Brooks B67 vs B72
 

(cross-posted from Commuting) (Is cross-posting rude or frowned upon?)

Hi all,

I was planning on using some kind of suspension in the seat on my new Surly, but there is so little seatpost showing that it looks like a sprung saddle is my only choice for providing a little cush for the tush.

Does anyone have experience with both saddles and can provide some feedback on the differences between them. The 72 is lighter which is a good thing, but Bill at Wallingford Bike suggested that the 72 might not be a good choice for a heavier rider (I'm ~200 lbs).

I need something to absorb a bit more shock off my back. I ride quite upright and so need/want a wider saddle. Bike is used for a little of everything--commuting, bike trails, simple off-road, and hopefully some light touring this summer.

I await your wisdom. Thanks.

I use a B67 on our tandem and my wife/stoker uses a B67S. These bolt right to a modern seat post, while the B72 requires the old-fashioned type of seat post with a separate clamp. For that reason alone, I would not consider any of the double or triple rail Brooks seats for a modern bicycle.

I am very satisfied with our B67/B67S. We had minimal break in time and they seem to be well suited to our more upright riding style.

Purchasing from Wall Bike is a good idea as they will work with you to get the right fit for you, even to the point of accepting returns.

Good luck,
Doc

I wanted some suspenion too, mainly for general shock absorption, and I tried a few suspension seatposts and found the three I tried lacking. They all felt like something was loose and had a problem with nose wiggle. So I had to put my nicely broken in B17 on the shelf. I got the Brooks Conquest.

I agree about the double rail issue, although there is a device that fits into the rails and allows them to be used on modern seat posts. http://www.wallbike.com/clampvssand.html

The springs on the B72 are supposed to be more subtle. Which probably means less suspension action. I like the dual coils.

On another note, after years of motorcycling in the traditional upright position, I was developing constant severe lower back pain. Medicine, massage, chiro, all did little to help. Then I started riding a "10-speed" bicycle (a drop bar Falcon) and back pain went away.

Don't get me wrong, I have carpal tunnel problems, and I prefer more upright too. I need to have the bars above the saddle height, and get the seat position just right. It took a lot of trial and error to find the right saddle location/bar location.

You'll like the Brooks, in my opinion, and like the spring dampening, but it may not be the solution for back pain if that's what you're having.

I have some lumbar disc problems and am looking to mostly reduce the stress on the lower back when riding. My current bike has some room to change my angle and over time I will experiment. My docs have recommended a more upright position to put less stress on the lower back. I don't sit bolt upright, but the bars are a couple of inches above the saddle. Thanks for the feedback on the Brooks.

On another thread, you described your physical issues in such a way that I felt it was me. I have very similar issues with regards to cycling posture. In addition to the pics I sent along in that thread, I'd like to say that I will never go with another saddle. It doesn't matter how many miles I ride, the 67 simply disappears under me. I honestly don't know what the loop springs on the 72 actually do. I have had one on a 3-speed and replaced it with that B-73 in the pic. Coils rule.

Note: get one from Santa Fe Bikes. They are on sale for under $70. I'm ordering another one right now.

I have had no experience with the 67 or 72 but do enjoy the brooks Champion Flyer on my own Trek 830. I am also around 215 and have found this saddle to be extremely comfortable. I fortunately do not have any back problems so the narrower B-17 style saddle could make a difference. The springs smooth out bumps in the road and off road paths very well.

I use a B.67 as well. I like the itty bit of suspension it does provide to take just a bit of the road hashness away from my delicate back side. I don't like suspension of any sort, but a sprung saddle is old school, and the little bit it does provide, is just right for me.

We (my wife & I) have toured on the B72 as well as the the B68 & B67. We used the B72 for years, switching to the B68 in about 1991 after a rail broke on the B72 on a tour (on my wife's bike & she is much lighter than my 175 lbs). I corresponded with the Brooks factory (still British at the time) & they recommended switching to the B68 as they had experienced a few broken rails on the B72's & none on the B68's. After switching to the B68's, we wouldn't care to switch back, as the B68's & B67's are a fair bit more comfortable & shock-absorbing. We use both on several types of bikes.
The B67 is supposed to be a B68 with single-rails (to mount to modern seatpost clamps), but the B67
is about 5/8" shorter than the B68, front to rear. The B68 is the same size as the B72 (both dual-rail saddles; the B68 with coil springs & the B72 with loop springs). We actually prefer the longer B68 (with a "Seat-Sandwich" adaptor if used with modern seatpost) over the B67, but all three saddles are very excellent quality & unbeatable comfort once broken in.

Yes, the Flyer is a nice saddle, comensurately lighter than the 66/67 types. Unfortunately, my sit bones are too far apart.

I prefer the B72. The B67 just makes me think that I'm on a trampoline or an ejector seat. Both are comfortable, but the B67 is a bit bouncier - something I don't care for. I'm 165 pounds though, and perhaps my preferences would be switched if I were 35 pounds heavier.