Leather saddles: Brooks, Lepper, Selle Anatomica, seat covers, saddle maintenance, etc.

General:

Saddle tests and comparisons:

Various:

This site is mostly about leather saddles, which I started to use again quite a lot when I did a lot of cycling (say 7000-8000 km per year and trips of 100+km per day) from ca. 2007.

Support this website!

Each donation helps me to continue. If you want to support my reviews, use the paypal link below. With a donation, please indicate in a message if there is something specific you would like to see reviewed/analysed, I will use those inputs then to decide what to test next (besides what I want to buy for myself to use, I will review those products in any case)



Support this website,

http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/ with € 10,- Support this website,

http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/ with € 5,-

Future: I would like to do tests of other saddles from brands such as Gyes, the newer types of Gilles Berthoud, newer saddles by Selle Anatomica, Pearl etc. as there should be more competition to Brooks and thus proper tests of such saddles are needed, but unfortunately I didn't get round to it yet. Perhaps in 2019, or perhaps not the way certain things are going and what else I need to do this year. But if you have a specific saddle in mind that should be tested, let me know... My main interest would be the Berthoud Aspin and Aubisque saddles, see the section 'Other possibly interesting saddles', for more on this topic.

2019-5-1: If all goes well I will test the Berthoud Aspin and Aubisque and Lepper Tourer to start, though I will likely travel a lot this summer too so I'll have to see how to combine this...

In 2007 I started having a look again at leather saddles when faced with the need for a replacement for a damaged Rolls ergo saddle on my touring/cross bike. I didn't and still don't care much about the weight, comfort is more important and they have a certain coolness as well. Perhaps that's because I grew up with them as my dad used Brooks saddles. On my city bike in my youth up to a few years ago, I used a saddle which I believe is a Brooks B66 Champion which always felt comfortable (I still have it, but the lettering is worn off), though I didn't then feel "Wow this is much better than a plastic saddle". Only when making longer trips do the differences stand out far more. Later I quite liked it and as the saddle was in very good shape I tried to find a similar one. The B66 Champion has an old style saddle clamp so I was looking for a saddle with similar saddle top shape but for a patent seat post.

In the end I got a few types of saddles and used Brooks saddles on all my bicycles. Another saddle I used was a B66S on my dad's old bike. I didn't know this was the ladies version of the B66 saddle... (I didn't look closely at the type number, and only realized later what this 'S' meant). More information on this can be found in the description of the B66/B67/B68 below.

I've used lots of different types of saddles and from those experiences I could conclude a lot of facts about the essence of esp. certain saddle shapes. Which saddle type is right a cyclist also depends on the width of each person's sit bones. Note that I have fairly close sit bones, ca. 8 cm apart, and my weight is about 80 kg; breaking in duration of a saddle and whether that saddle is suitable for you, depends on both and I give some indications on suitability for other people in various places.

Firstly, in my youth I used various normal plastic saddles that came with bikes. Never thought about comfort, I used them for city use mostly. Hardly any 'long' rides (say 10 km or more) and then I can use just about any such saddle without problems.

Secondly, I've used a few saddles with gel, and there was only 1 that was comfortable, the Rolls ergo saddle that came with my Koga Miyata Terraliner carbolite (1992). I used that for trips from 10-30 km and the occasional longer trip up to ca. 160 km for about 15 years. No problems at all. Another saddle with a thick gel layer was so bad, that after just a few km, everything went numb. In general, saddles should be hard in at least a few specific places, those places being where the sit bones are located... As the sit bone width differs per person, a saddle I find comfortable may not be comfortable for you. But, gel saddles are in general bad if they're too soft (when the gel layer is too thick, for example). The gel will be compressed and soft areas around the sit bones will get a high pressure which is bad.

I started my analysis of saddles for myself in the period since trying to find a replacement for a damaged Rolls Ergo saddle. I tried a Swallow, and then a Conqueror, and after that many more from Brooks and a few from other manufacturers. Due to circumstances, I could not do new saddle reviews nor have I made other updates from late January 2011 up to and including July 2011, but most important saddle tests had been done up to that point. Even after that period of no bicycling, tests only got underway slowly, too slowly. I could only do a few saddle tests even up to early 2014, and I concentrated on bicycle lighting during that time. Note that I usually test saddles for a minimum of 2000 km before making a judgement on how good/bad a saddle is, so a test takes a lot of riding and time and work, to keep track of changes in the leather top over that time period. In some cases I have used a saddle a lot more such as with the B17 Imperial where I wanted to to see what happens with the cutout after a long time.

So, most of the important tests with saddles had been done early 2011, giving a broad view of which saddles are suitable for which style of riding, and the results should give a view of how suitable some saddles from other manufacturers that I didn't test will be for specific purposes and specific sit bone withs, from having a similar shape saddle top/width as the saddles that I have reviewed.

What interested me further after I had reviewed most Brooks saddles was doing modifications, to see what could be improved with cutouts.

Btw, I've got various Brooks catalogues, and e.g. from 1937/1938 which you can find scanned here. Quite interesting to see how little things have changed (as with most of cycling). [ 2018: moved during reorganisation of my site, not sure if/when I will put it back ]

They are cool if you like classic style saddles.

They are cool (they keep your bottom cool, unlike say gel seats).

Usually very comfortable when the saddle gets broken in, more so than non-leather saddles. A leather saddle, if wide enough for your sit bones, will very probably be comfortable when broken in because it gets soft precisely where needed, i.e. around the sit bones. A plastic saddle needs to be perfect from the start: If it's not comfortable, it never will be.

They are heavier than ultralight saddles.

They are uncool if you don't like old style saddles.

You need to keep them dry with a seat cover... (there are waterproof leather saddles, but how waterproof are they really?).

They are not 100% perfect, not even 95%, especially with Brooks. So saddle 1 may show various differences compared to saddle 2...

As to the issue of variations in saddles, you can see this especially with Brooks saddles: Sometimes the leather shows a grain (line in the leather) which can also mean colour differences in the saddle. The name plate is often crooked, and the holes of the Imperial saddles are usually not very symmetrically placed left and right, the camfered sides are often not symmetrical left-right, even the cut of the leather is not always symmetrical. The leather thickness can vary a lot too, from about 4mm (extremely thin, I only saw this once) to 5.5 mm (very thick). These deviations are not considered defects and for use not an issue, except that I consider the 4.0mm thick leather too thin, a saddle will sag too soon (I consider 5.0 mm hard leather the optimum). To me the other differences show it's handmade product, and none of these issues affect the saddle's suitability, only some of the very thin leather I could consider a defect as it surely means longevity will be not high.

I did have some real problems with a few Brooks saddles, with the carriage. Of some the rails were not parallel, I measured more than 2mm deviation in the width of the carriage from front to rear on the clamping section. Brooks didn't consider them faulty after they measured them, but I disagree. The problem was that I couldn't then clamp down the saddle well enough. I will add some pictures and precise measurements. I thought Brooks allowance on deviations in the frame were unacceptably tolerant. My measurements show this batch to be over that limit and strangely when they received back those saddles they measured them and found them to be OK. Weird, as they were not actually within their given specifications...

I wanted to review more competition for years, but didn't get round to much. I had issues with Lepper (regarding availability of saddles), I wanted to use/review some Gyes saddles, who might be the best competition to Brooks (I mean in the same price range) though not well known. However, I've not found the types I wanted for sale (with stainless or titanium carriage), and they didn't want to sell to me directly except in a batch of 100 saddles... The other options are high quality and high price saddles by Gilles Berthoud. I may do that finally in 2019... Selle anatomica make a few new types of saddles with different carriage in 2018, but still they use too narrow leather esp. at the front which means with cutouts the leather will stretch too much. Why don't they change this? See the section Other possibly interesting saddles.

In general I want good, durable equipment. I prefer to spend a little more if it lasts longer. Some further thoughts: You don't buy saddles often for a single bike (or rather: It shouldn't be necessary), so just as with good quality leather shoes, the price shouldn't be the most important factor as it will be used a over a long period. So why economise? It should more importantly be comfortable and of good quality exactly because it will be used a lot. Of course, for occasional cyclists or those who just don't care about it (who only use bicycles for short trips within city/town) this is not an issue; they can select any rubbish saddle or other bike component and it will get the job done. But those sort of people won't read this page! So if you are reading this page, you will want a good saddle, QED :)

In general a saddle must be narrower the more you have an agressive riding position (the flatter your back), so for a road bike you need a narrower saddle than on a touring bike, and this can be expressed as follows:

Suitable saddles for:

Handlebar height lower than the saddle: Team pro, Swift, Swallow, B17 narrow (or B17-narrow Imperial) or Lepper Voyager. Possibly a B17 Imperial.

Handlebar height approximately the same as the saddle height (give or take a few cm): B17, B17 Imperial, possibly the Team professional or Lepper Voyager.

Handlebar height higher than the saddle: B67 or B68 (esp. for city bikes, but for a touring bike with more sporty position I liked the B68 too).

The saddle should be wide enough that the sit bones sit on the leather that's not directly on top of the frame or even just beside it (so it can deform). This is also why a leather saddle should be a bit wider than a plastic saddle for the same person riding those saddles.

You can feel the width of your sit bones with your fingers. Note: this changes depending on position (the more in a race position you are sitting, the narrower the sit bones) so you must sit on a chair in a position similar to the one on your bike, then feel for the sit bones, and then keep your fingers at that distance and measure with a ruler the centre to centre distance of your fingers (which should be the same as the centre to centre distance of the sit bones). Another method suggested in various places, is to use a piece of cardboard (thick ribbed that can deform, such as used in most packaging boxes) that you sit on (dents in the cardboard = sit bones) but I don't think that works very well.

Another method is measuring a leather saddle that you already broke in. Look for the spots where there are ripples in the leather. There should be 2, 1 one each side of the saddle. Measure the distance of the centre of one of those spots, to the centre of the other spot. This is your sit bone width.

Example: Suppose the sit bone width is 13 cm, then a B17 is just about ok, and a Team pro, Swift/Swallow are too narrow. With people who have wide sit bones (say 11 cm and more) the saddles will deform such that the sides go down a bit at the position of the sit bones, which gives a ridge in the middle which can irritate. In this case I would strongly suggest the B17 Imperial instead of a regular B17, with which this 'problem' can never occur (I will add example images of such 'ridges' in broken in saddles). If you have a narrow sit bone width of say 8-9 cm then any Brooks saddle is wide enough and the choice depends purely on riding position.

SQ lab dealers should have a device to measure sit bone width, so if you have a shop nearby with such a device, it might be a good idea to ask them to measure your sit bone width.

2011-10-17: Today I measured the width of the frame underneath the leather of most saddles which I had planned to do for a long time but didn't get around to earlier. For this I measured the middle of the part of the frame on the left to the middle of the part on the right.



There needs to be some room to deform so I think you need to deduct at least 2cm from that, 1 cm from the left and 1 cm from the right where your sit bones can come so that deformation and a comfortable riding position is possible. This gives the following table, but keep in mind that the sitbone width varies with riding position, the more aerodynamic you sit, the narrower it is, i.e. you need to measure the width in a specific riding position to determine which saddle is possible to use. This is why a Swallow is fine for racing even if with an upright cycling your sitbones are such that it may seem to be too narrow. To make this more clear I added (2019-12-28) a classification for which the saddle is normally used: U = upright, M = medium riding position: a bit sporty but can be upright, R = Racing position.

Saddle Width of the frame Maximum width of the sit bones for which the saddle is suitable B68 (& B67, B66) 18.0 cm (U) 16.0 cm B17 14.5 cm (M) 12.5 cm Team professional 13.0 cm (M/R) 11.0 cm Lepper Voyager 12.2 cm (M/R) Here you might say: 10.2 cm, but on the other hand, the Voyager is rock hard and it may not matter much :) Swallow 12.0 cm & 11.5 cm a bit more forward (R) 9.5 cm Swift 12.0 cm & 11.5 cm a bit more forward (R) 9.5 cm B17 narrow 12.5 & 11.5 cm a bit more forward, but that part doesn't hinder due to leather curvature (R) 10.5 cm

This is a patent or micro-adjust seatpost (in this case with polymer based suspension built in):



Most saddles these days are made for use on a patent seatpost.

Here's an old type straight seatpost and a B66 Champion that has a built in seatclamp for such a seatpost:



Not many saddles are made for this type of seatpost, the Brooks B66 and B66 Champion are well known ones that are, but there are saddle clamps with which you can use a saddle for a patent seatpost on a straight seatpost.



It seems to me that it's a better idea to buy a saddle for a patent seatpost even if you have an old type straight seatpost, so that you can use the saddle on a new seatpost if you decide to change it, or for on a new bike. There are so called 'seat sandwiches' which allow you to use a Brooks double railed (on each side of the saddle) saddle on some patent seatposts, but are meant for some seatpost with a single 6mm bolt. You may have to hunt for longer bolts in other types of patent seatpost, and it will not work at all with some types of seatpost (e.g. Kent Eriksen).

Note regarding prices: These are approximate recommended retail prices, and can vary quite a bit due to exchange rate fluctuations or other reasons. Prices for Brooks saddles have almost doubled since 2007 for various reasons... (among them the price of titanium for the ti-railed saddles, but also apparently Brooks needed higher prices to get themselves in better financial condition, and for the US, the importer there has jacked up prices a lot on top of that). Note further that for the full leather saddles, masses can differ from my measurements as the thickness of the leather varies per saddle...

Note: The Rolls ergo is no longer made. The standard Rolls seems to have been unavailable (in NL at least) for a long time but now both the standard and titanium railed version are available again. Experiences: The Rolls Ergo is the same as a standard Rolls but with a thin gel layer between the plastic shell and the leather. I used a Rolls Ergo (labelled 'Koga' as it was on a Koga-Miyata bike) for ca. 15 years (and more than 50,000 km) on a road/cross bike. Towards the end it got uncomfortable, because of the gel layer that deformed (not sure if the gel ages, it could have been because the saddle got damaged a bit after a few falls and the gel shifted, or something). The gel layer in the ergo version is fairly thin, probably the reason this is the only gel saddle I ever liked. Conclusion: Very good saddle. Introduced in 1983, and a generation of cyclists grew old on it (well, nearly), before the light weight craze that started (again, and this time it was serious spreading to all of cycling, not just road bikes) ca. 1993 and saw people choosing saddles such as the Flite. After trying the leather saddles with cutout, I'm not too keen on using a Rolls again though. With the Flyer-aged I used after the B17-Imperial, I got the same feeling (pressure) that the Rolls used to give me. I didn't have physical problems with this in the past, but I really prefer the leather saddles with cutout now. 2016-7-25: Recently I got my hands on a San Marco Rolls again, this time the standard version, which is lighter than the gel version and instead of gel has a thin layer of foam underneath the leather which gives a feel not that different from what I remember from the gel version. It's interesting to compare the Rolls directly with some Brooks saddles, after not having ridden with one for many years. I made a longish ride of more than 60 km on my standard bike without suspension with the B17 Imperial, after not having ridden for more than 2 months and got a bit saddle sore. The B17 imperial is acutally pretty harsh (no spring in the leather because of the lacing which makes it quite stiff, and I had to get used to it again), and the days after that I still felt it a bit while riding, but with the Rolls (on my 2nd bike) I felt it more than with the B17 imperial... The Rolls is good, but the surface gets too warm from the foam underneath it which isolates the heat, which is annoying on warm days and comfort is less than that of my favourite saddles, in particular the Team pro with cutout. I can't recall having felt 'it gets too warm' with the Rolls Ergo, perhaps that was better in this regard.

Note: These 3 saddle types have the same leather top. The B66 is the original version, with springs, dual rails and an old style saddle clamp for old straight seatposts. The B67 is the version with springs and single rails meant for newer 'patent' (micro adjust) seatposts. The B68 is the version without springs, also for patent seatposts. Example of a B68 mounted on a touring bike:

Experiences: The B66, B67 and B68 are wide saddles, only suitable for upright cycling (relatively slow cycling on a city bike). [ well, not quite, after using a B68 for a while on the touring bike I know it can be used for sporty riding positions too; I'll go into this a bit more at a later date. ].



With the B66S I used I encountered a phenomenon that riding this saddle one day, a narrow saddle on another bike the following day, I got a lot of pain in my pelvis. So, for me the B66S was definitely a bad saddle. Perhaps not surprising as it's a women's saddle (I didn't realize that it was a women's saddle until later. This saddle was mounted on my dad's bike and strangely, I've noticed that many men's bicycles in the Netherlands that have a Brooks saddle, actually have a B66S. Why is that? Bike shops just selling them women's saddles as they want to get rid of them? Or just not knowing that the B66S is meant for women?), but women's saddles are simply shorter and wider than men's saddles. Perhaps being shorter + wide and thus the angle at which the sides go out is an issue. But I suspect it simply means riding a wide saddle if your sit bones are not far apart, is bad and that that caused the pain. Update: The angle with which the saddle gets wider probably does matter, as I don't have this problem with a B68 (men's saddle). I used B68 for a while and I didn't have the above described problem with the B66S. The saddle was comfortable from the start which is why I don't see the point of an aged version. There's also an Imperial version of it now, but I'm not sure if that's really useful for this saddle type. I just got a new (made in 2010) B67 and I was very disappointed that the springs are of the hard type (coil wire diameter is about 4.95 mm, i.e. the same as the coil wire in the Flyer aged I tested and which gave no comfort improvement over a B17 at all). Conclusion: The B66/B67/B68 have a leather top that should be almost immediately comfortable for upright cycling. I don't think the springs of the B67 nor the current B66 are useful, they are too hard. If you have an old straight seatpost, just use a seatclamp with a B68 instead of getting a B66. If you want one with springs anyway, I would also suggest not getting a B66 if you have an old straight seatpost, but getting a B67 and a seatpost clamp. That way you can use the saddle with newer seatposts too. All in all from the B66/B67/B68 I only recommend the B68. The B17 (or perhaps a Flyer, if you really want those hard springs) is an alternative to the wider B66/B67/B68 if you are accustomed to narrow saddles on road/mountain bikes and if you usually ride in a more aerodynamic position than fully upright even on a city bike. In that case I would suggest trying a B17 first.

Note: The B66 Champion is no longer made, and is replaced with the Flyer which is meant for newer ('patent') seatposts. This is available in various versions: the standard Flyer, the Flyer Special and the Flyer-aged. There is an important difference between these saddles and the B66 Champion: The springs in the Flyers (from ca. 1999 on, see Brooks' response to my question) are much stiffer, and don't give much comfort... Experiences: The B66 Champion is for old style seatposts, has springs and a B17 shape/size leather top. My saddle (it was my dad's saddle, and is by now ca. 40+ year old, I estimate it's from the mid 1960s), is ca. 16.8 cm wide, later ones are ca. 17.2 cm wide; I think 4 mm is in the realm of normal deviations for handmade saddles, and not that my saddle is a different version) I've used it for years on a city bike. Worked fine, also for quicker riding when putting one's forearms on the handlebar for example. I recently bought a second hand B66 Champion which is 17.2 cm wide, mass is 1060 g. This saddle is chocolate brown. This saddle is from ca. 1991 according to the seller, and that fits with the colour as that was used around that time. Upon checking the frame I noticed the leather on the older B66 Champion is cut closer to the metal frame. The frame itself is exactly as wide as that of the newer model. This explains the width difference of 16.8 to 17.2 cm between the older and more recent model. Especially for the 2nd saddle, the leather is very soft, comparable to current pre-aged models. Together with the soft springs this may account for the comfort of both these B66-Champion saddles. Conclusion: The B17 is one of Brooks best saddles and this too is therefore still an excellent saddle. However, the B66 Champion is meant for old style (straight) seatposts. It's also no longer made... For standard 'patent' seatposts you can get the newer versions, the Flyer, Flyer-aged with laces which has a rough top which you won't slide of off, and the Flyer special with large copper rivets. However, as I noticed in 2009, the springs for the B66 Champion and old versions of the city bike saddles B66/B66S are a lot softer than those of the Flyer which resemble more the hard springs of the Conquest/Conqueror. The old B66 Champion's springs do actually feel quite nice after trying my really old saddle again. My conclusion not long ago (this was mid 2009) was actually that springs were useless. Hmm.... (coil wire thickness in both B66 Champions is 4.55 mm, compared to 4.95 mm of a Flyer from 2009 and a B67 from 2010)

Experiences with a Flyer aged: Comfortable from the start (softer leather than the regular Brooks leather), but, after having used in particular the Selle Anatomica and B17-Imperial for most of the past 9 months, the middle section irritates a bit when riding in a aerodynamic position. For upright cycling, e.g. if you only use it for fairly slow cycling in the city, this saddle is quite good. I can get used to it, as I have in the past, but I prefer a B17-Imperial myself... A note here on the soft leather: This means the leather doesn't need a break-in period, but it also means a lot of strength is lost. The leather stretches a lot as I discovered when trying to do an Imperial modification to the Flyer-aged. For a short while (a single 10 km ride) it was fantastic but then it was already stretching. This shows how much the leather stretches compared to normal stiff leather. I will write more about this soon. The thing about the leather is, it really only needs to be soft in 2 places: Those 2 where the 2 sit bones sit on the leather. That's why I think regular stiff leather is best. Also note that some types are immediately comfortable. The B68 I tried for example was great from the start so I don't see a need for a B67 aged, B68 aged, nor a B68 Imperial. Note on the springs: The current Flyers have quite stiff springs, comparable to the Conqueror/Conquest. I would prefer the old soft springs... (coil wire thickness in this Flyer aged from 2009 is 4.95 mm; compare that to the 4.55 mm for the B66 Champion!) Conclusion: The Flyer is a useless version of the B17 because the hard springs that are used since 1999 don't add any comfort to the ride. To whomever wants suspension in the saddle: Get a B17 + suspension seatpost instead of a Flyer.



Small addition: Some people think the Flyer helps take the edges off of bumps in the road even if they are less heavy than I am. I may test this aspect with my full weight on the saddle as I usually sit in a sporty position such that a fair part of the weight goes via my hands on the handlebar. A Flyer could also last longer for people who weigh more than 100 kg because with unsprung Brooks saddles there are quite a few reports (on German forums at least) of carriages that broke fairly soon. Multiple times... Perhaps the B67 select and Flyer select are the best Brooks saddles for a weight of >100kg?

Experiences: Comfortable from the start (I don't think it's softer leather than the Team pro and Conqueror, but that this apparent softness is caused by the different shape of the saddle which allows deformation/flexing), showing break-in signs (ripples in the leather top where the sit bones sit on the saddle) after ca. 1000 km. Same shape leather top as the B66 Champion. Comfortable, but only with the handlebar height at saddle height or higher. For the titanium carriage version:

1. The rails are often not quite standard width, being a bit narrower or wider (a few millimetres) than standard. The rails can be bent outward automatically in most seat clamps, but this depends on the clamp design. There's even a special version of some seatposts for a Brooks which I think was related to this 'problem'. With standard steel railed versions, this problem seems to occur far less often.

2. The rails are a bit more fragile than steel rails. For heavy duty touring or very long tours where you want to be sure (well, fairly sure, everything can break!) that the saddle doesn't break during your trip in the middle of nowhere, I would suggest a steel railed version. Those extra 120 gram don't really matter on a bike+rider+equipment mass of say 100 kg...

My experiences: I only tried it in modified form with the Swallow-imperial modification. There were some interesting differences: The saddle didn't sag as much a lot of use, and perhaps what happened after that is related: I let the bike outside my tent (of course) in Germany, and didn't put on a raincover. It was raining and the saddle was soaked next morning. I had to return to NL so I had to ride on it, and it quickly sagged a lot! I thought the saddle was ruined, it was deformed too much and uncomfortable. When I got home, after 2 days riding on it, I let it get soaked again and formed it back into shape and let it dry out, to see what would happen. After drying out, the saddle was perfect again, no need even to tension the saddle! This was great. I had tried to soak-reshape-dry-out the Selle Anatomica after it got too stretched, and it just doesn't work there which is almost certainly because the leather on that saddle is too soft (just like the Flyer-aged that I modified). The specially selected leather of the B17-select could be a reason why this works so well. I'd have to do more tests with regular leather saddles from Brooks to compare more. The leather of the B17 select that I used certainly didn't seem tougher/harder than normal leather saddles (note that the leather hardness varies a lot, I notice this especially when doing modifications where I need to cut the leather), but it did not sag as quickly (in normal use) which does show there is something different. The leather colour: This will quickly turn to honey and then antique brown. The more you use it, and especially if it gets wet a few times, the more quickly it gets darker.



Here are pictures of the B17 select that I modified as a B17 swallow imperial, next to a B17 special in antique brown that I also modified in the same way. Which is the select?







Answer: Picture 1: The saddle on the right. Picture 2: The select is the saddle on the top. Natural colour: Note that while doing the Imperial-swallow modification I soaked the saddle to bend over the flaps underneath the saddle and almost nothing of colour came off into the water so the B17 select looks to be uncoloured or almost so. This makes it the best saddle if you want to ride with beige/white trousers on the saddle in Summer. Preliminary view: The frame is good, not so slippery on the rails which means I don't have the problem that I often have of saddles after a while being in a different position than in which I had fastened them. The leather does look to work very well, and for a proper long term view of how long the leather lasts I would need to ride with a saddle much longer, there are indications that the saddle's leather is better selected than for Brooks' regular saddles.

Experiences: Fairly comfortable from the start (using cycling clothes), esp. for racing. A lot of spring, too much even (for me). When pedalling at high frequency (road bike, ca. 100 rpm and higher) it almost gave me the feeling of bouncing off the saddle. But I'm not comfortable with more than 100 rpm in general (it's hard to keep on the saddle whichever type). With an upright position I still find it ok with bike clothing. Using normal clothes it's a bit less comfortable in that position. No real break-in signs yet after ca. 500 km. You need to take care it doesn't get wet or this saddle will stretch (and sag) a lot. Broken in sample with sagging leather: This happens in case of soft leather, and the leather varies in each saddle. It's impossible to predict but this one was extreme in how quickly it got broken in. A Swallow-ti that I had used for about 1500km showed no signs of sag/breaking in whatsoever to give an extreme other example. This Swallow chrome showed signs of breaking in (ripples in the leather around the area of the sit bones) after a few km already (I have never experienced that with any other sample of any saddle I used). This shows the difference in different samples of the same type of saddled, because of the leather.

These pictures were made after about ca. 300km use:

Conclusion: Looks great on a road bike and it's comfortable, but I would use the newer version with steel rails to remove the bounce that I think is a bit too much. However, the spring from the titanium rails is also part of why the Swallow-titanium is so comfortable. The Swallow-chrome on the other hand is a lot cheaper [ The steel railed version was reintroduced in 2008, it was the standard model available up to, I believe, the early 1990s. ] Update: The bouncing issue with the Swallow-ti could be due to me not being used much to pedalling at 100rpm and more. At the time I started using the Swallow I cycled with about 90 rpm and I wanted to ride with a higher cadence. I will investigate whether the feeling of bouncing was caused by that.

Experiences: Still not broken in after 1500 km, but from the start it was comfortable for me as the saddle's shape is such that it's wider for a longer section of the saddle than with the Conqueror. It has a fairly good shape, which stays so after a very long time, contrary to e.g. the Conquest/Conqueror. Fairly comfortable with handlebar height lower than the saddle height. For a little more upright riding position this saddle is suited too, comparable to the B17, perhaps even better because the top is flatter, but only if you don't mind the fact that the saddle feels harder than the B17. Conclusion: This is a more classic style saddle (unlike the Swift). It's quite comfortable for a road bike or touring bike on which you ride with a more agressive riding position. Undervalued compared to other saddle types, in particular compared to the Swift which to me seems an overvalued and not particularly good saddle. Those who can't get along with the Swift should try the Team professional, B17 or B17 narrow (standard or Imperial versions).



Experiences: First impression: Rock hard! After about 120 km it feels a bit softer, or perhaps I got used to the hardness? After about 240 km it feels a bit better again. After 400 km still better and there are signs of breaking in (ripples in the leather). This might be caused by structure in the leather as it's predominant on one side (pictures to follow).



After 600 km it feels quite good. It seems to be actually better than the B17 narrow Imperial, but I'll have to check that with side by side tests. After 700 km it feels great in cycling clothes, a bit too narrow (or hard) with normal clothes sitting a bit more upright.



Sometimes in a position as on a road bike, it feels just a little uncomfortable due to not having a cutout (I'm comparing it here to the B17 Imperial, not the B17 narrow Imperial). After 700 km it remains approximately the same. I see no other changes in the saddle (used ca. 1400 km). Having switched briefly to a B17 Imperial again to compare the difference the cutout makes, I have to say the difference is very large. I don't have problems with saddles that have no cutouts, but the pressure on the soft tissue is gone and going back the B17 narrow after that makes me wish for the Imperial... After more than 1600 km, the saddle stays in the same shape as when it was at ca. 400 km. One 'problem' with the saddle was uneven discolouration of the saddle. It looked as if the colour, after the saddle having got wet a few times, leaked away from one area to another (pictures to be added). I did an experiment by letting the saddle soak in a tub of water to get rid of excessive colour from the saddle (this could help prevent the saddle giving off colour on a summer's day due to perspiration). The result is a beautiful dark brown colour but some spots of different colour (a bit lighter) remain. There's a bit of structure in the leather (again pictures to be added) which first made me think the ripples in the leather on one side were caused by a weaker section of leather at that point, but the saddle is rock solid so it doesn't affect structural strength. All in all I think the discolouration issue is caused by local variation of the leather in various places in this particular saddle. Here is the B17 narrow in antique brown, after having been used for 1100 km, slight discolourations, ripples from breaking in, and the grain of the leather that can be seen on the left is not at all of influence on the strength nor on breaking in:

Conclusion: This saddle is probably only suited to people with narrow sit bones. It gets quite comfortable with (padded) cycling shorts after a relatively short 400km and gets a bit better still after that. With regular clothes and slightly more upright posture it's slightly less comfortable. A good saddle for a (vintage) road bike or fixed gear bike. If you don't have problems with saddles without cutout, it's a nice narrow saddle, if you do have problems, try a B17 narrow imperial first...



Note: The B17 narrow is very much underrated. People who don't like the Swift should try the B17 narrow as it usually works well...

I remember the introduction of the Swift in the early 90s (first Dutch ad in the magazine 'Fiets' was in the April/May 1993 issue). I think it was the first Brooks saddle with a titanium undercarriage. Dutch ads had a slogan "Gewogen en niet te licht bevonden" that translated means: Weighed and not found to be too light. Here, the 'weighing' as used in this way is usually meant as checking whether something does what it should do, and if it's not found to be too light, then it's good enough! So, that was a play on words in Dutch, meaning other saddles may be lighter, but may also not be any good... One thing I do notice from pictures on the web, is that after breaking in, the middle section protrudes quite a bit. Many people swear by this saddle, but I'm not sure I will like it seeing the comfort improvement of a B17 Imperial over a standard B17. A standard B17 doesn't have this protrusion problem (I think just as with the Team professional, that this not happening with the B17 is because of the shape of the leather top), but still the Imperial is much better, so perhaps for me the Swift perhaps won't be very good after breaking in (then again, I've seen distorted saddle-tops of saddle types that stayed flat when I used them long term, so it might be a non-issue). Experiences:



At first: Hard, not very comfortable (as with most Brooks saddles). I tilted the nose up a little bit as otherwise I would slide forward to the narrow section. Very soon after using the Swift, it was exposed to heavy rain and the raincover I put over it wasn't put wholly over the rear apparently, as the back of the saddle got quite wet. I didn't realize this until I noticed I could already see signs of break-in (the saddle had been used less than 100 km). It was quite comfortable at that point. I don't know how long breaking in would otherwise take, perhaps I will test with another Swift at a later date. At that point the saddle felt good when I set it up horizontally again. I do get what I saw on pictures on the web, i.e. the middle section protruding... I don't have a problem with it (yet?). What I notice is that it's very fiddly to get the saddle properly set up so I don't slide forward, not get trouble with my 'soft tissue' getting too much pressure. As this point of the endurance test of the Swift, I don't like the Swift as much as for example the B17 narrow which is just as narrow, which is much easier going and where I have none of the issues I have with the Swift.

Brooks Swift, broken in:

All right, further experiences: The saddle got fairly wet again a few times due to a leaky saddle cover, and I tensioned the saddle twice. There's some sag which tensioning won't really improve. I think if the saddle hadn't got wet so much this would not have happened, or perhaps it has just speeded up the process. The saddle has been used for about 1000 km and I'm still not sure if I like it or not. Well, the dislike I had on a few occasions, caused by how fiddly it was to adjust the saddle position to my liking, has now gone as it doesn't appear that fiddly to setup any more. This is possibly caused by the tensioning (saddle becomes slightly longer) and slight sagging. In any event, the saddle seems to suit me better now...



A long time later, after much more testing, I find that I can never get it dialled in as I want it, so this saddle type just doesn't suit me.



I will perhaps modify a Swift in Imperial style at a later date to see how much that improves things. Brooks Swift laced Update 2012-7-14: Finally started tests of a laced Swift to improve on the sagging. Results so far: Shape is much better, the drooping is less and so the saddle aim isn't as critical, but the ride is very hard, harsh I'd say! After a few more rides and more riding in position nearly as on a road bike, the saddle is quite good for such a riding style, for which the sag in the front helps prevent too much pressure in the middle, and the shape in the rear is ok. But of course, the ride is not soft! I've ridden it for ca. 100km, more experiences to follow. After much more use: the saddle's shape is clearly kept by the lacing, the drop of the leather near the nose helps prevent pressure where you don't want it, so all in all I think the Swift, when laced, is a good saddle, better than the unlaced.



Now make the holes, and lace it:



On a bike, after having been used this way for a bit:



And on these pictures it has been used a lot. The shape is kept well with the lacing:





For those who can't do this themselves, I offer a modification service (can be applied to a used or a new Swift, so it's possible to buy a new saddle with this modification). Conclusion: I understand why some people can't get used to it, and why some people love it. It's a saddle that needs care for precise adjustment in saddle height, saddle position (nose slightly tilted up) and also a saddle that will deform clearly to ones sit bones. This saddle is a 'love it or hate it' type of saddle as I heard a few times, and my experiences and the experience of others I asked confirm this. It's not a saddle for me...

You may want to have a look at the B17 narrow or Team professional first...

Or modify with lacing! 2018-7-3: I mentioned possibly modifying the saddle as the Imperial, I never did that, and I recommended against it to some people who asked about it, because when I thought more about it at that time, there just doesn't seem to be enough leather left around a cutout if you were to make a cutout, so I am pretty sure with a cutout in the middle the saddle will stretch too much like the Selle Anatomica. Also the leather in all the Swifts that I've encountered is fairly thin, 4.5 to 4.8 mm at most whereas with many other saddles it's usually just a litte thicker (I saw 4.5 in most saddles, also the Team pro, but often also saddles of 5.0 and sometimes 5.5mm, never saw that with the Swift). Another issue, with the Team pro in particular the leather is very hard to cut in all cases that I made cutouts, all of which seems to suggest that the leather Brooks selects for the Swifts is softer than esp. the Team pro.

Note: These saddle types are no longer made. The Conquest is the same as the Conqueror, but with large copper rivets. The Conqueror was probably discontinued in the early 1990s (mine is from 1992). The Conquest was introduced probably in 1988 (In 'Fiets' Sept./Oct. 1988 p. 79 the Conquest is shown but not mentioned by name; the first Dutch ad I know of is from June 1989 which says the Conquest is a new saddle) and was discontinued after 2007. Experiences: It took about 800 km to break in. Until then it was uncomfortable due to the very narrow profile despite its 16.0 cm width. The reason is that it only gets wider very close to the widest part of the saddle. It's fairly comfortable after breaking in, but after about 2000 to 3000 km, the saddle starts to sag (which means the left/right sides sag a bit, and the middle thus protrudes...) and the middle bit tends to irritate more than in the beginning when you're cycling in a road bike position (e.g. when resting one's forearms on the handlebar with a headwind) despite the width being the same as the Team professional. Conclusion: I've seen others mention the same problem of early sagging with their saddle on various webpages... If you can find this saddle, give it a miss and try a Team professional, B17 or even a B17 narrow (preferably the Imperial with cutout).



2012-12-6: You could use this saddle and lace it as I did with the Swift, that could at least counter the sagging.

Experiences: The saddle is, as usual with Brooks, from very hard leather. So from the start it's quite a lot stiffer than the Selle Anatomica, but the cutout in the middle does give a fairly comfortable ride from the start, and one doesn't get the feeling of sliding off to one side as one can get with other smooth-top Brooks saddles. Sitting forward (e.g. elbows on the handlebars in a headwind or using the drops on a road bike's handlebar) the saddle is much more comfortable than other Brooks saddles due to the cutout. I.e. no pressure on the genitals... I presume the saddle's comfort will increase once it's broken in (that's usually after ca. 1000 km cycling, the leather then gets softer around the area of the sit bones). At this moment the Selle Anatomica is better comfort wise. But the Selle Anatomica is more of a 'hammock' style saddle, so that the Brooks is better for quicker riding and when you want more control of your bike (e.g. in city traffic). And comfort of the Brooks will almost certainly improve... A new B17 Imperial just installed on the bike:

First update: After about 400 km the comfort increases quite a bit. There really aren't visual signs (=ripples in the top layer of the leather at certain points) of break-in yet but the top has softened none the less. The stiffness I previously felt near the sit bones was gone. So perhaps it's already nearly broken in despite no visual signs. After about 500 km it's getting near the comfort of the Selle Anatomica, but without any deformation of the leather top... 2nd update: after ca. 800 km there are slight signs of breaking in. After ca. 1200 km the saddle is probably fully broken in, with clear signs of breaking in (ripples in the leather on both sides where the sit bones are placed on the saddle) and very comfortable. 3rd update: After 2000 km and 2 months very intensive use, the saddle appears fully broken in. There is hardly any deformation of the top, and the laces really keep the saddle's shape (you can feel the tension in the laces when you sit on the saddle). It's not as comfortable as the Selle Anatomica, and probably never will be, but it's very good. After more than 4000 km and having been soaked several times because of the defective saddle cover (see at the bottom of this page) after which I had to use the bike, the saddle is still fine, doesn't sag and there's almost no deformation. The slot in the middle is a little less wide as the sides are a little curved now (because of the lacing and the weight on top), but the comfort is still fine. After 4800 km (summer, fall, winter, heat, downpours, snow, this saddle has seen it all):



Note that in the first 2 pictures of the Imperial mounted on the bike, the side view was photographed with the saddle rails tilted up a bit, so that bear that in mind when comparing them. 2011-10-29: Btw., I was asked a few times whether I noticed the lacing, in use or from wear to clothes. The answer is: no. I don't have more wear of my normal clothes nor of cycling clothes from the lacing and I don't feel the laces at all while riding. This is perhaps also due to the fact that the sides of the saddle are slightly bulging after a lot of use, i.e. you will have more contact with the smooth leather on the sides of the saddle, rather than the laces. Conclusion: I rate the Selle Anatomica's comfort higher, but durability (and sustained high comfort) of that saddle may be an issue as you can read in my review of that saddle, so my preference is for the Brooks Imperial. Note: The B17 Imperial, B17 Narrow Imperial and B17S Imperial all came with 3 extra coloured laces (red, white, cyan) until mid 2009. After that, all the Imperials I've seen only came with black laces and the stock photo on the Brooks website was changed to one without the extra laces. I read somewhere that someone from Brooks noticed almost no one actually used those laces so I suppose that's why they were not included any more. However, from 2011 then all Imperials I had seen came with 3 extra laces again. Anyway, if you want you can use any 75 cm long laces from a shoe store. Smooth ones with hard exterior are probably best w.r.t. wear of the lace from your thighs or clothing rubbing against them.

Experiences: B17-Imperial-narrow: This saddle is pretty good from the start, but there's noticeably more pressure in both the upright and road bike position. I suggest using the B17 narrow Imperial only for use on a road bike. In general the Imperial standard is almost always better (even if your sit bones are very close together, because mine are very narrow too). The cutout in the middle makes that one can put the handlebar lower without bother, an effect I previously noticed with the Selle Anatomica (usually, a saddle must be narrower the lower the handlebar is placed, to remain comfortable). After a lot of use, depending on how hard/thick the leather is, the slot can become quite narrow. This also happens with the normal B17 Imperial but there the effect is far smaller after the same amount of use, presumably because of the shape of the leather. Here the cutout in the leather can be made the same shape as originally, unlike with the Selle Anatomica where you can't cut away enough:

Saddle was used ca. 1500 km or so, the saddle has also seen a lot of rain:



Comparison with original cutout:



After tracing that shape on the saddle and recutting the cutout (with sharp hobby knife, X-acto or similar):



Even with the narrow cutout it was quite good, but now it's better.

My view before using it: The Colt was introduced ca. 1983/1984. From pictures it just looks ugly to me. I don't know how well the shape of the saddle works but I had mainly seen negative comments on the net, so all in all I was not really interested in testing it also because it wasn't available any more. Typical, just when I wrote that down it was reintroduced in 2010. Tested since: 2011-10-2. Used: I'd estimate ca. 1000km. At first: Rock hard and very narrow, reminds me of the Conqueror which was very uncomfortable until I had used it for 800km. Well, the Colt also feels very narrow, as if it gets between my sit bones. As my sit bone width is about the narrowest there is, this means everyone will probably feel this, i.e. more pressure on the middle/soft tissues. I let it get wet a few times in rain but it stays rock hard! How it looks: At first I thought it was ugly, but I kind of got used to it after a while :) Letting it get wet in the rain resulted quite quickly in not just ripples in the leather but indents where the sit bones. The leather on the sides where my sit bones are has sunk down quite a bit as the indents are big. I have seen this with for example the Swallow, but in that case it was a Swallow with particularly soft leather which already showed signs of breaking in after 10km... In any event, with these indents, the leather in the middle forms a ridge which protrudes and annoys me while riding. The saddle's shape hasn't changed since that soaking by the rain, and it's now been used ca. 1000km. I think as with the Swift, the Colt is a saddle that simply doesn't suit me (except with lacing, see further on). The saddle's shape (addition 2020-1-25: which is fairly round on top, not as flat as other Brooks saddles) as with the Swift seems to be such that a large indent and thus protrusion of the middle section which can irritate, is more likely to occur than with other saddles. For the Colt and the Swift I recommend making a long test ride of at least 10 km, with a broken-in saddle. If you have that option from a shop... Another option which would remove this problem would be to make a cutout, imperial or oval, and then the saddle should be much better even if your sitbones sink down a bit from the leather deforming to them. However, I have not tried this option, so see this as a suggestion, nothing more. I'm not going to try it myself...

Colt mustard with Proofide applied:



I've expanded this section from a page with pictures that I made for the manufacturer, to ask about the Selle Anatomica Titanico LD: "Is this saddle stretching normal?".

Contrary to what the name suggests, this saddle doesn't have a titanium, but steel carriage. The rails are very long and flexible: You can move the nose of the saddle up or down with reasonable force. Perhaps this helps in making the saddle as comfortable as it is. Initial observations and experiences: Comfortable both in upright and road bike position. This is remarkable as usually, a saddle needs to be less wide the lower the handle bar is placed. This is probably because of the deformation in the saddle's top while cycling, that the cutout allows. After more than 2 months and more than 1300 km: The saddle I've been using from early December 2008 to end of February 2009, deforms too much. In particular I had to use the tension screw of the saddle a lot which also means the cutout at the front is almost gone, it's just a slit... The rear part I actually had to cut 3 times because the leather was touching and even overlapping. Comfort is now a lot worse in the road bike position (forearms on the handlebar in case of a headwind or just to cycle quickly). This is why I put the following question to the manufacturer: Selle Anatomica observations Some questions/comments about the Selle Anatomica that I've been riding for about 3 months now (more than 1000 km): I've cut the touching edges near the rear twice to the 5mm width when not seated. (update: It's now 3 times :) )

I had to use the saddle tensioner a lot because the leather stretches so much that the underside of the leather touches the seatpost...

The front slot has almost disappeared... This means the comfort in 'bent forward' position (i.e. when I rest my forearms on the grips, giving a position similar to on a road bike; this is in cases of headwind or just to ride quickly) is far less than it used to be. I don't suppose I can cut this forward section as it would mean structural strength would be lost and the leather stretching more etc.... Is this typical or not? This is how the saddle looks after 2 months use (Click on the thumbnail images to enlarge:)



Reply from the manufacturer (note that I also asked about other laminate posibilities): Because we work with leather, natural not manmade material, we see the saddles may change little bit different from one to next. It is possible your slot shape has become slightly too narrow to give particular pressure relief your pelvic basin anatomic most likes. You could trim the slot shape wider with razor knife. You should only use the tension adjustment to provide riding comfort. Some people think the saddle needs to look a certain way when they are not sitting on it and use the tension to make the appearance that seems correct. This is not the way to adjust tension. Once again, due to leather material, a small number of saddles will use up all tension travel prematurely. We simply warrantee those saddles. We investigated various laminate techniques and are using best possible at this time... So, Apparently my saddle is one of few that stretch too much. The manufacturer says this can happen due to variations in the leather, but is rare. Also, (in another email) he said that some saddles use up most of the travel in the tension screw in the first 3000 km, then it stops. That may be so, but what remains is that my saddle has a slot that's just about disappeared and I won't cut the slot wider because that would mean loss of structural strength. So it's impossible to get back the original slot and that is what gave me the comfort... The saddle is still comfortable, but nowhere near as good as in the beginning. I will perhaps try a second saddle (but my interest has mostly gone for various reasons, including the realisation below about the saddle's leather width near the nose). Until I have done so and that is positive, I can't recommend the Selle Anatomica without reservations. Technical matter: The leather is only 2 x 2.5 cm wide strips just after the nose, so even if stretching elsewhere in the saddle isn't a problem, won't this always give stretching issues? (and hence deformation and the cutout getting smaller because of it). By comparison, a Brooks Imperial has leather ca. 7 cm wide on each side of the cutout (and much harder leather), so shouldn't have stretching issues. I've seen other reports from people whose Anatomica stretched too much, and there aren't many returns apparently, but will people who have such a stretched saddle just not report it or do many riders use them (and their bike) very little? One comment about stretching by someone who had no problems, was that only people riding the bikes a lot (long tours) have this problem. Well, that's not a valid argument. What does it matter how much someone rides? In fact, these saddles only make sense if you ride a lot... Perhaps there are more issues with stretching than you can find on the web and than the manufacturer knows, as people may not actually make a claim... Unfortunately, there are not that many experiences of this saddle on the web, and all the long term experiences I have seen were about complaints of stretching. Of course one has to keep in mind, that negative experiences will usually outnumber positive ones because of a psychological effect: If something works, there's little reason to write about it. If it doesn't work as they want it to, people will complain about it. So all in all it's very hard to give a proper assessment of the problem. That's why I base my conclusion on 2 points: The way my saddle deformed and the technical aspect of the width of leather on the sides of the cutout. Conclusion: Very comfortable, but may not remain that good for long. The saddle is also very long, giving a lot of flex in the steel carriage. I'm not sure if making it shorter would remove a lot of the comfort, but one disadvantage of this long saddle is that on stepping off the bike, I regularly got my coat entangled with the saddle's nose. Almost never happened to me with any other saddle. Finally, the saddle is very low, and my saddle's leather which sagged a bit, kept hitting the seatpost. This Sakae FX post has fairly high clamp assembly, but still, this is the only saddle with which I ever experienced this as a problem. (Update: I also have this problem with the Lepper Voyager...)

I got an email from Selle Anatomica late 2011 about testing a new saddle that should be better for heavier riders, ca. 90kg or more. I'm not that heavy but as there are plenty of people who have problems with the Selle Anatomica stretching way too much even below that weight (note that I used the 'Clydesdale' version of the original Anatomica, which is also for heavier riders) and perhaps that's why they didn't think I should take part in their test. Well, why even send me an email then, even if automated they must surely be interested in feedback from someone like me who tests a huge amount of saddles in all circumstances? I will let others be the guinea pigs now and perhaps if the newer saddles hold up, I will buy and test such a newer type saddle.

The original Lepper Voyager was introduced ca. 1998 I believe. See below for more information on the original version. Lepper Voyager 2009: A new version of the Lepper Voyager has been released in September 2009 after several years of absence. It has a much better undercarriage design... Experiences (with a Nubuck version made in spring 2010): I've used this saddle for about 500km (update: More than 1800 km now). I will expand this as I use the saddle more. N.B. 7 September 2010: There are now 3 versions of the Voyager: Voyager : The standard version with ca. 5 mm thick leather (*) with smooth top + 1 mm layer on the bottom.



(*) According to Lepper, leather is in the range 4.5 mm to 5.2 mm, which is the thickness the leather naturally comes in. This is the same range of thickness I see with Brooks, even though Brooks say they specify 5 mm or thicker leather. Thicker leather than about 5.5 mm always means at least one other layer glued on. There is a large difference between leather of 4.5 mm and 5.2 mm even visually, so perhaps selecting thicker leather for single layer saddles would be a good idea but I'm not sure if that would give problems in availability or price.

: The standard version with ca. 5 mm thick leather (*) with smooth top + 1 mm layer on the bottom. (*) According to Lepper, leather is in the range 4.5 mm to 5.2 mm, which is the thickness the leather naturally comes in. This is the same range of thickness I see with Brooks, even though Brooks say they specify 5 mm or thicker leather. Thicker leather than about 5.5 mm always means at least one other layer glued on. There is a large difference between leather of 4.5 mm and 5.2 mm even visually, so perhaps selecting thicker leather for single layer saddles would be a good idea but I'm not sure if that would give problems in availability or price. Voyager soft touch : The Nubuck version has an extra 2mm layer of leather of Nubuck leather on top which gives a suede like surface that you won't slide on (but it will get smoother with use) and the same 1 mm layer on the bottom.

: The Nubuck version has an extra 2mm layer of leather of Nubuck leather on top which gives a suede like surface that you won't slide on (but it will get smoother with use) and the same 1 mm layer on the bottom. Voyager lounger: The new version somewhat similar to the Lounger saddle in construction, which has the standard 5 mm leather, a layer of latex foam, a 2mm layer of Nubuck leather on top, and on the bottom the standard 1 mm extra layer. More information on these version differences to follow. Addition: 20 june 2011: Or not, because I still haven't got the saddles I ordered after 8 months, I give up on waiting for them. Experiences with the Nubuck version: The leather is very thick, around 7.0 mm (varying from about 6.8 to a bit more than 7.0 mm). The leather is a bit softer than a Brooks, so at first it seems it might not be rock hard, but it doesn't deform as much because of the thickness! Then in the middle there's an extra layer glued on, on the bottom side... This is obviously much thicker than any Brooks saddle (see the pictures). This should remove any questions one might have about the durability of the leather top. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, Brooks saddles do not appear to have worse quality leather or thinner leather than 'in the old days', but there are some concerns about durability (i.e. you could have a saddle that deteriorates rapidly, just because of natural variations in the leather, but with a top as thick as with the Voyager, that's very unlikely, it will probably last a lifetime). Leather tensioning is done with a standard screwdriver. The carriage of the Voyager looks to be solid, in any event much better than the old (late 1990s, early 2000s) versions. The top of the saddle has a shape (curvature) very similar to a Brooks Team professional and that's how it feels like on the bike. This means for me it's instantly good but not as comfortable as my broken in B17-Imperial. The top has a suede feel to it, not like a Brooks at all which is usually very smooth and you're likely to slide left/right on them for a while. The top does get smoother and after 500 km it's a bit closer to a worn Brooks, but still on the rough side so you won't slide on it. The saddle is a little bit heavier than a Team professional, but considering the leather thickness it's not that much. After 500km There are signs that the saddle has been used (slight sag) and it feels a bit more comfortable. I like it more the more I use it... After more than 1800 km, the saddle looks a bit darker (see Colour changes of leather saddles through wear), the top is a bit smoother, esp. the nose, and the leather is darker. I think it looks really nice. I have no doubts as to durability of this saddle. Lepper voyager after ca. 1800 km:

Addition: Another Voyager from July 2010 that I got has ca. 5.5 mm thick leather (plus the 1 mm extra layer as with the version described above) which also weighs a bit less, ca. 535 g. The top is also a bit smoother, not as smooth as a Brooks. I think the smoothness is good since the roughness wears off a bit anyway. I'll have to ask Lepper about the thickness variations. Addition to the addition: Aha, this was actually a different version of the Voyager. Lepper should do something about giving proper information about their saddles. Addition 2: Someone who made a test ride on my B17 and Lepper Voyager made the comment that the Voyager feels like a plank. So, some people may not like it as it can feel pretty hard. Yes it's a hard saddle, but it gives support where needed and I just don't feel the saddle... Addition 3: A downside to the Voyager Soft-touch is that because of the thick leather the saddle never gets broken in in the same way a Brooks saddle gets broken in, so you won't see ripples or even dents in the leather as with a Brooks saddle in the region where your sit bones are. I'm not sure whether this is true for the standard version with just 5mm leather as well. This is perhaps a downside to leather saddles with leather thickness more than 5mm... Addition 4: The leather is a bit too low over the rails. Some seatposts with high assembly hit the bottom of the leather with the seatpost clamp. For some other saddle clamps there isn't even enough room! For example: I can't mount the saddle on my Airwings sprung seatpost. Conclusion: The Lepper Voyager is great if you like the Team professional, and will likely last much longer with its leather thickness of up to about 8 mm (where the extra layer is glued on). Comfort for me is good from the start, after 500km it's even better, and how it will change/improve I will find out in the coming months. The price is pretty good for such a thick leather top; about €90,- which is comparable to a Team professional with steel carriage. As to possible improvements: I would like to see a version with titanium or stainless steel carriage. Pictures:





The texture of the suede/nubuck top:



Leather thickness comparison with a Brooks saddle (an enormous difference!):





Carriage comparison with a Brooks B17: the rails have a longer clamp area, from slightly more towards the front, to a few centimetres more towards the rear (I like the latter as I like to sit forward):





Example on a bicycle:

The original version (introduced around 1998?): The original version of the Voyager (made in the late 1990s to about 2005?) with titanium and later hollow Reynolds 531 steel rails: I've not tried the original version of this saddle, but I will discuss it to compare with other saddles. There are problems with this saddle, many returned as defective and Lepper hasn't produced this saddle for years. I happened to come across these pictures that someone selling one made, and immediately saw what a poor design the undercarriage is:



The problems here are obvious if you have some feeling for or knowledge of mechanics. The front provides no resistance to torsion (as the rails meet very close together) which could lead to torsion problems (i.e. torn welds) in the front although the forces there are fairly small, but worse, at the rear the rails don't move outward to the wide section, which means the torsion problems there are big and these saddles do indeed break at the welds there. It should have been obvious that this would cause problems and from what I read the carriage was changed between prototypes (which didn't have this problem) and the final design, without testing. The steel version might be more reliable than the titanium one btw., but I wouldn't trust either of them. According to specifications this saddle was very light, ca. 340 g for the Ti version, and even ca. 265 g. for the version with hollow steel rails. The design, at least of the version with hollow steel rails is apparently by Alex Moulton. "Designed by Dr. Alex Moulton, the Voyager is an ultra light 265g saddle,Reynolds 531 tubing frame. Retensionable, black or natural, 155 x 275 mm." if you see one of these original versions for sale: Don't buy it. If you can get one for free, it might be usable but only for short trips because of the reliability issues. Btw., I think Lepper should have renamed the new saddle (even a simple Voyager2 would be enough) as there is now a connotation of unreliability which the new version doesn't deserve. The only thing the old and new Voyager have in common is the shape of the leather top. Everything else is quite different (leather thickness, different carriage).