In another thread, George raises an interesting question:
... Interesting to see someone riding a sprung saddle with drop bars. I have ordered the Moonsaddle to attach to my Thudbuster to give my perineum a hoilday. If the saddle turns out to be too high then I will try a sprung Brooks. I think my stance might be called semi-sporting, so slightly more raised than you using the tops. Having 4 sprung saddles could be considered being greedy. If you send half of them to me, that's 2 saddles not 4 halves, we will say no more about it!
I added the bold for emphasis above.
Sprung saddles: one on the Thorn Nomad, one on the Sherpa, one on the rando bike (photos above), one on the fold up bike. The non-sprung Brooks Pro: One on the vintage Italian racer to replace the 1962 vintage one that was on it and is now retired.
When I sit more upright, a wider flatter saddle like the B17 will work for me, but not on a bike where I might use the drops on drop bars. I bought a B17 over a decade ago, but did not like it. I eventually put it on a bike that I have on my trainer for indoor exercise, on that bike I sit upright so I can watch TV while getting some exercise. It is an old mixte frame bike that I picked up when a neighbor put it in the trash, works great on the trainer.
I did not previously mention that I have a Flyer which is a sprung B-17. I bought it on a whim when it was cheap on Ebay. I have used it on my Nomad when I am using my Nomad as a mountain bike and not using the drops on the drop bars. Since I am sitting more upright when I am doing mountain biking, the Flyer works better for that than the Conquest which is better when I lean forward more.
You will find that a sprung saddle like the Conquest or Flyer really is not much better than a non-sprung saddle for comfort. It is a little better for smoothing out the buzz on rough pavement, but it does not offer the cushioning that you might want if you have soft tissue issues. But there are some Brooks saddles that have lots of springs that might work better than the Conquest or Flyer. I think I deflect the springs only about 5 mm when I sit on the Conquest or Flyer, thus the springs are very very stiff.
I've given George's entire post as a framework but the important bit I want to discuss here is this:
You will find that a sprung saddle like the Conquest or Flyer really is not much better than a non-sprung saddle for comfort. It is a little better for smoothing out the buzz on rough pavement, but it does not offer the cushioning that you might want if you have soft tissue issues.
The first part of that:
You will find that a sprung saddle like the Conquest or Flyer really is not much better than a non-sprung saddle for comfort. ...it does not offer the cushioning that you might want if you have soft tissue issues.
is very likely true for those 70kg or under. But over that weight, or when touring with a loaded bike and usually with more highly pressured tyres, those big hefty springs preferred by Brooks come into their own for the biggest bangs the road transmits from big irregularities, like crashing through potholes at speed.
I conclude from logic and years working on the suspension of fast cars that the mechanically-sprung part of a Brooks saddle is about protecting your coccyx and spine rather than your soft parts.
But this:
It is a little better for smoothing out the buzz on rough pavement...
I consider doubtful in any meaningful measure. (I don't doubt that a very experienced cyclist like George observes something subtle in extreme conditions, but note all the qualifiers.) The springs on any Brooks saddle I've been able to inspect and try are simply too stiff for this function. More, if they were made soft enough to contribute to killing road buzz, they would be so soft the entire seat would sway on them (as the dumber class of street corner gossip believes the triple helical-sprung B73 I use does -- it doesn't, period). The rails of Brooks saddles are also springs even if not wound, and are even stiffer, so I just mention them for exhaustive consideration. In any event, higher frequencies of vibration transferred from the interface of tyre and road to the bicycle frame and hence to the cyclist through his/her fundament are pretty efficiently dealt with by the hammock design and material, most commonly leather, of the Brooks saddle, and in many other designs acceptably by gel fillings in the saddle.
So, in summary,
1. Helical springs are a supplementary measure of protection to the intrinsic protections of the leather hammock of traditional saddles and gel filling of simpler saddles. Such mechanical springs work best with heavy riders and loads, highly pressured tyres, and large road irregularities. Mechanical Springs for Low Frequency Disturbances!
2. Smaller road irregularities are well dealt with by the standard Brooks leather hammock and modern gel design saddles. One of the most comfortable bicycles ever, the Pedersen first sold in 1896 and still with a cult following, offers a hammock suspended between the seatpost and the head tube. Hammocks for High Frequency Buzz!
***
It's worth saying in this regard that much of the bottom soreness and lower back pain cyclists complain of should not be laid at the saddle but at the door of the cyclist's wrong choices. For instance, every single Brooks helically sprung saddle is intended for higher handlebars and a more upright riding posture than the companion "unsprung" (it isn't actually, because the rails are also springs) Brooks saddle. The wider the saddle, the more heavily helically sprung, or both, the more upright the posture of the rider it is designed to accommodate. So the saddle and its springing is not a cure for the ills of the cyclist, but a tool in achieving the correct ergonomic posture that prevents such problems ever occurring, and the saddle should not be changed without changing both the handlebar height and reach (stem length and/or inclination) accordingly.
