New Selle Italia ladies saddle for 2008

[rij73]

Has anyone seen this saddle live and in person yet? Selle Italia has a ladies SLR saddle that looks sporty and racy with a 155mm width and a HUGE cutout. I can't find a direct link, but go to http://www.selleitalia.com/eng/index.html and then go to Products--Road--SLR--SLR Lady Gel Flow.

Here: I pilfered a screen capture:


It's totally different from their other ladies' saddles... I'm really intrigued, but can't find it for sale *anywhere*.

[Thorn]

Bummer...only 155mm wide.

If it any consolation, I decided I really wanted to try the Topeak Allay, but was queasy about using Cross Lake (an Amazon retailer that sells fishing gear and bicycle saddles....yes, I'm paranoid and yes, others have had luck, but sometimes I just can't trust). Anyway, I set my LBS on it. Their initial response was "No problem"; right now they're running out of sales reps to try. If they succeed, they'll definitely have earned the markup.

From what I'm seeing (and maybe it is just wishful thinking), there seems to be a concerted effort in the saddle industry to try to understand and make a better saddle. There is a lot of innovation and concepts are being expanded--the next couple of years could prove interesting. Or maybe, I'm just looking hard for a new saddle and so I'm just noticing it.

[Grog]

Wow, that would be awesome if only the T-shape was more pronounced, if it narrowed down "faster"... but in its current state it wouldn't be comfortable for me. 155 would be too wide, too. But I like the wide cutout, and it doesn't look bad at all!!

[rij73]

I'm thinking this saddle might be just right for me. DH rides the men's SLR gel flow and it seems like a good compromise between too much padding and none. Also 155mm happens to be the ideal width for me. I've been using the Terry Butterfly. I don't have any real problems with it, but it just feels so darn bulky, and I think I'd do well with something a little less spongy.

Oh yeah, and it also comes in black apparently.

[Andrea]

I'll put it in my que

[Starfish]

Wow, that would be awesome if only the T-shape was more pronounced, if it narrowed down "faster"...

Me, too! Many more T-shape options are what I am waiting to see.

I bought a $50 Falcon X from the Terry site this week. Just got it today and put it on the bike. We'll see.

[Zen]

I bought a $50 Falcon X from the Terry site this week. Just got it today and put it on the bike. We'll see.

I'm happy with mine on the Pilot.

I slapped the Raleigh seat on the mixte last night. I know it's not adjusted correctly but still doesn't feel good. May just go with another Falcon X.

[Starfish]

May just go with another Falcon X.

They still have some $50 ones at the Terry site.

[salsabike]

Bummer...only 155mm wide.

If it any consolation, I decided I really wanted to try the Topeak Allay, but was queasy about using Cross Lake (an Amazon retailer that sells fishing gear and bicycle saddles....

I did get the Allay through Cross Lake and had no problem at all.

[KnottedYet]

Man, sometimes I wish I could design saddles. Or maybe just advise a saddle designer.

I've been doing crazy amounts of research on the physiological effects of saddle use, and I'm ready to tear my hair out over how UNstandardized the studies are! (generally)

All these nice pedantic conclusions in these nice scientific papers, but did anyone (ANYONE!?!?!) actually *measure* the sit bones of the women in the studies? (in the few that even had women in the study) Did they check that the saddle top shape (pear vs T) matched the hip joint angles of the rider? Did they actually determine if the saddle *fit* before they did pressure and friction studies?

<Knot gnashes her teeth and invites the gentle reader to make their own assumptions on that score>

The director of our pelvic rehab program has been very nice about letting me throw my weight around when contacting bike companies for saddle info. And she's been very tolerant about me running to her and ranting about bike saddles. I love my job...

BTW: I found it very interesting that the "best" saddle (least compressive to soft tissues) in one study was an unpadded leather saddle that was wide enough to completely support the ishial tuberosities. The researchers were surprised by that, and even said in their paper that their results were surprising. Of course, this was a study designed by men, carried out by men, and the subjects were men. They could've saved a #$%-load of money and just asked a bunch of WOMEN about compressive saddles! We knew that part already... sheesh. (I, of course, rather smugly assume the "wide unpadded leather saddle" they tested was a Brooks B17.)

[Thorn]

Not to thread-jack (OK, to thread-jack), but, Knot, what about aero? I think the reason several of us drooled on this saddle was because of the generous cutout.

When riding in a touring style, the Brooks makes perfect sense. Support on the IshTub's with a little give. But, drop aero and you are now supporting with 3 points of contact--the IshTub's and the ?pubis? (sorry, anatomy was long ago). At that point, it just doesn't seem that the Brooks will "get out of the way". And, a couple of posts have indicated just this. Wouldn't this imply a different saddle requirement? Or, am I incorrect in the 3 points of contact?

I'm not Brooks-bashing, just saddle manufacturer-bashing. Not all women are touring and not all women ride aero just as all women aren't put together exactly the same. Check the responses to this thread--several of us liked the looks of the saddle, but then we played The Three Bears--too wide, too narrow, oh, just right.

But, I'm just a rider who today is cranky because she has a big chafing spot from her non-T-shaped saddle, but which she rides not because it is right, but because it is currently the lesser of all evils.

[KnottedYet]

Not to thread-jack (OK, to thread-jack), but, Knot, what about aero? I think the reason several of us drooled on this saddle was because of the generous cutout.

When riding in a touring style, the Brooks makes perfect sense. Support on the IshTub's with a little give. But, drop aero and you are now supporting with 3 points of contact--the IshTub's and the ?pubis? (sorry, anatomy was long ago). At that point, it just doesn't seem that the Brooks will "get out of the way". And, a couple of posts have indicated just this. Wouldn't this imply a different saddle requirement? Or, am I incorrect in the 3 points of contact?

I'm not Brooks-bashing, just saddle manufacturer-bashing. Not all women are touring and not all women ride aero just as all women aren't put together exactly the same. Check the responses to this thread--several of us liked the looks of the saddle, but then we played The Three Bears--too wide, too narrow, oh, just right.

But, I'm just a rider who today is cranky because she has a big chafing spot from her non-T-shaped saddle, but which she rides not because it is right, but because it is currently the lesser of all evils.

I couldn't find any studies that *really* looked at women in aero. The studies I'm gnashing my teeth over drive me crazy because they don't take that stuff into consideration!

The study with what I (smug in my limited knowlege of leather saddles) assume involved a Brooks was done on MEN and didn't deal with cut-outs or aero. The study didn't even specify the position the men were taking on the saddles... see how poorly this stuff is being done?

(please note, I was talking about what the RESEARCH STUDY found, which was better penile blood flow on a "unpadded leather saddle."
Any woman could have told them that too much padding cuts down blood flow, and too narrow cuts down blood flow. And I was being grumpy at other studies I'm finding, which are designed very poorly when they involve women and saddle shape and fit.)

I didn't criticize the saddle that started this thread at all. I was raging about POORLY DESIGNED RESEARCH STUDIES that involve women, or don't even take into account women's experiences.

You are saddle-manufacturer bashing, I was saddle-researcher bashing.

Edit: I'm talking about peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal type studies here, not in-house research.

Edit again: According to Trek, cutouts make no difference in comfort or performance, which is why their new "Inform" performance saddle line has no cut outs in either the men's or women's. That is in-house research, and you can bet I want to get ahold of that, and I want a saddle to play with. I know cut-outs make a difference to a lot of TE'ers, so where did Trek get the info that made them decide to nix cut-outs? How was the study designed? Was it standardized for pelvic and saddle parameters? How about soft tissue bulk? And were the studies done on women, or just on men?