Barter Economy

Some of my most interesting bicycle-related acquisitions have been through trades with others, and I find these barter exchanges to be great. Whether bicycle related or not, trades can work out nicely - with each party feeling as if they are getting something new and useful.

For instance, I received this vintage Ideale saddle in exchange for some vintage Brooks.

I received these beautiful dressguards in exchange for a spare saddlebag.

I even had some custom metalwork done in exchange for a basket. Other trades have included embroidery in exchange for a rear rack, collectible fountain pens in exchange for artwork, and products in exchange for photography.

A good place to start looking for bartering opportunities as far as bicycles go, is bikeforums. They've set up "For Trade" threads for different geographical regions, where you can list the items you have available and the items you are looking for. Here is the one for the Northeastern USA. I have been considering setting up something similar - but cannot think of a way to do it without it eating up too much of my time.

And while trades can be pre-determined and formal ("I'll give you my Item X in exchange for your Item Y"), they can also be a sort of reciprocal, whimsical gift-giving - like pen pals exchanging objects instead of letters: You send the person something you think they might like, and at some later point they do the same. There are no explicit arrangements or expectations, and that is the neat thing about it. I've had these types of exchanges with several bike people, and it's been really nice - my latest gift being the delightfully named "bike burrito."

These things have fascinated me for some time, so I was pretty happy to get one. It's called a "bike burrito" because - well, it folds up like a burrito.

...And unfolds to reveal compartments for your tools. (We all have different concepts of "tools!")

The "burrito" is held together by a toe-clip strap, which can be easily threaded through the rails under your saddle. With the "epic" winter we are having, it's safe to say that I won't be using it any time soon - but it deserves to be seen!

Connecting with other bicycle-loving people from around the world can be fun, and can lead to all sorts of exchanges you would not otherwise have. What are your thoughts on developing a system to facilitate this? Would you find it helpful? What features would be useful? Would simply using the comments section of a post be enough, or do you think it won't work without a message board? Ideas welcome!

Brooks Colt: New vs Vintage

I have a new-release Brooks "Colt" saddle on loan from Harris Cyclery (for comparison with the Gilles Berthoud) and have just received a vintage "Colt" from a reader to try out as well. The weather we've been having has not allowed me to ride either of them just yet, but I thought a side-by-side comparison might be useful for those who are wondering how the re-released version compares to the original (produced 1979-2001).

What attracts me to the "Colt" model, is its shape, which in some ways resembles the Selle Italia "Turbo" and similar models of 1980s Italian racing saddles. Those saddles have fairly narrow (but not too narrow) platforms that gently curve in a way that feels very comfortable to me. But while the foam, plastic and padded leather surfaces of the "Turbo" style saddles start to bother me after a while, the suspended leather of the Brooks "Colt" should solve that problem.

Like the '80s Italian racing saddles, the "Colt" has a fully covered, squarish, down-turned nose. It is the only Brooks model where the nose is styled in this manner, and to me the design holds the promise of anatomical comfort. The new and the vintage versions of the "Colt" appear to be identical in form, dimensions and basic construction - differing only in colour, in the shape of the Brooks placket in the back (see previous picture), and, of course, in the amount of wear.

I have two roadbikes for which I need saddles, and I have more or less decided to keep the Berthoud for one of them. For the other, I would ideally keep the vintage "Colt," and return the new one. One reason I prefer the vintage version is the classic, rich brown colour (the only normal colour the new release comes in, is black - the other options being purple, mustard, turquoise and hot pink). The other reason, is that everyone complains about the "Colt" being difficult to break in, and the vintage version looks like it has most definitely been broken in by the previous owner.

On the other hand, the vintage saddle may in fact be too broken in. The colour variations in the leather make this difficult to capture in pictures, but basically the sit bone indentations from the previous owner are so deep, that a narrow, raised ridge has formed along the center of the saddle. There are several online tutorials that give instructions for re-shaping saddles that exhibit such distortions, and I am considering doing this. The process (as described by Hilary Stone) basically involves getting the saddle wet, then stuffing it with paper and reshaping it as it dries. Curious about the experience of those who have tried it!

Gilles Berthoud Saddles: Something Different Entirely!

When I started having problems with the width of the Brooks B17 on my roadbike, I received many excellent suggestions from readers. I also received a suggestion from several staff members at Harris Cyclery: a Gilles Berthoud. Bethoud saddles and luggage are made in France and are associated with exquisite randonneuring bicycles. It is generally agreed that their handlebar bags are the finest one can get, and several respected members of the industry describe the saddles as being "even better" than Brooks. However, I was both skeptical of that description and weary of the high price tag. When I returned to Harris Cyclery the following week, I still had not decided what saddle to get, and they suggested that I try the Berthoud and see what I think. So I now have the saddle on loan, and have ridden with it on my Bianchi roadbike.

The saddle I have is a Gilles Berthoud touring model, which is available in three different colours (black, natural and cork), with regular or titanium rails, and in either a man's or a woman's length. Mine is the woman's version, which is the same width as the men's (160mm), but with a shorter nose. You can read the detailed specs for these saddles here. The woman's model is called the "Marie Blanque"- after a short, steep climb in the French Pyrenees.

The Berthoud differs from Brooks and the other leather saddles available today in several ways. The leather is stretched using a different method - a modular system involving bolts instead of rivets. This system allows for the saddle to be taken a part and also for more control over tension adjustment. The leather is somewhat thicker than that of other brands.

The undercarriage consists of metal rails combined with a polycarbonate (plastic) rear support, which accommodates the proprietary Berthoud "Klikfix" saddlebag attachments. The openings can probably also be used with standard saddlebag straps, though I have not yet tried to attach one. This aspect is where the Berthoud saddles receive most of their criticism: "Not only is the saddle more expensive, but it has plastic parts?" However, both Berthoud and fans of the saddle insist that this construction method is superior in terms of comfort and adjustment possibilities, and is not prone to failure. I am cautiously open-minded on this, and would be curious to know the statistics of Brooks vs Berthoud saddle failure.

Another distinct feature of the Berthoud's design, is that the bolts (not rivets) are located behind and below the surface of the saddle - so that the cyclist's rear end does not come in contact with them no matter how far back they sit. This will make a huge difference to those who are bothered by the texture of the rivets on other leather saddles.

Finally, the very shape of the saddle is different than what I have gotten used to from Brooks. The Berthoud's surface platform is completely flat, whereas the surface of Brooks has "undulations" to it (some call it the "banana shape"). As a result,  the Berthoud works best when mounted completely level - whereas I mount the Brooks with the nose pointing slightly up, in order to not slide forward.

An additional difference, is the Berthoud's relative lack of "side skirts" (compare it to the Brooks here). Despite being classified as a touring saddle, the leather on the Berthoud is closely trimmed along the sides - typical of a much more aggressive saddle in the Brooks range.

My experience riding on the Berthoud is limited to a short (12 miles or so) winter ride, but here are my impressions so far: The saddle felt "just right" out of the box and I simply forgot about it once I got on the bike and began cycling (no padded shorts). Because the Bianchi is a bit big on me, I am leaned forward on it considerably. The saddle did not feel too wide (it is 10mm narrower than a lady's Brooks B17) and my legs did not rub against the "side skirts". Because the Berthoud is level, the nose does not come into contact with any sensitive areas. With Brooks road saddles, I need to make a lot of adjustments to get this aspect just right - but the Berthoud seems to naturally stay away from that region. As I was cycling, I was not so much experiencing any of this, as not experiencing anything. I was taken with the winter scenery and genuinely forgot that I was supposed to be trying the saddle and forming impressions of it. There were no impressions, and only later did I realise that this in itself meant that the saddle was comfortable.

I have to admit that I am "emotionally biased" towards Brooks, which is an obstacle to recognising that the Berthoud suits me better - at least on roadbikes with considerable forward lean. The Berthoud basically gives me the width of a touring saddle with the side cut-outs of a racing saddle - plus the shape does not interfere with my "lady areas". In that sense, it is also more versatile, and I can see myself using it both on a touring bike and on a more aggressive roadbike. All this is exactly what I need.  But... a $200+ saddle? I suppose that if I sell my spare Brooks B17S and the titanium-rail Brooks Finesse that I received in a trade but find unridable, that would give me the funds. But it still feels like an overindulgence and I need to think about it. Regardless of whether I keep the saddle or not, I hope this write-up was helpful to those considering a Berthoud.

The Skinny on Narrow Brooks Saddles?

I did not think this would happen to me in a million years, but the Brooks B17 saddle that is so blissfully comfortable on my touring bike - is now apparently too wide for me on my fixed gear roadbike. I kept lowering the handlebars on that bike (isn't it funny how our ideas of "what feels comfortable" can change?), until they've become considerably lower than the saddle. As a result, parts of my inner/rear thighs have begun to press into the hard edges of the saddle uncomfortably as I pedal. This never used to happen when the handlebars were up higher, so "saddle too wide" seems like a reasonable diagnosis.  Just when I thought that the B17 was my "perfect" default saddle for roadbikes, I guess I am proven wrong. 

I am completely lost when it comes to choosing a narrow saddle, and the Brooks classification system is not helpful. Even examining them all side by side (at Harris Cyclery) was more confusing than informative. Left to right, these are: the Swift, the Pro, the Colt, and the Swallow. I imagine the box of kleenex on the left is for clean-up, lest customers drool on the saddles. Or cry about not being able to afford them.

More frustrating still, is the fact that, once you get into the narrower-than-B17 territory, nobody seems to agree about what's comfortable. Some say that they ride the Brooks Pro exclusively and love it. Others say that the Brooks Pro is "unrideable". Reviews of the Swift and the Swallow are equally mixed. From what I read, I am beginning to think that as a lighter cyclist (125lb) I may find it especially difficult to deal with these saddles, as they tend to be harder to break in.

One model I am considering is the new (re-released) Colt. The width is similar to the Pro, but the nose is pointed down, like on these 80s racing saddles. I have tried a couple of the old vinyl and foam saddles in that style, and found their shape surprisingly comfortable (though not the material they are made of). I am not sure what the actual purpose of the downpointed nose is, but it sure is female-anatomy-friendly, which is why I am considering it. The Brooks Colt has been out for a few months, but I have not found any substantial reviews of it. The hard-as-a-rock surface does give me pause.

While Brooks saddles are fantastic when you find the right one, they are just too expensive for me to experiment with. I am open to other brands as well, though in my experience I don't do well with anything other than suspended leather. Maybe some of the imitation-Brooks that people consider "flimsy" might actually work for me, since they break in faster. Any suggestions - keeping my weight in mind - would be much appreciated.

Colour Theory for Bikes

As someone who deals with colour all the time - taking pains to get it "just right" for paintings and photography setups - I am fascinated by the role of colour in bicycles. Choosing colour is not just a matter of "what matches what." It is a matter of understanding the psychological mechanisms involved in human colour perception and processing - which to me has always been interesting. But taking it down a notch from the realms of art-speak and neuro-psychology, here are some thoughts on colour choices as they pertain to setting up bicycles:

Handlebars and saddle
My go-to standard for handlebars and saddles is the brown family. The reason I like to use brown as opposed to black, is that brown enhances the colour of the bicycle frame, whereas black tends to "deaden" it. Being neutral, brown will not compete with the frame colour, just as black will not. But it will make the colour more vibrant, more emphatic - whereas black will leave it flat.

This works especially well on "cool" frame colours - such as blue and silver. And using twine and bits of leather on other parts of the bike (chainstay protector, kickstand, waterbottle, saddlebag straps) will further enhance the "warming" effect.

Brown can also make a black frame look less intimidating and more "personable" - as well as bring out the details in what would otherwise be an expanse of black-on-black.

But of course, black has its place as well. Black accessories make a bike seem more aggressive - which can look good on some bicycles. And depending on the "personality" of a particular bike (lady's military bike?), you might not necessarily want the frame colour to be overly vibrant.

And when it comes to racing bikes, an aggressive or sporty look is usually more fitting than an "earthy" look. This can be achieved either with black, white, or brightly-coloured saddle and tape combinations (ideally in a contrasting colour to the frame). Bright and high-contrast colour schemes are exciting and suggest high energy, fast movement. If that is what you want your bike to communicate - go with it. And if not, you can tone it down with browns and neutrals, as I have done to this bike.

Tires

It goes without saying that performance and not colour should be the first consideration when it comes to tires. But assuming that you can get equally well-performing tires in a variety of colours, it can be nice to play around with that element as well. While I do not hide my crazed preference for cream tires, I do not suggest that they are "the best" option.

Cream tires can look elegant if you are going for a delicate look and have taken pains not to include any black on your bike. Here they make the bicycle look a lot more "serene" than had I used other tire choices.

And they can also look elegant as a contrast to the frame. But there comes a point - and for some it arrives much sooner than for others - where cream tires can be just too much and overwhelm the rest of the bike (I think that here I am dangerously approaching that). I also don't think that cream tires look good on a cream or white bicycle. It is too low-contrast and reminds me of "ghost bikes." Achielle does the cream-on-cream look better than others, and if you go in this direction adding prominent brown accessories to break it up a bit is the key.

A good, traditional option if you are looking for classic tires, are "gumwalls" - which are tires with back tread but tan sides. The tan fits nicely into the "organic" saddle and handlebar colour scheme, without the tires competing with the rest of the bicycle for prominence. I also like it how the alloy rims, the tan sidewalls and the black tread create the visual impression of 3 circles, one inside the other.

Bags and accessories
I am very conservative when it comes to bicycle "luggage," so perhaps I am not the best person to ask about this one. Mainly, I don't like it when bicycle bags are too distinct in relation to the bicycle itself - whereas the trend now (especially for accessories targeted at women) seems to be brightly coloured luggage with prominent graphics. It's not that I am "against" flowers, polka-dots, curly-cues, and the like. It's more that I want my bicycle to be the main focal point and not the bag. So I prefer to get subtle, classic accessories in neutral colours. As with saddles and handlebars, I think that the brown/olive family works well for a nature-exploring sort of look, whereas black works well for a more aggressive or racy look.

Decorations
Unless intentionally using decorations to distract from the rest of the bike, the colour of the decorations should not stand out too much from the other colours on the bicycle. Otherwise, the eye will get drawn to the decoration itself, with the rest of the bike an afterthought.

Frame Colour
If you are getting a bicycle frame re-painted, or are trying to choose a colour for a custom bike, the colour selection is of course a matter of personal preference. But based on my own experience (and conversations with others), keep a few things in mind:

1. Speaking very generally, super-bright colours work better on sporty bikes, whereas subdued colours work better on touring and transportation bikes.

2. True white is very harsh and almost never looks good. Even if a bicycle you like appears white to you, the actual colour is almost definitely a pale cream, a very light gray, or an off-white. Think twice before asking for a true white paintjob.

3. If you are getting the paintjob (especially powdercoat) done at a "budget" type of establishment, beware of asking for metallic colours. They are easier to mess up, and flaws in them are more visible than with regular colours. Flaws in lighter colours are also more visible than flaws in darker colours.

4. Prepare yourself for the fact that the colour never, ever looks the same on the bike as it does on the tiny colour chip, let alone on the online colour sample. I have seen some pretty amazing discrepancies, where after the person spends a month wringing their hands about the "perfect" shade, the colour on the bike does not even look like the same colour family as the chip they chose. One thing you can do, is give the painter a sample of the colour you want and ask them to find the closest match. They have experience with the way the colours actually looks on a bike. Alternatively, you can find out the colour code of a bike you like, and ask for that exact one.

There are those who take bicycle aesthetics very seriously and start to pull their hair out in despair if they cannot find the exact shade of orange handlebar tape they wanted. And there are those who could not care less about the details, and just use whatever components and accessories are available. I see myself as somewhere in the middle, leaning perhaps just a tad towards the former. (What? You think it's more than just a tad?...) While I enjoy setting up my bicycles in a way that is aesthetically pleasing to me, I do it quickly and intuitively, without dwelling on it too much. Then I ride the bike and get it filthy beyond all recognition - which is part of the fun, at least for me.

Choosing an Upright Saddle: Brooks B72 vs Brooks B66

The Brooks saddles most typically fitted on upright bicycles are the B72 and the B66 (the B67 is the same model as the B66, only made for modern seatposts). Having ridden on both, I like each of them very much and cannot say that one is "better" than the other. For me it depends on the bicycle - or more specifically, on my experience of the bicycle. 

I had a brown Brooks B66 S ("S" indicates the shorter, women's version) on my previously-owned Pashley Princess, which I rode for over a year. And I recently bought the same saddle for my vintage Gazelle. 

I have Brooks B72 saddles on two of my current bicycles: a brown one on my Royal H. mixte, and a black one on my Bella Ciao 3-speed. (I have also owned several vintage B72s, but will leave those out of this discussion). 

[image compiled from brooksengland.com]

To get a good sense of the differences in dimensions, I've compiled the specs from Brooks into a single chart.  You can see that the B72 is very slightly wider than the B66 models (though a 4mm difference is negligible). The B72 is a unisex saddle and does not come in separate male and female versions; its length is in between the male and female B66. The B72 is lighter and has less height to it, because its springs are tighter and smaller than the springs on the B66. Unlike the B66 models, the B72 is available in black and brown only. 

In terms of experiencing the saddles, the main differences are the springs, the shape, and the texture. The B66 has large springs that provide quite a bit of suspension. The texture of the saddle's surface is pebbled. And the edges - including the sides and the nose - are rounded.  To me, these features make the B66 particularly comfortable on a bolt-upright, heavy city bicycle. The substantial springs provide excellent cushiness when most of my weight rests on the saddle. The pebbled texture keeps me from sliding around. And the rounded edges make it easier to slide off the bicycle when dismounting - which is convenient when making frequent stops in the city. On the other hand, when I try the B66 on sportier bicycles (with lower handlebars and steeper geometry), I find some of these comfort features distracting: The springs are too much and the pebbled texture is annoying when I am always shifting on the saddle.

In comparison to the B66, the B72 seems like a more versatile saddle to me. The B72's springs are tighter and smaller - still providing suspension, but not to the extent that it interferes with a more forward lean. The surface of the B72 is smooth and the edges are squarely tapered - which I find more comfortable for long distance cycling, during which I slide around on the saddle more, but get off the bike less frequently. 

While both saddles are great for upright bicycles, for me the B72 works better on the more sporty variety, whereas the B66 works better on the super-relaxed ones. As they say, your mileage may vary.  If you have tried both models and have a preference for one over the other, please share your experiences.

Strange Magic! And a Saddle Conundrum

How on Earth can one bicycle handle like a stately city bike one moment, and like a fast touring bike the next? I have no idea, but I have just experienced it.

At slow speeds, the Royal H. mixte rides like a vintage 3-speed: stable, easy, upright. So nicely it performed as a city bike, that I was almost reluctant to take it on a "real ride" - having gotten used to doing those kinds of rides on road bikes with drop bars. But once out of the city, the bicycle was magically transformed into... I don't even know what, because I haven't ridden a bike quite like it before!

This beauty handled the 40 mile ride through the hills of Concord and Lexington as if it were a casual cruise to the beach. We rode fast, but I didn't feel the speed. We climbed hills, but I didn't feel the strain of the climb.

When wrapped as I have them, the Porteur handlebars offer 3 distinct positions: upright when held at the edges, slightly leaned forward when held further down, and more aggressively leaned forward when held at the corners. And the bicycle responds to changes in hand positions very nicely. The Silver shifters installed onto Paul's Thumbies (more about this ordeal later!) are as easy to use as Sturmey Archer trigger shifters. And my positioning on the bike is so utterly perfect that I feel no pressure on my hands whether I am upright or leaned forward. The ride quality - namely its versatility - is strangely magical. I have never met a bicycle that can go from stately to aggressive at the drop of a hat before.

The mixte is not 100% finished yet, though pretty darn close: We still need to install the lights, and the front rack in these pictures is not the one that will ultimately be on it. But most importantly, I am not sure what to do about the saddle: Because my position alternates between upright and leaned over, it's hard to decide whether a more narrow saddle would be appropriate or a wider one, and whether springs or no springs. In the pictures, that is a Brooks B17 S borrowed from one of my roadbikes - but I am not certain that it feels right on this bike. What saddle do you have on your mixte, and how do you like it?