Hmm. Interesting conjecture, but the B17n is listed as having the exact same width as the swift and swallow and the pro is only 8mm wider. Can you explain how you feel width at the rear has an impact on cadence or the seat angle? Thanks.

Sorry for the delay, I was gone for a few days.

The B17n is at least 165mm wide at it's widest while the Swift is 155mm and the Swallow is 153. So I'm not sure where you got your info from but it wasn't correct. The Pro may be between the B17 and the Swift in size.

Got the info right off the Wallingford's site. B17N Size: 152 X 280mm "This version of the B 17 is similar in length and width to the narrow Swift and Swallow models, but flatter."

https://www.wallbike.com/brooks/stand...dles.html#b17n

how does the brooks flyer model fare for lighter riders? i was thinking about getting one for my touring bike, but i only weigh around 140, so would i even be heavy enough to make use of the springs?

I just got my flyer today and went and rode about 20 miles on it. I weigh about 330 though, and I could hardly feel the springs (at least to the degree I expected. I imagined it feeling like it would on one of those old cruisers my parents rode). I suspect they will loosen up over time which may make them a little more useful. One of the people I was riding with said she could see them flexing a bit when I hit a bump, although I've never used a brooks before, so I didn't really know what to expect, nor do I know what a non-spring brooks feels like. It was super comfortable though, even straight out of the box. I'm not sore at all, and the last time I rode 10 miles on the stock seat on the LHT I was ready to quit. I can't wait to see what it feels like in another 1000 miles. I need to get to work on putting those miles on then.

I have a sprung Brooks Conquest saddle and have used it on my mountain and commuter bikes before. I weigh about 160 and you need to hit a bump for the springs to activate. So, yes, they do what they're intended to do. Otherwise, on smooth pavement the saddle rides like any other solid, unsprung saddle.

Not sure where Wallbike got their info, but at https://www.mycyclinggear.com/brooks-saddles.html they list the Brooks B17 at 170mm, the Swift at 152, and the Swallow at 153. This info agrees with what Brooks themselves say at https://www.brooksengland.com/shop/cat_classic.aspx just harder to find here. While the above info is DIFFERENT from what I earlier said from a web site I got at https://www.bikesomewhere.com/bikesom...egory/347/2803 I think the Brooks site would be the official word on the matter since they make the saddles-what do you think?

I weigh 170# and the springs do give some on bumps. I find the biggest plus for the Flyer is that it dampens a great deal of the chip seal "buzz".

It's the B.17 Champion STANDARD that's 160 mm. wide; the b.17 Champion NARROW is 152 mm. wide. All measurements are nominal, of course.

Its like wearing good leather shoes. As your butt presses down on the hard surface, it will stretch and conform to relieve the pressure where it presses down hardest. A plastic saddle can't do this. You have to give it time to break in. I really love Brooks. Its superior to gel in that I think where soft tissue is concerned it keeps it from not getting proper support while riding. Horse riders have used leather saddles for comfort and it should be no different for cyclists.

I got my B17 just this past Saturday and I already find it more comfortable than any saddle I've previously owned - and believe me, I was skeptical. Can anyone offer any insight as to how bad very cold (up to -20*F) temperatures are for the leather?

Leather won't heat to your body as fast as synthetics, but assuming you're dressed for sub-arctic conditions, you probably don't care about that. I've never heard of a Brooks failing in that environment, nor, for that matter, any other saddle. Riding them soaking wet from rain has killed more than a few Brooks , though.
Remember that lots of stuff goes wrong at -20F, so what do I really know? Personally, I'd just drive or take a bus.

Brooks users please describe your experience.

Do you always use padded shorts over the Brooks or just other shorts or trousers; on commuting and also on long-haul trips?

So far I've been using it to get around campus - unfortunately, while our campus is outfitted with quite the nice bus system (free campus busses), the unfortunate truth is that if I relied on the busses, I'd never get to class on time.

I've so far used jeans, jeans + long underwear (it be chilly up here in the Wisconsin), and padded shorts (on the trainer). All have resulted in far, FAR less discomfort than any of the plastic/foam saddles I've previously owned.

My commute is rather short - only 5km (3.5 miles). Usually I just ride to work in my canvas Carhartt trousers and a T-shirt, with my work jacket on. If it's raining I don't usually ride to work.

My recreational cycling is always done with padded tights in winter or shorts in good weather. There are two reasons why:

1) My rides are rarely less than 35 or 40 miles. Some are out to 50 or 75, with an occasional out to 100. Padded riding wear is, in my opinion, as much a part of this level of riding as ski-wear or hockey gear or any other sport wear that is beyond merely going to the store.

2) Jeans will very quickly rub off the slick finish of a Brooks saddle, rendering it less cool on long rides. The slickness is important for frictionless contact and is something that should be maintained with a clear boot polish every once in a while.

Note: My commuter saddle is a B-67 that has alot of wear from the canvas Carhartt's. The rec saddles are maintained in much better shape.