| |
Main
Date: 03 Jul 2007 23:15:18
From: Troll Report
Subject: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
...and its name isn't the Trek Madone 2008., but I appreciate the morons
spamming it here.
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 05:19:02
From: almost_fast@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
On Jul 4, 7:36 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid > wrote:
> Per Jay Beattie:
>
> >Ski boot fit makes a difference in how you drive your skis. On a bike,
> >your do not need to lock-in your butt cheeks so you can make hard
> >turns. You just need something that is comfortable.
>
> I was thinking in terms of ichial tuberosity width: those two
> contact points shown in Carl's citation:http://www.foamstudies.bham.ac.uk/cushions/background.html
>
> I'd guess something like 66% of people's bones fit the
> off-the-shelf WTB Speed V....
>
> On the narrow end of the bell curve it might not be so bad
> because of all the really-skinny saddles out there - but the 10%
> or so at the broad-butt end aren't so well served.
>
> I can say from personal experience that if you've got 5.25"
> between your IT contact points, there is a problem with all
> saddles that are otherwise suitable for extended use (i.e. aren't
> all soft and squishy...).
>
> Brooks' B-17 seems tb the least of all the evils bco it's greater
> usable width... but my own butt bones are right on the outer edge
> of that saddle. Better than being off the edge or over the
> reinforced hard-as-concrete edges of a plastic saddle.. but still
> not what I'd call properly comfortable. They're fine on a B-66
> or a B-72.. but those saddles are too wide thigh-clearance-wise.
>
> The WTB saddle is sized for somebody with 2.75-3.25" butt bone
> spacing (look underneath one and you'll see what I mean...
>
> Brooks jumps from 170mm to something like 225 or 230mm. They've
> got much finer gradations below 170, but nothing above except
> saddles that are too wide for thigh clearance when riding any way
> but bolt upright.
>
> I dream of a 7" wide Selle Italia....
>
> In the context of Brooks' B-17, I think in terms of a 17.5, a 18,
> a 18.5, a 19, a 19.5... and so-on.
>
> Similarly with the WTB... spread out the intended sit bone area
> 5mm at a time so everybody gets a proper fit.
>
> Personally, I'd give a week's pay for something like that - and
> call it a bargain
> --
> PeteCresswell
My sit bone width was measured at 140 mm = 5.51 inches and I ride very
comfortably on a saddle that measures 150 mm overall width, and can
still enjoy a comfortable ride on my other favorite saddle that
measures 135 mm. Counterintuitively (to me, at first anyway) was that
the faster I ride the more comfortable either of my saddles gets. I
suspect it may be that I'm supporting my weight less on the "peaks" of
the sit bones and more along the ischial rami bones (which grow
narrower as they "V" toward the pubic arch).
What makes such (typical?) saddles uncomfortable to you?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 20:01:21
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
Per almost_fast@yahoo.com:
>My sit bone width was measured at 140 mm = 5.51 inches and I ride very
>comfortably on a saddle that measures 150 mm overall width, and can
>still enjoy a comfortable ride on my other favorite saddle that
>measures 135 mm. Counterintuitively (to me, at first anyway) was that
>the faster I ride the more comfortable either of my saddles gets.
That's interesting. Last year I tried trolling for people's sit
bone widths and came up with bupkis. You're the first one to
cite an actual measured width.
Sounds like either you're lucky in your bone's tolerance for
trauma or I'm way off base. 140mm width (I'm assuming that's
center-to-center on the sit bone indents) would seem to have the
135mm saddle almost trying to wedge itself up between the ichial
tuberosities - unless maybe the 140mm was taken bolt upright and
you're riding more-or-less aero.
The increased comfort with faster riding seems right to me: the
harder you hammer on the pedals, the more weight borne by your
legs and the less weight borne by your sit bones.
> I suspect it may be that I'm supporting my weight less on the "peaks" of
>the sit bones and more along the ischial rami bones (which grow
>narrower as they "V" toward the pubic arch).
>
>What makes such (typical?) saddles uncomfortable to you?
For the Brooks B-17, "uncomfortable" might be too strong a word
for what I experience.
But on a 3-4 hour ride, there's definitely a sense of soreness
and (rightly or wrongly) I attribute that to the fact that the
outside edges of the sit bones are up against that steel piece
that curves around the back of the saddle. With use, the leather
takes a slight impression of the bones and deforms around the
steel a few mm.
Here a few pix of what I'm trying to describe:
http://tinyurl.com/2gs5da
On a plastic saddle like the WTB Speed-V, the issue of the curved
steel rail is replaced by the entire outer edge of the saddle
being very solid plastic - as opposed the grey cushioned inner
area that one can see by turning the saddle upside-down.
My recollection is that area is something like 2.75-3.25" wide.
For me, the B-17 is infinitely less uncomfortable than the
Speed-V, in spite of being almost the same nominal width.
99% of my riding is on my FS mountain bike - where the sus and
getting in and out of the saddle frequently probably alleviates
what discomfort there is.
When I ride on a road on my hardtail and HP tires, the discomfort
is noticeably increased. I'm guessing that's bco the relatively
unchanging position.
I've experimented with a Books B-66 on my utility bike - where
the added width supports all of the sit bones and then some - so
there's a measurable gap between the dents made by the sit bones
and the steel piece that curves around under the back of the
saddle.
There seemed tb an improvement and I've moved that saddle to my
hard tail. Haven't had it on any multi-hour rides yet, but I
expect a decrease in butt soreness accompanied by a sense of the
saddle being too wide on my thighs for the more forward-leaning
riding position.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 21:12:16
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
In article <etuq83htdmckreotqdbqkk6fqs8kg8ea8n@4ax.com >,
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote:
> For the Brooks B-17, "uncomfortable" might be too strong a word for
> what I experience.
>
> But on a 3-4 hour ride, there's definitely a sense of soreness and
> (rightly or wrongly) I attribute that to the fact that the outside
> edges of the sit bones are up against that steel piece that curves
> around the back of the saddle. With use, the leather takes a slight
> impression of the bones and deforms around the steel a few mm.
>
> Here a few pix of what I'm trying to describe:
> http://tinyurl.com/2gs5da
Hmm. I'd slide the saddle back about 5 mm and sitting therefore just a
bit farther forward- with your sit bones about even with the last two
rivets.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 07:56:54
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
Per Tim McNamara:
>Hmm. I'd slide the saddle back about 5 mm and sitting therefore just a
>bit farther forward- with your sit bones about even with the last two
>rivets.
Been there... size fifteen feet and all that. Used to use a
seatpost with major setback.
Problem is that then the sit bones have moved forward to an area
that's narrower than the sit bones.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:25:48
From: Barry
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
> Counterintuitively (to me, at first anyway) was that
> the faster I ride the more comfortable either of my saddles gets. I
> suspect it may be that I'm supporting my weight less on the "peaks" of
> the sit bones and more along the ischial rami bones (which grow
> narrower as they "V" toward the pubic arch).
I've also noticed that the saddle is more comfortable when I go faster, but
I've always thought this was due to:
- pedaling harder means less weight on the saddle
- the pain from working hard overwhelms the saddle discomfort.
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 18:17:53
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
On Jul 4, 10:46 am, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> Troll Report wrote:
> > ...and its name isn't the Trek Madone 2008., but I appreciate the morons
> > spamming it here.
>
> The saddest part of conventional bicycles like this is that essentially
> they're all the same, there's not much innovation at all. A different
> paint job, a pound or so lighter and a newer & higher price tag. There's
> really nothing new here.
That's what most folks call "mature technology." You don't see huge
changes because they've pretty much figured out what works.
Oddly enough, the troll in this thread isn't the one with it in his
name...
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 16:42:33
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
On Jul 4, 1:12 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:38:19 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Per DougC:
> >>-the butt pain, hand numbness and neck pain,
>
> >Given that people lay out hundreds of dollars for foam-fitted ski
> >boots, it's still a mystery to me why there isn't a cottage
> >industry making custom or semi-custom saddles - something like
> >the WTB Speed V or Brooks B-17 - only in 5 or 10mm width
> >increments.
>
> Dear Pete,
>
> Probably because it wouldn't do much good. Feet have enough
> articulation, complicated bony parts, and definite shape to make
> fitting useful. In contrast, what we put on a bicycle seat is so
> squashy that a simple impression doesn't mean much.
>
> Unlike a ski boot fitted to a foot, a bicycle seat offers little
> restraint, so there are far fewer points to fit.
>
> Most of the rider's weight presses down on two surprisingly small
> areas of the pelvis, which are surrounded by squashy areas that can't
> really be "fitted" because they are constantly moving, bulging, and
> changing in ways quite different from bony feet with tough sole pads.
>
> The pressure map at the bottom (sorry) of this page shows just how
> small the pressure points are:
>
> http://www.foamstudies.bham.ac.uk/cushions/background.html
>
> On a bicycle seat (as opposed to the chair cushion in that page),
> everything shrinks and concentrates near those two bony points, and
> there isn't really any support outside the midline. A 3-D map for a
> bike seat would be a much smaller ridge instead of the spreading blob
> of the chain cusion.
>
> The soft parts of the rider conform to the seat far more than a bony
> foot conforms to a boot, so changing the shape of the seat can't
> change the fit nearly as much as changing the shape of a boot.
>
> Most seat fitting consists of width. Beyond that, bicyclists chafe
> according to motion and habits that a static mold isn't likely to
> reveal.
Ski boot fit makes a difference in how you drive your skis. On a bike,
your do not need to lock-in your butt cheeks so you can make hard
turns. You just need something that is comfortable.-- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 20:36:49
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
Per Jay Beattie:
>Ski boot fit makes a difference in how you drive your skis. On a bike,
>your do not need to lock-in your butt cheeks so you can make hard
>turns. You just need something that is comfortable.
I was thinking in terms of ichial tuberosity width: those two
contact points shown in Carl's citation:
http://www.foamstudies.bham.ac.uk/cushions/background.html
I'd guess something like 66% of people's bones fit the
off-the-shelf WTB Speed V....
On the narrow end of the bell curve it might not be so bad
because of all the really-skinny saddles out there - but the 10%
or so at the broad-butt end aren't so well served.
I can say from personal experience that if you've got 5.25"
between your IT contact points, there is a problem with all
saddles that are otherwise suitable for extended use (i.e. aren't
all soft and squishy...).
Brooks' B-17 seems tb the least of all the evils bco it's greater
usable width... but my own butt bones are right on the outer edge
of that saddle. Better than being off the edge or over the
reinforced hard-as-concrete edges of a plastic saddle.. but still
not what I'd call properly comfortable. They're fine on a B-66
or a B-72.. but those saddles are too wide thigh-clearance-wise.
The WTB saddle is sized for somebody with 2.75-3.25" butt bone
spacing (look underneath one and you'll see what I mean...
Brooks jumps from 170mm to something like 225 or 230mm. They've
got much finer gradations below 170, but nothing above except
saddles that are too wide for thigh clearance when riding any way
but bolt upright.
I dream of a 7" wide Selle Italia....
In the context of Brooks' B-17, I think in terms of a 17.5, a 18,
a 18.5, a 19, a 19.5... and so-on.
Similarly with the WTB... spread out the intended sit bone area
5mm at a time so everybody gets a proper fit.
Personally, I'd give a week's pay for something like that - and
call it a bargain
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:44:58
From: gawnfishin
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
(PeteCresswell) Wrote:
> Per Jay Beattie:
> >Ski boot fit makes a difference in how you drive your skis. On a bike,
> >your do not need to lock-in your butt cheeks so you can make hard
> >turns. You just need something that is comfortable.
>
> I was thinking in terms of ichial tuberosity width: those two
> contact points shown in Carl's citation:
> http://www.foamstudies.bham.ac.uk/cushions/background.html
>
> I'd guess something like 66% of people's bones fit the
> off-the-shelf WTB Speed V....
>
> On the narrow end of the bell curve it might not be so bad
> because of all the really-skinny saddles out there - but the 10%
> or so at the broad-butt end aren't so well served.
>
> I can say from personal experience that if you've got 5.25"
> between your IT contact points, there is a problem with all
> saddles that are otherwise suitable for extended use (i.e. aren't
> all soft and squishy...).
>
> Brooks' B-17 seems tb the least of all the evils bco it's greater
> usable width... but my own butt bones are right on the outer edge
> of that saddle. Better than being off the edge or over the
> reinforced hard-as-concrete edges of a plastic saddle.. but still
> not what I'd call properly comfortable. They're fine on a B-66
> or a B-72.. but those saddles are too wide thigh-clearance-wise.
>
> ::*The WTB saddle is sized for somebody with 2.75-3.25\" butt bone*::
> ::*spacing (look underneath one and you'll see what I mean...*::
>
> Brooks jumps from 170mm to something like 225 or 230mm. They've
> got much finer gradations below 170, but nothing above except
> saddles that are too wide for thigh clearance when riding any way
> but bolt upright.
>
> I dream of a 7" wide Selle Italia....
>
> In the context of Brooks' B-17, I think in terms of a 17.5, a 18,
> a 18.5, a 19, a 19.5... and so-on.
>
> Similarly with the WTB... spread out the intended sit bone area
> 5mm at a time so everybody gets a proper fit.
>
> Personally, I'd give a week's pay for something like that - and
> call it a bargain
> --
> PeteCresswell*::So, this may be a stupid question but, short of a bottle of vino,
some Barry White music and a weird wife, how do you measure your butt
bone spacing?::*
--
gawnfishin
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 19:15:28
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
Per gawnfishin:
>So, this may be a stupid question but, short of a bottle of vino,
>some Barry White music and a weird wife, how do you measure your butt
>bone spacing?::*
Sit on something that will take an impression.
e.g.
- 8.5 x 11" laser printer paper on a fuzzy rug
- 1" styrofoam sheet on a counter top...
The styrofoam on corner of a counter top works well because you
can sit with your legs hanging down more-or-less like in a riding
position and lean forwards/backwards as suitable (the contact
point width is reputed to change as the hips are angled
forwards).
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 08:08:43
From: Barry
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
> So, this may be a stupid question but, short of a bottle of vino,
> some Barry White music and a weird wife, how do you measure your butt
> bone spacing?::*
I bought a Specialized saddle that comes in three widths, and the bike shop
measured my butt width with a device from Specialized - just a piece of memory
foam that keeps the impression of your sit bones for a few seconds so you can
measure with a ruler.
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 12:46:49
From: DougC
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
Troll Report wrote:
> ...and its name isn't the Trek Madone 2008., but I appreciate the morons
> spamming it here.
The saddest part of conventional bicycles like this is that essentially
they're all the same, there's not much innovation at all. A different
paint job, a pound or so lighter and a newer & higher price tag. There's
really nothing new here.
Additionally--the most common complaints that get posted aren't even
addressed by such bicycles: there's the "holy trinity of suffering" you
get with these bikes--the butt pain, hand numbness and neck pain, and
that's the same if you buy a $200 or a $2000 bike. Adjustment helps a
little, changing components can help a little but they all hurt to ride
pretty much the same. The other problem is general durability of parts,
and on these race bikes the parts get shaved thinner and thinner each
year, so that's a dead end as well.
---------
Dispense with the cultish foolishness, abandon your upright bikes at the
shops that sold them to you. Make disposing of the thing their problem:
it's only fair, after all.
Get a recumbent--a bicycle intended to be comfortable, not conformative.
Cast off your padded shorts forever! (well put on some other ones before
going out, I can't be a party to that sort of behavior)
You'll be amazed how far you ride when it doesn't hurt.
Find out what bicycling was meant to be, before the marketing gurus
decided it had to be painful.
~
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 19:53:27
From: MkTm
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
DougC wrote:
> Troll Report wrote:
>> ...and its name isn't the Trek Madone 2008., but I appreciate the morons
>> spamming it here.
>
> The saddest part of conventional bicycles like this is that essentially
> they're all the same, there's not much innovation at all. A different
> paint job, a pound or so lighter and a newer & higher price tag. There's
> really nothing new here.
>
> Additionally--the most common complaints that get posted aren't even
> addressed by such bicycles: there's the "holy trinity of suffering" you
> get with these bikes--the butt pain, hand numbness and neck pain, and
> that's the same if you buy a $200 or a $2000 bike. Adjustment helps a
> little, changing components can help a little but they all hurt to ride
> pretty much the same. The other problem is general durability of parts,
> and on these race bikes the parts get shaved thinner and thinner each
> year, so that's a dead end as well.
> ---------
> Dispense with the cultish foolishness, abandon your upright bikes at the
> shops that sold them to you. Make disposing of the thing their problem:
> it's only fair, after all.
>
> Get a recumbent--a bicycle intended to be comfortable, not conformative.
> Cast off your padded shorts forever! (well put on some other ones before
> going out, I can't be a party to that sort of behavior)
> You'll be amazed how far you ride when it doesn't hurt.
> Find out what bicycling was meant to be, before the marketing gurus
> decided it had to be painful.
> ~
I'm not particularly interested in getting into the recumbent-upright
flame war that I've seen here too many times but there is a something of
a more general nature being raised.
I see bicycle technology based on bicycle racing, tour style, as being
comparable to stock car racing in the U.S. - NASCAR. Sure there are
advancements made but the rule restrictions are also restrictions on
progressive design. That's even more true in some ways with cycling.
Recumbents were banned decades ago. Softride designs were banned not
that long ago. Effectively, innovation on anything less than an almost
trivial scale is banned.
Last year in the TdF time trial Landis was told he could not set up his
bars to fully facilitate his "praying mantis" riding style.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 15:38:19
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
Per DougC:
>-the butt pain, hand numbness and neck pain,
Given that people lay out hundreds of dollars for foam-fitted ski
boots, it's still a mystery to me why there isn't a cottage
industry making custom or semi-custom saddles - something like
the WTB Speed V or Brooks B-17 - only in 5 or 10mm width
increments.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 14:12:16
From:
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:38:19 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid >
wrote:
>Per DougC:
>>-the butt pain, hand numbness and neck pain,
>
>Given that people lay out hundreds of dollars for foam-fitted ski
>boots, it's still a mystery to me why there isn't a cottage
>industry making custom or semi-custom saddles - something like
>the WTB Speed V or Brooks B-17 - only in 5 or 10mm width
>increments.
Dear Pete,
Probably because it wouldn't do much good. Feet have enough
articulation, complicated bony parts, and definite shape to make
fitting useful. In contrast, what we put on a bicycle seat is so
squashy that a simple impression doesn't mean much.
Unlike a ski boot fitted to a foot, a bicycle seat offers little
restraint, so there are far fewer points to fit.
Most of the rider's weight presses down on two surprisingly small
areas of the pelvis, which are surrounded by squashy areas that can't
really be "fitted" because they are constantly moving, bulging, and
changing in ways quite different from bony feet with tough sole pads.
The pressure map at the bottom (sorry) of this page shows just how
small the pressure points are:
http://www.foamstudies.bham.ac.uk/cushions/background.html
On a bicycle seat (as opposed to the chair cushion in that page),
everything shrinks and concentrates near those two bony points, and
there isn't really any support outside the midline. A 3-D map for a
bike seat would be a much smaller ridge instead of the spreading blob
of the chain cusion.
The soft parts of the rider conform to the seat far more than a bony
foot conforms to a boot, so changing the shape of the seat can't
change the fit nearly as much as changing the shape of a boot.
Most seat fitting consists of width. Beyond that, bicyclists chafe
according to motion and habits that a static mold isn't likely to
reveal.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2007 06:00:11
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: I've seen the future of bicycles
|
Troll Report wrote:
> ...and its name isn't the Trek Madone 2008., but I appreciate the morons
> spamming it here.
If you don't like these discussions, filter them out.
|
|
