Do you use a Brooks Saddle
 

Please only serious cyclists respond

Looks like you are on your way to disproving someone's assertion.
:thumb::thumb:

My last two rides were well below freezing, so I think that qualifies as serious.... ly stupid.

You're not serious, are you?

I use only Brooks; I currently have four of them. My hands down fave is the Team Pro, followed by the C15 and C17. The B17 is too wide for me and will be looking for a new home.

Sorry. I voted yes before I saw the disqualification.

Problem with my poll is a serious selection bias.

People who love Brooks and advocate for them will make a concerted effort to respond.

The other 98% will say meh and not bother.

So we need to get out the Brooks haters vote.

The C13 has taken away the last reason not to ride a Brooks. (Although I will acknowledge that true Brooks devotees may not consider the C13 to be a "real" Brooks.)

No cutout? 132mm wide? Pass.

Do a search. The C13 comes in multiple widths and with / without a "cutout." (Brooks calls it "carved.")

"Knowledge is good." - Emil Faber

I don't need a reason not to ride a Brooks.

Ah. I did previously do a search and the review indicated that only the C15 an C17 were available in wider widths and carved. I guess that changed.

Oh well, it's still uggo, so I guess there's still a reason not to ride a Brooks. ;)

Excuse me, but the OP asked that only serious cyclists respond. If you ride a Brooks you are not a serious cyclist. (Touring cyclists excepted, of course.)

There is a very good reason for that. So the question becomes, "Should I ride Brooks because they are made of leather that can be broken in to my anatomical requirements?" or "Should I ride Brooks because the company knows how to make comfortable saddles of any material they choose to use?" The former reason is the traditional one. You either believe in it, or you don't. The latter reason is totally unfounded. Why would you believe in it at all. There is no reason that the Brooks people know how to make comfortable saddles that don't shape to your butt. They got lucky with the leather thing. What do they know about non-formable saddles?

Meh. I have no use for them in any case.

No, if you are not riding a brooks, you're not a serious cyclists. Realistically, this poll should be 100% I ride Brooks. The majority who voted are not serious.

A member of the alternative facts crowd has weighed in.

If 30-50% of serious road cyclists are riding Brooks saddles, they must mostly be painting them to look like something else. I never see one.

That may say more about you than about them. (I'm told that not many people on bike paths ride Brooks.)

Oh, that's harsh!

In my experience, at races, fast group training rides, Brooks are vanishingly rare.

Recreational club rides, there's a hard core group of Brooks devotees, but likely no more than 5%.

Are you trying to confuse us with numbers?

No, with anecdotes. Again, in his limited experience, he doesn't see many Brooks saddles.

I suspect there are places where you never see a Trek bicycle. Come to think of it . . . .

Wouldn't it be funny if everyone voted Brooks just to screw with us? I can just see the company execs in a conference room going, "WUT?!"

You said limited experience. I didn't say that. I've got over 100K miles and 34 years of riding. That isn't an anecdote. It is an observation.

So who is a serious cyclist? Is it time, distance, or race based?


Seriously, we have 8 Brooks saddles in use at our house, of 22 total bikes. 4 B-17's, 3 C-17's, and a C-15. I've raced gravel and MTB on a Brooks and will continue to race MTB on a Brooks this year. Great Century saddle, great tour and commute saddle. We also have a variety of other saddles in use-WTB, Selle Italia come to mind.


Nice saddles, but not the only saddle.