Women's vs. men's saddles

As a man, I have tried 2-3 times to sit on a women's saddle. Just
wondering, as you did, whether it would make a real difference. The
answer was: Yes, it does ! I felt instantaneously awful on these odd
seats. I wonder if it is that uncomfortable for women to sit on men's
saddles, but if it is, then I must express all my sympathy to women who
had to endure this before specific women's saddle became more common.
Jacques

The common mistake you are making is thinking that all women's saddles are
made to one specification and all men's saddles made to another
specification. In real life, every company makes its saddles differently. In
the Terry saddles, for example, at least one of their "men's" saddles, the
Terry Liberator, is wider than several of the "women's" saddles. What it
comes down to is measuring your "sit bones" area and then scrutinizing the
measurements of the saddles made by different companies.

Pat in TX

On a more serious note, as a woman, I really have found that a woman specific
saddle (Terry's in my case) has made cycling enjoyable as opposed to outright
excruciating... literally. When I first got Gino, the saddle it came with was a
men's one. After 10 miles I was in total agony, where it was difficult to walk.
No fun at all. Swapping the saddle for a Terry's was instant bliss.

One size does not fit all....

My wife preference for years has been for a Flite saddle, which is most
certainly not a women's specific saddle.

Her new fav is a Fizik Allante, again not a women's specific design.

She is not a fan of Terry saddles or other womens' specific designs she has
tried..

YMMV,



Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventu what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

"nopcbs" wrote in message
...
I happen to live in an area where there are no bike shops with a good
selection of saddles nearby. What they have is little more than what you'll
find at Dunham's.

I need a new saddle as the "C9" saddle that I bought at one of the local
shops a couple of years ago is wearing out (the lycra is wearing through - I
ride almost 20 miles a day in good weather). I don't want another lycra
saddle for this reason and I am not crazy about vinyl (no breathability). I
think I want leather which no local shop sells at all. Been looking at the
Terry Liberators on-line at Performance and Nashbar. Also read reviews at
MtbReview. Seem like a good choice.

In my on-line shopping I noticed that sometimes Performance or Nashbar will
have the woman's version of a saddle on sale for about 1/3 less than the
men's version. Far as I can tell, the women's saddles are slightly shorter
and slightly wider. Supposedly the width is to accomodate the wider
hip-bones of women vs. men. Problem with that is that I'm sure men and women
hip-bone widths overlap since there humans have an enormous range of body
sizes within each sex. Makes me think that this men's vs. women's saddle
thing is more marketing than anything else and I should just buy whatever is
cheaper in a given line. (Hell, we neanthertal men are supposed to get in
touch with their "feminine side" anyway, right?)

What say you all?

- nopcbs


Saddles are a matter of personal preference and you can't tell much by what the
maker or anyone else says about comfort. I bought a LeMond women's saddle for my
wife and we both tried it and found it excruciating. It's chancy to buy any
saddle without trying it. I have 3 or 4 virtually new seats gathering dust out
in my garage to prove it.

That said, I really like the Velo 6037 with elastomer suspension. Feels so good
I have three of them on different bikes.

It's possible that you simply rode a saddle that wasn't right for
you, not necessarily one that was wrong for all women.

Cue Chakka Khan...

"I’m every woman, it’s all in me
Anything you want done, baby
I’ll do it naturally
I’m every woman, it’s all in me
I can read your thoughts right now
Every one from a to z"

Indeed. but we women have different pelvis structure to the male of the species
and for many of us, a woman-specific saddle is of much benefit.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

One size does not fit all....

Didn't suggest it was ;-)

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

I wrote:
It's possible that you simply rode a saddle that wasn't right for
you, not necessarily one that was wrong for all women.

On 22 May 2004 06:34:14 GMT, omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

Cue Chakka Khan...

*sticks fingers in ears* LALALALALALLALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR
YOU LALALALALALALALALALALLALA *sees song end, removes fingers*

Sorry, hate that song. Not a big fan of that style of music. G

Indeed. but we women have different pelvis structure to the male of the species
and for many of us, a woman-specific saddle is of much benefit.

That's a damn good reason to design saddles with that issue in mind.
However, the end result is more saddle variety for everybody, and
nobody should worry about trying one that's labelled for somebody
else...which is what I was trying to say.
--
Rick Onanian

You bring up an interesting point. In general "men's" saddles appear longer
and thinner (in back) than "women's". One may assume that the width in back
is different because of the much discussed pelvic width difference (on
average).

But why the length difference? As a male I know darned well that I am not
about to slide forward onto the saddle's nose and risk crushing "the twins"
who would quickly register a note of protest. Since the ladies lack these
"hangers on", one would think that if a long nosed saddle is appropriate for
anyone, it's more appropriate for them. And yet they get the shorter
saddles.

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Jacques Moser" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:08:58 +0000, jobst.brand wrote:


I'm not sure whose saddle you tried but the original womens saddles for
athletic women were designed by Avocet because the boss's wife was both
a
rider and MD who was aware that many women's pelvises were wider than
men's. That is, the protuberances (sit bones) are more widely spaced
such
that they rested on the outer edge of the wide part of men's saddles.
The
wider saddle accommodated that but not all manufacturers who made these
saddles understood the need and dimensions. They have a useful function
for women in general.

I tried my wife's own saddle (made for Veloplus - www.veloplus.ch), and
also, at the shop, a Brooks and a Selle Italia. I don't think these last 2
saddles were necessarily too wide, but they felt definitely too short.


Jacques, so where in CH are you riding?

Neuchâtel


Jobst Brandt

" You bring up an interesting point. In general "men's" saddles appear
longer
and thinner (in back) than "women's". One may assume that the width in
back
is different because of the much discussed pelvic width difference (on
average).

But why the length difference? As a male I know darned well that I am not
about to slide forward onto the saddle's nose and risk crushing "the
twins"
who would quickly register a note of protest. Since the ladies lack these
"hangers on", one would think that if a long nosed saddle is appropriate
for
anyone, it's more appropriate for them. And yet they get the shorter
saddles.

- GRL



It has been explained that the longer nose of the saddle would snag in the
ladies' skirts.....

Pat in TX

Hmmm.

I can't remember the last time I saw a woman/girl wearing a skirt while
riding a bike. Once in a while I see a roller-blader in a skirt, but not on
a bike. It's all shorts or sweats for both sexes. I do stick to a rail
trail, so maybe by sample set is biased.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Pat" wrote in message ...

" You bring up an interesting point. In general "men's" saddles appear
longer
and thinner (in back) than "women's". One may assume that the width in
back
is different because of the much discussed pelvic width difference (on
average).

But why the length difference? As a male I know darned well that I am
not
about to slide forward onto the saddle's nose and risk crushing "the
twins"
who would quickly register a note of protest. Since the ladies lack
these
"hangers on", one would think that if a long nosed saddle is appropriate
for
anyone, it's more appropriate for them. And yet they get the shorter
saddles.

- GRL



It has been explained that the longer nose of the saddle would snag in the
ladies' skirts.....

Pat in TX

I can't remember the last time I saw a woman/girl wearing a skirt while
riding a bike. Once in a while I see a roller-blader in a skirt, but not
on
a bike. It's all shorts or sweats for both sexes. I do stick to a rail
trail, so maybe by sample set is biased.

--

- GRL


No, you're right. That's the point. Maybe women wore skirts while riding in
the 1920's, but today? No.

Pat in TX