PastorW

I am new to the forum and to cycling. I love both! I am in the market for a Brooks saddle to put on my Gary Fisher Nirvana. I originally thought about the B17, but Wallingford Bike shop says that I might ought to look at the B68. Do any of you have experience with these saddles? Any other suggestions for a clydesdale saddle? I am 5' 11" and weigh 255 (I just have recently lost 110 pounds and really what to use cycling to get into better shape). I ride about 60 miles per week right now with hopes to soon up that. Thanks in advance for the help!

Mazama

It looks link an un-sprung 67, which I have. The saddle is slightly wider than the b17. I have no complaints about the 67 and the 66 which I have traveled upon. Both have been comfortable. The only problem is I've never experienced a b17 so I can't compare.

PastorW

You are right, they tell me that it is the exact same thing as the B67, except it is for bikes with suspension seat posts that do not need the springs in the seat.

Torrilin

Little more complicated than that. People with very wide sit bones tend to use a B68 as their road oriented saddle. A too narrow saddle doesn't support their sit bones and is very painful. A B17 is a little bit narrower, and then there are Brooks saddles that are narrower yet like the B17N and the Swift.

But! Someone with sit bones that aren't too wide for a B17 can find a B68 very useful if they're on a quite upright bike. These may have suspended seatposts, and then Wallingford's advice makes a lot of sense. (or they might not, and still be helpful, because a leather saddle has a little bit of natural give)

Keep in mind that the width of your sit bones may not have anything to do with the apparent width of your hips. My hips are quite wide for a female, but my B17 is Just Right. Some bike shops offer a sit bone measuring service (Trek and Specialized in particular). That might be helpful for you. Also, some stock bikes come with a B17. Test riding one of those can be *very* useful.