Fog of War

‘Fog of war’ is a military term describing uncertainty in a situation due to the lack of information. In the context of saddles, we are often unaware of the necessary facts required to select the right saddle; when using a new one, it can be difficult to isolate the root causes and resolve issues that crop up. We discuss different aspects of this fog: the impact of sitbone width guesstimation, reference points used when providing and receiving saddle feedback, the conveyance of intended saddle usage from designer to the cyclist, and various contributing factors to specific problems.

Sitbone width

Although multiple ways and tools to measure sitbone width exist, most of us still do not know what ours are. We look at the distribution of sitbones (shown below), then conclude that ours is 110mm (for men), or 130mm (for women). Or we look at the range of saddles on the shelves, then pick the middle option assuming it’s the safest.

Sitbone width distribution

Knowing sitbone width is necessary to find the right saddle. Too narrow, our sitbones won’t be supported. Too wide, the saddle sides can interfere with pedaling. In some cases, saddles designed for a particular width incorporate features intended for sitting at certain positions in a specific way (e.g. upright with sitbones around the middle of saddle wings); a deviation from the designed-for width may result in incorrect usage of the saddle.

Not knowing our sitbone widths has other implications. Sitting on a saddle that is too narrow places more pressure on the perineum. If we are unaware that properly supported sitbones can relieve perineum pressure, we may come to the incorrect conclusion that a channel or a cutout is necessary. While the latter can indeed help, the better solution is to find a saddle that is wide enough.

Reference points

Feedback from multiple sources regarding comfort of a particular saddle can cause the fog of war to worsen. For instance, one may claim that the saddle is perfectly comfortable, while another says perineum pressure is excessive. Another example is the definition of an aggressive versus non-aggressive position on the saddle: an experienced racer’s non-aggressive position may be considered aggressive for a recreational rider. Such vastly differing opinions relied on facts (e.g. sitbone width, riding posture) that is not explicitly stated or known, and can therefore be difficult to reconcile. We call these facts reference points, which help when discussing saddle comfort.

Saddle design

A saddle is typically designed with certain sitting postures in mind. For instance, only an upright position having weight on the the sitbones may be suitable for a cruiser bike’s saddle. A time-trial specific saddle may be optimized for supporting the rami, not sitbones. In the event that the intended postures for a saddle are not properly conveyed to cyclists, we have to resort to trial-and-error attempts at getting comfortable on the saddle.

Multiple contributing factors

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of selecting and using the right saddle is teasing apart the factors that can contribute to a particular discomfort. Without knowing the root cause, problems encountered may be incorrectly attributed to the saddle.

Chafing is an issue that can have multiple contributing factors. Poorly adjusted chamois, poor fitting bibs/shorts, poor fitting saddle, friction caused by excessive sweat drying in the chamois are all contributing factors.

Lifting the Fog of War

It is difficult lifting the fog without investing some time and effort into learning more about our anatomy, the way we ride, and possible causes of issues.

Found this article useful? Check out other cycling-related stuff at

We create comfortable, performance saddles based on your anatomy and inputs, at

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.