Hi Sheila, Sorry to be a spook - yes, I am an occasional lurker here, mostly because of the high-quality problem solving demonstrated by this group of smart women not afraid to discuss the details that really matter. I've avoided posting until now, out of respect and also in order not to disturb the cooperative spirit here, which I think could be partly the result of a (virtually) women-only environment. I'm only posting now because Trek420 graciously invited me to do so; I hope it's okay. This is my second post. My first post is introducing myself in the "Getting to know you" thread.
Even the percentile of men and women being such and such a width. I've linked to that discussion many times for people here. That is the thread where someone placed the coins on a saddle and took a picture. Really great discussion. And play-doh, huh? Wonder whose idea that was?![]()
I agree, the stats on sit bone width are a nice reference. I guess we used the same database. Is the play-doh technique yours? If so please let me know how you'd like to be named and I'll revise the article to give proper credit, as I did for the Cutout Test after Knott called me on the phone. I had PMed her but not in time for her to see it, so I was really happy to hear from her and be able to use her real name in giving credit for the test!
Agreed, and as OakLeaf mentioned, maybe you'd like to add that as a comment on the article? I'm aware of that concept, which is why I wrote: "...equal or greater than the center-to-center spacing between your sit bones, plus about 1 centimeter on each side."The point of taking center to center and adding 2 centimeters to get saddle width is a problem, though. My center to center is 118, and yet my outside distance is around 155. I can't use a saddle more narrow than 150, and wider is better. Yet this puts me on a 138. That needs a caveat.
And "Saddle width >= sit bone spacing + 2cm" (emphasis added).
What do you think?
Respectfully,
Damon Rinard




Reply With Quote