I did a search on this and came up with not quite what I was looking for.

My question: I'm a regular commuter here in Chicago and want a Brooks. I was looking between the Conquest and the Champion Flyer. I realized last night I would prefer the Flyer as it is wider and flater- better for sitting on. The Conquest is a rounder (looking from the rear) profile, narrower, and more for mountain biking, where your sitting on it less, and sliding around. The Conquest is like the Team Professional with springs, and the Champion Flyer is the B.17 with springs. Fine.

So, I want to soak up a lot of bumps, divits and other general crappiness of Chicago's streets. I want to be kind to my body so I can keep riding for the next thirty years.

So now it's between the Champion Flyer or the Regular B.17, which lots of folks have. Wondering if I'll notice a loss of pedaling efficiency with the springs, or whatever folks might think...

Muchas Gracias!
Gardener

P.S. I ride a touring frame, 700x38c tires.

You should hardly notice the springs on the saddle. They are pretty stiff but do help with the bumps. Enjoy whichever saddle you choose.

I guess I can chime in here since I live in Chicago and I use a B17. I find the unsprung saddle works fine on the streets here. The way the saddle is constructed with a yoke front and back, the leather suspended between them dampens the road bumps pretty well. Of course I've never tried the Champion Flyer so I cant compare the two. I'm also thinking that since you ride a touring bike the narrower b17 type would work the best. If you have your bike set up so your in a more upright position then the wider saddle would suit you better.

Hope someone comes along who had used both saddles and can give you a comparison. I'm under the impression that the sprung saddles are for unpaved roads and third world streets.

Back in the 80's I commuted several years on a Raleigh Sports 3 speed in Portland Oregon. It had a Brooks leather saddle with the single coil in each rail, don't remember the model #, today I have B17's on several bikes. I don't notice much difference except on really big bumps when the spring would probably have helped some. The B17 is very comfortable and I'm a lot older now!

Thanks muchly! I would be curious to hear a side by side comparison. Unpaved roads and third world streets sound pretty nice! but not always so far off from riding down Milwuakee Ave... : )

My guess: You can't lose either way. But if you go to Wallingford Bicycle at www.wallbike.com, you can find reviews of both. If you call or write the proprietor Bill Laine, he'll be happy to discuss this with you. I believe he carries the entire Brooks line, and he's also a very nice guy.

That's a good question that I've been meaning to ask myself. I'm a fairly big guy (250 ball park and dropping) I'd like to know which model of Brooks saddle would be best for me. I'm intending to put this on my hardtail commuter bike and possibly an Raleigh Robin Hood should an appropriate candidate become availiable when I have surplus cash. I was going to ask The Fixer, but I figured I'd tag along on this thread.

Among the Brooks I have on my bikes, the Conquest is the only sprung saddle I own. Its profile is very similar to my Professional. I can hardly tell I'm sitting on a sprung saddle while it soaks up bumps. This saddle is far more effective than the Rockshox suspension seatpost I used to use on my Mtb a while back. The springs are stiff enough not to affect your pedalling as I used to get that 'pogo' effect with suspension posts. Here's the Conquest on my commuter.

Hey, Fixer,

Awesome chop job on your Conquest! Looks better than I thought it would. I just bought a Conquest last week, haven't even used it yet (no, I ain't chopping it!). How do you like yours? I did chop my Professional Select but I haven't ridden it yet.

Brooks are the only saddles that when I go on long rides I don't even think about them they're so comfortable (I have five of them).

The sprung Brooks seem more 'cush' over the long haul than the unsprung, and I'd agree with fixer, you hardly notice the spring factor. On my rides I've got a Conquest, B-17's and a sprung B-66. I think the sprung's are definetly more comfy and hardly less efficient.
And you will be the envy of fellow cyclists and pedestrians alike, a couple weeks ago I was stopped at a drawbridge waiting for it to come down, and listened to an older walking couple commenting on my bike and the Conquest. "With a seat like that, I'd like riding too" they were saying.

Thank you so much for the input! I think I'll be going with the Champion Flyer. Of course I look forward to having several anyway : )

Perhaps I'll buy it manana at the wonderful LBS...

Any suggestions you can throw my way?

I have the Champion Flyer on my Dahon Speed 8. The Dahon folding bike is a straight up sitting position and that's the only reason I purchased a saddle with springs. If you're not sitting up straight, I would go for the regular B17.

I have the B-17 and a Cane Creek thudbuster on one of my mountain bikes. It is soooooooo smooth. I think i could ride across the USA in the middle of a set of railroad tracks with this combo. I float over any bumps.

Have you considered the wider touring models such as the B66's, I believe? They're slightly wider than the B17's. They also make heavy duty sprung models with beefier chassis.

I'm honestly fine with the stock width on my Specialized BG saddle (prior to the new measured versions) so I'm not convinced that I need a wider version. I'm 6'4" so it's not like I have a huge butt or anything.

You get the same results with a Brooks B17 and the extra thick rubber strip.

The fact that you have a touring frame makes me think the narrower the saddle, the better. I haven't ridden on a sprung saddle, but here's my experience with Brooks saddles. BTW, I'm a pretty big guy as well.

Had a Cannondale road bike. Was trying to figure out if I wanted the B.17 or the B.17 Narrow. On the Brooks website, they say the B.17 is for a more upright position, and the narrow saddles are for racing. Well, I usually ride on the hoods or on the tops; not quite racing down in the drops, and not quite upright, as with a hybrid or mountain bike.

So first I tried the B.17. On an 8 mile ride, I had severe numbness in my hands and the saddle itself was pretty uncomfortable. I'd never, ever had numbness in my hands before. I was bummed. I tried another ride and had the same results.

Then I decided to try the narrower saddle. I went with the Swift, because I wanted the Ti rails. Well, this baby is the most comfortable saddle I've ever been on in my life. I rode a 60-miler last weekend, and wasn't uncomfortable for even a second. It really is an amazing saddle.

Now, in the meantime, I got a hybrid bike as a commuter. I hadn't yet returned the B.17, so I decided to throw it on there. It's actually just as comfortable as the Swift is on my road bike. I don't go on rides with the commuter that are as long, but I always feel great.

So the moral of the story ... If you're running a touring frame you'll be leaning a little bit more forward, and you might want to consider one of the narrower saddles.

Few more bits of info:

1) I live in Los Angeles, and a lot of our streets are crap.
2) My Cannondale road bike is a pretty harsh ride, and I'm running tires at 130 psi. All the more impressive how comfy the Swift is.
3) Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but Wallingford offers a 100% guarantee. So you can actually try whatever saddle you want and return it if you don't like it.

Hi,
I have the B17 Champion Special (the only 17 to get, IMHO) on one bike, and the Flyer on the other.
1) I am pretty heavy, and have to pedal smoothly with
the Flyer. I prob have a lousy stroke.
2) If you need the Flyer, go for it.I do most of my riding with it. If the big bumps are causing pain, then you may need it. The B17 does have some ablity to soak up a bump, seeing how you have such big tires (they are under 100 psi, aren't they? Half the idea of running a big tire is to be able to run a soft tire) that is likley all you need...I find overall the B17 to be slighly more comfy to sit on, maybe it's just the way it sits on the bike. Supposed to be the same top, but the subframe may affect the nose in some way.
3) If you have the handlebars below the saddle, go for something narrower. If they are the same, go for the 17 or the Flyer, if above
the saddle you just might want to look into the 67. Regrettably, this is just a rule of thumb, YMMV...
4) Brooks work like a hammock. They give, and the frame bends in and up to cushion. If the seatpost doesn't grab the saddle in the middle, it will affect the way the saddle works. In plain English, shove the saddle back (as often happens) and the nose of your Brooks gets as hard as a brick. Bricks are not comfy. If you shove the saddle back, you also need to deal with the setback issue. You can get seatposts with a little more setback, and there is a chuck triathletes use to get a lot more setback. It's not expensive, your LBS should be able to find it. I am sure someone here will remembe the name if you ask.
5) There is another option.... the B17 with titanium rails.