Saddle width based on sit bone measurement
12-23-23, 02:02 PM
#1
Resident PIA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: City of Oaks, NC
Posts: 848
Bikes: Gunnar Roadie, Look 765 Optimum, Spesh Aethos
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Liked 356 Times
in
186 Posts
Saddle width based on sit bone measurement
General rule of thumb for a starting point.
Sit bone measurement 98mm triple checked using retul assometer.
Old Selle Italia titanium flite seems to measure approx 145mm overall width decent.
Selle San Marco Short Open Fit Dynamic 140mm decent but wearing thin fast.
S-Wroks Power Arc 143mm decent and light.
S-Works Power 143mm ass hatchet and light.
Selle San Marco Short Open Fit Dynamic 155mm ass hatchet got it free And is worth less than what I paid.
Retul assometer recommends 143 but I think that is due to them not making much that is narrower in road saddles.
opinions welcome
.
Sit bone measurement 98mm triple checked using retul assometer.
Old Selle Italia titanium flite seems to measure approx 145mm overall width decent.
Selle San Marco Short Open Fit Dynamic 140mm decent but wearing thin fast.
S-Wroks Power Arc 143mm decent and light.
S-Works Power 143mm ass hatchet and light.
Selle San Marco Short Open Fit Dynamic 155mm ass hatchet got it free And is worth less than what I paid.
Retul assometer recommends 143 but I think that is due to them not making much that is narrower in road saddles.
opinions welcome
.
__________________
--
Shad
I knew where I was when I wrote this
I don't know where I am now...
05 Gunnar Roadie Chorus/Record
67'er
--
Shad
I knew where I was when I wrote this
I don't know where I am now...
05 Gunnar Roadie Chorus/Record
67'er
12-23-23, 02:22 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,565 Times
in
1,027 Posts
You can follow Specialized guidelines and buy whatever width Specialized saddle their system recommends.
Otherwise, there is little to no connection between the sit bones and the outer saddle width. This is for two reasons:
Cyclists generally don't sit on their "sit bones", specifically the ischial tuberosities. These two bones are the widest in those arches of pelvic bone and you sit on them when you sit up in a straight backed chair. Cyclist actually sit on the ischial ramus, a narrower section of pelvic bone forward of the sit bones. The width of the ramus where you sit is a product of the angle of those bones and the forward tilt of the pelvis. So someone with wide sit bones and a lot of forward pelvic tilt can have very narrow pelvic bones where they touch the saddle.
The other reason is that the outer width of the saddle has little to do with the width of the saddle top where you sit. You can easily have a saddle with a narrow base but a wider seating area than a much wider saddle overall.
Imagine buying shoes by measuring your ankles instead of your feet, and then selecting shoes by with the dimensions of the sole. That's analogous to measuring bones you don't sit on and matching them to a saddle dimension you don't use. So I would caution you to not extrapolate Specialized's recommendations to other product lines.
Otherwise, there is little to no connection between the sit bones and the outer saddle width. This is for two reasons:
Cyclists generally don't sit on their "sit bones", specifically the ischial tuberosities. These two bones are the widest in those arches of pelvic bone and you sit on them when you sit up in a straight backed chair. Cyclist actually sit on the ischial ramus, a narrower section of pelvic bone forward of the sit bones. The width of the ramus where you sit is a product of the angle of those bones and the forward tilt of the pelvis. So someone with wide sit bones and a lot of forward pelvic tilt can have very narrow pelvic bones where they touch the saddle.
The other reason is that the outer width of the saddle has little to do with the width of the saddle top where you sit. You can easily have a saddle with a narrow base but a wider seating area than a much wider saddle overall.
Imagine buying shoes by measuring your ankles instead of your feet, and then selecting shoes by with the dimensions of the sole. That's analogous to measuring bones you don't sit on and matching them to a saddle dimension you don't use. So I would caution you to not extrapolate Specialized's recommendations to other product lines.
12-24-23, 05:02 PM
#3
Junior Member
You can follow Specialized guidelines and buy whatever width Specialized saddle their system recommends.
Otherwise, there is little to no connection between the sit bones and the outer saddle width. This is for two reasons:
Cyclists generally don't sit on their "sit bones", specifically the ischial tuberosities. These two bones are the widest in those arches of pelvic bone and you sit on them when you sit up in a straight backed chair. Cyclist actually sit on the ischial ramus, a narrower section of pelvic bone forward of the sit bones. The width of the ramus where you sit is a product of the angle of those bones and the forward tilt of the pelvis. So someone with wide sit bones and a lot of forward pelvic tilt can have very narrow pelvic bones where they touch the saddle.
The other reason is that the outer width of the saddle has little to do with the width of the saddle top where you sit. You can easily have a saddle with a narrow base but a wider seating area than a much wider saddle overall.
Imagine buying shoes by measuring your ankles instead of your feet, and then selecting shoes by with the dimensions of the sole. That's analogous to measuring bones you don't sit on and matching them to a saddle dimension you don't use. So I would caution you to not extrapolate Specialized's recommendations to other product lines.
Otherwise, there is little to no connection between the sit bones and the outer saddle width. This is for two reasons:
Cyclists generally don't sit on their "sit bones", specifically the ischial tuberosities. These two bones are the widest in those arches of pelvic bone and you sit on them when you sit up in a straight backed chair. Cyclist actually sit on the ischial ramus, a narrower section of pelvic bone forward of the sit bones. The width of the ramus where you sit is a product of the angle of those bones and the forward tilt of the pelvis. So someone with wide sit bones and a lot of forward pelvic tilt can have very narrow pelvic bones where they touch the saddle.
The other reason is that the outer width of the saddle has little to do with the width of the saddle top where you sit. You can easily have a saddle with a narrow base but a wider seating area than a much wider saddle overall.
Imagine buying shoes by measuring your ankles instead of your feet, and then selecting shoes by with the dimensions of the sole. That's analogous to measuring bones you don't sit on and matching them to a saddle dimension you don't use. So I would caution you to not extrapolate Specialized's recommendations to other product lines.
IMO sit bone width matters. Riders (myself included) do actually use them while riding a bike. Yes, it is absolutely correct that in a forward-leaning position your hips hinge forward (at least they are supposed to) and we engage more with the ramus (which is narrower than the sit bones). Since we roll forward and back on the saddle as we change position, you ideally want a saddle shape and width that supports your sit bones and your ramus.
As a general rule of thumb I would start by looking at saddles around 130mm in width. You could probably tolerate a more narrow saddle, but options below 129mm are scarce.
As for the saddle shape, Selle SMP is the only brand I know of that makes saddles that properly support the sit bones, the ramus, and the natural curvature of the pelvis.
Check out the Composit if you like no padding, the Evolution if you like a little padding, or the Stratos if you like a little more padding. As a starting point this should give you some good options. Good luck!
12-24-23, 05:44 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,557 Posts
I came up in the days when sitbone widths were never discussed. I still don't know what mine is. Or any of my saddles. I am not at all sure that would be the governing issue the way I ride. (Basically old racer style, quite a lot of forward bend despite being 70 years old.) I use the entire saddle length and have ever since my first race or earlier; many years ago.
For me, it is the entire saddle shape that matters and the only way I know to find that is ride them. I find the details up front under my perineum is at least as important. Also, can I push back further for "on the tops" power climbing? Does the saddle tail turn up and impair my broken tailbone?
I love that there are bike shops that take returns on saddles ridden enough that you honestly know whether they work. Portland (OR) has a shop that takes this a step further. You buy a "library card" for $25. This allows you to take out any of their 2 dozen saddles and ride it for a week. Find one you like? Buy a new one and get your $25 back.
For me, it is the entire saddle shape that matters and the only way I know to find that is ride them. I find the details up front under my perineum is at least as important. Also, can I push back further for "on the tops" power climbing? Does the saddle tail turn up and impair my broken tailbone?
I love that there are bike shops that take returns on saddles ridden enough that you honestly know whether they work. Portland (OR) has a shop that takes this a step further. You buy a "library card" for $25. This allows you to take out any of their 2 dozen saddles and ride it for a week. Find one you like? Buy a new one and get your $25 back.
Likes For 79pmooney:
12-24-23, 06:57 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,565 Times
in
1,027 Posts
The OP asked for a good starting point based on general rule of thumb guidelines for saddle selection. While there are subtle nuances to picking the right saddle, a good starting point doesn't have to be overly confusing.
IMO sit bone width matters. Riders (myself included) do actually use them while riding a bike. Yes, it is absolutely correct that in a forward-leaning position your hips hinge forward (at least they are supposed to) and we engage more with the ramus (which is narrower than the sit bones). Since we roll forward and back on the saddle as we change position, you ideally want a saddle shape and width that supports your sit bones and your ramus.
As a general rule of thumb I would start by looking at saddles around 130mm in width. You could probably tolerate a more narrow saddle, but options below 129mm are scarce.
As for the saddle shape, Selle SMP is the only brand I know of that makes saddles that properly support the sit bones, the ramus, and the natural curvature of the pelvis.
Check out the Composit if you like no padding, the Evolution if you like a little padding, or the Stratos if you like a little more padding. As a starting point this should give you some good options. Good luck!
IMO sit bone width matters. Riders (myself included) do actually use them while riding a bike. Yes, it is absolutely correct that in a forward-leaning position your hips hinge forward (at least they are supposed to) and we engage more with the ramus (which is narrower than the sit bones). Since we roll forward and back on the saddle as we change position, you ideally want a saddle shape and width that supports your sit bones and your ramus.
As a general rule of thumb I would start by looking at saddles around 130mm in width. You could probably tolerate a more narrow saddle, but options below 129mm are scarce.
As for the saddle shape, Selle SMP is the only brand I know of that makes saddles that properly support the sit bones, the ramus, and the natural curvature of the pelvis.
Check out the Composit if you like no padding, the Evolution if you like a little padding, or the Stratos if you like a little more padding. As a starting point this should give you some good options. Good luck!
And you don't need your sit bones "supported", you need the sit bones isolated from all the soft tissue everywhere else.
Likes For Kontact:
12-25-23, 05:16 AM
#6
Junior Member
What is this "fake science" of which you speak?
Your comment about sit bones is vague and confusing. By definition, if your sit bones are not supported by the contact points on the saddle there will be more pressure on the soft tissue.
12-25-23, 12:43 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,565 Times
in
1,027 Posts
Yes, trial and error is part of the process. However, there are means and methods for identifying a starting point. Sit bone width, riding style, and position on the bike all play into the initial assessment of determining a range of saddles for the rider to try.
What is this "fake science" of which you speak?
Your comment about sit bones is vague and confusing. By definition, if your sit bones are not supported by the contact points on the saddle there will be more pressure on the soft tissue.
What is this "fake science" of which you speak?
Your comment about sit bones is vague and confusing. By definition, if your sit bones are not supported by the contact points on the saddle there will be more pressure on the soft tissue.
"Sit bone" is both a specific pair of bones, and shorthand for all the bones at the bottom of the pelvis. The only ones that are easy to measure are the ischial tuberosities - the widest point on the twin arches of bone that run from the pubis where they touch. We don't sit on those, we sit on some section of the ischial ramus, which is forward of the ischial tuberosities and much narrower. Those bones will also support our weight, and are not "soft tissue". But the only way to measure them is if you have a saddle shaped pressure mapping device, and that shape needs to be roughly close to the saddle you are considering.
And then the other problem I mentioned is that a 146mm wide saddle doesn't help you much if the top surface of the saddle is only 110mm wide because the sides curve away rapidly.
And that's why I said that measuring bones you don't sit on (ischial tuberosities) to match with a saddle dimension you don't interact with (outer width) is like measuring your ankles to find shoes that are sized by sole width, instead of measuring your feet and the size of the shoe last.
Sometimes people with supposedly wide "sit bones" are very comfortable on narrow saddles, because they lean forward so the part of the pelvic bones they are actually sitting on is narrow, since those two bones eventually meet at the pubis.
Likes For Kontact:
12-27-23, 11:28 PM
#8
Senior Member
Speaking from experience I'm going to state that sit bone width matters but only when combined with the appropriate saddle shape, which I feel is far more important than width.
What I mean by shape is the profile of the saddle when looking at it from above. Ie. is the saddle T-shaped or more triangular pear shaped. This brings us to the aforementioned angle of the pubic rami. In general women have a shallower angle and men have a steeper angle in the pubic rami. However there's so much variation between individuals that considering one's own gender in saddle choice isn't all that helpful.
The angle of the pubic rami dictates the profile of the saddle. If you're like me and have a really steep angle, you'll want something pretty triangular. If you have a shallow angled rami a more T-shaped saddle may work better.
This is where the sitbone width comes in to play. Ideally a saddle, even on a road bike, will accomodate a variety of riding positions and pelvic angles. This also includes a resting position where you're sitting up and having your weight on your sitbones or rather ischial tuberosities. However that position doesn't need to be perfect. The sitbones don't need to be perfectly supported, because we're typically not using said resting position for very long. It's mainly used to stretch a little and take a breather etc. Also I've found that a saddle that can perfectly accomodate the iscial tuberosities is often too wide for more aggressive positions as the back of the saddle begins blocking the inner thighs. A saddle that can perfectly support the ischial tuberosities is typically around 4cm wider than the measured sitbone width.
Riding style and style of bike matter too. For my sport bikes (road bike, tourer, mtb) I use a Selle SMP Pro as all of those are used with moderate to significant forward lean. With my utility bike (Tern GSD) the riding position is bolt upright and for that I use a saddle that does perfectly accomodate the ischial tuberosities. Funnily enough that saddle too needs to be triangular as even with an bolt upright riding position saddle shape matters. For the Tern I use a Selle SMP e-TRK.
The foot ankle analogy in my opinion doesn't work at all. I can't even think of an alternative since the dynamics are so different.
What I mean by shape is the profile of the saddle when looking at it from above. Ie. is the saddle T-shaped or more triangular pear shaped. This brings us to the aforementioned angle of the pubic rami. In general women have a shallower angle and men have a steeper angle in the pubic rami. However there's so much variation between individuals that considering one's own gender in saddle choice isn't all that helpful.
The angle of the pubic rami dictates the profile of the saddle. If you're like me and have a really steep angle, you'll want something pretty triangular. If you have a shallow angled rami a more T-shaped saddle may work better.
This is where the sitbone width comes in to play. Ideally a saddle, even on a road bike, will accomodate a variety of riding positions and pelvic angles. This also includes a resting position where you're sitting up and having your weight on your sitbones or rather ischial tuberosities. However that position doesn't need to be perfect. The sitbones don't need to be perfectly supported, because we're typically not using said resting position for very long. It's mainly used to stretch a little and take a breather etc. Also I've found that a saddle that can perfectly accomodate the iscial tuberosities is often too wide for more aggressive positions as the back of the saddle begins blocking the inner thighs. A saddle that can perfectly support the ischial tuberosities is typically around 4cm wider than the measured sitbone width.
Riding style and style of bike matter too. For my sport bikes (road bike, tourer, mtb) I use a Selle SMP Pro as all of those are used with moderate to significant forward lean. With my utility bike (Tern GSD) the riding position is bolt upright and for that I use a saddle that does perfectly accomodate the ischial tuberosities. Funnily enough that saddle too needs to be triangular as even with an bolt upright riding position saddle shape matters. For the Tern I use a Selle SMP e-TRK.
The foot ankle analogy in my opinion doesn't work at all. I can't even think of an alternative since the dynamics are so different.
12-27-23, 11:34 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,565 Times
in
1,027 Posts
Speaking from experience I'm going to state that sit bone width matters but only when combined with the appropriate saddle shape, which I feel is far more important than width.
What I mean by shape is the profile of the saddle when looking at it from above. Ie. is the saddle T-shaped or more triangular pear shaped. This brings us to the aforementioned angle of the pubic rami. In general women have a shallower angle and men have a steeper angle in the pubic rami. However there's so much variation between individuals that considering one's own gender in saddle choice isn't all that helpful.
The angle of the pubic rami dictates the profile of the saddle. If you're like me and have a really steep angle, you'll want something pretty triangular. If you have a shallow angled rami a more T-shaped saddle may work better.
This is where the sitbone width comes in to play. Ideally a saddle, even on a road bike, will accomodate a variety of riding positions and pelvic angles. This also includes a resting position where you're sitting up and having your weight on your sitbones or rather ischial tuberosities. However that position doesn't need to be perfect. The sitbones don't need to be perfectly supported, because we're typically not using said resting position for very long. It's mainly used to stretch a little and take a breather etc. Also I've found that a saddle that can perfectly accomodate the iscial tuberosities is often too wide for more aggressive positions as the back of the saddle begins blocking the inner thighs. A saddle that can perfectly support the ischial tuberosities is typically around 4cm wider than the measured sitbone width.
Riding style and style of bike matter too. For my sport bikes (road bike, tourer, mtb) I use a Selle SMP Pro as all of those are used with moderate to significant forward lean. With my utility bike (Tern GSD) the riding position is bolt upright and for that I use a saddle that does perfectly accomodate the ischial tuberosities. Funnily enough that saddle too needs to be triangular as even with an bolt upright riding position saddle shape matters. For the Tern I use a Selle SMP e-TRK.
The foot ankle analogy in my opinion doesn't work at all. I can't even think of an alternative since the dynamics are so different.
What I mean by shape is the profile of the saddle when looking at it from above. Ie. is the saddle T-shaped or more triangular pear shaped. This brings us to the aforementioned angle of the pubic rami. In general women have a shallower angle and men have a steeper angle in the pubic rami. However there's so much variation between individuals that considering one's own gender in saddle choice isn't all that helpful.
The angle of the pubic rami dictates the profile of the saddle. If you're like me and have a really steep angle, you'll want something pretty triangular. If you have a shallow angled rami a more T-shaped saddle may work better.
This is where the sitbone width comes in to play. Ideally a saddle, even on a road bike, will accomodate a variety of riding positions and pelvic angles. This also includes a resting position where you're sitting up and having your weight on your sitbones or rather ischial tuberosities. However that position doesn't need to be perfect. The sitbones don't need to be perfectly supported, because we're typically not using said resting position for very long. It's mainly used to stretch a little and take a breather etc. Also I've found that a saddle that can perfectly accomodate the iscial tuberosities is often too wide for more aggressive positions as the back of the saddle begins blocking the inner thighs. A saddle that can perfectly support the ischial tuberosities is typically around 4cm wider than the measured sitbone width.
Riding style and style of bike matter too. For my sport bikes (road bike, tourer, mtb) I use a Selle SMP Pro as all of those are used with moderate to significant forward lean. With my utility bike (Tern GSD) the riding position is bolt upright and for that I use a saddle that does perfectly accomodate the ischial tuberosities. Funnily enough that saddle too needs to be triangular as even with an bolt upright riding position saddle shape matters. For the Tern I use a Selle SMP e-TRK.
The foot ankle analogy in my opinion doesn't work at all. I can't even think of an alternative since the dynamics are so different.
12-28-23, 12:50 AM
#10
Senior Member
You might be dealing with significantly more aggressive riding positions than what I have. I only have my arms at around 90 degrees from the torso and only around 8cm of drop. But i manage sitting on my ischial tuberosities just fine for short periods. And that's not even discussing riding no handed.
12-28-23, 07:22 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,565 Times
in
1,027 Posts
You might be dealing with significantly more aggressive riding positions than what I have. I only have my arms at around 90 degrees from the torso and only around 8cm of drop. But i manage sitting on my ischial tuberosities just fine for short periods. And that's not even discussing riding no handed.
12-28-23, 08:34 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right where I'm supposed to be
Posts: 1,634
Bikes: Franklin Frames Custom, Rivendell Bombadil
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked 209 Times
in
127 Posts
There just too many variables not only in the shapes of a given riders bodily structure, but also a riders sensory experience. When we see a structural mage of the body, it's easy to assume that it's the same for everyone, but it's not.
There's no end to the variables to the interaction of a person and a saddle to distill it down to a number, or any other means of trying to quantify it. Just where does one begin to measure what can't measured ?
Trying a saddle is just like trying on clothes, you never know how it feel until you wear them awhile. How often have I bought some clothing after a favorable try on, only to find after some time, it constricts here, rubs there, the seams are in the wrong place, whatever. Saddles are no different. There are so many nuances to their shape and contact points, along with the riders shape and perception of contact, that it'll make your head spin just thinking of it. Saddle width alone doesn't mean anything more than what it is, the max width overall. Yeah so what, I don't ride on a number, I ride the saddle, the entire saddle !
The Cobb San Remo saddle I ride is an example of "trying it on". I have no idea how I found it. I knew Cobb made cranks and triathlon saddles, but not road saddles. I saw the San Remo, now called the Pro SR, and it is a "classic" racing shape, of which I was familiar with. I had no idea how it would actually feel. Now if I went by width alone, I would have never chosen it as it's 151mm wide. I overlooked that as just by looking at if from every angle and Cobbs additional measurements, I could see it was quite narrow where I needed to be, in the forward crotch bone area, ischial ramus as it's called. Not only in width, but also depth. In riding it the middle of the saddle has the right balance of flex and support. The nose is a very narrow 35mm, yes, that's more narrow than the rails. That's just what I needed however as I had never ridden a saddle with such a narrow nose. I also have a Ritchey Skyline saddle of similar overall shape, but the nose is not as narrow as the Cobb. I have not ridden it yet to know how it feels.
There's no end to the variables to the interaction of a person and a saddle to distill it down to a number, or any other means of trying to quantify it. Just where does one begin to measure what can't measured ?
Trying a saddle is just like trying on clothes, you never know how it feel until you wear them awhile. How often have I bought some clothing after a favorable try on, only to find after some time, it constricts here, rubs there, the seams are in the wrong place, whatever. Saddles are no different. There are so many nuances to their shape and contact points, along with the riders shape and perception of contact, that it'll make your head spin just thinking of it. Saddle width alone doesn't mean anything more than what it is, the max width overall. Yeah so what, I don't ride on a number, I ride the saddle, the entire saddle !
The Cobb San Remo saddle I ride is an example of "trying it on". I have no idea how I found it. I knew Cobb made cranks and triathlon saddles, but not road saddles. I saw the San Remo, now called the Pro SR, and it is a "classic" racing shape, of which I was familiar with. I had no idea how it would actually feel. Now if I went by width alone, I would have never chosen it as it's 151mm wide. I overlooked that as just by looking at if from every angle and Cobbs additional measurements, I could see it was quite narrow where I needed to be, in the forward crotch bone area, ischial ramus as it's called. Not only in width, but also depth. In riding it the middle of the saddle has the right balance of flex and support. The nose is a very narrow 35mm, yes, that's more narrow than the rails. That's just what I needed however as I had never ridden a saddle with such a narrow nose. I also have a Ritchey Skyline saddle of similar overall shape, but the nose is not as narrow as the Cobb. I have not ridden it yet to know how it feels.
12-28-23, 11:18 AM
#13
Senior Member
So I have these things called nerve endings which allow me to feel where for example saddle pressure is applied.
12-28-23, 11:41 AM
#14
Junior Member
I find saddles like the Specialized Power, with its wide flare and not-so-gradual taper (looking at it from the top) to be very uncomfortable in terms of inner thigh rub.
I'm also not a fan of flat saddles in general because they introduce an element of "self-selection". Flat saddles allow the rider to self-select the fore/aft position on the saddle, which, in turn, can compromise the quality of fit. I do not agree that using the whole saddle is a good thing (the "advantage" most commonly cited by users of flat saddles).
To fans of the flat saddle I ask: If self-selection on the saddle is such a good idea why not apply that same logic to pedals by putting everyone on flat pedals?
I'm sure fans of flat saddles will try to educate me as to why the comparison between saddles and pedals is silly... but it's not when you really think about the purpose and benefit of clipless pedals within the context of bike fit.
Last edited by Turnin_Wrenches; 12-28-23 at 11:47 AM.
12-28-23, 12:09 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bastrop Texas
Posts: 4,481
Bikes: Univega, Peu P6, Peu PR-10, Ted Williams, Peu UO-8, Peu UO-18 Mixte, Peu Dolomites
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Liked 1,631 Times
in
1,047 Posts
I once took a female friends over stuffed generic Walmart saddle and stripped all the padding off and glued one layer of High Density Closed Cell from a camping pad on it. She liked it so much she took it to an upholstery shop and had it covered. It was the width and not the padding that did the trick.
One factor I have noticed is that as I have gotten older I have developed an intolerance to narrow saddles. My sit bones have not really changed. Now days I dont think I could get far on my 1970s Selle. Of course back then I did not actually sit much.. Ha
Investing in a new saddle can be expensive. Even a new basic Brooks is going for over 100 USD. Lately for my fat arse I have been using an economical "Charge Spoon Saddle Lightweight Enduro" going for less than 30 USD.
We all search for the comfortable bicycle saddle and it changes through the years. Its a QUEST...
__________________
No matter where you're at... There you are... Δf:=f(1/2)-f(-1/2)
No matter where you're at... There you are... Δf:=f(1/2)-f(-1/2)
12-28-23, 05:12 PM
#16
Junior Member
I'm guessing your position on the bike has changed, hence the change in preference towards a wider saddle. Makes sense. Nothing is static. How we interact with the bike ebbs and flows over time.
Likes For Turnin_Wrenches:
12-28-23, 06:14 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,397
Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 514 Post(s)
Liked 450 Times
in
338 Posts
It doesn't sound like you read my initial post.
Sometimes people with supposedly wide "sit bones" are very comfortable on narrow saddles, because they lean forward so the part of the pelvic bones they are actually sitting on is narrow, since those two bones eventually meet at the pubis.
Sometimes people with supposedly wide "sit bones" are very comfortable on narrow saddles, because they lean forward so the part of the pelvic bones they are actually sitting on is narrow, since those two bones eventually meet at the pubis.
Some years back a somebody tried to cure hip-rocking with this.
I can't think of a more efficient way for growing hemorrhoids and wearing out your chamois.
12-28-23, 06:26 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,397
Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 514 Post(s)
Liked 450 Times
in
338 Posts
As we get older some of us lose the muscle tone we had back there, and some of us also find ourselves sitting more upright. I would be hard-pressed to try to tilt my pelvis to flatten my lower back while perched on a saddle like that. And the softness of the cushioning tends to squish up into anatomical crevices that I'd rather were left vacant. But by all means choose the saddle that fits the rider and the application.
Likes For oldbobcat:
12-28-23, 06:53 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,557 Posts
I changed in my earl 40s. Pressure on my perineum region that I could handle for hours in my 20s without serious issue now caused pain that was quite unacceptable. Very little change in bike setup, seat height and tilt or the seat itself. But what was a magic position for years no longer was. And both my riding and enthusiasm fell off until ... bingo! full length grooves or cutouts! My favorite now is the Terry Fly which is very close to the old Selle Italia road saddle. (Many of those Selle Italias labeled and sold as the Avocet II or III.)
