How unusuall is a 160mm sit bone width?

Per [email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

160mm is what my sit bone measured at. I'm currently riding a 155mm
specialized saddle that the dealer suggested. which didn't make too
much sense to me, but it is better than what came on my bike. I still
don't feel i am sitting on the saddle properly, it feels i am balancing
on the edges, not really sitting. I can only ride it for 30 minues
before i have to stop because of my butt.

I am thinking of ordering a broooks b-17 (170mm) but at only 15mm wider
than what i ride now I'm not sure if i will be happy with it. i had
also consider the b-17 S for women because it is a bit wider, but
thought it might cause problems for a man.

my main question is is there any road cyclers who have sit bones of
155mm+ and what saddles do you ride?

That's about 6.3" and I'd say you're out on the right hand side of the bell
curve.

Mine are 5" C-C (about 127mm).

I switched to a B-17 and find it ok although I think it could be a quarter or
half inch wider.

There's always the chance for some sort of methodology problem - e.g. maybe
you're measuring outside-to-outside and I'm measuring center-to-center... but if
our measurements really are comparable I'd expect the B-17 to be narrow for you.

Why not try it? Wallingford will let you exchange or return within some
reasonable timeframe. Your next step up would be one with the wider top like
B-67 or B-72. http://www.wallbike.com/B66B72.html

I liked the B-72 a lot on my road bike. Firm, but soft enough to soak up the
shocks. Abandoned it for MTB because I kept breaking rails.
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per [email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

160mm is what my sit bone measured at. I'm currently riding a 155mm
specialized saddle that the dealer suggested. which didn't make too
much sense to me, but it is better than what came on my bike. I still
don't feel i am sitting on the saddle properly, it feels i am balancing
on the edges, not really sitting. I can only ride it for 30 minues
before i have to stop because of my butt.

I am thinking of ordering a broooks b-17 (170mm) but at only 15mm wider
than what i ride now I'm not sure if i will be happy with it. i had
also consider the b-17 S for women because it is a bit wider, but
thought it might cause problems for a man.

my main question is is there any road cyclers who have sit bones of
155mm+ and what saddles do you ride?

That's about 6.3" and I'd say you're out on the right hand side of the bell
curve.

Mine are 5" C-C (about 127mm).

I switched to a B-17 and find it ok although I think it could be a quarter or
half inch wider.

There's always the chance for some sort of methodology problem - e.g. maybe
you're measuring outside-to-outside and I'm measuring center-to-center... but if
our measurements really are comparable I'd expect the B-17 to be narrow for you.

Why not try it? Wallingford will let you exchange or return within some
reasonable timeframe. Your next step up would be one with the wider top like
B-67 or B-72. http://www.wallbike.com/B66B72.html

I liked the B-72 a lot on my road bike. Firm, but soft enough to soak up the
shocks. Abandoned it for MTB because I kept breaking rails.
--
PeteCresswell

Yes i measured center to center, I had looked at the b67 but i thought
it would be to big for high cadence biking, but i'm thinking of giving
it a shot over the b17.

Quoted message said:

160mm is what my sit bone measured at. I'm currently riding a 155mm
specialized saddle that the dealer suggested. which didn't make too
much sense to me, but it is better than what came on my bike. I still
don't feel i am sitting on the saddle properly, it feels i am balancing
on the edges, not really sitting. I can only ride it for 30 minues
before i have to stop because of my butt.

I am thinking of ordering a broooks b-17 (170mm) but at only 15mm wider
than what i ride now I'm not sure if i will be happy with it. i had
also consider the b-17 S for women because it is a bit wider, but
thought it might cause problems for a man.

my main question is is there any road cyclers who have sit bones of
155mm+ and what saddles do you ride?

How are you measuring? I sat on playdough and got 137 mm, then a kid at
a Specialized dealer measured and got 127. I also sat on some florist's
foam and got 140 mm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

160mm is what my sit bone measured at. I'm currently riding a 155mm
specialized saddle that the dealer suggested. which didn't make too
much sense to me, but it is better than what came on my bike. I still
don't feel i am sitting on the saddle properly, it feels i am balancing
on the edges, not really sitting. I can only ride it for 30 minues
before i have to stop because of my butt.

I am thinking of ordering a broooks b-17 (170mm) but at only 15mm wider
than what i ride now I'm not sure if i will be happy with it. i had
also consider the b-17 S for women because it is a bit wider, but
thought it might cause problems for a man.

my main question is is there any road cyclers who have sit bones of
155mm+ and what saddles do you ride?

How are you measuring? I sat on playdough and got 137 mm, then a kid at
a Specialized dealer measured and got 127. I also sat on some florist's
foam and got 140 mm.

Angle makes a difference. If you lean forward you get a different measure than
if you sit upright. One of the reasons for different saddle styles.

Ron

RonSonic said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

160mm is what my sit bone measured at. I'm currently riding a 155mm
specialized saddle that the dealer suggested. which didn't make too
much sense to me, but it is better than what came on my bike. I still
don't feel i am sitting on the saddle properly, it feels i am balancing
on the edges, not really sitting. I can only ride it for 30 minues
before i have to stop because of my butt.

I am thinking of ordering a broooks b-17 (170mm) but at only 15mm wider
than what i ride now I'm not sure if i will be happy with it. i had
also consider the b-17 S for women because it is a bit wider, but
thought it might cause problems for a man.

my main question is is there any road cyclers who have sit bones of
155mm+ and what saddles do you ride?

How are you measuring? I sat on playdough and got 137 mm, then a kid at
a Specialized dealer measured and got 127. I also sat on some florist's
foam and got 140 mm.

Angle makes a difference. If you lean forward you get a different measure than
if you sit upright. One of the reasons for different saddle styles.

Ron

The guy at the specialized shop measured 160, I measure my self on
memory foam and got 155, I sat back straight leaning slightly foward
sitting on a step abou 1 foot above my feet.

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> 160mm is what my sit bone measured at. I'm currently riding a 155mm
> specialized saddle that the dealer suggested. which didn't make too
> much sense to me, but it is better than what came on my bike. I still
> don't feel i am sitting on the saddle properly, it feels i am balancing
> on the edges, not really sitting. I can only ride it for 30 minues
> before i have to stop because of my butt.
>
> I am thinking of ordering a broooks b-17 (170mm) but at only 15mm wider
> than what i ride now I'm not sure if i will be happy with it. i had
> also consider the b-17 S for women because it is a bit wider, but
> thought it might cause problems for a man.
>
> my main question is is there any road cyclers who have sit bones of
> 155mm+ and what saddles do you ride?

How are you measuring? I sat on playdough and got 137 mm, then a kid at
a Specialized dealer measured and got 127. I also sat on some florist's
foam and got 140 mm.

Angle makes a difference. If you lean forward you get a different measure than
if you sit upright. One of the reasons for different saddle styles.

Ron

The guy at the specialized shop measured 160, I measure my self on
memory foam and got 155, I sat back straight leaning slightly foward
sitting on a step abou 1 foot above my feet.

If that's your position on the bike, then that's a valid measurement. What's
more important is that your 155 saddle leaves you feeling like you're balancing
on the inside edge of the sit bones. That can be damnably painful. The only
thing worse is one size smaller so it wedges them apart.

The additional 15mm of the brooks is a lot and width shouldn't be an issue -
we're talking over a half inch wider. You really don't want any excess width.
Doesn't mean you'll like the shape. But well worth a try.

Ron

Per RonSonic:

Quoted message said:

The additional 15mm of the brooks is a lot and width shouldn't be an issue -
we're talking over a half inch wider. You really don't want any excess width.
Doesn't mean you'll like the shape. But well worth a try.

Also, when comparing Brooks to a plastic saddle, visualize "usable width".

On a Brooks usable width = measured width. On a plastic saddle, usable with is
much less than measured width.

Look at the structure underneath a plastic saddle like the WDB Speed-V and
you'll see what I mean.
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per RonSonic:

Quoted message said:

The additional 15mm of the brooks is a lot and width shouldn't be an issue -
we're talking over a half inch wider. You really don't want any excess width.
Doesn't mean you'll like the shape. But well worth a try.

Also, when comparing Brooks to a plastic saddle, visualize "usable width".

On a Brooks usable width = measured width. On a plastic saddle, usable with is
much less than measured width.

Look at the structure underneath a plastic saddle like the WDB Speed-V and
you'll see what I mean.

What is the correlation between this measurement and comfort? I ask
only because I have been riding pretty seriously for many years, and I
have never once measured my butt. -- Jay Beattie.

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per RonSonic:

Quoted message said:

The additional 15mm of the brooks is a lot and width shouldn't be an issue -
we're talking over a half inch wider. You really don't want any excess width.
Doesn't mean you'll like the shape. But well worth a try.

Also, when comparing Brooks to a plastic saddle, visualize "usable width".

On a Brooks usable width = measured width. On a plastic saddle, usable with is
much less than measured width.

Look at the structure underneath a plastic saddle like the WDB Speed-V and
you'll see what I mean.
--
PeteCresswell

I guess my concern on the brooks was that i would be sitting on the
metal frame on the edge and not the suspended leather.

I'm going to go ahead and order the b17.

Quoted message said:

160mm is what my sit bone measured at. I'm currently riding a 155mm
specialized saddle that the dealer suggested.

....

Quoted message said:

I can only ride it for 30 minues
before i have to stop because of my butt.

I am thinking of ordering a broooks b-17 (170mm) but at only 15mm wider
than what i ride now I'm not sure if i will be happy with it. i had
also consider the b-17 S for women because it is a bit wider, but
thought it might cause problems for a man.

The only differences between "S" model Brooks saddles and the normal
kinds are a small difference in overall width and a larger difference
in the length of the saddle nose. If you find that your "proboscis"
threatens to hang over the front of your saddle, then this tendency
will be exaggerated with the shorter S saddle.

If I were you, I'd just get a B72, B66, or B67 and ride comfortably.
Those are the narrowest saddles I can make peace with anyway. The
B90/3 is my favorite, but I'd like it even better with fewer springs.

Chalo

Per Jay Beattie:

Quoted message said:

What is the correlation between this measurement and comfort? I ask
only because I have been riding pretty seriously for many years, and I
have never once measured my butt. -- Jay Beattie.

If your butt's too wide, comfort declines drastically. If you're outside of the
usable width, but still on the saddle it just gets harder as your bones are not
on the part of the saddle that's designed to flex. Once you sit bones are even
outside of the measured width I'd opine that the prospect of damage to the rider
raises it's head.

Mostly people who make/sell saddles act like "usable width" doesn't even exist
as a valid concept. In fact, major catalogs are full of saddle listings that
don't even show the measured width of saddles, much less usable width.

My theory is that most people's sit bones fall within a fairly narrow range
(i.e. the normal distribution curve is narrow and high).
--
PeteCresswell

Per [email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I guess my concern on the brooks was that i would be sitting on the
metal frame on the edge and not the suspended leather.

There is no metal frame on the edge of a Brooks... that's why measured width =
usable width. There's a metal frame in the back - which you need to sit
forwards of.
--
PeteCresswell

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jay Beattie said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per RonSonic:

Quoted message said:

The additional 15mm of the brooks is a lot and width shouldn't be
an issue - we're talking over a half inch wider. You really don't
want any excess width. Doesn't mean you'll like the shape. But
well worth a try.

Also, when comparing Brooks to a plastic saddle, visualize "usable
width".

On a Brooks usable width = measured width. On a plastic saddle,
usable with is much less than measured width.

Look at the structure underneath a plastic saddle like the WDB
Speed-V and you'll see what I mean.

What is the correlation between this measurement and comfort? I ask
only because I have been riding pretty seriously for many years, and
I have never once measured my butt.

LOL! Me neither.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

160mm is what my sit bone measured at. I'm currently riding a 155mm
specialized saddle that the dealer suggested. which didn't make too
much sense to me, but it is better than what came on my bike. I still
don't feel i am sitting on the saddle properly, it feels i am

balancing

Quoted message said:

on the edges, not really sitting. I can only ride it for 30 minues
before i have to stop because of my butt.

I am thinking of ordering a broooks b-17 (170mm) but at only 15mm

wider

Quoted message said:

than what i ride now I'm not sure if i will be happy with it. i had
also consider the b-17 S for women because it is a bit wider, but
thought it might cause problems for a man.

my main question is is there any road cyclers who have sit bones of
155mm+ and what saddles do you ride?

I have Brooks Pros on all of my road bikes and I'm happy with them. I
have fairly wide bones too, never measured them but I found that a lot
of padded or gel seats allowed me to sink in too deep and pressure is
applied in the middle which quickly gets uncomfortable.

Back in the mid 1970's I rode a women's Avocet gel saddle on my mountain
bike for a while before men's Avocet gel models were available. They
were just hard enough to give me proper support plus shock absorption.
The gel was just in the sit points area.

I just started riding again after about 5 years off the bike. I've tried
a bunch of different seats on my MTBs. Right now I'm trying WTB Pure V
Race saddles on my 2 MTBs. They have hard enough padding in the right
places to give a lot of support plus the whale tail design is slightly
wider than my Brooks Pros.

Chas.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per RonSonic:

Quoted message said:

The additional 15mm of the brooks is a lot and width shouldn't be

an issue -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we're talking over a half inch wider. You really don't want any

excess width.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doesn't mean you'll like the shape. But well worth a try.

Also, when comparing Brooks to a plastic saddle, visualize "usable

width".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On a Brooks usable width = measured width. On a plastic saddle,

usable with is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

much less than measured width.

Look at the structure underneath a plastic saddle like the WDB

Speed-V and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you'll see what I mean.
--
PeteCresswell

I guess my concern on the brooks was that i would be sitting on the
metal frame on the edge and not the suspended leather.

That's the meaning of the old racing term "up on the rivets". I find
after a long ride or during a sprint, I start stretching out and end up
sitting on the back of the saddle which isn't too uncomfortable for
brief periods.

Chas.

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Per Jay Beattie:

Quoted message said:

What is the correlation between this measurement and comfort? I ask
only because I have been riding pretty seriously for many years, and

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have never once measured my butt. -- Jay Beattie.

If your butt's too wide, comfort declines drastically. If you're

outside of the

Quoted message said:

usable width, but still on the saddle it just gets harder as your

bones are not

Quoted message said:

on the part of the saddle that's designed to flex. Once you sit

bones are even

Quoted message said:

outside of the measured width I'd opine that the prospect of damage to

the rider

Quoted message said:

raises it's head.

Mostly people who make/sell saddles act like "usable width" doesn't

even exist

Quoted message said:

as a valid concept. In fact, major catalogs are full of saddle

listings that

Quoted message said:

don't even show the measured width of saddles, much less usable width.

My theory is that most people's sit bones fall within a fairly narrow

range

Quoted message said:

(i.e. the normal distribution curve is narrow and high).
--
PeteCresswell

I don't know if you've been around long enough to remember the old round
top 4" wide plastic "date with the Turk" seats that came on a lot of
1970's bike boom bikes?

They were instantly uncomfortable. After trying about a dozen different
ones, I found a Cinelli Unicanitor and used that for a while until I
discovered my Brooks Pro.

Chas.

Per * * Chas:

Quoted message said:

That's the meaning of the old racing term "up on the rivets". I find
after a long ride or during a sprint, I start stretching out and end up
sitting on the back of the saddle which isn't too uncomfortable for
brief periods.

It took quite awhile for it to dawn on me that the reason I thought my saddles
were too small was that I was sitting on the back plate/rivets.
--
PeteCresswell

Tim McNamara said:

"Jay Beattie" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the correlation between this measurement and comfort? I ask
only because I have been riding pretty seriously for many years, and
I have never once measured my butt.

T.M. replied:

Quoted message said:

LOL! Me neither.

"Often felt, never measured".

Marketing. It's everywhere...

A wider look (well?) at the world of saddles might be in order?

I knew someone who used a Turbo woman's saddle back in the day. Quite a
bit wider than the man's model, worked well for him. --D-y