at no cost . I also have the Carridice seat bag support mounted which eats up the rest of the seat rail. It's a tight fit but works well particularly with TALL frames & the Nelson bag (will not work on small/med frames ,bag will rub rear tire )

cheers

fietsbob

Saddle is not caring one way or the other, the rider sitting on it, might differ..


Selle Anatomica used the brooks problem as a reason to make their rails a lot longer,


Campag and Brooks used to make a narrower than current width saddle rail seat post cradle combination ,

in co-operation ..
but rare and really expensive now to win one on the auction-site


Of course with a slack sub 73 seat angle in the frame, the setback is in the frame geometry.


Thinking: Brooks & Etc., tooling for saddle rail manufacturing stayed the same, Frame designers
& builders went in for steeper, more Sporting, seat -tube angles, since.

Crescent Cycle

Honestly, compared with other vintage skirted saddles, I found no difference. The clamp just runs into the hard plastic skirt on the other saddles and can't really make use of the rails unless you force the clamp in and splay the skirts out. I can only get full rail length from modern skirtless saddles.

rpenmanparker 

Vintage saddles had shorter rails set further back in general. Zero setback seat posts did not appear until aero bars for triathlons and time trials became popular when a more forward riding position was required.

fietsbob

And spring suspension seatposts they work better with a 0 set back plunger motion..

TallRider

But once zero-setback posts appeared, saddles started to be manufactured with rails further forward on the saddle. Note that the Specialized Avatar, even though its rails are about 1cm shorter than the Turbo, has its rails set further forward than the Turbo.

Crescent Cycle, interesting to know (and makes sense) that skirted leather saddles have limited ability to extend the clamping section of the rails forward. A look at the picture of my Professional (above) shows the skirt section of the leather narrowing when the rails narrow. The B17 is the same way, albeit with more flexible leather.

rekmeyata

I don't have any problems with my B17 needing an extra setback seatpost. I have a feeling that may be more about the bike and the person before jumping the gun and saying all need an extra setback seatpost because that simply isn't even remotely true.

jason_h

I always assumed the reason why old leather saddle designs need more setback is because the seat tube angles used to be more slack in general than with modern frames. As you can see though, team pros are really narrow saddles on the front end, so there isn't a lot of room for more rail. I like that, as I find pear shape saddles uncomfortable, but it does limit your options on seatposts.

TallRider

Have you looked at the photo of the rails on the Brooks compared to more regular saddles? The front edge of the clamping section on the rails of the Brooks Pro is about 2cm further back than the other saddles (and the B17 has the rails set up exactly the same way).



For people who would run normal saddles most of the way forward on their rails, Brooks saddles could achieve the same position without changing seatpost.
But for people who run normal saddles most of the way back on the rails, a different seatpost is needed to achieve the same saddle position with a Brooks Pro or B17.

Crescent Cycle

Try using the front part of the rails on the turbo and I doubt you will get much more adjustment that the brooks. I imagine with leather being soft they're probably more prone to damage if you could clamp it with the skirts pressing down on the clamp. Also when the Brooks were first designed and common place, you had an actual separate piece that was the seat clamp that mounted on the seat post. These could be mounted in front or behind the post to give you set forward or set back for more adjustability. Seat tubes were also slacker back then. Modern saddles really just have a lot more usable rail.

TallRider

Yeah, the Turbo is somewhat limited that way, at least with typical seatpost clamps. Neither of these models would work well if clamped on the forward section of the Turbo's rails:



However, with some modern low-profile clamp designs, such as the Cannondale Fire seatpost pictured here, barely extend beyond the outer edges of the rails, and can be used further forward on a saddle like the Turbo.

rekmeyata

I don't have to look at the photos, I own two Brooks, a B17 and a Swift, neither need a setback post. I have a couple of friends that have the B17 and no setback post for them either.

Now maybe as one poster pointed out that a modern compact frame design bike needs the setback, both of mine Brooks are on traditional frames. And your idea about if a person runs their normal saddle all the way back then a setback post might be required. Fortunately getting a setback post is not a big deal.

TallRider

I think the Swift has longer rails (based on photos). The B17 has rails in the same place as the Pro, but I was pretty comfortable on the B17 without wanting more setback. With the Pro, I definitely wanted more setback. Obviously not everyone wants more setback with Brooks saddles. But it's pretty obvious based on design that if you have a non-setback post further forward on a normal saddle's rails, you'll need a setback post to get the same position with a B17 or Professional.
The Velo-Orange seatpost is almost specifically marketed at Brooks owners, and all of the comments/reviews are by Brooks owners talking about how much they've appreciated it. Presumably these are the Brooks owners who wished for more setback, which as you point out isn't all Brooks owners.

Dfrost 

I have a B17, Team Pro and Swift, and like the OP, I also have rather long femurs. All those Brooks have essentially the same length rails in the same relative position to the saddle frame. I also have a lovely Gilles Berthoud saddle, and it's rails are very similar to all the Brooks. And I need those leather saddles (but not a Selle An-Atomica) shoved back on all my bikes. Some combinations don't work well enough. BTW, I find that I end up sitting basically on the rear rivets with the Team Pro to get far enough back.

On my Miyata 912 with its 74 deg ST and need for 26.8mm seatpost, I haven't found a seatpost that allows me to get a Brooks far enough back. The Rambouillet with its 72 deg ST works fine with a B17 on an American Classic post, and the VO Long Setback seatpost is enough longer with Swift or GB on the Marinoni with its 73.5 deg ST. The GB has the advantage that the frame "rivets" (screws actually) are set below the seating surface, so more seating length is comfortable.

rekmeyata

Does anyone know if the Selle Anatomica has short rails like the Brooks?

TallRider

Good to know that the Swift also has shorter rails. I couldn't tell from the pictures.

fietsbob mentioned above (2nd or 3rd post) that Selle Anatomic specifically made their saddles longer so as not to run into this same issue. Looking at their saddles, the "skirt" of leather doesn't extend down far enough to interfere with the length of the rails.
I also just found a picture that verifies that the Brooks Swallow has longer clamping section of the rails. The Swallow also lacks a leather "skirt"

Dfrost 

The rails on my SAA are at least an inch longer toward the nose than my Brooks. I'll measure more accurately if needed and can provide photos comparing Swift and SAA Titanico X in a few days (not at home ATM).

rekmeyata

Just a measurement will suffice, this weekend I'll try putting the Swift on my new bike with a compact frame design instead of a traditional design and see if I run into a problem with the setback. I like the Selle Anatomica idea and read plenty of positive reviews about it but never rode one, so I'm kind of itching to try one, and if the Swift needs a setback then I know just to get the Selle and not worry about a post.

Dfrost 

I measured the rails on my titanium-railed Swift and Selle An-Atomica Titanico X (both For Sale BTW but not yet posted). The clamping section on the Swift starts 5.5" back from the nose while the SAA clamping section starts only 4" back from the nose, so the SAA can be moved 1.5" farther back on the same seatpost. I also checked my titanium B-17 Special, and it's rail clamping section is 5" back, so it could be a bit farther back than my Swift. The Gilles Berthoud Aravis (definitely NOT for sale!) has about the same rail dimensions as the Swift, but I sit slightly differently on it than the Brooks.

rekmeyata

I have the B17 Ti model (and a Swift TI) myself but the seat isn't setting all the way back, it's about in the center of the rails, but this is on a traditional bike with a touring geometry; however the Swift is on a regular traditional road bike with a racing geometry and it's a bit more forward on the rails then the B17 but I still have about an 1/2 to 3/4 inch of rail left in the rearward area.

I like the reviews I've been reading about the SAA, what's your thoughts on that saddle vs the B17 you have?

Dfrost 

I need all my Brooks tilted up a few degrees at the nose to feel “planted” on the rear, which results in perineal pressure for me with bars level with the saddle. As originally built, I’d say my Selle An-Atomica Titanico X (TruLeather version) was more comfortable from the start than the B-17 was in its early unmodified life, and that’s mostly due to the SAA slotting to relieve that pressure and allow independent left-right flexure. However, after 4 years of use my B-17 was slotted (and reinforced on the underside) by SAA about 6 or 7 years ago, so it is now quite similar to the SAA Titanico X.

The problem I had with the SAA is that its skirts are shaped and rolled over less, and not chamfered on the edge, resulting in inner thigh chafing on one side for me. That’s not a common problem (my right leg runs noticeably more inward, nearly touching the TT and seat stay top while pedaling), but I have seen a few other mentions, so I don’t think it was just my particular saddle. Note the relative widths from the nose back through the middle in this shot of my SAA and Swift. FWIW, all my leather saddles when broken-in show that I also sit “deeper” on the right side, which may exacerbate this chafing.



I’ve been surprised that my SAA has already required about one centimeter of adjustment in less then 500 miles (I’m very careful to adjust in small increments when dry), while the slotted B-17 hasn’t been adjusted yet in over ten times that mileage (could maybe use a half-turn now), but I’ve heard that the SAA stretch “levels out” at some point. (I’ve weighed between 170 and 180 lbs when using all these saddles.)

So now the slotted B-17 has about 6 years of use and is VERY comfortable on my most upright (highest bars) bike, the Rambouillet. The bike that needed the longer rails (Miyata 912) has been relegated to shorter rides, so it now has a Fizik Aliante VS – not as long-ride comfy IMHO as a good leather saddle, but no thigh chafing or pressure either. My favorite daily rider these days is the new-to-me Marinoni with the VO Long Setback seatpost and a nearly new Gilles Berthoud Aravis pushed all the way back. This saddle is not slotted, but doesn’t seem to require much nose-up so no perineal pressure issues, the deep skirts are beautifully and comfortably formed (much like Team Pro skirts), and it is breaking in very nicely. As noted in an earlier post, the GB rails are essentially the same shorter configuration as the Brooks in my experience (Team Pro, B-17, Swift).

Here’s a few (gratuitous) shots of those three bikes and their current saddles.



Note the higher nose on the B-17 in back:


And here’s a shot of my SAA after about 500 miles and ready to sell:



Was that TMI?

rekmeyata

^^ Thanks for the info, I have heard from reviews that the SAA does tend to sag more thus it needs more adjustment than the Brooks which means it won't last 20 or more years like the Brooks...BUT one could order a saddle designed for the next heavier person level. I also heard that the Watershed leather stretches more than the TruLeather does, I think their web site even mentions that the Truleather doesn't stretch as much. So for an example a 165 pounds person would want the Titanico X with TruLeather, but again not sure if that 165 pound example would still have more issues with the saddle sagging than they would with a B17.

Anyway thanks for the info, it was informative.

rhenning

Part of the reason Brooks saddles are further forward is they are most comfortable when sitting near the back of the saddle unlike many modern saddles where you sit more in the middle. Your sit bones are supposed to be on the wide part of the saddle maybe 3/4 of an inch from the back edge. Roger

cs1

You mean like in too much information?