ISM PN3.0 in hand and testing

[Former_User]

Just mounted the new ISM PN3.0 and will report back with my thoughts after riding today and racing on tomorrow

My first thoughts:

It has the largest cut out of any saddle I’ve worked with (I’ve ridding most ISM, Dash, Cobb, Fizik, SMP saddles available)The width of each individual arm is the narrowest out there. This reduced surface area places more pressure on the ischial tuberosity, but that also holds me in place betterThe cushioning is very soft/non-dense, so I my ischial tuberosity sink in quite a bit, though I’m not bottoming out. Rather, it seems this is holding me in place betterISM has narrowed the rear of the cut out seen on the Attack/PN1.0, which has provided more plastic shell further forward, allowing for the outside of the arms to be brought inwards on the PN3.0 compared to the Attack/PN1.0. That more gradual sweep on the Attack was a major issue for me in terms of the saddle interfering with the seams on my tri shorts and the pad in bike shorts. I’ll report back to state whether the PN3.0 shape alleviates that problem. See image below (note: this is not a standard ISM Attack. I took the padding off and put my own padding on and also shaved down the sides of the saddle to alleviate seam interference, and I chopped the un-used rear of the saddle off, and then covered with 3M Dinoc… not my best saddle wrapping job, but it worked)

[teichs42]

Just mounted the new ISM PN3.0 and will report back with my thoughts after riding today and racing on tomorrow

My first thoughts:
It has the largest cut out of any saddle I’ve worked with (I’ve ridding most ISM, Dash, Cobb, Fizik, SMP saddles available)The width of each individual arm is the narrowest out there. This reduced surface area places more pressure on the ischial tuberosity, but that also holds me in place betterThe cushioning is very soft/non-dense, so I my ischial tuberosity sink in quite a bit, though I’m not bottoming out. Rather, it seems this is holding me in place betterISM has narrowed the rear of the cut out seen on the Attack/PN1.0, which has provided more plastic shell further forward, allowing for the outside of the arms to be brought inwards on the PN3.0 compared to the Attack/PN1.0. That more gradual sweep on the Attack was a major issue for me in terms of the saddle interfering with the seams on my tri shorts and the pad in bike shorts. I’ll report back to state whether the PN3.0 shape alleviates that problem. See image below (note: this is not a standard ISM Attack. I took the padding off and put my own padding on and also shaved down the sides of the saddle to alleviate seam interference, and I chopped the un-used rear of the saddle off, and then covered with 3M Dinoc… not my best saddle wrapping job, but it worked)

I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on this. I’ve been bouncing around between the PN 2.1, PR 2.0 and PL 1.1 on both tri and roadie, trying to figure out what is best. This new one seems interesting

[Former_User]

While I’m testing this exclusively on a tri bike, it definitely has road bike potential. To date, the ISM Podium was the best split nose road saddle produced.

I took the padding off a Podium, had the rear 3-4 inches taken off, had Simmons Racing made a carbon mold of the shell, attached some Dash kevlar/carbon short saddle rails (from a Tri.7 I’d ridden to death… and the saddle-long hole in Dash saddles, for me, caused my shorts to punch up in the hole causing severe discomfort), put one layer of heat moldable foam on, added some foam on the rear to make it completely flat/level across the back (the Podium shell has an M shape when viewing from the rear) and sanded smooth, and then added 3M dinoc wrap for a sub 100g saddle. It’s by far better than any other road saddle I’ve used, and unlike the plastic ISM shells, it doesn’t break in and become a noodle after six months of riding…

The one issue with the above custom saddle (and the Podium)? the opening at the front is narrow, so when on the rivets and hammering, it doesn’t provide as much relief as I’d like. This new PN3.0 may be a candidate for a second custom carbon saddle - I’ve seen the PN3.0 all carbon in person at a demo and online, but it’s still too long for my liking and it deserves carbon rails, not the pop in rails ISM uses. That said, the ‘hump’ in the nose of the Podium is also why it’s such a great road saddle, but not great for TT riding… the PN3.0 doesn’t have that hump, so adding that into the above proposed custom saddle may be needed.

[Former_User]

first take:
arms are out of the way and that’s really, really nicethere’s still a bit of seam interference and I’ll report back after my race and a longer ride on Sundaythe nose has some shapelyness to it and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing. I’ll need a lot more time on it. I kind of wish it had a flat profile like the Attack/PN1.0I wish the paddding was a tad more dense and more grippy - like Prologo grippyThe materials used on this PN3.0 look identical to the materials and construction found on the Specialized Power and Tritone saddles - in a lot of ways, this looks like an ISM had a baby with a Specialized Power saddle…

[teichs42]

first take:
arms are out of the way and that’s really, really nicethere’s still a bit of seam interference and I’ll report back after my race and a longer ride on Sundaythe nose has some shapelyness to it and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing. I’ll need a lot more time on it. I kind of wish it had a flat profile like the Attack/PN1.0I wish the paddding was a tad more dense and more grippy - like Prologo grippyThe materials used on this PN3.0 look identical to the materials and construction found on the Specialized Power and Tritone saddles - in a lot of ways, this looks like an ISM had a baby with a Specialized Power saddle…

What are your thoughts with another month on the saddle?

[Former_User]

I’m struggling some/a lot.

thoughts; I loved the Podium for road riding, but if you got way on the front of the Podium with dropped elbows while in the drops (huge drop) the PN3.0 would provide a) the hump in the nose to hold the rider in place like the Podium and b) unlike the Podium, continue to relieve soft tissue pressure unlike the Podium while in that super aggressive position - hence the reason the Podium, for me, could never be used for TT riding.

But, for TT riding, the hump and slope on the front of the PN3.0 means this saddle needs to be sat further back on. I’m struggling finding the best position and fit on this saddle. I wish the nose was flat with no hump. The saddle alleviates most of the seam issues I had with the Attack/PN1.0.

I rode Raleigh 70.3 last week with it and because of my extreme difficulties finding the right fit with this saddle and not having an alternative saddle to go to at this time (original ISM Road maybe… though had some trouble with that saddle as well - needed a small hump right at the end of the nose/arms as a ‘stop’ point) - I just can’t hit good power numbers in my current fit due to my quads being used to help hold me in place. I can hold 4w/kg for 3 hours with relatively ease even on hilly/constant shifting required terrain on my road bike, but that’s reduced to 3.3w/kg on my tri bike with the current fit. I didn’t have that issue with the Attack, but then I had the seam issues with the Attack that were painful. Another example: on a stretch of road where I could hold 5.28w/kg for 40min on my road bike, I could only hit 4.41w/kg on the tri bike due to constantly having to push myself back.

I’m going to do some fit work tonight to see if I can get the saddle to work better, starting with moving the saddle back to flatten my back out and since my inclination at Raleigh was to scoot back. Though, I’ve tried riding with the saddle further back, with the aerobars further foreward and 0.8cm lower and I found the scooting back was need to hold me in place… so still a bit puzzled at to the best next move.

Even though I had fit issues at Raleigh, I found the saddle comfortable. photos of that sh!tty bike fit in action for a 2:17 bike at 3.32w/kg, not even 70% of road bike FTP.

And oh yeah, the 68oz insulated stainless steel bta was great and has been consistently great in training- kept fluid cold and I dropped a ton of people never to be seen again who had been staying with me at aid stations. I only got out of the aerobars throw the tighter turns and to grab some cold water to pour over me towards the end of the race; otherwise, I never had to exchange bottles, grab gels, refill a bta, or remove a bottle to drink out of.

[stevej]

So that was you I rode with for several miles?

Had I known that was you, I would have said something. Nice race man.

[Former_User]

Thanks and you looked great on the run! I was going to stick with you two or three that were riding together, but I decided to let you go to stay conservative and wait till I’m in shape at Chattanooga. told myself that if I wasn’t smiling on the run, I was going to risk over heating (it’s still in the low 70’s here in the mountains of VA, so 98 on Sunday was hot)

[Former_User]

update: So, in the past when using the ISM Road and Attack, I had to angle saddle up quite a bit. I’ve always angled my saddles up a tad to hold me in place and it works great. But, on the tri bike, I have the saddle quite a bit more than the road bike. With the PN3.0, I had not going to such an extreme angle as I had done with the Attack in the past. I finally realized that this is what was making my fit so difficult with the PN3.0. I adjusted the angle last week, raced over the weekend, and it seems things are better. Now, while riding the Attack in the winter/spring, I was able to hold 285w for longer 70.3 efforts, but I’ve been stuck at 235ish watts on the PN3.0 in the aerobars, but that number pops back up to 285+ when on the pursuit bars and when on a road bike. My power numbers were still a bit low in last weekend’s race, so I’ll continue to tweak the fit, but as of right now, the PN3.0 alleviates the issues I was having with the Attack in terms of saddle/seam interference, and the angle I’m putting the PN3.0 at is the same I was having to put the Attack at. I guess I’d chalk that up to a success with this saddle and I’ll be sticking with it. My fit is much improved since tilting the saddle up.

[jonnyo]

have you play with your position over the years? with your current fit…i can see why you want to tilt you saddle up to keep you stable… but there are gain possible if you change the position and dont rely on a tilt to stablize yourself…

[Former_User]

have you play with your position over the years? with your current fit…i can see why you want to tilt you saddle up to keep you stable… but there are gain possible if you change the position and dont rely on a tilt to stablize yourself…

definitely played with the fit over the years. This crunched up position was due to sliding forward on the saddle. With the further tilted saddle, I was able to move the saddle further back and raise the saddle height some, but as I said, there’s still a discrepancy between road and TT power that I want to further reduce. video of fit with saddle tilt, though there have been further tweaks including raising the saddle height more: video

[jonnyo]

seems like your holding the bar very differently in the video vs in races.

but in a case like yours…the sliding forward is mostly due to not been stable at the front. but perhaps you dont feel comfortable rotating your hips more?

i would say in most case with the ISM fit…i allowed me to rotate the athlete over more around the BB so opening the hips angle and getting in more aero position. this result in most case in a tilt down saddle. if your weight rest solid on your elbow…there wont be any sliding forward…

there should still be a gap between TT power and road bike but maybe 5%…

[Former_User]

much appreciated. In the photo, yes the hips are not rolled forward. But in the video, I’m not sure the hips can be any more rolled forward. For me, arm angle alone won’t hold me in place with a flat or downward tilted saddle and that means I have to use my traps, neck and shoulders to hold myself in place in a vain attempt, as seen in the race photo where I’m scooted forward. I’m not sold on the saddle titled down strategy, though I am seeing world tour road guys going this route and they look good while riding. I have played with that in the past and it led to neck and upper body strain over time even with arm positions that were at an angle that should, in theory, hold me in place better. I personally really do not like depending on my arms to hold me in place on the tri or road bike. I’ll keep playing with my current position and can post photos in the future of an updated fit.

[Former_User]

photo of current fit showing saddle angle - bike top tube level.

Video: Kickr set at 300w. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZS9X93bg14
seriously considering shorter crank arms and have located a source for 162.5 SRAM Red cranks with direct mount capability needed for my absolute black chainring.

Photos from above video: pushing the limit of my saddle height and won’t be surprised if I lower it a tad in the coming week. Not sure there’s much more forward hip rotation available and this is the lowest the front end of the SC will go shy of mounting the monobar directly to the base bar, warranty be damned. As is in the video above and photos below from that video, my arms are very relaxed and I can easily stay in this position on the saddle even over rough roads.

Knee angle:

hip angle:

[jonnyo]

i m not saying it s wrong… and obviously…your the one that as put the time in the saddle to test it.

the 3rd picture look good…position is solid. was this taken while pushing race pace watts or soft pedaling on the trainer?

if i had you on a fitbike…meaning no limitation of the SC…i would experiement by increase reach and lower the stack of the front end… you have long arms and i can see how your pushing the limit of that bike size position wise. But i think your body would be ok with a shoulder angle above 90 degres. in most case anyway…it make you slippery and save watts.

[Former_User]

Definitely appreciate the input. Was at 300w on the Kickr. I’ve had the monobar directly on the base bar before and while that’s an option for more drop, see option a) below. I can also scoot the pads forward, though that often strains my lats - I’ve tried but a Seb-like arm angle can be an issue for my lats.

I need the feedback, so thanks!

In my last post, pic 1 is just of bike, then video link and then pics 2, 4 and 5 are all the same photo just with angles added in 4 and 5. Pic 3 is 1sec later in the same video and shows closed hip angle - I’m on 172.5 cranks and I’m thinking of doing 162.5 to a) raise the saddle to get 1cm more drop which will help me because my arms are so long and b) open the hip angle more at the top of my pedal stroke - I race at 92-95 avg rpm’s and the shorter cranks could aid that as well

[Former_User]

ordering the 162.5 cranks, so can raise the saddle 0.8cm - think it’s .2cm too high right now; my angles are a tad off too: greater trochanter is a tad further forward and that knee angle is actually 150-151, and hip angle closer to 101; so lowering a tad to get the knee angle closer to 146-147 will be good (based on my history of knee angle vs. power output and tendon strain) and the 162.5 will allow for more drop. I think that should be a good step forward for fit and for power production.

[gandajens]

Just received my PN 3.0 so will be interesting to see if your takeaways so far are the same for me. Stay tuned.

[Former_User]

So, this seat angle is what works for me. My TT power is finally perfectly matched to the power I produce on my road bike at the same perceived effort. I lowered the saddle height by 1mm to ease some glut strain and it was good and bad: relieved glut strain, but the ever so slightly higher saddle height and associated greater saddle to pad drop provided a more locked in place feel.

I’m in the process of getting some 162.5 crank arms (purchasing through trisports.com; quarq dzero carbon w/out pm spider or any spider for that matter; mounting absolute black direct mount ring; $400) and this will allow me to raise the saddle 1cm and thus have the drop I need for a better fit and a more open hip angle.

Prior to tilting the saddle up to the degree seen in the above post, there was a ~45w difference between my TT bike and road bike/out of the aerobars on TT bike. Now, that 45w discrepancy is gone and I can hold higher power at a lower PE in the aerobars than when up and out of the aerobars, so this has me excited. At Raleigh 70.3, I held 239w (3.37w/kg) for a 2:17 bike split, but I was and I am confident I could have held 4w/kg on the road bike (based on my training numbers) and on my TT bike back when I had the ISM Attack saddle on angled up at the same angle seen in the above photo of the PN3.0 saddle. But, the ISM Attack caused major seam irritation issues. My recent training and today’s little ride with very punchy hills and rough road conditions confirmed that 45w discrepancy was a fit/saddle tilt issue and the discrepancy no longer exists, which is super awesome. 70.3 effort down the hill with some ftp work on that last cat2 climb to my back door:

Oh, and absolutely no seam issues and I’ve been wearing Desoto 400mile bib shorts which would have been impossible to do on the Attack without causing severe chaffing and discomfort. So, the PN3.0 is a keeper.

[Fab4mas]

So, this seat angle is what works for me. My TT power is finally perfectly matched to the power I produce on my road bike at the same perceived effort. I lowered the saddle height by 1mm to ease some glut strain and it was good and bad: relieved glut strain, but the ever so slightly higher saddle height and associated greater saddle to pad drop provided a more locked in place feel.

I’m in the process of getting some 162.5 crank arms (purchasing through trisports.com; quarq dzero carbon w/out pm spider or any spider for that matter; mounting absolute black direct mount ring; $400) and this will allow me to raise the saddle 1cm and thus have the drop I need for a better fit and a more open hip angle.

Prior to tilting the saddle up to the degree seen in the above post, there was a ~45w difference between my TT bike and road bike/out of the aerobars on TT bike. Now, that 45w discrepancy is gone and I can hold higher power at a lower PE in the aerobars than when up and out of the aerobars, so this has me excited. At Raleigh 70.3, I held 239w (3.37w/kg) for a 2:17 bike split, but I was and I am confident I could have held 4w/kg on the road bike (based on my training numbers) and on my TT bike back when I had the ISM Attack saddle on angled up at the same angle seen in the above photo of the PN3.0 saddle. But, the ISM Attack caused major seam irritation issues. My recent training and today’s little ride with very punchy hills and rough road conditions confirmed that 45w discrepancy was a fit/saddle tilt issue and the discrepancy no longer exists, which is super awesome. 70.3 effort down the hill with some ftp work on that last cat2 climb to my back door:

Oh, and absolutely no seam issues and I’ve been wearing Desoto 400mile bib shorts which would have been impossible to do on the Attack without causing severe chaffing and discomfort. So, the PN3.0 is a keeper.

Hi milesthedog,

maybe you can help me choosin my next ISM saddle.
some facts:

I’ve been using an adamo racing since 2013 on my tt bike (a cannondale slice).at least 95% of my training is perfomed in aero positioni’ve no Hills where i live and i do not love them so i usually choose races (only 70.3 and IM) where i can be in aero position as much as possible (like 95% of the race such as IM Austria, Italy , Spain )i have not an iper-aero position, this is currently my setup: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ytw9fDSDgM0M66eJ1pqP8vbuyoyJUTG9xQ

Do you think the new PN 3.0 is good for me?

in the official ISM site seem that my kind of saddles belong to the ‘perfomance short’ category so the ps 1.1 (that seem really similar to my old adamo racing !!)because the ‘perfomance narrow’ category is more for people who want freedom of movement in the saddle…but i like to stay really fixed in aero position.

thx