bicycle saddle design
Henry_Barta
sensitive tissues, I wonder why the bicycle saddle even has a
nose. Most of the descriptions of proper fit indicate that the
weight should be supported by the sit bones (ischial tuberosities,
if I spelled that right.) I have never heard of any useful
function of the nose. I have actually seen one seat that has
eliminated it, instead having two pads that each support one
side of the pelvis. I saw this not in a bike shop or bike
equipment catalog, but (or should I say butt? :) in one of
those odd or hard to find products (mostly stuff that as near
as I can tell never sold well to begin with) catalogs.
I can't think of any reason for the nose on the saddle except
that it's "always been there". When riding steep descents.
one technique is to clamp the saddle between the thighs, but
this has to be done near the back of the saddle to keep the
center of gravity back. It seems like other designs have been
tried, but have failed in the marketplace. Right now there are
a number of designs that incorporate a soft spot or groove,
but retain the same overall shape. I've personally tried the
Specialized Body Geometry Comp and found it uncomfortable.
Apparently the groove makes the forward part of the saddle
wider (think about the profile of the letter 'M' as compared
to an inverted 'U'). I found that it caused me to chafe.
Has anyone tried one of these noseless saddles? What was it
like?
Has anyone tried modifying a saddle to remove the nose? It
seems like that might be tough, since the rails usually mount
under the nose. (Could that be a clue to why the nose remains?)
--
Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
hba...@enteract.com Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
CV2572
writes:
Try controlling a bike without a saddle nose to "grab on" to.
It's all been tried. Remember, bikes have been around for 120 years, they're
not complicated, so just about everything under the sun has been tried.
BTW, I'm in Lombard ... ride through Winfield all the time (was riding
through during the great storm a couple year's back, in fact).
Robin Hubert
Jeff Wills
why they never sold- it's nearly impossible to stay on one for any length of
time.
Jeff
Henry_Barta wrote in message <8l74r6$1kq2$1...@news.enteract.com>...
Paul W
I suspect that, aside from the need to accomodate rails, a noseless saddle
would just look stupid. I, for one, really don't want stupid looking stuff
on my bike and I would imagine that most other MTB'ers don't either. So
even if the noseless saddle were a really smart design, I suspect it just
wouldn't sell.
PW
Henry_Barta <hba...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:8l74r6$1kq2$1...@news.enteract.com...
> With all of the discussion of bicycle saddle pressure on
> sensitive tissues, I wonder why the bicycle saddle even has a
> nose. Most of the descriptions of proper fit indicate that the
> weight should be supported by the sit bones (ischial tuberosities,
> if I spelled that right.) I have never heard of any useful
> function of the nose. I have actually seen one seat that has
> eliminated it, instead having two pads that each support one
> side of the pelvis. I saw this not in a bike shop or bike
> equipment catalog, but (or should I say butt? :) in one of
> those odd or hard to find products (mostly stuff that as near
> as I can tell never sold well to begin with) catalogs.
>
> I can't think of any reason for the nose on the saddle except
> that it's "always been there". When riding steep descents.
> one technique is to clamp the saddle between the thighs, but
> this has to be done near the back of the saddle to keep the
> center of gravity back. It seems like other designs have been
> tried, but have failed in the marketplace. Right now there are
> a number of designs that incorporate a soft spot or groove,
> but retain the same overall shape. I've personally tried the
> Specialized Body Geometry Comp and found it uncomfortable.
> Apparently the groove makes the forward part of the saddle
> wider (think about the profile of the letter 'M' as compared
> to an inverted 'U'). I found that it caused me to chafe.
>
> Has anyone tried one of these noseless saddles? What was it
> like?
>
> Has anyone tried modifying a saddle to remove the nose? It
> seems like that might be tough, since the rails usually mount
> under the nose. (Could that be a clue to why the nose remains?)
>
>
Jobst Brandt
> With all of the discussion of bicycle saddle pressure on
> sensitive tissues, I wonder why the bicycle saddle even has a
> nose... I have never heard of any useful unction of the nose.
You might consider that the bicycle saddle has evolved over more than
100 years and that tourists and competitors have been using them to
their advantage. Your assumption is that you are discovering
something that other people have missed. Well it isn't so. Broad,
almost noseless saddles are used on self propelled lawn mowers and the
like while saddles on bicycles that are ridden aggressively are
narrow, fairly hard and have a long nose. They are narrow because one
must sit on the pelvic bone protrusions rather than on the muscles of
the buttocks that propel the bicycle. Sitting on these muscles as one
does on a chair produces a painful charley horse for lack of blood
circulation. Meanwhile the nose guides the bicycle laterally as pedal
force tries to tilt the bicycle laterally... to the side of the
descending leg, adjacent to the saddle nose.
> I have actually seen one seat that has eliminated it, instead having
> two pads that each support one side of the pelvis. I saw this not in
> a bike shop or bike equipment catalog, but (or should I say butt? :)
> in one of those odd or hard to find products (mostly stuff that as
> near as I can tell never sold well to begin with) catalogs.
From your description, this is the "Easy Seat"(R) designed by someone
not unlike yourself, who found a solution for a perceived need. I am
sure the inventor did not regularly ride a bicycle or he would not
have invented this mistake. The assumption is that the pelvis is
hinged in the center and that its "halves" are rigidly attached to the
legs, articulating with them as one pedals. The pelvis is a single
bone and does not have parts that tilt fore and aft, while pedaling or
walking.
The reason these inventions can't be found on the market is that they
don't work and are not useful for people who actually ride bicycles in
contrast to hypothetical bicyclists who analyze bicycling from a
flawed theoretical perspective.
Ride bike!
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Ted H.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> ... Broad,
> almost noseless saddles are used on self propelled lawn mowers and the
> like...
These would be what my riding buddies call "tractor-ass" saddles.
Ted
--
Theodore W. Heise <the...@netins.net> West Lafayette, IN, USA
PGP fingerprint = 5B C5 B4 54 3C 30 E3 2C A2 FA 81 1C 39 06 B8 25
ScottV
> seems like that might be tough, since the rails usually mount
> under the nose. (Could that be a clue to why the nose remains?)
>
>
1. Something tells me that it might be kind of hard to ride in the drops on
a road bike without a nose there. You would sort of be hanging out there in
the air.
2. I know sometimes when I'm chasing down a break I move right on to the
front of my saddle.
3. When mountain biking it's nice to be able to move all over the saddle
(Not really sure how to explain this). I think a short saddle could be a
problem.
ScottV
Jon Isaacs
> seems like that might be tough, since the rails usually mount
> under the nose. (Could that be a clue to why the nose remains?)
>
I certainly spend a fair amount of time riding on the nose of the saddle, when
I want to spin it up and ride hard, sliding forward is the right thing to do.
However I think the nose of the saddle is a bit more important that you might
think. The saddle has forces acting on it in two directions. The vertical
force and other forces in the plane of the wheels can be are what you are
probably considering, the primary one being the riders weight on the saddle.
However, there is force normal to the wheels, from the a side force which it
the reaction force to the rider pedaling.
This moment can either be taken care through your arms and the handle bars or
by the seat. This is an important function of the contoured from part of the
seat.
Part of the extra effort of riding standing is caused by the fact that your
upper arms now must counter-act your pedaling.
jon isaacs
Henry_Barta
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
[...]
> The reason these inventions can't be found on the market is that they
> don't work and are not useful ...
I surmised there was a reason for their failure in the market.
Now I know why.
> for people who actually ride bicycles in
> contrast to hypothetical bicyclists who analyze bicycling from a
> flawed theoretical perspective.
Ouch! I was asking because I didn't know and the answer did
not appear obvious to me. (I hope you're referring to the
inventor of the noseless seat and not the asker of the question.)
> Ride bike!
I do. Occasionally to the point where it becoming painful.
I've lurked and monitored saddle discussions and have found
some suggestions that helped. But I also wonder about other
questions that I have not seen answered, and so I pose them
here.
kindest regards,
hank
Jobst Brandt
>> ... for people who actually ride bicycles in contrast to
>> hypothetical bicyclists who analyze bicycling from a flawed
>> theoretical perspective.
> Ouch! I was asking because I didn't know and the answer did
> not appear obvious to me. (I hope you're referring to the
> inventor of the noseless seat and not the asker of the question.)
That was what I meant. Individuals questioning the validity of some
aspects of bicycling is reasonable, but to go to market with such
impractical products is not.
>> Ride bike!
> I do. Occasionally to the point where it becoming painful. I've
> lurked and monitored saddle discussions and have found some
> suggestions that helped. But I also wonder about other questions
> that I have not seen answered, and so I pose them here.
Having been a beginner a few times, typically after a long non
bicycling trip or an illness, getting back on the bicycle in the
accustomed manner has caused saddle discomfort. That has always gone
away with additional riding. I can imagine that unless bicycling is a
routine, the flesh at the pressure points may never acclimate itself
to the exercise because it is stressed with long periods of rest i
between.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Alan Acock
Nose is helpful in "steering" the bicycle.
Alan Acock
--
***************************************************
The Acock's
Alan Acock's Address is ac...@home.com
Toni Acock's is antoni...@home.com
"Henry_Barta" <hba...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:8l74r6$1kq2$1...@news.enteract.com...
> With all of the discussion of bicycle saddle pressure on
> sensitive tissues, I wonder why the bicycle saddle even has a
> nose. Most of the descriptions of proper fit indicate that the
> weight should be supported by the sit bones (ischial tuberosities,
> if I spelled that right.) I have never heard of any useful
> function of the nose. I have actually seen one seat that has
> eliminated it, instead having two pads that each support one
> side of the pelvis. I saw this not in a bike shop or bike
> equipment catalog, but (or should I say butt? :) in one of
> those odd or hard to find products (mostly stuff that as near
> as I can tell never sold well to begin with) catalogs.
>
> I can't think of any reason for the nose on the saddle except
> that it's "always been there". When riding steep descents.
> one technique is to clamp the saddle between the thighs, but
> this has to be done near the back of the saddle to keep the
> center of gravity back. It seems like other designs have been
> tried, but have failed in the marketplace. Right now there are
> a number of designs that incorporate a soft spot or groove,
> but retain the same overall shape. I've personally tried the
> Specialized Body Geometry Comp and found it uncomfortable.
> Apparently the groove makes the forward part of the saddle
> wider (think about the profile of the letter 'M' as compared
> to an inverted 'U'). I found that it caused me to chafe.
>
> Has anyone tried one of these noseless saddles? What was it
> like?
>
> Has anyone tried modifying a saddle to remove the nose? It
> seems like that might be tough, since the rails usually mount
> under the nose. (Could that be a clue to why the nose remains?)
>
>
Frank Krygowki
>
> From your description, this is the "Easy Seat"(R) designed by someone
> not unlike yourself, who found a solution for a perceived need. I am
> sure the inventor did not regularly ride a bicycle or he would not
> have invented this mistake. The assumption is that the pelvis is
> hinged in the center and that its "halves" are rigidly attached to the
> legs, articulating with them as one pedals. The pelvis is a single
> bone and does not have parts that tilt fore and aft, while pedaling or
> walking.
>
> contrast to hypothetical bicyclists who analyze bicycling from a
> flawed theoretical perspective.
I once attended an industrial seminar which featured a video produced by
the inventor of the Easy Seat. The topic of the video and seminar was
out-of-the-box thinking, or "new paradigms" (this was at the time when
the word "paradigm" was super-trendy).
The inventor claimed, in his video, that the only reason that the Easy
Seat didn't take the market by storm is that cyclists are unwilling to
consider new ideas - they are unwilling to sit on something that doesn't
resemble a horse saddle. I was the only person in the room who had
actually ridden (briefly) on his invention. I reported to those present
that the _real_ reason it didn't sell was that it just didn't work.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Jon Isaacs
>Seat didn't take the market by storm is that cyclists are unwilling to
>consider new ideas - they are unwilling to sit on something that doesn't
>resemble a horse saddle. I was the only person in the room who had
>actually ridden (briefly) on his invention. I reported to those present
>that the _real_ reason it didn't sell was that it just didn't work.
>
>--
Is the Easy Seat that goofy seat with the two pads side by side and no nose??
Jon Isaacs
Carlos Klimann
there are sometimes this kind od saddle. In my opinion it is not
due to technical but for "moral" reasons.
carlos
Bin Tan
lower than the seat it is simply impossible for you to support your body
with the same areas of the butt as when you sit in a chair or on a
recumbent. It is inevitable to support the body with your crotch and lower
part of the butt. You'd find your self falling off the saddle onto the
toptube if you have a noseless saddle and ride in an "aero" position. The
clever saddles you mentioned (pretty pricy ones as well, $99-$139 if I
remember right) are to fool people like you. Jobst is right that the
pelvis doesn't rock up and down so the two piece design is even dumber. In
fact, the more upright the riding position, the more you support your
body with the traditional parts ofthe butt and the shorter the nose needs
to be on the saddle. That is evident on the hybrid/citybike saddles.
A common myth is that you should sit on the sitbones and not the sensitive
parts. But with the modern riding position, it is not a matter of where
you should sit, but more a matter of how you can make the saddle comform
to the body shape better and redistribute the pressure more evenly and
wisely since pressure on the sensitive parts is inevitable. Even Jobst has
to agree, I guess, that a square pad saddle that supports only the
sitbones won't work.
And also a nose provides more riding positions so you can slide back and
forth a little.
If you really hate the nose, get a 'bent.
Frank Krygowski
Jon Isaacs
>> Is the Easy Seat that goofy seat with the two pads side by side and no
>nose??
>>
>
>That's the one.
I got one of those. Someone gave me a bunch of parts on the condition that I
take them all. Never tried it. Don't plan to.
jon isaacs
Jon Isaacs
>lower than the seat it is simply impossible for you to support your body
>with the same areas of the butt as when you sit in a chair or on a
>recumbent.
I think you missed the point of Jobst's (as well as others) comments.
The reason for the nose is that there is a significant load normal to the plane
of the wheels which must either be reacted into the seat or into the
handlebars. This force comes from pedalling.
When the seat is flat and has no nose or you are standing, then you must use
your arms to react this force.
Draw a freebody diagram of a bicycle and you will see that the moment which
occurs when the rider pushes on the pedal must taken care of. This is done by
the seat or your arms.
A simple way to understand this is to consider pushing down on the pedal while
standing with no hands on the bars. This will cause the bike to tilt over and
you will fall. You solve this problem with your arms or with a seat which has
a nose can prevent this.
>A common myth is that you should sit on the sitbones and not the sensitive
>parts. But with the modern riding position, it is not a matter of where
>you should sit, but more a matter of how you can make the saddle comform
>to the body shape better and redistribute the pressure...
I suggest you go to someone who knows how to fit riders to a bicycle, you
obviously have not had the pleasure of riding in a "modern riding position" on
a properly fit bicycle.
If you are interested in this experience and actually understanding what is
truly going on here, I can suggest someone who can help you.
I know this may sound blunt, but I can attest from personal experience that it
is indeed possible to ride in the "modern riding position" and still sit on my
sit bones.
Jon Isaacs
Dan Goldenberg
Bin Tan wrote:
>
> The true reason is the modern riding position. When you ride with the bars
> lower than the seat it is simply impossible for you to support your body
> with the same areas of the butt as when you sit in a chair or on a
> recumbent.
>
> If you really hate the nose, get a 'bent.
I knew that was coming!
Dan Goldenberg
Seattle
Hugo Witters
<carlos....@inria.fr> wrote:
>There exists something as you describe, in dutch bikes for women
>there are sometimes this kind od saddle. In my opinion it is not
>due to technical but for "moral" reasons.
As far as I know, the function of those lady saddles without a nose is
to allow women to cycle with skirts, without the risk of getting a
dent in their skirts after time.
Hugo Witters
Jobst Brandt
> Is the Easy Seat that goofy seat with the two pads side by side and
> no nose??
Not only that, but the two pads pivot about a transverse axis beneath
the two pads.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jon Isaacs
may be I should just so I can report on it. They are trying to sell it for
$40 new and claim it is medically approved.
It might work for the rear of a tandem that only has a forward set of cranks
and pedals but other than that it appears to mostly an object of humor.
jon isaacs
Tho X. Bui
Ronald Russell wrote:
>
> So many traditional saddles, such as Troxel, Wright, and Brooks were leather
> suspended on springs, and the nose was the pivot point for the up and down
> movement. There have been 'noseless' designs available at many different
> times during the past 100 or so years, including Bray's, Easy Seat, and
> Bummer. These have, for one reason or another, failed to take over the
> market. Even after saddles began to be made of synthetic materials, people
> had an ingrained idea of what a saddle is 'supposed' to look like. And
> noseless design or not, I doubt that any saddle is more comfortable than a
> Brooks B66 (although I would be willing to try a newer design, and offer my
> evaluation).
There are plenty of saddles more comfortable than the Brooks B66 for me.
I had one, and it's now gathering dust in the attic after I discovered
that that"numbness" feeling doesn't necessarily has to occur after every
ride. The fact of the matter is that people's behind are very different
and no single design can do it for all the derrieres out there.
Here's a thought: I suspect that most of you here are reasonably fit,
after all, you are riding a bicycle. But I've met many occasional riders
who are ...fat enough so that their thighs will have real problem with
rubbing against a saddle nose. For those people, a "Bummer" type
saddles are not a bad solution.
For myself, while not I really can't be called "fat", my thighs are
close enough together that riding a saddle with a moderately wide nose
(some of the Specialized models that I owned) had earned me some very
nice blood blisters. My personal favorites are usually modified from
kid's bikes' which have very narrow and short noses.
At any rate, those who go out to look for the perfect saddle solution
for the whole cycling world are embarking on a silly journey. With
saddles, there is really no substitute for trying it out yourself.
Tho
MAPaceBike
first came out around 1900, give or take a decade. I think it's also in my
original Sears replica retail catalog. Seems every 30 years or so they trot
them out again and claim they are "new."
Mark Pace
Joe Bloggs
Very important for climbing. Btw, the body geometry seat feels uncomfy when
you first get on it but I have found it better for long rides.
Cheers
Mike
naestep <estepN...@flashcom.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:05e001fa...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com...
> I, for one, use the nose of the saddle when climbing. The nose
> allows me to slide fore and aft over a range of 6 or 7", where
> without the nose I would be left standing.
>
> --Nate Estep
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
Ronald Russell
suspended on springs, and the nose was the pivot point for the up and down
movement. There have been 'noseless' designs available at many different
times during the past 100 or so years, including Bray's, Easy Seat, and
Bummer. These have, for one reason or another, failed to take over the
market. Even after saddles began to be made of synthetic materials, people
had an ingrained idea of what a saddle is 'supposed' to look like. And
noseless design or not, I doubt that any saddle is more comfortable than a
Brooks B66 (although I would be willing to try a newer design, and offer my
evaluation).
bt95
> I think you missed the point of Jobst's (as well as others) comments.
I didn't. I was just making my point.
> The reason for the nose is that there is a significant load normal to the plane
> of the wheels which must either be reacted into the seat or into the
> handlebars. This force comes from pedalling.When the seat is flat and has no nose > or you are standing, then you must use your arms to react this force.
>
> Draw a freebody diagram of a bicycle and you will see that the moment which
> occurs when the rider pushes on the pedal must taken care of. This is done by
> the seat or your arms.
>
> A simple way to understand this is to consider pushing down on the pedal while
> standing with no hands on the bars. This will cause the bike to tilt over and
> you will fall. You solve this problem with your arms or with a seat which has
> a nose can prevent this.
So you are saying that if you ride on a noseless saddle, you'd fall off
the sides of the saddle instead of falling off the front of it? You
don't convince me. It is true the nose helps you position yourself
sideways but it supports some body weight as well (especially when you
move the body forward in a breakaway when the sitbones are totally
unsupported). Just imagine you use a noseless saddle like an arm chair
so that the handles on both sides clamp your butt in the middle and you
don't need to worry about the side tilting force, you'd still feel
uncomfortable without a nose. You will tend to fall off the front or
need to push against the handlebars.
Why don't people use long nose saddles on recumbents where the tilting
force is also present?
> If you are interested in this experience and actually understanding what is
> truly going on here, I can suggest someone who can help you.
No thanks.
Jon Isaacs
>force is also present?
Recumbents do not use saddles. I think the recumbent seat works in a manner
like your arm chair, you sink into it.
If your point is that you would likely fall of the front without a nose, this
is likely true. However the need to handle the pedal reaction forces does
necessitate the need for a nose.
jon isaacs
Marty Schrader
it is for this? Deja is your friend for this. Also, one of the "research"
sites can possibly locate some info. All this is dependent on the data
having been Web published, of course.
Did you check out the DORC? Another guy said it was really hot that Sunday.
I didn't make it.
--
Marty S.
Up and Over...
A little bit about me...http://nbdyspcl.home.netcom.com/
Dave Johnson
> Ouch! I was asking because I didn't know and the answer did
> not appear obvious to me. (I hope you're referring to the
> inventor of the noseless seat and not the asker of the question.)
Understand that while Jobst is a valuable source of cycling
information, he does not suffer fools gladly, and (to put it mildly)
his definition of a fool is rather inclusive...
Bev
>
> With all of the discussion of bicycle saddle pressure on
> sensitive tissues, I wonder why the bicycle saddle even has a
> nose. Most of the descriptions of proper fit indicate that the
> weight should be supported by the sit bones (ischial tuberosities,
> if I spelled that right.) I have never heard of any useful
> function of the nose. I have actually seen one seat that has
> eliminated it, instead having two pads that each support one
> side of the pelvis. I saw this not in a bike shop or bike
> equipment catalog, but (or should I say butt? :) in one of
> those odd or hard to find products (mostly stuff that as near
> as I can tell never sold well to begin with) catalogs.
>
> I can't think of any reason for the nose on the saddle except
> that it's "always been there". When riding steep descents.
> one technique is to clamp the saddle between the thighs, but
> this has to be done near the back of the saddle to keep the
> center of gravity back. It seems like other designs have been
> tried, but have failed in the marketplace. Right now there are
> a number of designs that incorporate a soft spot or groove,
> but retain the same overall shape. I've personally tried the
> Specialized Body Geometry Comp and found it uncomfortable.
> Apparently the groove makes the forward part of the saddle
> wider (think about the profile of the letter 'M' as compared
> to an inverted 'U'). I found that it caused me to chafe.
I just got one of these at a yard sale, and it seems fairly good. (Note:
I am female, things are different!) I would never have tried one at list
price, but at $3 it's worth a shot.
> Has anyone tried one of these noseless saddles? What was it
> like?
The old ones (haven't tried the spongywonder, mentioned elsewhere) were
miserable. No matter what I did I couldn't adjust the damn thing so that
it didn't dig painfully into my hamstrings at the butt-leg interface, and
it threw too much weight onto my hands. It also weighed a ton, but so do
my tools :-(
--
Cheers,
Bev
************************************************
Horn broken. Watch for finger.
Dorai Sitaram
William Burrow <aa...@fan.ChopThis.nb.ca.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:56:30 -0700,
>Bev <bas...@ktb.net> wrote:
>>The old ones (haven't tried the spongywonder, mentioned elsewhere) were
>>miserable. No matter what I did I couldn't adjust the damn thing so that
>>it didn't dig painfully into my hamstrings at the butt-leg interface, and
>>it threw too much weight onto my hands. It also weighed a ton, but so do
>>my tools :-(
>
>same problems as you mentioned, though I doubt that it weighs very much
>(it is just a rail with two adjustable pads).
Has anyone mentioned ergo-theseat.com yet? No nose, but just
a single back part.
--d
Tho X. Bui
A Muzi wrote:
>
> I find the nose-less saddles almost impossible to ride as you can't press
> your thigh against it for control. Anyone else?
Not "almost impossible". More like "weird" and "different". Rather hard
with no hands, but still do-able.
Tho
A Muzi
your thigh against it for control. Anyone else?
Bev wrote:
> The old ones (haven't tried the spongywonder, mentioned elsewhere) were
> miserable. No matter what I did I couldn't adjust the damn thing so that
> it didn't dig painfully into my hamstrings at the butt-leg interface, and
> it threw too much weight onto my hands. It also weighed a ton, but so do
> my tools :-(
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Bev
> ************************************************
> Horn broken. Watch for finger.
--
Yellow Jersey, Ltd
http://www.yellowjersey.org
http://www.execpc.com/yellowje
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
noel_c...@my-deja.com
"Tho X. Bui" <bl...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> A Muzi wrote:
> >
> > I find the nose-less saddles almost impossible to ride as you can't
press
> > your thigh against it for control. Anyone else?
>
hard
> with no hands, but still do-able.
>
> Tho
his track pursuit world championship events but it was banned by the
UCI.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.