Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Folding Bikes Discuss the unique features and issues of folding bikes. Also a great place to learn what folding bike will work best for your needs.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-02-05, 04:12 AM   #1
yangmusa
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco, California
Bikes: Brompton H6, Schwinn Mirada, Cruzbike Sofrider. Used to own: ICE B1, 2 F-frame Moultons, Koga Myata Elevation 2000 mtb, Challenge Hurricane, Riese & Mueller Birdy Silver, Actionbent Tidalwave 3
Posts: 534
Brooks saddle on a folder..

Hey af895, I see you have a Brooks B67 on your bike.. How did you choose it, and how are you getting on with it?

I'm considering getting a sprung Brooks saddle for my Moulton, to be transferred to my Swift folder when it arrives..

Basically I'm wondering if I should get the Conquest about which Sheldon Brown writes:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheldon Brown
The Conquest has the same leather top as the Professional but for extra comfort on rough roads, it is equipped with springs..

The Conquest is most appropriate for cyclists who set their handlebars about the same height as their saddles, or perhaps a bit lower.
or the Champion Flyer, about which Sheldon writes:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheldon Brown
The Champion Flyer has the same basic shape as the B17 but for extra comfort on rough roads, it is equipped with springs..

The Champion Flyer is most appropriate for cyclists who set their handlebars about the same height as their saddles, or perhaps a bit higher
My handlebars are a couple of inches lower than my saddle at the moment. But also probably an inch too close, which I'll try to sort out on the Swift. I don't know if there's anywhere one can test ride a saddle?

(I had been inclined to wait and see what the stock Swift saddle is like, but my Moulton saddle has in the space of the last month become so worn that it's becoming quite uncomfortable. It's kind of collapsed on both sides so there's a firm ridge in the middle which puts pressure in the wrong places )
yangmusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-05, 07:30 AM   #2
v1nce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,401
I have the B 17, the B66 and the Flyer. I'd say stick with the Flyer. It seems to work for a lot more people than the conquest due to the width, even some people that set their bars (very) low. Not too many people are 100% comfortable with the narrowness of the conquest. Myabe ordering from Wallingford so you could exchange (see their policy on line) any model that doesn't work out would be a plan.

Good luck.
v1nce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-05, 08:48 AM   #3
af895
Senior Member
 
af895's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Bikes: 2003 KHS F20-Westwood folding & enough parts to make several more bikes...
Posts: 853
Howdy!

I spent a lot of time choosing a Brooks.

Ideally, I wanted a wide saddle without springs but when you get into the B66/B67/B72 (all the same leather pattern, 260x210mm "ish"), they all have springs. They don't "bounce" so don't worry about that.

I went wide because I wanted the option of sitting upright while riding.

B67 was the most comfortable saddle - out of the box - that I've ever tried. I tried an older Brooks (very narrow - 150mm "ish") - classic a$$-hatchet.

Everyone raves about the B17 - I didn't want to risk a too-narrow saddle though. The B67 seems comfortable for more aggressive riding too.
__________________

Last edited by af895; 12-02-05 at 03:43 PM.
af895 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-05, 02:39 PM   #4
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
My favorite Brooks saddles are the Champion Flyer S, B66S and B67S. The S saddles are a little wider and shorter than the standard models.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-05, 05:29 PM   #5
Doug Campbell
Senior Member
 
Doug Campbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 110
I have a B-66 on my mountain/city bike and a B-17 on my Bike Friday. I bought the B-66 because I thought it would be better on the more upright mountain bike. However, in retrospect, I wish I had put a B-17 on it. B-17 is narrower, but seems more comfortable (and I am a big guy). The springs on the B-66 seem to serve no purpose as they are so ridgid. Either way, you can't go wrong. By the way I eventually put a "Thudbuster" seatpost on my Bike Friday with the B-17. Now you're really talking comfort!!!!!
Doug Campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-05, 05:51 PM   #6
CHenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Bikes: A bunch
Posts: 892
The Conquest is fine on a Swift. I have one on mine after I decided on a springer.
The B67 is a wider seat, maybe better if your bars are up high.
CHenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-05, 06:23 PM   #7
folder fanatic
Banned.
 
folder fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Anti Social Media-Land
Bikes:
Posts: 3,078
My needs are a little different from all of yours. I am female and somewhat more fuller at the point where I connect to the saddle. Therefore I need a somewhat wider saddle. This saddle needs to be thinly padded, about 9" or so at the widest point, and have the old-fashioned suspension offering of springs at the bottom. Both of my present bikes have these saddles on them. My two future bikes (coming soon in 2006) will have at least one. The other might just depend on the built-in suspension in the frame itself (I hope it will be enough) as it will be a Brompton.

Sheldon Brown is a firm supporter of these types of saddles. As one ages, no matter what gender, the extra light bounce and support of these old-fashioned tried and true style of saddle is far more attractive to use especially for the upright riders. Just remember not to go too far in the saddle's width than you need. Thudbusters are fine for the techically orientated, but for general, all around use along with reliability, I still will spring for the springs!
folder fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-05, 10:43 PM   #8
v1nce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,401
I also agree that the Thudbuster seems like an overly complex and expensive gizmo alternative to springs. However i do know someone who tours many 10.000's of Kilometers and he says he likes having both as he traverses all kinds of real rough terrain and they have sort of different times and terrains when they 'spring' in to action so they complement each other. But i think this is real overkill for 90% of the peeps.
v1nce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-05, 02:38 AM   #9
CaptainSpalding
Explorer
 
CaptainSpalding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Bikes: Dahon Jetstream XP, Merlin Road Ti, Fisher Mt. Tam
Posts: 278
Here's my 2 regarding choosing from among Brooks' many offerings:

Based on what I've read on Sheldon Brown's site and others, I first measured the distance between my sit bones, or ischial tuberosities. I did this by taking a piece of corrugated cardboard, setting it on a flat surface, sitting on it, and then measuring across the indentations made by my seat bones. That measurement was significantly wider than the 130mm width of my SDG saddle, meaning that while seated on my bike, my weight was being supported by soft tissue rather than by my bones.

Armed with this this new knowledge regarding my own anatomy, I was easily able to select a Brooks saddle. A great source of information on Brooks saddles is Wallingford Bike Parts.

The Champion Flyer is 170mm wide X 280mm long. The Conquest is slightly smaller, at 160mm wide X 270mm long. Both have "single rail" frames, which means they can be mounted to a standard seat post clamp.

FWIW, the rule of thumb is that if your handlebar grips are higher than the seat (meaning you sit more upright,) you should consider sprung saddles. If the handlebar is lower than the seat (and you ride more prone,) you might be better off with an unsprung saddle like one of the B-17s.

I own a B-17 Champion Special ti. From day one it was more comfortable than the saddle it replaced, and it gets more comfy with each mile.
__________________
I came to say I must be folding . . .
Dahon Jetstream XP
Dahon Helios SL
Strida 5.0
Twenty project


or not . . .
Fisher Mt. Tam (c.1988)
Merlin Road flat bar project
Schwinn Twinn Deluxe
CaptainSpalding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-05, 11:04 AM   #10
hubs
@#$% cars
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Bikes: '02 Schwinn Frontier;'03 Fisher Tiburon; '04 Raleigh Companion; 04 Dahon SpeedPro; 69 Raleigh Sport fixed
Posts: 405
I use a pro-s on my speed-pro ... it's a great combo!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg smalldahon.jpg (91.0 KB, 69 views)
hubs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-05, 09:12 PM   #11
CHenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Bikes: A bunch
Posts: 892
The ThudBuster flexes only in the long axis, along the centerline of the bike, it doesn't damper any side-to-side wobble that might be damped by a springer that has a spring on either side of the centerline.
CHenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-05, 09:32 PM   #12
v1nce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,401
Yeah, good Point C Henry. I always kindoff amuses me to see people running the $ 80 - $ 150 thudbuster and a $ 20 to 60 hard ass hatchet seat. Especially as a Brooks Flyer can be bought here for under $ 60.... Oh well to each it's own.
v1nce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-05, 11:24 AM   #13
Doug Campbell
Senior Member
 
Doug Campbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 110
All you thudbuster haters. Please don't knock them if you haven't tried them. It does an infinitely better job of smoothing out the bumps than a sprung brooks (as I said earlier I use one with a B-17). I also have a B-66 and there is no comparison. I'm not knocking the B-66, it's great value, but not in the same league as the thudbuster. Also, the thudbuster can be set up for different rider weights so that it works properly. I got mine at a bike swap meet for $15.
Doug Campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-05, 01:06 PM   #14
v1nce
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,401
Nah, you misunderstood me, i don't hate thudbusters, i just don't think i need one (or the significant expense it usually comes at) for my type of riding, hence i won't try one at present. I just don't have any bumps so large or different that i need more smoothing out (don't really off-road or do super long tours).
Also i have seen quite a few people use them with rock hard saddles and riding them only on smooth paved streets, that combination of things seemed a bit silly.

But to be sure if i could buy one at the price you did (which i think is very rare) or my riding changed significantly i'd try one out tommorow. It is all relative.

Last edited by v1nce; 12-17-05 at 08:44 AM.
v1nce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 AM.