Michael Fouche <fouche@csu.murdoch.edu.au> writes:
>I’m not sure when this was, but at some stage a company (very specific isn’t
>it? ) was developing a better bike seat, that didn’t cause pain and infertility
>in riders. It had two seperate parts to it - one for each buttock - and was
>apparently extremely comfortable. Perhaps we could collectively design a
>similar seat for a unicycle.
I saw an article in one of the US bicycling magazines showing an ad from the
1890s for one of those two-pad seats. The article (written by a woman) stated
that this and other similar saddles were developed for women as a “hygienic”
device, to prevent sexual stimulation from contact with the saddle. Apparently
the great freedom given women by the advent of the safety bicycle was frowned
upon (by men). These men apparently spread nasty rumors that women who rode
bicycles “would refuse to be controlled socially or become unmarriageable”.
Now these saddles have returned as a cure for men's problems. It's just
another marketing ploy to wring a few more consumer bucks out of something
that the consumer rejected (and forgot about) many years ago.
These saddles don't work very well on bicycles (if they did, you'd see more
of them, right? As a recumbent bicyclist I should know better...) IMO they
would work even less well on a unicycle. As I have stated before, I get a
lot of information about where the uni is & what it is doing from 'seat of
the pants' contact. Less seat = less feedback.
Just another opinion.
Dennis Kathrens