Seatposts, layback, and a daft idea

[CJ]

You simply need to find a trader who can be bothered to import and sell you a "Zadelverzetter" (saddle adjuster) from VK International in Holland. The picture shows it used to adjust the saddle further forward. Turned around it can just as well shift the saddle further back.

VK Saddle Adjuster

zadelverzet1.jpg (8.09 KiB) Viewed 1575 times

[reohn2]

You simply need to find a trader who can be bothered to import and sell you a "Zadelverzetter" (saddle adjuster) from VK International in Holland. The picture shows it used to adjust the saddle further forward. Turned around it can just as well shift the saddle further back.

zadelverzet1.jpg

Thats the same one Horizon linked to at SJS cycles :- http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product-Unbr ... r-1307.htm

[531colin]

Having trouble with the technology to-day, so I shall do this in short bursts and add to it as edits. Takes me so long to type, I can't bear to lose typing I've done.
Firstly...WOW...what a great response!!
I remember those seat post adaptors from years back. Thought they had finished, but I have ordered one now I know.
The EA50 in my photo I have been hoarding for a good 10 years. When that was made the EA70 was all black, very similar in appearance to my post, but with even more layback.
All my bikes have "hockey stick " type posts, for 2 reasons. Firstly, they have as much layback as any, except the old EA70, why didn't I buy one when I could have? Secondly, the angle adjustment is stepless.
Still, I shall soon have 2 options, an extender, or a cut and shut with my steel post.
Thanks to all!

[rogerzilla]

I'm 6' 2.5" and don't have my Brooke's saddles fully back on any of my bikes, and never had. ???

The problem is that all these modern Taiwanese touring frames have idiotic 73 degree seat angles. No problem with a 1950s frameset, where it was 70 or 71 degrees.

[robinlh]

The Lycra clad anorexics like their saddles so far back,and their handlebars so far down that they can't actually breathe properly........
Robin

[GrahamG]

I'm 6' 2.5" and don't have my Brooke's saddles fully back on any of my bikes, and never had. ???

The problem is that all these modern Taiwanese touring frames have idiotic 73 degree seat angles. No problem with a 1950s frameset, where it was 70 or 71 degrees.

I think the real problem is that Brooks are still working to designs incompatible with modern bicycles - that strikes me as far more ridiculous than the fact that frame geometries tend to be slightly different to 60 years ago. I've got long legs and simply can't get a brooks far enough back on the seatpost (on a custom frame), funny how every other saddle I've ever tried hasn't posed a problem. The problem is the product; I've emailed Brooks about it but have yet to have a full response despite the initial acknowledgement email.

[Spiny]

Have you seen this one (the Velo Orange Grand Cru)?

http://www.freshtripe.co.uk/Freshtripe/ ... posts.html

Looks beautiful! Desire one for my old Mercian...

[Winkeladvokat]

Have you seen this one (the Velo Orange Grand Cru)?

http://www.freshtripe.co.uk/Freshtripe/ ... posts.html

Looks beautiful! Desire one for my old Mercian...

I have one on one of my bikes. Like others, my saddle nose needs to be 100mm behind the BB. The Velo Orange fits the bill precisely, and is extremely well made, with an excellent two-bolt clamp that permits easy angle adjustment.

[GrahamG]

VO post wasn't quite enough for me using a B17 - the rails on this were/are ludicrously short.

[531colin]

Hard to tell from a photo, but the velo orange post looks to be another one with similar layback to a regular hockey stick post.

[random37]

I'm 6' 2.5" and don't have my Brooke's saddles fully back on any of my bikes, and never had. ???

The problem is that all these modern Taiwanese touring frames have idiotic 73 degree seat angles. No problem with a 1950s frameset, where it was 70 or 71 degrees.

I think the real problem is that Brooks are still working to designs incompatible with modern bicycles - that strikes me as far more ridiculous than the fact that frame geometries tend to be slightly different to 60 years ago. I've got long legs and simply can't get a brooks far enough back on the seatpost (on a custom frame), funny how every other saddle I've ever tried hasn't posed a problem. The problem is the product; I've emailed Brooks about it but have yet to have a full response despite the initial acknowledgement email.

But surely, the problem is modern bicycles are incompatible with Brooks saddles?

The thing about the Brooks as a design is it's unimprovable. The fact that the B17 has been in production for nearly 120 years without any changes is testament to that.

Yes, someone does come along every couple of years and say they'll improve on it and invent the ultimate saddle. But always, they end up as a historical footnote.

[Chodak]

Worth considering one of these - not cheap but I can honestly say they are good for lightness and comfort

http://vannicholas.com/WbmAccessoriesDe ... QrGE5Mg%3d

I bought one from Cyclesense in Tadcaster, but needed a shim for it to fit my frame properly.

[sbseven]

Hard to tell from a photo, but the velo orange post looks to be another one with similar layback to a regular hockey stick post.

It has 30mm of setback: http://www.velo-orange.com/vogrcrusepol.html. Using one of these I've just about got my B17 back far enough on my touring bike.

The thing about the Brooks as a design is it's unimprovable.

I think it could be improved. Brooks could bend the B17 rail slightly differently at the front, thus adding 10-15mm to the useable rail length...

Shaun

[reohn2]

The thing about the Brooks as a design is it's unimprovable.

I think it could be improved. Brooks could bend the B17 rail slightly differently at the front, thus adding 10-15mm to the useable rail length...

Shaun

That just makes the cantilever effect even worse.Whats needed,for me to get a Brooks(either B17 or Pro)back far evough is a seat post with enough layback.
I ride with the nose of the saddle 90mm behind the BB, a Brooks on an old style Easton EA50(see 531colin's photo on page 1)can only get 78mm behind with a seattube angle of 72.5deg.
Those complaining about steep s/tube angles (and boy have I cursed them!)this situation is brought about by frames being made like race frames to get the wheelbase as short as possible,because thats what everyone wants isn't it????
As for having a frame tailor made,I'm not in a position to spend upwards of £600 then have to wait six to ten weeks for a few degrees more s/tube angle.
So I find the seatpost with the most layback and a saddle thats comfortable and if I break a saddle rail occasionally then so be it,life's a compromise but money buys (almost) everything.

[thirdcrank]

...
The thing about the Brooks as a design is it's unimprovable. The fact that the B17 has been in production for nearly 120 years without any changes is testament to that....

Can't really speak for the B17 - all mine were second hand and pretty old (not 120 years though.)

The Pro has changed quite radically since it was introduced in the early 1960's, and the shape of the rails is different. (I had an Ortleib 'saddlebag' fitted on a Pro of the original design and I could not understand why their catalogue said you would need to use straps to fasten it, rather than their solid mount. When that saddle broke and I tried to transfer it directly to a current model, I realised what they had been getting at.)