How do you position your bike saddle?

PB Forum :: Bikes, Parts, and Gear
How do you position your bike saddle?
| Next Page
Author Message
Posted: Nov 4, 2019 at 22:03 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
Trends: The big ones are shorter noses and larger cut-outs. Secondary trends are superior foam padding, zone-specific shell flex, and - occasionally - flexible mounting points for the rails.

Morgaw: Let's analyze it as a product manager would, by evaluating what it uniquely offers and whether these are problems experienced by potential customers:

First, does it succeed on the Big Three?

• Wight: Nope
• Durability: Nope
• Price: Nope

The other features had better be good ...

• More compliant: Maybe. The amount of compliance available, relative to what's available throughout the bike, is only significant on road bikes.
-- Is there another way to achieve a comparable result? Yes: saddle with more padding, more padding in the shorts, larger tires, frame compliance, seatpost with flex / pivots.
-- Is this feature desired? Yes.
• Lateral flexibility to accommodate hip movement: Yes. This is probably a good thing for anyone.
-- Is there another way to achieve a comparable result? Yes: flex built into the saddle shell at the rail mounts, flex built into the shell in the form of softer edges, seatpost with flex / pivots.
-- Is this feature desired? Doubtful, though it probably should be.
• Interchangeable saddle tops: Yes.
-- Is there another way to achieve a comparable result? Yes: Just buy a few complete saddles for the same price.
-- Is this feature desired? Very doubtful.
• Ability to change saddles between bikes: It may be slightly cheaper or faster to change saddles between bikes by leaving rails mounted to multiple bikes and changing only the top.
-- Is there another way to achieve a comparable result? Yes: Just buy a few complete saddles for the same price.
-- Is this feature desired? Very, very doubtful.
• Wide availability of saddle tops: Nope. This is a serious setback. The wide array of traditional saddles available means there will probably be a better match for most people in a traditional saddle, even if it lacks Morgaw's suspension features.

Conclusion: May add a little compliance to road bikes and could have an appreciable benefit from the ability to tilt, but it seems an expensive and complex way to solve minor problems that can be addressed - partially or fully - via simpler means.

I agree with what you said above but I guess the market will tell whether this product will find success. They are aiming at a segment of the market with high discretionary income, many who love to tinker which can come with mucho $$.

yale986 wrote:
I agree! If there was a device that allowed you to maintain the same level as the grade changed that would be awesome. The Power Post held some promise back in the day but was horribly clunky, heavy and had metal bits protruding at the last places you'd never want unless you wanted to castrate yourself.

2 positions are good but I personally would want to see a forward, nose up position for descending as well to make the saddle virtually disappear but be in ideal position for steering with the knees in the air or berms.

A more compact linkage would be easy enough to construct, as a modern version wouldn't need the extreme forward "stowaway" position.

The nose-up and forward position for descending may be difficult to incorporate, but this can be solved by simply having a longer stroke dropper post. I would suggest the nose-up position should be rearward, simply for convenience of manufacturing. Plus, when you're descending, you're usually standing rearward, so it's probably better to have the saddle back there when its main role is to protect you from smashing into the frame.[/Quote]

The nose-up and forward position would be difficult, true. While the nose-up rearward position would definitely be easier it may increase chances of rear-wheel buzz given the amount of travel some bikes (enduro, "super-enduro") bikes have nowadays. May be negligible.. who knows. Would also question whether a rearward saddle is ideal for leaning and steering the bike with your knees.

yale986 wrote:
1. I hear you about the crowded affair, wouldn't want to add more clutter here
2. agreed on stack height, mind you taller riders might see a benefit with this especially if their bikes feature very short interrupted seat tubes.
3. 'value' is highly subjective. Riders who live in flatter zones won't benefit as much whereas here in the PNW, where we, as you said "winch and plummet" - maybe makes more sense.

1. Yep.
2. Seat-tubes are getting a lot shorter and accommodating more insertion depth, so this should mostly take care of itself.
3. Yes, this is best suited to "winch and plummet" areas, which include most of the high-mountain areas.[/Quote]

Not sure I understand something here... If seat tubes are getting shorter, then a dropper with a long strokes (eg 170 - 220mm) will also have a longer chassis to insert into the frame, not to mention the added length of the actuator that sits below the base. While it's great to have 170+ stroke/drop available to use, not being able to insert the seatpost as low into the frame as possible doesn't do much good for those that need to (eg. guys like me with shorter inseams).

yale986 wrote:
1. Hmm never thought of grippy shorts to keep from sliding back - interesting idea!
2. For most mellow downhills standing is good enough but nosed up saddles come in handy when things get really rough. Nothing's scarier than getting caught up on your saddle either getting on or of the back end.
3. Do you keep your saddle level as a default but nose it down for steep climbs?

1. You can glue rubber onto your saddle. Downhillers sometimes glue a section of old tire onto a saddle for heinously muddy days. Road time-trialists sometimes glue sandpaper to the saddle, which is pretty committed when it will inevitably ruin a $1000+ custom skinsuit! Some Prologo saddles have rubber surfaces for the dual function of compliance and grip.
2. True, but this can be solved via more dropper stroke.
3. I recommend against crushing your "non weight-bearing region" as a solution to maybe, rarely, snagging the back of a saddle. Optimize the angle for pedaling and maybe tilt it down for especially long climbs.[/Quote]

Posted: Nov 4, 2019 at 22:25 Quote
Dkutassy wrote:
yale986 wrote:
Dkutassy wrote:


Shortest dropper I've used was 125mm and never had an issue with the saddle getting in the way. So no need to tilt the nose up. I think if you're so dangerously close to catching your shorts on the back of a saddle you either need better fitting shorts or a longer dropper.

Catching shorts for me personally doesn't have to do with the actual shorts themselves, more like inner thighs. I have short inseams and with bikes being as long as they are now (my medium Nomad V4 would've been a large just 3 years ago), it's harder to shift back, forth and around the saddle when riding aggressively. This is a problem many guys my height likely have, as well as taller folks who can't insert their seatposts very far.

I can't really relate to what you're getting at unfortunately. Top tubes are longer now but seat tubes are way shorter to make space for longer dropper posts. My current bike is a medium, 160mm travel with a 160mm post and the rear tire is close to buzzing the saddle at full compression. I'm 5'9" with a 31" inseam.

No worries man, hard explain if you don't experience the problems - sounds like you get on just fine with your bike which is great. I'm 5'7" with 29" inseam and chunky quads which always get in the way (not to mention ruin jeans in record time).

Posted: Nov 4, 2019 at 23:09 Quote
yale986 wrote:
R-M-R wrote:
Seat-tubes are getting a lot shorter and accommodating more insertion depth, so this should mostly take care of itself.

Not sure I understand something here... If seat tubes are getting shorter, then a dropper with a long strokes (eg 170 - 220mm) will also have a longer chassis to insert into the frame, not to mention the added length of the actuator that sits below the base. While it's great to have 170+ stroke/drop available to use, not being able to insert the seatpost as low into the frame as possible doesn't do much good for those that need to (eg. guys like me with shorter inseams).

Previously, the limiting factor on dropper stroke was the length of the seat-tube: everyone was slamming their dropper collars down to the frame and it still wasn't enough to accommodate a properly long dropper.

Seat-tubes became shorter, eliminating that limiting factor. Now the limiting factor is the length of the post vs. available frame insertion depth. You're correct that a not-especially-tall person with a long dropper will need to insert the post almost to the bottom bracket. No way around that, so seatpost and frame manufacturers will have to work it out. Integrated posts, like the Eightpins system, require less real estate and seem like the logical next step.

Posted: Nov 4, 2019 at 23:58 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
yale986 wrote:
R-M-R wrote:
Seat-tubes are getting a lot shorter and accommodating more insertion depth, so this should mostly take care of itself.

Not sure I understand something here... If seat tubes are getting shorter, then a dropper with a long strokes (eg 170 - 220mm) will also have a longer chassis to insert into the frame, not to mention the added length of the actuator that sits below the base. While it's great to have 170+ stroke/drop available to use, not being able to insert the seatpost as low into the frame as possible doesn't do much good for those that need to (eg. guys like me with shorter inseams).

Previously, the limiting factor on dropper stroke was the length of the seat-tube: everyone was slamming their dropper collars down to the frame and it still wasn't enough to accommodate a properly long dropper.

Seat-tubes became shorter, eliminating that limiting factor. Now the limiting factor is the length of the post vs. available frame insertion depth. You're correct that a not-especially-tall person with a long dropper will need to insert the post almost to the bottom bracket. No way around that, so seatpost and frame manufacturers will have to work it out. Integrated posts, like the Eightpins system, require less real estate and seem like the logical next step.

You make a good point re: seatpost and frame manufacturers will have to work things out. The Eightpins system looks very promising! Ahead of the curve that's for sure. Just not sure how long it'll take for the manufacturers to adopt but nice to see a different take on things.

You make a good

Posted: Nov 5, 2019 at 0:07 Quote
yale986 wrote:
You make a good point re: seatpost and frame manufacturers will have to work things out. The Eightpins system looks very promising! Ahead of the curve that's for sure. Just not sure how long it'll take for the manufacturers to adopt but nice to see a different take on things.

Many posts use a cartridge inside the slider, which is inside the stanchion, which is inside the seat tube. Four concentric cylinders. That's too many.

Dropper posts are universal on high-end bikes other than XC racers - and are becoming common even there. Whether it's Eightpins or some other system, the market seems ready for integration.

Posted: Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 Quote
I consider the Sunlite Cloud-9 Cruiser the right bike saddle for numbness. It has an ingenious design: dense on the butt section, tapering towards the groin to support the butt cheeks while removing the pressure off the perineal area. It was made by premium-quality vinyl material for durability, underneath it is a gel foam-reinforced cushion. Its 10.5-inch wide rear section is sufficient to support a male or female cyclist’s buttocks without causing discomfort.

| Next Page

 
Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.006422
Mobile Version of Website