# What's the hype around Brooks Saddles?



## Cavan (Jul 2, 2012)

I've seen them online and I'm wondering what's special about them?


----------



## erik1245 (Jan 6, 2012)

Besides all the hype about how they'll make your ass feel like it's in heaven? I wouldn't know. I've never ridden one, and I suspect it's one of those things that you have to experience first-hand... or first-ass. If I had the money, I'd be willing to try a Brooks. Especially on my fixed gear. That bike just screams at me, "Put a period-correct leather saddle on me, dammit!"


----------



## SlurpeeKing (Jul 23, 2010)

no experience with one, but I would love to buy one sometime in the future.


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

there is a shop in New Orleans, forget the name but you can find them by looking for "brooks saddles for sale", that will allow up to 6 months to get your money back or exchange. If you return it in good shape and with the box you also get $12 back for shipping. Prices are good also. Great C.S. Not much risk to give it a try. In todays highly over priced saddle market they are a bargin in terms of qualitity. They are also heavy and take time to break in. Some rides love them and some don't. I turned two back in for refund and bught a SMP but it is about as hard to break in on the sit bones as the brooks and not a lot lighter. Of the ones I tried I liked the B17 Narrow the best. Think it was $95.


----------



## mtnroadie (Jul 6, 2010)

They are pretty damn comfy, but also heavy. I have one on my vintage Holdsworth. I really want to try a Ti swift.

Being a pescetarian I find myself in a moral quandary, I wont eat cows but I will sit on them?


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

It depends on what you ride. For an old classic or long touring, they are great. For fast paced riding, not so good. Depending on the model, they can add more than a lb.


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

currently riding a b17 narrow. it cuddles my cheeks. what more could you want from a saddle, particularly a saddle on a commuter or tourer?

i also had a swallow, once, before it got stolen. most comfortable saddle i've ever had. if the b17 narrow cuddles my checked, the swallow caressed them.


----------



## GTDave (May 17, 2002)

knightev said:


> currently riding a b17 narrow. it cuddles my cheeks. what more could you want from a saddle, particularly a saddle on a commuter or tourer?
> 
> i also had a swallow, once, before it got stolen. most comfortable saddle i've ever had. if the b17 narrow cuddles my checked, the swallow caressed them.


Maybe a little TMI?


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

GTDave said:


> Maybe a little TMI?


good thing i didn't mention how it makes my sit-bones feel. . .


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

The idea is that they are nothing but stretched leather, so over time it molds to the specific shape of your arse, which proponents say make it the most comfortable saddle evaaaahhhhh. 

They should be taken care of (like a baseball glove) by oiling it and keeping it out of the rain to prevent cracking.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

they're fugly, but at least they're heavy.


----------



## OES (Jan 23, 2002)

Cavan said:


> I've seen them online and I'm wondering what's special about them?


Go to wallbike.com and read about them.

The leather 'personalizes' to your ass. It shapes itself to fit YOUR shape, so what you end up with is basically a custom saddle. Most people eventually find them incredibly comfortable. Many (I'm one) find them comfortable brand new, but better as time goes on.

They're probably not for you if weight is an issue, but if comfort trumps a few extra ounces in your worldview, you really don't have anything to lose. As someone else mentioned, Bill Laine down at wallbike with refund your money if you're not happy. He's great to work with.


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

OES said:


> Go to wallbike.com and read about them.
> 
> The leather 'personalizes' to your ass. It shapes itself to fit YOUR shape, so what you end up with is basically a custom saddle. Most people eventually find them incredibly comfortable. Many (I'm one) find them comfortable brand new, but better as time goes on.
> 
> They're probably not for you if weight is an issue, but if comfort trumps a few extra ounces in your worldview, you really don't have anything to lose. As someone else mentioned, Bill Laine down at wallbike with refund your money if you're not happy. He's great to work with.


wallbike.com is the shop I was referencing above. A no risk deal!


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

Brooks saddles can be awesome, especially if you like a wider saddle.

I've had a bunch of brooks. the B-17 is a fantastic saddle, with a couple caveats: it's really heavy and it requires more maintenance than a normal plastic-base saddle. Which is to say, you have to think about it occasionally, unlike a modern saddle that you really do not have to think about, ever. 

For me, the maintenance got to be annoying. It shouldn't have, it's not like it's hard to occasionally add proofide, but I always worried about rain, etc. That's my issue, not the saddles' issue. 

For me, the brooks b-17 was comfortable straight out of the box. no break-in required. I'll probably get another one someday.


----------



## V.Rossi46 (Jan 3, 2012)

I love my Brooks saddle on my commuter bike, I would never put one on a road or mountain bike though. They're comfortable, but too heavy to justify putting one on a road bike... They also fit the aesthetics of my commuter bike.


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

stanseven said:


> It depends on what you ride. For an old classic or long touring, they are great. For fast paced riding, not so good. Depending on the model, they can add more than a lb.


being heavy does not disqualify a saddle from fast-paced riding.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Most saddles are made with a hard plastic shell, covered with a bit of padding, and then wrapped with a piece of leather or leather-like material on top. The more flex that the hard plastic shell has, the more comfortable the saddle.

Brooks (and other similar saddles) are an older design that has a metal frame with a leather "hammock" that supports your weight. The leather flexes and molds to your body more easily than a plastic shell making the saddle more comfortable.

I own a B-17 which is comfy but a bit wide. It's great for my commuter, but the width prevents me from sliding back on the saddle on climbs which precludes it form being my "every day" saddle. I also have a Swift which is narrower and works better for me. An unfortunate "feature" of Brooks is that they have really short rails for adjusting fore-aft positioning. As a result, I'm not able to use them on bikes unless they have slack seat tube angles (~72 degrees or so for me) or a huge amount of offset in the seat post. I recently bought a Selle An-Atomica saddle which is a very similar design but with much more fore-aft adjustment and have been really happy with it. I did a 700+ mile tour (over 8 days) and it worked great. Rivet also makes similar saddles, and Ideale was a popular brand back in the day too.

As others have said weight is a drawback. If you plan on racing up hills a leather saddle might not be the best choice, but if you're looking for comfort it's hard to beat a leather saddle. Also price is negative as well - a steel railed leather saddle will set you back $150+ and a titanium railed model costs even more. However, if you're planning to do long rides a bit of extra $$ to prevent saddle soars might be worth it.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

They are a purrfect match with those modern crabon frames. Neither should be ridden in the rain.

They are also a perfect match with a seven pound 1930's steel frame.
.
.


----------



## 202cycle (Sep 13, 2011)

Nothing cool about them. I think that folks who spend half a paycheck find it hard to admit that they just plain suck. Until they get broken in, which can take hundreds upon hundreds of miles, it's like sitting on a 2X4 full of nails.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

202cycle said:


> Nothing cool about them. I think that folks who spend half a paycheck find it hard to admit that they just plain suck. Until they get broken in, which can take hundreds upon hundreds of miles, it's like sitting on a 2X4 full of nails.


Well, no. Mine were always comfortable right out of the box. 

Saddles are just like everything else in cycling- fit matters. I'm 6'2". I'm built big. Brooks B-17 is almost perfect for me (have switched back to San Marco Regals because they're lower maintenance).

The swift that fits Laffeaux so well was a total ass hatchet for me. The B-17 that fits me was too big for him.

As for cost, a b-17 costs $111. A San Marco Regal costs $90. $21 bucks isn't exactly half a paycheck.

So basically, you are A moeron.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

202cycle said:


> Nothing cool about them. I think that folks who spend half a paycheck find it hard to admit that they just plain suck. Until they get broken in, which can take hundreds upon hundreds of miles, it's like sitting on a 2X4 full of nails.


Wow. sounds like you had a hard time breaking yours in... Sorry to hear about that. But you gave it a good try over hundreds and hundreds of miles. My first ride on my first Brooks was a 200k brevet. It was good from the start. Sounds like different saddles work differently for different people...


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

Schneiderguy said:


> there is a shop in New Orleans, forget the name but you can find them by looking for "brooks saddles for sale", that will allow up to 6 months to get your money back or exchange. If you return it in good shape and with the box you also get $12 back for shipping. Prices are good also. Great C.S. Not much risk to give it a try. In todays highly over priced saddle market they are a bargin in terms of qualitity. They are also heavy and take time to break in. Some rides love them and some don't. I turned two back in for refund and bught a SMP but it is about as hard to break in on the sit bones as the brooks and not a lot lighter. Of the ones I tried I liked the B17 Narrow the best. Think it was $95.


Wall Bike does this. I got mine there. I didn't return it.

I have had several over the years, and size does matter. I ride a B17, but cannot abide the narrow B17, nor the Professional. Obviously YMMV, as well as whether you think it's beautiful or fugly.

They are weighty, but you really won't care, come mile 87.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

Lotophage said:


> Well, no. Mine were always comfortable right out of the box.
> 
> Saddles are just like everything else in cycling- fit matters. I'm 6'2". I'm built big. Brooks B-17 is almost perfect for me (have switched back to San Marco Regals because they're lower maintenance).
> 
> ...



An _underpaid_ moreon.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

xxl said:


> They are weighty, but you really won't care, come mile 87.


The Selle Italia and Specialized saddles I had were fine for rides up to 60 or 70 miles, but not so much for rides of 100, 200, or 400 miles. I suppose the weight would matter if one is a contender racing with lots of climbing. For some of the rest of us, the weight is irrelevant and the comfort lasts beyond a 3 or 4 hour spin...


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

All that ye need to know...

http://teamlardbutt.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/the-brooks-b-17-saddle/


----------



## kg1 (Apr 17, 2002)

*Different tools for different jobs*

I like to do brevet rides, and I was suffering from a little neuropathy after the longer rides. The toes on my left foot would be numb for about a month after a ride. That was on a Selle Italia Max Flite Gel Flow saddle. I spoke to a friend about this, and he suggested a Brooks B-17. I switched to a B-17 -- no more numbness. For me, the B-17 is a perfect tool for long rides.

I have spent hours riding in heavy rain on my saddle without fenders, and the saddle is still great. I do put a little proofride on the saddle about once a month as part of routine maintenance. I only put it on the top of the saddle, and it takes about 60 seconds to do. I wouldn't store a bike with this saddle on it outside in the sun and the rain, but if you put a $100 saddle on your bike, I doubt it is the sort of bike that gets stored outside anyway.

The saddle is a little tricky to set up. The rails are short, and it is hard to get the tilt right. Mine is level, but it actually looks like the nose is tilted up because the middle of the saddle sags a bit. I could tighten it up using the adjustment bolt, but it is very comfortable the way it is now. It was comfortable out of the box, but is very comfortable now. The saddle is heavy, and it is a little harder for me to stay in the drops on the Brooks than the race-oriented saddles that I have on my other bikes, so this isn't something I would use on a full-on race bike, or a bike with a significant amount of saddle-to-bar drop (the bike I use the Brooks on has about a 4" drop), but I haven't been on a more comfortable saddle.

Good luck.

kg1


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

90125 said:


> You have to spend more time caring for your saddle then the rest of your bike!


Apparently you've not owned one. I've had a Brooks on a touring bike for about 6 years. I applied proof-ride when I first got it, and it still looks new. In the same amount of time I've applied lube to my chain numerous times. Each time takes about the same effort as the one application of proof-ride. Unless you're someone that trades in your bike instead of applying lube to a chain, I think that you can deal with owning the saddle.

As others have said for shorter rides I ride other saddles; even on a century I still use a "racing" saddle. However, a couple years back I did a 200-mile ride (Seattle to Portland) and wished that I'd have used a leather saddle starting at about mile 170. After doing three consecutive 100+ mile rides a few weeks ago I was really happy that I had a leather saddle (and wide tires). On the other hand the TdF riders do 2,100 miles on racing saddle and seem to be fine. Do whatever works for your sit bones.


----------



## Reynolds531 (Nov 8, 2002)

Cavan said:


> I've seen them online and I'm wondering what's special about them?


Hype? Product survives unchanged for 80 years in a market where innovation and differentiation usually rule.


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

90125 said:


> The point was that you have to spend any time working your saddle.


Yeah, in the end, that was what killed brooks for me. When my kid is older and I can pick and choose my rides more, the brooks will come back.


----------



## OES (Jan 23, 2002)

Two minutes every six month is more than you spend on the rest of your bike?

Honestly, it's no big deal. Smear a little Proofide on. One minute. Go about your life. Next day, before you ride, buff the saddle with a soft rag. One minute. Repeat in six months. Or hell, in a year. No big whoop.



90125 said:


> But isn't that two of the best reasons that they aren't cracked up to be all that?
> 
> You have to take time to break it in.
> 
> You have to spend more time caring for your saddle then the rest of your bike!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

DO NOT LISTEN TO SOME POSTERS (or friends, or LBS, or website) POSTING ABOUT HOW TO TAKE CARE OF A BROOKS SADDLE!!!!

Posters are telling you to use oil like you would on a baseball glove, this will ruin your saddle in short order. Do not use any oil. A leather saddle is nothing but a hammock, if you use oil it will begin to sag something a baseball glove will not do; no problem you say, simply tension up the spanner, wrong, because the oil will continue to cause the saddle to sag until there you run out of spanner; also oil can cause the rivets to tear away from the saddle.

Also, do not follow Sheldon Brown's advice on how to care for a Brooks Saddle. Sheldon Brown was right about a lot of things but he was dead wrong about breaking in and caring for a Brooks saddle.

The only thing you should do with a Brooks saddle is to follow the manufactures care instructions to almost the letter...if you want to keep their warranty intact. Brooks has been making their saddles for over 100 years, do you think they have the experience to know how to care for their saddles? 

The only thing I do differently is not to apply the Proofide as much as they say to do, because Proofide will soften the leather and I'm concerned it may over soften it, I apply it once a year - at the beginning of the season. I also put KIWI hard wax shoe polish on the saddles, beware though that even after a thorough buffing colored shoe polish can still stain you shorts, so either know that and don't care or use a neutral color.

I have yet to clean my saddles because their not dirty! But if you must then use only saddle soap and a damp rag. 

Also directions say to turn the spanner nut 90 degrees at a time, I only turn it 45 degrees, but I only weigh 160. I also haven't had to adjust my B17 in 5 years or my Swift in 2 years; the Swift seems to need it a bit more probably due to thinner leather used vs the B17.

Now what's the big deal about these Brooks or similar saddles? Leather saddles are like leather shoes, they break into your butt like leather shoes do for your feet, instead of trying to get your butt to break into the saddle. And real all leather shoes have that fit like a glove feeling, so does a leather saddle. But there are instances when a leather saddle won't work for certain people, not sure why, maybe they didn't give it enough time to break in or their butt is just different; not any one saddle is for all people. The break in time is long, between 250 to 800 miles, so be prepared for that.

I don't expose my saddles to rain, I bought a saddle cover for rainy days, but I didn't get the Brooks cover because it looked like a bag, so I got the Aardvark water resistant saddle cover. Note; I only use the cover when the threat of rain appears, sweat doesn't seem to bother it other then making the saddle look darker over time which is natural, but this darkness gets to a point and seems to stop after that; black of course is unaffected.

My B17 is now 13 or 14 years old and it looks great, the Swift is 9 I think, and it too looks great. I've never had any saddle last as long as these two have lasted.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

mtnroadie said:


> They are pretty damn comfy, but also heavy. I have one on my vintage Holdsworth. I really want to try a Ti swift.
> 
> Being a pescetarian I find myself in a moral quandary, I wont eat cows but I will sit on them?


I appreciate the thought; if cows were killed to make saddles, I'd fully agree. As a practical reality, it's just making use of a by-product, so arguably honoring that life by minimizing the waste. But, feelings and opinions on this topic vary, and I wouldn't dream of calling either view wrong.


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

JustTooBig said:


> being heavy does not disqualify a saddle from fast-paced riding.


That's not what I meant and you know that. If someone is concerned about riding fast, weight is a very important consideration. The B-17 weighs 540 grams. That's a ful pound over a lightweight saddle.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Hype? My ass likes it.

To be honest I dont care about yours. Thank gawd! 
I run one on a steel road bike, fixed gear, full carbon 15lb road bike that is 16 with a saddle and my S-works mountain bike. My ass is still comfy. It may not be for you. Well, so be it.


----------



## MXL (Jun 26, 2012)

laffeaux said:


> On the other hand the TdF riders do 2,100 miles on racing saddle and seem to be fine. Do whatever works for your sit bones.


True, but they average about 100 miles before giving their ass a rest. Also, since they ride so fast, they are only on their bikes for a few hours a day.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

stanseven said:


> That's not what I meant and you know that. If someone is concerned about riding fast, weight is a very important consideration. The B-17 weighs 540 grams. That's a ful pound over a lightweight saddle.


But the B17 is not a racing saddle, its touring saddle designed for more of a upright posture. The Swift is a racing saddle designed for drop bars and it weighs 390 grams for the titanium model and the TI Swallow is even less at 370. I would have bought the Swallow but it wasn't around when I got the Swift. Some people have been cutting the sides of their Swifts to make it look like the Swallow...I'm not so sure I would do that, but it does make the Swift weigh about the same as the Swallow.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

90125 said:


> Conversely my Fizik fits me perfectly and feels great...and the only thing I have ever done to it is put it on the bike and adjust the position.


I have two Fizik's and they are great saddles probably the best lightweight saddle I've tried, but for long hours in the saddle they still don't feel as good as the Brooks...in my butt opinion.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I bought a B17 specifically because I was going to ride from the Pacific to the Atlantic in April & May of this year. It was broken in before the ride started. I was the only rider with a saddle of that type. We got into a discussion about the pros and cons and the outcome was that everybody said they'd been riding their current saddle for several years & liked it just fine. Within 2 weeks of riding close to100 MI every day they hated their saddles. Me? I never had one minute of discomfort (from my seat) throughout the entire trip. When I got home I immediately bought one for my other bike.


----------



## dysfunction (Apr 2, 2010)

Lotophage said:


> Yeah, in the end, that was what killed brooks for me. When my kid is older and I can pick and choose my rides more, the brooks will come back.


There's always selle-anatomica. No maintenance there, beyond wiping down with a damp cloth to clean it. Oh, just a bit less on the 'break in' period as well IMO. I still love me leather suspended saddles. Come to think of it, I need another for my MTB. :thumbsup:


----------



## eidolon (Jun 21, 2012)

I've had a B17 Narrow on my commuter for over a year. It's no more or less comfortable than most other saddles I've used.

It's heavier. It looks prettier.

It not good for mountain biking as it's too slippery.

Overall, it's just a saddle.


----------



## OES (Jan 23, 2002)

90125 said:


> Conversely my Fizik fits me perfectly and feels great...and the only thing I have ever done to it is put it on the bike and adjust the position.


If you're happy, I'm happy. My point was, if two minutes of 'work' a year is WAY too much to ask in exchange for a comfortable saddle, I guess I've forgotten the definition of 'lazy.'

Again, no big whoop.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

dysfunction said:


> There's always selle-anatomica. No maintenance there, beyond wiping down with a damp cloth to clean it. Oh, just a bit less on the 'break in' period as well IMO. I still love me leather suspended saddles. Come to think of it, I need another for my MTB. :thumbsup:


I think today if I were to buy another leather saddle I would definitely try the Selle Anatomica. When I bought my two Brooks saddles they were about half the price they are today (these are both titanium models), but the Brooks saddle sales exploded after that and they kept raising their prices to what they are today and I think their too high now, I doubt seriously that I would buy one today except for the B17 for touring because there isn't anything out there that is as good as that saddle for touring...in my opinion of course, I do know that there are tourer's out there riding on other types of saddles and are just perfectly happy. 

But instead paying the crazy high prices of a Swift or a Swallow today I would try the Selle Anatomica for sure. And the good news is: the Selle Anatomica is made in AMERICA!! Wow! will wonders never cease.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

froze said:


> I think today if I were to buy another leather saddle I would definitely try the Selle Anatomica.


After buying one of these I'll not by another Brooks. They are not as pretty as a Brooks, but work just as well and are way more adjustable.


----------



## Digger51 (May 12, 2006)

xxl said:


> They are weighty, but you really won't care, come mile 87.


Exactly!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

laffeaux said:


> After buying one of these I'll not by another Brooks. They are not as pretty as a Brooks, but work just as well and are way more adjustable.


Actually I thought the Selle was quite attractive! I am in the market for another saddle on a particular bike I own and I may consider the Selle but I need to wait for 2 things, one is to see how much their newer lighter versions will cost, and second and most importantly...a job!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

90125 said:


> The point is that with all the choices out there that are great there is no need to have a saddle that you have to care for. I am sorry if that is too tough for you to understand and you feel the need to imply that I am lazy for choosing a comfortable saddle that does not need extra care to make comfortable.


Problem is with those no care for modern saddles is that they have to be replaced once every year or two because the padding begins to fail. I think spending 15 minutes or so once or twice a year carrying for a leather saddle and having it last at least 20 years is a bit smarter way to go in the pursuit of long term comfort then having to replace the saddle and spend money every year or two. 

Even with modern padded saddles you still have to clean it occasionally, so I don't understand what the problem is.

Then you run into an issue of buying a new saddle only to find out you hate it and then have to try another and another and another.

At the end of the 20 years or more later, the leather saddle will require far less work, expense and comfort problems for most non-racer people.

I have some non all leather saddles, I have them only because their on bikes I generally don't ride over 50 miles on and I got high quality saddles for very low prices, one is a Fizik Aliante and the other a Arione that I got both for under $35 almost new! Those were the lowest end models that Fizik offered in those models; they were turnouts off of new bikes that came with them and the customers wanted different saddles, the LBS said they may have had 5 miles on the saddles if that.


----------



## dysfunction (Apr 2, 2010)

90125 said:


> The point is that with all the choices out there that are great there is no need to have a saddle that you have to care for. I am sorry if that is too tough for you to understand and you feel the need to imply that I am lazy for choosing a comfortable saddle that does not need extra care to make comfortable.


Likewise, if my ass is happier with a leather suspension saddle, so be it. There is no 'ultimate' saddle. Plenty of ones that are VERY popular I hate bordering on loathing.


----------



## TBarnaby (Mar 1, 2012)

dysfunction said:


> There's always selle-anatomica. No maintenance there, beyond wiping down with a damp cloth to clean it. Oh, just a bit less on the 'break in' period as well IMO. I still love me leather suspended saddles. Come to think of it, I need another for my MTB. :thumbsup:


I have a couple of Selle Anatomicas for my wife's and my road bikes, we even do up to 25 miles sans padded shorts without any discomfort. I was just on their website and they now have a MTB specific saddle that looks pretty interesting.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I haven't seen the Sella Anatomica except in photos, but I looks OK to me. If you shop around the INTERNET for awhile you can find a Brooks B17 for a very good price. I just bought another one a few weeks ago for $85.


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

Mr. Versatile said:


> I haven't seen the Sella Anatomica except in photos, but I looks OK to me. If you shop around the INTERNET for awhile you can find a Brooks B17 for a very good price. I just bought another one a few weeks ago for $85.


The Selle Anatomica Titanico is a GREAT saddle - I have two. Well worth the money. Sort of an improved Brooks. These guys got their start modifying B.17s. The leather is water resistant, so there is no need to slather it up with Proofhide or anything else. 

The only design flaw that I've found is in the adjusting/tension screw. I find that if you like your saddle a little slack then the screw can back off as a result of the nosepiece rocking back and forth. I took it apart, put a jam nut on the adjusting screw, and reassembled it: no more problems.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

There's no hype about them. People truly love them. Just look at all the testimonials in this thread. I'd love 'em, too, if I didn't hate them so much. For me the Brooks is damnably, amazingly uncomfortable. Yes, I have ridden _more_ uncomfortable saddles. There was a Fizik about fifteen years ago that felt like it had a prostate prod. Then there was the hard plastic saddle that came with my Gitane Tour de France back in 1971 -- a saddle not meant to be actually ridden, but just there as a prop.


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

Mapei said:


> There's no hype about them. People truly love them. Just look at all the testimonials in this thread. I'd love 'em, too, if I didn't hate them so much. For me the Brooks is damnably, amazingly uncomfortable. Yes, I have ridden _more_ uncomfortable saddles. There was a Fizik about fifteen years ago that felt like it had a prostate prod. Then there was the hard plastic saddle that came with my Gitane Tour de France back in 1971 -- a saddle not meant to be actually ridden, but just there as a prop.


Mapei's excellent post drives home the point that no two rumps are alike and a saddle that one person finds supremely comfortable may be nothing less than an instrument of torture to another. I've previously propsed that before a saddle recommendation is to be taken seriously the person offering their opinoin must first provide the public with a sufficiently detailed description of their buttocks, if not an actual photograph or drawing, in order to provide the reader with an appropriate context for the opinion being offered.

As for me, my opinions regarding the relative merits of the Brooks B.17 and the Selle An-Atomica Titanico are colored by the fact that I am blessed with the amply-muscled backside of a _roleur_, best described as twin sinewy globes of alabaster attached to a fine specimen of rampant manhood; broad in the beam but not unpleasingly so.


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

I torn between the eloquence of your prose and the conflict presented by the description contained within and the name of your blog. Something to ponder over a glass of fine Cabernet.


----------



## SteveOz1 (Sep 5, 2012)

Have two Brooks saddles - love 'em! The one thing I eventually learned is to kick the nose up! If it's "level" I tended to slide down to the nose and found myself constantly pushing myself back on the saddle - couple off degrees "up" put me in just the right spot - the wide flat section towards the rear of the saddle. Will agree with the previous posters about fretting to much over the saddle care - smear a thin layer of proofhide under it and go . What I notice about the saddle is the natural "springiness" to it - the leather may feel "hard" but the suspending it across the rails makes it act like a trampoline (for lack of a better description) I was surprised at how much road jarring it takes away...


----------



## 1948D18 (Jun 1, 2012)

Brooks - love them! Next question....


----------



## BikesOfALesserGod (Jul 22, 2012)

I bought a Flyer 12 years ago for my 'tail MTB and have used nothing but Brooks saddles since. My 2012 IF and Trek have B17s. If I ever buy a carbon bike I'll put a B17 on it too! It's exercise not a fashion show and I'll use what works for me.

Short version: I love them. You might too.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Jobst Brandt coined the term "ass hatchet" to describe what happens to Brooks saddles when they get wet and turn into a wedge up your backside.

Besides, everyone knows that saddle perfection was reached with the Selle San Marco Regal.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

All I know is my arse loves my Brooks B17 on my touring bike and the Brooks Swift on my non touring road bike. And as long as my arse is in agreement then so am I!! The thing about leather saddles that most people fail to realize is they are like leather shoes, they may hurt when you first put them on but after break in they feel like a pair gloves, well leather saddles are the same way, once you break them in, which takes at least 300 miles it took me about 800, they will feel great because they molded to your butt rather then your butt being forced to mold to it. The reason my saddles took so long is because I broke them in without using Proofide, once I broke it in then I used Proofide to protect it not to soften it. The Swift didn't take as long because they use thinner leather then the B17.

I like the Fizik's too, but their not at the same level of comfort that the Brooks have, but they are the most comfortable non leather saddle I've ever rode on, so I think saddle manufactures are improving the "brick" racing type of saddles, because years ago I had trouble trying to find a comfortable saddle.

As others have mentioned, measuring your sit bones then finding a saddle that will fit that measurement is the key to much success, not all success though, because all saddle have padding types and densities that vary and you could still be unhappy if you get the wrong saddle for you; but at least can you eliminate a bunch of saddles if you get the correct width.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Worst expensive seat in existence.

At least they are popular enough that after months of waiting for this thing to get comfortable I could resell it for 80% of retail.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

foto said:


> Worst expensive seat in existence.
> 
> At least they are popular enough that after months of waiting for this thing to get comfortable I could resell it for 80% of retail.


The Brooks? Not even close by a long shot! Try the Konig Friedrick saddle, it costs around $2,000. But in the real world there are lot of carbon fiber saddles that are far more worse then a Brooks. 

But I understand it's still all about the individuals butt taste...hmm, well anyway, no one can make a statement like you did and be true for everyone, it's only true for you. And for me the Brooks are the most comfortable, and they last 20 to 30 years vs having to buy a padded saddle every year or two and spend $75 to $275 each time. So in long run Brooks are far less expensive then any other non full leather saddle on the market...unless you don't ride at all then a $15 saddle is the best for the long haul.


----------



## charlox5 (Jan 31, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> Jobst Brandt coined the term "ass hatchet" to describe what happens to Brooks saddles when they get wet and turn into a wedge up your backside.
> 
> Besides, everyone knows that saddle perfection was reached with the Selle San Marco Regal.


I just replaced my Regal with a B17 on my steel bike. The B17 is very nice. But, i also really liked the regal so i threw it on my ti bike and discovered yesterday how superior the regal is compared to the more "modern" saddle i had on the ti bike.

as a comment on value, i picked up my B17 for $70 shipped, new. (20% off a closeout at bikewagon).


----------



## jmlapoint (Sep 4, 2008)

I have tried lots of saddles over 40 years of riding and always return to the B17. I have a B17 on my Track Bike and on my converted Fixie for the road. Love them both. Takes a while to break-in, but once done, you forget completely about saddle/butt issues and just enjoy the ride!
john


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

jmlapoint said:


> I have tried lots of saddles over 40 years of riding and always return to the B17. I have a B17 on my Track Bike and on my converted Fixie for the road. Love them both. Takes a while to break-in, but once done, you forget completely about saddle/butt issues and just enjoy the ride!
> john


What if I don't have saddle butt issues? Should I get a saddle that gives me issues so I can experience the joy of not having them?

I feel like I am missing out on something...


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

foto said:


> What if I don't have saddle butt issues? Should I get a saddle that gives me issues so I can experience the joy of not having them?
> 
> I feel like I am missing out on something...


If you don't have saddle butt issues then why ask? You're already set to go with a happy arse. So give your arse a slap and say thank you.


----------



## 1948D18 (Jun 1, 2012)

Here's wild thought - use what works for YOU.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

1948D18 said:


> Here's wild thought - use what works for YOU.


 That thought isn't wild, it's extreme!


----------



## TLDetroit (Feb 8, 2010)

Had a B-17 on my trek 520 touring bike...loved it and the looks for the steel tourer. I ended up selling the bike with the saddle to a very happy new owner.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

mtnroadie said:


> They are pretty damn comfy, but also heavy. I have one on my vintage Holdsworth. I really want to try a Ti swift.
> 
> Being a pescetarian I find myself in a moral quandary, I wont eat cows but I will sit on them?


I'm a pescaterian too! Synthetic is better these days anyways. Fizik Arione carbon!


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

eidolon said:


> It not good for mountain biking as it's too slippery.


Like all things with saddles, your experience will vary from others.
I did 2 x 3hr races on this baby just last weekend.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

northoceanbeach said:


> I'm a pescaterian too! Synthetic is better these days anyways. Fizik Arione carbon!


Hmmm, lets see, if I throw a leather saddle and a synthetic covered carbon fiber saddle with some sort of foam padding into a land fill which do you suppose will break down faster? Which is safer on the environment, both in terms of initial production and in landfills?

And if you don't like to eat land animals why do you eat animals at all? Like fish? What, fish aren't animals? Fish are allowed in the pescaterian diet, and fish are more endangered then cows. But some how because a cow goes moo and a fish doesn't speak it's ok to eat the fish? Or perhaps fish aren't smart enough, so a dumber land animal would be ok to eat?

I just love this beating of ones chest "look at me, I'm a pescaterian."


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

froze said:


> Hmmm, lets see, if I throw a leather saddle and a synthetic covered carbon fiber saddle with some sort of foam padding into a land fill which do you suppose will break down faster? Which is safer on the environment, both in terms of initial production and in landfills?
> 
> And if you don't like to eat land animals why do you eat animals at all? Like fish? What, fish aren't animals? Fish are allowed in the pescaterian diet, and fish are more endangered then cows. But some how because a cow goes moo and a fish doesn't speak it's ok to eat the fish? Or perhaps fish aren't smart enough, so a dumber land animal would be ok to eat?
> 
> I just love this beating of ones chest "look at me, I'm a pescaterian."


things don't decompose well in landfills. Plus, what does creates a lot of methane which is way worse from a global warming perspective than a hunk of plastic just sitting in a dump.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

foto said:


> things don't decompose well in landfills. Plus, what does creates a lot of methane which is way worse from a global warming perspective than a hunk of plastic just sitting in a dump.


Really? So having all our plastics sitting in land fills and on ocean bottoms for millions of years is better then having leather in landfills that lasts maybe 5 years and maybe a year in water? And some how extracting oil out of the ground to make your saddle then add in all the toxic chemicals that went into the production of that saddle and all the energy it took for the factory to make it as well is better then leather? Methane? killing a cow eliminates methane.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

froze said:


> Really? So having all our plastics sitting in land fills and on ocean bottoms for millions of years is better then having leather in landfills that lasts maybe 5 years and maybe a year in water? And some how extracting oil out of the ground to make your saddle then add in all the toxic chemicals that went into the production of that saddle and all the energy it took for the factory to make it as well is better then leather? Methane? killing a cow eliminates methane.


Do you know what it takes to raise a cow? Plenty of crude oil goes into industrial cow production, don't fool yourself.

Anyway, brooks uses horsehide not cow hide...


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

It takes 208 gallons of crude to raise one cow in today's world, there was a time when it take any! But I digest...anyway, But who cares? The cow isn't being raised strictly to make leather seats, it's also used for food, milk and milk related products. Sure cows cause green house gases, but what most people don't realize is that the population of animals is down 98% from 65 million years ago, all those animals were creating methane gas, a lot more methane gas the what all of mankind and animal kind and landfills create. There is a theory that from just 100,000 large plant eating dinosaurs they created 520 tons of methane a year...the same as being produced today by all of mankind and natural sources, but that's just from those critters, there were still many billions of other critters adding to the gas not to mention peat moss.

Horsehide, cowhide, buffalo hide who cares? They eat horse meat in England so the horse is not going to waste. But I think you might be wrong because according to Sheldon Brown's web site the skins came from organic cows; see: Brooks Leather Saddles from Harris Cyclery


----------

