View Single Post
Old 09-12-21, 12:47 AM
  #42  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,880

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1858 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times in 506 Posts
Originally Posted by Phil_gretz
^ I don't understand ANY of this discussion at all. Really?

The OP complains of soft tissue pressure BETWEEN the supporting points of his pelvic bone(s). That means that it's not the pitch angle of the saddle, but the CROWN or CROSS-SECTION of the saddle between where the pelvis is supported. That's where the interference is. Too much contact where it's not needed at all.

So, OP, why don't you post a photo of the saddle that you're riding? I going to offer a blind guess that in cross-section at the seat area, it's bowed downward toward the sides or crowned. Also, it's likely that you have one that has gel padding or some such, so is too thick and/or soft. This spreads out the contact pressure, which you don't want.

You want a concave saddle, one with a pronounced channel that cannot give pressure. The sit points should be firm and flat, and as narrow as needed to support your pelvis at the tilt angle(s) where you will ride. Your fitter should have already explained this to you. A better anatomical saddle would be advisable.

Look at Kontact saddles, for example.
Kontact would not be a bad idea, nor would a Selle Anatomica or a Brooks Imperial. Also I beg to differ: I think perineal pain can be caused by a saddle of the shape you describe if the body is sliding forward off of the support points.
Road Fan is offline