1 of 3 photos
I took a flash poll of Slowtwitchers recently and 20 percent of the 642 who answered said you don't ride a split-nose saddle, meaning the rest of you (I presume) do. Should split-nose have this much market share? I don't know. It depends on whether readers are counting snub-nosed or truncated saddles like the fi'zi:k Tritone or those from Bontrager, Specialized, Prologo, Fabric.
2 of 3 photos
ISM is the most successful maker. They name their saddles by use rather than shape, though this does not make the line entirely clear. What is “Performance Recreation?” Performance or recreation? I don't know but I like the Performance Recreation (PR) series and I do recommend it.
I've been predisposed to the squared-off front-ends of the ISM Road and Racing, and these have given way to the PR series inside which there are 3 models: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. I've had pretty good luck with the PR 2.0 this year so far, as long as the rider sits on the very front of this saddle, resting the ischeal tuberosities right on the front. These ISMs slope up a bit after the first 6cm or 7cm of flat section and this upslope might help keep you placed where you're supposed to be.
ISM saddles that are narrower overall, with a less abrupt leading edge (curved rather than blunted "noses"), with narrower flanges, seem to me best matched with riders who have a little more of this saddle under them.
The snub-nosed series of saddles are evident in the PS and PR. PS stands for Performance Short, PR Performance Recreation (the PR 2.0 and 3.0 are above). I hope I don't cheese off anybody too much but if I was a retail fitter I don't that I'd even carry the PS series. Yes, these are the new style designations for the previously very popular Road and Racing. The thing is, I just think all today's saddles need more padding. Hear me out.
I know that this is not popular speak among saddle designers, but here is what I've been noticing: saddles are migrating to less and less padding, while cycling bibs are migrating to a chamois with more and more padding. What your apparel maker given your saddle maker taketh away. Yes, shape is important, and matching saddles to riders' bottoms is important, but I don't know when and while padding went out of style. Firmness in the padding? Yes. Less padding? Hmm.
3 of 3 photos
That said, I can live with the idea of a firmer saddle for road, but not for tri. Saddles have gone away from padding when they should have gone more toward it. A nice saddle is the PR 2.0, which has more padding than the PS series. It's not got quite as much as the PR 1.0, but the 2.0 has upgraded foam and gel. The more padding you put in a saddle the higher the quality you need. The 3.0 (used to be called the Typhoon) has more padding yet, but this saddle is a little bulkier, a little wider. If I was a retail fitter I'd have the PR 2.0 and 3.0 in my studio.
The PN 1.1 (just above) is one of those that slope toward the front, and has more padding that its cousins. I'd have this in my studio. The PN series replaces the Attack and the PL replaces the Podium. Yes, these are popular tri saddles but I assume when you choose and ride this you won't have the leading edge 6cm or 7cm behind the nose of a standard saddle you're casting off to replace with an ISM. Rather I might move the front of a PN series saddle 3cm or 4cm behind a standard saddle's nose, or 2cm to 3cm in front of a snubbed-off ISM's leading edge.
All these saddles I'm selecting above have steel or chrome moly rails, and sell from $120 to $150 in the main. Likewise the saddles below (maybe up to $180) in the configurations I'd use. Titanium rails in a saddle? Carbon? Fine, but it's an expensive way to try to save weight and I'm a little too thrifty to spend my money that way.