Forum menu
Hi all,
I am currently in my last year of GCSEs and am doing design as one of my courses. For the practical aspect of this, I am building a saddle (with a couple of extra widgets ofc 👍) and was just doing a spreadsheet for how a saddle should perform. I would really appreciate it if, as riders, you could contribute your ideas on how a saddle should perform. The four areas I have got so far on "saddle design ideas" are 1) Performance 2) Aesthetics 3) Ergonomics 4) Functionality. Thanks in advance for your input!
Only the Ergonomics really matter as far as I’m concerned.
I prefer a Black, plain Saddle but if it’s comfy I’d ride almost anything in any colour!
A sore bum or perineum stops me riding and makes me a very unhappy boy 👦
Define you areas. 1,2&4 are very closely linked I think, certainly on a long ride.
1,3 and 4 are all linked for me. I like a flattish saddle that is comfy in a number of positions, ie ok if you need to go forward onto the nose and good to middle and back. Hammock type ones are no good for this. I don't want it bulky or catching on shorts either. After that it can look however it ends up.
The one other gripe is that the rails to hull gap seems to be quite small nowadays and with some seatposts, you can bottom out on the clamp or clamp bolts if you compress the saddle hard. So a bit more space here would be good.
aesthetics is irrelvant to me. comfort is 90% weight is 10%
comfort is very subjective however - all arses are individual.
It would help respondents a lot if you defined what you mean by performance, aesthetics, ergonomics, and functionality.
Yeah. What YAK said. 1,3&4 not 1,2&4.
Silly igm
Not really an answer sorry, but imo a saddle should perform in a way that means I forget about it when on the bike and it makes my bike look good when I'm off the bike. Unf what makes one saddle work for me or any other rider is a very personal thing. Mark Slate and Steve Potts used to design WTB saddles by carving from a block of wood to get the shape right first.
1) Performance 2) Aesthetics 3) Ergonomics 4) Functionality
Performance that's not linked to Ergonomics may be weight or durability. Functionality - bag loops, waterproof leather, springs, memory foam etc. Ergonomics gets you long-term benefit to the product and Aesthetics count for getting it on a bike in the first place.
Let's face it, slim, sleek saddles look cooler and perhaps that's why most riders wear padded shorts - to add padding to minimal saddles. More padding on the saddle or a better saddle shape can work in a way that makes padded shorts redundant.
Padding is pretty irrelevant if shape is correct for the riders’ anatomy, in my view. Personally I don’t wear padded shorts or bibs for cushioning but for the original purpose of wicking sweat that would otherwise lead to chafing - although I’d also observe that as a teen this wasn’t an issue for me (the number of pairs of jeans I wore the seat out of attests to this!) and skin elasticity decreasing with age may well be the key.
Given the need for a saddle to match anatomy - which is pretty settled, some companies have a huge range of sizes of models available and even fitting services - what might be interesting is to flip it on its head a little and investigate why the Charge Spoon/Madison Flux with no fit options suit so many people. I imagine you’d find their measurements are slap in the middle of an ergonomic Bell curve distribution...
Functionality, I thought, was how a saddle carried out its job properly and Performance, how it enhances that. I guess they both refer to everything that makes a saddle a saddle without the ergonomics.
Saddle stuff in order of importance,
Comfort
Durability
Aesthetics
Price
As per CaptFlash for me.
What makes a saddle comfortable still seems a bit of dark art - it's more than just measurements. I ride come version of a Selle Italia SLR. My giant road bike came with a Giant saddle that appeared to be the same shape, width and length - it looked like an SLR copy - but I couldn't ride it any distance at all without discomfort.
What do you mean by 'Performance' in relation to a saddle?
No mention of weight either. It is something I still consider.
I think Flashy has summed it up, if the comfort isnt there first and foremost then the rest become pretty irrelevant.
No one is going to keep using a saddle longterm no matter how good it looks, or how light it is.... if its just not comfortable.
Durability next as most cyclists would rather spend cash on shiny bits than keep replacing a saddle that wears out in no time.
I'd sat the following 2, aesthetics/price would probably depend more on the individual, some people wont care what it looks like if its comfortable, same goes for cost.
All IMAO.
Ergonomics, and maybe weight (i.e. lighter metals/ saddle base).
Fit is more important and not every saddle is comfortable for others.
Durability matters a lot. Ergonomics/functionality/performance all basically synonyms - the difference with a MTB saddle is you want something that keeps out of the way downhill and lets you perch right on the nose on very steep climbs, whilst also being comfortable when pedalling along the flatter bits. You want good compliance for comfort but also minimum stack height to allow long dropper pots.