Originally Posted by
RollCNY
I absolutely agree, and am not saying that the metric should cross models. But within a model, when you place one year's 143 with the next year's 143, wouldn't you expect them to be similar? How is someone to know that this model upsizing increased? If you wear a size 34x34 pleated front Docker, do you expect to have to test fit the next year's size 34x34 pleated front Docker? If you went flat front, sure. It's a different model.
It is a small beef really, and I am not taking anything away from Specialized saddles. There is no number that measures 143 on a saddle per se. It is a saddle made for a 143 bottom. So if the replacement model needed to be made 148mm wide to fit the same 143 bottom, label it a 143. I don't care what the true width is. I care that it will fit just like last year's model with the same name, same size labelling.
EDIT: And when did words like travel and label lose the second lowercase "L" when you add "ing". I was taught labelling and travelling, and Mr. Spellcheck disagrees. He also seems to not like being called Mr. Spellcheck.
I understand your point, but now if you move away from the actual width of the saddle to define size, then you abandon that convention and move on to another. This is in fact the same conundrum with frame sizing. Sloping top tubes has created 'virtual' or effective sizing because seat tube length is no longer relevant. So manufacturers use both....virtual sizing...and generic sizing, i.e. S, M, X, XL...even M/L for some manufacturers like Giant.
I believe the uptake is...no single metric does a good job defining something as complex as size because size is comprised of many dimensions. So maybe it would be best for Specialized to simply abandon a numeric value for width and use S, M, L etc. No doubt they have considered this.