Water Balloon Theory for Female Saddle Discomfort

Well, I'd rather not say I've been spending my time thinking about women's privates, but after a conversation with a few ladies recently I guess I have to admit to having given this more thought of late than I'd like to.  The result of that thought is shared below.

Part 1 - What I've read about bicycle seats and women's fit on them.

Let's start where everyone does and talk about sit bones.  If I sit upright enough to firmly plant my ischial tuberosities, I'm sitting upright and not able to reach the handle bars of road/tri-bike set-ups - that is unless I hunch or round my back somewhere.  Sure, women's bike frames aim to help this, but I think that some of the thought processes behind the WSD concept, which have included: women have shorter torsos relative to their leg length; women may bend from the waist while men pivot more at the hips; women tend to sit further back on their saddles than men, possibly due to different distributions in muscle mass (ref 1) - are missing the boat.  Rotating our pelvises forward so as to maintain a strong core while reaching the handle bars pushes soft tissue directly into the nose of most saddles and is highly uncomfortable - I think that's why we as a gender tend to sit upright and farther back on the saddle. Personally, I want to rotate at the hips because this better positioning gives me much more power and feels more stable.  It's also the common positioning on a TT bike.  But guess what - this powerful positioning also completely disengages the ischial tuberosities from the saddle.  Therefore, I simply don't understand the frequent recommendation to choose a saddle based on a body part that is never going to touch it. (ref 1 = http://www.blayleys.com/articles/womensfit/).  

A browser search for bicycle saddles easily returns many results but seldom any actionable information on how to choose one, apart from reiterating reference to sit bones and that women have wider hips than men and may need a wider saddle.  An article on Cobb's site (Ref 2) describes a couple of trends they've found in fitting female cyclists.  The first is explained as a difference in hip orientation that results in some women having more prominent behinds but not a prominent pubic bone while others with flatter behinds may have more prominent pubic bones.  They go on to describe girl parts as being either more pronounced and exposed vs. being more enclosed and drawn up internally and have observed a 2nd trend between this and pubic bone prominence.  They've found that women fitting their trend tend to prefer certain models of their saddles and thus suggest one simply determine into which camp she falls - innie, or outie.  Sounds straight forward enough, I guess, if one knows how their parts stack up against those of other women.  The thing is, picture for a moment someone with an outie belly button.  It's only outie relative to an innie, right?  I mean, no one's belly button actually protrudes beyond the surface of their stomach - at least, not that I've seen.  So if you've never seen another belly button, how do you know which kind you have?  And really, wouldn't you need to see several to know whether yours is generally regarded as an innie vs. outie?  (Ref 2 = http://www.cobbcycling.com/articles/female-cyclist).

Cervelo does not produce saddles but have shared a really thoughtful presentation on saddle comfort that includes pressure point mapping (of a male rider).  (Ref 3)  This piece comes around to suggesting 4-1/2 rules for choosing a saddle that I'm mentioning because I appreciate their rational and scientific presentation of information, some of which is useful if perhaps you haven't already been trying for years to find a comfortable saddle.  In short, their advice is 1) wide enough, 2) flat enough, 3) firm enough, 4) maybe a cutout, 4.5) T or pear shaped.  Unfortunately, this didn't provide me with additional direction since there are many saddles available now with cut-outs and still not many offerings on how to select among them.  (Ref 3 = http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/ask-the-engineers/the-four-and-a-half-rules-of-road-saddles-.html)

Part 2 - Water balloon theory (volume and compressibility).

So now we come to my thought experiment where I was considering what happens when you squish a water-filled balloon vs. squishing a basketball.  To ease embarrassment, let's call the soft tissue 'the balloon' and the *sensitive* tissue inside the soft tissue 'the gem'.

What happens when you place the balloon on a firm surface and push straight down on it?  The balloon squishes out to the sides, away from the pressure.  I think there is also an increase of pressure inside, but as long as there is room around the periphery for expansion, a gem inside the balloon is perhaps not too bothered.  Now let's think of the balloon inside a snug box, so it is both on a firm surface (the saddle) and also restrained on the sides (the riders legs).  When you push down on the balloon there is now a dramatic increase in pressure inside and the gem is being strangled.  In the first case, a mild increase in friction may be eased by using a lubricating product (shammy cream).  But in the second case, no cream or shammy design is going to relieve substantial pressure to the gem.  

Saddles with central cut outs or grooves that run to the front of the saddle provide a means of pressure release.  But the amount of room needed for pressure release will vary depending on whether you're gem is sitting inside a balloon, or sitting inside a much less compressible basket ball.  If you're on a basketball, maybe a central groove/recess is sufficient to allow comfort.  Heck, maybe those folks don't need recesses at all.  But if you're on a balloon, extra work is involved in finding a cutout that is usefully positioned and both wide enough to allow for the displaced balloon and contents, but that does not result in a saddle so wide as to hinder movement of the legs.

Basically I'm thinking it's not just the orientation - innie/outie as Cobb suggests - or volume (suggested by Cervelo), rather it may be the relative firmness or compressibility of the body part.  Is this water balloon analogy useful?  I'm not sure, but maybe it offers another way of thinking and talking about saddle pressure points.  Perhaps a boob analogy would be better; well, at least that would be one way to get men to understand the issue!  

I know a variety of other factors can go in to what makes for a comfortable experience in the saddle.  Poor bicycle fit is likely common enough and often easy enough to fix to make it a reasonable first question.  Below is my saddle and bicycle fit evolution which aims to support that it isn't always just poor fit that leads to discomfort.  I wonder if I would have had an easier time of it had I known a useful and not-so-embarrassing way to communicate what I was feeling and if the fitters I worked with understood that not everyone benefits from sitting on their ischial tuberosities.

Part 3 - First Hand Experience of a 5'3" enthusiast who's been riding road bikes for >30 years.

I'm guessing my sit bones 
weren't in play here, either

My first 10-speed (circa 1982/3) was a Royce Union that I won off a 5-chances for $1 raffle.  It was most definitely fitted by ensuring I could clear the top tube after the proprietor asked if I was sure I didn't want a women's frame.  Ugh - with the big downward metal swoop that made the thing weigh an extra 10 pounds, no thanks.  It was stolen my first year in college (1989/90).  It's replacement was a Schwinn Caliente with 12-speeds and index shifting (ooh, upgrade) and lasted me until I met a couple of bike racers who thought my cycling enthusiasm deserved a better bike.

The 48 cm Cannondale (now I was up to 14 gear combinations with down-tube shift levers) was born from the extra parts graveyard of several competitive cyclists (1996).  I initially thought the hard leather saddle was brutal compared to the generic ones atop my prior bikes but came around to wearing padded shorts and eventually put enough miles in to condition my interface.  Putting in still longer miles however revealed how fucking stiff and unforgiving this tiny aluminum frame was.  The super short top tube also resulted in significant toe overlap with the 700 cc wheels which I thank for honing my skills in riding a straight line up steep climbs.  In fact, unless I used 23 mm tires (not 25 mm) the front tire actually rubbed the down tube.  That's how tight the clearance was.  This led another ex-bike racer to wonder if the fork was bent.  Either way, it was suggested again that I could probably be more comfortable on a different frame.

The Cannondale preceded the digital era
and is pictured here during my first century

I narrowed my choices for a new bicycle to two.  The Giant TCR1 (size small) was fitted with a shorter stem and seemed ok during my test rides.  The LiteSpeed had that perfect like-a-glove fit, was very comfortable to ride, looked sharp as hell, and was titanium (drool).  It was also unfortunately twice my budget.  I bought the Giant (2001) and spent years fondly remembering the LiteSpeed I let get away (sniff).  With the original stem returned to the bike I quickly recognized I was less comfortable than I was on the test rides but I didn't know which size/angle the shorter one was so didn't know how to replace it. The bike shop should have been more eager to help me out and I should have been more vocal about requesting it because I entered a new unhappy world of saddle discomfort which the women's saddle I chose (Fizik Vitesse) did nothing to alleviate.  

The Giant TCR1 had brake-lever-integrated
shifting; a nice upgrade from all my prior bikes

Fizik Vitesse, aka 'the fun ruiner'

Saddles with cut-outs were appearing but I heard they were a gimmick that caused pinching (eek).  I tried (purchased) another saddle of the same usual shape

Terry saddle resembling 
the tester

  

This is similar-looking to the 
gel-middle saddle I tried

(seemed there was less variety back then) with a central gel insert (can't remember which one but it resembled the Selle Italia pictured) however this offered no relief and I returned to the Fizik.  In 2010 I couldn't go on and was in agony training for my first full distance triathlon.  I asked around about refitting a bike I already had (vs. buying a new one)

and found a shop with a saddle trial program (Guys Bicycles

in Feasterville, PA).  They recommended I find a comfortable saddle first and then have the bike refitted after for best 

Adamo ISM Typhon

results.  

The first tester was a Terry (don't remember model) which was a wild improvement.  Figuring I shouldn't settle on the first one I next tested the Adamo ISM Typhoon and selected it since it seemed even better than the Terry.  Though comfort on the Giant was improved following changes to a much shorter stem, seat post with a different off-set (to move me forward), adding aero bars, and using the Adamo saddle (albeit slightly incorrectly), it still didn't seem quite right.  Fit aside, I also felt like I might benefit from different gearing (the Giant has 53/39, 9-speed 12x25) and so it was time to look for another bike.

In 2013 I moved on to a 50 cm Trek Domane with women's specific design (shorter top tube, taller head stack, with 10-speed 11x28, & 50/34 on a rather long 172.5 mm crank), unfortunately fitted to the saddle that came with it (Bontrager Afffinity RL WSD).  To quote the fitter (from BikeLine of Valley Forge), "most women like this saddle".  Turns out, even on what should be an appropriately-sized WSD bike, I am still not 'most women'.  That saddle has a small anatomical relief zone but its position is completely unhelpful (way too far back if I'm in the drops).  After several months, my tri coach refit the bike with the Adamo saddle.  

Bontrager Affinity RL Women's
'gender appropriate contour
relief zone' does not match
my anatomy at all

In 2010 the long and ample cut-out present in the Adamo ISM saddle had been such a welcome relief to the soft tissue smashing and tearing (yes, tearing) I experienced on other saddles, however it's still not the right answer for me.  I don't want to sit forward enough to have soft tissue hanging completely off the saddle (as it is intended to be used), and the thing is too bloody wide to sit on as done with most other saddles, though that is how I'd been using it (though positioned only on the front half).  (Zip ties void the warranty, which I don't really care about, but they also don't help enough.)  After 4 years on the Giant+Trek running concurrently with 3 years on my Cervelo it added up to where I couldn't stand the contact with my inner legs any more.  It was irritating my hip adductors and hamstrings, hindering my pedal stroke, and despite owning two of them, that saddle just had to go.

I ordered a Koobi 232T for the Cervelo (48 cm PC2) last summer (2014) after seeing an overlay of it with an outline of 'the competitors saddle' on an advertisement stuck into a race packet.  It's a nice improvement to the Adamo with regard to width between the legs, and with that adage 'the stronger a rider you are the less weight you're putting on the saddle' I find this saddle pretty ok for 4 h of riding.  Unfortunately that's not enough to hold me over for 112 miles.  I hope to fix this by finding a way to add more watts instead of having to buy yet another saddle.

(Ref 4 - http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/
bikefit/2011/09/all-about-smps/)

Intrigued by the design of the SMP saddles, which are even thinner between the legs than the Koobi, maintain a substantial central cut-out, and also possess a profile that looks to completely remove forward pressure, I decided to give the Evolution a try on my Trek via my shop's saddle trial program (Cadence Cycling and Multisport in Manayunk, PA).  For the first time ever (Jan 2015), I feel evenly and well-supported on a saddle, and I feel evenly and well-supported in every riding position: on the tops, on my brake hoods, in the drops, and even when stretched and lying on the handlebars as in aero position OR when sitting upright riding hands-free.  Oh dear god, where has this saddle been all my life ?!?  This saddle brand (like most) comes in a couple of flavors with variations in width, specific profile, and of course firmness.  I found this blog post (Ref 4) to provide an easy-to-follow presentation of how the various models relate to one another and ordered a Drakon after reading it.  That post also has the best depiction and description I've ever seen regarding how the pelvic bone structure sits on a saddle, and you should read it.  'Sit bones', my ass!  I'm siting on my inferior pubic ramen and loving it.  :-)

Conclusion - While writing this recap successfully offered me a fair bit of nostalgia, what I really wanted to convey is that many factors go in to achieving comfort on a bicycle and I find it darn disappointing that trial-and-error still plays such a significant role.  It's time consuming, it's frustrating, and it's expensive.  There really aught to be a better way.

Update: a newer post on saddle issues (here).