Brooks: Ti vs. Steel Rails

[bigmonter]

Amongst all the different posts on Brooks saddles there may be bits and pieces of the relative +/- of using a Ti railed Brooks over that of a Steel rail version. But I wanted to get a more comprehensive discussion in one thread. So unless someone can point me to one please feel free to opine here.

I am looking for opinions as to whether the extra money for the Ti rail is worth switching form the steel rails. Clearly there is a weight advantage. What I am looking for is whether it improves the ride quality and how.

Any model is fine.

Thanks

Steven

[Ken Robb]

I have both--can tell no difference once on the bike.

[Peter B]

IMO any difference in 'ride quality' would be imperceptible. And as for weight savings, you'll probably notice the lighter wallet more than anything about the ride.

[R2D2]

At one time there wasn't much of a $ penality. NOW WOW!!!!!!!!
Probably not much diffeerence in ride but Ti doesn't rust if that has any advantage for you.

[Ray]

Nah. As others have said, the only difference is a bit of weight (but its still a heavy saddle) and I guess some bling factor if that matters. No difference in ride quality - you'd never know which was on the bike.

-Ray

[Ahneida Ride]

SoCalSteve always claims that the B17 Ti version is more comfortable ...

I believed him and went with Ti. That was BEFORE they hit 320 frn.
Overnight the price doubled.

I suspect that they are using a "better" part of the hide for the Ti
versions. Yes.... every hide has choice sections.

You can find Brooks video's on Utube where the factory does admit
using different parts of the hide on different saddles.

I can ass-sure you that the Ti version is sweet. ;)

[thejen12]

I have both and can't tell the difference, but my steel-railed model is the imperial, so maybe the comfort of the cut-out makes up for the loss in comfort of the steel rails? I weigh under 130 lbs., so might not compare with a Clydesdale.

Jenn

[Ray]

SoCalSteve always claims that the B17 Ti version is more comfortable ...

I believed him and went with Ti. That was BEFORE they hit 320 frn.
Overnight the price doubled.

I suspect that they are using a "better" part of the hide for the Ti
versions. Yes.... every hide has choice sections.

You can find Brooks video's on Utube where the factory does admit
using different parts of the hide on different saddles.

I can ass-sure you that the Ti version is sweet. ;)
I've ridden plenty of both. I can assure you the "hide" they use is pretty much luck of the draw within a given line of saddles. I've had some pretty notable variation in steel railed B-17s. The hide on Pro's, either steel or ti is consistently much harder which I have to attribute to hide thickness or quality or something. I've never felt a difference between steel and ti in the same model.

-Ray

[DHallerman]

I have both--can tell no difference once on the bike.

+1, based on several of each, all B.17 models...

[Ahneida Ride]

I've ridden plenty of both. I can assure you the "hide" they use is pretty much luck of the draw within a given line of saddles. I've had some pretty notable variation in steel railed B-17s. The hide on Pro's, either steel or ti is consistently much harder which I have to attribute to hide thickness or quality or something. I've never felt a difference between steel and ti in the same model.

-Ray

I stand corrected ! ;) Go with Ray !

Incidentally for protection, I recommend Obenauf LP as a base coat(s)
followed by Meltonian #1 neutral for the top finish ...

Proofide is way too much frn and not as effective as the Obenauf IMHO.

[SoCalSteve]

SoCalSteve always claims that the B17 Ti version is more comfortable ...

I believed him and went with Ti. That was BEFORE they hit 320 frn.
Overnight the price doubled.

I suspect that they are using a "better" part of the hide for the Ti
versions. Yes.... every hide has choice sections.

You can find Brooks video's on Utube where the factory does admit
using different parts of the hide on different saddles.

I can ass-sure you that the Ti version is sweet. ;)

What he (I) said. I still believe there is a difference.

Your butt's opinion may vary.

Just sayin'

Steve

PS: They can be found for much less than $320.00. A couple of the English sites have them for much, much less.

[Polyglot]

I for one got rid of a titanium-railed one after less than one month because I found myself bouncing up and down with the titanium rails, whereas I did not have the same effect with the steel. I am on the heavier side however.

[Ahneida Ride]

I for one got rid of a titanium-railed one after less than one month because I found myself bouncing up and down with the titanium rails, whereas I did not have the same effect with the steel. I am on the heavier side however.

gee i don't get that at all. could it be the tension screw?

The saddle should be set somewhat in the middle of the seatpost.
one usually requires a set back post.

[rphetteplace]

Is the sprinter the same seat?

http://www.benscycle.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=6907

[GuyGadois]

According to a LBS Ti rails come back as returns much more than any other material due to the squeeking they produce.

-GG-

[WadePatton]

My butt knows no difference. I happened to have two steel 17's and one ti 17 next to a scale last night.

So I did it. Not something I do much of. I checked them on the scale. The ti framed jobbie was 4 oz lighter than the lighter of the steel models. 5.5 oz lighter than the heavier steel model (identical saddles, but one obviously has thicker/denser hide on it). Completely insignificant to most folks who prefer Brooks.

Mid-rail mounting may indeed create a slight difference in feel atmo, but mine (and I'll bet many) are always slammed to the back (significantly reducing rail flex).

[SoCalSteve]

My butt knows no difference. I happened to have two steel 17's and one ti 17 next to a scale last night.

So I did it. Not something I do much of. I checked them on the scale. The ti framed jobbie was 4 oz lighter than the lighter of the steel models. 5.5 oz lighter than the heavier steel model (identical saddles, but one obviously has thicker/denser hide on it). Completely insignificant to most folks who prefer Brooks.

Mid-rail mounting may indeed create a slight difference in feel atmo, but mine (and I'll bet many) are always slammed to the back (significantly reducing rail flex).

Always slammed to the back with a setback seatpost with LOTS of setback. B-17's are quirky this way as the rails are so short.

[rustychisel]

Always slammed to the back with a setback seatpost with LOTS of setback. B-17's are quirky this way as the rails are so short.

why not get a properly designed saddle in the first place? :bike:


[ducks and weaves]

[R2D2]

why not get a properly designed saddle in the first place? :bike:


[ducks and weaves]

Well you have to examine Brooks history to understand the short rails.
They work best on slack angles which were the standard for many years..
Some models (Swallow) have been redesigned with longer rails.
I also wonder how many people slam their saddle back because of LeMond's book? I made that mistake in the 80's.
FWIW he had really long femurs.

[Ray]

Mid-rail mounting may indeed create a slight difference in feel atmo, but mine (and I'll bet many) are always slammed to the back (significantly reducing rail flex).
I have the impression that slamming the saddle all the way back on the seatpost and sitting with your butt way back on the saddle INCREASES rail flex relative to a mid rail mounting. Or, put differently, the rear of the saddle (which is what matters if that's where your ass is perched) moves more with a saddle that's slammed back than one that's more centrally located. It's not so much a matter of how much the rails flex, but WHERE they flex and how that affects the saddle's perceived shock absorption.

Think about where the fulcrum is and where the weight is and how that lengthens the 'spring' that the rails become.

-Ray

[WadePatton]

I have the impression that slamming the saddle all the way back on the seatpost and sitting with your butt way back on the saddle INCREASES rail flex relative to a mid rail mounting. Or, put differently, the rear of the saddle (which is what matters if that's where your ass is perched) moves more with a saddle that's slammed back than one that's more centrally located. It's not so much a matter of how much the rails flex, but WHERE they flex and how that affects the saddle's perceived shock absorption.

Think about where the fulcrum is and where the weight is and how that lengthens the 'spring' that the rails become.

-Ray
yeah, there's that too. but the rails don't flex (as much) where they're bent. just try it.

yes, seat tube angles crept up, saddle rails didn't change atmo.

[Ray]

yeah, there's that too. but the rails don't flex (as much) where they're bent. just try it.
That's very true. When the saddle is slammed back on the post and the rider is slammed back on the saddle, that's putting about as much stress on the rails as anything ever could. Its a great position for the saddle to absorb shock but its also a great position to break or bend the saddle rails from. I've been lucky enough that I've never had it happen, but I've seen it and it's not pretty!

-Ray

[Ahneida Ride]

My B17 Ti is mid mounted on a Thompson setback ..
The Thompson Post has a nice wide bite on the Saddle

When it stared to creak, I noticed that the seat post bolts were loose ..
I tighten em up and the noise disappeared ..

[bigmonter]

Hey Socal Steve

You start cutting on a B17 yet?