Yet another saddle thread...SSM Glamour Arrowhead vs. Bontrager RXL/RL?

[zoom-zoom]

SSM Glamour Arrowhead -- cut-out is just not great for me. I think it's too narrow and too sharp-edge (I'm not really having pressure problems, just chafing on the left side, regardless of which shorts I wear or chamois lubes). Actual footprint and profile is otherwise perfect.

I'm now thinking I need to give the Bontrager Affinity a try...as a last ditch effort to find a saddle that I can mostly forget about, instead of constantly squirming around and dealing with irritated girly bits.

RL vs. RXL? I don't mind a firmer saddle. The Ruby was really about perfect, cushion-wise, just not T-shaped enough and I was dealing with inner thigh rubbing and having to push myself back in the saddle all the time. Would that be comparable to the RXL? I'm assuming the RL is more like the Jett.

[Marquise]

To my hands the RX seems slightly softer than the Ruby but riding they feel about the same. Haven't found an RXL, which I thought I'd prefer to the RX, but now that I've ridden the RX I don't think I'd want to go any firmer. I'm sorry you're trying most of the saddles I've tried and seem to be having as little luck finding The One.

[nscrbug]

I tried the Affinity RXL in the 154 size (or whatever the largest one is for women). I would say in terms of firmness, it's similar to the Ruby. Although the Ruby, IMO, appears to be less padded than the Affinity RXL. I can't recall exactly what the problem was with that saddle, but I ended up returning it after riding on it for 6 rides (approx. 400 miles). I think it might have been the lack of a cutout that was the issue for me. Initially, it felt okay...but the longer I was on it, I started to feel pressure up front. I want to say that the shape was good, but with my crappy memory...I can't be 100% sure on that. All I know is it didn't work for me, so back it went. I'm still on my Ruby, which seems to be the best option for me at the moment.

Wishing you luck in your continued saddle search. (:

Linda

[zoom-zoom]

Ahhh...so RXL is probably the one I want, padding-wise. I'm guessing the RL would be softer than I'd like.

[zoom-zoom]

Rats...now I notice that the RXL is no longer available in my size unless I want to spring for the $$$ one with oversized carbon rails, which I think would require a new seatpost. Forget that noise. I guess if I want to try this I'm going to have to go with the RL...I wonder if it would be too soft. Can anyone attest to how it would be relative to the Jett? That is really as soft as I would want to go, personally.

[ny biker]

Is there an LBS near you that sells Trek/Bontrager products? You could see it for yourself before buying it.

[zoom-zoom]

Is there an LBS near you that sells Trek/Bontrager products? You could see it for yourself before buying it.

Ha, duh...there is. I always forget that there are LBSs other than our favorite one. Any idea if the Bontrager saddle guarantee applies to ones purchased from an actual store, rather than from Bontrager online?

[ny biker]

Yes, the Bontrager guarantee applies to all products sold in stores. I returned the RX as well as 3 Informs that I bought at the LBS.

[nscrbug]

Ha, duh...there is. I always forget that there are LBSs other than our favorite one. Any idea if the Bontrager saddle guarantee applies to ones purchased from an actual store, rather than from Bontrager online?

Yes...I also bought and returned my RXL at a brick and mortar Trek store...no problems at all.

[zoom-zoom]

Maybe we should get an email writing thread together to encourage TE'ers to request SI make a wider version of the Turbomatic available. It's a 153, so maybe a 163 and 173?

Opinions? Both on the idea and sizes? Anyone know the dimensions of the Turbomatic from center to center? IOW, the place where the sits rest, accounting for the crowned shape?

:D

I really like that idea. I'd be game! If I had to guess on actual useable width I'd think it's in the 135 range. So even if they made something wider, say 170ish, it would work for a lot of us and they could probably double the sales on that saddle.

[zoom-zoom]

OR if we could talk them into making a less domed counterpart. Keep the same footprint, but flatten it out, so that our sit bones really could make use of the full width, instead of our crotchtal™ regions straddling the center.

[Becky]

I like both ideas. However, my preference would be for the flatter saddle, rather than the wider one. My girly bits don't really like domed saddles, regardless of width.

I don't really understand how boy parts would like a domed saddle either....

[zoom-zoom]

I like both ideas. However, my preference would be for the flatter saddle, rather than the wider one. My girly bits don't really like domed saddles, regardless of width.

I don't really understand how boy parts would like a domed saddle either....

Yeah, wouldn't a domed saddle squish their undercarriage, as well...? :confused:

[Desert Tortoise]

What is the purpose of the dome shape? Do you sit differently?

Thanks

[nscrbug]

I too, like the idea of communicating our preferences to SI, in hopes of convincing them to create a more female-friendly (wider, flatter, yet retaining the friction-free T-shape) version of the Turbomatic Gel Flow. Seems logical to me that any company producing a women's saddle would actually go out and ASK WOMEN what they look for in a saddle. But I'm guessing that is not the case. Infact, it wouldn't surprise me if most women's saddles are actually designed by men. As if a man would actually know or even begin to understand what issues a woman faces when it comes to choosing a saddle. :rolleyes:

[Becky]

It doesn't even need to be a Turbomatic to make me happy. I'd be equally happy with a Selle Italia SLR Friction Free that's wider than 131 mm.

I guess that my point is that I don't care what they call it, as long as it's flat, firm, 150mm+, and very T-shaped :D

[zoom-zoom]

It doesn't even need to be a Turbomatic to make me happy. I'd be equally happy with a Selle Italia SLR Friction Free that's wider than 131 mm.

I guess that my point is that I don't care what they call it, as long as it's flat, firm, 150mm+, and very T-shaped :D

WHAT SHE SAID!!! :cool: (plus a wider cut-out with less aggressive edges)

Really, it makes me happy that I'm not the only one with a weird butt. :p

[Becky]

Ok, yeah, a cut-out or channel would be appreciated too.

@K: your butt is not any weirder than any other woman's. That, or we both have really weird butts :D

Oh, and when Selle Italia decides to commision the "Selle Italia SLR Turbomatic Lady Flow Super, Team Estrogen edition", I formally offer to test any and all prototypes ;)

[nscrbug]

Gosh...we REALLY need to direct somebody from Selle Italia's R&D department to THIS thread!!! :D Maybe one of us could contact a company rep through email and send them the link to this thread.

[Becky]

Perhaps we could summarize our needs in an email to Selle Italia, or to several different saddle manufacturers?

[OakLeaf]

Okay ...

Without actually taking a set of calipers and 3D measurements, it looks like from highest point to highest point on my Turbomatic Gel Flow is right around 10 cm, possibly a hair narrower. Now, I'm about 120-125 c-c and plenty comfortable on this saddle, but I can tell I'm kind of on the inner slopes of my sitbones on the TGF.

I would NOT!!! want this saddle to be less domed. I think that's a key point in the comfort, because it makes the saddle effectively more T-shaped and makes the cut-out effectively larger, while preserving enough material to keep the saddle rigid.

I still suspect strongly that there's a limit to how T-shaped a wide monocoque saddle can be, because of the simple physics that something needs to support the "wings." When you've got a tensioned leather saddle with a cantle plate as wide as (or wider than) your sitbones in the rear, that's not an issue; with a monocoque saddle, the manufacturers likely use the sides of the nose to support the rear, and that means a more gradual transition.

Now, that's just a conclusion that seems to make sense to me from thinking about it, and if any of the engineers here want to correct me, I'd love to hear I'm wrong.

I think they might be able to accomplish the same thing with maybe some perimeter rails in the undercarriage, which would still add to the weight, but might not be as heavy as a tensioned leather saddle.

There's only one thing I'd change about the Turbomatic Gel Flow and that's to lose the "gel flow." I guess the non-gel version only comes without a cut-out, which I'm really not interested in. But after less than 1,000 miles [yeah, busted, it's been a slow year for riding for me] it's already compressing significantly and not as comfortable on the front parts as it was when it was brand new. Very disappointing, even though I got a great deal on it. :(

And with the continuing advances in accessibility of 3-D printing (http://boingboing.net/2011/09/20/atm-skimmer-gang-invested-proceeds-in-3d-printer-to-make-better-atm-skimmers.html), I still maintain it won't be long before we can each have our very own custom saddle, within the limits of physics...

[zoom-zoom]

Sweet, nearest LBS (not "our" LBS, but one with at least one employee who I know and really like) is going to get me a demo Bontrager RL...if I like it they can order me one for keeps.

I squished the RL, RXL (I think these were the men's versions), and a Jett, for comparison. I used to have a Jett and liked it, but it was maybe a hair softer than I needed. RL felt a tad firmer than the Jett, so that seemed like a safe bet. I don't want to shell out RXL cash, at least not until I've logged thousands of miles on the saddle and know whether or not it's really true love.