|
Rolls saddles
Hi All,
I have a few San Marco Rolls saddles. Alle were picked up on eBay. One steel-rail NOS from '86, one used steel-rail from '88, and one titanium rails one from 2002. When I bought the Ti rail one, I didn't realize it was Ti until it came in the mail. Since I'm not a weight weenie, and I am wary of the Ti rails, I shelved the saddle, content to use the other two which are quite comfortable. Yesterday I was doing some experimting with position, and I mounted the Ti saddle so I could easily swap things around testing different saddle tilts. For some reason the Ti saddle was alway better, no matter what. This was confusing, until I looked closely a the saddle and noticed the Ti one has a much less pronounced profile. It is more flat, while the steel rail ones have a marked sway-back shape, and softer shells. So is this a fluke, or do all the Ti rail Rollses have a flatter profile and stiffer shell? Or is this related to production date? This Ti rail saddle is absolutely perfect and I'd like to get more just like it, but I don't want to just buy a whole bunch of saddles like the extra sway-back ones I already have. Any Rolls experts out there? Joseph |
Rolls saddles
On Apr 15, 3:47 pm, "
wrote: So is this a fluke, or do all the Ti rail Rollses have a flatter profile and stiffer shell? Or is this related to production date? This Ti rail saddle is absolutely perfect and I'd like to get more just like it, but I don't want to just buy a whole bunch of saddles like the extra sway-back ones I already have. Any Rolls experts out there? I'm not a Rolls expert--though I agree it's a great saddle, but I'll guess that the difference is due to the 6 year age difference. I ran a 1st generation Flite for a while and found it was very different feeling than newer models, for example. I bet they just refined the shape over the years. Good to know, as I probably will be picking one up this summer. |
Rolls saddles
On Apr 15, 11:50*pm, landotter wrote:
On Apr 15, 3:47 pm, " wrote: So is this a fluke, or do all the Ti rail Rollses have *a flatter profile and stiffer shell? Or is this related to production date? This Ti rail saddle is absolutely perfect and I'd like to get more just like it, but I don't want to just buy a whole bunch of saddles like the extra sway-back ones I already have. Any Rolls experts out there? I'm not a Rolls expert--though I agree it's a great saddle, but I'll guess that the difference is due to the 6 year age difference. I ran a 1st generation Flite for a while and found it was very different feeling than newer models, for example. I bet they just refined the shape over the years. Good to know, as I probably will be picking one up this summer. The 2 older steel ones have about 12-13mm of drop in the middle when a straight edge is placed across the top. The newer Ti one has 2-3mm. The shell is stiffer too, without it seeming to have anything to do with the flex of the rails. I didn't think a more comfortable saddle could be had than the 2 steel ones until I tried the Ti. Joseph |
Rolls saddles
Joseph Santaniello wrote:
The 2 older steel ones have about 12-13mm of drop in the middle when a straight edge is placed across the top. The newer Ti one has 2-3mm. The shell is stiffer too, without it seeming to have anything to do with the flex of the rails. I didn't think a more comfortable saddle could be had than the 2 steel ones until I tried the Ti. You could try a piece of 2x4 mounted on edge. Or a piece of 1-1/2" PVC pipe. As for me, I do best with saddles that provide a little something to sit on. The Electra Townie saddle is the most satisfactory plastic saddle I have tried, precisely because of fore-to-aft curvature that you seem to have a problem with. http://www.electrabike.com/miva/merc...ct_Code=598494 I could do without the top stitching and the fabric patch in the middle, but the shape of this saddle beats all others I have used. Chalo |
Rolls saddles
On Apr 16, 7:31*pm, Chalo wrote:
Joseph Santaniello wrote: The 2 older steel ones have about 12-13mm of drop in the middle when a straight edge is placed across the top. The newer Ti one has 2-3mm. The shell is stiffer too, without it seeming to have anything to do with the flex of the rails. I didn't think a more comfortable saddle could be had than the 2 steel ones until I tried the Ti. You could try a piece of 2x4 mounted on edge. *Or a piece of 1-1/2" PVC pipe. As for me, I do best with saddles that provide a little something to sit on. *The Electra Townie saddle is the most satisfactory plastic saddle I have tried, precisely because of fore-to-aft curvature that you seem to have a problem with. http://www.electrabike.com/miva/merc...&Product_Code=.... I could do without the top stitching and the fabric patch in the middle, but the shape of this saddle beats all others I have used. Chalo I like the Rolls because it is wide enough for my butt bones to sit nicely supported, unlike narrow modern racing saddles which put my butt bones right on the edge which is most uncomfortable. The curvature isn't really a problem, but I like having the option of moving slightly fore and aft depeding upon circumstances, and the flatter saddle accomodates this better. It also isn't as sensitive to angle as the more bowed ones. I suspect this is more from the lesser flex, than the shape. Joseph |
Rolls saddles
Joseph Santaniello wrote:
I like the Rolls because it is wide enough for my butt bones to sit nicely supported, unlike narrow modern racing saddles which put my butt bones right on the edge which is most uncomfortable. My lasting impression of Rolls saddles from back when I used to see them more than once in a long while was that they were very narrow. At the time, some of the saddles I rode were narow, such as the Avocet Gel 30 "Racing" model. But Rollses and Turbos struck me as the equivalent of a fence rail with regards to seating quality. I suppose that saddles have become even narrower since then, just like bike frame tubes have grown fatter. During the same time, saddles suiting my own taste have become wider and wider-- and run-of-the-mill wide saddles are _much_ improved since those days. Steel pans, loose foam padding, stamped plate rails, and birthday-cake contouring have mostly passed from the scene. Chalo |
Rolls saddles
On Apr 15, 1:47 pm, "
wrote: Hi All, I have a few San Marco Rolls saddles. Alle were picked up on eBay. One steel-rail NOS from '86, one used steel-rail from '88, and one titanium rails one from 2002. When I bought the Ti rail one, I didn't realize it was Ti until it came in the mail. Since I'm not a weight weenie, and I am wary of the Ti rails, I shelved the saddle, content to use the other two which are quite comfortable. Yesterday I was doing some experimting with position, and I mounted the Ti saddle so I could easily swap things around testing different saddle tilts. For some reason the Ti saddle was alway better, no matter what. This was confusing, until I looked closely a the saddle and noticed the Ti one has a much less pronounced profile. It is more flat, while the steel rail ones have a marked sway-back shape, and softer shells. So is this a fluke, or do all the Ti rail Rollses have a flatter profile and stiffer shell? Or is this related to production date? This Ti rail saddle is absolutely perfect and I'd like to get more just like it, but I don't want to just buy a whole bunch of saddles like the extra sway-back ones I already have. Any Rolls experts out there? Joseph I do not recall what you describe, though I used a pre-Flite (first mass-produced "Ultra-Light" ti rail saddle) Rolls with steel rails and then years later I used a ti rail model, but I had used several others in between. You might be right, but the way I remember it they were really close. The ti rails are going to flex a lot more than the steel rails. When comparing the ride of a modern OS tube frame and a ti rail saddle to a steel rail saddle on "old school" SL weight tubes, the ride will be much closer than one might imagine. What I observed (as an early adopter of OS butted al tubes) is that saddles became much more critical to ride quality and comfort as the OS frames became the rule rather than the exception. Also, many of us were racing on tubular tires with nice comfy box-section rims (rims alone are stuffer in clincher config compared to the same alloy box tubular rim) and the clinchers tended to be stiffer and for a spell, the clinchers needed to have more pressure till we got used to the minimums needed to avoid pinch flats. In my own experience, I found tires with relatively more volume that ultimately allowed me to run 95 to 110 without any concerns about pinch flats. Still, all of these changes overlapped in the same time-frame and the saddle choice was my preferred way to guarantee whatever new equipment choice was not going to kill my longest training rides (the slower you travel, the more weight the saddle carries. In addition, higher cadence at a given power output also tends to leave more weight on the saddle as compared to a slower cadence, in reality this is only really noticeable when climbing, and comfort is rarely a problem then). The bottom line is that for the majority of changes though the era we are talking about required compensation somewhere for those changes that increased stiffness relative to the technologies that were replaced. For all of these reasons, I can’t begin to imagine what an older steel rail saddle feels like without my cushy Columbus SL tubes. My last steel rail saddle was (the Rolls) installed on a SL weight steel frame. I used that frame to test new gear, including the saddles I planned to use when the Quantum II (welded and butted OS aluminum) was in production. Fortunately for me I knew that I needed to have that sorted out first. Even so, the ride still was not as comfortable even though the first saddles had ti rails and various dampening mechanisms for the rails (on at least half of them). If you are after comfort, look at the rails and shell flex first, padding is last. Also, those that use very flat saddles (like me) need then to adjust position back and forth as cadence rises and falls through varied terrain. Those that use saddles like the San Marco Concor (incl. “Light” variant) tend to stay put through varied terrain. If you know what to look for, you can find some saddles that are flat for several cm, and with a tail as you describe Finding the flat saddles is not hard at all. The Fizik Arione is probably the ultimate of its type. Of the saddles I have used long-term, it feels most like a flat Rolls. I can probably think of more, but your question reminds me of my disappointment that the saddle brands fail to educate the customers about these design attributes I assume because they fear losing certain customers who suddenly become uncomfortable knowing too much about the saddle they have, or that the extra info might select out users who otherwise might be happy nor ever noticing the difference in shapes. The first saddle brand to do this could expect to pick up a lot of riders who are never quite happy with their saddles and never knowing why, or at least not knowing how to solve the problem. Some of the Selle Italia Flight models look more curved than the feel. You might be ok with one of the styles without the gel and or hole in the center. The “Max Flite” goes in and out of the catalog and they feel pretty close to a rolls, though some of those have the “Trans Am” hole and are not as flat feeling even though most of that difference can be attributed to the hole. I saw a retailer who has a program where they ship you up to 5 saddles and you return the styles you don’t like. I think it was or is Competitive Cyclist (.com). That might help you find if the Fizik Arione will be your best bet for wide availability. |
Rolls saddles
On Apr 16, 9:13*pm, Chalo wrote:
Joseph Santaniello wrote: I like the Rolls because it is wide enough for my butt bones to sit nicely supported, unlike narrow modern racing saddles which put my butt bones right on the edge which is most uncomfortable. My lasting impression of Rolls saddles from back when I used to see them more than once in a long while was that they were very narrow. At the time, some of the saddles I rode were narow, such as the Avocet Gel 30 "Racing" model. *But Rollses and Turbos struck me as the equivalent of a fence rail with regards to seating quality. I suppose that saddles have become even narrower since then, just like bike frame tubes have grown fatter. *During the same time, saddles suiting my own taste have become wider and wider-- and run-of-the-mill wide saddles are _much_ improved since those days. *Steel pans, loose foam padding, stamped plate rails, and birthday-cake contouring have mostly passed from the scene. Chalo Most modern racing type saddles are 3cm narrower than the Rolls or Turbo (I have a few of those too). Perhaps fine for a 60kg lightweight, but not for anyone normal, or certainly not in your size. If I had an upright position, I'd have different tastes. Joseph |
Rolls saddles
On Apr 16, 10:19*pm, Chris M wrote:
On Apr 15, 1:47 pm, " wrote: Hi All, I have a few San Marco Rolls saddles. Alle were picked up on eBay. One steel-rail NOS from '86, one used steel-rail from '88, and one titanium rails one from 2002. When I bought the Ti rail one, I didn't realize it was Ti until it came in the mail. Since I'm not a weight weenie, and I am wary of the Ti rails, I shelved the saddle, content to use the other two which are quite comfortable. Yesterday I was doing some experimting with position, and I mounted the Ti saddle so I could easily swap things around testing different saddle tilts. For some reason the Ti saddle was alway better, no matter what. This was confusing, until I looked closely a the saddle and noticed the Ti one has a much less pronounced profile. It is more flat, while the steel rail ones have a marked sway-back shape, and softer shells. So is this a fluke, or do all the Ti rail Rollses have *a flatter profile and stiffer shell? Or is this related to production date? This Ti rail saddle is absolutely perfect and I'd like to get more just like it, but I don't want to just buy a whole bunch of saddles like the extra sway-back ones I already have. Any Rolls experts out there? Joseph I do not recall what you describe, though I used a pre-Flite (first mass-produced "Ultra-Light" ti rail saddle) Rolls with steel rails and then years later I used a ti rail model, but I had used several others in between. You might be right, but the way I remember it they were really close. The ti rails are going to flex a lot more than the steel rails. When comparing the ride of a modern OS tube frame and a ti rail saddle to a steel rail saddle on "old school" SL weight tubes, the ride will be much closer than one might imagine. What I observed (as an early adopter of OS butted al tubes) is that saddles became much more critical to ride quality and comfort as the OS frames became the rule rather than the exception. Also, many of us were racing on tubular tires with nice comfy box-section rims (rims alone are stuffer in clincher config compared to the same alloy box tubular rim) and the clinchers tended to be stiffer and for a spell, the clinchers needed to have more pressure till we got used to the minimums needed to avoid pinch flats. In my own experience, I found tires with relatively more volume that ultimately allowed me to run 95 to 110 without any concerns about pinch flats. Still, all of these changes overlapped in the same time-frame and the saddle choice was my preferred way to guarantee whatever new equipment choice was not going to kill my longest training rides (the slower you travel, the more weight the saddle carries. In addition, higher cadence at a given power output also tends to leave more weight on the saddle as compared to a slower cadence, in reality this is only really noticeable when climbing, and comfort is rarely a problem then). The bottom line is that for the majority of changes though the era we are talking about required compensation somewhere for those changes that increased stiffness relative to the technologies that were replaced. For all of these reasons, I can’t begin to imagine what an older steel rail saddle feels like without my cushy Columbus SL tubes. My last steel rail saddle was (the Rolls) installed on a SL weight steel frame. I used that frame to test new gear, including the saddles I planned to use when the Quantum II (welded and butted OS aluminum) was in production. Fortunately for me I knew that I needed to have that sorted out first. Even so, the ride still was not as comfortable even though the first saddles had ti rails and various dampening mechanisms for the rails (on at least half of them). If you are after comfort, look at the rails and shell flex first, padding is last. Also, those that use very flat saddles (like me) need then to adjust position back and forth as cadence rises and falls through varied terrain. Those that use saddles like the San Marco Concor (incl. “Light” variant) *tend to stay put through varied terrain. If you know what to look for, you can find some saddles that are flat for several cm, and with a tail as you describe Finding the flat saddles is not hard at all. The Fizik Arione is probably the ultimate of its type. Of the saddles I have used long-term, it feels most like a flat Rolls. I can probably think of more, but your question reminds me of my disappointment that the saddle brands fail to educate the customers about these design attributes I assume because they fear losing certain customers who suddenly become uncomfortable knowing too much about the saddle they have, or that the extra info might select out users who otherwise might be happy nor ever noticing the difference in shapes. The first saddle brand to do this could expect to pick up a lot of riders who are never quite happy with their saddles and never knowing why, or at least not knowing how to solve the problem. Some of the Selle Italia Flight models look more curved than the feel. You might be ok with one of the styles without the gel and or hole in the center. The “Max Flite” goes in and out of the catalog and they feel pretty close to a rolls, though some of those have the “Trans Am” hole and are not as flat feeling even though most of that difference can be attributed to the hole. I saw a retailer who has a program where they ship you up to 5 saddles and you return the styles you don’t like. I think it was or is Competitive Cyclist (.com). That might help you find if the Fizik Arione will be your best bet for wide availability. Perhaps the Ti has a stiffer shell to compensate for the more flexible rails. On my old TT funny bike back in the day I had a Concor to keep my butt parked. Now I like moving back and forth. I've tried an Arione (borrowed) but it was too narrow and has sharp corners that dug into my thighs. Very unsatisfactory for me. I'm quite happy with the steel Rollses, and I consider it a bonus with the Ti one which is even better. I'm going to mount it on the bike I ride the longest distances on. I used to use a Turbo on my SPX tubular equipped bike. On my modern bike (Alu and clincher) I used Selle Itaila SLR Gel Flow for a while and it was pretty good, particularly with a nice flat nose, but was too narrow so my butt would roll off to one side on bumps. Now I'm stocking up on Rollses, and I suppose I'll add another Ti to the collection for safe keeping. Joseph |
Rolls saddles
I use San Marco Rolls saddles and have done so for the last maybe 10
or more years. The Ti railes ones are just as strong and maybe stronger than the ones with Chromoly rails. I believe that today, Ti rails may be all that are available anymore. The tops are quite flat from nose to tail and to my recollection have always been so out of the box. I do recall in the distant past having one or two instances of a Rolls saddle becoming swaybacked after a couple of years of use, which made it very uncomfortable. That said, it has been many years since that has happened and I have gone though quite a few Rolls since that time without a recurrance of the problem. I discard them now when the leather becomes very cracked and rough due to prolonged and repeated soaking with sweat. Liberal applications from time to time of neatsfoot oil does go a long way toward postponing or preventing the onset of cracking. This saddle (Rolls) is the most comfortable and satisfactory saddle I have ever experienced. I weigh slightly over 200 lbs and ride 5000-7000 miles per year. Hope this helps. Cal P.S. Rolls saddles are getting a little harder to find these days. I find that Colorado Cyclist sometimes has them and almost always Excel Sports, Boulder Colorado has them. I always have my next one or two in the box in my closet. On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:47:21 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: Hi All, I have a few San Marco Rolls saddles. Alle were picked up on eBay. One steel-rail NOS from '86, one used steel-rail from '88, and one titanium rails one from 2002. When I bought the Ti rail one, I didn't realize it was Ti until it came in the mail. Since I'm not a weight weenie, and I am wary of the Ti rails, I shelved the saddle, content to use the other two which are quite comfortable. Yesterday I was doing some experimting with position, and I mounted the Ti saddle so I could easily swap things around testing different saddle tilts. For some reason the Ti saddle was alway better, no matter what. This was confusing, until I looked closely a the saddle and noticed the Ti one has a much less pronounced profile. It is more flat, while the steel rail ones have a marked sway-back shape, and softer shells. So is this a fluke, or do all the Ti rail Rollses have a flatter profile and stiffer shell? Or is this related to production date? This Ti rail saddle is absolutely perfect and I'd like to get more just like it, but I don't want to just buy a whole bunch of saddles like the extra sway-back ones I already have. Any Rolls experts out there? Joseph |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com