Oh well, there goes the honey

On 11 Mar, 17:35, Andre Jute wrote:

According to the tin, the ingredients of Proofide are tallow, cod oil,
vegetable oil, paraffin wax, beeswax, citronella oil.


All in the proportions that Brooks think most suitable for a cycle
saddle. Are they correct? Perhaps the ongoing nourishment is not
needed when the top is wax polished and kept that way. Normal shoe
polish or cream has oil/grease as well as wax so should have a similar
effect. Or should I get some proofide for my shoes?
TJ

Andre Jute wrote:

That's really very little maintenance for a lot of comfort, if the
Brooks proselytizers are right, and even more comfort, if I (after
Sheldon) turn out to be right to soak it in neatsfoot oil.

The measure of success will be both in getting the comfort you desire,
and in the number of miles or years before you run out of tension
adjustment and the saddle top comes to rest on the rails underneath
when you sit down. This is a function of both the leather's ability
to stretch over time, and the amount of tension created by the rider's
weight and saddle frame configuration.

Things that make leather more supple tend to make it stretch. The top
of a Brooks is under quite a bit of tension when it is in use, and
that's why it has a mechanism for taking up slack.

Recently, I built a coaster brake road bike for my wife, trying to
come up with a nice machine without spending a penny more than
absolutely necessary. She adores the Brooks B66S on her other bike,
and I had a B66 Universal that had run out of tension adjustment. I
took the thing apart, machined a fitted brass nub for the adjustment
both, and silver brazed it on to add 1/2" more takeup. If it were
still my saddle, I'd worry that the small amount of extra extension
might cause the adjustment bolt to bend or break. But my wife weighs
a lot less than I do, so I'm not worried about it.

In fact, I have seen more leather saddles destroyed by exposure and
lack of care than by excessive softening. But that could be because
overstretched saddles go straight into the garbage while cracked and
neglected saddles stay with their rusty and neglected bikes.

Chalo wrote:

*I don't use any kind of liquid oil on my own Brooks and Lepper
saddles.

Do you find the Leppers satisfactory? I liked the chunky styling of
the rails on some of the more modern ones but was put off by a German
woman who wanted one but collected a lot of stories about recent
Lepper saddles suffering a lack of quality control, having to be
returned.

I have had something like a half dozen Lepper saddles over the years;
because I came by them cheaply and in arbitrary sizes, most of them
have gone to serve on my friends' bikes. But every one of them I have
laid my hands on was first quality.

There is a characteristic feel to a Lepper that differs from that of a
Brooks. Leppers are generally more compliant in their shells and
springs, so there is more of a sensation of sitting on an active
mechanism. The one Lepper-made Swiss military saddle I bought was
thicker-topped, harder, and more stiffly sprung than anything I've
seen before or since. I assume it reflected the preferences of the
Swiss army more than Lepper's own style.

Chalo

Nick L Plate wrote:
On 11 Mar, 10:11, Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:29 pm, Still Just Me
wrote:

Just because Brooks marketing and sales tells you that you need to buy
a pricy can of Proofhyde from them doesn't make it true.
"Can" of Proofide? Unfortunately not. It's a tiny flat tin about an
inch and a bit across, 40g, for a higher price than half a litre of
neatsfoot oil that has been good enough for the saddles of Her
Majesty's Household Cavalry for more than two centuries. The
photographs of the Proofide tin always make it seem much, much
bigger... -- AJ

So what is the magic in a proofide tin that I cant get from a non
pigmented shoe wax or polish? I know people have used Mr Sheen which
is synthetic.

I've experimented with this quite a bit[1] and just about anything
else will soften the leather, because most applications want to soften
the leather (shoes, saddles, coats etc). So imho, proofhide is pretty
good. However, there are some applications that don't require
softening, Obenauf's LP was quoted earlier. Proofhide is pretty cheap
because a few grams per application is all you need, but I have a mind
to try some other beeswax/lanolin concoction.

[1] Neatsfoot, shoe polish, furniture polish, nikwax, wax[2], beeswax.

[2] Worked surprisingly well but difficult to apply.

Martin Riddle wrote:
"Still Just Me" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Mar 10, 7:31 pm, landotter wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:57 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Soaked my honey-coloured Brooks B73 and matching grips in half a
litre
of best quality neatsfoot oil.
That would be idiotic. Enjoy your ruined saddle.
Don't panic, Ott. The Brooks saddle only has to last me another thirty
years or so, probably less than a 100K miles. As Sheldon pointed out,
the guy who to general outrage soaked his Brooks saddles in motor oil
had the misfortune to wear out one at 300K miles. Yeah, he was an
idiot, just like me, he only got 300,000 miles out of a Brooks saddle.

Wise up, man. Not everything you hear on the corner of Myth Avenue and
Misinformation Boulevard (aka RBT) is the truth. Even if you're right,
who cares? I'll just mailorder another saddle, and next time I'll know
to Proofide it instead. Whoever told you experience is a free lunch
was huckster.

In any event, I got the method of soaking the saddle in neatsfoot oil
from the sainted Sheldon's netsite. I hope you're not traducing
Sheldon's memory by suggesting that he was less than infallible.
Ditto. My neatsfoot lubed saddle is 35 years old and going strong.

Just because Brooks marketing and sales tells you that you need to buy
a pricy can of Proofhyde from them doesn't make it true.

I always thought neat's-foot breaks down leather very fast, to a mush.
Plus its sticky.
To soften up leather, its recommended to use lanolin.

After all your not sitting on a baseball glove.

'Effax Leather Balsam Clear' is a good choice for Brooks saddle (instead
of Proofide). Made from bees wax and lanolin. It is not sticky and
smells great.

http://www.advancedequine.com/PhotoG...ode=595%2D1714
http://www.goodwoods.com.au/prod1512.htm


--


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

"Don't try any other colors, red's the only one that works."

– Sheldon Brown, 1944-2008

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 11, 2:44*pm, Nick L Plate wrote:
On 11 Mar, 10:11, Andre Jute wrote:

On Mar 10, 9:29 pm, Still Just Me
wrote:
Just because Brooks marketing and sales tells you that you need to buy
a pricy can of Proofhyde from them doesn't make it true.

"Can" of Proofide? Unfortunately not. It's a tiny flat tin about an
inch and a bit across, 40g, for a higher price than half a litre of
neatsfoot oil that has been good enough for the saddles of Her
Majesty's Household Cavalry for more than two centuries. The
photographs of the Proofide tin always make it seem much, much
bigger... -- AJ

So what is the magic in a proofide tin that I cant get from a non
pigmented shoe wax or polish? *I know people have used Mr Sheen *which
is synthetic.
TJ

According to the tin, the ingredients of Proofide are tallow, cod oil,
vegetable oil, paraffin wax, beeswax, citronella oil.

Looks like you could knock up a makeshift in almost anyone's kitchen:
some lamb fat, cod liver oil from the medicine cabinet, olive oil, a
candle, some wax from your breakfast honey, and a dash of bug
repellant, which usually has citronella oil in it. However, it is
possible that the proportions have some magic, and the purity of the
ingredients might also have an influence.

The Proofide tin measures just under two inches diameter by three
quarters of an inch thick. In the States it sells for about fifteen
dollars.

I bought a service kit with my saddle, simply because I always buy all
the necessary specialist tools and consumptibles with everything I
order, to save buggering around later.

I have no idea if the Proofide is a rip -- trading on the mystique to
boost the profit margin when something else will do the same job at a
fraction of the price -- or a magic potion. I shall use it simply
because it comes from the same place as the saddle.

Then use another beeswax formulation such as Sno-Seal, for less money.

http://workingperson.com/products/22_101/1/984/SNO-SEAL_7_Oz._Beeswax_Waterproofing.html?utm_content= 984&utm_campaign=ci&utm_medium=comp&utm_source=fro ogle&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=984

--
Michael Press

On Mar 11, 7:19*pm, Chalo wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Do you find the Leppers satisfactory? I liked the chunky styling of
the rails on some of the more modern ones but was put off by a German
woman who wanted one but collected a lot of stories about recent
Lepper saddles suffering a lack of quality control, having to be
returned.

I have had something like a half dozen Lepper saddles over the years;
because I came by them cheaply and in arbitrary sizes, most of them
have gone to serve on my friends' bikes. *But every one of them I have
laid my hands on was first quality.

There is a characteristic feel to a Lepper that differs from that of a
Brooks. *Leppers are generally more compliant in their shells and
springs, so there is more of a sensation of sitting on an active
mechanism. *The one Lepper-made Swiss military saddle I bought was
thicker-topped, harder, and more stiffly sprung than anything I've
seen before or since. *I assume it reflected the preferences of the
Swiss army more than Lepper's own style.

I was advised to buy one of the Swiss Army Lepper saddles, available
as military surplus from what appeared to be a US source. But it was
pretty expensive for surplus and in fact I paid less for my Brooks
saddle. I went for the Brooks rather than the Lepper on the assumption
that, if I was getting a Brooks type thick-leather, hard saddle under
another name, I may as well buy the Brooks. The Leppers I was looking
at earlier were the plushier consumer models. -- Andre Jute

On Mar 11, 12:44 pm, Nick L Plate wrote:
On 11 Mar, 16:07, landotter wrote:



All you need to protect the top of a Brooks saddle ridden on a
fendered bike is something simple like cheap clear shoe wax polish.
Pledge would probably be fine as well. Or do nothing and just put a
trash bag on it if it rains.

Precisley my understanding. So what's the magic in proofide?

Nothing. It's some fancy fat and wax in an overpriced tin. However--
combining the two probably prevents the casual user from
overconditioning the saddle, unless they're overzealous with it. I
state this from experience. I've had my way with three new Brooks in
years past and learned the lesson the hard way. The best way to soften
a Brooks-and it only needs slight break in--is to ride the thing and
let nature take its course.

With my experience of not ruining, but certainly over-breaking those
saddles--I could see myself riding a Brooks again if I found one on
sale. I'd probably not do a damn thing to it, though, other than just
ride it.

If I was to ride one again, it certainly would be purely to suffer it
for aesthetics, as my last Flyer was pretty meh. Like I've been saying
for the past few years--if you want comfort, get a quality plastic
saddle from Taiwan, they've got it down. I love Velo saddles. They're
dirt cheap to boot.

wrote:

snip

A year of discomfort? I find Brooks saddles comfortable from mile
one. Maybe more comfortable after thousands of miles but comfortable
all along. Never understood where this break in period nonsense came
from. Likely from people who have never ridden a Brooks. How they
ever came to the idea that their hard plastic nylon carbon torture
contraption does not need a break in but a leather Brooks does is a
mystery.

And there you go, what I've been saying for years. Saddle evangelists
like to proselytise, they can't see it's not a one shoe fits all
world. I ride Brooks, I'll defend them, but if the shoe fits, ride
it. If the saddle is a 5 dollar walmart special, be happy, if it's a
100 dollar SanBrookeRolls, well, you'll wind up paying 100 dollars
eventually, because it will be the only saddle that is comfortable.


I really wish I could ride San Marco Rolls, they look fantastic, but I
tried for thousands of miles, and it was still agony, Brooks B17,
fine. Me mate took the San Marco, he loves them, says nothing better
for a commuting/training saddle, he's happy, I'm happy.

On Mar 12, 6:17*am, Tosspot wrote:
wrote:

snip

A year of discomfort? *I find Brooks saddles comfortable from mile
one. *Maybe more comfortable after thousands of miles but comfortable
all along. *Never understood where this break in period nonsense came
from. *Likely from people who have never ridden a Brooks. *How they
ever came to the idea that their hard plastic nylon carbon torture
contraption does not need a break in but a leather Brooks does is a
mystery.

And there you go, what I've been saying for years. *Saddle evangelists
like to proselytise, they can't see it's not a one shoe fits all
world. *I ride Brooks, I'll defend them, but if the shoe fits, ride
it. *If the saddle is a 5 dollar walmart special, be happy, if it's a
100 dollar SanBrookeRolls, well, you'll wind up paying 100 dollars
eventually, because it will be the only saddle that is comfortable.

All the same, wouldn't you agree that if a cyclist has the time and
the money, he should try a few things? And, once he has frame and
mechanics of his bike sorted, wouldn't you say a Brooks saddle should
be high up on the List of Things to Try?

There is, not to put too fine a point on it, adequate evidence on RBT,
in this thread even, that I'm no one's fashion victim, that I don't
run with any flock of sheep, that the pressure tactics of owners
desperate to justify overpriced but inadequate elite purchases elicits
only pity for the impressionable, and that advertising hype leaves me
cold. And we all know that I already have a comfortable seat which
suits me brilliantly, the Cheeko90.

However, beyond all the bad reasons to do something listed above (and
the good reason to do nothing) lies reputation earned through
Darwinian selection. A Brooks saddle is iconic by right of survival;
some of the most consistenly impressive people on RBT now and in the
past ride and recommend Brooks saddles. I have the time and the
inclination -- and the right bike for a Brooks saddle of a certain
type -- and that seems to me half a reason already to see what a
Brooks is about; maybe there's something in it for me, a small extra
edge of comfort, a style of riding I haven't investigated yet---who
knows what; an open mind always finds something new. The other half of
the reason is to discover whether the Brooks brigade are merely more
overspending religious cultists without overly much reason to be smug
(like these BUMMSON mullahs currently causing a stir on our board) or,
if the Brookites speak the truth, that I should know it too.

Hey, it's a small adventure, it keeps me out of the pub, it has kept a
whole bunch of antisocial elements writing to RBT for several days now
instead of carrying a rifle up a water tower overlooking a school
playground. That's a gain already.

I really wish I could ride San Marco Rolls, they look fantastic,

I can relate to that. Now that Chalo has straightened me out about the
Lepper quality, I half wish I bought one of the modernised Lepper,
which definitely have it over the Brooks aesthetically, in the way
that Dutch design generally has it by a mile over British design (what
British design?). But perhaps another opportunity will offer. (It's my
last bike. It's my last bike. It's my last bike. I'm not buying
another bike! It's my last bike!)

but I
tried for thousands of miles, and it was still agony, Brooks B17,
fine. *Me mate took the San Marco, he loves them, says nothing better
for a commuting/training saddle, he's happy, I'm happy.

Exactly. What can I lose, a 150 Euro or so, including the tool and
service parts and consumptibles and carriage from SJS in England, less
what I can sell it on for. (I normally don't sell on gear but give it
away to local cyclists with bikes in need of repair or upgrading.) You
don't get much for 150 smackers these days.

The bike came as standard with a Terry Moto (maybe Molto? can't be
bothered to go find it) saddle from Velo, retail cost 22 Euro, very
hard and uncomfortable I thought for the two klicks or so I rode it
before swapping in my Cheeko90, but apparently well reputed among
distance tourers. The Brooks should at an irreducable minimum beat the
Terry---so far (about 12km) it hasn't.

To be judged a success worth 150 Euro the Brooks must be at least as
good as my 40 Euro (delivered) Cheeko90 which lasts around four years
before it becomes tacky because the materials aren't of the same
quality as the design. Specifically that means the Brooks must last 15
years minimum *and* must after break-in be as comfortable as the
*very* comfortable Cheeko90. Life is tough at the top.

Can't say fairer than making the rules of the test public at the
start.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

On Mar 12, 7:18*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:17*am, Tosspot wrote:





wrote:

snip

A year of discomfort? *I find Brooks saddles comfortable from mile
one. *Maybe more comfortable after thousands of miles but comfortable
all along. *Never understood where this break in period nonsense came
from. *Likely from people who have never ridden a Brooks. *How they
ever came to the idea that their hard plastic nylon carbon torture
contraption does not need a break in but a leather Brooks does is a
mystery.

And there you go, what I've been saying for years. *Saddle evangelists
like to proselytise, they can't see it's not a one shoe fits all
world. *I ride Brooks, I'll defend them, but if the shoe fits, ride
it. *If the saddle is a 5 dollar walmart special, be happy, if it's a
100 dollar SanBrookeRolls, well, you'll wind up paying 100 dollars
eventually, because it will be the only saddle that is comfortable.

All the same, wouldn't you agree that if a cyclist has the time and
the money, he should try a few things? And, once he has frame and
mechanics of his bike sorted, wouldn't you say a Brooks saddle should
be high up on the List of Things to Try?

There is, not to put too fine a point on it, adequate evidence on RBT,
in this thread even, that I'm no one's fashion victim, that I don't
run with any flock of sheep, that the pressure tactics of owners
desperate to justify overpriced but inadequate elite purchases elicits
only pity for the impressionable, and that advertising hype leaves me
cold. And we all know that I already have a comfortable seat which
suits me brilliantly, the Cheeko90.

However, beyond all the bad reasons to do something listed above (and
the good reason to do nothing) lies reputation earned through
Darwinian selection. A Brooks saddle is iconic by right of survival;
some of the most consistenly impressive people on RBT now and in the
past ride and recommend Brooks saddles. I have the time and the
inclination -- and the right bike for a Brooks saddle of a certain
type -- and that seems to me half a reason already to see what a
Brooks is about; maybe there's something in it for me, a small extra
edge of comfort, a style of riding I haven't investigated yet---who
knows what; an open mind always finds something new. The other half of
the reason is to discover whether the Brooks brigade are merely more
overspending religious cultists without overly much reason to be smug
(like these BUMMSON mullahs currently causing a stir on our board) or,
if the Brookites speak the truth, that I should know it too.

Hey, it's a small adventure, it keeps me out of the pub, it has kept a
whole bunch of antisocial elements writing to RBT for several days now
instead of carrying a rifle up a water tower overlooking a school
playground. That's a gain already.

I really wish I could ride San Marco Rolls, they look fantastic,

I can relate to that. Now that Chalo has straightened me out about the
Lepper quality, I half wish I bought one of the modernised Lepper,
which definitely have it over the Brooks aesthetically, in the way
that Dutch design generally has it by a mile over British design (what
British design?). But perhaps another opportunity will offer. (It's my
last bike. It's my last bike. It's my last bike. I'm not buying
another bike! It's my last bike!)

but I
tried for thousands of miles, and it was still agony, Brooks B17,
fine. *Me mate took the San Marco, he loves them, says nothing better
for a commuting/training saddle, he's happy, I'm happy.

Exactly. What can I lose, a 150 Euro or so, including the tool and
service parts and consumptibles and carriage from SJS in England, less
what I can sell it on for. (I normally don't sell on gear but give it
away to local cyclists with bikes in need of repair or upgrading.) You
don't get much for 150 smackers these days.

There are many fine Brooks saddles for less than 150 Euro.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/C...CategoryID=211








The bike came as standard with a Terry Moto (maybe Molto? can't be
bothered to go find it) saddle from Velo, retail cost 22 Euro, very
hard and uncomfortable I thought for the two klicks or so I rode it
before swapping in my Cheeko90, but apparently well reputed among
distance tourers. The Brooks should at an irreducable minimum beat the
Terry---so far (about 12km) it hasn't.

To be judged a success worth 150 Euro the Brooks must be at least as
good as my 40 Euro (delivered) Cheeko90 which lasts around four years
before it becomes tacky because the materials aren't of the same
quality as the design. Specifically that means the Brooks must last 15
years minimum *and* must after break-in be as comfortable as the
*very* comfortable Cheeko90. Life is tough at the top.

Can't say fairer than making the rules of the test public at the
start.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
*http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -