# San Marco Rolls saddle or a Brooks?



## jayonabike (23 Mar 2011)

I have ordered a new bike, a Dawes century SE. Looking at the saddle I think I will be changing it almost straight away. Now do I go for a San Marco Rolls or a Brooks? The San Marco is £34.99. I don't like the look of the B17 so if I did go for a brooks it would probably be a Team Pro or a Swift, but these are over twice the price of the rolls. I have a San Marco Concor on another bike and I fine that very comfy.
Thoughts?


----------



## aberal (23 Mar 2011)

I've never tried the San Marco so maybe shouldn't comment, other than I've had a Brooks Pro for around 15 years using it on and off and it's the only saddle I've _ever _had that has ever been comfortable. I agree with you about the looks of the B17 - I personally really don't like them at all. To my eye they look ridiculously old fashioned. The Team Pro looks much more modern and the Swift more so.


----------



## fossyant (23 Mar 2011)

The Rolls is pretty darn good - had one for years until it got trashed in an accident a couple of years ago. Fairly heavy though (in comparison to 200g Ti railed saddles).


----------



## Gerry Attrick (23 Mar 2011)

Bearing in mind all bums are of different shapes, I found the Rolls excruciating. A surgeon could have performed unspeakable operations upon my dangly bits and I would have felt nothing after ten miles. The Brooks B17 I found supremely comfortable for sixty miles or more, but heck, I did find constantly having to push myself back on the saddle more than a little wearing. I was sad to remove the B17 because it almost became a friend. However, since then I have changed to a Charge Spoon. The equal of the Brooks for comfort, but no sliding forward. Bliss!


----------



## Garz (23 Mar 2011)

I have the Rolls on at the moment but courtesy of these forums have just purchased a B17 to try instead as I'm finding the Rolls uncomfortable. My generic boardman saddle I found comfier on my other road bike so for me the Rolls didn't quite hit the heights I expected it to reach


----------



## Alembicbassman (23 Mar 2011)

I had a Rolls that came on a used Spesh Allez, didn't like it that much, found the Charge Spoon much better.

Get a brown Charge Spoon with Ti rails


----------



## rb58 (23 Mar 2011)

I've been on a Rolls for a couple of years and found it very comfortable indeed.	However, a new bike gave me the opportunity to try the B17.	So far, and I've only done about 250 miles on it, I'm not finding it at all comfortable, although today's commute was less uncomfortable than it has been to date so maybe it's beginning to break in. I also find it irritating that I keep sliding forward (as mentioned above), even though the saddle is level and everyone agrees 'nose up' is not a good idea for Brooks saddles. I'm going to give it a few more weeks - some say it can be up to a 1,000 miles before a B17 becomes comfortable - but I'm already thinking about getting a Rolls with titanium rails, or trying a Charge Spoon, which quite a few rate highly.

Having said all that, your choice of saddle is an extermely personal thing and recommendations around comfort levels are only relevant if you have same shaped bum as the person recommending it. 

So, I'm not saying the Brooks isn't a good saddle - obviously it is - but I'm not sure I have a Brooks shaped bum.


----------



## Davidc (23 Mar 2011)

Depends on your bottom - they're all different! (to judge by this forum)

I found the San marco Rolls the most uncomfortable seat ever. A sharp spike would have been better.

I have always found the B17 totally comfortable, from start to finish. I can ride on one for 12+ hours, day after day.

Other people find the opposite.

I am trying a Charge Spoon on the utility bike, and so far have found it the only acceptably comfortable saddle other than a B17 that I've ridden in the past 40+ years.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Mar 2011)

I don't do much (or indeed, any) cycling these days, but back in the day when I was commuting 50 miles a day and doing Audaxes at the weekends, I used either a Rolls or a B17 depending on which bike I was riding. This is going to be no help at all, but I found both to be very comfortable saddles indeed. The Brooks probably had the edge when touring or Audaxing, but it was a close run thing.


----------



## dan_bo (24 Mar 2011)

My backside gets on with soft rolls' but not hard ones. 

Get a flite Ti.


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Mar 2011)

I like my B17N, but bought it from someone who just couldn't get on with it (Crackle, of this parish).

It really is a very individual thing. I really like having the bag loops too, as I use a Carradice for my commuting stuff.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Mar 2011)

Comfort-wise for me depends on the Brooks model too. My Team Pro Classic is not uncomfortable but needed work to break it in, the B15 Swallow I bought from User1314 was really comfy from the outset - looks great on a race bike too! 

Dunno about the San Marco, never tried one...


----------



## martint235 (24 Mar 2011)

I've had a Concor and I moved to the B17 Narrow and I've found it very comfortable. It looks a little less old fashioned than the plain B17.

I find that I move about quite a bit on any saddle so the sliding forward on the B17N doesn't bother me too much, if anything the leather helps with sliding rather than having to lift off the saddle and move.

As others have said though, saddles are very personal things. You need to pick the one that's right for you.


----------



## 2Loose (24 Mar 2011)

I had a Rolls years ago, it took a hundred or so miles to break in and stop feeling like it was concrete, but then it was very comfy indeed. 15 years on I am wondering if my bum will still fit one...


----------



## numbnuts (24 Mar 2011)

I've got a rolls in my garage it's called the 10 mile saddle, you wouldn't want to be on it after 10 miles


----------



## Manonabike (24 Mar 2011)

rb58 said:


> I've been on a Rolls for a couple of years and found it very comfortable indeed.	However, a new bike gave me the opportunity to try the B17.	So far, and I've only done about 250 miles on it, I'm not finding it at all comfortable, although today's commute was less uncomfortable than it has been to date so maybe it's beginning to break in. I also find it irritating that I keep sliding forward (as mentioned above), even though the saddle is level and *everyone agrees 'nose up' is not a good idea for Brooks saddles*. I'm going to give it a few more weeks - some say it can be up to a 1,000 miles before a B17 becomes comfortable - but I'm already thinking about getting a Rolls with titanium rails, or trying a Charge Spoon, which quite a few rate highly.
> 
> Having said all that, your choice of saddle is an extermely personal thing and recommendations around comfort levels are only relevant if you have same shaped bum as the person recommending it.
> 
> So, I'm not saying the Brooks isn't a good saddle - obviously it is - but I'm not sure I have a Brooks shaped bum.



I've read, probably in this forum or bikeradar that the opposite to what you stated is fine. I have the Team Pro, B17 and B67 and they are all with the nose up. Some more than others.

I have never used a San Marco but I'd say you have to match the position on your bike to the saddle. If you like a more upright position then the Team Pro would be better than the other you mentioned but my choice would be a b17 in that case.


----------



## aberal (24 Mar 2011)

All saddles are designed to be set absolutely level. Not nose up or nose down, but level.


----------



## martint235 (24 Mar 2011)

aberal said:


> All saddles are designed to be set absolutely level. Not nose up or nose down, but level.



Probably true but until I got my Brooks, I always felt more comfortable with a slight nose up tilt to my saddle. With the Brooks however this really doesn't work for me and is very uncomfortable so I have it level. However my mtb which has my concor saddle on it now, still has the slight nose up to make it comfy.


----------



## Manonabike (24 Mar 2011)

aberal said:


> All saddles are designed to be set absolutely level. Not nose up or nose down, but level.




IC, I will do just that then..... although it suits me fine with the nose a little tilt up.


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

I think the usual Brooks lore is that the nose up a "smidge" (that's an imperial smidge, not a metric smidge, btw) is the right way.


----------



## yello (25 Mar 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> I think the usual Brooks lore is that the nose up a "smidge" (that's an imperial smidge, not a metric smidge, btw) is the right way.



It's how I have mine. Primarily - and certainly initially - to stop the sliding forward that can happen on a Brooks.

Re the San Marco Rolls v Brooks (in my case, B17N Imperial); I had a Rolls for many many kilometres... then I did the Fenlands Flight 200 in 2007. My backside was so numb that I promised myself another saddle. I initially went for a Spec Avatar Gel before treating myself to a Brooks after LEL in 2009. 7000km later (a quiet year last year!) I can vouch for the comfort of a Brooks. They ARE more expensive, it's true, but I reckon if you've got a Brooks shaped bum and are intending to do longer rides that they are worth the investment. 

But, tbh, I found the Rolls comfortable all but for that long and, to be fair, mainly seated Fenland audax. At £35, a Rolls is worth a punt and may work for you. 

Equally, if you fork out for a Brooks and don't get on with it then they are pretty easy to sell on.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

aberal said:


> All saddles are designed to be set absolutely level. Not nose up or nose down, but level.



Brooks saddles were designed? Surely not. John Brooks just flagged down a passing blacksmith and said "make us a saddle will you mate?" surely.


----------



## snailracer (25 Mar 2011)

I think the slipperiness of the Brooks partly explains it's comfort - it does not drag the skin. The downside is that the saddle angle setting becomes critical to avoid sliding forward (or back) but this is also affected by seat tube angle. I suspect seat tube angles were slacker in the past, so the Brooks would have shown less tendency to slide the rider forward.


----------

