Classic & Vintage - what makes a Brooks B17 a B17?

Forgive me if this is obvious, but I don't get it.

I have four Brooks B17's and they are all different. Two (1950 and 2007) have loops for a bag; the other two (1959 and 1967) don't. Two (1959 and 2007) have chromed rails, the other two are black. One is wide (2007) the others are an inch narrower. The leather condition varies so its quality is hard to judge. Similarly shape and hardness vary considerably but this must be a function of condition so not very useful.

Come to think of it I have seen just as much variation among B15's, but I don't have so many of those; just one, which is indistinguishable from the 1959 B17 except the stamp on the skirt is different, and it's in better condition.

Can anyone explain what is the distinguishing feature of a B17, or a B15 for that matter?

Rudi,

Good questions. It would be great to hear from someone who worked at Brooks for decades.

It does appear as if the cantle and the leather changed, sort of an evolution over time.

I think a Brooks is a B17 if the stamp reads "B17". Otherwise, I'm not sure there is consistent criteria.

There's various models of B-17's. The Competition Standard had no bag loops, and was cropped closer to the cantle. The narrow was narrow. Both chrome and painted rails were used, etc. The B-17 model has been around a lot of years so you are going to see some variations.

Not sure on the B-15's. Always thought they were a "budget" model. I think OEM on more "tranportation" type bikes.

Kinda like:
http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStXp65-PvD1egIBX_-dKLA9kd_ZoOy60sn9ack4knJLXWAXw94pa_RSa0b:http://www.imagelive.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Ford-Mustang2.jpg (http://www.imagelive.org/ford-mustang.html)Sweet
http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2GvgoybNJBqbTz4JF6oYSB8hrjsF6x8iCo2XUl8WeXvKIhtZX5r7ziN4:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bGdjogd1lsY/STQcaeS9HPI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/2mGPegra3kc/s400/1980.jpg (http://saludosterricola.blogspot.com/2008/12/ford-mustang-1980-1989.html)What the F.....
http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsCan458HlszaA-HefAGVceSzb3Xonhq7jfvTpYPhlPiXFp42z92TK9AGm:http://www.auto123.com/media/videos/specs/2009/ford/en/mustang.jpg (http://www.auto123.com/en/ford/mustang/?carid=1121803601)Oh, that's better

I think it's hard to compare apples to apples but generally, B17s were a rung up the ladder from the B15s, eg B17 Swallow vs B15 Swallow, B17 Standard vs B15 Standard. I thought B17s seemed to have more models and the B15's seemed to be wider at the arse end. I'll measure a few.

Brooks has varied rail chroming over the years. I wouldn't be as concerned as that as I would the width. Are you sure you don't have a couple of Champion Standards and Champion Specials?

-Kurt

Kinda like:
http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStXp65-PvD1egIBX_-dKLA9kd_ZoOy60sn9ack4knJLXWAXw94pa_RSa0b:http://www.imagelive.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Ford-Mustang2.jpg (http://www.imagelive.org/ford-mustang.html)Sweet
http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2GvgoybNJBqbTz4JF6oYSB8hrjsF6x8iCo2XUl8WeXvKIhtZX5r7ziN4:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bGdjogd1lsY/STQcaeS9HPI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/2mGPegra3kc/s400/1980.jpg (http://saludosterricola.blogspot.com/2008/12/ford-mustang-1980-1989.html)What the F.....
http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsCan458HlszaA-HefAGVceSzb3Xonhq7jfvTpYPhlPiXFp42z92TK9AGm:http://www.auto123.com/media/videos/specs/2009/ford/en/mustang.jpg (http://www.auto123.com/en/ford/mustang/?carid=1121803601)Oh, that's better

Good one Velognome! :thumb:

http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2GvgoybNJBqbTz4JF6oYSB8hrjsF6x8iCo2XUl8WeXvKIhtZX5r7ziN4:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bGdjogd1lsY/STQcaeS9HPI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/2mGPegra3kc/s400/1980.jpg (http://saludosterricola.blogspot.com/2008/12/ford-mustang-1980-1989.html)What the F.....

Don't blame the Fox mustangs. They're no credit to the lineup, but you can blame Iaccoca's Mustang II for diluting the badge for the next 30 years.

Just wait for 2014. The mere description of the new, "downsized" Mustang reeks of history repeated.

-Kurt

Don't blame the Fox mustangs. They're no credit to the lineup, but you can blame Iaccoca's Mustang II for diluting the badge for the next 30 years.

+1M

These were the bad, very very bad, Mustangs.

http://shnack.com/history/pics/1974FordMustang_large.jpg

These were the bad, very very bad, Mustangs.

http://shnack.com/history/pics/1974FordMustang_large.jpg

Oooooh. Ghia edition. Thank you, Ford - I'm supposed to be impressed.

Speaking of which, gorgeous Italian coachbuilder designs seem to be the exception - not the rule. Vignale was definitely working hard to prove this.

-Kurt

Pininfarina hit the nail head on most occasions, but not all.

+1M

These were the bad, very very bad, Mustangs.

http://shnack.com/history/pics/1974FordMustang_large.jpg

It's a Ford Pinto all grown up.....

but you can blame Iaccoca's Mustang II for diluting the badge for the next 30 years.



Sorry for the omission of the II series, just getting over the stomache flue here and I't still hard to stomache somethings, but now that it's been served up....hic, hic...blahhhhhh..............................................

Oooooh. Ghia edition. Thank you, Ford - I'm supposed to be impressed.

Speaking of which, gorgeous Italian coachbuilder designs seem to be the exception - not the rule. Vignale was definitely working hard to prove this.

-Kurt

So Kurt, are you saying you don't like the cutaway half-vinyl "Landau" treatments on cars? Well, I'm glad your dislike of cutaway designs does not carry over to lugs. ;)

Rudi, it looks like a bunch of car guys hijacked your thread. :(

It's a Ford Pinto all grown up.....

More like a Ford Pinto with a girdle, butt padding, and falsies, false eyelashes, and a wig. It wouldn't be any better if we assumed one gender or t'other.

We aren't saying Iacocca had something to do with Brooks, are we? There's been an English division of Ford, centered around Dunton, in Essex. Where's the Brooks plant?

So Kurt, are you saying you don't like the cutaway half-vinyl "Landau" treatments on cars? Well, I'm glad your dislike of cutaway designs does not carry over to lugs. ;)

Rudi, it looks like a bunch of car guys hijacked your thread. :(

Scratch a vintage bike guy, or a vintage guy into bikes, and often a car guy will be revealed. Same for motorcycles.

Now, after this C&V senior moment, upon slipping into automotive nonsense, we return to our regularly scheduled program, "What Makes a Brooks B-17 a B-17?"

Pictures anyone?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p71/pastorbobnlnh/Brooks%20Saddles/Brooks%20in%20Color/Feb15B15GreenSide.jpg
B-17 in British Racing Green

Rudi asked about B15s. The B15 is a little wider across the sit-bone area. I could measure later today.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p71/pastorbobnlnh/Brooks%20Saddles/Brooks%20B15s%20and%20B5N/BrooksB15NandB15Noses.jpg
B15 & B15N

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p71/pastorbobnlnh/Brooks%20Saddles/BrooksB-15Side.jpg
B15

Well, I only own one B-17, and it's shaped to my arse.

Wired visited the factory (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/gallery-a-tour-inside-the-brooks-saddle-factory/all/1) and posted a few pictures.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/02/dsc_6065.jpeg

To the OP rhm,

Do you notice differences in ride comfort between your B17's ?

To the OP rhm,

Do you notice differences in ride comfort between your B17's ?

Yes but they are different saddles from different eras and they are on different bikes. The only B15 I have currently is an interesting old one I got NOS and it is effectively newer than any of my B17's, and much harder. It is not wider than the narrow B17's.

Sticking with the Mustang analogy, I understand the Mustang came in many different models even in a given year, and over time it came in many more, and that some years were better than others, to put it mildly. But it's not that hard to see a mustang, of any age, and see right away that it's a mustang. There's something about the model that is always evident. And when it's lacking --when it looks too much like a Pinto-- people will complain. I don't see that among the B17's.

Give me a 2nd generation Firebird. Keep those silly Found On Road Dead things.

/threadjack

Scratch a vintage bike guy, or a vintage guy into bikes, and often a car guy will be revealed. Same for motorcycles.

Good point... Methinks I'd like one of these, were I still riding two-wheeled conveyances with fossil fuel power:

http://www.theworldofmotorcycles.com/vintagebike-images/vincent_black-shadow_lg.jpeg

Pininfarina hit the nail head on most occasions, but not all.

The exception to the rule, and the reason why all Italian coachbuilders are blindly thought of as utter artisans.



So Kurt, are you saying you don't like the cutaway half-vinyl "Landau" treatments on cars?

I have one, and though I like the way it looks, I don't like what forms underneath it. Note the area below the rear window, and the opera window. Rust, rust, and more rust. You can't fix anything without ripping the vinyl off first.

http://www.kurtkaminer.com/linc_79_windowjob_14.jpg

I still don't know how the North Koreans have managed to keep their '75 Continentals in one piece.


But it's not that hard to see a mustang, of any age, and see right away that it's a mustang. There's something about the model that is always evident.

RHM, could you post a photo of each of your B17's?


And when it's lacking --when it looks too much like a Pinto-- people will complain. I don't see that among the B17's.

It's British, what can you expect? ;)

-Kurt

RHM, could you post a photo of each of your B17's?

Yes, fair enough, I will do that. I'm afraid it will be a week or more before I get to this -- the saddles are in NJ and I am on LI.

Yes, fair enough, I will do that. I'm afraid it will be a week or more before I get to this -- the saddles are in NJ and I am on LI.

No problem. While you're at it, check the side badges carefully. I'm betting that you have at least two different models.

-Kurt

Are you sure you don't have a couple of Champion Standards and Champion Specials?


No problem. While you're at it, check the side badges carefully. I'm betting that you have at least two different models.

Yes, and sorry, I meant to reply to that the first time you mentioned it. I have no doubt you are right.

Off the top of my head 'm thinking the early 50's one is a Champion Standard; the '59 and '67? are Champion Competitions; and the recent one is a Standard. Or something like that.

But these variations are not what interest me. I understand that not all B17's are the same. But there must be something about the model that distinguishes it from others, and that is what I don't understand. What is it that all these --and all the other-- B17's have, that a B15 doesn't have? Is it just the name, as Justin implied? Is it a price point, or price range? Is it a quality of leather, or of rivet, or of finish? The cut of the skirt?

But there must be something about the model that distinguishes it from others, and that is what I don't understand.

Welcome to the world of marketing 101. Perception is reality.

A Swallow is better than a Professional is better than a B17 is better than a B15.

The manufacturing technique to make all of them is the same. The cost difference of the raw materials between them is minimal. The only significant difference is the margin between them and that is done by having a different cut, or some chrome, or some copper.

What Brooks has is a classic product line at different price points because that is how the market has always been. One end is low margin/high volume and the other is high margin/low volume with a few things inbetween. It's has been a successful economic model since the start of the industrial revolution.

[QUOTE][Sticking with the Mustang analogy, I understand the Mustang came in many different models even in a given year, and over time it came in many more, and that some years were better than others, to put it mildly. But it's not that hard to see a mustang, of any age, and see right away that it's a mustang. There's something about the model that is always evident. And when it's lacking --when it looks too much like a Pinto-- people will complain. I don't see that among the B17's./QUOTE]

Ahh Grasshopper (aka rhm) Mustang to eyes as B17 to butt.

Seriously, I wonder if Brooks has a history of the mods. made to the series over the years and the reasons why?

man those Mustang 2's were ugly, and I was a kid when they were out and I thought they were goofy then...

makes me remember those Ricardo Montalban Corrinthian leather ads for all those craptastic cars.

--------------

back to OP, I got a new regular B17, black rails, a few summers ago and really enjoyed it, so much I didnt like riding on my other seats.
At the end of that first season, I happened upon another used one being sold by a LBS employee, one with brass rivets. It had obviously been used a fair amount despite what the guy said, but it was not sagged at all and the bolt hadnt been tightened either. It took about the same time to become more comfortable as my other one, but I did notice that it is a diff width.

Its about a cm narrower and has silver coloured rails. I use it on my cross bike with drops so being slighter narrower is fine, but it really does seem that the leather is thicker, as the newer one has more "give" over bumps (I proofided it sparingly at first) and being narrow it has a diff feel as well. I'm a thin fellow so it being narrower isnt a problem at all, but it is curious how diff the two are.

I didnt think of weighing the two when both were off bikes, and as now they are properly adjusted on bikes, I dont want to take them off again as they fit fine now.

Hilary Stone has provided a useful B17 resource on the Classic Lightweight site (http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/designs/brooks-hs.html).

[QUOTE=rhm;13659217.......

But these variations are not what interest me. I understand that not all B17's are the same. But there must be something about the model that distinguishes it from others, and that is what I don't understand. What is it that all these --and all the other-- B17's have, that a B15 doesn't have? Is it just the name, as Justin implied? Is it a price point, or price range? Is it a quality of leather, or of rivet, or of finish? The cut of the skirt?[/QUOTE]

Broadly speaking, it's all of these things - quality of leather, rivets and finish. When the 'modern' B.15 first appeared (1933 - there was a much earlier model so designated, but it bears little similarity to the things under consideration here), it was a cheaper version of the B.17 Champion Narrow - 'cheaper' inasmuch as it used what was regarded as slightly inferior leather and, by use of tubular rivets (virtually always steel, athough brass was used for a very short period much later on), the saddles could be assembled mechanically. Later in the 'thirties a B.15 Champion Standard was introduced, and both of these models were exactly the same size as the comparable B.17 versions.
At about the same time as the introduction of the B.15 Ch. Std.,the B.17 range was further distinguished by the adoption of skived/chamfered edges to the 'skirts' of the saddles - something that never occurred with any of the B.15s.
Post-war, the B.15 range was further expanded to include a Champion Flyer model (1954) and a Champion Swallow (1957), both models being constructed in the same manner as their two predecessors. No B.15 Champion Sprinter was ever made, so far as I'm aware.
Essentially, the B.15 range never extended beyond these four models. There is, however, a 'rogue' B.15 Champion S.SR which is often to be found on eBay, usually in 'NOS' condition, made to a higher standard than the other B.15s and fitted with Professional-type frames dated c.1967, about which I've never been able to find any definitive information. My best guess is that it was a model initiated by Brooks before their acquisition by Raleigh, for some special project (possibly 'overseas'?) that never materialised - there's a similarly confusing B.66 R.SR model, which appears less frequently, and I'm inclined to think that the first 'S' and the 'R' may indicate 'Sports' and 'Roadster' respectively. Anyone got any better ideas?