saddle hunting: have I got this about right?

[lph]

I'm still confused, but hopefully a little less confused than I used to be

I've been reading the saddle threads, and have garnered the following:
I should measure my sitbones sitting straight up (140 mm cc) and leaning forward (somewhat less). I should know the outer limits of my sitbones (about 160 mm). I probably need a cut-out, because I like to ride aero. I should stay away from saddles with a lot of padding. Is this about right? I have no idea if I want a "pear-shape" or "t-shape", or if I want a narrow or a broad nose.

I need new saddles - badly. I have a Selle Italia Trans Am XO (143 mm) saddle on my road bike, which seems pretty comfy, but only in the aero position. Finally figured out that's only when I scoot back, and because I then have a narrower platform. Sitting up straighter I start to ache after a while, and feel like I'm sitting on the edges.

I have an ancient stock Trek saddle which is pretty comfortable, but crooked, beat-up and mashed beyond recognition, so I think it's only comfy because it happens to be the right width. I've tried a couple of dh's saddles that KILLED me, probbaly because they were way too narrow. Felt like sitting on a hatchet

If anybody has anymore input I'd be happy to hear it. FWIW, I weigh 130 lbs, tend to move around a lot, and need a saddle (or is that 2?) for training and long rides on my road bike, and something not too elaborate on my mtb/commuter.

Can a saddle be too wide in back btw?

[koala]

I will try to give you some help, recognizing this is not exact science & will still require some trial & error on your part.

Sounds like somewhere in the 140-145 mm width would work, but don't be afraid to try 155. Not sure that the 160 number adds anything to the equation. You would not be able to sit on a 143 if you needed 160.

You might, or might not, need a cut-out. Just because you ride aero does not determine, it is the degree of sensitivity you have in that area. Remember that tri saddles, which are designed for riders who stay aero for long periods of time, have no cut-out, rather a wide, soft nose. Also remember that not all cut-outs are created equal & some might actually feel worse.

My assessment to your scooting back on the saddle is that the front is somehow uncomfortable & you are trying to get away from it. If you end up on the back, and that is comfortable, that width might be good. If you are sitting well back, you are sitting on the widest part of the saddle. If you are still way back & it hurts to sit up, you may very well need to go to a 155 width.

The Selle Italia you are riding is a men's saddle. If the other saddles you tried that hurt are also men's saddles, I would probably try a women's design, with a women's cut-out. They are very different.

Yes, a saddle can be too wide in the back. You will know, you will get chaffing in the back. The shape question, t vs. pear, is also a factor. The t-shape comes in more sharply, so if chaffing between your legs is a problem you would steer towards t-shape. If your sit bones are more widely spaced and your hips are broad, you might prefer the pear. My guess is if you ride a men's saddle, which is more narrow, you would be better off with the t-shape.

I can't tell much from your weight. Are you thin & slight for your height? I am 5'2" & 101, my sit bones are very narrow, so I ride a 130. I am a very active rider, so I get rubbed raw if there is too much saddle. I rode a men's saddle for years very comfortably, but have had to go to a women's cut-out model recently. You should end up with one saddle you can ride comfortably for both training & long rides. The MTB saddle I expect would be different, because you sit differently. But you should be able to find one saddle for your road bike.

[OakLeaf]

One more comment on the T-shape vs. pear shape, since I'm in the saddle hunt now:

I have larger thighs (pretty developed inner thigh muscles as well as too much fat), and even though I was getting zero chafing on my thighs, a pear shaped saddle was forcing me to sit forward of the widest part of the saddle, making the "effective" width much narrower than the "actual" width.

Scooting back on the saddle, to me, was secondarily a response to labial chafing, but primarily a result of being continually forced forward by the pear shape (which is what was causing the chafing to begin with).

[VeloVT]

funny, the first thing I thought when I read that you were sliding back was whether your saddle was positioned properly. If the nose is tilted down too much, this can cause "scooting back" (because you've actually been sliding forward). The wrong fore/aft position could cause this too -- if your saddle is too far back, for instance, you may find yourself scooting back because your natural inclination is too sit on the nose (this puts you in the right relationship to the bottom bracket), but it's uncomfortable... If the saddle is too far forward, you just always feel like you need to be further back... so that might be worth looking into...

I seem to be in a serious minority on TE, but I actually prefer pear shaped saddles (but narrow, 130/132 mm widths). Everyone is different... there are also factors other than width and nose/rear transition that affect comfort (and are personal). Some saddles are very flat from tip to tail, while others have a pronounced curve (think Fizik Aliante, or a lot of the Bontrager saddles). Some saddles are convex from side to side in the rear, while others are not at all. These two elements of shape make a big difference to me in whether a saddle is comfortable (I like flat/convex -- but lots of people like more contouring from tip to tail, or get tailbone pain if a saddle is too convex from side to side).

[KnottedYet]

I finally got ahold of some research on pressure patterns for saddles with and without cutouts.

The study was done by a saddle company and used their brand of saddle, a cut out and a regular with the same dimensions.

And they did the study on WOMEN.
(but they didn't standardize for sit bone dimensions, which is a bummer to me)

The upshot of it was that the total weightbearing was the same for both saddles. The concentration and placement of the weight is what changed. The regular saddle had a fairly even pressure over the entire surface under the soft bits. The cut out had a few spots of intense pressure at points along the cut out, and of course none over the cutout.

So, if your anatomy is such that one of the intense pressure points aligns over a nerve or blood vessel or lymph duct, you will suffer mightily on that particular cut out. If the intense pressure points don't align with any vital bits AND your soft tissue finally gets relief from the pressure you'd have on a regular saddle, happiness ensues.

It's a trade off: take the pressure from this large space and concentrate it on this small space. Which is more irritating? The company concluded it was important for them to continue making both saddles due to the variety of female anatomy.

I'm guessing they will use the info from the study to design better cut-out shapes, too. Maybe avoid some of the real hot-spots of pressure.

BTW: I did try riding on one of the saddles in this study a couple months ago. It was agonizing for me because it was just too narrow for my honking gigantic sits bone span. Meanwhile, the owner of that saddle has happily ridden thousands of miles on it, replacing it with the same saddle every time.

Oh, and quick "do I need a cut-out" test: (highly subjective and YMMV) Sit on the front half of a plain wooden chair in your underwear. Keep your back straight and hinge forward from your hip joints. Lean forward until your elbows are resting on your knees. (mimicking torso angle at riding position) Are your soft bits smooshing into the chair? You might want a cut-out. Not smooshing, and you feel you could sit that way no problem? You might need a wider (to support your sit bones completely) or less padded (so excess padding doesn't press upward into your soft bits) saddle than your current one.

Edit to add: the study had some really gross pictures of labial lymphodema caused by poor fitting saddles. Since this is a family forum I won't post the link here, but if you want it PM me.

[lph]

You guys (gals) are the best

I'm def. thinking of trying a 150-155 width, since 143 feels too narrow when I'm sitting up, on the hoods. It also feels too narrow when I just lean forward for a short hill, but if I lift my butt and scoot back, and settle in to ride in an aero position for a while, it feels quite comfy. So I'm guessing that the 143 width at the back is enough for the narrower bones I sit on when aero, but not wide enough for the sit bones proper. I got my dh to check - my "aero" position was about 30 deg or less, while up on the bars it was more like 45 deg.

It's kind of funny that my sit bones are fairly far apart because I have very narrow hips on the outside. Build otherwise - more "athletic and stocky" than "thin and slight". Fairly narrow thighs, so I don't *think* a pear-shape will be a big no-no.

And - brilliant self-test, Knot! It's such a relief to find someone who knows what I'm talking about - the bike shops here in this particular cold corner of the world just try to sell me the "best-selling brand".