So according to Selle Italia, for my pelvis, the SLR or the Flite would be the optimal saddles for me. My saddle to bar drop is around 9cm as well, a standard race-y position
The Flite, testing both widths, was the worst saddle I have ever tried and the SLR was actually decent, but had some issues, felt I was sitting 'in' the saddle and not 'on' the saddle. For that reason, getting it setup was very difficult because in order to be comfortable i had to run a -4 deg saddle tilt, but because now I am sitting more on the nose i am getting saddle sores. With a -1 or -2 degree tilt I am sitting on more of the saddle in general, but the front of the saddle was holding me back from being able to rotate my pelvis forward and comfortably reach the handlebars. As a result regardless of what I tried I used the Novus just because it was 'good enough' compared to the other two.
Now comes the gen 4 SLR, while it is advertised as a refinement, but when you look at it side view compared to the gen 3 saddle it's shape is actually different, birds-eye view they look similar. I decided to give it a try and I will say, the saddle is quite incredible. The gen 3 saddle had a very contoured rear end, making you sit in the saddle more whereas the rear end of the saddle of the gen 4 saddle is much more flat, less contoured, so you don't sit in the saddle, but sit on the saddle. The center part of the saddle is a lot more flat, while the center part of the gen 3 saddle is more curved leading to the nose. It is as if they took the more flat nature of the Flite and mated it with the gen 3 SLR and created this new gen 4, and i love it.
When I was running the Novus Boost EVO, I had a overall saddle tilt of -6 degrees and with the gen 4 SLR, I can comfortably run this saddle at a -1 to -2 degree tilt. This does not seem to be a saddle to run with a lot of negative tilt, I think it's sweet spot will be somewhere between 0 to -2 degrees (this is across the entire saddle not the front half). I don't know why, but this saddle works incredibly well, especially given visually it looks like there is more cutout than saddle.
I went ahead and ordered another SLR carbon as well as an slr carbon 3d to try out. If you had issues with the gen 3 SLR and Selle Italia says for your pelvis the Flite or SLR would be best, I would give this a try. It is a significant improvement and I actually like the saddle rather than tolerate it.
What can I say about GravelKing SK's that hasn't already been said about any trusted price of equipment that come through time and time again? Tons of grip off-road from gravel roads to dirt trails. Fast rolling on tarmac. Easy to set up, and don't require an ocean of sealant operate across a reasonable range of tire pressures. What they lack in cache and sexiness they make up in almost every other way one could imagine.
All in all, a great gravel tire and tremendous value for the money.
These Archetypes weigh in at 271g per tire, while a regular GP5000 S TR 30mm weighs in at 308g, thus you save 74g over the already light S TR version. The rolling resistance is great and the tire has this nice supple feel which is probably due to the tire not including a dedicated puncture protection layer like the S TR, which would explain why these are not only lighter but also pretty delicate when it comes to punctures. I found that the tire felt like riding on latex tubes even when setup tubeless. The tire uses the Black Chili compound but to me the tire felt a tad tackier to the touch. These are basically are maybe a slightly revised Grand Prix 5000 TT TR but with Tour de France branding. Speaking of the branding, looks wise the faded yellow/gold Archetype logos are not going to be everyone's taste nor look good on every bike. At $115 per tire I would save these for race days or special events because I don't have a lot of faith these will last all season.
On my Tarmac SL8 that's running SRAM AXS I am rocking the Zipp SL 80 Race bars at 36cm, which make sense keeping it all in house and having the ability to easily run BLIP shifters. I like the recessed routing on the SL 80 Race because the Tarmac stem I am running does not support in route routing, however on my Supersix Evo Hi-Mod running Shiamno Di2 with the Conceal stem I am running the ENVE SES Aero In Route bars 35/40 since they can be run semi integrated or fully internal. Both bars weigh about the same 250g, both have flared bottoms and narrow tops, but I found the ENVE Aero bars to have much more of a flat razer like shape than the Zipp's. Both bars are comfortable on the tops and hoods and both have similar reaches 79mm vs 80mm. The biggest differences would be the ENVE bar is super stiff, while I found the Zipp to offer much more compliance. The integration on the ENVE even when run semi integrated and not through the stem is much cleaner than the Zipp's that rely on a really tidy tape job. I am not really a fan of the integrated bar end plugs, but I guess they are more aero, but yet again you are stuck with this type of plus unless you cut the bar ends. I guess the killer feature for some people will be the fact that you can add ENVE's Aero clip on extensions to these bars, making them perfect for time trials or triathlons. Pair the ENVE Aero pairs with ENVE's own Aero In Route stems and you have the cleanest two piece aero setup out there, granted my Supersix Evo does not support them stem. Price wise typical ENVE top of the market pricing and in contrast the Zipp SL 80 Race is anywhere from $25-$60 cheaper before you factor in an sales or coupons. Both bars are great but in my opinion I still run the Zipp's if you were running SRAM AXS with a non in route stem and I run the ENVE if you were running Shimano and or running an ENVE In Route Stem. BTW the aero benefits of running a very narrow two piece handlebar integrated or semi integrated at the tops is much more aero than running a larger one piece cockpit integrated, plus it allows you to be adjust fit so much easier, it's cheaper in initial purchase and replacement cost.
