Didn’t read all the comments, did see some great advice as I skimmed through, but for what it’s worth, the infinity seat has been amazing for me. I struggled with soft tissue issues and this seat, along with their general fit recommendations, was a game changer for me. I have their old model on my track bike and the newer one on my road bike and gravel bike. Prior to using this seat I wouldn’t be able to ride the day after my track evening.
@James_McA Bit harsh dude? The OP has specifically asked for help and the responding member’s profile doesn’t suggest a shill. I can’t categorically say you’re wrong, but principle of charity?
2 Likes
@James_McA I think you mistook the last poster for the OP?
I didn’t get along with the dimension. Specialized power (although the wrong shape for my thighs) was more comfortable.
Although I get along okay with the Nago Evo
Saddles are very personal - if your fitter can’t solve the issue, find a new fitter with some good reviews in your local area.
Says the guy whos making suggestions on a saddle position that he hasnt even tested on a long ride yet.
@James_McA I’m not the OP. The op described issues with soft tissue and seat bones that I used to share. Yes, saddles are deeply personal but that doesn’t mean pointing someone in the direction of one that works for someone who’s had similar concerns is pointless. I do not work for nor am a rep for Infinity. I simply love their product and as they’re not sold in stores, aren’t usually thought of or recommended. It was simply a suggestion to check it out is all.
3 Likes
There’s no such thing as ‘sit bones’. There’s one pelvis and you put body weight on different bits depending on how you sit. Don’t be discouraged by anyone pontificating on this mythical thing you can’t find. Look up the pelvic bone anatomy and then just imagine it in different degrees of rotation. I’d actually be discouraged from buying a saddle from anyone who used the term “sit bone” as it suggests they haven’t even googled the anatomy or considered that pelvis’ rotate.
Well, the “sit bones” is a layman’s term for the ischial tuberosities. Right or wrong in a pure sense, it is considered an acceptable use of the terms to describe the overall goal of supporting the body by these general locations of our anatomy, vs soft tissue support.
That location and the pubic rami can come into play for riders, depending on their pelvic rotation and specific anatomical variations.
7 Likes
How upright would a rider need to be sat to have their weight on a part of their ischial tuberosity and what percentage of people that use TrainerRoad do you think have their weight on their ischial tuberosities?
I think you’re missing the point and taking it too literally, IMO. The IT width is a reference size in saddle selection (and general placement upon it) because it frames the max width of the ‘V’ shape from them forward to the rami.
Sit bones are not meant to be the solitary means of support in most cases. It can be for very upright position with a “square” pelvis angle. But there is often a blend from the max ITW as the bones flow forward (along the IT arc), and the actual support varies along that curve depending on pelvis tilt and the rider’s actual shape. It can effectively parallel the shape of the saddle wings from the wide to the narrow shape of the saddle towards the nose.
None of this is absolute or perfect. Saddle selection and comfort is a black art with lots of guessing involved. Using ITW is one part of the process, but far from the only detail that matters or should be considered.
1 Like
I think you ignored the question
OK? Totally worthless number for you then… 5% on the sole point of the IT.
3 Likes
You’re just avoiding the actual question like a politician. Here is a reminder.
I covered that with my “square” pelvis angle… in the prior comment (meaning essentially vertical), which applies to my totally made up 5% fake number.
I clearly don’t have the answers you want. Sorry. 
2 Likes
I think the point is that there isn’t one answer. Differences in anatomy and riding position will mean the distribution is different from one rider to the next.
1 Like
Complete strawman argument. The ‘point’ is that what are called ‘sit bones’ are neither bones nor sat on by cyclists very often, so it is a misleading name, by virtue of the fact they are not bones and are not sat on by cyclists very often.
Well I do prefer it when people actually answer questions.
You can’t call one part of a bone a bone. That’s like taking a picture of a bicycle and claiming the rear derailleur is a bicycle.
The femur is a bone: is the greater trochanter also a bone?
The Scapula is a bone: the spine-of-scapula a bone?
The Tibia is a bone: is the medial malleolus a bone?
In any common use of the term ‘bone’, saying something is not bone explicitly implies it is made of something else.
No, you call it part of a bone.
False analogy and a strawman argument, for the reasons above.
In any common sense world, the ischial tuberosities are bones (not least because any distinction is an academic nicety which is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand). At least some pressure goes through the lower part of the pelvis - most commonly the ischial tuberosities - when you sit on anything.
It can be found, ironically via an image of pelvic anatomy.
With all that in mind, you cannot pray in aid an odd semantic distinction to rescue an apparently pointlessly combative position.
3 Likes
Just accept you’re talking nonsense. A part of a bone cannot be called a bone.