Question about Brooks saddle
#26
Senior Member
My hypothesis about brooks saddles is that the hammocking effect of the stretched leather does work extremely well for some but in reality the parameters which allow it to work are quite narrow, ie. a brooks or any other stretched leather saddle allows for only a very limited range of pelvic postures. However these pelvic postures are also relatively common which in turn allows the brooks and leather saddles to be comfortable.
This posture I talk about is the upright pelvic posture where the pelvis is level in the same manner as it would be when one was standing. In this posture an individual will reach for the bars and bend at the back. These kinds of postures were quite pronounced in the Eddy Merckx time of bicycle racing, likely due to saddles being what they were. In this posture the pelvic bone structures contacting the saddle are the ischial tuberosities or more commonly sit bones. These are the ones you measure with a butt'o'meter.
However if you were to adopt a more forward leaning pelvic posture with a brooks saddle it would likely cause quite a bit of issues in terms of discomfort and numbness. Of course there is variation here as pelvic bone structure and variation is high. But as a rule of thumb, if you're a male and are riding a brooks saddle that is not significantly too wide for you, too much forward lean will likely cause issues as the nose of the saddle will push in between the pelvic bones.
While much of the above applies to saddles in general, the stretched leather component of brooks saddles emphasizes the requirement for a upright pelvic posture. Because the brooks mold to one's bone structure, in more pronounced molding instances dimples are formed where the sib bones reside. This is excellent for pressure distribution but dimples going down also means that the center of the saddle also pushes up in between the sit bones, which in turn increases numbness issues. Hence any forward lean at the pelvis exaggerates these issues even more and well, it's a no go at that point.
To not make this wall of text any longer, I'll sum it up: if you know your pelvic posture is forward leaning, there is a good chance that a brooks won't work for you. If you know your pelvic posture is upright, there is a good chance a brooks will work for you. If you don't know which you are, well try it out. You'll know soon enough.
Additional tip for those who have a forward leaning pelvic postures: Sit bone width is not a factor for you, at least not the one measured with a butt'o'meter. For you the most important parameter is saddle shape and how it corresponds to your pelvic arch angle. If you look at your pelvic bones from below, they form a triangle shape. The saddle you choose will have to correspond to that triangle in terms of shape and the angle of the triangle. Men have sharper triangle shapes (My angle is around 55 degrees I think) and women have less sharp shapes (women have angles closer to 90 degrees). Also for forward leaning to achieve that shape correspondence, noseless saddles and saddles with a pronounced pear shape (as opposed to T-shape) are a good starting point, especially for men.
This posture I talk about is the upright pelvic posture where the pelvis is level in the same manner as it would be when one was standing. In this posture an individual will reach for the bars and bend at the back. These kinds of postures were quite pronounced in the Eddy Merckx time of bicycle racing, likely due to saddles being what they were. In this posture the pelvic bone structures contacting the saddle are the ischial tuberosities or more commonly sit bones. These are the ones you measure with a butt'o'meter.
However if you were to adopt a more forward leaning pelvic posture with a brooks saddle it would likely cause quite a bit of issues in terms of discomfort and numbness. Of course there is variation here as pelvic bone structure and variation is high. But as a rule of thumb, if you're a male and are riding a brooks saddle that is not significantly too wide for you, too much forward lean will likely cause issues as the nose of the saddle will push in between the pelvic bones.
While much of the above applies to saddles in general, the stretched leather component of brooks saddles emphasizes the requirement for a upright pelvic posture. Because the brooks mold to one's bone structure, in more pronounced molding instances dimples are formed where the sib bones reside. This is excellent for pressure distribution but dimples going down also means that the center of the saddle also pushes up in between the sit bones, which in turn increases numbness issues. Hence any forward lean at the pelvis exaggerates these issues even more and well, it's a no go at that point.
To not make this wall of text any longer, I'll sum it up: if you know your pelvic posture is forward leaning, there is a good chance that a brooks won't work for you. If you know your pelvic posture is upright, there is a good chance a brooks will work for you. If you don't know which you are, well try it out. You'll know soon enough.
Additional tip for those who have a forward leaning pelvic postures: Sit bone width is not a factor for you, at least not the one measured with a butt'o'meter. For you the most important parameter is saddle shape and how it corresponds to your pelvic arch angle. If you look at your pelvic bones from below, they form a triangle shape. The saddle you choose will have to correspond to that triangle in terms of shape and the angle of the triangle. Men have sharper triangle shapes (My angle is around 55 degrees I think) and women have less sharp shapes (women have angles closer to 90 degrees). Also for forward leaning to achieve that shape correspondence, noseless saddles and saddles with a pronounced pear shape (as opposed to T-shape) are a good starting point, especially for men.
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,873
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 599 Post(s)
Liked 284 Times
in
195 Posts
May I make a few comments in regards to several of the above posts. But before I do that, again, I don't think Brooks saddles are for everyone ! but if you can't find a saddle that you really like, it is often worth a try. If you don't like it, you can always sell it and not take a huge hit. And now:
The reason Brooks saddles are more popular now post internet (if that is true) is simply because they are more available to many of us that otherwise would not have had a chance to purchase one (think small town rural America). I don't think it's hype, or it wouldn't still be around in large numbers.
As to down playing Brooks popularity, I know of and ride with a lot of tourists that love their Brooks and many that don't, BUT, I can't name any ONE other specific saddle that will out number the Brooks that I see. Are there others that collectively outnumber Brooks... probably, but again there is no other single saddle that you can hang your hat on. The reason you don't see more after market saddles is likely the fact that most people simply don't change out the saddle that came on the bike as original equipment as they're happy with it. It's true, Brooks is old technology and hard to market the boat anchor like saddles on a new lightweight bike where the frame weighs the same as your saddle. They simply don't scream "Modern cool" As Sheldon once said, human butts haven't changed in 100 years and if it was comfortable then, great chance it might be comfortable now.
And finally, as far as them being expensive, I've got B17's that are over 20 years old that have enough miles on them to circle the earth and in the long run have been a good value.
Damn that was a long boring post and I'm betting if you're still reading, then you're stuck inside much like me.
The reason Brooks saddles are more popular now post internet (if that is true) is simply because they are more available to many of us that otherwise would not have had a chance to purchase one (think small town rural America). I don't think it's hype, or it wouldn't still be around in large numbers.
As to down playing Brooks popularity, I know of and ride with a lot of tourists that love their Brooks and many that don't, BUT, I can't name any ONE other specific saddle that will out number the Brooks that I see. Are there others that collectively outnumber Brooks... probably, but again there is no other single saddle that you can hang your hat on. The reason you don't see more after market saddles is likely the fact that most people simply don't change out the saddle that came on the bike as original equipment as they're happy with it. It's true, Brooks is old technology and hard to market the boat anchor like saddles on a new lightweight bike where the frame weighs the same as your saddle. They simply don't scream "Modern cool" As Sheldon once said, human butts haven't changed in 100 years and if it was comfortable then, great chance it might be comfortable now.
And finally, as far as them being expensive, I've got B17's that are over 20 years old that have enough miles on them to circle the earth and in the long run have been a good value.
Damn that was a long boring post and I'm betting if you're still reading, then you're stuck inside much like me.
#28
Senior Member
I believe large part of the popularity of brooks is also aesthetics. Not many would like to consider themselves vain especially in something a utilitarian as a touring, but yet many eschew the idea of using a minimalist "racing" saddle or a non conventional "ugly" saddle like an ISM or Selle SMP on a touring bike. I've also seen lots of posts about people matching their bar tape with their brooks saddle for no other reason than looks (leather bar tape just isn't that great of an idea). And it is true, brooks and other leather saddles look fantastic. I have one on my shopping bike and it fits the style of it perfectly.
It's also not so hard to believe that there's at least some hype in the mix. When people ask for which seat to use for touring, Brooks is always recommended even by people who don't actually use brooks saddles or by people who haven't even tried a brooks. They've heard brooks are great for touring so they must be. Probably not so common in here, but on other more popular social media platforms it's actually quite common. Combine that with the incredibly good availability of brooks saddles and it's no wonder people try them out a lot. And then there's the myth of breaking in. But saddles are like shoes. If it fits, it won't need breaking in, not even a little bit. However new riders are told to keep riding until the brooks become comfortable. For some maybe they do but I'd wager that for a larger proportion they don't as the issues they experience are more likely to do with general fit and pelvic shape incompatability rather than breaking in issues.
And then there's the by far most egregious false advice given which is in response to people experiencing numbness with a Brooks. They are told by some to stand up and pedal every 15 minutes or so and it's normal to go numb if you just sit all day. It is NEVER ok to go numb with any saddle. Any numbness always points to a serious issue with saddle fit and it won't go away with standing up every once in a while or taking breaks.
It is true that Brooks and its style of saddles would have gone away if they were just bad. They do have some definite positives and for a lot of riders they remove the need to use chamois, which for me would be a huge bonus. But I believe the population who can properly use them is lower than it would currently seem. But that would require some serious study with data that to my knowledge is currently unavailable, ie. MRI data from large cycling population as well as fitting records of said population.
It's also not so hard to believe that there's at least some hype in the mix. When people ask for which seat to use for touring, Brooks is always recommended even by people who don't actually use brooks saddles or by people who haven't even tried a brooks. They've heard brooks are great for touring so they must be. Probably not so common in here, but on other more popular social media platforms it's actually quite common. Combine that with the incredibly good availability of brooks saddles and it's no wonder people try them out a lot. And then there's the myth of breaking in. But saddles are like shoes. If it fits, it won't need breaking in, not even a little bit. However new riders are told to keep riding until the brooks become comfortable. For some maybe they do but I'd wager that for a larger proportion they don't as the issues they experience are more likely to do with general fit and pelvic shape incompatability rather than breaking in issues.
And then there's the by far most egregious false advice given which is in response to people experiencing numbness with a Brooks. They are told by some to stand up and pedal every 15 minutes or so and it's normal to go numb if you just sit all day. It is NEVER ok to go numb with any saddle. Any numbness always points to a serious issue with saddle fit and it won't go away with standing up every once in a while or taking breaks.
It is true that Brooks and its style of saddles would have gone away if they were just bad. They do have some definite positives and for a lot of riders they remove the need to use chamois, which for me would be a huge bonus. But I believe the population who can properly use them is lower than it would currently seem. But that would require some serious study with data that to my knowledge is currently unavailable, ie. MRI data from large cycling population as well as fitting records of said population.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 1,612
Bikes: Corvid Sojourner, Surly Ice Cream Truck, Co-Motion Divide, Co-Motion Java Tandem, Salsa Warbird, Salsa Beargrease, Carver Tandem
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 534 Post(s)
Liked 435 Times
in
227 Posts
I like Brooks saddle. It lasts a long time unlike foam/plastic junk that deteriorates too soon and is thrown into a landfill afterwards.
B17 is not for everyone - makes sense - Brooks makes various widths for different models. I also like the Cambium model, surprisingly works well for me.
B17 is not for everyone - makes sense - Brooks makes various widths for different models. I also like the Cambium model, surprisingly works well for me.
Last edited by PedalingWalrus; 04-02-20 at 05:48 AM.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,150
Bikes: 2013 Surly Disc Trucker, 2004 Novara Randonee , old fixie , etc
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 671 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times
in
43 Posts
I have a Flyer Special - sprung saddle (snip)
Something to consider - the springs on the Flyer Special do absorb shock, like the unexpected pothole or joint between asphalt and concrete that ends up being more than you anticipated. I am a light weight and find the springs actually too stiff. I did look for softer springs a couple years back but didn't have too much luck. They still do absorb hard hits, though, and I'm glad I have them. The combination between padded bike shorts and the sprung saddle is a winner for me.
Good luck with what ever you choose.
Something to consider - the springs on the Flyer Special do absorb shock, like the unexpected pothole or joint between asphalt and concrete that ends up being more than you anticipated. I am a light weight and find the springs actually too stiff. I did look for softer springs a couple years back but didn't have too much luck. They still do absorb hard hits, though, and I'm glad I have them. The combination between padded bike shorts and the sprung saddle is a winner for me.
Good luck with what ever you choose.
Likes For DropBarFan:
#31
Recreational Road Cyclist
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: MetroWest, Mass.
Posts: 548
Bikes: 1990 Peter Mooney road bike
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked 252 Times
in
134 Posts
Bike guru Sheldon Brown was a big fan of sprung leather saddles! Sprung saddles (or good suspension seat-posts like the Thudbuster) can absorb shock w/o excess saddle padding that can increase chafing & heat. A sprung saddle or suspension seat-post might even allow narrower higher-pressure tires, lowering that critical rotating weight.
#32
Senior Member
In general I have gotten good life out of the most foam/plastic saddles I have used unless they were damaged by catastrophic contact with asphalt or concrete in a crash or otherwise subjected to something other than normal wear and tear. A few of the cheapest ones on family member's bikes didn't do as well, but even they lasted many years.
I have broken the rails on a few mountain bike saddles, but that is a different issue.
Here is that "foam/plastic junk" saddle when it was 22 years old getting ready for a ride on the Southern Tier. It is now 30 years old and still comfortable, but has a few more micro cracks. I am not sure who made the saddle, but it was rebadged as "Cannondale Competition".
Last edited by staehpj1; 04-04-20 at 04:35 AM.
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,873
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 599 Post(s)
Liked 284 Times
in
195 Posts
Let me pose a question for y'all
Do you think heavier riders seem to be more successful with a Brooks B17 ? Are there a lot of light weights out there that have tried a Brooks but didn't care for it as it seemed too stiff ? or are my anecdotal observations just random ?
Do you think heavier riders seem to be more successful with a Brooks B17 ? Are there a lot of light weights out there that have tried a Brooks but didn't care for it as it seemed too stiff ? or are my anecdotal observations just random ?
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 782
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked 45 Times
in
32 Posts
I'm a lightweight and Brooks flyer was fine right out of the box. However, I've just purchased my third one in 8 years. They seemed to only last about 4 years for me before a ridge would form down the center of the saddle. Tightening ( or loosening) didn't help. It seemed to be some sort of permanent deformation. I didn't use proof-hide.
I realize they are suppose to last longer but i don't really care. My previous tours prior to the Brooks Saddle were way more uncomfortable.
I realize they are suppose to last longer but i don't really care. My previous tours prior to the Brooks Saddle were way more uncomfortable.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,214
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3462 Post(s)
Liked 1,468 Times
in
1,145 Posts
A B17 works poorly for me for touring. I can use a B17 when setting more upright like on a bike with flat bars. But for touring I prefer drop bars and use the drops when I have a headwind, and a B 17 is too wide and too flat in the back for me when I use the drops. But a Brooks Pro has the perfect shape for me.
The Brooks Conquest is basically a sprung Brooks Pro. I have Conquests on most of my bikes, but I have a Brooks Pro on my road bike and on a vintage racing bike.
I do not think it is weight that makes a person more or less likely to like a Brooks, I think it is the shape of their bum and their posture. I recall several years ago on this forum someone was saying there are B17 butts and there are (Brooks) Professional butts, based on that I have a Professional butt. I fluctuate from about 175 to 190 pounds.
One of my Brooks Conquests is on the bike in the photo. That one started as a honey color one.
I have met several rando riders that like the Brooks Cambium saddles. I tried a couple and they are too hard for me. I have ridden 12 to 14 hours a few times on Brooks leather saddles, including on the trip where I took the above photo. But an hour and a half on the Cambium was not for me. But some of the rando riders that have the Cambium and love it, it clearly works for some people.
The Brooks Conquest is basically a sprung Brooks Pro. I have Conquests on most of my bikes, but I have a Brooks Pro on my road bike and on a vintage racing bike.
I do not think it is weight that makes a person more or less likely to like a Brooks, I think it is the shape of their bum and their posture. I recall several years ago on this forum someone was saying there are B17 butts and there are (Brooks) Professional butts, based on that I have a Professional butt. I fluctuate from about 175 to 190 pounds.
One of my Brooks Conquests is on the bike in the photo. That one started as a honey color one.
I have met several rando riders that like the Brooks Cambium saddles. I tried a couple and they are too hard for me. I have ridden 12 to 14 hours a few times on Brooks leather saddles, including on the trip where I took the above photo. But an hour and a half on the Cambium was not for me. But some of the rando riders that have the Cambium and love it, it clearly works for some people.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times
in
20 Posts
A B17 works poorly for me for touring. I can use a B17 when setting more upright like on a bike with flat bars. But for touring I prefer drop bars and use the drops when I have a headwind, and a B 17 is too wide and too flat in the back for me when I use the drops. But a Brooks Pro has the perfect shape for me.
The Brooks Conquest is basically a sprung Brooks Pro. I have Conquests on most of my bikes, but I have a Brooks Pro on my road bike and on a vintage racing bike.
I do not think it is weight that makes a person more or less likely to like a Brooks, I think it is the shape of their bum and their posture. I recall several years ago on this forum someone was saying there are B17 butts and there are (Brooks) Professional butts, based on that I have a Professional butt. I fluctuate from about 175 to 190 pounds.
One of my Brooks Conquests is on the bike in the photo. That one started as a honey color one.
I have met several rando riders that like the Brooks Cambium saddles. I tried a couple and they are too hard for me. I have ridden 12 to 14 hours a few times on Brooks leather saddles, including on the trip where I took the above photo. But an hour and a half on the Cambium was not for me. But some of the rando riders that have the Cambium and love it, it clearly works for some people.
The Brooks Conquest is basically a sprung Brooks Pro. I have Conquests on most of my bikes, but I have a Brooks Pro on my road bike and on a vintage racing bike.
I do not think it is weight that makes a person more or less likely to like a Brooks, I think it is the shape of their bum and their posture. I recall several years ago on this forum someone was saying there are B17 butts and there are (Brooks) Professional butts, based on that I have a Professional butt. I fluctuate from about 175 to 190 pounds.
One of my Brooks Conquests is on the bike in the photo. That one started as a honey color one.
I have met several rando riders that like the Brooks Cambium saddles. I tried a couple and they are too hard for me. I have ridden 12 to 14 hours a few times on Brooks leather saddles, including on the trip where I took the above photo. But an hour and a half on the Cambium was not for me. But some of the rando riders that have the Cambium and love it, it clearly works for some people.
Is your bike a Thorn Nomad MKII? How do you like it?
#37
Senior Member
I forget what I weighed when I had the Brooks, but I was never a little guy even when pretty lean. My issue with the Brooks was never that it was too stiff. I actually liked mine best when it was new and liked it less as it broke in much beyond the very most initial break in period. These days I only know one guy who is a Brooks user but he isn't a big guy. My observations are not a statistically significant sample though.
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,214
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3462 Post(s)
Liked 1,468 Times
in
1,145 Posts
Yup. Very happy with it. It is quite heavy, but it was built to carry a load so you need a robust bike for that. I built it up in 2013.
Thorn now has replaced the Mk II with a Mk III that is very different. There are some major changes in the new design. A few things that are lost in the change, mine as you probably noted in the photo has S&S couplers, they have dropped that as an option from the Mk III. On a couple trips I used a 100mm suspension fork on mine, the Mk II frame was designed so that the geometry was compatible with such a fork, the Mk III is not. Those are the two things that I noticed were dropped in the re-design. But there are lots of improvements, but I will not go into those.
Thorn now has replaced the Mk II with a Mk III that is very different. There are some major changes in the new design. A few things that are lost in the change, mine as you probably noted in the photo has S&S couplers, they have dropped that as an option from the Mk III. On a couple trips I used a 100mm suspension fork on mine, the Mk II frame was designed so that the geometry was compatible with such a fork, the Mk III is not. Those are the two things that I noticed were dropped in the re-design. But there are lots of improvements, but I will not go into those.
Likes For Tourist in MSN:
#40
The dropped
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,144
Bikes: Pake C'Mute Touring/Commuter Build, 1989 Kona Cinder Cone, 1995 Trek 5200, 1973 Raleigh Super Course FG, 1960/61 Montgomery Ward Hawthorne "thrift" 3 speed, by Hercules (sold) : 1966 Schwinn Deluxe Racer (sold)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1739 Post(s)
Liked 1,014 Times
in
696 Posts
I forget what I weighed when I had the Brooks, but I was never a little guy even when pretty lean. My issue with the Brooks was never that it was too stiff. I actually liked mine best when it was new and liked it less as it broke in much beyond the very most initial break in period. These days I only know one guy who is a Brooks user but he isn't a big guy. My observations are not a statistically significant sample though.
#41
The dropped
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,144
Bikes: Pake C'Mute Touring/Commuter Build, 1989 Kona Cinder Cone, 1995 Trek 5200, 1973 Raleigh Super Course FG, 1960/61 Montgomery Ward Hawthorne "thrift" 3 speed, by Hercules (sold) : 1966 Schwinn Deluxe Racer (sold)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1739 Post(s)
Liked 1,014 Times
in
696 Posts
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,064
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 122 Times
in
90 Posts
I'm a lightweight and Brooks flyer was fine right out of the box. However, I've just purchased my third one in 8 years. They seemed to only last about 4 years for me before a ridge would form down the center of the saddle. Tightening ( or loosening) didn't help. It seemed to be some sort of permanent deformation. I didn't use proof-hide.
I realize they are suppose to last longer but i don't really care. My previous tours prior to the Brooks Saddle were way more uncomfortable.
I realize they are suppose to last longer but i don't really care. My previous tours prior to the Brooks Saddle were way more uncomfortable.
#43
The dropped
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,144
Bikes: Pake C'Mute Touring/Commuter Build, 1989 Kona Cinder Cone, 1995 Trek 5200, 1973 Raleigh Super Course FG, 1960/61 Montgomery Ward Hawthorne "thrift" 3 speed, by Hercules (sold) : 1966 Schwinn Deluxe Racer (sold)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1739 Post(s)
Liked 1,014 Times
in
696 Posts
If you're getting a ridge down the centerline, then why not cut a slot to imitate the imperial? That's what I did to my old flyer. It's extremely easy to cut leather with an exacto knife. The slot was not enough for me so I took an imperial and cut down the bridge until it was parallel with the ground, as you see in the previous photos.
#45
Senior Member
To be fair, that was quite a few decades ago (I was in my late teens and am now pushing 70) so I can't say for sure that I'd even feel the same if I tried one now, but I am definitely not inclined to given that I am happy with the saddles on my current bikes and generally not very fussy about saddles in general. Given that I find my current preferred saddle (WTB Volt Comp) very comfy and it weighs and costs a fraction of what the Brooks Professional does I see no reason to experiment with one now.
Edit:
Oh, and yeah a Professional model would have had a much better chance of success given my particular complaints. Not sure if they even had them at the time, but I was just a kid with a limited budget and wasn't aware of them if they were an option. The regular B17 was a pretty big splurge for me at the time so when it failed it was a big disappointment.
Last edited by staehpj1; 04-05-20 at 07:59 AM.
#46
Senior Member
I'm a lightweight and Brooks flyer was fine right out of the box. However, I've just purchased my third one in 8 years. They seemed to only last about 4 years for me before a ridge would form down the center of the saddle. Tightening ( or loosening) didn't help. It seemed to be some sort of permanent deformation.
#47
Macro Geek
How long do Brooks saddles take to break in and are they generally quite painful to ride on at first?
My first B17 was put into position by a professional bike fitter. Based on that experience, I understood just enough to be able to adjust the position myself for the other two.
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,873
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 599 Post(s)
Liked 284 Times
in
195 Posts
Btw, here's a photo from a couple years ago that proves leather saddles do exist in the real world, 6 of the 7 cyclists I was riding with opted for leather saddles. Two of these fellows lead ACA trips across country but all do a lot of touring.
Last edited by robow; 04-05-20 at 10:52 AM.
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,214
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3462 Post(s)
Liked 1,468 Times
in
1,145 Posts
...
To be fair, that was quite a few decades ago (I was in my late teens and am now pushing 70) ...
Oh, and yeah a Professional model would have had a much better chance of success given my particular complaints. Not sure if they even had them at the time, but I was just a kid with a limited budget and wasn't aware of them if they were an option. The regular B17 was a pretty big splurge for me at the time so when it failed it was a big disappointment.
To be fair, that was quite a few decades ago (I was in my late teens and am now pushing 70) ...
Oh, and yeah a Professional model would have had a much better chance of success given my particular complaints. Not sure if they even had them at the time, but I was just a kid with a limited budget and wasn't aware of them if they were an option. The regular B17 was a pretty big splurge for me at the time so when it failed it was a big disappointment.
I think the French bikes mostly had Ideale leather saddles.
I bought a used higher end Italian bike in the late 70s or maybe early 80s, it was mostly Campy equipped, brakes were Mafac, silver solder and Columbus tubing. The Brooks Pro had a date code of 1963 and the Campy rear hub had a date code for 1962. That saddle was in bad shape when I bought that used bike, I promptly put a newer Brooks Pro on it.
The Pro saddles were around, but probably beyond the reach of a teenager budget.
#50
Junior Member
Been using the B17 Standard model for the last 600-700 miles (including a 3-day Katy Trail ride across MO where I rode about 170 miles). Absolutely love the saddle, did not require a break-in period for me.