Originally Posted by
Turnin_Wrenches
Yes, trial and error is part of the process. However, there are means and methods for identifying a starting point. Sit bone width, riding style, and position on the bike all play into the initial assessment of determining a range of saddles for the rider to try.
What is this "fake science" of which you speak?
Your comment about sit bones is vague and confusing. By definition, if your sit bones are not supported by the contact points on the saddle there will be more pressure on the soft tissue.
It doesn't sound like you read my initial post.
"Sit bone" is both a specific pair of bones, and shorthand for all the bones at the bottom of the pelvis. The only ones that are easy to measure are the ischial tuberosities - the widest point on the twin arches of bone that run from the pubis where they touch. We don't sit on those, we sit on some section of the ischial ramus, which is forward of the ischial tuberosities and much narrower. Those bones will also support our weight, and are not "soft tissue". But the only way to measure them is if you have a saddle shaped pressure mapping device, and that shape needs to be roughly close to the saddle you are considering.
And then the other problem I mentioned is that a 146mm wide saddle doesn't help you much if the top surface of the saddle is only 110mm wide because the sides curve away rapidly.
And that's why I said that measuring bones you don't sit on (ischial tuberosities) to match with a saddle dimension you don't interact with (outer width) is like measuring your ankles to find shoes that are sized by sole width, instead of measuring your feet and the size of the shoe last.
Sometimes people with supposedly wide "sit bones" are very comfortable on narrow saddles, because they lean forward so the part of the pelvic bones they are actually sitting on is narrow, since those two bones eventually meet at the pubis.