B17 vs Team Pro... any direct comparison wisdom?
Thomas Lynn Skean
I used to use a B68. But I broke one's frame and then slowly turned a
second one into a B17's width with my gravitas. So I decided to simply
use a B17 to begin with. I like it fine. But I wonder if a Team Pro
would be even better. The B17's width is good but I don't think
shaving another cm of width would really make a significant
difference.
What are the other real differences? Shape? If so, how is it
different? Thickness of leather (for me I think thicker would be
better)? Don't care about weight per se. Or rail color.
Thanks for any info/opininons!
Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
cyclotourist
FWIW, I'm riding a new to me Swallow which has a similar flat top. Even though it's narrower by 8mm, the flat top makes it pretty comfortable over 30-40 miles.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
--
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA
Michael Rivers
started with a B17. Although it was much better than the Terry Fly it
replaced, (on my then fast bike with handlebars below seat,) I started
to have chafing on my inner thighs. I thought a narrower saddle would
fix that, and I am now very happy with Team Pros on my QB and Ram with
bars even. I have one bike with a B17 still, a Kogswell P/R with Alba
bars, but that is my commuter and rarely goes more than 15 mi at
clip.
I have old Team Pros from ebay that work, and I have two new ones that
took 500mi with Profhide that all fit fine for me with my width hips
(technically ishial tuberosity distance). I think the saddle needs to
fit width wise for the most comfort, and don't think the thickness of
the leather matters much in that regard. The thicker leather may last
longer, but I would defer to those who have put a few thousand miles
or more on one.
Thomas Lynn Skean
I'd so, does either point "up" more than the other?
I may actually *like* it, for example, if the nose is turned up some,
whether or not the tail is. However, if the tail is up and the nose
not so much, I wouldn't Luke that.
I think the B68's nose was a little higher than it's back; I liked
that part if it.
Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
> > .
Esteban
For me, a Pro is good only if the h'bars are below the saddle. Even,
get a B17. Waaaay up there Albatrossess, get the sprung B66/67.
Esteban
San Diego, California
On Sep 11, 3:48 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
cyclotourist
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
james black
> Bowed across the back, from side to side. You can kinda' see it here.
> Front to back is pretty flat, with the tail up a touch. B17 are like that,
> too.
I've been pretty happy on Pro-shaped saddles, although I have a Brooks
Pro that isn't quite right; my Fujita knockoff of the Pro was my
favorite.
The critical issue for me seems to be finding a flat (front to back)
spot to support my sit bones - if the saddle looks level overall, then
the spot where my sit bones goes is pointed down, and I'm sliding
forward, which means either I'm sliding forward onto more sensitive
parts or I'm resisting sliding forward with my arms, neither of which
is comfortable. So when the sitting spot is actually level, the nose
is pointed upwards. This is okay, as long as it's not pointed so far
upwards that it interferes with sensitive bits. My Pro has a sweet
spot where the back is level enough and the front is not too high, and
that looks like this:
http://james.architectureburger.com/cycle/bin/nish01.jpg
The problem I had with my first and only B17 was that it was too
saddle-shaped - I couldn't find a tilt that worked, I was always
either sliding forward or the nose was in the way of sensitive
anatomy. I think that not all B17s are the same and maybe I would be
better off on a different one, but I'm not sure.
I had a B17 narrow, and maybe it was too narrow - it seemed like I
couldn't keep away from the rivets.
So the Pro is the only one that worked for me. I would be interested
to try the Swift and the Berthoud, because judging by eyeball alone,
they look to me like they would work.
I guess if my email has a point to it, however, it's that you don't
know if a saddle is going to work until you ride it and experiment
with the tilt. Until I spent some time on rigid leather saddles, I had
no idea how saddles were supposed to work - in my foam-over-plastic
saddle days, I just sat down without thinking about it (and not always
with great results).
James Black
Los Angeles, CA
Noel
"flatter" than the B17. I have a couple of each and find them all to
have that distinct "hammock" shape. The key differences, as far as I
can tell, are that the Pro is a narrower at the back and is made of
thicker leather. (I have one Pro that is at least 15 years old. I
periodically mount it on a bike and use it for a few hundred miles,
then take it off again, because I just can't get it to break in. I
figure it's got at least 3000 miles on it at this point, plus several
different (increasingly radical) attempts at softening it. It's still
hard as a rock and looks/feels exactly like it did out of the box.)
Overall, I just haven't had great success with Brooks no matter what I
do, for exactly the reasons outlined by James: if I get the rear
section level enough so that I'm not sliding onto the nose, the nose
is angled so steeply up that it digs into me. Lowering the nose just
causes the rear section to angle downward, sliding me back onto the
nose. Arg. Even with a two-bolt post, there is no happy medium.
For some reason, though, the Velo-Orange saddles don't do that to me,
even though they have the "hammock" shape too. Go figure. It's just
too bad the V/O saddles aren't quite as nicely put together as the
Brooks...
Noel
Orange County, Ca.
LF
On Sep 11, 5:39 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Hi!
> <snip> I decided to simply
> would be even better.
I like the B17s better than the old Team Pro's for longer rides.
YMMV. See if you can borrow one. BTW, I also like WTB saddles such as
the rocket V.
Best,
Larry
Fai Mao
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
--
Fai Mao
The Blogger who sometimes responds to comments
Rene Valbuena
than the saddle. The Pro model seems to be stiffer perhaps not because it
has thicker leather but because of its narrower design. I don't have a
Swallow but I think the reason it is more pleasant on the butt is that it is
longer than the Pro and B17.
On B17s, I noticed that the standard model has a little more flex or bounce
that I find more pleasant. But I cannot resist the allure of the bigger
copper rivets on the champion special model. So I have both the standard and
the champion special.
But on bikes with handlebar which make you more upright riding, I like the
aged special model B68.
-- Rene
Noel
Orange County, Ca.
--
Chris Halasz
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallblog/sets/72157624333065377/with/4777148941/
- Chris
cyclotourist
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Thomas Lynn Skean
the Team Pro is the biggest "risk" for me; in fact, big enough not to
experiment right now. On today's 20+ mile ride, my B17 felt great.
Maybe better than on my last rude. But I'm losing interest in trying
the Team Pro.
Thanks again for all the info!
Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallblog/sets/72157624333065377/with/477...
>
> - Chris
Montclair BobbyB
respectfully try again.
A key difference in my opinion is the 3 holes in the top of the B17,
which don't exist on the Swift, Team, etc. I am convinced this makes
a difference in the overall comfort. In fact, I LOVE the assorted
colored team Swift and Pro saddles that are circulating out there, and
may consider one at some point, but only if I'm sure I can add
ventilation holes... Hey, if people make their own "Imperial"
versions, I should be able to add 3/16" holes, right?
BB
On Sep 12, 10:59 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Montclair BobbyB
commuted this morning on an old chrome Mongoose with a B68... it felt
GREAT... In fact it's my favorite short-distance saddle. On longer
rides it's a bit wide for my liking.
I had a gorgeous brown Flyer Special which I could (and often did)
stare at all day long. This is based on the B17, but even though it
was sprung it wasn't nearly as comfortable as my standard B17.
Perhaps the it was thicker leather? I don't know, I've toiled over
this for years. Same goes for my B17 Special. It's awesome looking
and still very comfortable, but not quite as plush as the good ol'
honey B17... And I've been riding a standard B17 on my mountain bike
now for years, and will NEVER go back. In fact I'll soon be heading
out to Colorado for a few days of mountain biking... I will likely
rent a bike, but regardless I'll take along a B17 for sure!
BB
Earl Grey
another b17s. Comfort difference was slight, and I believe mostly due
to lack of break-in due to thicker leather, but the pro didn't have
saddle bag loops. Looks like some do and some don't
(see wallbike.com photos). Just something to be aware of.
Gernot
On Sep 14, 8:15 pm, Montclair BobbyB <montclairbob...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Steve Palincsar
> I had a b17, b17 special, and a team pro. Replaced the team pro with
> another b17s. Comfort difference was slight, and I believe mostly due
> to lack of break-in due to thicker leather, but the pro didn't have
> saddle bag loops. Looks like some do and some don't
They didn't used to, but I think now some do. The Viva add-on bag loops
work fine with my ancient (vintage 1983 or so, put into service in 1991)
Team Pro.
nathan spindel
didn't have loops. The Viva loops work just fine on it:
<http://flic.kr/p/7GTbYE/>.
-nathan
Gary
I have the Team Pro on a Gios, a B-17Ti on a Serrotta and another
B-17Ti on my touring rig. I used to ride the B-17 standard(steel
rails) and still have a B-17N on my Holdswoth which will be going to
the bench soon as it doesn't feel quite as nice.
Here's my take.
Team pro is very nice but was way harder to break in, leather is
thicker and for me not as comfy as the B-17 standard from the
begining. I had the B-17 standard on one bike an I came across a
B-17Ti for new at less than half price so I bought it and switched it
out. I noticed an instant increase in comfort and less road vibration
transfer. So I bought another Ti at full price and stuck it on my
gofast bike. Same thing. Smoother riding. There they stay and the
standard although a great saddle is on the bench.
My experience may be different than others. The team pro is a great
saddle but for me the B-17Ti is bliss.
Gary
On Sep 12, 7:59 pm, Thomas Lynn Skean <thomaslynnsk...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Thomas Lynn Skean
Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
Chris Halasz
http://bikereviews.com/2010/06/new-products-from-brooks-saddles/
- Chris
Tucson, AZ
JoelMatthews
that the saddle is very hard and not terribly comfortable. Apparently
it is meant to be a race type saddle for the heavier rider.
Thomas Lynn Skean
Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
Tim McNamara
On Sep 17, 2010, at 8:06 AM, JoelMatthews wrote:
> The Colt is already available. Initial impressions I have heard are
> that the saddle is very hard and not terribly comfortable. Apparently
> it is meant to be a race type saddle for the heavier rider.
I have one of the old Colts that I bout 10 years ago, when it looked
like Brooks was going away forever. I think I paid $25 for it,
discovered it in a bike shop in Cannon Falls MN into which my wife
and I stopped randomly. I've never ridden it, it's on one of my
wife's bikes. She seems to do OK with it although she prefers the
Pro S saddles on her other bikes. It's narrow, about like a Pro or a
B.17N. The leather is thick like the old Pros were; it would take
some break-in but would end up being an old friend like my 34 year
old Pro on my Riv (which I bout just after graduating from high
school and it took about 2 years to fully break in. It is the most
comfortable saddle I have ever ridden).
grant
The flaps that get cut off are part of the saddle's structure. Without
the flaps, the saddle sags sooner. The Swallow deals with it by
riveting the two sides together underneath, but I've never seen a well-
ridden Swallow (mostly they go on Show Bikes, not Go Bikes), so I
don't know how well it works. Just because I haven't seen it and don't
know doesn't mean they aren't out there, and it works great.
The Colt deals with it, if it continues to deal with it the way it did
when it was introduced in the '80s, by overtensioning. That's what
goes on with the Swift, too, and you can see it manifested as a
slight dolphin-hump from front to back. It's always kind of funny when
mouths talk for crotches, but when my mouth channels my crotch, it
says, "Hey man, that hump puts a lot of pressure right where I don't
need it."
I got the first two Colts in this country way back then, as gifts, and
I wanted to love that saddle, but I couldn't do it.
Another thing to examine is the rail shape. On the Swift (152mm wide,
compared to 160 for the Pro and 170 for the B.17), the rails stop
being parallel farther from the nose, which means you can't shove them
back as far. Everybody I know except Keven shoves his/her saddle back
as far as it'll go, and 90 percent wish it would go back more. I
think, but as always I don't know, that the rail shape is guided by
the cutaway leather, meaning the designer doesn't like the look of
parallel rails way far forward on a cutaway saddle.
I'd like to end this on an up-for-Brooks note. The saddles delivered
since the Italians bought Brooks in 2004 or whenever...have been
better than the earlier ones. I think Brooks is overplaying the
Heritage card, but that may be necessary to reach a younger audience
who isn't familiar with it. The boxes are suspiciously stout---who
needs 'em that thick and cleverly comparmentalized?--but overall, it's
still the saddle to beat, and the Brooks saddles of today are the best
ones that I can remember.
Scott G.
(I love the headline)
"New Brooks saddles "even harder" - Vans saddle"
Read more: http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/gear-news/new-brooks-saddles-even-harder/5484-4.html#ixzz0zoNx5cjM
"Swiss select Organic cowhide for your Brooks, perfect, almost as
funny
as the "Presoftened" saddles, British humour.
Steve Palincsar
I don't understand. Where's the humor?
Tim McNamara
The "presoftened" Brooks Pros were still as hard as a plank. They
just had some Proofide applied at the factory and a stamped
"Presoftened" logo on the top of the saddle. Otherwise they didn't
seem any different.
EricP
Might work for a light rider, but it felt like a saggy, broken down
saddle under my heavy weight.
Totally agree with Grant on the Colt. I had one from my LBS. Tried
to ride it for a few hundred miles. Never could get it comfortable.
And my usual preference is a new(ish) Brooks. Sold it to some kid
just to get rid of the thing.
Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN
Ken Freeman
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA
Ken Freeman
I don't really know how much or how well these were used, just that they were old and used.
I keep thinking Brooks saddles are best on frames with a 72 or 73 degree seat tube, which would allow at least this rider to use setback v straight seatposts to get my butt position right. For me, 74 and 75 frames need either an extreme seatpost or something other than a Brooks. I don't find any real difference in setback requirement between a B17 and my Professional. When I can get either adjusted, I like the B17Imp best, but that's just based on shape.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Tim McNamara
On Sep 18, 2010, at 8:06 AM, Ken Freeman wrote:
> I keep thinking Brooks saddles are best on frames with a 72 or 73
> degree seat tube, which would allow at least this rider to use
> setback v straight seatposts to get my butt position right. For
> me, 74 and 75 frames need either an extreme seatpost or something
> other than a Brooks.
Brooks saddles were designed in the days when 73 degrees was a
relatively steep seat tube and 68-72 degrees were common. They never
really changed the design of the rails and possibly can't, given the
need to accommodate the nosepiece and tensioner as it is currently
designed.
Montclair BobbyB
well be the least expensive. Then again, I've never ridden a Swift or
B17 Titanium... but I'm OK with that..
Peace,
BB
Thomas Lynn Skean
Personally, I've decided that I will look into the B17 Select when I next
need a saddle (maybe not 'til next year). I weigh around 245; the only issue
I might have with my current B17 Special (which has always been comfortable,
even straight from the box and basically slapped on in waning patience as my
newly built-up Hillborne demanded riding; it's even more comfy now that I've
tweaked angle and position to perfection; thank you Hillborne seat tube
angle! thank you Nitto S83 adjustability!) is that I've needed to tension it
more than I'd like to keep the creaky-squeaky sounds at bay. As of now, this
need for tensioning is reducing. But still I wonder how long it'll be before
the need for punching/lacing arrives, to be followed quickly by
gnashing/rending (teeth and garments, respectively) and tossing out of the
saddle.
If the B17 "Select" proves to be simply a more robust B17 Special, then
that's the saddle I've always wanted. And I'll be checking the web and
particularly this list for info on the "Select" B17's arrival. In the
meantime, the B17 Special is serving quite nicely.
(The only reason I chose the B17 Special over the standard B17 was that
where and when I bought the saddle, the difference in price was like $15 or
something and, with my dying B68, even in the throes of its last weeks, the
only truly uncomfortable bits are the tubular rivets, which sometimes dig
into my butt in a manner most unhappy-making. I'm hopeful that the more
broad copper rivets will stay in place longer and/or be more gentle on my
posterior when the time of their unsettling eventually comes.)
Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean
----- Original Message -----
From: "Montclair BobbyB" <montcla...@gmail.com>
To: "RBW Owners Bunch" <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:42 PM
Subject: [RBW] Re: B17 vs Team Pro... any direct comparison wisdom?
Peace,
BB
--
cyclotourist
I don't know if they are different in their front-center measurement, but it would seem like that's less important than the rear to clamp measurement, which is the same.
FWIW, I just did 55 miles on my new to me but used Swift and was very happy. Bars about 10mm above saddle. New cranks, too. No knee problems to speak of which is exciting for me!!!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.