Brooks Saddle -a pain in the ****

[Frenchie]

They are wrong and bad and just a cult.

Ditch it and buy a proper saddle, which will be substantially cheaper.

I didn't get on with them either; I prefer a Flite Ti any day!

[PloddinPedro]

Some advice need from all you Brooks fans.  I fitted a B17 to my audax bike and have done about 500 miles on it so far.  It is comfy to begin with but after a few hours in the saddle I start to get a pain in the left side of my groin.  Could it be that the B17 is too wide for me and would a Team Pro be better.  I believe the TP is narrower. 

As you will have seen, anything about Brooks will bring forth a flood of pros and antis! I weigh 13 stone and have always stuggled to get comfortable on the saddle. I've been through Rolls, Brooks, Selle Italia, Terry, Specialized, Fizik, Selle Italia, etc. Even the Campagnolo leather thing with the pump-up bladder in it (don't ask!) My home-grown theory is: you are faced with a choice between two fundamentally different engineering principles: gel-on-a-shell or hammock. The gel-on-a-shell inevitably has a rigid shell covered with padding of varying thickness, under a skin cover. It's intention is to focus the weight carrying on the ischial tuberosities (the bony bits in your rear) and relieve stress on your perineum. After a period on such a saddle, my bony points begin to ache like hell. The period will depend on how hard you ride (stamp hard enough all day on the pedals and you won't be touching the saddle anyway) and your body weight - all the beggars I know who don't have saddle problems weigh damn-all. Eventually the gel breaks up or loses its cushioning ability and you're basically sat on the shell anyway. The Brooks way is the hammock. This spreads the load over the whole of the contact area - easier on the aforesaid tuberosities; possibly less so on the perineum. BUT - and this is the crucial point when we're talking Brooks - the hammock principle works only if the leather is sufficiently supple to mould itself to your shape and thus distribute the load over all the saddle. A rigid Brooks is no different from a gel-on-a-shell without any gel. When I contemplated PBP last year, from a position of never even having done a 400k, I knew I'd never get through it on any of the gel-on-a-shell brands I'd ridden; I HAD to make the Brooks hammock work. So I dug out my old Team Professional, discarded years earlier as too, too rigid and too painful to "break in" and deciding that as it was basically useless, I might as well abuse it. On the strength of a conversation overheard in the Shaftesbury Club hut on some Audax or other, I got myself some neats foot oil and applied same to said Professional, and got riding on a promisingly supple saddle. A few weeks later I sailed (for me) through the Severn Across without a moments discomfort. This was followed by a (wet) Halisham 600, again without any problems (saddle wise - we won't talk about the legs.) PBP came and went without a hitch, saddle-wise. So neats foot oil did it for me - BUT, BUT, BIG BUT - neats foot oil is very BAD for Brooks. If you read their website, they say it's totally forbidden; it separates the fibres in the leather and destroys it and should never be used. Being a perverse minded individual, I took the view that a Brooks that would get me through my first SR and PBP without discomfort was worth it, even if I had to bin it after the ride. In fact, it's still going strong and is the most comfortable perch I've ever had. If it lasts only two or three years, so be it . That's as long as any gel-on-a-shell has lasted me and they've not been comfortable over 100 miles.

P.S. re the B17 vs the Professional - I tried a B17 after the Professional, on another bike, and got exactly the same result. The B17 is not only wider across the tuberosities but crucially is wider at the throat, and like any saddle it depends on your backside which you need. But also pay particular attention to the horizontal angle - I had set mine a shade too nose up and gone out on a 200k - I duely developed a nasty little saddle sore that took anti-biotics to get rid of . So it pays to be meticulous about saddle height and angle. Best of luck!

[Greenbank]

You see, I'm a Brooks fan and I disagree with some parts of the above.

Firstly, if there was one saddle that worked for everyone then there'd only be one saddle. No two people are alike and I'm more than happy that not everyone gets along with a Brooks.

But I certainly don't feel as if I'm sitting in a hammock with my Brooks Swallow. There are two distinct contact points, and they are the sit bones. The two indentations on my Swallow seem to back this up. It hasn't given me a single bit of gyp from day one and has survived long rides (this years Severn Across being the longest) without a hint of a problem.

My home-grown theory is that any attempt to cushion the undercarriage with various bits of gel/foam/padding is doomed as, eventually, three things happen:

a) as you mention above, the padding/gel/foam gives up the ghost and you end up sitting on the hard shell with your sit-bones. For Brooks users, skip this step.
b) for the first few hours on a bike you are supported by your arse muscles which try and prevent your sit-bones from taking the strain. After they've given up you end up sitting on your sit-bones and, at first, this hurts.
c) eventually (i.e. months) your sit bones get used to taking your weight, and you're comfortable sitting on them for long (i.e. Audax) periods.

At this point, once you've toughened up your sit-bones to endure multiple day Audaxes then you could probably move to any other saddle as long as it has roughly the same shape/geometry. But trying out this theory is risky as I don't want to jeopardise a long ride by finding out that it isn't true.

I use Proofide to replace the natural oils that leech out when the saddle gets wet. That's it. There's no magic to it. If you don't replace the oils then the saddle dries up and starts to crack. If you put too much Proofide on then it'll sag and go floppy. Proofide has a mild waterproofing property, but that's not its job. I believe that my Brooks is comfy because it's like a rock, and given toughened up sit-bones I'm happy to sit on that all day. The last time I needed to Proofide it was over 6 months ago after a particularly bad drenching that, when it had dried out, it looked too dry. The saddle, which got wet on this year's Dean, Elenith, the Severn Across and the recent 240km of the DNF'd Border Raid, along with many many wet commutes, is still going on strong.

I would also agree that it's all to do with setup, angle and positioning. Any saddle badly setup is going to hurt.

There is no magic. It's about training your arse to live with a hard saddle. Be it a Brooks, Flite Ti or anything else. Sitting on a Brooks *may* be a faster way of doing this because you skip the extra stage delay caused by the gel/foam/padding.

P.S. I was 15st and now 12st. This may have some bearing on it but I had no problems even when I was 15st.

[damerell]

I think you've both confirmed what I feared; Brooks don't like being constantly wet. I have the biggest mudguards you've ever seen, but the road spray from passing traffic soaks everything anyway. Even in summer, I probably get soaked to the skin twice a week (York cycle rally-type weather). I'm talking wringing wet, water running out of gloves, everything squishy wet. This is prob why the Rolls is wearing out (despite fortnightly waxing).

I clocked a hundred miles a week in commuting conditions (no choice of time of day, no choice to stay in when it's wet, cages passing with their usual malignant love of soakings) for some years. The B-17N I used for that is still giving me fine service on audaxes. They can't get soaked when you're riding because your bum's in the way.

What is maddening, and a serious downside, is the way a little absentmindedness with your plastic bag, when stopping, can ruin a saddle. I wouldn't bother with Brooksen were it not for the minor detail that I've never found any other kind of saddle I can ride 100km on without serious problems.

Frankly - if a plastic saddle suits for the distances you do, get a plastic saddle. It's probably cheaper, certainly lighter, and not as easily damaged. I only really recommend Brooksen to people who already feel unsuited to the available plastic saddles.

[Three exceptions. Brooksen are rather elegant and it would be criminal to put anything else on a posh roadster. Sprung Brooksen are a much more straightforward solution to their problem than suspension seatposts. And, if you have widely separate sitbones and don't want some gel blob, there aren't a lot of options that aren't the outsides of cows.]

[PloddinPedro]

Actually, Greenbank, I feel we're actually more in agreement than you might think.

... I certainly don't feel as if I'm sitting in a hammock with my Brooks Swallow. There are two distinct contact points, and they are the sit bones. The two indentations on my Swallow seem to back this up.

It's purely subjective but my interpretation of this is that your Swallow has moulded itself to your shape and your torso weight is being carried pretty evenly across the whole of the saddle area. This is what I meant when using the phrase "hammock", to distinguish from the "perched on your sit-bones" concept, where the majority of your weight is taken by said bony bits.

... I was 15st and now 12st. This may have some bearing on it but I had no problems even when I was 15st.

I reckon this would have a lot to do with your improved saddle experience; logically, anybody who has to carry only 12st on their posterior is going to have a better time than someone of 15st.

I certainly agree that there is no single answer for everyone and that for most people, the more you ride the easier it gets.

[toekneep]

I think there is another dimension to the weight issue. I only weigh 9.5 Stone and so it might take longer to mould the saddle to my shape but in addition, I have less padding over my sit bones. This is my take on the Brooks debate:

If you ride regularly, commuting or otherwise but don't have periods of weeks when you don't ride then I think Greenbank's theory of hardening your bum to take the punishment of sitting on the saddle holds true. In this case, you can become accustomed to most saddles if you persevere. If on the other hand you cycle intermittently then no saddle will be comfortable at the end of a day's ride, your bum just isn't hardened to it. However, if you have a saddle that has moulded to your shape then riding infrequently should be more comfortable simply because the load is spread in a way that suits your backside.

Even though I am still experiencing pain by the end of a day on the Brooks I am finding that the period I can ride for before the discomfort starts is increasing as the saddle moulds to my shape.

[Ian H]

Many years ago I spoiled a cheap leather saddle by leaving it outside the tent overnight in the rain. It warped to a diagonal ridge and was excruciating to ride until we found a shop for a replacement.

I've never had a similar problem with Brookses. Properly proofed I find water just beads and runs off.

[Jasper the surreal cyclist]

I have two swifts. One on a Pinarello road frame and one on my sit uppy type fixie. I do find that I sit on them differently than my other saddles (flites). I prefer the nose to be up slightly as opposed to the dead flat (horizontal) flite. Otherwise I end up fidgeting, which is not good. Good saddles though, but not for everyone I would imagine. The bar tape of course should match.......

[Ian H]

...The bar tape of course should match.......

The bar tape should be chosen for comfort...same as the saddle. I can honestly say that I have never ever fitted anything to a bike 'because it looks swish'.

[Jasper the surreal cyclist]

I find the perforated leather Brookes tape  really pleasant. I do put another cloth tape underneath. The only problem is that it `ages' quite quickly because of sweat and stuff......

[Torslanda]

I'm sure I am not alone in believing that Brooks saddles are just a hangover from a hundred years ago - you know, like fixed gears, inch pitch skip-toothed chains and other ancient anachronysms. We've all moved on. We ride stuff that works properly.

Brooks saddles do not break in.

THEY CHANGE THE SHAPE OF YOUR ARSE UNTIL IT FITS THE SADDLE.

Good luck if you can get on with them they won't look out of place on your Rudge or Phillips or BSA. Me, I'll take a Rolls. They don't hurt.

J

Note to mods - Should brooks saddle fetishists have their own freewheeling section? You know like the Brompton Folders and recumbent riders?

[clarion]

they won't look out of place on your Rudge

...and that's the only place where I've put one, on my Rudge

Otherwise, I agree, except the Brooks users' board should be in The Knowledge, given how many problems they seem to have

[Regulator]

I'm sure I am not alone in believing that Brooks saddles are just a hangover from a hundred years ago - you know, like fixed gears, inch pitch skip-toothed chains and other ancient anachronysms. We've all moved on. We ride stuff that works properly.

Brooks saddles do not break in.

THEY CHANGE THE SHAPE OF YOUR ARSE UNTIL IT FITS THE SADDLE.

Good luck if you can get on with them they won't look out of place on your Rudge or Phillips or BSA. Me, I'll take a Rolls. They don't hurt.

J

Note to mods - Should brooks saddle fetishists have their own freewheeling section? You know like the Brompton Folders and recumbent riders?

Sorry - but that's rubbish.  I've qumffed examined enough Brooks saddles to be able to say that they adapt to your arse, not vice versa.  'Tis always a joy to see the little dimples develop as it yields to your sit bones.

[Jasper the surreal cyclist]

Anyone read `The Third Policeman'? I belive it covers the relationship between points of physical contact bike wise.

[Ian H]

I'm sure I am not alone in believing that Brooks saddles are just a hangover from a hundred years ago - you know, like fixed gears, inch pitch skip-toothed chains and other ancient anachronysms. We've all moved on. We ride stuff that works properly.

Brooks saddles do not break in.

THEY CHANGE THE SHAPE OF YOUR ARSE UNTIL IT FITS THE SADDLE.

Good luck if you can get on with them they won't look out of place on your Rudge or Phillips or BSA. Me, I'll take a Rolls. They don't hurt.

J

Note to mods - Should brooks saddle fetishists have their own freewheeling section? You know like the Brompton Folders and recumbent riders?

Sorry - but that's rubbish.  I've qumffed examined enough Brooks saddles to be able to say that they adapt to your arse, not vice versa.  'Tis always a joy to see the little dimples develop as it yields to your sit bones.

The truth is somewhere between. The arse adapts to cycling, and the saddle adapts to the arse.

[scottlington]

I've just bought my first Brooks, so I'll let you know how I get on....

[clarion]

Don't forget one of these

[pdm]

I've just bought my first Brooks, so I'll let you know how I get on....

I believe the usual method is to put a foot on a pedal, swing the other leg over and sit down.... 

Seriously, though.... I use brooks saddles because I too find them comfortable on short and long rides; both the 2 or so hours I commute every day and longer (100 - 300k) rides. Different models are better for my behind shape than others. Swallow > Pro > Swift = B17.

The most important thing, in my view, is that they are firm and "slippery". Gel saddles are the opposite - squidgy and you sit where you are plonked. I used to use a gel saddle, I found it great for about 1/2 hour and then nether hell slowly set in.

I think the mechanism is this:
The reason my bottom gets sore is that, because of pressure, the skin is deprived of blood supply (ischaemia). It is this lack of blood supply that causes the pain and, in the longer run, sores (thankfully never had sores myself!) With decent clothing, friction effects should not apply.
With a gel saddle, the surface deforms locally to the bottom shape and "sticks" causing continued pressure the same area with no movement of pressure points to get the blood flowing again and so no relief when pedalling. Result: steadily worsening bottom pain...
With my Brooks saddles, the pressure points seem to move freely over the saddle allowing different parts to take the strain during pedaling movements thereby letting the blood supply recover.
I suspect that any firm, slippery saddle will allow this process, not only Brooks saddles - but I have found the gentle moulding, firm texture and overall comfort of the Brooks satisfactory and have therefore not tried other saddles recently.

As with most things, one man's poison is another's pleasure... It works for me, YMMV 

[scottlington]

I've just bought my first Brooks, so I'll let you know how I get on....

I did a 600k ride last weekend. this came after riding the brooks for about 40k after purchasing it (B17 Standard), so i was a little worried in case it really was sore from the outset. I can report (happily) that i had no major problems to speak of. Obviously a little saddle sore after that distance, but i can only assume this will get even better once the saddle is truly broken in. However, I was suprised at how comfortable it was from the outset. One other thing - I normally get back problems after 200k in the saddle - lower back aches and I am constantly off the saddle stretching. However, after I fitted the brooks I had absolutely NO back problem even after 600+k straight. Now, this may well be indicative of previous bad saddle positioning and that I just happened to get it right when I fitted the brooks, but even so - that scores it major points for me straight away.

Maybe Brooks is a cult as is suggested by some, but the fact is that it's bloody comfortable and with no back pain to speak of it gets my vote.

[toekneep]

That isn't fair, I bought a Brooks and I can only do 100k. 

[Che]

I think it is likely to be related to position (IMHO).

A B17 has a fair bit of give and so needs to be at a slightly different height compared to a heathen saddle 

Also, you may need to fiddle a lot with angle and fore / aft to get it just right.

Very rewarding when it's right.

That was an interesting comment. I have a Flite Ti on the audaxer. Buffalo leather over gel. It's taken a bit of fiddling, and I had it way too low on the last ride, contributing to all sorts of problems. It's considerably higer now, as well as a little further back, and everything feels much nicer. The idea that as a leather saddle it may have give, and should therefore be higher, had not occurred.

[The Mechanic]

I am back to the Arione on the Audaxer now.  Going to give that a try on the next 200 and see how I get on.  Could have an almost new B17 for sale soon.

[andrew_s]

That was an interesting comment. I have a Flite Ti on the audaxer. Buffalo leather over gel. It's taken a bit of fiddling, and I had it way too low on the last ride, contributing to all sorts of problems. It's considerably higer now, as well as a little further back, and everything feels much nicer. The idea that as a leather saddle it may have give, and should therefore be higher, had not occurred.

Leather covering over a plastic body isn't any different to any other covering. You'd still want the saddle at the same height.
Brooks leather saddles are like a hammock, with the leather top suspended between the two ends, and nothing below. You've got to allow for the sag as you sit on it, or that's the theory.

[Maladict]

Sitting downstairs is a brand new, never been ridden on, not yet even seen some proofide, half-cow B17 Champion Special.

I shall hope to try riding to work on it next week.  Impressions to follow. 

[Basil]

Just noticed my new B17 has reached the 750 mile mark.  Seems to be nicely broken in now.

My initial very painful mistake was not to adjust the height when fitting it.  I simply removed my 11 year old very well used B17 and clamped on the new one.  I didn't allow for the sag in the old one and the proud height of the new one.  It took me two days to realise that it was way too high.  Ouch!