Brooks B17 v B72

[Donald Goetz]

Hey everybody!

So, I have a B17 which was really comfortable for the first 300-400 miles, then after it broke in, I found my sit bones were resting on the metal frame. Until it started biting me, I really liked the way that the saddle felt, so I would like to go the leather route again. However, I would like to get a wider saddle. 

Does anyone have any experience with the B72? Any other wide leather saddle recommendations? 

Thanks!

[Bill Gobie]

It sounds like you are sitting too far back, on the frame at the back
of the saddle. It is frequently difficult to push Brooks saddles far
enough back because the design dates from the era of very slack frame
angles, when the seat tube provided the needed setback. A B-72 is not
going to help. You need to sit farther forward on the saddle, or get a
saddle with longer rails that can be mounted farther back.

Is the saddle tilted nose up, allowing you to slide back? Raising the
saddle might help keep you from pushing back so far. If you have long
legs, longer cranks might be in order. Maybe you need a longer stem.

For alternate saddles with longer rails, try a Sella An-Atomica.

Bill

[Donald Goetz]

Bill, 

The saddle is roughly level, (cranks are 175) and if I could describe where I'm sitting, it would be at the points of the 'C' shape, forward of the 1st and 6th rivets. If I sit any further forward, my sit bones aren't on anything.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 14:14 -0800, Bill Gobie wrote:
> It sounds like you are sitting too far back, on the frame at the back
> of the saddle. It is frequently difficult to push Brooks saddles far
> enough back because the design dates from the era of very slack frame
> angles, when the seat tube provided the needed setback. A B-72 is not
> going to help. You need to sit farther forward on the saddle, or get a
> saddle with longer rails that can be mounted farther back.

Or get a seat post with more setback, like the Nitto S84.

[William Beck]

Yes, it does sound like more setback might be the answer. The B-17s seem to last a very long time before excessive break-in. I have several, but my main saddle is a B-17 that I bought in 2006. I'm sure it has over 50,000 miles on it and I've only adjusted the extension bolt once in that time.

Bill Beck

[Steve Palincsar]

On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 13:00 -0800, William Beck wrote:
> Yes, it does sound like more setback might be the answer. The B-17s
> seem to last a very long time before excessive break-in. I have
> several, but my main saddle is a B-17 that I bought in 2006. I'm sure
> it has over 50,000 miles on it and I've only adjusted the extension
> bolt once in that time.

And it should be noted, the B.72 is really intended for a very upright
seating position, like on a 3-speed city bike. They generally don't
work well with a more inclined torso.

Also, the B.72 is a 4-wire (Wallbike calls it a "double rail") saddle
and will not work with a modern style seat post unless you use a "Seat
Sandwich" adapter.

[Thomas Durkin]

I really needed a B-72 this past weekend on a borrowed hybrid. Don't ask about the butt.

"the B.72 is really intended for a very upright
seating position, like on a 3-speed city bike."

Tom Durkin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "randon" group.

To post to this group, send email to ran...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to randon+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/randon?hl=en.

--
Tom Durkin

[Bill Gobie]

Then it sounds like the saddle has stretched and sagged -- broken down more than broken in. The leather on a B-17 is rather light, which is why they are comfortable out of the box, but they may not stand up well under heavier riders. From unscientific observation I would say if you weigh less than 160 lbs a B-17 will last forever. If you weigh much more it will show sit-bone impressions pretty quickly.

The leather can stretch for other reasons. If you ride it soaking wet -- a fenderless rear wheel spraying water on it -- the leather will stretch. Excessive application of leather conditioners can soften the leather too much. Or maybe you just got a defective one.

400 miles seems early for this sort of problem to develop. I still suspect you are sitting farther back than you think. As you say, now that the saddle is broken down you won't be able to sit farther forward on it.

If you think weight might be the problem try a different model Brooks racing saddle. I am pretty sure the other models are built with heavier leather than a B-17. The Team Pro is only a little bit narrower than a B-17. Or try a Selle Anatomica Titanico X, which is intended for heavier riders and can be set back farther than a Brooks.

Crank length is a whole 'nuther can of worms. If you have long legs 175 may be short. Have a look at

 http://www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html

Bill

[Steve Palincsar]

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 00:16 -0800, Bill Gobie wrote:
> Then it sounds like the saddle has stretched and sagged -- broken down
> more than broken in. The leather on a B-17 is rather light, which is
> why they are comfortable out of the box, but they may not stand up
> well under heavier riders. From unscientific observation I would say
> if you weigh less than 160 lbs a B-17 will last forever. If you weigh
> much more it will show sit-bone impressions pretty quickly.
>
>
> The leather can stretch for other reasons. If you ride it soaking wet
> -- a fenderless rear wheel spraying water on it -- the leather will
> stretch. Excessive application of leather conditioners can soften the
> leather too much. Or maybe you just got a defective one.

In fact, Jan reported on a Team Pro that sagged on one side only.
However, if the saddle's sagged uniformly it's still possible to rescue
it. Besides the tension adjustment, one can also make holes in the
saddle skirt and lace the sides together. In fact, they make a B.17
model, the "Aged", that is made with softer leather and comes with holes
already made in the skirts for lacing.
http://www.brooksengland.com/catalogue-and-shop/saddles/touring+%26
+trekking/B17+Aged/

> 400 miles seems early for this sort of problem to develop. I still
> suspect you are sitting farther back than you think. As you say, now
> that the saddle is broken down you won't be able to sit farther
> forward on it.
>
>
> If you think weight might be the problem try a different model Brooks
> racing saddle. I am pretty sure the other models are built with
> heavier leather than a B-17.

Yes, the B.17 Select is made with thicker leather.
http://www.brooksengland.com/catalogue-and-shop/saddles/touring+%26
+trekking/B17+Select/

[William Beck]

FWIW, my average weight over the time I've ridden those >50,000 miles on my B-17 has been around 185 pounds.

I measured the thickness of the leather on two B-17s. The one from 2006 measured about 4.6mm along the lower edge. A newer one that's ~2 years old measured 4.5-5.2 mm. That feels pretty thick. Maybe you (Donald) can check if yours is thinner.

Bill Beck

[Mark Fredrickson]

I use a B68 (the single rail version of the B72 -- probably what you really want). I'm much happier for trading out for the wider model. I too found myself riding on the rivets on a Flyer (the sprung B17). While I could position myself for small periods in a decent location, I'd eventually find my sit bones back on the metal. The B68 solves that problem. The downside is that I have raise my handlebars up about a centimeter or so. A small price to pay for my style of riding.

Trying a new seat post would probably be the cheaper way to start, but I wouldn't recommend against the B68. While I'm sure everyone here means well, butts and skeletal structure varies. The B17 might fit most people well for more sportive riding, but some of us are better off with a wider saddle (just as a Team Pro would be better for folks at the other end of the spectrum).

Best wishes,

-Mark

[Steve Palincsar]

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 16:14 -0800, Mark Fredrickson wrote:
> I use a B68 (the single rail version of the B72 -- probably what you
> really want). I'm much happier for trading out for the wider model. I
> too found myself riding on the rivets on a Flyer (the sprung B17).
> While I could position myself for small periods in a decent location,
> I'd eventually find my sit bones back on the metal. The B68 solves
> that problem. The downside is that I have raise my handlebars up about
> a centimeter or so. A small price to pay for my style of riding.
>
>
> Trying a new seat post would probably be the cheaper way to start, but
> I wouldn't recommend against the B68.

Alas, the B.68 no longer appears in the Brooks catalog.
http://wallbike.com/blog/


>