Talk:Bicycle saddle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cycling (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

ED/Genital numbness[edit]

I'm going to add some research on saddles and erectile dysfunction. I think it may resolve the Extra Padding POV issue in addition to providing more solid references to the Crotch Pressure section... --NIOSH (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

skirt saddles[edit]

in netherlands, there exist special saddles for skirts!!! http://www.halfords.nl/NL/Fiets/Catalog/ProductDetail.htm?productId=706872 --Philtime (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fore / aft[edit]

Knee-over-pedal-spindle is rather contested. See Sheldon's artice. Have thus added cite tag. Cmsg 13:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Issue[edit]

The Extra Padding section needs to be rewritten in a more neutral fashion. Text like the following is far from neutral:

"Gel padding is mostly marketing hype... they do little to make cycling more comfortable... and gel padding should not be considered."

This is made worse by the lack of references. I personally have little knowledge of the subject or I would attempt a rewrite myself. For the moment, I've tagged it POV and I will leave it for someone a bit more knowledgeable to clean up. (Or, if gel padding really is that bad, to add proper references to back it up.) - EronTalk 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:AdjustableBiSaddle.jpg[edit]

This image was added by user Bycycleinc who's only contributions have been to add that picture to the article, and then put it back when I took it down. It looks like an advertisement to me, and the user's behaviour looks like it's just to market the saddle. At least s/he is good enough to acknowledge their bias in their name. We have a non-branded version of the same/similar saddle type that is more appropriate, I'd for one like not to see the the image as part of the gallery. --Keithonearth (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the image again as blatant marketing material. If the picture included only the saddle itself, and the brand name were merely included in the caption, as is already done with the Selle San Marco, Brooks, Koobi PRS, and EasySeat II (Hobson), I think we could allow a second no-nose saddle by virtue of its differently shaped pads. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input andrew. I'd like to ask the User Bycycleinc to clarify his/her relationship with bycycleinc. One could be forgiven for making the assumption that User Bycycleinc is interested in promoting bycycleinc, and that as such his/her edits are non-NPV. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, one could easily make that assumption. At the very least it suggests a conflict of interest. However, since other saddles are identified by brand name, which no one has yet found to be a bad thing by itself, and any random editor could add a picture of their favorite saddle, I suppose that if this particular saddle appeared in the gallery without such obvious marketing, it would probably fly under the radar until someone decided that the entire gallary needed purging. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am the person (James Bombardier) behind the Bycycleinc moniker and the inventor of the BiSaddle. Is is illegal or immoral to add my patented saddle to the array of other saddle "types"? I believe that my patented design deserves to be represented here. It represents no more nor less of a marketing statement than any other saddle displayed. If truth be known the Hobson II is as close to a copy of my design as they could do and it does not have a patent. What are the criteria that are being used to determine whether a saddle represents a "type" of saddle and should therefore be allowed? What background do either of these posters have in the bicycle saddle or medical field that qualifies them to make decisions about what is posted about bicycle saddles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bycycleinc (talkcontribs) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The main criteria being applied here are:
  1. Neutral point of view
  2. Verifiability
  3. No original research
  4. Conflict of interest
  5. Notability
The prominent logo displayed in the picture separate from the saddle makes it significantly different than all the other pictures. Background in the bicycle saddle or medical field is not necessary to see this. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not told that my picture was violating any wikipedia standards and while it may not look like others in the group, please tell me how it violates a wikipedia rule. While I can create another picture of the BiSaddle and integrate into the web site to meet wikipedia rules, why should I go to the effort when there is no clarity around what pictures are "appropriate" for the group and which are not. Please address the questions and suggestion I have raised about the group of pictures.

Hello again, I feel that I have the right and responsibility to participate in the structure and content of information available in this section. Why not add a type to the section for two-nose saddles so it could include currently the ISM Adamo Road Saddle and the BiSaddle? I believe it is important that Wikipedia reflect accurately that the title of the last NIOSH study was "Cut off the nose to save the penis" and that the first sentence of that study states "Much of the biomedical community has reached a consensus about the association between erectile dysfunction and bicycle saddles and yet this association is often rejected in the popular press, bicycling magazines and Internet blogs." How do you think this information can best be made available to the public?

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi James, (may I call you James?) thank you very much for letting us all know what's going on, and the details of your relationship with bycycle inc. I'm impressed that you are the inventor of BiSaddle, as an avid cyclist I appreciate innovative quality products. Of course it's not "illegal or immoral" to add info about your saddle, but it is pretty clearly against the wikipedia rules. You ask what background we have that qualifies us to make decisions about what is posted about bicycle saddles. It's our relative objectivity.
I'd be content to have an image of your saddle if you were to provide an unbranded one, without the arrows too. Of course I could just edit the one that you uploaded, but that would be a) messy and b) work for me with no real gain. Of course that's just my opinion, others may not agree with me, and could still take the picture down. What do others think?
You should also avoid editing the bicycle saddle page as you would come across as biased. You could always post notes here, linking to scientific studies or other things you think other editors should know about. And of course you have the bycycleinc.com to promote your product and provide information. --Keithonearth (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My intent is to insure that the wikipedia section on bicycle saddles is more neutral than other places and it is not. I am biased against the misrepresentation of science that occurs elsewhere in the media and the total lack of perspective that this agnotology is occurring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bycycleinc (talkcontribs) 05:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. Stop inserting your product logo and start adding content that cites reliable sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think about putting the NIOSH study title and first sentence in the section on bicycle saddles. If this is going to be a problem for you then let us find out what wikipedia folks think about this proposed addition to the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bycycleinc (talkcontribs) 05:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the study title is necessary in the text instead of the reference. I can't tell about quoting the first sentence until I see how you put it in. As for "wikipedia folks," that's us right here. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

differing statements about saddle position[edit]

Upon reading this reading this article I have found two statements which appear to be contradictory to each other. In the "Crotch pressure" section, the article states that, "a downwards alignment [of the saddle] will reduce the sit bone support of the pelvis, again resulting in an increased perineum pressure." However, in the "Erectile dysfunction and genital numbness" the article states that, "A downward-tilted saddle relieves pressure on the perineum and the "sit bones" (ischial tuberosities), thus improving a cyclist's perineal blood flow." Now that last comment has a direct citation, while the other does not, but I'm still not sure which one is correct. I just wanted to bring that little issue to light. --Robo56 (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I don't think there is a meaningful distinction between "bicycle seat" and "bicycle saddle", or at least not one that requires a separate article. Sources and bike shops use the terms almost interchangeably with the "seat" being for "comfort" and the "saddle" for performance. The saddle article already deals with some types of comfort seats so it would seem to make sense to merge bicycle seat into this article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Disagree. What people say in bike shops has no bearing. I would be interested to see the reliable sources that misuse the words. The first ones I checked have this to say:
  • Sheldon Brown: You'll notice that I do call them "saddles," not "seats." There is a reason for this. A "seat" is something you sit on, and is designed to bear essentially your entire weight. Recumbent bicycles have "seats," but conventional upright bicycles have saddles.
  • Oxford English Dictionary: saddle, n. 4. A fixed seat for the rider of a bicycle, motorcycle, etc. and seat, n. 9. a. The sitting part of the body; the posteriors. Also jocularly, seat of honour (and nonce-variations). 1878 Athletic World 10 May 66/2 A well-ventilated [bicycle-]saddle is the best preventative for those blisters which favour the seat of honour.
-AndrewDressel (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree
  • Oxford English Dictionary
1) Saddle: n. A seat for a rider, typically made of leather, which is raised at the front and rear, and which may be secured to the back of a horse or other animal.
2) Saddle: n. A type of chair or seat: a bench, a settle.
3) Saddle: v. transitive : to put a saddle upon (a horse or other animal).
They should be merged, as the definition of saddle is clearly not what is affixed to the bicycle post. It is a bicycle seat. 24.190.89.88 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Mike
I do not understand your point. My posting above clearly indicates that the fourth noun definition in the OED is for a fixed seat for the rider of a bicycle, motorcycle, etc. You list only the first two definitions from what may be an earlier or condensed version and conclude that the definition of saddle is clearly not what is affixed to the bicycle post. Did you simply not read what I had written? -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)