Brooks Imperial

[Biciclista]

The Imperial is based on the B17, which is 170mm wide at the sitbones- too narrow for me- my sitbones ride partially on the frame edges.
I am super comfy on the men's B68 only- which is 210mm wide.

But if the Imperial were wide enough for me, I'd get the men's version, not the "woman's version" S model.

"FIGURE 2" looks pretty wide! but the cutout, like someone else said; looks pinchy. The fact is, the only time I get front crunch is when I slip or something and that cut out is in the WRONG place to do any good when that happens.

[Blueberry]

Looks like Wallingford has them too - 6 month return policy....hmmm....

Good think there's not a honey one

CA

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

"FIGURE 2" looks pretty wide! but the cutout, like someone else said; looks pinchy. The fact is, the only time I get front crunch is when I slip or something and that cut out is in the WRONG place to do any good when that happens.

Yes, the one on the right 'looks' really wide partly because it is so short, the B17 "S" model.
It's actually 177mm wide, - too narrow for my sit bones. And the non-S model is 170mm.

The B68 as I said is 210mm wide and is the only saddle that actually fits my sit bones width-wise so I'm not riding literally on the saddle edges with my bones.

[uforgot]

Yes, the one on the right 'looks' really wide partly because it is so short, the B17 "S" model.
It's actually 177mm wide, - too narrow for my sit bones. And the non-S model is 170mm.

The B68 as I said is 210mm wide and is the only saddle that actually fits my sit bones width-wise so I'm not riding literally on the saddle edges with my bones.

Yeah, and that 6 month guarantee from Wallingford is a good thing too. I figured that easily having an almost 10 pound baby, not to mention a German heritage, guaranteed wide sit bones. I just HAD to try the B68 based on rave reviews. Well, apparently I don't have wide sit bones. That B68 I got felt like I was sitting in a hammock. But Lisa's old B17 s? Perfect! I regretted selling it, but it found a good TE home, and now I'm enjoying Xeney's B17 S. I'm sticking with it.

Edit: As for the Imperial, wonder why the cutout on the S is so narrow? Almost looks pointless.

[Thorn]

I was really disappointed when the Imperial line came out. The B68 Imperial doesn't appear to be a go and the B17S Imperial? Eeks....such a tiny pincher cutout.

I have a B68 that has been chopped and channelled by Selle Anatomica. Even then I've taken a little sand paper and modified the cutout. Given DivingBiker's (?) problems with her B68 breaking after the SA mods, I was really looking forward to the B68 Imperial for my second bike's saddle. But now I wonder if they would have put in a generous cutout or a pincher?

On the one hand Brooks sells a good saddle so you gotta love 'em; on the other hand, they seem to have fallen short here. Reading this board you'd think there was a solid market for a good women's saddle--wide enough, cutout and a long nose. Yes, the Brooks is based on a historically solid design, but today's women is riding just a tad bit more agressively than the 1900's woman.

[Veronica]

Not all women need a cutout. I love my Brooks Finesse.

Veronica

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Not all women need a cutout. I love my Brooks Finesse.

Veronica

Yeah, I don't need a cutout either, my men's regular B68 is just perfect for me on both my bikes. I feel really lucky that I found a saddle that is totally comfy for me.

[OakLeaf]

Not all women need a cutout. I love my Brooks Finesse.

Veronica

But since the women who do need a cutout are those of us who are, let's say, more generously endowed down there, I don't see the point of a cutout that's only half the width of what it's supposed to be relieving pressure on. As someone who definitely needs a cutout but who enjoyed an old tensioned leather saddle on my very first "ten-speed," I was eagerly anticipating the Imperial, but now that I see it, I'll stick with my Specialized, thank you very much. That cutout just looks painful.