Some thoughts on bicycle saddles… several decades ago, articles appeared in the urological literature associating bike riding with perineal nerve impingement, resulting numbness, and even infertility. In response Georgeanna Terry – a woman! – invented a bike saddle with a hole in the middle. This solved the nerve impingement problem, but the saddle was too wide and heavy for “real” cyclists to consider using. As saddle makers caught on, they started to put holes and/or depressions in the center of their standard road racing saddles. Those were too narrow, shallow, or short to be of much use, so makers like Cobb and Ism came up with the split nose, which allowed for a wider, longer depression, but presented issues of being too wide in the mid portion, causing the rubbing issues along the inner thighs.
There are three elements saddle makers are trying to juggle in their designs: 1. Being wide enough in the rear part of the saddle for the average man’s “sit bones” to rest on. This is less important to us as triathletes on our Time Trial bikes, as we do not really sit very much on those bony protuberances – we are leaning too far forward for them to be bearing much weight. 2. A hole or depression in the middle of the saddle which is at once wide, long, and deep enough to prevent (a) perineal nerve impingement and (b) chafing on our midline parts – scrotum and perineum. 3. Narrow enough in the mid portion so that our inner thighs (“upper hamstrings”) don’t rub against the saddle with each pedal stroke – that’s why saddles have historically had their half hour glass configuration.
There is a fourth element which is entwined in all three: comfort. Apart from the numbness and chafing already noted, the hardness or softness of the saddle in various areas is felt to play a role in both how it performs (harder is better) and aids in comfort (softness is better).
Cobb and Adamo have been playing with these four variables over the past five years or so to try and get it all right. We each have our own top priorities. When looking at any saddle, I’d suggest measuring the depth, length, and width of the central depression. You’ll find in some traditional saddle makers that this is much narrower and shorter than what Cobb and Adamo/Ism have come up with in some of their models. Next, measure the saddle width at both the mid portion (the end of the “neck”) and at the widest portion of the rear. These will help you figure out how it might affect inner thigh chafing, and if its wide enough for your sit bones (IMO the least important factor).
Finally, be sure that the saddle is meets your needs along the soft/firm continuum.
The Adamo Attack has a width of 110 mm at its widest point, which is 2.5 centimeters less than any other Adamo model, and all Cobb models. Yet that’s still 40 mm wider than the width of my sit bones, giving me a stable platform for those times when I am sitting up – which is not that often. And the depression width of 45 mm (the same as Terry’s original “Liberator”) is wider than the 30 mm which seems standard on most traditional road saddles (and which Terry herself went to when she started trying to make a normal looking saddle).
The Adamo Attack, for me at least, fills the bill as a time trial/triathlon saddle.