Actually, I've had a lot of offlist responses on this and it appears the original mod 92, as introduced in 1977 was both wider and a bit longer than the mod 90, 270 x 170 versus 268 x 158. That would make the mod 92 the same width as the Brooks B-17, and only 10 mm shorter, which would seem a touring saddle, not a woman's saddle. However there was a subsequent short version of the mod 92 between 230 and 240mm, which is indeed regarded as a woman's model. It appears that the later Dutch or German-made mod 92's designated and marked these as 92D (Dames or Dammen) versus 92H (Hommes or Herren), although supposedly the original French made ones were not differentiated in this manner.
The mos 92 recently on eBay is indeed marked 92D and the seller responded to my question saying he measured the length at 24 cm. So these are the woman's version.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, Texas, USA
Nick March <nicbordeaux@yahoo.fr> wrote: Dear Jerry,
The 92 was indeed a womans model, it is significantly wider at the back(and heavier) than the 90. That doesn't stop it from being very good saddle in deed. One could easily confuse it with one of the snub-nose track bike sadd les. Just my two cents, but I have one on a men's bike and the fact that it was originally sold as a ladies model causes me no embarasment, and it fee ls very nice to ride on. It is often described (by sellers I guess?) as a t ouring saddle. The real idéale touring saddle was the 88, which whilst wi der than a 90 or 80, is not as wide as the 92.
Nick March Agen, 47000 Lot et Garonne, France
"Subject: [CR]Ideale 92 Diagonale? Woman's model?
Was the Ideale 92 Diagonale a woman's model? Or just a touring model? It does look shorter and perhaps wider than a mod 90, but I don't know if it w as designed for women, or just for tourits.
Regards,
Jerry Moos" =0A=0A=0A ____________________________________________________________