Wheever

I'm in the market for a new saddle, having just gotten a new Domane 4.5 Disk and finding that the new geometry makes clear that my beloved Selle SMP Lite 209 is actually too narrow for me where it counts (It tapers too quickly), even though I'm skinny and narrow guy. So I started a quest to find a saddle that is closer to what my butt actually needs. Of course, there's nothing like comparison shopping and daydreaming about stuff to get you into a heap of trouble, but while digging around and looking at saddles that might possibly be more the shape I need (similar width, and big cut out, but a more pear-shaped), I've found an aspect of saddle fit and/or design that doesn't seem to be addressed directly in any discussion I've yet come across: where the rear "Max" line of the rails is relative to the widest part of the saddle.
Even Steve Hogg, in his exhaustive treatise on the SMPs only discusses "effective width"--which actually isn't even accurate in my experience!

My sit bones were measured for a 138mm seat. My Lite 209 is 139mm, but the fact of the matter is that I have a hard time getting my sit bones onto that width, because the rails simply don't go far enough back. On my old giant I used a zero setback post, and it worked well, but still, due to the taper of the SMP, I often found myself perched far enough forward that the seat was pretty much against my tender parts.


So I had some candidates: Selle italia Max Flite gel, Max SLR, SLR superflow 145, Romin Evo, etc. What I did then was download pictures of the saddles taken from the underside and stack them up in photoshop with a picture of the Lite 209, correcting the scale based on rail width. From this I noticed that some of the saddles had the bulk of their width far behind the rail Max line, and that, for me, the usable area would be too narrow. (The Max Flite Gel and the Romin Evo, in particular.) Using this technique I was able to hone my focus down to the SMP Pro, and the Selle Italia Max SLR and Max Gel. (See attached photo. Max line is marked in orange.) Some of the saddles were immediately unsuitable; (The Max Flite Gel, The Fizik "Bull" Saddles, all the Prologos.


So here is my deep thought of the day: it would be really helpful if Manufacturers supplied some sort of "saddle geometry" data, that would give an idea about where the widest part of the saddle falls relative to the Max line on the rails, otherwise width means pretty literally nothing. (Sure, you could buy a zero offset post to allow the saddle to be set further forward, but that often puts the nose of the saddle too close to the bars.) I think this detail is one more contributor to the mystique of finding the right saddle that could be mitigated with this additional data from manufacturers.

Anyway, the three saddles were delivered yesterday, and all three saddles fit me perfectly, as I expected they would from my research with photoshop. And after some preliminary experiments and tweaking, I'm probably going to end up with the SMP Pro. I actually like the Max SLR better because it's lighter, harder, and prettier, and the SMP Pro is big and UGLY UGLY UGLY, but really I prefer more contour to a saddle, and especially a flare on the back.


Thoughts? Experiences? Further observations?

Carbonfiberboy 

I'm glad you found a good saddle so easily. However I don't understand your argument. On a road bike, you should put your butt in the spot that gives the best fore-and-aft weight balance and adjust reach to suit that butt position. I've never seen a saddle that prevented one from putting one's butt in the right spot for balance, usually with either a straight or set-back post. Looking through my used saddle box, most of them have the "perch" behind the end of the usable portion of the saddle rails. On my bike with a straight post, I have the saddle shoved all the way back. On the bikes with set-back posts, the clamp is about in the middle of the rails.

Wheever

What you say is true, provided the whatever part of the saddle you sit on is wide enough to support your sit bones, else it's uncomfortable for long-distance. The problem I was having is that the indicated "width" was actually too far back for that correct position and balance, because the actual USABLE WIDTH, due to the placement of the rails, was too far back for me, leaving me sitting on part of the saddle that's too narrow. The "perch" is of no use if it's the only part of the saddle wide enough for me.

chaadster

Seat fitting is flippin' mysterious. I have never understood width measurements, as I just don't seem to sit that far back, but allow that same people may. I think I'd like more to see a cross section for the middle of the saddle (to see what Hogg calls "tumble-home"), or maybe some grading of the transition to the flare from the middle could be useful, like "1-2", where the 1 corresponds to something like "continuous taper from nose," and 2 corresponds to a shallow transition to the flares (or wings). Just something to characterize the shape of the saddle relative to other saddles, because it can be hard to tell just by eye-balling.

Anyway, since my SMP Dynamic fits better than any saddle I've ever used thus far, maybe I should have it 3D scanned, so I can parse its attributes and know better what makes it work for me!

Wheever

It is totally mysterious, yes, but having a sense of the geometry would be/is really helpful. These saddles all fit my basic "sit bone" profile, and put the widest part where I need it based on my reach and KOPS, and has a big enough cutout. (It's not that I sit far back at all, I just have wide sit-bones and need to have the width where I actually sit!) Having the graphics tools (and skillz) to puzzle it out like I did was really helpful, But, that said, of course that's only PART of the saddle-choosing puzzle, and not everyone has the resources to do as thorough a survey as I did, which is where manufacturers could really help out!

So, in my quest, and the trying out of these 3 saddles, I've learned a lot. I love the SMP saddles, and I initially thought the SMP Pro was going to be the clear winner. But as I've been testing them, SMP's choice of "tumblehome" has become really irritating. The "lip" of the narrowest part sits just barely inside my sit bones, just about the right place if I don't wiggle too much. If that part of the saddle was just a little wider it would be perfect. I think I'm going to have to get my hands on an SMP Plus, which is flatter, but I'm worried it will be too soft. As to the Selle's, I really like the Max SLR, but wish it had more kick-up or flare at the back, Like the SMP's do. The MAX Gel is fine, but a little too soft.

I'm starting to think I might have to custom-make my own saddle! It would be mostly like the MAX SLR, but with a flared back, a little dip on the nose, and small depressions under my sit-bones. (And actually, forming carbon fiber doesn't look all that hard. The most difficult part would be making the mold. Sigh. A project for another time!)

I'm betting your SMP Dynamic--the very saddle that got me onto my lite 209 on my old bike--supports your sit-bones perfectly, and has all those other SMP characteristics we love so much. I'm jealous of your narrow...sit-bones.

Wheever

Here's a comparo of the SMP Lite 209 and the SMP Hell. The Lite 209 is 239mm wide, and the SMP Hell is 147mm. The saddle are lined up on where the MAX line would be, roughly. The way the saddles line up makes no sense in the world to me. What is the thinking behind have the greatest width so far back? Is the assumption somehow that people who are...wide enough...to use the width will necessarily be so big or have a bike so small that they would need to crank the saddle all the way back in order to fit?

I really want an opinion about this from someone who knows more than I do!

Wheever

One last thought. This is a Brooks saddle (a team pro classic. I just grabbed the first one I saw on the web) overlaid on the SMP lite 209, again roughly at the max line. Please notice where the widest part of the saddle is located.

I'm beginning to think that the Brooks "mystique" is as much about where the widest part of the saddle falls as anything else. When I have a chance I'll do the same with some other Brooks saddles.

Carbonfiberboy 

I think we still can't figure out what you're talking about because you seem to be a unique saddle user. You're supposed to sit on the widest part. Some saddles kick up at the very back. On those, you're supposed to sit right in front of the kick-up. Many saddles will have that area specially configured with differing foam or gel densities to encourage the rider to plant their sitbones exactly there. Riders frequently move all the way to the back of the saddle, against the kick-up if there is one, when climbing hard. Riders frequently move all the way to the nose, "riding the rivet," when on aerobars or drops in order to open their hip angle. You don't want to do that latter for very long though or you risk damaging the perineum.

If you have wide sit-bones, then you need a wide saddle. Some saddles come in widths, some don't. Wide folks should pick a saddle that comes in a suitable width, rather than the average width for which most saddles are manufactured. Go to a LBS which has a butt measuring device and get measured. Have them suggest a saddle suitable for your width. When you have a saddle of suitable width, your sitbones belong on that widest part or just forward of it, which as you note is frequently behind the end of the usable rails.

Thus ignore where the rails end and sit on the saddle where it is designed for you to sit. Move the saddle back and forth until, with your butt in that most comfortable part of the saddle, you are balanced so that you do not slide forward when you briefly lift your hands from the bars. Ignore KOPS and your reach. If your seatpost won't permit the saddle to move far enough, get a seatpost that will. Most people require a post that is offset to the rear but some do better with a straight post:
https://www.google.com/search?q=seat...ed=0CAcQ_AUoAg

Once you have your saddle so that you are correctly balanced when you sit on the widest part, adjust your reach with stem and bar length.

Once you have all that dialed, you may notice that the saddle is not correctly shaped to suit your leg travel. Some people need a more T-shaped saddle, while others are fine with a pear shaped saddle. Fortunately, your LBS should allow you to exchange it for another that is correctly shaped for your anatomy.

You can easily see the variations in acceptable saddle planforms by googling images for "brooks saddle." Some need one shape, some need another. All these planforms are available in saddles other than Brooks of course. It's just nice to see them all on one page:
https://www.google.com/search?q=broo...ed=0CAcQ_AUoAg

chaadster

For me, a short saddle like the Brooks, i.e. one where the flare starts early and with a deep transition angle, would not work at all because it would interfere with my leg movement. I have a vintage Ideale on an old French Motobecane and, even though I sit more upright on that bike, the saddle is damnably uncomfortable.

No, for me, the action is all in the middle, which is why I think even a tapered rear ISM/Adamo saddle, especially the Attack, would work for me. I don't have any idea what my sitz bones width is, but I know I don't like sitting on the tuberosities, and prefer the contact in the "grundle" area. I don't know that there's a practical way to measure there.

I have an Oval R700 saddle from about 3 years ago which I have for my stationary rides, and it has the same "deep flare angle" problem; I can master it for about an hour in my best shorts, but it's really pretty damn uncomfortable.

Carbonfiberboy 

A problem that many people have with the Brooks is that the rails are so short that it's impossible to get the saddle far enough back, even with the normal setback post. There is a special post made to solve that problem:
VO Grand Cru Seatpost, Long Setback - Seatposts - Components

Wheever

No, no I'm not unique. I'm just trying to quantify in an objective fashion why some "wide" saddles don't work for me and, I assume, other riders. You're apparently misunderstanding me, though I do appreciate your attempt at explication. You are telling me what I already not only understand, but was researching through my explorations with photoshop, which was then proven by actually buying and using the saddles that looked the most suitable.

My point was "WIDE" Doesn't mean anything unless it's wide in the right place, and that, without reference to the placement of the rails as one important possible parameter, one has no way of knowing what "width" actually means; and that manufacturers could ameliorate some of this confusion by having reference to some standardized language of saddle "geometry." (For instance, as in my first post, my old SMP Lite 209 was the right width, just in the wrong place. When I am at KOPS and properly balanced in all ways, the WIDEST part of the saddle is too far behind the seatpost for me to be sitting on it. Which is a bummer.)

Yes...but if that's so far back as to be useless for some riders? And this is my point. You can't "ignore" the rail placement, as it's the rail that dictates where the widest part of the saddle finally lands.

And this is where we part ways. To adjust the reach when it is already perfect, and you are balanced and in KOPS, for the sake of making an inappropriately shaped saddle work is...so totally wrong I don't really know what to say.
I double dog dare you to find me a treatise on fit that agrees with this statement. (I don't think you really meant it.)

Note: I have been measured by my LBS: they were mystified how the Romin 143mm couldn't be wide in the right place, given a 138mm was what I was measured at. When I pointed out the issue with the rail placement, they scratched their heads and said "gee! I never thought of that before! That explains why so-and-so didn't fit this saddle either!"

Anyway, we're not actually disagreeing, I think you're just not understanding what I was saying.

Wheever

Ahhh, so that's an interesting data point for me, because I'm starting to get the idea that manufacturers are much more concerned about being able to move the saddle back, rather than forward. Which makes me wonder if most people aren't buying bikes that are way too small for them, and/or way smaller than my 52 is for me @ 5'9". Because my bike is a perfect fit, and even the Bontrager saddle was the perfect width and shape...just padded like a couch and with a cutout way too small.

I think that Brooks would be one of the few saddles that I wouldn't have to have in the rear half of the rails.

Carbonfiberboy 

I'm 5'6" and ride 50cm through 54 cm. My best fit is 52 with a 53cm top tube. I am short legged for my height.

Here are some videos that you might find helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAidrTRskLI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFQfuGibf0A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z04uoO7U_SA

KOPS is an old approximation that came to be regarded as gospel, and mistakenly so. KOPS vs. center of gravity will vary according to femur length, reach, crank length, and method of measurement. There is no biomechanical rationale for it. Thus balance is now regarded as the way to set up a road bike.

Here's some stupid with KOPS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh0leyXz840
Note that she wants the center of the knee joint axis over the spindle. That would put the rider much too far forward and have their hands hurting pronto. Other "authorities" say to measure from the front of the kneecap. Others say to measure from the bony protuberance below the kneecap (this is the one I use for preliminary guessing). But that's another problem with KOPS. You can also ask over on the 41. You'll find that the majority agree with the balance method of saddle positioning.

Here's a couple photos of good positioning to reduce hand and arm strain:
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycli...l#post12953035

Going back to the saddle shape thing: what may be puzzling you about saddle shape is that the saddles you've tried are too pear shaped and you're getting interference between saddle and thigh if your butt is back where it's supposed to be.

Wheever

Dude, you're just not listening to me at all.

The point of my post initially was to share and discuss what I had objectively measured regarding the answer to WHY some saddles of the notionally "correct" width simply did not work for me, and get other people's opinions on why saddle makers built saddles this way, and to hear other people's experiences in dealing with similar issues in the search for a saddle.

As I said in my first post, I NEED a more pear shaped saddle. (with a large cut-out.) And I have found several. But not after some trial and error that led me to question WHY some of the saddles that should be "wide" enough for me were not workable. (The SMP Lite 209, Spec Romin.) Both the Selle Italia MAXs and SMP Pro basically work for me in terms of shape and width. The wide part is where I need it, and the saddles don't have to be slid so far forward as to hook my shorts when I'm mounting. (I actually think something like the Ergon saddles would be perfect, but they don't have a cutout version.)

That I need a 138mm saddle--on the larger side--surprised me because I have a 32" waist and weigh 155 lbs. (I am considered narrow of hip and small of butt, to boot.) I was able to use a zero-setback post with my SMP Lite 209 on my old bike because it was a 54, and there was plenty of room between the nose of the saddle and the bars. This bike is a better fit but, being smaller, doesn't have the room.

I appreciate all the fit advice and resources you've been posting. Very informative. But I already have an excellent and comfortable fit with correct fore-aft balance and with something very close to KOPS--discredited or no, which happens to be right where my balance is. What I was missing was only something under my sit bones, rather than halfway up my ass crack and rubbing my perineum raw. I was confused as to why, until I started my investigations via photoshop.

Wheever

Well that's really interesting Chaadster! But yet the SMP Dynamic works for you? I wonder why that is. Have you tried any other SPM saddles? I'd be interested to see what you thought.

I am definitely more comfortable with my weight mostly on my sitbones, preferably on a harder saddle, and with a big cutout.

If only the SMPs were a little more pear shaped.

chaadster

No, I haven't tried other SMPs, since I got lucky with the Dynamic straight-away. The Dynamic is thinly padded and quite firm, similar to a classic Flite if not more so.

I think that the SMP works for a few reasons. My pelvis tilt is such that I could only sit on the tuberosities if I was bolt upright, but I'm most comfortable with a good amount of saddle/bar drop that allows me to flatten my back (or I guess more appropriately, avoid bending my upper back) and get low. That's part of why the SMP works; the large, fully forward and open cut-out really relieves pressure on my perineum, especially right at the scrotum, which I'm definitely driving into the saddle. Another reason is that it flares at shallow angle, so I don't get the saddle "wings" pressing into my inside-upper thighs, avoiding the nerve pressure and physical interference there I've experienced with other saddles (e.g. Fizik Arione).

I can ride successfully for 2-3hrs on a classic Selle Italia Flite on my other road bike, but I find myself moving about and feeling the saddle, whereas the Dynamic almost disappears, and has been great on 5hr rides. Given I run more saddle/bar drop on the SMP equipped bike, that's sayin' somethin' about how well the SMP works for me.

But as I said before, fitting a saddle is very confusing and complicated to understand. For example, was the nose to narrow on the Arione, forcing me to sit further rearward on it than the Dynamic? Or is it just the steeper flare angle at the comfortable width that caused the discomfort? Is the Arione too flat, and the Flite's steeper "tumble-home" what makes it suitably comfortable? The Dynamic is steep-sided as well, so that's a commonality.

So I agree, way too much to consider, and I tend to agree that more dimensional info from the manufacturers might help in choosing an appropriate saddle.

Wheever

The dynamic was the first SMP I tried, and though it too narrow and didn't support my sit bones correctly, I could feel that everything else about the saddle was correct. When I went to the Lite 209, other than having to use a zero-offset post, it was as you described: the saddle just seemed to disappear under me. This was really the high-water mark in saddle feel so far for me. The fact that my new Domane 4.5 Disc is smaller than my giant means that if I go to a zero-offset on it, I am squeezed for room between the nose of the saddle and the bars, catching my shorts every time I mount.

I took a long ride on the SMP plus yesterday, and it's just not going to work for me. That "tumblehome" means that over time the narrower top pushes its way between my tuberosities and forces them apart. My sacrum and coccyx are killing today, and it was only a 2-hour jaunt. I did the same run with the MAX SLR and that didn't happen. BUT, on climbs, I slide back until the saddle flare hits the back of my thighs, and I don't like that. It's not a fatal flaw YET, but it might be in the end if I find something I prefer.



I can ride successfully for 2-3hrs on a classic Selle Italia Flite on my other road bike, but I find myself moving about and feeling the saddle, whereas the Dynamic almost disappears, and has been great on 5hr rides. Given I run more saddle/bar drop on the SMP equipped bike, that's sayin' somethin' about how well the SMP works for me.

I don't think it should be so confusing. All the parameters should be quantifiable to enough of an extent that one should be able to have a good idea of whether a saddle will work in terms of gross form-factor, and then have the decisions and preferences be about the details. I now know four things that should make a saddle work for me: Width, and rails that extend far enough back that the width should be accessible without need a zero setback post, a large cutout, and a flatter top; and a kickup at the back of the saddle to push against when climbing...it's just a matter of finding it!

I just heard about the new Specialized "Power" saddle, which looks promising. I decided to give it a try, even though my experience with the Romin was so disappointing... (Ordered it from my LBS, but I won't be able to give it a try for a couple of weeks.) Have a look at how it lines up in terms of rail to max width. I'm a little dubious of the short nose, but I guess I'll have to see. It's ironic that Spec would make a saddle with the rail in the right place for me--meaning I'll be able to run it mid-rail rather than run all the way forward--and decide to make it short-nosed! I wonder what effect that will have?

Road Fan

There are a lot of ways to think about saddle selection, adjustment, and fitting. Wheever, many of us have worked out ways that we each think work for us and for when we help others, and some of us agree with each other on how we like to proceed. That doesn't mean your ideas are truly wrong, or that they aren't better than what you've seen here. Beyond the opinions you see here, I'm sure there are many others new and old that can be found on the Intarnetz. I really haven't seen anything like yours before. I'm not sure it would work for me, but I also don't know it well enough to try it.

It's great you found an approach you like. Install your saddles, ride your bike, and see how it feels after a few hundred miles. I found that no matter how exactly I adjust a saddle, I have to fiddle with it on the road as my distance increases.

Speaking of treatises, if you have found some please share the titles and good reference information, so we can read some of them.

Maybe there will be a better consensus as a result.

Nick Bain

TLDR but I have a specialzed toupe 143 im looking to unload. Its a wider seat, firm with nice padding. It came on a bike, its too wid for me.

Igualmente

I'd just be happy if the widths claimed for a saddle were the actual width of the flat part of the saddle. I have a 138mm wide saddle that has, at most, 100mm of flat and then the surface drops off pretty quickly. If they can't get agreement on that sort of basic saddle dimension, it is all just down to trial and error.

nick779

According to bontragers pressure maps, youre wrong.

Position 5 being Comfort to position 1 for TT


I personally ride generally between 2 and 3, but I can touch 1 when really tucking.

I need a new saddle too, looking at the Romin Evo

fietsbob

Pelvises, are all kind of individually grown . saddles come from factories.. they make thousands of different models .





So get on with your search, best is sitting on them, to know if you like it...





....

Carbonfiberboy 

Referring to that Bontrager document from which you copied those images:
https://media.bontrager.com/images/fe...tepaper_en.pdf

, , ,Technically, probably none of us sit on the portion of our pubic bones anatomically known as our ichial tuberosities. Instead we sit on some other portion of our pubic rami, which we collectively call our sit bones.

I tend to move around on the saddle and sit in all 5 positions on the same saddle. Note that position 1, with sit bones on the widest part, which while shown on a tractor saddle can also be maintained on one of the correctly shaped road saddles shown to its right. In general, the further forward you perch, the more pressure on the perineum, the further back the less. When you get your Romin Evo, note that it has a padded area on the flattish rear of the saddle that is designed to accept your sit bones. Personally, it made mine so sore after a couple hundred miles that I couldn't sit on any saddle for several days, but that's just me. I'm not sure why, except maybe it was cupping my sit bones too much and causing pressure over too wide an area. The further forward perches didn't work for me either. I also tried another Romin at padding level 1, which was better but still hurt. At least they didn't make me numb. It's all a mystery.

I can ride on the rear of the saddle all the way down on the aero bars, but moving forward opens the hip angle which improves breathing and freshens the nip, as sailors say. Can't stay forward for long though before my equipment warns me to move back. It helps me to rotate my pelvis forward which exposes my sit bones more thus moving my perineum further up off the saddle. This image might explain why that works. I'm apparently moving up onto the pubic tubercle:


As one can see, if the spine is going to be anything like straight and vaguely horizontal, those are what one will be sitting on, either those or soft tissue.

D1andonlyDman

I like tensioned leather saddles: My seat bones will tell the saddle where to give, and after riding a couple thousand miles, the saddle will conform to me, not vice versa.

My two main rides have a Brooks Swift and an Ideale Model 80 mounted. I just picked up a very lightly used Ideale 90 on local Craigslist, which will be going on one of my other two road rides.

nick779

I have a feeling the saddle search is going to be a PITA.

Is there any way of knowing whether you need a softer or more firm saddle?