Thanks! I'm 6'0 and 160. Funny thing is when I measure sit bones with a bike fitter, sitting on some gel thing, they're not that wide (they tell me a 145-155mm saddle width is fine, so maybe 125mm sit bone width?, but that's when I was riding only road, with bars 5-10cm below my saddle. My Salsa Fargo with swept back bars is completely different. Plus, when I get some 'irritation' on the backside, I can see where the fiction is via red spots (TMI, I know) and seems a lot further apart than say 125mm. I think the wider Berthoud might work for me, at least with the Fargo. I would like to ride with wool underwear (seams no where near sit bones), and just some shorts/pants. This isn't comfortable with the C17.
On Sunday, June 15, 2025 at 7:23:27 PM UTC-4 Nick Payne wrote: > On Monday, 16 June 2025 at 1:31:07 am UTC+10 Jay wrote: > > Curios @Nick whether you're a big guy or not? I ask because the width of > Bethoud saddles is wider than B17, and a lot wider than Berthoud model one > width less in their lineup. > > > I'm 5'10" and ~140lbs, so not large. However, I've always liked wide > saddles. I tried a Brooks Swift (which I think is their narrowest model) > about 25 years ago, and found it rather uncomfortable, whereas the wider > saddles have always agreed with me. When I was racing, and didn't want the > weight of a leather saddle, I used to use women's racing saddles, as > they're wider than those intended for men... > > Nick Payne > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/68aca44e-8ec1-4f36-9ed5-48ff69db344dn%40googlegroups.com.
