Old 08-29-21, 11:12 PM
  #15  
sincos
Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked 127 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by cyclezen
Just happened to be 'reviewing' some of the older saddles I still have and favor a lot, when I came across the thread...
So, maybe this can help a little
For general shape, width, these are all considered 143 width (always measured across the sitzbones area), nominal 270-275 length
all these saddles have some roundness side to side, the difference can make a difference...
Both of these saddles are from 1979, not any newer version/re-make.
Rolls Buffalo - 377 g would be considered to have a flatter profile front to back, also leg curve is slightly flatter...
Turbo - 390 g has a profile with a slight dip at about 2/3 from front to back, sharper leg curve.
390g!! That's way heavier than a Rolls!

Originally Posted by ShannonM
The Rolls is flatter across the rear... kinda like me.... and less curvy overall. Also kinda like me. Turbos don't suck, I've had two of them, but I preferred the Rolls. And they look so sweet.
--Shannon
I'm with Hiro, at least my Rolls is flatter longitudinally than the Turbo but more rounded transversely, with less flare from the nose to the base. Definitely cushier as well. Though my Turbo is really a Turbomatic (Turbo with elastomer suspension)




obscured a bit by cutout but Turbomatic flatter across the back

Turbomatic has narrower nose, more flare
sincos is offline