The Saddle Battle: Your Most Important Piece of Equipment #saddlebattle

feel free to update us with how the long rides go with the PN3.0

To jump into this thread I’ve been struggling with my RXL saddle for a long time but put a lot of that struggle down to shorts/chamois vs saddle. Signing up for IM next season was the impetus to try out a new saddle. Demo’d the ISM PN 1.1 and on the second weekend put in just under 3hrs on a trainer ride - never would have been possible on the old saddle. So bought the saddle but weather hasn’t let me try it outdoors yet (which I could usually ride further before getting uncomfortable).

Anxious to see if I can get out before the snow becomes permanent this winter.

I’ll have year-long-in-the-tooth Short-Saddle interaction survey results wrapped this week and we’ll release those

There is a nice video on some aspects of saddle science I saw on youtube, specifically talking about and calculating torso and hip angle and aero gains. dam I cannot find the link

There is a nice video on some aspects of saddle science I saw on youtube, specifically talking about and calculating torso and hip angle and aero gains. dam I cannot find the link

ok now I have it…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNAh6FAm3ew

Which ISM Adamo? Wasn’t that part of the name of all their saddles until recently? Perhaps I’m mistaken.
I’m pretty sure my ISM Attack says Adamo on it and there was also the Adamo Road, Breakaway, Prologue, TT, etc…

I’m pretty happy with the Attack but I’m curious about the PN 3.0 and how it compares, thus my query.

The PN3.0 looks quite similar to the old Breakaway, Podium and Prologue. I tried a Breakaway several years ago and found it fairly comfortable but preferred the position flexibility provided by the Attack (later replaced by the PN1.0 I think), as I tend to shuffle around a bit on longer rides. However, as I now do mostly sprint duathlon with some olympic and 70.3 races, I tend to be locked in position better.

Looking forward to the survey.

I was hoping this thread would run a bit longer as I entirely agree with the thought that the saddle is crucially important. I’ve just been getting by and real comfort would be a huge gain for me.

I wondered if anyone had a thought on an ISM saddle that you could think of as the middle of their TT range? So if you were stuck with trying them yourself you could start from that one and go to others based on that experience. Or would be very happy to get any advice on what individual factors might help you choose one over another to try. I’m about 6 foot, 150 pounds and interested in longer tris if that is relevant.

I’d just start with the PN3.0 or what use to be named the Time Trial. Those two would work the best.

To the previous poster, the PN3.0 is quite a bit different than the previous ISM models. The Attack flared out sooner. The Podium is a great road saddle but didn’t seem to work as well for triathlon.

I would like to echo others on the quality of this post. I know kileyay is a controversial poster but he is a driver of content. Interesting ideas. Outside the box thinking.

If I were Dan, I would be talking to him about writing for ST (instead of banning him?).

As for me… I have considered flying to California for an ERO fit. I have spent well over $1,000 in the last 5-7 years on saddles and have yet to find one that makes me happy. I look a lot more like kileyay’s early, upright pictures and have not been able to figure out how to get more aero and comfortable on my own. Maybe it is just my morphology that limits me but I have paid for several fits over the years and they all have me sitting very upright and still not that comfortable. I’m not that powerful on the bike so optimizing aero is incredibly important.

Jim’s post about that “a-ha moment” of comfort and power would be more than worth paying for when amortized over years of comfortable triathlon racing.

There are some really boring threads on the front page right now where cycling scientists are arguing about aero wheels that are two or three watts apart in terms of performance. I can’t even understand what these guys are saying, it’s that obtuse. Yet I had to go to the 6th page on ST to find a thread with the word “saddle” in the subject. The search for “wheel” rendered 8+ threads in as many pages.

My contention is as follows: your most important piece of equipment in triathlon, by far, is unquestionably your saddle. rappstar made this statement some years ago and it has stuck with me ever since, even as I have not learned how true it is until recently.

I contend that this single piece of equipment, properly configured, can mean 30 watts in terms of performance, which is 10x or 15x the delta between Zipp and Yolo, or Enve and Flo, or whatever.

But to believe my contention, you must accept the following as axiomatic: the rotation of the hips (on a time trial bike), which is a function that is critically dependent on the part under your ass, has a causal relationship to power production and aero that is unsurpassed by any other component on the bike. Who vouches for that statement? I do. Pubes forever

#saddlebattle

I have ISM saddles on two of my bikes and they have been game changers. Before I got them I was limited in how long I could sit in the saddle and it was a limiting factor to long rides. Now it is not a limiting factor for me.

This is a really great and really informative thread (from a few years ago). I have two key takeaways:

  1. The right saddle isn’t necessarily +30 watts, but the wrong saddle can easily be -30 watts.
  2. Biomechanics are incredibly important to human performance, but are not easy to discuss in a text-based online forum. So we revert to quasi-uniform testable things, like the aforementioned aero wheel thread. Everybody gets faster on disc wheels, but it not clear who benefit from a split saddle v. traditional saddle.

This is a really great and really informative thread (from a few years ago). I have two key takeaways:

  1. The right saddle isn’t necessarily +30 watts, but the wrong saddle can easily be -30 watts.
  2. Biomechanics are incredibly important to human performance, but are not easy to discuss in a text-based online forum. So we revert to quasi-uniform testable things, like the aforementioned aero wheel thread. Everybody gets faster on disc wheels, but it not clear who benefit from a split saddle v. traditional saddle.

thought I’d give this thread a bump. #saddlebattle

Blog post diving into this topic deeper: Your Bike Fit Begins With Your Saddle.

Article and podcast with Ronan of Escape Collective to follow (will update when live).

I’ll bite on the crank length part - you mention 172.5 to 175 for Wove Pros. All? Or Rudy, Magnus, Sam who are all 6’4 plus? Goes against most of the fit ideas going so…would love to see examples across a range of athletes size wise.

I’ll bite on the crank length part - you mention 172.5 to 175 for Wove Pros. All? Or Rudy, Magnus, Sam who are all 6’4 plus? Goes against most of the fit ideas going so…would love to see examples across a range of athletes size wise.

Height will play a role, but even guys who are in the 5’10” range are on 172.5. While the Zeitgeist has been to go shorter, that is solely for opening the hip angle. In my blog post, I talk about two other ways to also open hip angle, and the effects of crank length on muscle recruitment - all of these factors have to be considered within a system and not separately on their own.

Now, I do propose that some of these guys that are 6’4” and taller could go to even slightly longer cranks, because as it is, their knees are ahead of the pedal spindle. It would be more biomechanically efficient for their knee to be over the pedal spindle. 177.5?? something to try in the off-season.

Since this thread has recently been bumped, I thought I would read through it and this statement got my attention.Yeah, I agree, and I’m trying to figure out exactly how to do just that. On the other hand, I have found one saddle dominates my fits more than any other over the last 10 months. Man or woman, doesn’t matter, they almost all choose the same saddle, the ISM PN 3.0.

Now, what we all believe is we’re looking for anterior pelvic rotation, and I don’t think I’d fool anyone if I tried to argue otherwise. However, if we agree with Slowman that we should observe and model those who are most successful, then I would be remiss if I didn’t take note that every male World Time Trial Champion since, well, forever, had posteriorly rotated pelvises. There was one exception, but only one. Many of those who are considered the uber bikers of triathlon also posteriorly rotated. Should we, therefore, ask ourselves if anterior rotation is what we should all be trying to achieve? Is it really the epitome of fit it’s made out to be? Sure, athlete’s look great when anteriorly rotated, but what evidence is out there that tells us it’s best?

I think we should also look at the history of the aero position, and understand when athletes began trying to achieve anteriorly rotated pelvises. It’s a fairly recent phenomenon, actually. I would argue there was one specific athlete who looked so good in aero, that he became the “P3” of aero positions - Dave Zabriske. Everyone wants to look like Dave and, while Dave was certainly a good Time Trialist, I would argue he was never great when compared to his peers at their best. Many would be surprised to know DZ never even sniffed a World’s TT podium. The very best don’t actually look all that great in aero, but that doesn’t keep them from being the best.

I only mention all of this because saddle comfort really became a big issue when athlete’s began trying to achieve anterior rotated positions. Posterior rotated, not as much. I’m just trying to play Devil’s Advocate a bit; I know why pro cyclists prefer posterior rotated TT positions. One only take a brief look at my “portfolio” to know I’m all about anterior rotation. That doesn’t keep me from asking if it’s really what’s best, though, because history might be telling us the most powerful position is just the opposite.

Also, men have no idea what women feel on saddles. If we did, we wouldn’t ride bikes.

Unfortunately, I’ll be unable to continue this discussion over the next 36 hours or so, but I do believe your premise is correct that performance is likely restricted more by poor saddle choice than any other piece of equipment. And, yeah, even I went to sleep on the aero wheel thread, though some of the topics could be interesting if it didn’t devolve into a “my PhD is bigger than yours” contest.I can’t speak for other women but a lot of people are surprised at my saddle position. I’ve never been fitted, and I really need a good fit. But where I’ve landed through my own experiment is I tend to ride with the nose up approximately 10*. Whether road bike with clamp on aero bars or my tri bikes, I tend to ride down in an aero position. Not so much for the aero, but to reduce arm fatigue. Aero, if any, is just a side benefit.

But the reason I’ve taken to riding nose up is because when I am down in that aero position, I rest my pubic bone on the nose of the saddle. Of course, for “soft tissue” injury prevention, I really very strongly prefer a saddle with a cut out. But since I don’t have any dangly bits to squish, I find it more comfortable to support my weight on the pubic bone more than the ischial tuberocities.

I was gifted an ISM PL1.0 some time back and found it to be genuinely horrible for me. To the point that I can ride no more than five miles before it quite literally becomes intolerable.

For the last several years, I’ve been on a shoestring budget (no hyperbole) that has prevented me from investing in a good quality saddle. But since I finished my degree and I am once again gainfully employed, I would really like to get a good, quality saddle. Budget is still something of a factor just because I am at best a middle-of-the-pack age grouper and have an exceptionally difficult time justifying investing several hundred dollars in a saddle. Might be a little different if a fitter made a recommendation.

My goal is to complete IMAZ this year, and I expect to be on the bike for a solid 7 hours, so comfort is going to be key to completing that and still have legs left for the run. I’ve done a 70.3 and it wasn’t too bad, but by the time I got to T2 I was pretty happy to be off the bike. I have no delusions about any kind of podium finish, even in age group. My goal is only to finish before 11:59pm. To that end, I don’t really care about how much power I’m putting out. I figure as long as I can still be relatively comfortable at 100 miles, the power will follow.

I rode a PN3.0 with a +8 degree tilt with success for two years, but ultimately decided to go make my own saddle. One of my first prototypes had a V-shaped cut into it when you looked at it from the side, so that upper tilt was built into it. And when looking down at the saddle from the top, it had a duck bill shape so that it tapered back from the nose before getting wide at the rear. This is actually where the name V8 comes from: the V and the figure 8 shape. Ultimately, we decided to make the foam progressively deeper as it reached the nose of the saddle, and when the pubis bones sink into the foam, it creates that V shape out of foam, and not from the carbon itself. We have a couple of female world champions testing that saddle right now.