Finding the right saddle...

[BalaRoja]

Got the sit-bone measurement and it looks like 16cm. I got the measurement from someone who knows anatomy very well so I'm thinking it is right.

WOuld that change the saddle selection? maybe a wider seat?

[sarahspins]

160mm is definitely on the wider end.... so if you've been on a seat that was too narrow, that can definitely contribute to a lot of pressure/pain up front.

[Suechoccy]

A bike fit done several years ago can be forgotten. You will have changed shape, fitness and age during the intervening years so it's irrelevant. If you're trying now to use the bikefit position prescribed some years ago (when presumably you were fit and riding a lot), then you're probably in too aggressive a/low a position at the front now for your fitness/shape/age at the moment.

The lower the front end goes, the more pressure is put on the soft tissues esp towards the very front of your genitals.

I'd raise the front slightly to take pressure off yourself, then get a few weeks acclimization, then maybe lower the front if you really want to.

Saddles, I'm fine with a typical bloke's saddle on a road bike with drop handlebars, but had a difficult time finding a comfy saddle for my tri-bars time trial bike as the front position is more acute/lower. After several false starts including WTB Rockets, Specialised Jetts and Fizik Rondines, I had a week's free trial of an Adamo Race and loved it so bought one for the tribar bike. It is an acquired taste though, quite hard, hard on the seatbones, and the short nose is wide too, so you definitely need the free trial first to see if it suits you, and you need to set it up according to the saddle-fitting demo at:

http://www.ismseat.com/faqs/htm

Here's a thread all about Adamo saddles from an English timetrialling forum (men and women:
http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/...hp?t34359.html

Good luck, I hope you find comfort soon!

[OakLeaf]

Got the sit-bone measurement and it looks like 16cm. I got the measurement from someone who knows anatomy very well so I'm thinking it is right.

WOuld that change the saddle selection? maybe a wider seat?

Yeah, 160 mm is pretty wide, wider than most saddles go. Remember that you need some room on either side of the center of your sitbones, for proper support - when a manufacturer says their saddle is, say, 162 mm (about as wide as anything other than Brooks go), that's measuring from outside to outside at the widest point. The points on the top that will actually be supporting you are closer together. If you're 160mm center-to-center, then seriously consider a Brooks. They're heavy, yeah, but they're wide, very T-shaped, and people who need a very wide saddle just love them.

Just as they say about aero position - if you can't breathe, then the deepest tuck with the least wind resistance isn't the fastest position for you - it's the same with saddles. You may be giving up some weight to other riders, but if other saddles don't let you push off your saddle as hard or as long as you need to, then your weight savings is useless.

[dianne_1234]

You're right Oak, 160 is off the charts. Well, off these charts anyway.

From a post I made anticipating just this circumstance:

Ischial Tuberosity Spacing stats

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found this in my old uni notes and wanted to post it here for easy reference:

Ischial Tuberosity Spacing among women:
5th percentile 112 mm
50th percentile 130 mm
95th percentile 148 mm

Ischial Tuberosity Spacing among men:
5th percentile 100 mm
50th percentile 118 mm
95th percentile 137 mm

I don't remember the population this data was taken from, but I remember being under the impression that it was a very large number of individuals and it was considered "safe" to assume it might represent the whole world.

I've used this info to help narrow the search - once I learned I was wider the 95th percentile(!) I stopped bothering with a lot of narrow saddles.

From http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showt...t=21451&page=3

[BalaRoja]

Hi Oakleaf & Dianne - Those are some interesting stats. I suppose I would hope to be in the 99% (give or take a percentage point or two) of something a bit more impressive than, um....sit bones but what the heck

[KnottedYet]

Hi Oakleaf & Dianne - Those are some interesting stats. I suppose I would hope to be in the 99% (give or take a percentage point or two) of something a bit more impressive than, um....sit bones but what the heck

Don't sweat it, there are several of us on TE in the 170-180mm zone! (we tend to ride Brooks B66, B67, B68 saddles)

I tend to measure women who come to me who are having trouble with saddles, and almost all of them are in the 150mm and up range. Which is *why* they were having trouble finding saddles!

[sarahspins]

Eeek.. I didn't realize I was in the above 99% zone myself.. I just knew I had a heck of a time finding a saddle that didn't totally kill the girly parts. The first midwife I ever saw said I was "built for having babies" and I really get what she meant after my first was born after a lightning fast labor with a 14.5" noggin (even my last one at 9lbs+ was born in only 2 hours total.. his head wasn't *quite* that big though)

A B68 was my next move after the Selle SMP if that hadn't worked for me.