Re: [CR]Brooks saddle advice

Example: History:Ted Ernst

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:38:53 EST
Subject: Re: [CR]Brooks saddle advice

It occurs to me that since Brooks saddles are essentially the same design as they have been for decades, but seat angles have gotten steeper, that that is why you can't get enough setback on many modern frames. Everyone these days thinks a bike looks funny with a short stem so they don't want a long top tube which precludes a shallow seat angle. Some of my bikes are larger frames than I ride in a modern bike and have 72 or 72.5 seat angles, and that works well with a shorter stem, less seat post showing, and no need for a lot of setback. That's how they did it in the old days and it still works pretty well. See this one for instance. It is very comfortable, and rides great like this. It is a 23" where I ride a 21 1/2 to 22" mostly.

_ 8926790/_ (

Bob Freeman Elliott Bay Bicycles 2116 Western Ave Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-8144 Home of Davidson Handbuilt Bicycles

In a message dated 12/11/2008 11:13:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, writes:

Subject: [CR]Brooks saddle advice Message-ID: <> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 2

Hello All,

I would add to the mix the issue of saddle setback, or lack thereof, on Brook's in general. The rails are shaped in a way that precludes as much setback as is common on other saddles. For me, this is a deal-breaker, rather than the width of the saddle. If your current saddle is already at the max setback position, beware. Or at least try

a borrowed Brooks before buying. You should measure the setback on your current set-up to have a baseline measurement.

Good luck.
Alan LaVine
New York, USA