Rolls vs. Regal vs. Concor

[fourflys]

All right, I'm sure there is info somewhere on the forum about each, but I'm looking for the condensed version...

I realize each butt is different, but those butts that thousands of miles under them and have ridden at least two or all three of these... what makes each different from the other? San Marco's site isn't much of a help...

Chris

[jroden]

i have used all three over the years and liked them all. I currently use a rolls and it works fine, it's kind of heavy but that's ok. None of them lasted forever, they tend to get sort of horse saddle shaped, but I weigh 180.

[Fixed]

i like them too i like my turbo and brooks as well
cheers

[christian]

Regal - flat laterally, wide at rear, not much padding, no appreciable scoop in the middle.
Rolls - more lateral curvature than Regal (ie spine), moderately more padding, similar shape, even less of a scoop in the middle.
Concor - ass hatchet to me. Narrower, slightly more scoop in the middle.

I can ride 60 miles on a Rolls, <10 miles on a Concor, and all day on a Regal. I'm frankly not very sensitive to saddles, and your mileage _will_ vary.

In terms of lateral curvature, it may be useful to think of a Rolls as similar to a Brooks Team Pro and a Regal as a B.17. Those two saddles have a similar difference in lateral curvature. That's why I like the B.17N better than the Pro.

[kestrel]

Here's a picture comparison of my older Rolls and Regal.

About the second page in the album, 3 or 4 shots of them together from top, side and bottom.

http://s36.photobucket.com/albums/e19/serotta/?start=0

[scoobydrew]

As a former owner of 2 Rolls saddles, I'd have to say that the surface is pretty flat.

I see the Rolls and Regal as more of "touring" saddles or saddles meant for longer distances. Concors are pretty comfortable as well, but I see them as racing saddles.

[BurritoGuru]

Its all about width and length. Your flexibilty matters. Check out Fizik's site.
http://www.fizik.it/spineconcept/

I am switching to the Selle San Marco Regal on 3 of my 4 bikes.

[bart998]

I have a Masi with a Regal, and a Concor on my Merckx. I like both saddles and they are comfortable and have lasted for years. I have an Azoto on my Land Shark that gives me a pain,,,, changing to Prologo... Never have tried a Rolls.

[Rueda Tropical]

The Regal may have a subtle curve but it makes all the difference. I hate flat saddles. The Regal keeps your tender parts suspended just enough above the saddle surface to prevent pressure. I'd put it in the same shape class as the Aliante and Prologo Scratch.

[Gummee]

Its hard to describe, but once you see em, you'll see that all 3 of the saddles you're asking about are pretty different.

I've got a pair of Regal Ti railed saddles now. They're comfy for me. Wider thru the rear and a flat profile front to back. Fairly narrow nose. I wanted to try one since Boonen likes em and LeMond rode em for eons 'back when.'

Rollses are more like Turbos. IIRC they're a little narrower thru the rear and slightly wider thru the front. Flat front to back. IIRC they do kind of have a 'crown' to the shape going from side to side. (again IIRC its been a while since I've had one)

Concors (and the Concor light) are even narrower thru the rear and have a pronounced dip in the middle of the body of the saddle ala the Aliante.

I've had all 3 at different times in my life. They've all worked, but I still prefer Flites and that shape to em all tho.

M

[buldogge]

FWIW...I find the Regal, Concor, and Aliante to ride equally well...I got rid of the ones Rolls I had...found it flatter, less contoured, and stiffer feeling. I think it was mainly the lack of hammock effect compared to the others mentioned.

I would like to try a Prologo Scratch Ti as well...

-Mark in St. Louis

[Climb01742]

a regal is relatively flat in both dimensions; flat front to back and flat side to side. quite wide, really supports the sitbones.

a rolls has a noticeable ridge in the center, front to back.

and a concor is, as others have said, much more narrow and much more curved, with a pronounced tail kick-up.

one dimension that's important, at least to me, that isn't often discussed is how wide is the nose? saddles with wider noses rub my inner thighs while pedalling and can cause discomfort depending on the seams of your shorts. a regal has a fairly wide nose; a concor a very narrow nose.

[merckx]

Originally Posted by Rueda Tropical

The Regal may have a subtle curve but it makes all the difference. I hate flat saddles. The Regal keeps your tender parts suspended just enough above the saddle surface to prevent pressure. I'd put it in the same shape class as the Aliante and Prologo Scratch.

I've found the new Regale is a bit flatter than the old Regal. Have you found the same result? The Prologo Scratch in the picture looks more like the old Regal.

[CNY rider]

Originally Posted by christian

In terms of lateral curvature, it may be useful to think of a Rolls as similar to a Brooks Team Pro and a Regal as a B.17. Those two saddles have a similar difference in lateral curvature. That's why I like the B.17N better than the Pro.

Great comparison, and one I had not heard before, but totally true for me.
My favorite saddle is the Team Pro, and the Rolls is acceptable to me. I actually have one on my Legend now.
The Regal I found totally intolerable. My sit bones ached after an hour.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by fourflys

All right, I'm sure there is info somewhere on the forum about each, but I'm looking for the condensed version...

I realize each butt is different, but those butts that thousands of miles under them and have ridden at least two or all three of these... what makes each different from the other? San Marco's site isn't much of a help...

Chris

I like Rolls, it's flat. Regals are 'saddled', never tried a Concor but it's 'saddled' also. What me bum likes.