>>> This problem is that the average measurement between seat bones on a male >>> pelvis is 100 mm, whereas the average female seat bones are 130 mm apart.
I wonder how he got those numbers, and if they are pretty representative? That would equal about 3 7/8" spacing for a man, and about 5 1/8" for a woman. I'm not sure I know anyone well enough that I want poking around on my expanding derriere to measure mine - that I can trust not to laugh anyway... I wonder how wide the average horse's spinous processes are? Most of the rider's weight is typically on the seatbones - probably a good reminder of how important it is to get the saddle centered on the horse's back and to sit centered. It's also interesting to think that only in recent years (the last five, possibly ten) that we've been seeing gullet channels in treed saddles even close to that wide, yet we've always been told a major purpose of a treed saddle is to protect the horse's spine. Many new saddles still are much narrower than that in the gullet channel. I wonder if we look at it that way, if treeless saddles might actually provide more spinal protection....assuming of course, that the rider sits in a centered way, centered over the spine...? I need to ponder this a while and make some more observations on my horses. Wonder if I can even find the full width of the spinous processes on my "well protected" backs... Most Icelandic's - not all - seem to have nicely padded backs naturally....either padded with fat or muscle or both. Even most out of shape horses seem to have some muscle padding, just via their natural conformation. I'm not convinced that there's much justification for picking a treed saddle over a treeless on that argument alone, especially when you can add a nice channel pad for extra insurance. Once you move to a treeless saddle, the width of the seat bones when considering rider comfort tends to be a non-issue, or so I've seen. What becomes the bigger issue for rider comfort is the feeling of the treeless having a twist or not - a little something in the center of the seat to boost the crotch up a tad, so that the hips don't feel totally spread out - that's REALLY important on the super-tankers, like Falki and Sina. That's why the Sensations are our preference for rider comfort - they have the best feeling of twist that any of the saddle we've tried offer, and the horses really like them. The Sensations also have that independent-panel design, that isolates any pressure on one side of the saddle from the other, whereas the single piece designs tend to pull down onto the center of the spine if the pressure is too one-sided. I liked the BMSS, but man, it killed me to ride it or the no-twist Barefoot on wide old Falki. Karen Thomas, NC
