## 3 Results
### Final Assessment  
In conclusion, the validation pressure measurements taken from the three test subjects riding the personalized saddle pads yielded several noteworthy findings. While test subjects A and C demonstrated varying degrees of pressure reduction, the peak pressure of test subject B exhibited a notable increase. Table 5 shows the alteration in peak pressure of the adapted saddle pad in comparison to the initial pressure measurement on the CFRP shell, organized according to the specific test subject. Subject A demonstrates a uniform reduction in peak pressure on both saddle halves, amounting to approximately 15%. Test subject B exhibited a notable elevation in peak pressure, approximating 30%, on both saddle halves. In contrast, test subject C demonstrated a peak pressure reduction of 46% on the left side and a modest enhancement of 4% on the right side. The fifth row of the table presents the percentage change resulting from a comparison of the summed total pressure derived from the two measurements. The individual values of the interpolated data set were aggregated to form a reference point for assessing the overall pressure on the saddle. If the position of the seat on the saddle remains constant, the value obtained from the two measurements should be identical, as the pressure cannot be reduced to zero. Should the total pressure differ between the two measurements, there may be a number of potential explanations for this discrepancy. For  
Figure 13: Visual representation of both measurements of test subject C; (**a**) color plot with peak pressure values of the initial measurement, (**b**) color plot with peak pressure values of the validation measurement—blue, low pressure to orange, high pressure, and (**c**) histogram of both measurements. example, the test subject may have experienced a change in body weight or the position of the body on the bicycle may have changed, which can result in an increase or decrease in the total pressure on the saddle. In this instance, the subjects' assessments diverge once more. In the case of test subject A, this effect has a beneficial impact on the overall pressure, which is reduced by 5%. However, as the peak pressure decreases by approximately 15% on both sides, it can be stated that an improved pressure distribution has been achieved for test subject A, which has been accomplished by the adapted saddle pad. The assessment for test subject B shows an increase in both the peak pressures and the total pressure. Given the observed increase in total pressure by 14% and peak pressure by over 30%, it can be concluded that a change in sitting position or change in cadence during the validation measurement is an unlikely sole cause of the deterioration in pressure values. This leaves an error in measurement during the initial pressure measurement as the sole reasonable explanation. This is evidenced by the processed data in Figure 5b, which indicate that the pressure has been partially \"lost\" during the initial pressure measurement. In the case of test subject B, the validation measurement yielded a total pressure comparable to that observed in the other test subjects during the initial measurement conducted on the CFRP shell. Moreover, the modified saddle pad results in a more symmetrical pressure distribution despite the elevated pressures on the saddle, indicating that both halves of the saddle are now subjected to a nearly equal load. It would be beneficial to conduct a further pressure measurement of test subject B on the CFRP shell in order to eliminate the possibility of measurement errors in the initial measurement. Furthermore, a plausibility check must be incorporated into the overall process to safeguard against future measurement errors. This objective can be accomplished by first comparing all measurement results obtained from all test subjects to ascertain the pressure ranges.