What saddle does everyone in the forum prefer when touring? Any particular reasons why?

Thanks in advance

Cycler39

I know you're not going to believe this but a Brooks B17 Std. And I'm sure I'm the only idiot on this board who uses one

I know you're not going to believe this ......... but a Brooks B17 Std!



Because it is the most comfortable saddle I've ever sat butt on.

+1. Definitely.

Brooks B17 Champion Special. It's a Brooks and those big copper rivets are da bomb!

I'm hoping the fat red ******* leaves one under the tree this year, green with the copper rivets.

Three times stupid here - I've got that many of the rotten, lousy things

Then I must be a moron since I have 4 Brooks saddles ( 2- b17's a B66 and a B72)
I like the B66 for touring.

B 17, because it's comfortable and in the brooks world, cheap.

There is this new company, called Brooks you might not have heard much about them since they are way out there on the bleeding edge of saddle technology. Give it a shot.

Was that sarcasm?

Because I can't tell...

+1, +1
Brooks B-17

Well... we're trying to hold back...

All I can say is "Brooks B17, Brooks B17, and Brooks B17!"

Maybe.

OK. I will dare to be different. I don't care for the brooks B17.

Apostasy!

Guards! Escort this, this...individual to the exit.

Saddles work or they don't. The B17 works for most. I need something
longer, and use a SelleAnatomica Titanico. Actually the Titanico
is basically a long B17 split down the middle.

The B17 is meant for guys who keep their bars close to the height of the saddle.
Same with the Titanico. If your bars are a lot higher or lower, than something else is called for.

I also use the SelleAnatomica Titanico found it to be great right out of the box, no break period in required for me.

Everyone says Brooks B17.

All Titanicants may enter, but you are being watched...

Although I am a recent convert to the B17, I toured for decades on generic saddles, and had NO significant problems.

If a saddle is fairly comfortable, there is no reason to switch. The only reason I tried the Brooks was because my old seat broke. Had it not, I probably would still be riding it.

There is an interesting slant to this that I don't understand. On pretty much every touring discussion group a couple dozen recommendations for the B17 are a sure thing when this question comes up. OTOH: I saw only a few Brooks saddles on the TA this Summer (maybe 10%?). I am not sure what that means, but I find it interesting.

EDIT:
I did a quick look on the Crazy Guy site at journal pics. To make it random I just used the serendipity link. I looked at any pics where I could see the saddle well enough to tell whether it was a Brooks. I looked at twenty bikes and didn't see a single Brooks. I then looked at the sticky here for the loaded touring bike pics. I didn't count, but it looked like maybe half were Brooks.

I could almost conclude that people who actually tour are less likely to use a brooks than people who post about touring. I know that can't be completely right because I know that some of the other respondents to this thread tour extensively. It does make me wonder though.

Are my counts both on the TA and on the crazy guy page skewed for some reason that I am missing? Or are the replies to posts asking for saddle recommendations skewed for some reason? I don't get it.

Brooks B17 ++++

It means exactly what you have observed: Brooks saddles are a highly eclectic item. A retro throw-back. And, so awfully heavy. The sales are up, but the marketing is mostly word of mouth. The shops rarely carry them in any quantity or variety. So, people buy the Big Name that's on the shelf. If they feel comfortable enough, they call it good. Why undergo the excruciating break-in ritual that the Great Myth has propagated? Get the picture?

I'll tell you what I don't get: If the synthetics are so good, why is it that I hear so much about discomfort. Plus, the cost of most of the better synthetics is actually lower than a B17.

EDIT IN REPLY TO YOUR EDIT: I also see few Brooks saddles out there, probably for ther reasons stated in my post.

I think you hit on a few valid points. It does seem that while a relatively small minority, Brooks users are extremely loyal. They remind me a bit of bent riders in their enthusiasm for the product.

FWIW: On the "Great Myth" as you called it... I liked the only Brooks that I owned better before it broke in. It was OK but nothing special. After getting rained on for a few days I didn't like it at all. That was maybe 30 or more years ago though.

As far as why we hear so much about discomfort... Lots of things contribute to that including bike fit issues, lack of time spent riding, poor cycling atire, poor riding form, and in a few cases maybe even general wimpiness of the rider in question