I’ve got my hybrid bike for a couple seasons now and the seat’s seen better days. I went looking at bike seats only to find a large selection and me, an uninformed shopper. I’m not too concerned about the weight, more about comfort since I do long rides through the paved city or on crushed gravel trails.
Any preferences? Is a split seat really better?
-
-
- If you want to ride comfortably, get a recumbent: there are some priced less than $500 now, some lower priced brands are Sun and Cycle Genius.
They are VASTLY more comfortable than any upright bike, there is simply no comparison in that regard. Imagine: you will never need padded shorts or padded gloves, and your butt, hands, neck and shoulders will never ache again from riding --it’s amazing but true.
.
The only two disadvantages to recumbents is that they are not much good for hard off-roading, and that they can be more difficult to transport due to their larger sizes.
~
- If you want to ride comfortably, get a recumbent: there are some priced less than $500 now, some lower priced brands are Sun and Cycle Genius.
-
Though I haven’t tried it myself, I’ve heard good things about this bike seat. Apparently it’s likened to sitting on a rail fence. Your legs are supposed to get a better workout, and there’s no untoward pressure on delicate parts of the anatomy. I’m planning on buying one myself for my exercise bike.
What seat is on the bike? Is it a problem, or are you just looking to see if something might provide more comfort? The only thing you can really do is try different sadlles and see for yourself, but if you give us an idea of what you have now you may get better answers.
Right now I’ve got the standard bike seat that came with my Trek 7300. It says Oasis on the sides and back but I couldn’t find any examples of it online. I’m not sure if it’s gel or not to be honest but there was an interesting spring system for support underneath.
Thanks!
My favorite bike seat that I have I have no problem sitting on for several hours is a cheap Fuji that came on my road bike that I bought used, It must be a stock seat from like the mid 90s. It has abotu 1/8 inch of padding on it which is coming out of several holes, but I’m not changing it. I had one of those super squishy gel seats from Walmart on my mountain bike and it is great for about 15 minutes, but then your ass bones are squished down into it and the soft tender stuff is actually supporting your weight. Can you say numb. I did try a split seat on my spin bike but the shape just didn’t work for me. What I do is when I go to the bike shop I see if they have any stock seats that they traded out on new bikes that they are willing to let go for 5 or 10 bucks.
Ok. The first thing to do is to be sure that the saddle you have now is properly adjusted. You can play with the height, the tilt, and the fore/aft position. Little changes can make a big difference.
I’d suggest that you talk to someone with experience in bike fitting. They can be sure that you have a proper position on the bike. It makes a huge difference, and it will be worth the time and effort it takes. Best to do all the free stuff before you start spending money on new saddles.
Once you are fairly sure that you have the right position and you still want a new saddle, remember that you’ll have to play around with all those adjustments when you put the new saddle on. That’s why it’s worth it to play around with the old saddle - it’ll make dialing in the new saddle a bit easier.
With the right position, you probably won’t need the big springs or thick gel saddles. I use a Selle Italia Flight on every one of my bikes, and to me it’s as cofortable as a lazy-boy recliner, even after 5 hours of riding. It sure doesn’t look comfortable though. Everyone is different though.
What kind of seat you get really depends on how much you ride. If you get out just three or four times a year, you want the biggest, fattest, comfiest seat you can find. If you’re riding, say, once a week, you’ll want a relatively skinny bike seat, since those big fat ones interfere with leg movement. Still, you’ll want some sort of gel saddle to help ease you back onto that bike every week. If you ride more often like me (typically 3-4 times a week, 30-60 miles each time) … well, you’ll know what you want then! My saddle has some padding but not much; the main idea is to support those two bones in your butt and leave as much freedom of movement for your legs as possible. That having been said, everything Dag Otto said also applies; once you have your ideal seat, make sure it is properly positioned. Adjust it up or down, tilt it one way or the other until it is the most comfortable. Or buy your new seat from a bicycle shop where they’ll measure you for the ideal seat height …
Oh, and as to the split saddle thing … anything that can reduce the pressure on your 'nads is a good thing! Go for it!
I ride usually 3-4 times a week when the weather’s good, generally around 20 miles or so at a time. (although I ended up doing over 40 on Saturday) I’m still using the stock seat that came on my trek 4500. It’s generally pretty comfortable, although about every 45 minutes or so I have to stop for a few minutes and take the pressure off, so to speak. I’m starting to ponder buying a new seat, as I don’t think I’ve spent nearly enough on bike accessories yet this year.
StPauler, where do you usually ride? I live in Minneapolis, and there’s lots of great paths over here. I’m sure you know most of them already though.
The main reason for the split seats isn’t so much comfort, as in having a less sore ass, but instead to not compress the arteries and nerves that lead to your crank.
Cycling with the wrong seats can cause penile numbness, erectile dysfunction and arterial problems. Bad stuff.
My choice was a Terry Liberator saddleas a cut-out in the middle where those nerves and arteries are. No numbness so far… (crosses fingers!)
http://www.bikepptc.org/saddlesore.html
http://tinyurl.com/2ag89 (link to REI page for Terry Liberator saddle)
Oh… and those Oasis saddles that come with Trek bikes are God-awful ass punishers. My 4700 had one… every ride made me sore until I got the new one.
Finding a good bike seat is hit and miss. You just have to try a few. I use WTB (wilderness trail bikes) saddles for my road and mountain bikes. They fit my butt best. I’ve tried the Specialized split saddle, Selle Italia, the stock avocet saddle that came with my road bike (like sitting astride the 2" side of a 2 X 4), and finally settled on WTB.
The specialized split saddle I tried was fine. It seems like most companies are headed that way (splitsville).
If you like going on long rides you might want to think twice about wide saddles with lots of padding. Wear padded bike shorts instead. Look at the pro racers who ride 100 mile plus races day after day after day. Bike shorts and a small light saddle. And an iron butt, of course.
-
-
- Well, the thing is, that seat looks a lot like the seat used on a lot of recumbents (that use a solid-bottom seat with a web back)–except the recumbent seat bottoms are wider, longer, are contoured better and have more padding. …And the recumbents have a seat back to recline against as well. …And the recumbent pedals are set higher relative to the seat (which is the real reason that upright bicycles are so uncomfortable to ride) so your legs don’t get pressed hard into the front edge of the seat–which is the typical problem with trying to use extra-wide seats on conventional upright bicycles.
-
- You mentioned getting one for an exercise bike I see… -have you ever tried a recumbent exercise bicycle?
~
Recumbent bikes have a drawback that DougC does not mention. They are much less visible from a car. Imagine, you are riding beside parked cars on a city street. You approach an intersection, only to be nailed by some guy making a right at that intersection, who didn’t see you. We bicyclists get run off the road often enough that any reduced visibility is a bad thing. People preferentially see that which could do them harm - trains, cars, etc. They tend not to see, and to turn left in front of, motorcyclists and bicyclists. A recumbent just increases the odds.
The only thing I have against a recumbent exercycle is that the horizontal position makes it harder to work your cardio system. That is one reason bicyclists and swimmers tend to have lower VO2 max’s then runners. (There are other reasons, also.) A recumbent bike is more horizontal than an upright, but other than that it is not a bad idea. You are certainly more likely to use a bike that is comfortable, and recumbents are more comfortable.
This is a popular misconception. Recumbent bikes designed for street use are quite tall. My daily ride is a Gold Rush Replica, and I can see over the top of most sports cars.
Also, there are very few instances where being low to the ground becomes a visibility problem. If there was a refrigerator on the road lying on its side, do you think you’ll not see it and hit it? Car drivers are always on the lookout for low obsstacles. And you shouldn’t count on being visible past cars and other obstacles. If you do, next time you drive by a van or SUV you’ll get hit. I’ve also used a very low recumbent trike on the streets of Tokyo and felt quite safe doing so, as long as I observe basic precautions (i.e. behave predictably, follow all traffic rules, take the whole lane if I feel it’s the safest option).
Right now, recumbents are fairly rare and therefore not instantly recognizeable as bicycles. I believe this is an advantage, because drivers treat them as unknowns, i.e. potential threats. Standard bicycles are instantly recognizeable as something that cannot harm them.
Recumbents have another safety advantage: the rider’s visibility. A road bike is designed to have the rider lean forward, with the head tilted down. This is not conducive to a good view of the surrounding traffic. On a recumbent, the rider’s head always faces forward. (Or slightly up, which is a lot better than down.)
One other advantage I noticed is that recumbents can stop on a dime. Most of them, anyway. If you slam the brake on an upright bike too hard, you pull a “header” (get thrown forward off the bike). This just can’t happen on a recumbent because center of mass is further back and usually lower*.
I do recognize recumbents have certain disadvantages - ease of transport, as already noted, is a major one. They are also heavier and more expensive. But traffic safety is not one of the disadvantages. I have used both uprights and recumbents extensively in city traffic, and I feel far safer on a recumbent.
*This isn’t a contradiction. A person’s center of mass is near the belly. If a recumbent and upright had the same height (i.e. rider’s head at the same height), the recumbent rider’s center of mass is lower than the upright rider’s.
-
-
- Heh — dude, it doesn’t matter WHAT kind of bike you ride–some people who run into you on a bike will insist to the police that they didn’t see you, even if you were riding down the middle of the street dressed as Bozo, were juggling a dozen bowling pins and had a lit Roman candle stuck up your butt.
-
- Also I would add one small additional disadvantage–with a recumbent, you basically need to have some kind of rear-view mirror, because you usually cannot turn and look behind you at all. A rear-view mirror only costs $12, and is a real good idea if you are riding any kind of bike in heavy traffic anyway. -But on an upright bike, you can do without one. On a recumbent, you must have one–it’s the only way to see behind you at all.
~
I must disagree. So you can see over the top of most sports cars. On any road or mountain bike, I can see over the top of all sports cars, and every vehicle lower than a minivan. That doesn’t mean that people won’t see you. The fact is 10,000 people a year die because someone runs a red light or stop sign. Those are people in cars. Your odds are worse on a bike or motorcycle. They are worse yet on a recumbent, because there are plenty of cases where two feet of height makes all the difference.
If it makes you feel better, fine. Deer and skunks are treated as potential threats, plenty of them get hit too.
I’ll grant you this, but I’m trying to think of a bike-car collision in which the bicyclist claimed “I never saw him!”
One reason I ride mountain bike for commuting is that I can stop quickly. I can also jump a curb quickly. I even have a shot at hopping a car. Try that in a recumbent.
I know three adults who have been hit by a car while riding their bikes. One was a former collegiate fullback. Because of his high center of gravity, he rolled over the car. His bike was totalled. The car was almost totalled. (I’m talking a big guy. He flattened the roof of the car.) His nose was broken. In his case, that high center of gravity saved his life. My other two friends were not so lucky. They were hit from behind, while in a bike lane, by a driver who drifted over. She died, he was thoroughly battered. I don’t see that being in a recumbent would have made much difference, but maybe the increased frame would have helped.
I also know two kids who were hit. One had a head-on with a car on a rural highway. He was thrown up, the car drove underneath, and he was unharmed! (My little brother watched the whole thing.) The high center of gravity saved him. The other kid drove into a parked truck. He died. Maybe he would have been safer in a recumbent.
At any rate, a bicyclist high center of gravity has its advantages. I have no idea which is safer in a near collision.
Most people feel safer in a car than in an airplane. Which is safer?
And what do you do when you encounter a minivan? If you ride in a manner that requires you to see over cars, or requires drivers to see you past cars, you are riding recklessly.
I’m not sure what scenario you are talking about. If someone runs a red light, how is 2 extra feet of height going to help you? (And my recumbent is not 2 ft shorter.)
That’s because they are unpredictable and do not obey traffic laws.
You mean an accident where the bicycle rider isn’t looking far enough down the road and does not notice a car coming out of a side road? Happens all the time. Car drivers often underestimate the speed of an approaching bike and pull out in front.
True, but I can compensate by not riding too close to the curb. I always leave room for evasive action.
I don’t see how it could have hurt either.
There are certain situations where an upright is safer, and certain situations where a recumbent is safer. It also depends on the rider’s skills - I don’t know how to do a bunny hop, but I know the limits of my recumbents well. I don’t think you are justified in making a blanket statement that recumbents are lower and therefore unsafe.
By the way I know enough quite a few recumbent riders, and inevitably several have gotten into accidents. One was going downhill fast and had a head-on collision with a car that was taking a corner very wide. (Both legs broken, no other injuries.) Another had a collision when an oncoming car made a turn in front of him. I myself was hit from the back while waiting at a red light. None of these accidents had to do with bike height. In fact, in case of my rear-end collision I was on a Bacchetta Aero highracer which is higher up than the car driver’s eyes and headlights. Apparently I and my bike blended in with the big truck in front of me, and since my bike is extremely narrow below the driver’s line of sight he didn’t see it. In that particular case I may have been safer on a slightly lower bike.
When I say “I feel safer on a recumbent,” I mean I’ve had fewer close calls on my 'bent. I admit I had more automobile/car accidents on a 'bent, but 1 vs. 0 is hardly a statistically valid difference, especially since I spend far more time on a 'bent than an upright.
By the way, do most people really feel less safe on a plane? I don’t. There’s nothing to hit up there. 