accordion wrote:Oh yay! a response
I really liked the B67S, mostly because I got to try it on a bike at the local LBS. They tried to order it and was told it is on back order and won't arrive until DECEMBER!!! It's a small place and if I order a few in to try, the owner will have to pay for them regardless of whether I do. That seems terribly unfair. I could go elsewhere and try some (like Abbotsford cycles) but I'd rather my LBS got my dosh. Yes, they really are that good.
My husband wants a better saddle too, the standard one he has is too awful for words. His birthday coming up and I reckon the Flyer or B67 would suit. Here's the weird thing: the B67S (girly model) has a double rail whereas the B67 (boy) does not. Very tricky indeed.
We both do city riding on upright bikes for short to medium distances. Him, up to 10km, me up to 25km. Neither of us are speed demons. Any more advice would be appreciated.
Pete wrote:Double rail saddles are designed for heavier riders, often riding bikes in a more upright posture placing more of their weight on the saddle. Think upright Dutch roadsters. I'll leave you to be the judge of whether this matches with your description and cycling style. For most road, touring and MTBs in Australia they are usually a bit of overkill, not to mention very heavy.
I note your choice of the S model (womens model) of Brooks saddles. This design really dates back to when all women rode bikes in skirts on drop frame bikes. The saddle was made shorter to prevent madam's skirt from hooking up on the saddle nose. These days it is a bit of an anachronism as most women are happy to wear knicks, shorts, slacks or tights of some sort. However the downside of a shorter saddle is that short rails make the saddle much stiffer (so too do the double rails). This makes for a much harsher ride. Again I'll leave you to judge how much sustained impact you think your derriere can handle. Personally I like a long saddle for flex and suggest all women should get the mens model of Brooks - the saddle top is really no different in shape, just longer.
BTW get the saddle from Abbotsford Cycles. They are the Brooks distributors and will be able to give you excellent advice to avoid any problems in your choice of model.
accordion wrote:It was a "Champion Flyer" and came with a friends bike. I'm guessing it's the same as a standard Flyer but rebadged slightly for that bike. My friend hates it as it is too hard. She said that they take up to 1000 kilometres to break in.
Tell me it isn't so!
fixie wrote:I disagree with your assertion that double rails make the saddle stiffer. I do not think that a mechanical analysis will show up any effect. Short saddles for females is a biophysical issue. Any theoretical stiffness increase is taken care of by the accommodation of the leather saddle. That is the beauty of the hammock leather saddle design. My 2 cents worth.
Harris Cyclery wrote:This distinction is not as clear-cut as might be supposed. It is generally understood that women, on average, require a somewhat wider saddle than the average man. There is a basic biological reason for this: women, on average, have wider hips than men, so their ischial tuberosities (sit bones) are farther apart.
It is also customary for women's saddles to be shorter than those marketed to men. I'm not convinced that there's any biological reason for this; rather, I believe that the custom of making women's saddles shorter is for the sake of accommodating a skirt more easily. Women who don't plan to ride in a skirt should not rule out "men's" saddles, particularly the wider models.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests