This is a repost, but since I put some thought into writing it, what the hell...
---------------------------
Discounting gels and cutouts, there are three basic parameters to road-bike saddle shape.
1. "Top view" width, length, taper, etc.
2. "Side view" -- profile flat, bowed, or ramped up in rear.
3. "Rear view" -- profile can vary from almost flat to quite convex
I think too many people focus on #1 and that #2 is probably the most important, although #3 can be a
real disqualifier if it is badly wrong.
Generally (for experienced riders) a firmer saddle is more comfortable on longer rides. Saddles like
the Regal, which is nicely padded overall, are OK for me but variants like the Flite or Trimatic w/
gel inserts are not.
The angle at which you place the saddle is extremely important. Start with the saddle absolutely
level; rest a yardstick on top of the saddle and adjust the tilt so it's perfectly parallel with the
top tube. Then experiment and note what works for you. Generally too far nose-down puts pressure on
your hands and too far nose-up makes your sit-bones ache and increases pressure on the perineum.
Everybody's butt is different and saddle preferences are highly personal. Just for info, here's how
I'd rank the ones I've tried on my bikes or others I've ridden and remember, over the last 10 years:
LIKES (#1 is best)
4. Trimatic (non gel)
5. Regal
6. Coda (~ Flite shape)
7. Flite (non-gel)
8. Max Flite
9. Turbomatic 2
10. Rolls
11. Terry Sport
12. Bassano Vuelta
DISLIKES (#1 is worst)
13. Turbo
14. Concor
15. Expedia
16. Squadra
17. Vetta
Somebody told me the Turbo, which killed my butt after 30 miles, actually had the same profile as
the Turbomatic 2, which it quite comfortable to me. So go figure.
Mike Yankee
(Address is munged to thwart spammers. To reply, delete everything after "com".)