Brooks Saddle? Yes! But I need help!

Hello Ladies,

I'm on the hunt for a new saddle, preferably a brooks saddle. I commute daily around town, take long rides frequently and one day I hope to do some heavy touring as well. I own a surly cross-check with drop handlebars and with the saddle positioned slightly above the handlebars.

I got my sit bones measured at my LBS and they measured out to be around 150mm. The gentlemen who helped me recommended a bontrager saddle, but I can't say I prefer advice from a guy when looking for a women's saddle. I'm petite at 120lbs, short at 5ft 3in, and need a saddle that will: fit my sit bones, not overwhelm my small butt, be suited for my weight/body type, and treat my nether region oh so good.

I'd prefer a seat without springs, but at this time, I'm fairly open to any idea...
I was looking at the Brooks B-17 Narrow..., I really don't know what is best for my body type.
When it comes to choosing a saddle I'm pretty clueless so any recommendations would be great!

My sitbones also measure 150. I got the B17 in the regular width (170 mm) and my fitter (who I saw about 3 weeks after I got the saddle) said it is just barely wide enough for me, and I could go a little wider.

Now that the weather is hot, I can see sweat marks on the saddle when I stop during a ride and they are quite far to the outside. I'd try a B17 "S", which is supposed to be 177 mm wide, but I'm afraid the rails would be too short. The regular B17 is comfortable, though, so I'll stick with it. Someday I may get a second saddle (for my second bike) and maybe I'll try the B17 S. I'll definitely get it from www.wallbike.com, because of their 6-month return policy on Brooks saddles.

I'd recommend going with wallbike, because you can try out a few and send them back if they don't work. Also, if you call and talk to Bill, maybe he can help you decide which model is likely to be the right one.

Good luck! Jenn

Don't get the B17S- it's NO WIDER than the B17- just shorter!
I had the B17S and I needed just slightly wider saddle- which is the B68 (no springs, like the B17). The B68 finally was wide enough for me.....very comfy!
The B17S had rails way too short and I couldn't get my saddle to go back far enough to get my weight balanced well.

Hi friends,
I'm new to the forum and wanted to share my experience with my new B 17 Special (with the big copper rivets). I've had it for 3 days now and yesterday I decided to tilt down the nose a bit because of my lady parts, but now it feels like my sit bones are resting directly on either the edges of the back of the saddle or on 2 of the big copper rivets. So I think I'm going to tilt it back to horizontal and maybe raise up my seat post a bit.
Any tips?
I'm starting to have a bit of buyers remorse... :(

Don't forget that on a pure leather saddle the outer margin is over the cantle plate. So the outer margins really aren't for sitting on. (You are sitting on metal there, not on suspended leather)

The cantle plate on my B67 is about an inch wide, tapering down to about 1/2 inch on the forward sweep. So of the approximately 8 inches of territory at the widest part of my saddle, I have to consider the outer 1/2 inch on each side to be wiggle-room, not weightbearing. (the widest part is on that forward sweep) Wiggle room is very important, you want it on any saddle whether it's leather or not.

If you're on the cantle plate (rivets are in the center of the plate, so you can be on the plate but not yet on the rivets) on a B17, please consider a B68 like BSG has.

And Jewell, with 150mm sits you absolutely do NOT want a 152mm B17-N!!! You'd be right on the very edge of the saddle, smack on the cantle plate and have no wiggle room at all. If you really yearn for a B17, try the standard first? (but keep the B68 in mind if you feel you are on the cantle plate of the B17)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bettymittens

Hi friends,
I'm new to the forum and wanted to share my experience with my new B 17 Special (with the big copper rivets). I've had it for 3 days now and yesterday I decided to tilt down the nose a bit because of my lady parts, but now it feels like my sit bones are resting directly on either the edges of the back of the saddle or on 2 of the big copper rivets. So I think I'm going to tilt it back to horizontal and maybe raise up my seat post a bit.
Any tips?
I'm starting to have a bit of buyers remorse... :(

---

If your saddle doesn't fit flat then it's not the saddle for you, if you tilt your saddle you will put more pressure on your arms and will be supporting yourself by the arms too much which will lead to more problems.

aw, it looks like Jewell never came back. :confused:

Hey, I know its been a LONG time and I never did reply to the great posts I received, but you know how life gets... not having internet, moving, work.

Well, I'm back to let you guys know that I purchased the B17 Champion Special saddle from Wallingford last week. I'm still trying to find the right spot from my stance and comfort level, but so far its vastly better then my previous saddle.

I am having some issues with my lady bits, and I have a hunch that my sit bones are on the metal rim of the B17, but its too early to tell if the saddle's too small or if the new saddle is still in the breaking in period. I commute with my saddle a tad higher than my handlebars and I usually don't ride in my drops. Is this the type of riding the B17 is fitted for, or... would a different saddle be better for my set-up?

I feel reluctant to go any smaller than the B17 170mm size due to my sit bones (size 150mm) and I may just try a larger size. Perhaps the B17 S (177mm), the Team Pro S (177mm), or B68. How have the other saddles works for you?

Would a B68 be comfortable on a road bike with the saddle higher than the handlebars? On the brooks site it says the B68 is ideal for full suspension city cycling.

I'm stuck on style at the moment... I just wish all of them had copper rails... picking a saddle would be a lot easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewell

I feel reluctant to go any smaller than the B17 170mm size due to my sit bones (size 150mm) and I may just try a larger size. Perhaps the B17 S (177mm), the Team Pro S (177mm), or B68. How have the other saddles works for you?

---

Jewell-

I think BSG already answered your question regarding the B68 and the B17S:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleeckerSt_Girl

Don't get the B17S- it's NO WIDER than the B17- just shorter!
I had the B17S and I needed just slightly wider saddle- which is the B68 (no springs, like the B17). The B68 finally was wide enough for me.....very comfy!
The B17S had rails way too short and I couldn't get my saddle to go back far enough to get my weight balanced well.

---

The B17 is wide enough for me, but I can't ride the "S" because of the short rails either.

Good luck!

CA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewell

Would a B68 be comfortable on a road bike with the saddle higher than the handlebars? On the brooks site it says the B68 is ideal for full suspension city cycling.

---

One of my B67 saddles (essentially a b68 with springs) is on a road bike with bars lower than saddle. No problem. (40 degreee torso angle). The other road bike with a B67 has the bars even with the saddle (probably about a 45 degree torso angle on the hoods). No problem.

If you still feel like you are sitting on the cantle plate on the B17, try a B68. With wallbike's 6 month return policy, you really can't go wrong.

So with the 150 sitbones that Jewell and Jennrod12 have, and with the cm or so on each side that Knott says to take off, with the B17 that is 170mm - 20mm = 150 mm; really cutting it close. Half inch is even more.

With the Brooks model, can you have overkill with a saddle being too wide? So if they chose the B68 which is 210mm - 20 mm leaving them ~ 190 can it be too much where other wide saddle problems might happen? In their case, they'd have no other choice if they don't want the short?

Also, does anybody know where the Brooks Imperial stands?

I ride the too wide saddle. The place where wideness is a problem is between the legs, and even the widest saddle (the B67-b68) has a very narrow nose.

The best thing about my brooks is that i am never fussing about my backside.

and i am still amazed that someone suggested a Bontrager saddle. I have heard more negative about their saddles than any other brand.

I have a b17 champion special on my commuter that feels like my bones rub the rails. I'm convinced that you just gotta go wide with the Brooks! On any non-Brooks, I can go as narrow as 145mm and the width feels fine. Luckily, I'm getting indigoiis's old wide one to replace the commuter's B17 :D

Goodness CA_in_NC, I completely forgot to re-read the thread. If you can't tell, I was up awfully late when I posted last night. Regarding the B17S and Team Pro S saddle, the Wallingford site it says the B17 is 170mm wide and the B17S+Team Pro S are 177mm wide... I can see how that wouldn't be much wider at all considering you need roughly 20mm of clearance.

But(t tee hee) I have such a lovely warranty, I'm going to try the Team Professional S (177mm) next and if that doesn't work I'll try the B68 since KnottedYet had good luck with it in a similar set-up to mine. I just wish the B68 had copper rails, I'm getting all caught up in the rail colour.

Oh and Jennrod12 good luck with the B.17S with Wallingford you can't go wrong!

I have the Finesse on both my bikes. I love it.

V.

Am I missing something on the Brooks website. I see that the Team Professional S is only in 170 mm, not 177 mm, as well as the Finesse.

From Wallingford (wallbike.com)

Titanium rail saddle designed specifically for women. Shorter and wider than the Swift.
This is essentially the ti-railed version of the Professional S.
Size: 177 X 245mm

My Finesse measures what Wallingford says.

V.

There does seem to be a discrepancy somewhere along the way.

Wallingford:
Team Professional S
177x245
Fitness
177x245

Brooks England:
Team Professional S
170x245
Fitness
170x245

But just out of curiosity, I'm gonna line up all the saddles discussed so our eyes can do the judging. Measurements off www.brooksengland.com

B17 Special:
Width: 170mm
Length: 280mm
http://lh5.ggpht.com/jewellertman/SI...B17Special.jpg

B 17 S:
Width: 177mm
Length: 245mm
http://lh5.ggpht.com/jewellertman/SI...zUc0Q/B17S.jpg

Team Professional:
Width: 160mm
Length: 260mm
http://lh5.ggpht.com/jewellertman/SI...bA/TeamPro.jpg

Team Professional S:
Width: 170mm
Length: 245mm
http://lh3.ggpht.com/jewellertman/SI...E/TeamProS.jpg

Fitness:
Width: 170mm
Length: 245mm
http://lh6.ggpht.com/jewellertman/SI...Lc/Fitness.jpg


Who knows how they decide to measure the width saddles, but there's definately a difference in shape.

Speculations...

Ok, that whole post had pictures of the brooks saddles.... it worked just fine on the preview, and had to be "approved", which took two days. How frustrating.

I can see the pics when I swipe the URL from properties and then paste it in the browser address line.

Curiouser and curiouser, now the ones I looked at in a new window are showing up in your post.

You guys are awesome! Thanks for starting this thread, Jewell. My B68 is on the way..........

Just my 2 cents...I have a brooks thanks to everyone here and I LOVE it. It actually looks great on my Specialized Ruby Ex....the tan with the black and gold of the bike look great. More importantly, my butt doesn't hurt even after a century. I have the regular B-17, and I got my LBS to put it on for me (it was a little tricky with the seatpost).
After the first ride I found that my howsyourfathers (an Irishism for unmentionable parts) were rubbed...not terribly, but I thought a really long ride would get sticky. I suffered through quite a few rides, and finally had my LBS look at it again, only to find that the nose WAS, in fact, a milimeter too high. A small tweak, and the howsyourfathers are safe and comfy, and I wouldn't trade it for the world...and I don't feel nose-low (it is a bit slippery and if it were nose low I would feel like I was having to push back all the time).

Well Ladies,

I'm still trying to find a saddle that's just right. As I told you earlier, I tried the B.17. The metal rails that held the saddle were long enough, the saddle just wasn't wide enough.
Tried the Team Pro S, it still wasn't wide enough and the metal rails weren't long enough for me to get my body weight balanced. I went on a 4 day bike tour with this one... my boody didn't approve.
Wallingford was fresh out of saddles, so I had to wait for what seemed like forever to get the B.68. I have it on now, and it seems to be the right width. Only problem is the metal rails aren't long enough for me to be comfortable in my handle bars. Oh blast it all!

Any of you ladies know of any solutions to this frustrating problem?

Well I found this site and I'm going to go looking for a shorter head stem to begin with. We'll see how that pans out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewell

Wallingford was fresh out of saddles, so I had to wait for what seemed like forever to get the B.68. I have it on now, and it seems to be the right width. Only problem is the metal rails aren't long enough for me to be comfortable in my handle bars. Oh blast it all!

Any of you ladies know of any solutions to this frustrating problem?

---

You didn't get the B68S did you? The "men's" B68 (no S) has longer rails.
Why do you feel the rails are not long enough for you to be comfy in your handlebars?- can you describe it in more detail?

Indeed,

My B68 (not B68S) is as far forward on the rails as it can go. The tilt of the saddle is just right, but I can't seem to rest comfortably in the brake rests. Making my balance uneasy and braking difficult.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ZQE-MssFmOs/SQ.../IMG_3243a.jpg
Now when I had the B17, this wasn't a problem, but now with the B68 I'm stretched out and I'm having some back pains. Its so frustrating, I love biking but the past few days I don't wana cause of the discomfort.

I think one thing to do is to get a smaller stem. If that doesn't work... I may have to forfeit this lovely saddle. Any other ideas would be great.

You can get a shorter stem, having a higher angle on it might help. You can also get handlebars that are more shallow and don't stick out as far forward

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewell

Indeed,

My B68 (not B68S) is as far forward on the rails as it can go. The tilt of the saddle is just right, but I can't seem to rest comfortably in the brake rests. Making my balance uneasy and braking difficult.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ZQE-MssFmOs/SQ.../IMG_3243a.jpg
Now when I had the B17, this wasn't a problem, but now with the B68 I'm stretched out and I'm having some back pains. Its so frustrating, I love biking but the past few days I don't wana cause of the discomfort.

I think one thing to do is to get a smaller stem. If that doesn't work... I may have to forfeit this lovely saddle. Any other ideas would be great.

---

Ok, here's another idea: Shove your B68 all the way BACK instead of forward.
I know, sounds nuts....but it can work to your advantage.
First, your stem looks pretty short already, don't change it for now or you may get wobbly steering as a result. A 7mm stem should be the minimum for good steering.
If your saddle is this far forward, your center of gravity will be further forward as well, resulting in a feeling of too much weight forward onto your hands. This can also feel like you are too stretched out and you feel like you want to bring the bars back towards you. From the photo, it looks like your butt is hovering almost directly over the crank, like on a unicycle. I know that feeling, and it's no fun.

This is an extreme example but it gives you the basic concept-
Try this:
get on your hands and knees on the floor in a normal straight "horsey ride" position with your arms and legs at 90degree angles to the floor. Now without moving, just pretend your hands are on the handlebars.
Now without moving your butt or anything else, raise your hands off the floor 6 inches. What's that you say?- can't do it without falling on your face?- that's because your center of gravity is forward, onto your hands.

Now- keeping your hands in the same spot on the imaginary bars, and keeping your knees in the same place, pretend you push your saddle back and move your butt back about 8-10". Now raise your hands off the floor. Now you can do it. ...because even though you actually lengthened the distance between your saddle and your handlebars, you pulled your center of gravity back off your hands and thus no longer feel like you are falling forward and needing to pull the bars back closer to you. You feel more balanced.

If you push your saddle all the way BACK it will feel quite different at first. It may feel totally wrong at first.Give it a chance....a few rides to see how your weight balance changes and how it effects you. This helped me to some degree and I had the same problems as you on my Rivendell. Also, as you ride more on that bike your core/stomach muscles will strengthen and that will help too.

Another thing that might help is to get some shims put in your brifters so you can reach your fingers around the brake levers better- I don't know if you have problems with that, but the levers look kind of way out there and it might be difficult to brake if you have small hands, especially if you have reach issues already. Just a hunch.

Hope some of this is helpful. :o

As soon as i saw you posted I brought the saddle closer.... and goodness what a difference it made! Thanks so much! I'll be tweaking it over the next couples days to get it just right.

And I do need to look into shortening the brakes, when I'm in the drops I can hardly reach.

You need to position the saddle correctly first! If you were fine before, and only changed the saddle, then it only makes sense that it's the saddle position. I use a Thomson no-setback seatpost to get my saddle and legs in the correct position. Mine wasn't forward enough on my Surly either. AFTER the saddle is correctly positioned for your legs on the pedals, THEN you worry about the stem length. I suggest you read Andy Pruitts medical guide for cyclists. Lots of good information on bike fit. I used KOPS and it worked for me. (I know it isn't always for everyone, and I've read Keith Bontrager's take on it, but it's a start).

I have kind of a goofy seatpost I won on ebay. It has almost no setback, really scratched and ugly, but you could see if a new seatpost is the solution before you spend any more money. It will fit your Surly. I could send it to you and you could try it. If it works and you like the scratched look, you can keep it. If not you can buy a new Thomson and pass this one on to someone else. Whaddya say? If you want it, pm me your address and I'll send it.

Hey Jewell,

How's it going with your saddle position?

Did pushing the saddle all the way back improve your comfort and help your reach issue?

I did put my saddle all the way back, and its so much more comfortable. I'm balanced too. I didn't realize putting my saddle so far forward forward would make me that uncomfortable and balanced.

I still have some tweaking to do with the saddle and position, but I know that I'm headed in the right direction.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewell

I did put my saddle all the way back, and its so much more comfortable. I'm balanced too. I didn't realize putting my saddle so far forward forward would make me that uncomfortable and balanced.

I still have some tweaking to do with the saddle and position, but I know that I'm headed in the right direction.

Thanks!

---

That's wonderful, I'm so glad! :) :) :) I know firsthand how yucky you felt and how good it feels when that weight balance gets improved a bit.

Most people don't realize how closely intertwined reach and center of gravity/balance are, and the idea of pushing your saddle back to help a perceived too-long reach problem is so counter-intuitive....but it often works wonders.
The fact is that when your center of gravity is too far forward over the crank, your balance is off and your weight goes onto your hands, and then it can really feel like your handlebars need to come closer to alleviate this, so you assume it's simply a reach issue. In fact, it's sometimes actually a weight balance issue where you need to get your weight centered back more. Shifting your body weight back further is actually more effectively done by getting your seat back than by getting your hands back.

Sometimes a reach problem is really 'just' a reach problem...but other times it involves your center of gravity being too far forward... people seldom think about this aspect- they tend to concentrate on just shortening the handlebar-to-saddle distance instead of thinking about their weight balance.

Anyway, great to hear your comfort is improved. :p

I'm also glad Lisa's solution worked (and without changing the stem)!:D