Women's Specific Road Bikes

[denvervig]

Originally Posted by Doug Fattic

As a custom builder I'm obligated to promote our craft. A good one will do the fitting and then build the frame around her seat/handlebar/pedal relationship. He/she will listen to the explanation of kind of riding your wife will be doing and adjust the geometry to her needs. There is no gender issue involved, it will be designed to just fit her and her requirements.

Another advantage is that the colors can be chosen just to her desire. And a word about steel. Custom builders can choose tubing that isn't as heavy as production manufacturers that have to assume a customer will weigh over 300 pounds. And withstand the effects of automated building equipment.

Most professional people can afford a custom bicycle. They just want the convenience of buying it now and paying a bit less. Of course at the moment a lot of bikes are out of stock and will not be available soon. If you pick a good builder you and her will never be sorry.

One of the reasons there are fewer women specific bicycles is that companies want to reduce inventories as much as possible. If a woman is shorter than around 5'5", some compromises in the design are necessary so a person's toes don't smack the front wheel when it is turned sharply.

Seems like this the right path. Great comment about steel since I have a Strong extralite and still don't have a CF frame - yet. I do worry about the investment in a CF frameset in the event of a crash - this past spring an unleashed dog ran in front of her and she crashed - the AL Trek survived w/some road rash and she got a little banged up.

[denvervig]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Only 3 things to consider when buying a new bike for anybody.
-Fit
-Fit and of course
-Fit

Start there, either a shop that starts there or a fit place..then armed with that info, a place that can look at that info and match it to a frame or complete bike.

I've heard great things about Natalie at PedalFit here in Denver. Anyone else have experience with her?

[benb]

If my wife decides to try a road bike again I'd probably push for Custom even if I have to pay for part of the bike.

I am not a believer big bike co is doing anything here that's actually that great eliminating the women's designs. But then they never made the women's designs in a full range of sizes anyway. At least brands like Liv (Giant) and Terry are still around.

They can cook up any statistics they need to eliminate sizes of frames, they're really good at that since it saves them money. They've already convinced men numerous times that fewer sizes is fine.

If you look at a bunch of data you can prove men and women overlap in dimensions.

That doesn't help you if you're a 5'6" woman who proportionally resembles a 6'+ man and all bikes for people who are 5'6" are designed for someone with short legs and long torsos. Proportions still vary like crazy. My wife's seat height is higher than mine, and I'm almost 4" taller, and I'm already "long legs/long arms/short torso" for a man.

Stuff like the "Endurance bikes" are a step forward but it still feels like their are glaring holes in the set of proportions they design for.

And it's dumb the bikes with shorter reach relative to stack get a different set of features.

At least it's not so hard with MTBs.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Here's a good article about why the industry has moved away from women's specific bicycles:

https://cyclingtips.com/2019/10/wher...anging-market/

The long and short of it is that better data has shown that the average proportions between the genders isn't very different, and the proportion variations within each gender are much larger than between genders. (In other words, the idea that women "have longer legs and shorter torsos then men" is pure myth). The two major fit issues facing women is that: They are on average smaller than men, and it is difficult to design small frames around 700c wheels; and that even though frame/bicycle are made in a wide range of sizes, components aren't (especially in the area of the sizes of shift/brake levers, cranks and handlebars).

That article certainly doesn't provide any better data at all and is chock full of typical bicycle marketing language.

It's heavy on MTB focus, and the manager from Juliana obviously has a huge conflict of interest to justify the women's frames being the same as the men's frames.. spraying them a different color is vastly cheaper than possibly doubling the # of sizes they carry and worrying about the whole inventory chain.

The graph they show is hilarious.. that basically shows that the Retul process doesn't reliably or consistently predict or recommend similar saddle heights on riders with the same total leg length. That's very different than showing that all the riders can fit on the same frame proportions and just cause you gave a bunch of fitters some expensive measuring devices does not mean you have an error free system.

MTB focus makes this easier I think when it's acceptable for a stem to vary by 50+ mm on the same frame size whereas road is tradition bound & geometry bound to a narrower range of stem sizes on the same size frame.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

I am not a believer big bike co is doing anything here that's actually that great eliminating the women's designs. But then they never made the women's designs in a full range of sizes anyway. At least brands like Liv (Giant) and Terry are still around.

Liv is practically the last company still on the women's specific bicycle bandwagon. Terry Bicycles hasn't actually made or sold bicycles in many years.

Originally Posted by benb

They can cook up any statistics they need to eliminate sizes of frames, they're really good at that since it saves them money. They've already convinced men numerous times that fewer sizes is fine.

If you look at a bunch of data you can prove men and women overlap in dimensions.

That doesn't help you if you're a 5'6" woman who proportionally resembles a 6'+ man and all bikes for people who are 5'6" are designed for someone with short legs and long torsos. Proportions still vary like crazy. My wife's seat height is higher than mine, and I'm almost 4" taller, and I'm already "long legs/long arms/short torso" for a man.

While bike companies have pared down on their number of frame size offerings in recent years, I don't know how that hurts women more than men, as long as frame sizes include smaller sizes women more often need.

You don't have to "cook up" statistics about men's and women's proportions, you just have to look at actual data. The concept of "long legged" women is a cultural myth, not backed up by data. And like a lot of myths, this one is hard to kill. Georgena Terry, who was a founder of womens' specific bicycles has long ago agreed that average women's and men's proportions don't vary by much (see this Bicycling Magazine article from 2012).

Originally Posted by benb

I And it's dumb the bikes with shorter reach relative to stack get a different set of features.

This is true, and part of what killed off women's specific bicycles. Often times, women's specific bicycles had a limited or fixed set of features, while "unisex" bicycles were offerered with a gamut of styles and features. In order to get a certain type of bicycle or certain features, women often ended up getting "unisex" bikes, and most of them found that they were able to fit just fine on them. Only a portion of women found they couldn't be fit on unisex bikes, and therefore wanted a women's specific bike.

[benb]

Most people are not the average that's the point.

We used to have a statistics thing we ran in customer training one of the places I worked that was titled "Averages are for idiots".

Because lots of tools would show you averages and show you your system was working great.

But if you suddenly looked at the 95% percentile or Maximum values of the same statistics you realized your system sucked, because no one had any tolerance for what happened when the system got to the 95% percentile.

No amount of "our bikes fit the average proportions" helps the person who is not within a certain range of average go in and buy a bike that fits and works right.

I would be more interested in seeing a bell curve...

Obviously the closer you are to a direct match to who a bike frame was designed for the better off you are... the big bike companies never seem to want to admit that the fewer sizes they make the greater the percentages you get a goofy fit or a bike that doesn't fit if you buy from them.

They certainly don't want to care today when bikes are snatched up before they hit the LBS and are bought without even a test ride. In that environment eliminate as many options as you can, you make more money that way.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

That article certainly doesn't provide any better data at all and is chock full of typical bicycle marketing language.

It's heavy on MTB focus, and the manager from Juliana obviously has a huge conflict of interest to justify the women's frames being the same as the men's frames.. spraying them a different color is vastly cheaper than possibly doubling the # of sizes they carry and worrying about the whole inventory chain.

The graph they show is hilarious.. that basically shows that the Retul process doesn't reliably or consistently predict or recommend similar saddle heights on riders with the same total leg length. That's very different than showing that all the riders can fit on the same frame proportions and just cause you gave a bunch of fitters some expensive measuring devices does not mean you have an error free system.

MTB focus makes this easier I think when it's acceptable for a stem to vary by 50+ mm on the same frame size whereas road is tradition bound & geometry bound to a narrower range of stem sizes on the same size frame.

Here's a study that probably gets closer to the heart of why many believe that women have (or should have) a higher proportion of leg length to torso legth: Most people find women with longer legs more attractive. The article also notes that the average ratio of leg length to torso length for women is 1.124, while for men it is 1.123 (a difference of less than 0.1%).

The Effect of Leg Length on Perceived Attractiveness

[Doug Fattic]

Originally Posted by denvervig

Seems like this the right path. Great comment about steel since I have a Strong extralite and still don't have a CF frame - yet. I do worry about the investment in a CF frameset in the event of a crash - this past spring an unleashed dog ran in front of her and she crashed - the AL Trek survived w/some road rash and she got a little banged up.

One way that a recreational but fit woman rider is different from her male counterpoint is that in general they prefer a higher handlebar position to take the pressure off of the sensitive parts of their crotch. Men don't have the same problem and in general can prefer or tolerate lower handlebars (which can help with efficiency because it is more aerodynamic). Women's saddle issues are often related to their bicycle position. That is why getting that right is the 1st step in solving saddle problems. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't part of your wife's issue before she found the Terry saddle. On a road type of bicycle (not a hybrid with upright handlebars) getting them up high enough can be problematic without a silly amount of stackers or quill stem sticking above the head tube.

When the handlebars are raised, the body rotates back and that requires a more set back saddle. However small bikes often have steep seat angles (going in the wrong direction) to avoid the problem (liability actually) of toes hitting the front wheel in a sharp turn and going down.

A recreational fit is not that complicated. I'm guessing your wife is enthusiastic about riding but wants to do so comfortably. She is not trying to win a race. Everyone is suggesting you get a fit 1st. Once that is defined you will soon discover that some compromises have to be made to her proper fit in order to ride a production frame.

Skip the hassle and go to a good custom builder and endure the wait and when it is finished, she will love you even more (if that is possible).

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

Most people are not the average that's the point.

Absolutely. And this is the same for both men and women. However, the range of different proportions fall on a bell curve, such that building a bike for an "average" cyclist will be in a range that can work with the largest number of cyclists. And since the bell curve of proportions for both men and women nearly overlap, the same bikes can work for the largest numbers of both men and women.

Even for bikes designed for cyclists of "average" proportion, it would still be nice if they were offered in a finer granularity of sizing. But most bikes are available in size increments of 2cm - do most people really need better sizing precision than that? If ideally bikes were made in 1cm increments, then with 2cm increments a cyclist is no more than 1cm away from their ideal size.

That being said, even bikes available in small size increments might have larger size increments for the very smallest and very largest sizes (or might not even offer very small or very large sizes). This is unfortunate for the shorter women and the taller men. But these are a small proportion of the entire population.

Then there's that group of cyclist whose proportion ratios are outliers - such as those with a very high leg/torso ratio, or very small leg/torso ratio, who might have trouble finding a frame the fits even if they are of other wise average overall size. These people have always had a hard time finding bikes, but that is no different today than days past, as very few bike models have been made in different size proportions (Serotta used to do that, with the Long and Short sizes, but not many others).

[benb]

Saddle issues cause the bike is too long/low also go to show how the bike industry puts too much emphasis on catering to the most hard core racers who will ignore health issues too.

These are the same companies that will go to mat to tell you that the same chainstay length is best for all sizes of bikes and the same fork rake is ideal for every size as well.

It's just super hard to ever take anything they say that seriously, especially when it comes to women's bikes if you watch how different the frames are that women get custom built, and how much happier they seem to be.

[zmalwo]

Highly recommend Liv (Giant) bikes for women. Super affordable and well made. The geometry is made specifically for women.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Absolutely. And this is the same for both men and women. However, the range of different proportions fall on a bell curve, such that building a bike for an "average" cyclist will be in a range that can work with the largest number of cyclists. And since the bell curve of proportions for both men and women nearly overlap, the same bikes can work for the largest numbers of both men and women.

Even for bikes designed for cyclists of "average" proportion, it would still be nice if they were offered in a finer granularity of sizing. But most bikes are available in size increments of 2cm - do most people really need better sizing precision than that? If ideally bikes were made in 1cm increments, then with 2cm increments a cyclist is no more than 1cm away from their ideal size.

That being said, even bikes available in small size increments might have larger size increments for the very smallest and very largest sizes (or might not even offer very small or very large sizes). This is unfortunate for the shorter women and the taller men. But these are a small proportion of the entire population.

Then there's that group of cyclist whose proportion ratios are outliers - such as those with a very high leg/torso ratio, or very small leg/torso ratio, who might have trouble finding a frame the fits even if they are of other wise average overall size. These people have always had a hard time finding bikes, but that is no different today than days past, as very few bike models have been made in different size proportions (Serotta used to do that, with the Long and Short sizes, but not many others).

They all basically build bikes with a ratio of Reach to STack and try to build some scaling into that ratio, then try to figure out how do we build these sizes with the most common parts to save money.

They apply a fixed ratio of reach/stack to each size and they seem to vary it linearly up until maybe the largest size in the line. If they make an Endurance line maybe they use a slightly different slope on how they change the ratio.

E.x. just pulling a couple bikes:

Trek Emonda ratio by size:

0.735, 0.725, 0.718, 0.713, 0.69, 0.68, 0.66

Liv Langma (supposedly a Women's frame)

0.71, 0.70, 0.68, 0.67

It slots exactly into the same range as the Emonda, just fewer sizes so they basically decided women didn't need the smallest or largest size. No real difference other wise.

I still feel if you don't fit the ratio in a particular size that size becomes a compromise. You try to upsize or downsize and you just compromise one of the variables more to try and get the other one better. Obviously you can get frustrated with this regardless of gender.

The further you are from the ratio the worse those bikes are going to fit you, no matter how many sizes they make.

For comparison the Domane which is supposedly much more biased towards shorter reach/higher stack, but if these ratios fit you better you deserve a different feature set. And if you fit better on an even lower ratio they want you on a flat bar hybrid?

0.69, 0.67, 0.66, 0.65, 0.63, 0.62, 0.60

It would be very interesting to see the range of these kind of numbers out of a place that builds custom bikes that tries to ideally size the stack and reach for each rider.

I'd almost wonder if a bike company making a larger range of these ratios would be better off than more sizes that still stick to a narrow range of ratio.

[DHallerman]

Originally Posted by charliedid

Domane SL7 or SL6

My 5’4” wife loves her Trek Domane SL6. We upgraded the wheels, and put GK 700x35 on them tubeless. Between the frame’s “suspension” (I dunno what you call it; but there’s elastomer style give both at the stem and seatpost), and 40psi tires, Cathy finds it to be a most comfortable bike for roads both paved and not.

Note, this is a 47cm Domane, the smallest size last year for that model; and I had to change the stem (shorter) and handlebars (wider) to tweak the fit.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

Saddle issues cause the bike is too long/low also go to show how the bike industry puts too much emphasis on catering to the most hard core racers who will ignore health issues too.

These are the same companies that will go to mat to tell you that the same chainstay length is best for all sizes of bikes and the same fork rake is ideal for every size as well.

It's just super hard to ever take anything they say that seriously, especially when it comes to women's bikes if you watch how different the frames are that women get custom built, and how much happier they seem to be.

You're yelling at clouds. Maybe you've had issues getting bikes to fit you, but that doesn't mean everyone has. By the same token, I could complain sports eyewear companies don't make products that fit*, or that alpine ski boot companies don't make products that fit**, simply because their products don't work for my unique physical needs. But I'm an outlier for these things- I can't expect entire industries to change to meet my needs. Likewise, bicycle companies make products that tend to work for their target audiences. Those who are outside of their target audience may need to seek custom solutions.

*My vision is better than 20/20 in each eye, and I easily meet the vision requirements for FAA flight physicals - when I use high refractive corrective lenses. Unfortunately, very few makers of sports eyewear can fit the corrective lenses I need into their frames

**Alpine ski boots have stiff high cuffs, and there is very little adjustment for different leg shaft angles. The shaft angle of my legs is much more vertical than most, which means in regular ski boots I end up standing on both inside edges (which can make it hard to control the skis). In order to ski properly, I have to have special canting wedges installed under my bindings, to account for the mismatch between my legs and typical ski boots.

[benb]

I have generally been fine, I'm a little bit of an outlier but I've generally always had superb flexibility so I can make it work, I just think the industry is pretty backwards with how it does this stuff.

The sport (mostly road here) starts from a point of not being interested in being particularly inclusive I think. No one can deny the difference between the way Triathlon and Running and Swimming treat people who are interested and the way road does.

And I think that has filtered into the design of bikes.. if the bike isn't ideal for you then you are the problem, not the bike.