Leather saddles + cutout = ?

Just a postscript. I notice that mcmwin.com will "apply our patent
improvements to your Brooks saddle"[1], i.e., cut it out. (What exactly
is patent worthy about the company's procedures is a mystery unless
it's the profit motive!). But I always imagined modifying a stock
Brooks in such a way would undermine its strength and durability. Am I
wrong?

[1]
http://www.mcmwin.com/saddle%20shop.htm#Brooks_Upgrade_Services_

Luke

Luke said:

Occasionally I entertain the idea of performing surgery on my B-17 -
just how would the saddle ride with a cutout? Recognizing that the
saddle's capacity to support my copious hind quarters would be
seriously compromised has thus far discouraged me from wielding a
scalpel - I have visions of a post-op Brooks, relieved of much of its
spine, folding like a cheap suitcase and adding disembowelment to my
list of medical woes.

Now Good ol' American Ingenuity rides to the rescue of Brooks' devotees
- whether they need it or not! Please see
http://www.mcmwin.com/Postcardv71.pdf [a pdf file]. A conscious attempt
at targeting the Brooks crowd? A la Brooks Pro, Selle An-Atomica
saddles even sport oversized copper rivets.

Any first hand experience with these?

Luke

I only just recieved mine this week from this company. It appears to be
a Brooks Professional 'Deluxe' model which has had the 'cutout'
treatment applied to it. In addition the mcmwin crowd have applied an
extra laminated layer of some sort, possibly an extra layer of leather.
AFAIK this is to add strength back to the whole setup after the cutout
is removed (this is what their patent seems to refer too - that and the
cutout in a leather saddle idea I guess)
I have only done 70km so far but at this stage it is comfortable
enough. My weight is sitting squarely on my sit bones, although it feels
a little hard right now. The professional model is reputed to be made of
thicker leather than other brooks models and may take longer to wear in.

They offer 3 models of altered brooks saddles in different widths.
They appear to be the B17, Professional and Swift models. They come with
3 different cutout shapes in each, as well as with or without the
laminated under layer. The site also has advice on how to tell which
width is right for yourself. My previous saddle was a B17 which I have
found to be a little too wide, hence the move to a slightly narrower saddle.
They also offer a design of their own using some kind of waterproofed
leather, so you don't need to bother with the maintenance as much, but
only in the narrowest width as yet.

The package I recieved also contained a 4 page booklet on how to
correctly adjust the seat and handle bars, brake levers etc for maximum
comfort, which was very handy. My bike was way out using this method,
which was very suprising, so I'm keen to see what the next few months of
riding bring.

Per Luke:

Quoted message said:

http://www.mcmwin.com/Postcardv71.pdf

My initial reaction is that it's somebody's joke.
--
PeteCresswell

Luke said:

Just a postscript. I notice that mcmwin.com will "apply our patent
improvements to your Brooks saddle"[1], i.e., cut it out. (What
exactly is patent worthy about the company's procedures is a mystery
unless it's the profit motive!). But I always imagined modifying a
stock Brooks in such a way would undermine its strength and
durability. Am I wrong?

You can patent anything in the U.S. because the US Patent Office
doesn;t bother anymore to check for prior art before issuing a patent.
They just issue them [censored]-nilly and let the courts decide which ones
are valid. It's actually having quite a chilling effect on the
development of new products, especially in the computer world where
patents are often incredibly broad and vague. Almost every major
software and hardware developer in the computer industry is involved
in dozens of patent litigations at any given time.

tspoon said:

The package I recieved also contained a 4 page booklet on how to
correctly adjust the seat and handle bars, brake levers etc for
maximum comfort, which was very handy. My bike was way out using
this method, which was very suprising, so I'm keen to see what the
next few months of riding bring.

It woul dbe interesting to see if those changes in position would have
eliminated whatever problems you were having from your old saddle.
IMHO 75% or more of saddle related problems (numbness and pain) are
due to saddles that are too narrow and poor positioning.

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

Just a postscript. I notice that mcmwin.com will "apply our patent
improvements to your Brooks saddle"[1], i.e., cut it out. (What
exactly is patent worthy about the company's procedures is a
mystery unless it's the profit motive!). But I always imagined
modifying a stock Brooks in such a way would undermine its strength
and durability. Am I wrong?

Quoted message said:

You can patent anything in the U.S. because the US Patent Office
doesn't bother anymore to check for prior art before issuing a
patent. They just issue them [censored]-nilly and let the courts decide
which ones are valid. It's actually having quite a chilling effect
on the development of new products, especially in the computer world
where patents are often incredibly broad and vague. Almost every
major software and hardware developer in the computer industry is
involved in dozens of patent litigations at any given time.

That is apparent by the US Patent office issuing Rolf Dietrich's
paired spoke patent that is identical to one by Lovelace 1890, the
reason why TREK no longer uses Rolf wheels (since they discovered the
older patent).

Jobst Brandt

Luke said:

Now Good ol' American Ingenuity rides to the rescue of Brooks' devotees
- whether they need it or not! Please see
http://www.mcmwin.com/Postcardv71.pdf [a pdf file]. A conscious attempt
at targeting the Brooks crowd? A la Brooks Pro, Selle An-Atomica
saddles even sport oversized copper rivets.

Thanks but NO Thanks. I will take my B-17 Brooks and bicycle about 2500 km
next summer (Northern Hemisphere) E to W across Northern Australia. Then
fly to Melbourne and do some more cycling in the Southern Hemisphere
"winter".

I expect traditional technology to serve me well and without ANY injury.
No point in fighting history in that trip. LOTS of decades versus a "new"
advertisement.

Pshaw! I rest my case.

Maybe in the USA in 2005-06, but NOT on a REAL trip in the REAL world. :-)

Just my opinion. YMMV.

Ken
Canada

In article <[email hidden]>, tspoon <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I only just recieved mine this week from this company. It appears to be
a Brooks Professional 'Deluxe' model which has had the 'cutout'
treatment applied to it. In addition the mcmwin crowd have applied an
extra laminated layer of some sort, possibly an extra layer of leather.
AFAIK this is to add strength back to the whole setup after the cutout
is removed (this is what their patent seems to refer too - that and the
cutout in a leather saddle idea I guess)

Here's a photo of the laminate applied to the underside of the saddle:
http://www.mcmwin.com/images/R0010016.JPG Don't try this at home folks;
you'll have a patent infringement lawsuit on your hands!

Quoted message said:

I have only done 70km so far but at this stage it is comfortable
enough. My weight is sitting squarely on my sit bones, although it feels
a little hard right now. The professional model is reputed to be made of
thicker leather than other brooks models and may take longer to wear in.

I've taken a cheap caliper to my Brooks saddles to determine whether
the leather really is thicker on the Pro and if it is, the difference
is so slight it doesn't register with my simple tools - the leather
used in both saddles is about 4.5mm thick. But the B17 is definitely
more compliant; I wonder to what extent this can be attributed to its
wider profile and, in your case, the absence of laminate.

Apart from possibly decreasing the life of the saddle, I'm curious
whether the cutout on your saddle 'digs in' when riding. On saddles
built from a rigid molded base there's often extra padding at the edge
of the cutout to prevent this, but on these recycled Brooks there's
obviously none. Couple that with the give in a suspended saddle and the
edge of the cutout could prove irritating. Do you find this to be so?

Quoted message said:

They offer 3 models of altered brooks saddles in different widths.
They appear to be the B17, Professional and Swift models. They come with
3 different cutout shapes in each, as well as with or without the
laminated under layer.

I hadn't realized before the company's declaration that "the following
models are handmade in the US using remanufactured, relabeled Brooks
components" Mcmwin.com is just, well, 'remanufacturing'. One would
think that Brooks would include the cutout option under its brand
rather than let others profit from reworking its products.

Quoted message said:

The site also has advice on how to tell which
width is right for yourself. My previous saddle was a B17 which I have
found to be a little too wide, hence the move to a slightly narrower saddle.

Echoing your sentiments I also made move to the Pro, but was surprised
to find as part of the bargain that the Pro was so unyielding (compared
to the B17). I ride my B17s sans chamois - even month long tours have
never required one; but with the Pro a little extra padding in the rear
is required to take the 'edge' off the ride.

Quoted message said:

They also offer a design of their own using some kind of waterproofed
leather, so you don't need to bother with the maintenance as much, but
only in the narrowest width as yet.

The package I recieved also contained a 4 page booklet on how to
correctly adjust the seat and handle bars, brake levers etc for maximum
comfort, which was very handy. My bike was way out using this method,
which was very suprising, so I'm keen to see what the next few months of
riding bring.

Per Luke:

Quoted message said:

I have visions of a post-op Brooks, relieved of much of its
spine, folding like a cheap suitcase and adding disembowelment to my
list of medical woes.

Maybe not disembowelment... but I'd think definitely adding to the list.

Seems to me like the essence of a leather saddle is that it gives your sit bones
something solid enough to support them so that the perineum isn't bearing on the
saddle. Touching maybe... but not bearing much weight.

OTOH, I tried one of those ultra-split saddles - the ones where each sit bone
sets on a separate pad. The thing was a disaster. My bunghole bled for days
after each of the 3-4 times I tried it. I think it's kind of like a pimple -
you apply enough pressure around a point without anything on the point and
something's gotta pop.
--
PeteCresswell

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim McNamara

Quoted message said:

tspoon said:

The package I recieved also contained a 4 page booklet on how to
correctly adjust the seat and handle bars, brake levers etc for
maximum comfort, which was very handy. My bike was way out using
this method, which was very suprising, so I'm keen to see what the
next few months of riding bring.

It woul dbe interesting to see if those changes in position would have
eliminated whatever problems you were having from your old saddle.
IMHO 75% or more of saddle related problems (numbness and pain) are
due to saddles that are too narrow and poor positioning.

Where it concerns the B17, my experience is that repositioning will
mitigate but never completely overcome the primary limitation of the
saddle's design: it doesn't accommodate an aero posture well. It's
never caused numbness for me, and though it's a relatively minor
discomfort it has left me on occasion squirming, trying to alleviate
pressure on the plumbing, or, in the hope of striking a compromise,
with a less than optimal saddle angle.

If the cutout on the saddle doesn't introduce other problems (digs in,
weakens the seat or accelerates wear), it will have addressed my one
major complaint about the B17 and it would be worth trying. Consider me
optimistically sceptical.

Luke

Luke said:

I've taken a cheap caliper to my Brooks saddles to determine whether
the leather really is thicker on the Pro and if it is, the difference
is so slight it doesn't register with my simple tools - the leather
used in both saddles is about 4.5mm thick. But the B17 is definitely
more compliant; I wonder to what extent this can be attributed to its
wider profile and, in your case, the absence of laminate.

Now that you mention it - it doesn't look much thicker at all...

Quoted message said:

Apart from possibly decreasing the life of the saddle, I'm curious
whether the cutout on your saddle 'digs in' when riding. On saddles
built from a rigid molded base there's often extra padding at the edge
of the cutout to prevent this, but on these recycled Brooks there's
obviously none. Couple that with the give in a suspended saddle and the
edge of the cutout could prove irritating. Do you find this to be so?

Not so far ... however it is early days. As I mentioned, all weight
firmly on the sit bones right now, as opposed to my previous B17 where
it was somewhat spread over a larger area. I couldn't feel any contact
with the cutout zone at all.

Basically it's going to take years and many thousands of
kilometres/miles to find out if this saddle is the go or not, whether
with regard to durability or comfort. My brooks saddle is the only one
I've ever been able to put up with up till now, and the new saddle is
already better than any of those others I own (not a huge selection, but
enough to know what works and what doesn't for me.)

Ken Pisichko said:

Luke said:

Now Good ol' American Ingenuity rides to the rescue of Brooks' devotees
- whether they need it or not! Please see
http://www.mcmwin.com/Postcardv71.pdf [a pdf file]. A conscious attempt
at targeting the Brooks crowd? A la Brooks Pro, Selle An-Atomica
saddles even sport oversized copper rivets.

Thanks but NO Thanks. I will take my B-17 Brooks and bicycle about 2500 km
next summer (Northern Hemisphere) E to W across Northern Australia. Then
fly to Melbourne and do some more cycling in the Southern Hemisphere
"winter".

I expect traditional technology to serve me well and without ANY injury.
No point in fighting history in that trip. LOTS of decades versus a "new"
advertisement.

Pshaw! I rest my case.

Maybe in the USA in 2005-06, but NOT on a REAL trip in the REAL world. :-)

Just my opinion. YMMV.

Ken
Canada

I wanted to replace my B17 anyway. Your're quite right not to want to
take an unproven product on an overseas trip. As most of my mileage is
commuting I decided to give it a try. On their website they seem fairly
switched on (and reasonably un- shyster - like) and the fact is that it
will probably be 50,000 k before it's obvious whether the product is
durable or not. Hopefully considerable less than that to see whether the
comfort is up to scratch. Even then it will be difficult to say how much
better or worse, than a standard brooks 'Professional' model, this
saddle is, as I have only used the B17.

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim McNamara

Quoted message said:

tspoon said:

The package I recieved also contained a 4 page booklet on how
to correctly adjust the seat and handle bars, brake levers etc
for maximum comfort, which was very handy. My bike was way out
using this method, which was very suprising, so I'm keen to see
what the next few months of riding bring.

It woul dbe interesting to see if those changes in position would
have eliminated whatever problems you were having from your old
saddle. IMHO 75% or more of saddle related problems (numbness and
pain) are due to saddles that are too narrow and poor positioning.

Where it concerns the B17, my experience is that repositioning will
mitigate but never completely overcome the primary limitation of the
saddle's design: it doesn't accommodate an aero posture well. It's
never caused numbness for me, and though it's a relatively minor
discomfort it has left me on occasion squirming, trying to alleviate
pressure on the plumbing, or, in the hope of striking a compromise,
with a less than optimal saddle angle.

I don't particularly care for the B.17, finding it a bit too wide and
also too flexible. But I'm 6'4" tall and around 215 pounds. I agree
that it is not particularly well suited for the tucked positions, but
the Brooks Pro is a better choice IME for this type of thing. I think
(but don't know for sure) that a more upright position tends to
require a wider saddle- long hours riding on the tops of the bars one
a Flite or Rolls or Turbo was uncomfortable, but racing on them was
fine. OTOH doing brevets on the Pro is quite comfortable.

Quoted message said:

If the cutout on the saddle doesn't introduce other problems (digs
in, weakens the seat or accelerates wear), it will have addressed my
one major complaint about the B17 and it would be worth
trying. Consider me optimistically sceptical.

One can but try, I suppose. I've never experienced any need for a
slotted saddle, but have friends who found that they alleviated some
significant issues in their intimate relationships. Slotting a
Brooks, though, strikes me as a recipe for a sagging, mushy and
ultimately uncomfortable saddle. Unlike a plastic saddle shell, the
leather shell of a Brooks has relatively little innate rigidity- hence
it being tensioned between the ends of the saddle frame. Cutting a
slot into the leather will alter the leather's ability to be tensioned
quite dramatically, I would think.

There's an old trick of running shoelaces through holes drilled into
the lower edge (skirt) of a Brooks saddle to keep the skirts from
spreading under the rider's weight, which makes the saddle more
rigid. See an example here:

http://www.wallbike.com/content/butchering.html

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim McNamara

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the cutout on the saddle doesn't introduce other problems (digs
in, weakens the seat or accelerates wear), it will have addressed my
one major complaint about the B17 and it would be worth
trying. Consider me optimistically sceptical.

One can but try, I suppose. I've never experienced any need for a
slotted saddle, but have friends who found that they alleviated some
significant issues in their intimate relationships. Slotting a
Brooks, though, strikes me as a recipe for a sagging, mushy and
ultimately uncomfortable saddle. Unlike a plastic saddle shell, the
leather shell of a Brooks has relatively little innate rigidity- hence
it being tensioned between the ends of the saddle frame. Cutting a
slot into the leather will alter the leather's ability to be tensioned
quite dramatically, I would think.

Yes, this is my feeling also. Why else would Selle An-Anatomica add a
laminate layer to a cut saddle's underside? I suspect that the
trade-off of the greater rigidity afforded by the extra material is a
loss of the suppleness so valued by users of B17s and such.

Perhaps this is why Brooks has never produced a convertible version of
their venerable designs (to my knowledge). I'll not rush out to buy an
An-Anatomica as a stock B17 is close to enough to perfection as it is;
but a good thing can always get better; so I'll wait until time has
decided whether SA's mods constitute a viable option.

Quoted message said:

There's an old trick of running shoelaces through holes drilled into
the lower edge (skirt) of a Brooks saddle to keep the skirts from
spreading under the rider's weight, which makes the saddle more
rigid. See an example here:

http://www.wallbike.com/content/butchering.html

I remember reading of this trick somewhere in sheldonbrown.com. There's
one aspect to the 'lacing' mod I've always wondered about: don't the
laces chafe the inside of the thighs? Will anyone who's laced their
Brooks comment?

Luke