A Subtle Surprise: Brooks Cambium C-17

Earlier this year Brooks surprised their fans by announcing the release of a non-leather saddle: the Cambium C-17. Selected to be one of the beta-testers, I must have been in the very last wave of recipients, because the saddles have been out for months now and mine arrived only last week. About to head back to Ireland, I threw it in a suitcase and, after several days of jetlag, have now finally managed to get a good look. I have not tried the Cambium on a bike yet, but wanted to post some shots and first impressions, figuring many of you are as curious as I was. And there is good reason to be curious: The Cambium is quite a departure for Brooks of England - a storied manufacturer whose very claim to fame is its leather saddles. 

As Brook describes it, the Cambium C-17 is made "from vulcanized natural rubber and organic cotton enhanced by a thin layer of structural textile for added resilience." Considering this is a bike saddle, I'd assumed the fabric would be treated with something to make the surface smooth. But the surface has a distinct texture to it similar to that of artist's canvas or some types of denim. While it's been treated for stiffness and waterproofing, there remains a bit of tooth to it. For that reason I have to admit, I am reluctant to try this saddle with lycra cycling shorts - which can be delicate and abrasion-prone in the seat area. But I'll do it, and will let you know how it goes.

As far as looks, the one word that comes to mind in describing the Cambium is "subtle." This is a minimalist, low key saddle, not an ostentatious one. The colour of the cloth is half way between gray and taupe. In person, it can look either charcoal gray, ashy brown or even mauve, depending on what it's placed next to. This is rather nice, in the sense that it will match pretty much any bike. The brooks logo is stamped tone on tone into the rear of the undercarriage and is only noticeable close-up. The metal bits are matte, almost dull. The overall shape is somewhere between a Brooks B-17 and an '80s style vinyl racing saddle. 

While the Cambium's "C-17" label suggests it has the same dimensions as the B-17 touring saddle, this is not the case: The C-17 is narrower (162mm across, compared to the B-17's 175mm), longer (283mm, compared to the B-17's 275mm), and has less height to it (52mm, compared to the B-17's 65mm). The Cambium should be suitable for a more aggressive bike position than the B-17. The weight of the Cambium is 415g (compared to 520g of the standard B-17). The ladies' version - the C-17S - is the same as the C17 in every way, except 18mm shorter and 10g lighter. 

I did not receive any special insight into the Cambium's construction from Brooks, so I am just describing what I see. It looks like the undercarriage is modular, similar to Berthoud, with (rivet-shaped) screws instead of rivets. 

The matte metal resembles titanium, but it is not labeled or described as such, so I assume it is cro-moly.

Stamped "natural rubber vulcanized in Italy," the saddle is extremely flexible - I can easily bend and twist it with my hands. I imagine Brooks was trying to replicate the hammocking/ suspension qualities inherent to their leather saddles, and this was the solution they came up with. I am eager to experience the feel of this on a bike - especially on bumpy roads, chipseal and gravel.

The surface layer of cotton fabric is cut to form and glued onto the rubber. While the construction looks to be top notch, one potential problem I can see, is that over time the edges might begin to lift. Only long term use can determine whether this proves to be the case.

As I see it, the potential appeal of this saddle is two-fold: Those who do not use leather for ethical reasons will welcome a non-leather option from Brooks. And those who dislike how much Brooks leather saddles change shape over time might prefer the stability of the Cambium's construction. It is also interesting how Brooks went with natural, rather than synthetic materials in constructing this saddle, in keeping with its usual aesthetics. The C-17 will look good on a wide range of bikes, classic and modern.

Well, that is all for now. I am going to try this saddle on a semi-upright pathrace-style bike, then on my roadbike, and report back in a couple of weeks. If you have any questions in the meantime about the construction, shape or aesthetics, feel free to ask. In fairness to Brooks, I would like to note that I was not asked to write about the saddle on this blog or to publicise it in any way; my role as a beta-tester involves only private feedback. I believe the Cambium C-17 and C-17S will be available for sale in September, as a limited edition release. You can see its full specs, as well as read feedback from those who were in the earlier waves of testers, here.

Speaking of Saddles

Earlier this week I was visiting Cycle Loft - a local bicycle shop known, among other things, for its extensive fit studio. I will be test riding a few of their bikes this summer, and the staff suggested I undergo a fitting session beforehand. As we were getting started, the fitter - Joel - caught sight of the Selle Anatomica I was riding. He asked whether I wanted to use my own saddle, given how particular it was, or try something new.

Today there are lots of high quality, well thought-out saddle designs on the market, in a variety of materials. The trick is to find one that fits our particular anatomy, position and riding style. For the past two years I've been going back and forth between a Berthoud touring saddle and a Selle Anatomica on my roadbikes. These saddles are as close as I've been able to get to being truly comfortable over long distances. But neither is perfect. So I decided to keep an open mind and see what the fitter recommended.

To start with, Joel measured my sit bones. This is something I've never had done "professionally" before, so it was pretty exciting. Cycle Loft uses the Specialized "Body Fit" method, which, as I understand it, is comparatively un-intrusive (no pelvic fondling, etc.). But there is a nifty device involved. A stool was brought out with a butt-shaped pillow, upon which I sat as instructed. When I stood up, my sit bones left two clear indentations, which Joel swiftly measured.

The figure was 135mm - considerably narrower than what I thought my sit bone width was based on my DIY measurements (the figure I'd come up with was more like 150mm). But we repeated the process just to make sure and got the same number again - so looks like 135mm it is.

Joel explained that a saddle should be wider than the sit bone width itself. How much wider depends partly on the rider's position and partly on the saddle's shape. As far as the rider's position, the more leaned forward you are, the narrower area of support is needed. That much I'd known. As far as saddle shape, Joel showed me a selection or road/racing saddles and pointed out that on some the sitting surface was flat across, while on others it was rounded, like an arc. For all my careful scrutiny of saddle shapes, this was not a distinction I'd explicitly been aware of before, so I was excited to learn something new. For any given rider, on a rounded saddle the width needs to be greater than on a flat saddle.

According to the fit chart, the saddle width recommended for my sit bones was 155mm minimum. My Berthoud saddle (which is flat) measures 160mm across, and my Selle Anatomica (which is rounded) measures 170mm across. My comfort with both makes sense according to this fit method.

Next, Joel asked what I liked and disliked about the saddles I normally use. I explained that my saddles are fairly wide across the rear, yet have narrow, racing-style noses. The wide rear and narrow nose combination works for me, because this way my butt feels fully supported but I don't get thigh-rub. Other saddles I've tried tend to be either too narrow or too wide all around, which doesn't work. I also like the feel of suspended leather, compared to other surfaces I've tried.

As far as what I don't like, that is a little trickier to explain. The Berthoud feels a bit too hard, whereas the Selle Anatomica has a bit too much give. And with each, I occasionally - at random times, it seems - feel pressure or pinching in the middle of my "soft tissue." It happens rarely now compared to the problems I used to have, but it does still happen occasionally. We discussed all this in detail, as well as the other saddles I've tried. I described my dislike of gel (I sink into it and feel horrible pressure), my inability to ride Terry saddles (the slots are somehow in the wrong place), and finding the edges of many racing saddles "too sharp" as I pedal.

After taking all of this in, Joel suggested I try the Romin Evo saddle by Specialized (interesting write-up about it here). It had everything I seemed to need: a rounded wide rear (168mm across), a narrow nose, and a firm, but not rock-hard, surface. A channel down the middle and a curved nose were designed to avoid contact with exactly the pressure-prone spots I'd identified. It is not a woman-specific saddle, but then neither are my own. A synthetic saddle made by a big-name manufacturer, it was not what I would normally gravitate toward, but I'd said I would be open minded, and so I would.

The Romin Evo is now fitted on the demo bike I'm riding. I could not feel it under me on the initial 30 mile ride, but I will withhold judgment until after the follow-up, 100K ride.

But whether this particular saddle wins me over is beside the point. What I appreciated the most was the generally informative conversation with the fitter - who I felt was neutral and knowledgeable when it came to various styles, materials, aesthetics and brands of saddles. I would like to keep learning myself, and at some point to post a comprehensive guide that might be of help to those at a loss for where to start.

A Look at Rivet Saddles

When I last corresponded with Debra Banks, she was off to ride the Texas Rando Stampede 1200 - a 750 mile brevet that she would go on to complete in 85 hours. Naturally Deb did this on a Rivet: a waterproof, slotted leather saddle of her own design. 

While Rivet saddles are fairly new to the scene, Deb's experience in the industry goes back to her time at Selle Anatomica. In her own words: 

Tom Milton, the founder of Selle An-Atomica was my sweetie and after his untimely death, I ran SAA for a year while his estate was being settled. His family took over the company and I ventured out on my own to form Rivet Cycle Works.

At the moment, Rivet offers three basic models of saddles in different widths. Each is available in a range of colours, and with a choice of cro-moly or titanium rails. We discussed my trying one for review and settled on the Pearl. 

Named after Pearl Pass in the Rocky Mountains, the Rivet Pearl saddle was optimised for long distance comfort and support. As Debra explains, this does not mean these saddles are solely for long distance riders. Rather, if a cyclist experiences saddle discomfort when attempting longer rides, it was designed with addressing this in mind. The Pearl model features bag loops for attaching a full sized saddlebag. 

Measuring 170mm at the rear, the width of the Pearl is equivalent to that of Selle Anatomica saddles. However, the shape and structure are quite different. In fact, while Rivet saddles may invite comparisons to Selle Anatomica because of the shared history, I find them to have more differences than similarities. The list of similarities is short: Both are slotted, and both are made of waterproofed leather in largely the same range of colours. However, the form and feel have little in common.

The first thing I noticed about the Pearl before fitting it on my bike was how tall it was. The height, or depth of a saddle is not a spec that all manufacturers list, but it matters. While the Pearl's leather upper is in itself shallow, the rails are pretty deep. Installing it in place of my Berthoud Touring saddle, my seatpost had to be lowered almost a full cm to compensate. Selle Anatomica saddles are even shallower than Berthoud, so the difference there would be greater still. I am not comfortable providing exact figures, because height is difficult to measure and I don't want to misinform. But basically it's Selle Anatomica < Berthoud Touring < Rivet Pearl, with just under 1cm of difference in height between each.

It occurs to me that the purpose of the deep rail design on the Pearl might be to avoid any chance of the leather hitting the rails should it stretch over time. There is certainly no danger of that. The wrap-around tab on the underside further reduces tension loss.

According to Debra, Rivet saddles can take about 300 miles to break in, during which time they may also stretch. The tension screw should be used to regulate tension - not just in the event of stretching, but also to find the tension that works best for the rider's anatomy. 

The purpose of the slot on Rivet saddles is "to relieve pressure and help to re-distribute pressure to other areas, depending on how the rider sits on the saddle." The Rivet slot is a bit longer than the slot on the Brooks Imperial line of saddles, and considerably shorter than Selle Anatomica's. 

The edges of the Pearl's sitting surface are crisply delineated, rather than rounded, which gives it a sculptural look. The "R"-embossed rivets add textural interest. The Burgundy colour, pictured here, is a deep brown with a magenta tint (and, from what I can tell, identical to Selle Anatomica's Mahogany).

For waterproofing, a chemical agent is mixed into the tanning process (a different process than what is used for vegetable tanned leather). To increase firmness and minimise sagging, a second layer of leather is laminated to the upper piece. The leather for Rivet is sourced from Wisconsin, then sent to Taiwan, where the saddles are made by a master craftsman. Rails and other frame parts are sourced from Taiwan. The saddles are assembled there and then shipped worldwide.

With the demo Pearl on my roadbike, I rode around the neighbourhood and determined that the standard (highest) tension felt pretty good. The rear felt just about right at my sitbones. The transition from rear to nose felt just a tad wider than what I normally ride. With this initial assessment I felt comfortable enough to try a long ride.

I tested the Pearl on an informal 100K. Including my ride to and from, it was an 87 mile day in the saddle. For me, the Pearl out of the box did not require a break-in period. I experienced no soreness over the course of this distance. The leather felt quite stiff, but suppler than my hard-as-a-rock Berthoud. Compared to a Selle Anatomica, the "hammocking" action was subtle, and I could not discern independent movement between the two sides separated by the slot. The curvature and surface of the Pearl's rear felt very comfortable as the miles rolled on. Once in a while I could feel the ridges of the slot toward the front. It was not enough to cause chafing in the course of the distance I did, but I wanted to note that I could feel them. What did cause chafing - and this started around mile 60 - were the sides of the saddle in that transitional part that tapers toward the nose. Given the location and nature of the chafing, this was not a breaking-in issue or a tension issue, but a structural issue - the Pearl model is slightly too wide for me in the rear-to-nose transition, which caused chafing to my inner thighs over time. Having received my feedback, Debra agrees with this diagnosis and suggests I try the narrower Independence model to compare. 

As we all know, preferences in saddle shape, size and feel are highly personal. It is always good to have options and variety. Designed by an experienced randonneuse, the saddles from Rivet Cycle Works are a welcome addition to Brooks, Berthoud and Selle Anatomica. The Pearl model is priced at $150 with cro-moly rails and $250 with titanium rails. In addition to saddles, Rivet also offers handlebar tape, mudflaps, and other goods. I wish Deb all the best with the business, as well as in her cycling adventures.