Sitbones measured

[Susan]

@bismarckgimpy: KnottedYets post makes total sense to me and is something to hold onto right now

The Problem is, there is a lot of information out there and the different saddle brands don't seem to agree at how to fit a saddle at all.

If I measure my 155 mm SLR (that I will send back today) with Knotted Yets Post in mind (and hoping I'm doing it right) I would say that it is designed for a woman with approximately 130mm - 140mm outside-to-outside width and 110mm - 120mm center-to-center. (And, just in case somebody wants to know, at the point where your sitbones hit, the cutout measures about 35mm.) With this measurements there still wouldn't be much wiggle room for shifting around and so on. That's small for a designated womans saddle, isn't it?

If you read the SQlabs homepage, they measure center-to-center and then add some centimeters depending on your position on the bike. For SQ-lab I would need a 155 oder 160 saddle - but then my sitbones would still stick out a bit as they measure 170mm from outside to outside.

Specialized would fit me on a 155 saddle.

But I think you are totally right Bismarckgimpy, wide saddles just don't have a positive Image that could be why they are not promoted and sold so much. It may be a similar problem as with Bra-sizes (where "everyone" fits a B or a C...) but thats a whole different story

@Muirenn: I will definitely try a Specialized womens saddle too. I have the one that came with my Stumpjumper, but as it is a mans-model (I don't know how you really call that? male model? He-bike? ) it is too small.

I think there is a SLR without a cutout, do you mean that one? Mine is the one with cutout (SLR lady gel flow) and it is definitely wider than the Diva-cutout, though not as wide as it looks on the pictures (on the widest part, the cutout measures 40mm, at the point where the centers of your sitbones hit it measures about 35mm).
The SLR is harder than the Diva and the shape is a bit different - the diva is rounder on the top, while the SLR is quite flat. The effective width is approximately the same.

I have sat on it. It is possible to sit on my sitbones in one spot, but it's really easy to slide off the sides. I can feel the edges of the saddle on my bones. When I don't actively watch my position, the saddle slides between my sitbones and I end up sitting on my soft tissue.
I also measured my sitbones with a piece of cardboard and then took a piece of clear plastic and marked the cardboard-imprints on it with an edding. Now I can take this "test-***" and put it on saddles to see where my sitbones would land. On the SI, my sitbbone-centers would land on the very edge, and I guess thats why I slip of so easily.

I didn't do a longer test ride however, because I think, as much as I like the looks of the saddle, it won't fit me anyways and it's quite expensive - so I'll send it back. I fear the muddy weather here wouldn't leave it in an "unused condition" if I took a ride.

[OakLeaf]

One thing that I remember Knott posting some months ago was that if you don't need a cut-out, don't get one, because it can cause more problems by concentrating pressure that would otherwise be more widely distributed.

I wonder if a corollary to that is that women who need cut-outs will always have more saddle problems than women who don't?

[KnottedYet]

Yeah, that was from the bike fit seminar I went to in SF like 3 years ago. It's the one good piece of info I got from the saddle people.

The Trek folks who were working on the prototype "Inform" saddles at the time gave a little presentation on their saddle design. The only other woman there and I were both going "wait a minute, that's not right!" As I recall, the physician there was also somewhat unconvinced.

Later I got a hold of the original research that lead to that design and it was shoddy and poorly done. It was a student project funded by Trek. (if you put a woman on a pressure-pad sensored rounded saddle that is narrow, OF COURSE you will "discover" that she is weightbearing on her pubic rami, she has no other option. So designing a saddle that is meant to wedge up into the arch of the rami is kinda confusing the whole cause/effect thing.) (what they should have done was asked a bunch of women to bring in their favorite saddles, sensored them, and measured both the women and their saddles and the pressure distribution on saddles they liked; rather than putting a bunch of volunteers on the exact same saddle and saying, oh looky, weightbearing on the rami and squishing soft tissue! It must be what all women want!")

The first women's versions of the saddles were roundly hated, and were promptly redesigned. From what little I've heard, the improved design is doing ok.

[Susan]

I was at my LBS today in the afternoon. It's true Muirenn, a 155 Specialized is much wider than the 155 SI SLR.

The specialized dealer would have fitted me onto a 143, but I'm quite convinced that would be too narrow and bought a Ruby 155. From the short ride I did before it started raining again I can't tell if it fits right. It feels definitely wider and I can feel my sitbones on it.

[bismarckgimpy]

Good luck Susan with your Ruby. Let us know how it works for you. I get your post about how different saddles can have the same measurements, but how those measurements can vary from company to company. I'll let you know how the B68 works.

[malkin]

... It must be what all women want!"

*sigh*
I could rant here, because you know it wasn't just this piece of saddle investigation that was conducted like that. It was pretty much everything. I hope things are better for our daughters and their daughters...