Wanting a new saddle for my new bike

Of course I'm wanting a Brooks. I think! I'm riding the Bontrager saddle that came on my Trek 1000 and it's not bad at all. I have nothing to compare it to, so there might be something better.

I've been talking with Bill at Wallingford Bikes via email and he recommends that I first start looking at one of the S models, either the Finesse, Team Pro S, or B.17S, depending on my budget and my tastes. He says all of these will all ride about the same.

I don't know WHY, but I was hoping he would tell me to go with the B68. I love the way it looks.

I've searched and I know there are tons of threads on saddles. If you have opinions or ride any of the models he suggested, please comment.

Thanks in advance.

Hi Sandra,

Once you go Brooks, you never go back! ;) OK, just kidding -- while I love my Brooks, they aren't for everyone.

I have bought 3 Brooks saddles from Wallbike, and agree with everyone else that their customer service and return policy are superb. I have a B17S on one road bike, a Team Pro S on another road bike, and a B17 on my mountain bike. The saddles on all of my bikes practically disappear under me -- most of the time. There are times when I notice them.

One of the things that I enjoy about the Brooks is that once I got them broken in, I don't have to use my cycling shorts on shorter rides. For example, I can do 50 minute trainer rides in my sweats and underpants. I can do my one mile bike commute from the train station in jeans and underpants. (Although I'm pretty sure I'd be comfy on just about any saddle that fits me for a mile.)

Now, as far as which saddle to buy, it probably depends on your sit bone width. The B68S and B68 are both 210mm wide. The B17S, Team Pro S, and Finesse are all 177mm wide. The difference between the B68's and the other women's saddles is 1.3 inches, which is kind of significant.

That said, you need to ride what's comfy for you. With Wallbike's great return policy, you do have a margin of error.

Happy shopping!

-- Melissa

My story and opinions, for what they're worth:

Awhile back, I bought a regular (not s) B-17 from Nashbar, during one of their really good sales. I didn't know much about Brooks, but it was pretty and not very expensive, and I liked the idea of the thing. When I got my first road bike (A Bianchi Volpe) earlier this year, I put the B-17 on it. My first impression was *mostly* positive. It was really slippery at first, but that went away after the first fifty miles or so, as I recall. I still wasn't convinced it was right, and I tried a Terry Liberator X for about one day after using the Brooks for awhile. It made me realize some of the good points about the Brooks that I'd hardly registered: it was smooth (no feeling stuck in one place), it bounced slightly on the rough parts and therefore absorbed a lot of shock, it moved with me when I pedaled, it didn't start to pinch after a short ride, and it was mostly pretty narrow in the nose while being wide-ish in back.

The Terry *hurt* because the nose (especially the transition from nose to back) was so wide, and the cutout did horrible things down there. :eek: Plus it felt sticky, and like I was falling off the edges. Ick. So I went back to the Brooks and mostly have been pretty happy with it.

However, now that I have over a thousand miles on the Brooks and it's starting to change shape a bit, it's becoming obvious that my sit bones are wide enough that I'm more or less perched on the frame most of the time. Lucky me. So I've been researching the wider ones. The B-17S is probably wide enough, but it scares me that it has a short nose. I like having that nose there for me to grip when I'm turning and such! If there was a such thing as a B-17S with a longer nose, I might go for it. As it is, I've ordered a B-68 from Wallingford, which should be here by next week. I worry a little that it'll feel *too* wide, but it does have a nice narrow nose and a very fast transition to the wider back, which should mean it doesn't get in the way pedaling. I hope I hope I hope. Plus, as you said, it looks pretty nifty! Love that pebbled leather! If it doesn't get in the way when pedaling, I think the extra real estate will make it all the more comfy over the long haul.

Sandra - if your gut instinct is hollering "B68!!!!" then I'd go for the B68!

You have 6 months to make up your mind.

I have two B67 saddles. Similar, but with springs which the B68 doesn't have. I adore these saddles. They have completely changed my world. I ordered my 2nd B67 *after* the B68 came out. When it came down to the wire, my gut told me to get another B67 rather than the B68. Trust your gut! (and you really do have 6 months! Bill is awesome for help with saddle issues, too, as long as Wallingford isn't too busy at the moment. I've had him call me back when he had less on his plate.)

I've stayed away from the "S" Brooks saddles (for "short") because I prefer a long nose to help me control the bike.

Can you explain to me the difference you feel in sprung and unsprung or why you prefer one over the other?

I use the sprung saddles (B67 I think) on my commuter hybrid and my folding bike - it helps smooth the bumps out on the road and makes the ride more comfortable. I use the regular B17 on my road bike - because I have it and it fits me well. A lot of people do not use sprung saddles on road bikes - I think the reason is for weight issues and aesthetics. I did not put one on my road bike because I started with the middle of the road vanilla approach - B17 being the most popular saddle and also because I just did not think about sprung for some reason. No real reason for me to worry about saddle weight (or aesthetics) until I lose 40 lbs.

I've never ridden on an unsprung Brooks. I ordered a second sprung one just because I did like my first so much. And I sort of figured "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I'm currently riding on an unsprung beater saddle. The pavement on my main errands loop is pretty beat to hell... I grew up in Pennsylvania and thought I knew what big potholes looked like. Madison potholes look like what I'd call a sinkhole *g*. For an unloaded ride (just my 165 lb self), the saddle is fine. I can use my legs as shock absorbers for bumps, and things are peachy. Current max distance is 10 miles, and is going up. Slowly.

For a loaded ride (my 165 lb self + 30-45 lbs of stuff in a backpack), I end up in pretty serious pain after just 2 miles on bad pavement. The saddle bounces if I pedal hard. It's harder to absorb shocks with my legs. End result is I hurt and sometimes get saddle sores. I could probably go longer on good pavement.

With the load in panniers on my rack, things are not as peachy as when I'm unloaded, but they're still pretty good. I haven't hit my limit with panniers yet. I'd expect it's less than my unloaded limit, but not a lot less.

Springs probably aren't something I need for utility riding with panniers, since that's mostly short trips. I may need 'em if I start doing centuries or touring. I have to hammer pretty hard to get the bouncy saddle effect when I'm not loaded down. But just one rider on one bike has different saddle needs at different times, so the trick is to figure out what *you* need. And well, there is some trial and error involved :)

Saddles with springs are particularly good for bikes that have you in a more upright position. (that's one reason you see them on a lot of older bikes)
Sitting upright puts most of your weight straight down your spine onto your sitbones. Every bump in your ride will have your weight coming right down on your seat, not on your legs or hands. Springs help absorb the shocks on both your spine and your butt.

On a less upright position road bike, your weight gets more distributed between your seat, legs, and hands, and your spine is more horizontal and can flex with the bumps. More of your weight is on your legs as you ride (if you are well balanced that is). There is less weight jamming down your spine onto your seat with every ride bump. Thus, springs are not as needed.

FWIW, my road bike is sort of halfway between a racing position and an upright position. Speaking for myself, I don't feel any need for springs at all even on long rides. When I do hit bumps unexpectedly, I can actually feel my non-sprung B68 under-saddle frame rails flex down and back up with the impact.

Lisa (and Mimi and Knotted et al),

Hijacking the thread a bit as I seem to be good at...though it *is* still related to the saddle Sandra is interested in! Maybe good information for others, too.

I think my setup is very similar to yours - my bars are almost level with my saddle.

How do you feel the B-67/68 does on rides over, say, 35 miles? Does the extra width start to chafe on longer rides, or is there such a quick transition from nose to seat that the width really doesn't get in the way of pedaling?

I'm still worrying a little about it, but since there isn't a B-17S with a long nose (or long rails, as you helpfully pointed out!), and since it isn't *that* much wider than regular B-17s, it does seem like the B-68 is the way to go for most gals who don't fit a standard B-17....

I'm just fretting 'cause I've got nothing better to do while I wait for the thing to arrive! :D

I have a fairly lopsided pelvis, and find the springs really accomodate my wonky pedalling. And I do have a very upright position to keep pressure off my shoulders and neck. I had wanted a B68, and covetted a B68 cuz they are so darn sexy, but when it came down to the wire I stuck with B67 for my second Brooks.

Nice thing about Wallbike is that you can try things and change saddles if the first you try isn't perfect!

My B67 is extraordinarily comfy on 50 or 60 mile rides. Much more comfy than anything else I've ever ridden. I don't chafe on the width for two reasons: The B6X series is a "T" shape (I chafe horribly on pears) and the B6X are wide enough to support my very wide sits. And the slip of the leather lets your legs slide along the edges of the saddle without the kind of friction that would make you rub against your shorts.

I fretted, too, but really that 6 month leeway lets off on the stress!

Rose, I can't wait to hear your report after next Wednesday. I'll be here deliberating until then. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoseC

How do you feel the B-67/68 does on rides over, say, 35 miles? Does the extra width start to chafe on longer rides, or is there such a quick transition from nose to seat that the width really doesn't get in the way of pedaling?

---

The extra width is in the back on your sitbones, so it does not chafe anything.
If you get the NON-S model, the transition is longer from nose to seat.
I have the B68 (non-S) and am not having chafing on 60 mile rides so far.
A lot depends on how wide you are and on how your thighs are shaped, etc. I'm a "pear" shape and neither fat nor skinny, but I have some padding on my inner thighs fer shure. :rolleyes:

I've done a total of 5 centuries in my bike career all on a brooks sprung saddle. (two on the B66 and the other three on the B67)

result: sit bones a little sore
chafing: ZERO.

Some people DO experience chafing on their Brooks saddle. Not many, but some. It just depends on your individual shape, your pedaling style and saddle position, and the model of saddle.
There is NO saddle that is universally comfortable for all women riders, just as there is no saddle that is universally UNcomfortable for women riders.