Author Topic: B17 flyer.  (Read 7411 times)

Matt2matt2002

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1940
B17 flyer.
« on: December 08, 2014, 07:15:18 PM »
Just bought a tan one with black springs and rails.
EBay £51 inc. postage.
From a bike show room. Never used in anger!

I ride an ordinary B17 ( second hand to me with the bike and a.great fit, if a.little battle scarred) but thought I might benefit from the springs when on my planned tour of the Pamir Highway next year.

Anyone else made the change?
What can I expect?
Any settings or adjustment tips?
Never drink and drive. You may hit a bump  and spill your drink

JimK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • Interdependent Science
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2014, 07:29:31 PM »
I have B17 on a couple of bikes and the Flyer on my Thorn. One downside of the springs is that the bag loops don't really work so well with them. I use the Carradice SQR mechanism for my saddle bag. Not exactly a saddlebag anymore that way! But I figure it takes some stress off the saddlerails... as do the springs... so probably the Flyer will last longer than the B17!

The springs don't do much. Every five or ten miles when you have other things that need attention and you hit some nasty bit of pavement, you will be saved from a bruise that would have ruined the rest of the day. That's about all the springs are good for!

julk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 976
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2014, 10:46:38 PM »
I use both (on different bikes), I think Jim has summed it up well.

Negative is the bag loops and springs don’t work well together.
I also found the front bolt of a twin bolt seatpost clamp needed to be 2 or 3 mm longer due to the slope on the bottom of the saddle frame.

Positive is the shock absorption on sharp bumps.
Julian.

martinf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2014, 10:49:38 PM »
Just bought a tan one with black springs and rails.
EBay £51 inc. postage.
From a bike show room. Never used in anger!

I ride an ordinary B17 ( second hand to me with the bike and a.great fit, if a.little battle scarred) but thought I might benefit from the springs when on my planned tour of the Pamir Highway next year.

Anyone else made the change?
What can I expect?
Any settings or adjustment tips?


I have 4 types of saddle on my bikes : B17 steel, B17 Ti, B67 (the Flyer) and the old B66 Champion. They all have more or less the same top.

B17 I use with drop bars, and on the Brompton folding bikes, Ti version on these, for the weight saving when I carry the bike. Ti is also very slightly more comfortable as springier than steel, but more fragile so not really a good idea for an expedition.

I have the B67 and the B66 on flat-bar bikes with a more upright position. The springs cushion some bumps - this is most noticeable when going over potholes and for off-road riding. The old saddle works better than the new one, as the twin rails add more springing, and (I think) the main springs are slightly smaller diameter wire, so less stiff than the newer B67. But I reckon the B67 is still worth the extra weight on a flat-bar bike.

Make sure the new saddle is well broken-in before going. If it doesn't feel comfortable after several hundred (thousand?) miles of use, put the old one back on for the big tour, comfort is more important than springs.

I adjust my sprung saddles with the nose slightly lower than a standard B17, to compensate for the settling of the springs with my weight on.

Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8277
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2014, 10:58:58 PM »
Hi Matt!

My experience echoes that of the fellows above. I found my ultimate comfort in a Thudbuster LT seatpost coupled to the B.17 Standard saddle on my Nomad. Works terrifically well when riding unladen on really rough logging roads...readily responsive to big and little bumps alike and it also works well when riding the bike with a full touring load.

I had a Flyer and sold it to my neighbor when I found the springs almost completely unresponsive to my weight/riding position. He was even lighter but was deliriously happy with it and thought it bounced like a trampoline, so there you have it -- one more example of just how individual taste in saddles can vary.

Give it a try! I'm sure it looks lovely and it just might fill your every need in a touring saddle on rough surfaces. Good advice from Martin to break it in first, however, before deciding to take it on your Big Trip.

All the best,

Dan.

mickeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2787
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2014, 11:47:20 PM »
I use a Conquest, different shape from a Flyer but I think it uses the same springs.

I weigh about 80kg.  I find that the springs soften some of the road vibration when on a rough road, but otherwise do not do much.  But I like them enough that I have four Conquests.  If you are heavier, they will move more.  I think I deflect the springs about 5mm when I sit on the bike.  Needless to say a big bump will only cause me to depress the springs a few more mm.

I agree with all comments above.  The Flyer has a shape very much like the B17.

martinf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2014, 05:27:04 AM »
I use a Conquest, different shape from a Flyer but I think it uses the same springs.

Got a Conquest in my spares. AFAIK this has the same top as the Brooks Pro springless saddle. I used it for about 6,500 kms but didn't find it as comfortable as the slightly wider Flyer/B17, etc.

mickeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2787
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2014, 01:33:04 PM »
Got a Conquest in my spares. AFAIK this has the same top as the Brooks Pro springless saddle. I used it for about 6,500 kms but didn't find it as comfortable as the slightly wider Flyer/B17, etc.

Everybody is shaped a bit different, I find the B17 too wide when I use the lower position on the drop bars.

JimK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • Interdependent Science
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2014, 02:21:36 PM »
I am pretty sure that the B66 & B67 are different than the Flyer. I have a B66 on my Azor/Workcycles. It is a broader saddle than the Flyer, and I think the springs are more resilient too. It works great on my Azor, where the seating posture is completely upright, i.e. there is no weight on my hands at all. With a bike like that, you really need a good cushion or the bumps would kill you.

martinf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2014, 07:27:37 PM »
I am pretty sure that the B66 & B67 are different than the Flyer. I have a B66 on my Azor/Workcycles. It is a broader saddle than the Flyer, and I think the springs are more resilient too. It works great on my Azor, where the seating posture is completely upright, i.e. there is no weight on my hands at all. With a bike like that, you really need a good cushion or the bumps would kill you.

You are quite right for current models. My post is misleading because I have old models and the designations and models have changed over the years.

My B66 Champion is about 27 years old, at that time there were B66 Standard (roughly the same as current B66 with a fairly wide top) and B66 Champion (narrower top, same as B17), plus the shorter "S" models in both widths for ladies riding in skirts.

My Flyers are not quite so old, but I think they were sold as B67 Champion Flyer at the time (maybe twenty or so years ago). The models in the current Brooks catalog are just Flyer without any number.

All current B66 and B67 saddles seem to use the wider top. I reckon you are also right that wide saddles are better on really upright bikes. I don't (yet) have a truly upright position on my flat-bar bikes, just slightly more upright than on my drop-bar bikes with B17s, so Flyer with springs seems the best compromise.

I expect I will need to change to a wider saddle if I move to a more upright position when I get older.

JimK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • Interdependent Science
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2014, 07:40:51 PM »

My B66 Champion is about 27 years old, at that time there were B66 Standard (roughly the same as current B66 with a fairly wide top) and B66 Champion (narrower top, same as B17), plus the shorter "S" models in both widths for ladies riding in skirts.


Fascinating! Thanks for that bit of history! I heard that Brooks went through a really bleak phase, maybe the 1980s, and were pretty much out of business, before an Italian company bought them?

Similar ups and downs happen in the fountain pen world, e.g. http://www.newpentrace.net/articleGA%20MAN100.html

I am fascinated by way identities of brands and models are maintained. In what way is the B17 of today "the same" as the B17 of 25 years ago, or whenever. Certainly if a consistent manufacturing process is maintained, that's a huge piece of the puzzle. But the ship of Theseus paradox is in play with this approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Anyway it is fun to learn how bike parts have evolved!

il padrone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2014, 11:21:05 AM »
My B66 Champion is exactly the same width as the B17, just that it has twin rails and the springs. It has since been discontinued and the Flyer is the closest equivalent. The B67 is a much wider saddle than the B66 Champion.

B66 Champion on the Shogun



I have since fitted this bike up with Nitto North Road bars and the springs worked really nicely over the bumps of the local railway level-crossing (before it was undergrounded). It gives a resilient ride on largish bumps, but few springs ever work quickly enough to absorb corrugations/road chatter. Even modern suspension systems rarely cope with this very well.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2014, 11:32:08 AM by il padrone »

martinf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2014, 07:21:36 PM »
In what way is the B17 of today "the same" as the B17 of 25 years ago, or whenever.

I still have my first B17 from 1976, also a fairly standard B17 that came on my Raven Tour in 2012.

Original shape and construction look to be pretty much the same, except that the 1976 saddle top is much thinner from wear and a bit longer where the leather has stretched. One thing that has definitely changed is the little metal plate on the back of the saddle, this fell off the 1976 one a long time ago, but I am certain it was different.

There are lots more "fancy" versions of the B17 available now - Titanium frame, Imperial with cut-out in the top, etc.

Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8277
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2014, 11:41:31 PM »
When I bought my 1970 Raleigh Grand Sports, it came with a B.17 Narrow saddle that carried a *plastic* badge on the rear...white plastic with black silkscreened BROOKS name. The side imprints were different from today's also.

Later B.17s came with smooth copper plates that had the BROOKS name silkscreened. Later saddles had silver-colored or copper name plates with the lettering embossed.

Steel rivet plating has changed over time as well. There was awhile in the early 1980s when the rivets would rust after exposure to a single heavy dewfall. Much better now. The various copper rivets have changed in diameter over time as well, and so has the surface finish. One saddle I owned had rivets with fine concentric rings on the faces.

Saddlebag loops have come and gone on various models as well. The current leather on B.17 Standards is not as thick as in the past, says my digital micrometer on the samples I've checked.

As noted, the effective spring rate has changed over time on some of those saddles so equipped.

Of course, the biggest visible difference in current saddles is the last of chrome chassis (rails, cantle plate at the rear), though the nose piece is still often plated.

Best,

Dan.

Andre Jute

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
Re: B17 flyer.
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2014, 11:49:21 PM »
Since this thread has now wandered away a bit, let me put in a quick word for the B73, which is known as the Brooks that is most comfortable out of the box. it has twin rails and three helical springs, one at each corner, and I love mine. It does well with big bumps but I ride on 60mm Big Apples with minimum pressure, so it needs to be a pretty big pothole before I pay any attention; i don't have to post often. On other bikes with high pressure tyres saddle was a boon but it let through road chatter, as said earlier in the thread, but not as much as expensive gel saddles from Selle Italia and Terry. Extremely comfortable from out of the box; I soaked the leather in neatsfoot oil for 20m, not long enough to sink in, just enough to apply a good coating to both sides, and twice a year put on a very thin layer of Brooks Proofide on only the top side.

One downside. The nosebolt is a split design, one bolt from the top, one from the bottom, inside the helical spring. Both are old British spec bolts, and if they come loose the nuts inside the spring are hell to reach and tighten because you can't get even a cone spanner in there. I finally solved the problem by holding the nut with a ground-down Bentley brake spanner (that's at least fifty quid down the drain already...) and twisting the spring. It's a kludge and, as such, unsatisfactory, but the best I can do.

Also good thick leather. In a major incident with a broken road a few years ago, the saddle was scarred through the top layer on one side in an area about half an inch square. I simply rubbed the wound with a good spot of Proofide on the Brooks cloth, let it sit 24 hours, and polished it off, and now it looks like a feature on an adventure bicyclist's saddle, not obvious or jarring at all. That's quality leather.