Quote Originally Posted by BleeckerSt_Girl View Post
And the downside of that for me was that I couldn't shove the B17S back enough to stop feeling I was holding myself up with my hands, my weight centered to far forward. So yes, the 'S' Brooks forced me to sit on the widest part of it- but with my sitbones literally perched on the back metal frame edge of the saddle. But this was not because it was a shorter saddle- but rather because the rails were so much shorter that the saddle can't be adjusted back much at all. When i got the B17 instead, I could shove it back a whole 'nother 1.5 inches, and I felt way more weight balanced. I don't perch on the saddle nose whether I'm on an "S" model or a 'regular' model- that would feel way too far forward for my center of gravity. I guess all our bodies are different.

I wouldn't have a problem if they marketed the S model simply as a short saddle. But I do have a problem with it being promoted as 'the woman's version' of Brooks saddles. I suspect that not that many women actually do well with the S model because of the super-short rails and their resultant drastic limitation in fore-aft adjustment, and the flowing skirt factor is not really an issue for the average woman rider.
I didn't find the B17 to be any narrower than the B17S in the sitbone area.
(later I switched to the B68 because I realized my sitbones were even wider than i first thought. Pure bliss ever since. )

I always wondered why they figure men need a longer saddle nose, when in reality they have more 'stuff' up front that might have to 'duke it out' with a longer saddle nose!
My bike fitter said women have long femurs which explains why we need to set the saddle back - so why we would want shorter rails is beyond me! I KNEW the s versions wouldn't work for me.