Peter White's interesting observation on saddle comfort vs shifters

 

He posted this to the touring list, but I think it is something that is interesting to a wider audience:

http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=touring.10708.0740.eml

 I've noticed a dramatic increase
in saddle complaints from cyclists since the early 1990s, when STI and
Ergo shifters became the norm on better quality bikes. With shifters in
the brake levers, it's much easier to shift gears than with other
shifters. So cyclists tend to shift gears more often now than they used
to, with detrimental effects on the old tush. Here's why.

I haven't put significant time on STI or Ergo shifters in about 10 years (my bikes have downtube or barend shifters).  I do tend to stand on small short inclines.  On Sunday I rode with my friend Rory who does ride with Ergo and I don't think he shifted much more often than I did or spent more time seated. 

Someone's probably looked at the photo above and is wondering why that bike has STI and barend shifters.  It was an overly complex setup:

  • STI left shifted a SRAM 3x7 hub
  • STI right shifted the rear derailleur
  • Barend left shifted a front derailleur
  • Barend right controlled a drum brake

If I still owned this bike I'd have ditched the 3x7 hub and STI shifters.

Published 29 August 2007 03:25 PM by AlexWetmore
Filed under:

Comments

# Rory said on 29 August, 2007 08:09 AM

the correlation between ergo/sti shifting seems flawed. i'm not going to try and defend ergo/sti shifters, but i do think it's a persons own responsibility to remember to stand and stretch while shifting

if we followed this logic, people who live in flat terrain would all end up impotent or with very soar rear ends. i'd wager a bet that a good majority of them aren't, or don't.

Also, bar-cons offer more access to shiters then down-tube, yet these don't seem to be included with the discussion.

if you were to propose anything relating to the early 90's and staying seated, it would be more along the lines of bringing in more gears in freewheels/cassettes.  since a 9 speed 12-25 offers a closer yet wider range of gears then a 6 speed 12-25 does, ones able to fine tune their riding to a perfect gear, and microadjust to get over a little riser while staying seated.

# Jim G said on 29 August, 2007 04:50 PM

Sheesh, that's an overly harsh prescription:  "I can heartily recommend to all you saddle sufferers with STI/Ergo that the best thing you can do to improve your comfort on long rides is get rid

of them."

You could also make the argument that triple cranks have become increasing more popular on road bikes (even Dura Ace has a "racing triple" these days), thus allowing riders to gear down and spin vs. stand up off that saddle -- and that has nothing to do with STI.

So yeah, get rid of that granny gear, you don't need it, it causes saddle sores!

# beth h said on 03 September, 2007 08:29 PM

You know, I've never thought of it in this way, but Peter makes some sense here. Like him, I've never had STI shifting on any bike I've owned. Unlike him, I prefer my road bike shifters on the stem, but that makes little difference to Peter's point. I also find that there are occasions when I climb out of the saddle -- though age and weight have made those times a little less frequent -- and that "honking" combined with a comfortable saddle means I don't really have any saddle issues. Thanks for bringing a fresh perspective to the discussion.

# jimmythefly said on 06 September, 2007 06:52 PM

Recumbent FTW!

I'm only mostly kidding.  I agree with the notion that generally cyclists seem to stay seated more often, but my riding history isn't long enough to really say for sure.

Peter mentions that "our

anatomy was not designed for riding a bicycle, and the muscles and other

tissues in the rear end are not made to be doing work while we're

seated, but only while standing, walking or running."

I would say that perhaps rather than us not being designed for the bicycle saddle, it is that the bicycle saddle is not designed for us.