Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

Brooks B67 for touring vs B17 or Flyer

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

Brooks B67 for touring vs B17 or Flyer

Old 07-04-18, 06:07 PM
  #26  
COBikeLover
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Posts: 96

Bikes: Trek DS 3

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by boomhauer View Post
This has been my experience almost exactly.
Not exactly sure what this is about but my B67 seems to have harder leather and the Flyer has softer leather.
I've done 1500 mile tours on both so I do have experience.
I have been trying to grasp in my mind the logical physics or mechanics behind why this is so, and probably due to ignorance on the subject in general, I am grasping for straws to come up with an explanation other than "more leather" in general spread out over a bigger region?? But my gut tells me this isn't correct so I am baffled. I honestly would say that this is two completely different types of leather. It is night and day between the difference, and I was putting a lot of miles in a very short amount of time on both seats and don't understand the drastic difference between the two. In fact, with the B67 I was putting in a lot more miles on average daily than I am on the Flyer and still was hard as a rock when I passed it off to someone else. With the Flyer, I am already trying to figure out how to use the adjustment screw and learn how to dial in my bum to it now but this part is new to me.

Last edited by COBikeLover; 07-05-18 at 04:59 PM.
COBikeLover is offline  
Old 07-04-18, 07:37 PM
  #27  
Tourist in MSN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,122

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, Perfekt 3 Speed -age unknown, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1400 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 52 Times in 43 Posts
It is a roll of the dice. I have five Conquests, four of which I bought new. Some were harder leather than others. The most recent one I bought was as hard as a chunk of concrete.

It is best to leave the adjustment alone. As you use the saddle more you might need to tighten it a bit, but trying to dial it in to what you like is not likely to work that well.

If you eventually develop a squeaking sound, in the front part of the saddle there are some places where metal rubs on metal as you load and unload the saddle. I use Brooks Proofide quite sparingly on those metal to metal contact points as a lubricating grease.
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 07-05-18, 09:46 AM
  #28  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,553
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1397 Post(s)
Liked 266 Times in 165 Posts
I also think its a bit of luck of the draw and how one applies (doesnt apply) proofhide and or sweats. I say that because I'm pretty sure a particular trip where I did several long days in hot weather and perspired a lot helped to shape my saddle.

I like my squeaking because it only occurs when I begin spinning with little resistance and start to bounce. It acts like an analog indicator to shift up

Last edited by Happy Feet; 07-05-18 at 09:49 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 07-05-18, 05:01 PM
  #29  
COBikeLover
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Posts: 96

Bikes: Trek DS 3

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN View Post
It is best to leave the adjustment alone. As you use the saddle more you might need to tighten it a bit, but trying to dial it in to what you like is not likely to work that well.
Probably valid point. I made an adjustment, rode for a bit, didn't notice anything, put it back where it was. Didn't notice anything. Haven't messed with it since.
COBikeLover is offline  
Old 07-05-18, 05:12 PM
  #30  
COBikeLover
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Posts: 96

Bikes: Trek DS 3

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
Ok. Believe it or not I'm actually trying to work with you here by providing a way to think about selecting a saddle based on more than looking at pictures or winging it.
OK...I believe you.

There are youtube videos and websites that tell one how to DIY measure that sit bone distance and many shops have devices that will measure it as well.
Do you have a specific good one without having to search that you are aware of? I will do a search later today for this. If you don't have one, don't worry, I can research it...pretty good at that. And if I find something good, I will come back and post it.

I been thinking about this post a lot. If this is my biggest contact point I have, then I should probably know that measurement more than any other measurement on my bike and have a solid understanding of this.

A "Specialized" dealer will probably have a gel board you sit on that gives you a number that corresponds to their own number system for saddles.
I really loathe going in and speaking with bicycle shops about anything. So what is the best DIY available to me if this is not an option for me?

Yes, I could have spent more time researching the specifics about bone width versus seat, but at the time, I was on a terrible seat causing severe pain consistently and was under the gun to make a decision with information I had available. It's difficult finding a balance on knowledge because the rabbit hole always seems to go deeper...
COBikeLover is offline  
Old 07-06-18, 09:32 AM
  #31  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,553
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1397 Post(s)
Liked 266 Times in 165 Posts
I am out of town at the moment and don't know how to make links from my cell but look at:the menu at this website for a start:

Art's Cyclery>
learning center>
how to fit

They describe a simple process of sitting on corrigated cardboard. (There are other steps as well). Pretty straight forward. When I return I'll add the link.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 07-06-18, 10:16 AM
  #32  
mletts
Junior Member
 
mletts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 7

Bikes: 1983 Jamis Dakota

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by COBikeLover View Post
I wanted to specifically create a thread for this topic because there wasn't much conversation or opinions on the matter out there when I was looking for information. This way there is a thread that folks can add to over time if they have similar questions or experience with it also.


The question I was asking, "Is the Brooks B67 good for touring compared to the Brooks B17 (or Flyer)?"


The few opinions that were out there had left me with the impression that a Brooks B67 might be a good saddle for touring and/or lots of miles in general compared to the B17 or Flyer. So I went ahead and purchased a Brooks B67 without any prior experience with any of these saddles before. In my opinion, that was a mistake for the amount of miles/kilometers I am putting an average of about 30-50 miles (50-80 kilometers) a day in, with rides often exceeding those miles, and the B67 is just too uncomfortable in certain spots when you are putting in that many miles. When you are upright the seat is comfortable, but I struggled with chaffing and a perpetual sore that I could not shake because of how wide the seat is and the extra flange that comes up on the bike due to the extra width.


I received a Flyer today and tried that out and I could notice the difference immediately after one long ride. When you are putting in that many miles, I just don't see how the B67 can be comfortable long term, and that is with wearing padded shorts the entire time. It creates a problem just outside the padding on your bum where the difference in the B67 wideness takes place. For some strange reason the Flyer doesn't seem as spongee as the B67 either.


I have also heard people claim in other threads about these seats and the spring "squeaking." I don't have this problem with either seat and they are both very quiet compared to some things I have seen others say about them.


After I get some more miles in I will update this if anything changes...but if you are unsure of which seat to get for touring between the B67 or the B17 or the Flyer and posting the same questions to Google, then this thread is for you. I would definitely go with the B17 or the Flyer for long miles in general or touring. I guess the other thing I realized "after" is that when you are looking at all the pictures of touring bikes in general, it is extremely rare to see a B67 on one of them. There must be a reason for this. If the B67 really was that comfortable or more comfortable then folks would be using them more on touring bikes. But they are not and I made a purchased based on a small minority recommendations instead of just looking at what the norm is.


Add any other feedback you might have as time goes on. I just wanted this thread up so nobody makes the same mistake I did if they have no prior knowledge with these seats either.
Like other people have pointed out already, in my experience, the B67 is great for riding in an upright position; however, the B17 feels better when leaning forward, which characterizes most road, touring, and mountain bikes. Your pain is likely due to the width of the B67. As I remember, the B67 is considerably wider, especially in the back, as compared to the B17. Consequently, the B67, by design, won't conform to the shape of your sitting bones like a B17 will after many miles.
mletts is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 11:48 AM
  #33  
BikinHowd
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by COBikeLover View Post
That surprises me 100+km's a day on a "mountain bike" on B67. I was doing similar and since I changed over to the flyer I couldn't be happier. There are aspects I did like about the B67 for complete upright position but overall for combined positions, I just couldn't find the same comfort.
Notice the picture of his "converted mtb" - just because he rides it in the mountains doesn't make it a mountain bike... LOL... that bike doesn't even appear to have front suspension, so it's not even a hardtail... I'd call his bike a hybrid... just sayin'
BikinHowd is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 12:01 PM
  #34  
phughes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,219
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Liked 39 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by BikinHowd View Post
Notice the picture of his "converted mtb" - just because he rides it in the mountains doesn't make it a mountain bike... LOL... that bike doesn't even appear to have front suspension, so it's not even a hardtail... I'd call his bike a hybrid... just sayin'
I guess you weren't around for the 80s were you. Way to resurrect an almost year old thread with an uninformed opinion.
phughes is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 06:22 PM
  #35  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,553
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1397 Post(s)
Liked 266 Times in 165 Posts
Originally Posted by BikinHowd View Post
Notice the picture of his "converted mtb" - just because he rides it in the mountains doesn't make it a mountain bike... LOL... that bike doesn't even appear to have front suspension, so it's not even a hardtail... I'd call his bike a hybrid... just sayin'
Welcome to Bike Forums BikinHowd. I will chalk most of your observations to being young and uneducated. I've been riding steady for 50 years so I've seen a bit of history unfold.

It is indeed a mountain bike, a 1992 Marin Pine Mountain to be exact. You can find the catalog specs here: Pine Mountain | Marin Catalogue 1992 | Retrobike

At the time most mtb's were both rigid frame and fork, and (happily for many budget tour cyclists) often with similar geometry and material components that make them good loaded touring platforms. This bike in particular has served me well over the years running the gambit of several conversions, most recently with the addition of a low travel suspension fork that oddly came off what might be considered a Hybrid bike (an e bike).

26" bikes are almost never referred to as hybrids though. That is a term that was coined in the 90's for 700c bikes that tried to bridge the gap between road and trail use. What people today would call gravel bikes but with a more upright flat bar look. Older 26" bikes were referred to as All Terrain Bikes - ATB's (actually the original term for MTB's) and this bike would certainly fit into that category. As well as the original purpose made mtbs, they have also been used as platforms for commuter, touring, gravel, utility and drop bar conversions.

A bit more history. The technical downhill mtb's of today bear little resemblance to the original atb/mtb but they were considered a godsend of innovation at the time because they offered something other than the dropbar ten speed. Before 1982-84 off road riders converted (there's that word again) cruisers and other bike frames, sometimes with motocross bars into what were called "Klunkers" to do what they called "repack riding" (because they had to repack the brake drum with grease after a long downhill ride). This new fad centered around Marin County CA - where the Marin bike company gets it's name. Tom Ritchey just did a pod cast where he talks about how he also did gravel bike riding in the Sierra Nevada's then and how the two emerging genres cross pollinated.

Around 82/84 builders like Ritchey and bike companies began putting out purpose build mtb bikes for off road. The geometry was better than road geometry and they had flat bars instead of drops. They were still pretty sketchy as they often poached road components like caliper brakes or 2x5 drivetrains and they were overbuilt and heavy. By the end of the 80's though high quality mtb's were being made by all the major players for a niche that grew and grew and the rest is history.

Here's a link to a recent day trip we did using the bike that ran the spectrum from paved - gravel - singletrack - no track: Ride Report with pics Chilliwack River Valley

Note I still use the B67 seat


Last edited by Happy Feet; 05-24-19 at 05:17 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Likes For Happy Feet:
Old 05-24-19, 07:12 PM
  #36  
travgott
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: nomadic
Posts: 20

Bikes: vintage raleigh, bbf retro, vintage gitane, trek antelope, steel is real

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked 7 Times in 5 Posts
that was a very interesting and informative bit of history there. thanks! and nice bike this thread sure took a turn tho...
travgott is offline  
Likes For travgott:
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
badger_biker
Classic & Vintage
12
04-04-16 12:10 PM
kylakemike
Touring
20
01-28-13 10:18 AM
campingnut
Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg)
17
12-03-12 12:41 AM
Kurious Oranj
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling
6
09-03-10 05:35 PM
storckm
Classic & Vintage
18
08-07-10 09:38 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.