robertsdvd

But, generally, we can arrive at the age old saying: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't"

seely

Ok I'm ********... TOTALLY forgot about SDG saddles... good quality and I dont think they make ANY leather models. Lots of cool color choices too.

supcom

Having read many a saddle thread, I believe that the only saddles that are widely accepted as comfortable are Brooks. I know that's not the answer you want, but that's what I have seen here. You may need to try a lot of other saddles before you find one that fits you well enough to be acceptable. 'There's a butt made for every saddle,' is a true saying. I think you are going to have to go by trial and error.

May I suggest you spend time visiting thrift stores in search of bikes with old saddles. I got an old Raleigh (1980 vintage) that has an Avocet Condor saddle. It's a vinyl saddle but is much more comfortable than most non-Brooks saddles I have used. I think that modern saddle manufacturers have fallen into the trap of making saddles that are either extremely light weight, or that complement the sleek look of the bike. An older saddle might work for you.

robertsdvd

<shrug> I had a vegetarian friend who rationalized the purchase of leather products at thirft shops and used shops... used leather was more acceptable than new leather... because she wasn't supporting the fresh slaughter I guess.

froze

Vegan your wrong about the tanning process stops biodgrading processes. Most tanning processes are all natural components...remember they have been tanning leather before your greatgrandfather was a twinkle in his daddys eyes! Way before "bad" chemicals were invented to make your synthetics that you so proudly wear! And those synthetic chemicals bleed into the ground water and guess who drinks it? Your poor little animals you so valantly yak about, and they DIE or have young ones with birth defects, and is one of the reasons why there is a huge animal die off going on. And if your such an animal worshipper than sell your car, motorcycle, lawn mower, stop using your gas and electric at home because all of that is contrubuting to your beloved animals demise. And your clear conscious for not using or eating animals had gone back to your parents and beyond you won't exist today! In India there are thousands of starving people roaming the streets alongside of cattle they cannot eat because they are considered holy, where is the "right" in that? You would probably say the animal has more rights than us? hmm...I had a neighbor that molested his own child and served 2 months in jail, while another neighbor stomped a stray cat to death in his yard in front of some school kids and got 6 years with 3 years served. Where's the justice in that? I can force my girlfriend to have an abortion and she goes along with it and it's ok because the fetus is not yet born so it's not murder, but kill an unborn eagle in it's egg and I can get 25 years! San Francisco a drunk kills another person gets 1 year, 2 years after he is released he's drunk again and kills another, now he gets 5 years, 1 week after being released he is drunk again and kills a family of 5, he gets 15 years! A man killed a porpose off of San Francisco while fishing and gets 15 years.

These animal rights people have gone too far. The animal “rights” terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind’s destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.

Don't get me wrong, I think preservation of species is important. I think certain rules of engagement should be practiced. I believe that every 7 years all fishing in all oceans should stop to allow time for the fish to reproduce. And sport fishing should not be allowed to use any technology to catch fish such as sonar-thats not fishing.

I also disagree with rich people going to large 1,000 acre+ ranches to go hunting for whatever animal they want when these animals have been fed by man so they don't fear man-thats not hunting.

I also think that chemicals being leaked into the ground water and into the air should stop. Unfortunatly big business has more power than even goverments-but don't forget the goverments need big business tax money.

But I also don't worship animals or the earth, it was all placed here for man to use and to manage...we are failing at the management part. Only man has the power to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion and a code of morality rather than physical force. To claim that man’s use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves-a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them-at our expense.

K6-III

Take a look at the SaddleCo Flow. Shouldn't have any animal products, but a bit pricy. Should also be rather comfortable...

seely

This is plain wrong... originally they used MERCURY to treat animal hydes which is why tanners had a reputation for being freaking nuts, because their nervous systems were destroyed after being exposed to it for years. Mercury, though a natural element, is by no means a safe chemical as I'm sure you know.

Hunter

No originally they used acorns and urine. The hides were chewed and chewed soaked in the acorn water mix then urinated on to soften and chewed some more.

veganheart

"Most tanning processes are all natural components...remember they have been tanning leather before your greatgrandfather was a twinkle in his daddys eyes!"


The way they tan leather today is drastically different than 50 years ago. Yes, it was much more natural then, but now they use all kinds of harsh chemicals. Same thing with factory farming; 50 years ago cows used to live a somewhat decent life… until slaughter that is. Now they are housed in huge buildings the size of airplane hangers. The green pastures and idyllic barnyard scenes of years past, which are still portrayed in children’s books, have been replaced by windowless metal sheds, wire cages, gestation crates, and other confinement systems—what is now known as “factory farming.”


Farmed animals have no legal protection from horrific abuses that would be illegal if they were inflicted on dogs or cats: neglect, mutilations, genetic manipulation, and drug regimens that cause chronic pain and crippling, transport through all weather extremes, and inhumane slaughter. Yet farmed animals are no less interesting, intelligent, or capable of feeling pain than are the dogs or cats whom we cherish as companions.


The factory farming system of modern agriculture strives to produce the most meat, milk, and eggs as quickly and cheaply as possible, and in the smallest amount of space possible. Cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, rabbits, and other animals are kept in small cages or stalls, often unable to turn around. They are deprived of exercise so that all their bodies’ energy goes toward producing flesh, eggs, or milk for human consumption. They are fed drugs to fatten them faster and are genetically altered to grow faster or to produce much more milk or eggs than they would naturally.


Because crowding creates a prime atmosphere for disease, animals on factory farms are fed and sprayed with huge amounts of pesticides and antibiotics, which remain in their bodies and are passed on to the people who eat them, creating serious human health hazards. Both the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association have supported ending the use of antibiotics.(1,2) Although McDonald’s has announced that it will phase out growth-promoting antibiotics, the fast-food chain is not likely to decrease overall antibiotic use.(3) The industry simply cannot raise the billions of animals per year that it does in such gruesome conditions without the drugs that allow their bodies to survive conditions that would otherwise kill them.


All those injustices you are describing really have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Moreover, to claim that advocates of animal-well being are terrorists is grossly inaccurate. With every movement you are sure to find some small portion who are wingnuts. However, the vast majority are like me who abhor violence of any kind. So to call us terrorists is quite misinformed.


I am pretty much an eco-freak so I do not own a car, lawnmower, or motorcycle. I don’t use gas in any way. I live in British Columbia and our energy comes from hydro-electric dams; although I still am very conscious about the energy I do use. Of course, I could live like a hermit in the woods and eat berries and bark, but I, like most people don’t think that’s a reasonable thing to ask of people.


Froze said,

“To claim that man’s use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves-a flagrant contradiction.”


This argument simply does not make sense. There is simply no reason why humans cannot share the earth. Animals exist for their own reasons, not to serve humans. A 100 years ago it was thought that women and non-Caucasians were here to serve the white man, but now, of course, we know that is morally wrong. Humans do not need animals to survive. I have lived on a plant-based diet for over 8 years and I am very healthy. I know a whole family of vegans who have been vegan for over 25 years. Their son is 20 years old and has been vegan since the womb. He just finished an iron man triatholon last summer and is much healthier than most meat-eaters I know of. The American Dietic Association among many others has endorsed the vegetarian diet as one of the healthiest diets possible. So nutrition simply is not an issue.


Speaking of morality, if we are so superior why do we torture and eat those who are inferior to us? Shouldn’t we be their caretakers exactly because we are superior? Just like a parent is to a child? Based on your argument we might as well just round up all the mentally challenged people and eat them and use them for experiments. It’s the same logic.


Dude, we are never going to agree on this issue so I don’t see the validity in discussing it with you. However, as others are reading this, I feel obligated to offer up some counter-arguments to what I perceive as misinformation and propaganda.

peace and balance

K6-III

Note that animals are raised very differently in Europe...

BTW, I did mention a saddle that is not made with leather that should be comfortable. (Flow)

Just making sure because this thread is moving off track again...

Hunter

You are never going to agree for you refuse to see any other side but your own. You see what you see and anything else is what you last stated. This of course is sad that you cannot discus with others anything other than what you percieve to be true. You raise some good points but then stop, for there is far more to farming then you posted here, and there are many types. However I doubt you see this or you would have posted it. Also your comment on the status of animals and humans is wrong. I as well as millions of others agree with what the Holy Bible says on animals. This is my stand with animals.
Perhaps you should look into it if you can bring yourself to see another viewpoint.
However living in a hut in the woods and eating berries and bark is not a unreasonable thing people still do this all over the world. Matter of fact it is one of my comments when I see people like yourself. Id this is the way you think then go exist like that. Or do you feel it is unreasonable for it is too much of a sacrifice to let go of your worldly existence to be what you claim.
However back to your saddle. The Lycra cover on your gel seat if memory serves me correct was made by DuPont. If you know anything of DuPont then I question your reasoning in buying and owning a lycra covered saddle.

orbilius

Did they rinse out the urine before chewing the leather again?

Hunter

No they did not. If acts to softhen and preserve. The women who did this their dental health was bottom basement at best.

Hunter

veganheart,
I want to add this as well. If you are runing teflon lined cable housing and teflon coated cables on your bike, then that very same teflon was made by DuPont. The tubes you use go through a chemical treating process so they do not shred to pieces under use. The rubber that your tires are made of goes through chemical treatments: https://www.rtvanderbilt.com/rubber_22.htm
The plastics and possibly the carbon fibre used in your bike, goes without saying chemically treated. The paint that covers your frame is not natural, it is man made, the fumes of which are dispersed into the environment. I could go on and on and on. I am just stating a point and raising an issue that I do not think you have considered I could be wrong though. Point is if you claim to be a big "eco freak" I do not understand how you can ride a bike with DuPont made materials knowing their history with the environment.

BeTheChange

Do you really think someone smart enough to eat certain foods based on their morals would be swayed by such a stupid comment? I'm a hunter, and my girlfriend is a vegetarian. What your doing is just making it easier for people to hate hunters. Someone being a vegitarian doesn't hurt you in any way. Way to show your IQ. Hey, maybe we can go hunting sometime and you could have an accident. :-D

gonesh9

Hunter et. al:

It is true that there are many pieces on our bikes that were produced using chemical processes. It is true that synthetics aren't biodegradable. But like veganheart stated, this is not the issue at hand.

I for one wouldn't really have any issue with animals used for food and bike seats if the conditions for them were the same as they were 100 years ago. As veganheart accurately pointed out, the current factory farming conditions are atrocious, and if witnessed would probably cause many here to choose not to support the industry. Choosing veg*ism is a simple act of using our capitalist system to reduce demand for a product. These efforts have not been in vain, as attention has been given to factory farms and many stores/restaurants are choosing to go with farms that have a better history of treatment toward the animals.

veganheart

There is so much conflict in the world already. I dont want to add to it by arguing about what people base their values on. This will not get us any closer to peace and it definately wont change anyone's mind. Having made that qualification I will make two points;

1. I never knew that dupont had anything to do with bikes and I do find this troubling.

2. Humans need to be parasites on the earth for mere survival. Every single thing we do effects our ecological footprint. I believe I do more than most by not driving a car and not eating meat. Both of these have huge ramifications in terms of environmental impact. However, I certainly am not perfect. As your Bible says, He without sin, shall cast the first stone.

Stealthman_1

Just for the sake of argument you do realize that wild animals typically do live outdoors and are subject to all weather extremes and normally die by being ripped to pieces by natural predators or from starvation? You're perfectly right to live your lifestyle, but please don't pretend it's any way superior to anyone elses. How many of us would have to die if only ungenetically modified crops, grown without pesticides and herbicides were available to eat? How many of us would not have the comfort of electricity if only those lucky enough to have hydro-electric power (which you like, but I can find you plenty who disappove) in their backyards would deny the rest of us? I appreciate your desire to leave a small footprint, but I feel your opinions are at the very least a bit naive.

cycletourist

No need to be nasty. That kind of comment could get you thrown off the board.

Poguemahone

Saddles are far too personal to make sweeping statements about, sorry. Veganheart, as others have stated, you're likely to have try several different saddles. My arse seems to be perfectly shaped for a Brooks; there doesn't even seem to be a break in period, frankly.

A point: Veganheart has made a choice which in no affects the lives of other posters, or their ability to do as they see fit within the law. Insinuations have been made connecting decisions like Veganheart's to the Unabomber and other like minded luddite psychopaths, as well as various anti-technology luddites. These are nonsense connections, and do nothing to further the arguments of those positing them. In fact, they weaken the arguments the posters hope to make.

In addition, in this difficult and complex world we live in, it is hard to make decisions completely bereft of hypocrisy. We each choose a path we think makes the most sense, and do what we can with the contradictions in values inherent in modern life. Good luck leading the perfect life and never doing anything that conflicts with your moral stances. The next time someone lives a life like that, they'll be the first one to do so.

This isn't sad relativism or moral bankruptcy; it's just a statement of human failings. But better to aim high and miss your goal than to never aim at all.

Lastly, thanks to Merton, for reminding us this thread is about rear ends.

darksky

No doubt, what a jerk!

darksky

Man, what the hell is your problem? This person posted a legit question. If you don't have a constructive answer, then shut up! Don't belittle him/her.

By the way, I'm a member of PETA. Why don't you show everyone how immature you are and start picking on me now?

nathank

i had had a Specialized Body Geometry for 4 years now and find it very comfortable. i bought another 2 years ago for my 2nd mountain bike.

i do not know, but i think there are a lot of non-leather saddles out there. in general most of the cheap ones are not leather, although there are some high-quality synthetics like the Specialized.

as to the politics: i personally am not a vegetarian and think "humane" raising/killing of animals is ok (i am a hunter), but the "industrialized farming" of animals as well as uncontrolled use of chemicals and pollutants and all should be HEAVILY restricted and regulated -- preservation of the earth should come before the quick buck. and i do not think it is right for animals to be raised in small cramped cages and pumped full of drugs just so we can eat more cheaply (food is already incredibly CHEAP in the world which is why most family farmers are not able to make a living)

darksky

Come on everyone! Veganheart is asking about a nice saddle for the bike that is animal-friendly. Not to be ridiculed like this. I really thought this forum was different than most others? Apparently not. I'm starting to feel like I'm on mtbr.com.

commander_taco

There are two things that come to my mind when I read this thread:
Brook's saddles are not the only comfortable saddles, and they are not
the *most comfortable* saddles at all (I will address this in a
minute). I had couple of Brooke's saddles for over 10 years before I
switched to others, and I am glad I did.

Let me address the comfort issue first. In order for the saddle to be
comfortable it has to have two things: it should be able to absrob
shock and not transmit the shock waves to your butt, and it should provide
good perch for your sit bones. Leather saddles accomplish the first by
being flexible. Their suppleness gives suspension effect that damps
the road imperfections. In this respect any saddle that is flexible in
the middle will do the job. Check the saddle by pressing in the
middle. Ideally it should bend a few millimeters. If the mid section is rock
solid then avoid it (it may be good for racing folks with padded bottoms).
A supple mid
section is absolutely necessary for comfort. A solid surface is also
preferable (as opposed to gel and cushion) since the squishy stuff
just balls up and pokes under your ass. The second aspect of comfort
has to do with fit. Fit is function of your riding style (how much
bent over you are), and the distance between sit bones. It may be
surprising to note that a narrow saddle may not be the best thing for
narrow butts. You have to try out couple of different ones (atleast
try a saddle that is narrow where your sit bones are and try one that
is wider, just to get the idea). In this respect there is no one
saddle that is universally perfect, Brooke's or not. I personally use
a Titec Ithys Amore (I think it is a downhill saddle) for my commute
and it is more comfortable than Brooke's ever was (for me). I had
ridden for hours on smooth and rough terrain alike, and it has given
minimal (to none) saddle soreness. I am not sure if this is made of
leather though, it does not look like it. It is painted over, and I
cannot tell. There is lot of kevlar on top
(very abrasion resistant). The point is, you can choose your own
perfect saddle if you optimize on the factors that contribute to
comfort. There is nothing magical about leather or Brooke's saddles.

My gripes against Brooke's saddles are simple: they are not durable
especially if you park your bicycle outside (in rain etc.), and over
time they sag and the sides flare up like bird in flight. Carradice
sells some type of cover, but I had bad luck with this also. After you
put the cover on, the texture sucks and moisture still affects from
underneath. Brooke's use idiotic rivets that tear the leather when not
tightened right (happened to me once). If you are not hung up on
Brooke's old-world looks, or that it is British (ooo..!), then avoid
this junk. You will not miss anything. You may ask, why they hell did
I use this stuff for over 10 years. The reason was that (back in the
day) I used my dad's Raleigh and he only bought these saddles. I
generally did not care then, but now there are better alternatives.