Women's vs. men's saddles - Page 18 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

05-25-2004, 07:30 AM

On Tue, 25 May 2004 08:30:15 -0400, David Kerber
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>or the more expensive one. Getting the wider one when you could use the
>narrow one probably won't be a problem, but if you get the narrow one
>when you really should have the wide one will get painful after a few
>miles.

A saddle too wide can obstruct your legs as they move back, or can
cause you to automatically scoot forward too far.
--
Rick Onanian

05-26-2004, 08:24 PM

nopcbs wrote:

> I happen to live in an area where there are no bike shops with a good
> selection of saddles nearby. What they have is little more than what you'll
> find at Dunham's.
>
> I need a new saddle as the "C9" saddle that I bought at one of the local
> shops a couple of years ago is wearing out (the lycra is wearing through - I
> ride almost 20 miles a day in good weather). I don't want another lycra
> saddle for this reason and I am not crazy about vinyl (no breathability). I
> think I want leather which no local shop sells at all. Been looking at the
> Terry Liberators on-line at Performance and Nashbar. Also read reviews at
> MtbReview. Seem like a good choice.
>
> In my on-line shopping I noticed that sometimes Performance or Nashbar will
> have the woman's version of a saddle on sale for about 1/3 less than the
> men's version. Far as I can tell, the women's saddles are slightly shorter
> and slightly wider. Supposedly the width is to accomodate the wider
> hip-bones of women vs. men. Problem with that is that I'm sure men and women
> hip-bone widths overlap since there humans have an enormous range of body
> sizes within each sex. Makes me think that this men's vs. women's saddle
> thing is more marketing than anything else and I should just buy whatever is
> cheaper in a given line. (Hell, we neanthertal men are supposed to get in
> touch with their "feminine side" anyway, right?)
>
> What say you all?
>
> - nopcbs
>
>
Yes, even though the distance between the the superior iliac spine (the
seat bone) of a female has a greater chance of being wider than the
distance between the superior iliac spines of the male of a same overall
body size, the truth is that if the guy is small and the woman if large,
this could be reversed. Oh well. If you're the manufacturer, go for the
average and hope the customer doesn't hate your product.

According to William Bass' Human Osteology: a Laboratory and Field
Manual, the space between the superior iliac spines has little to do
with sex determination. Given the variability in overall body size, it
just isn't reliable. I use the reverse logic to make my argument above:

05-26-2004, 08:24 PM

nopcbs wrote:

> I happen to live in an area where there are no bike shops with a good
> selection of saddles nearby. What they have is little more than what you'll
> find at Dunham's.
>
> I need a new saddle as the "C9" saddle that I bought at one of the local
> shops a couple of years ago is wearing out (the lycra is wearing through - I
> ride almost 20 miles a day in good weather). I don't want another lycra
> saddle for this reason and I am not crazy about vinyl (no breathability). I
> think I want leather which no local shop sells at all. Been looking at the
> Terry Liberators on-line at Performance and Nashbar. Also read reviews at
> MtbReview. Seem like a good choice.
>
> In my on-line shopping I noticed that sometimes Performance or Nashbar will
> have the woman's version of a saddle on sale for about 1/3 less than the
> men's version. Far as I can tell, the women's saddles are slightly shorter
> and slightly wider. Supposedly the width is to accomodate the wider
> hip-bones of women vs. men. Problem with that is that I'm sure men and women
> hip-bone widths overlap since there humans have an enormous range of body
> sizes within each sex. Makes me think that this men's vs. women's saddle
> thing is more marketing than anything else and I should just buy whatever is
> cheaper in a given line. (Hell, we neanthertal men are supposed to get in
> touch with their "feminine side" anyway, right?)
>
> What say you all?
>
> - nopcbs
>
>
Yes, even though the distance between the the superior iliac spine (the
seat bone) of a female has a greater chance of being wider than the
distance between the superior iliac spines of the male of a same overall
body size, the truth is that if the guy is small and the woman if large,
this could be reversed. Oh well. If you're the manufacturer, go for the
average and hope the customer doesn't hate your product.

According to William Bass' Human Osteology: a Laboratory and Field
Manual, the space between the superior iliac spines has little to do
with sex determination. Given the variability in overall body size, it
just isn't reliable. I use the reverse logic to make my argument above:

05-26-2004, 08:24 PM

nopcbs wrote:

> I happen to live in an area where there are no bike shops with a good
> selection of saddles nearby. What they have is little more than what you'll
> find at Dunham's.
>
> I need a new saddle as the "C9" saddle that I bought at one of the local
> shops a couple of years ago is wearing out (the lycra is wearing through - I
> ride almost 20 miles a day in good weather). I don't want another lycra
> saddle for this reason and I am not crazy about vinyl (no breathability). I
> think I want leather which no local shop sells at all. Been looking at the
> Terry Liberators on-line at Performance and Nashbar. Also read reviews at
> MtbReview. Seem like a good choice.
>
> In my on-line shopping I noticed that sometimes Performance or Nashbar will
> have the woman's version of a saddle on sale for about 1/3 less than the
> men's version. Far as I can tell, the women's saddles are slightly shorter
> and slightly wider. Supposedly the width is to accomodate the wider
> hip-bones of women vs. men. Problem with that is that I'm sure men and women
> hip-bone widths overlap since there humans have an enormous range of body
> sizes within each sex. Makes me think that this men's vs. women's saddle
> thing is more marketing than anything else and I should just buy whatever is
> cheaper in a given line. (Hell, we neanthertal men are supposed to get in
> touch with their "feminine side" anyway, right?)
>
> What say you all?
>
> - nopcbs
>
>
Yes, even though the distance between the the superior iliac spine (the
seat bone) of a female has a greater chance of being wider than the
distance between the superior iliac spines of the male of a same overall
body size, the truth is that if the guy is small and the woman if large,
this could be reversed. Oh well. If you're the manufacturer, go for the
average and hope the customer doesn't hate your product.

According to William Bass' Human Osteology: a Laboratory and Field
Manual, the space between the superior iliac spines has little to do
with sex determination. Given the variability in overall body size, it
just isn't reliable. I use the reverse logic to make my argument above:

05-26-2004, 08:24 PM

nopcbs wrote:

> I happen to live in an area where there are no bike shops with a good
> selection of saddles nearby. What they have is little more than what you'll
> find at Dunham's.
>
> I need a new saddle as the "C9" saddle that I bought at one of the local
> shops a couple of years ago is wearing out (the lycra is wearing through - I
> ride almost 20 miles a day in good weather). I don't want another lycra
> saddle for this reason and I am not crazy about vinyl (no breathability). I
> think I want leather which no local shop sells at all. Been looking at the
> Terry Liberators on-line at Performance and Nashbar. Also read reviews at
> MtbReview. Seem like a good choice.
>
> In my on-line shopping I noticed that sometimes Performance or Nashbar will
> have the woman's version of a saddle on sale for about 1/3 less than the
> men's version. Far as I can tell, the women's saddles are slightly shorter
> and slightly wider. Supposedly the width is to accomodate the wider
> hip-bones of women vs. men. Problem with that is that I'm sure men and women
> hip-bone widths overlap since there humans have an enormous range of body
> sizes within each sex. Makes me think that this men's vs. women's saddle
> thing is more marketing than anything else and I should just buy whatever is
> cheaper in a given line. (Hell, we neanthertal men are supposed to get in
> touch with their "feminine side" anyway, right?)
>
> What say you all?
>
> - nopcbs
>
>
Yes, even though the distance between the the superior iliac spine (the
seat bone) of a female has a greater chance of being wider than the
distance between the superior iliac spines of the male of a same overall
body size, the truth is that if the guy is small and the woman if large,
this could be reversed. Oh well. If you're the manufacturer, go for the
average and hope the customer doesn't hate your product.

According to William Bass' Human Osteology: a Laboratory and Field
Manual, the space between the superior iliac spines has little to do
with sex determination. Given the variability in overall body size, it
just isn't reliable. I use the reverse logic to make my argument above:

05-26-2004, 08:24 PM

nopcbs wrote:

> I happen to live in an area where there are no bike shops with a good
> selection of saddles nearby. What they have is little more than what you'll
> find at Dunham's.
>
> I need a new saddle as the "C9" saddle that I bought at one of the local
> shops a couple of years ago is wearing out (the lycra is wearing through - I
> ride almost 20 miles a day in good weather). I don't want another lycra
> saddle for this reason and I am not crazy about vinyl (no breathability). I
> think I want leather which no local shop sells at all. Been looking at the
> Terry Liberators on-line at Performance and Nashbar. Also read reviews at
> MtbReview. Seem like a good choice.
>
> In my on-line shopping I noticed that sometimes Performance or Nashbar will
> have the woman's version of a saddle on sale for about 1/3 less than the
> men's version. Far as I can tell, the women's saddles are slightly shorter
> and slightly wider. Supposedly the width is to accomodate the wider
> hip-bones of women vs. men. Problem with that is that I'm sure men and women
> hip-bone widths overlap since there humans have an enormous range of body
> sizes within each sex. Makes me think that this men's vs. women's saddle
> thing is more marketing than anything else and I should just buy whatever is
> cheaper in a given line. (Hell, we neanthertal men are supposed to get in
> touch with their "feminine side" anyway, right?)
>
> What say you all?
>
> - nopcbs
>
>
Yes, even though the distance between the the superior iliac spine (the
seat bone) of a female has a greater chance of being wider than the
distance between the superior iliac spines of the male of a same overall
body size, the truth is that if the guy is small and the woman if large,
this could be reversed. Oh well. If you're the manufacturer, go for the
average and hope the customer doesn't hate your product.

According to William Bass' Human Osteology: a Laboratory and Field
Manual, the space between the superior iliac spines has little to do
with sex determination. Given the variability in overall body size, it
just isn't reliable. I use the reverse logic to make my argument above:

05-26-2004, 08:28 PM

Rick Onanian wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:09:01 -0700, The Real Bev
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Excellent! I saw a kid the other day whose pants were apparently
>>hanging BELOW his butt. Hard to believe, but that's what it looked
>>like. So I got to wondering -- is it possible that they wear women's
>>garter belts? It would be very practical and certainly unobtrusive as
>>long as they're wearing those extra-long monster t-shirts.
>
>
> I saw one the other day whose t-shirt went down _below_ his knees.
> It looked like he was wearing a dress. His shorts* barely protruded
> below the shirt. I laughed out loud.
>
> *Speaking of street shorts, have you noticed how long shorts are
> now? What's the point? It's hard to find shorts that allow air to
> reach my knees, and I _don't_ wear my belt below my genitals.
>
> Anyway, for the ones wearing their belt at their thighs or knees,
> don't these kids have armed gangs to run from or something?
> --
> Rick Onanian

See, that's the funny thing. Here is Chicago the serious gang-bangers
aren't dressed as ostentatiously. The middle-class white boys are,
though. Hey, survival breeds innovation and practicality!

-Collin

05-26-2004, 08:28 PM

Rick Onanian wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:09:01 -0700, The Real Bev
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Excellent! I saw a kid the other day whose pants were apparently
>>hanging BELOW his butt. Hard to believe, but that's what it looked
>>like. So I got to wondering -- is it possible that they wear women's
>>garter belts? It would be very practical and certainly unobtrusive as
>>long as they're wearing those extra-long monster t-shirts.
>
>
> I saw one the other day whose t-shirt went down _below_ his knees.
> It looked like he was wearing a dress. His shorts* barely protruded
> below the shirt. I laughed out loud.
>
> *Speaking of street shorts, have you noticed how long shorts are
> now? What's the point? It's hard to find shorts that allow air to
> reach my knees, and I _don't_ wear my belt below my genitals.
>
> Anyway, for the ones wearing their belt at their thighs or knees,
> don't these kids have armed gangs to run from or something?
> --
> Rick Onanian

See, that's the funny thing. Here is Chicago the serious gang-bangers
aren't dressed as ostentatiously. The middle-class white boys are,
though. Hey, survival breeds innovation and practicality!

-Collin

05-26-2004, 08:28 PM

Rick Onanian wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:09:01 -0700, The Real Bev
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Excellent! I saw a kid the other day whose pants were apparently
>>hanging BELOW his butt. Hard to believe, but that's what it looked
>>like. So I got to wondering -- is it possible that they wear women's
>>garter belts? It would be very practical and certainly unobtrusive as
>>long as they're wearing those extra-long monster t-shirts.
>
>
> I saw one the other day whose t-shirt went down _below_ his knees.
> It looked like he was wearing a dress. His shorts* barely protruded
> below the shirt. I laughed out loud.
>
> *Speaking of street shorts, have you noticed how long shorts are
> now? What's the point? It's hard to find shorts that allow air to
> reach my knees, and I _don't_ wear my belt below my genitals.
>
> Anyway, for the ones wearing their belt at their thighs or knees,
> don't these kids have armed gangs to run from or something?
> --
> Rick Onanian

See, that's the funny thing. Here is Chicago the serious gang-bangers
aren't dressed as ostentatiously. The middle-class white boys are,
though. Hey, survival breeds innovation and practicality!

-Collin

05-26-2004, 08:28 PM

Rick Onanian wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:09:01 -0700, The Real Bev
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Excellent! I saw a kid the other day whose pants were apparently
>>hanging BELOW his butt. Hard to believe, but that's what it looked
>>like. So I got to wondering -- is it possible that they wear women's
>>garter belts? It would be very practical and certainly unobtrusive as
>>long as they're wearing those extra-long monster t-shirts.
>
>
> I saw one the other day whose t-shirt went down _below_ his knees.
> It looked like he was wearing a dress. His shorts* barely protruded
> below the shirt. I laughed out loud.
>
> *Speaking of street shorts, have you noticed how long shorts are
> now? What's the point? It's hard to find shorts that allow air to
> reach my knees, and I _don't_ wear my belt below my genitals.
>
> Anyway, for the ones wearing their belt at their thighs or knees,
> don't these kids have armed gangs to run from or something?
> --
> Rick Onanian

See, that's the funny thing. Here is Chicago the serious gang-bangers
aren't dressed as ostentatiously. The middle-class white boys are,
though. Hey, survival breeds innovation and practicality!

-Collin