I think it was weight combined with "style", the latter as Ken says often largely defined by what the European pros were riding.
Some time ago someone quoted here an observation that all objective merit aside, maybe the biggest reason Mafac CP's were so popular in the late 50's and early 60's was that that was what the public saw Anquetil using in the photos from the latest TdF. While the reason Campy SP's were the brake to have in the late 60's and early 70's was that that was what the public saw Merckx using in the photos from the latest TdF.
Probably a lot of truth to that, and the same could be said for saddles. Anquetil mostly rode leather saddles. I presume Ideale, but he could have used Brooks as well - anyone know for sure? Merckx was usually seen on Unicanitor. Rightly or wrongly, star athletes do affect the public's buying behavior, and it is hard to dispute that Anquetil's and Merckx's sponsors usually got their money's worth.
But besides weight and image, there is a convenience factor as well. One would never have a thread like the recent one on saddle soaking on how to restore a Unicanitor. About all you can do to restore a Unicaniitor is glue on a new leather cover with barge cement. And with the uncovered Unicanitors there is pretty much no such thing as restotation, or any routine care required. No breakin, no soaking, no ritualized applications of Proofhide, no worrying about getting the saddle caught in the rain. Of course the saddle will never get any more comfotable than when initially purchased, but it will never get any worse either.
I think plastic saddles are similar to clincher tires - clinchers may not ride as well as sewups, but it is easier to change a tube in a clincher than repair a sewup, and cheaper to replace a tube than to throw away and replace a puctured tubular. Plus few people today want to mess with rim cement, though Tufo tape does narrow the convenience gap.
If we are honest, I think we must admit that part of the continued niche interest in leather saddles and tubular tires is exactly their inconvenience, or to put it more kindly, the ritual connected with them. I'll frankly admit that I find the application of Proofhide a rather soothing ritual and the smell of Proofhide is like nothing else in the world. And this soaking and rejuvenating leather saddles kind of takes the ritual to a new level. Some also enjoy the ritual of gluing tubulars, and there may even be someone who actually enjoys repairing tubulars, though I haven't met him yet. I don't really share this one, which is why I ride Tufos these days. It's kind of like a fraternity or a lodge, with passwords and secret handshakes. Being able to maintain a leather saddle or repair a tubular makes us members of the "club" somehow wiser than than the general public.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA
> From: Ken Freeman <kenfreeman096@gmail.com>
\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] Leather saddles vs leather covered
\r?\n> To: "Steve Whitting" <ciocc_cat@yahoo.com>
\r?\n> Cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
\r?\n> Date: Friday, May 29, 2009, 8:20 AM
\r?\n> I think it was mainly weight.
\r?\n> Even in the '70s the weight weenie existed,
\r?\n> and spent $$ to save grams. Cutting saddle mass by
\r?\n> 50% (around 250
\r?\n> grams/1/2 pound) was about as big a single savings one
\r?\n> could achieve, if you
\r?\n> already had a lightweight bike. Third party companies
\r?\n> were bringing out Ti
\r?\n> spindles, bolts, and other small fittings for Campy parts,
\r?\n> Campy came out
\r?\n> with weight-reduced Super Record parts conpared to NR, the
\r?\n> Strada pedal
\r?\n> gained an anodized aluminum cage, Hi-E and others came out
\r?\n> with domestic
\r?\n> tech weight-savings offerings, and of course, drillium.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Plus even back then some hated the initial hardness of a
\r?\n> Brooks, as can be
\r?\n> seen by the proliferation of gel and foam padded racy
\r?\n> looking saddles on a
\r?\n> plastic base, and feared the potential for rainstorm
\r?\n> destruction.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> As far as the "rest of us," many of the rest of us back
\r?\n> then believed that
\r?\n> what European racing found to be good, was good. Now
\r?\n> we're maybe a little
\r?\n> more sophisticated, but I think still on the same basic
\r?\n> plan.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Once marketers see a buying trend, the hype moves in that
\r?\n> direction, but I
\r?\n> don't think hype can succeed if the message isn't in some
\r?\n> way what the
\r?\n> customers want.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> As older bike freaks I think we now know there are
\r?\n> tradeoffs when you try to
\r?\n> maximize the benefit of one factor such as weight:
\r?\n> reliability, durability
\r?\n> (the "stupid light" concept), resale, transfer to another
\r?\n> platform, and
\r?\n> comfort.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Ken Freeman
\r?\n> Ann Arbor, MI USA
\r?\n>
\r?\n> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Steve Whitting <ciocc_cat@yahoo.com>wrote:
\r?\n>
\r?\n> > Why did many bicycle brands abandon Brooks-style
\r?\n> all-leather saddles for
\r?\n> > Unicanitor-style (leather cover over a plastic
\r?\n> shell)? Was it cost or
\r?\n> > weight? Let's face it - the whole 1970s
\r?\n> fewer-spoke/drillium fad was all
\r?\n> > about shaving-off a few precious ounces (possibly
\r?\n> important to a
\r?\n> > pro-cyclist in a long climb but otherwise magrinally
\r?\n> benificial to the rest
\r?\n> > of us).
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > My personal opinion is that market "hype" is often a
\r?\n> potent factor in many
\r?\n> > cycling "innovations". Some are truly
\r?\n> worthwhile, but others you sometimes
\r?\n> > have to wonder about.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Steve Whitting
\r?\n> > Prairieville, Louisiana USA
\r?\n> > http://ciocc-cat.angelfire.com/