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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ny biker

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zoom-zoom

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muirenn

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.

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.

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....

---

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

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

Thanks

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: