# The Insidious Symbolism of Boy and Girl Bikes



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

Today I learned that the "lower bar" on women's bikes is antiquated and was created to accommodate the heavy dresses women wore in the late 1800s

And the high bar is designed to smash a dude’s nuts. 


*The Insidious Symbolism of Boy and Girl Bikes*

In the U.S. men’s and women’s bikes are built differently, with women’s bikes lacking the bar that goes from the handlebar to just below the seat. The bar is a matter of tradition. According to Andrea at Bike City Recyclery, when women began riding bikes in the 1800s, they were required to wear heavy skirts. The low bar allowed them to mount the bikes “modestly” and was a space for their skirts to go. Back then, bikes also had “clothes-guards” that would keep women’s skirts from being caught up in the mechanics of the bike. This picture is from the 1890s:










Today most women riding a bike do not wear heavy skirts and clothes-guards are rare, but the low bar persists. This ad from 1971 assures parents that “girl bikes” can be converted to “boy bikes” and vice versa. The upper bar is purely “decorative,” but boys apparently must have it. 










Selected text:



> A popular 16-inch beginner’s bike. Top bar removes easily to convert it from a boy’s to a girl’s bike in minutes… The perfect first bike that’s built to last from child to child.


This goes to show how strongly we invest in purely symbolic gender differentiation. There is no need for a high bar and there is no need to differentiate bikes by gender in this way. We could do away with the bar distinction in the same way that we did away with the clothes-guard. But the bar is a highly visible signal that we are committed to a gender binary (men and women are “opposite” sexes). It is some men and the defenders of masculinity who are most opposed to this because collapsing the gender differentiation means collapsing a devalued category into a valued category. For individuals who embrace the valued category, this is a disaster. A male-coded bike frame is just one small way to preserve both the distinction and the hierarchy.






The Insidious Symbolism of Boy and Girl Bikes - Sociological Images


The Society Pages (TSP) is an open-access social science project headquartered in the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota




thesocietypages.org




.


----------



## driver bob (Oct 12, 2005)

Trek (who is one of our brands) moved away from "genderized" bikes a few seasons ago and their logic was sound.

Now our biggest battle is selling a "girls bike" to a man and typically it's the customer who is developing some mobility (hip / knee issues) who without doubt benefits from a step-thru frame.
Usually their spouse totally gets why we recommend one, they ride it and totally get why it's the right bike for them and usually end up buying it.

The hardest part of the sell is getting past the historical mindset that a step-thru bike can't be ridden by a man... it's so silly.


----------



## pedalinbob (Jan 12, 2004)

I think too much is being inferred here.
It was practical, not insidious, apparently based upon clothing rather than sex.

I agree that the different bar styles are less necessary now, but there clearly are 2 sexes (binary), genetic aberration notwithstanding.
Male and female bodies aren't the same, and women may have different cycling needs, so I see no issue with companies accommodating them.

But I'm just a silly man who enjoys a staggering amount of privaledge...but, 
I need to figure out how to cash some of it in so I don't have to work so hard. 

I'm just an anonymous idiot on the internet, but life is too short to get wound up over such trivialities. 
I get caught up in triviality, then refocus by thinking about my kids or patients...and that trivial stuff just falls away.
I feel a lot better, and those around me do as well.

I would bet that you are a very cool, kind person (probably excellent mountain biker as well) otherwise you wouldn't exhibit such care.

Caring is great, but the victimology stuff referenced will poison you if you let it.

Bob


----------



## Mac_89 (Mar 24, 2021)

Reminds me of the first time I took my Dad out riding. 

“That top tube’s a bit low, looks like a girl’s bike!” He thought my dropper post was stupid too. I just shrugged and took him down the steepest, roughest descent I could find...


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

So once practical design elements created for a perfectly valid and innocent functional purpose (dress clearance) which have since become outdated, are now insidious symbolism? Oh my good lord, please make it stop now.

If this is representative of what the Dept of Sociology at U of Minn thinks is worthy of time, effort, and dissemination, that sets the stage about how seriously they should be taken in the future. Spoiler: not at all, ever.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

In the fast lane to Bin-ville…


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

sadly, the aesthetics of a sloping top tube is ingrained in the mind of many people as a "girls bike." when I worked at bike shops, it was not uncommon for men to look at a mountain bike that fits them and has a generously sloping top tube and turn up their nose at it. "that looks like a girls bike." I had to resist the urge to ask "do you have testicles? do you want to keep them? then don't ride a bike that is two sizes too big for you, because you're going to smash them to bits on that top tube."


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Why haven't road bikes moved to "sloping" top tubes? 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I think the worst thing is that girls bikes are always pink with flowers and unicorns and boys bikes are black with skull & crossbones and names like "Aggressor". KIds and adult bikes alike.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

As a dude with a long torso for my short legs, I always thought girl and guy bikes were backwards. The top tube would always be crushing my twig and berries if I got off of the saddle and straddled the bike. I figured a guy's bike needed the low top tube because girls didn't have external genetalia that would be damaged against a high top tube.

I'm glad bikes have a steeper slope to the top tubes now.

But yes, if people take bike design to be some sexist attempt to enforce a binary gender system... This thread is indeed in the fast lane to Bin-ville.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

cyclelicious said:


> But the bar is a highly visible signal that we are committed to a gender binary


I don't claim to be an engineer, but I don't think we could get away with removing the top bar as easily as we did away with the clothes guard. You obviously can design a bike without a high top tube, but a triangle is the strongest shape in design, and I think you would lose stiffness and strength if you made bikes without a top tube. You could do it, but a ton of people would be snapping frames in half.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

KobayashiMaru said:


> But yes, if people take bike design to be some sexist attempt to enforce a binary gender system... This thread is indeed in the fast lane to Bin-ville.



In many cases it is exactly that. Is that controversial?


----------



## Mac_89 (Mar 24, 2021)

WHALENARD said:


> Why haven't road bikes moved to "sloping" top tubes?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


Because they're all masochists?


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

cyclelicious said:


> A male-coded bike frame is just one small way to preserve both the distinction and the hierarchy.


Why is there a hierarchy when the design is based on need? If the step thru design met the needs of the buyer then it is a superior design. 

Is there a hierarchy to Giant and Liv bikes?


----------



## tdc_worm (Dec 10, 2008)

Next topic:
The insidious symbolism of toilets in women's restrooms.
Where are the urinals? Forcing women to sit or hover during bladder relief is a sign of the patriarchy positioning women beneath men. Men stand above women when micturating, a show of dominance and hierarchy. All women's bathrooms need urinals. Women can pee standing, I am told, and they deserve to be held as peers when it comes that activity.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Wierd, it’s the women’s lounge, I sorta expected to read their responses…


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

tdc_worm said:


> Next topic:
> The insidious symbolism of toilets in women's restrooms.
> Where are the urinals? Forcing women to sit or hover during bladder relief is a sign of the patriarchy positioning women beneath men. Men stand above women when micturating, a show of dominance and hierarchy. All women's bathrooms need urinals. Women can pee standing, I am told, and they deserve to be held as peers when it comes that activity.


My wife carries a “she pee” with her when travels so it’s easier to go outdoors, works great but she gets irritated cuz it dribbles 😆


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

WHALENARD said:


> Why haven't road bikes moved to "sloping" top tubes?


To fit two water bottles.


----------



## wschruba (Apr 13, 2012)

WHALENARD said:


> Why haven't road bikes moved to "sloping" top tubes?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


They did. It's called "compact" geometry. You can barely find a mainline frame that is built the way a classic was; the seatpost on a well-fitting bike used to be exposed by roughly a fist's worth of distance.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Nurse Ben said:


> Wierd, it’s the women’s lounge, I sorta expected to read their responses…


I hope to hear from more women on this subject, too.
Being in the ‘women’s lounge’ forum doesn’t mean much anymore… I believe many if not most of us hit the ‘new posts’ button and enter specific threads from there as opposed to perusing specific sub-forums, so here we are.

Meanwhile I’m genuinely curious how women feel about bike brands that create models specifically for them.
Are they being catered to or pandered to?
It’s not just frame design, it’s also graphics & colors.
Some women seem to want it, some seem offended by it.

I’d like to hear more opinions from women so I hope more women will comment here.
Sadly, these forums — even the women’s lounge — seem to be dominated by people who ride bikes with a ‘top bar.’
=sParty


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

wschruba said:


> They did. It's called "compact" geometry. You can barely find a mainline frame that is built the way a classic was; the seatpost on a well-fitting bike used to be exposed by roughly a fist's worth of distance.


Exactly.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Sparticus said:


> Being in the ‘women’s lounge’ forum doesn’t mean much anymore… I believe many if not most of us hit the ‘new posts’ button and enter specific threads from there as opposed to perusing specific sub-forums, so here we are.


I always realize I posted in the woman's lounge after the fact then cringe a little bit. It's difficult to see a specific forum, especially a new thread, from my device. 


Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## tdc_worm (Dec 10, 2008)

Sparticus said:


> I hope to hear from more women on this subject, too.
> Being in the ‘women’s lounge’ forum doesn’t mean much anymore… I believe many if not most of us hit the ‘new posts’ button and enter specific threads from there as opposed to perusing specific sub-forums, so here we are.
> 
> Meanwhile I’m genuinely curious how women feel about bike brands that create models specifically for them.
> ...


isn't it, then, self defeating to register complaints against an assailant in a forum so specified that the actions of the assailant are not brought to the assailant's attention?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

tdc_worm said:


> isn't it, then, self defeating to register complaints against an assailant in a forum so specified that the actions of the assailant are not brought to the assailant's attention?


Hmmm… might you provide an example? 
=sParty


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

WHALENARD said:


> I always realize I posted in the woman's lounge after the fact then cringe a little bit. It's difficult to see a specific forum, especially a new thread, from my device.
> Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


Wait, there is a women’s specific lounge on this website?!?!

But a women's lounge is a highly visible signal that we are committed to a gender binary (men and women are “opposite” sexes). It is some men and the defenders of masculinity who are most opposed to not having a women's lounge because collapsing the gender differentiation means collapsing a devalued category into a valued category. For individuals who embrace the valued category, this is a disaster. A women’s specific lounge is just one small way to preserve both the distinction and the hierarchy.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

cyclelicious said:


> "The upper bar is purely “decorative,”


I'm staying out of the rest, but as previously mentioned, as far as design goes, the triangulated frame is going to be a lot stronger than the twin low-bar design, particularly in the vertical.
If a design were to be deemed less functional and purely a fashion (or whatever) exercise, it would absolutely be the 'girls' or mixte style.
Whoever wrote the article got it completely backwards.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

tdc_worm said:


> Next topic:
> The insidious symbolism of toilets in women's restrooms.


Awesome reply.



J.B. Weld said:


> In many cases it is exactly that. Is that controversial?


I don't see bike design as sexist. If it is, I'm not putting enough thought into it to see that it is. To me, bikes are bikes. They just need to fit their riders.

Women have different biological geometry than men, so if manufacturers cater to those differences, good for them. I think there needs to be more variance in things when sizes are an issue, like when duck footed people need wides shoes but shoe makers think we can all fit into narrow shoes.











Would it be sexist if shoe makers made big shoes for women, going off the gender bias that women are supposed to be dainty, and if they made big shoes for them would they be guilty of trying to make women masculine? I wear a 10.5 or 11 men's shoe and I can put my wife's shoes on my feet. We literally have the same sized feet. She's incredibly hot and feminine, but she has big feet, so does that make her manly because she can wear my boots if she needs to?


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

I have rather short legs for my height. To get a good fit, with a "legal" standover height, I need a sloping top tube on a road bike.

Men in general tend to have shorter legs in proportion to their height than do women. From this perspective, sloping top tubes should be more popular with men.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

KobayashiMaru said:


> … does that make her manly because she can wear my boots if she needs to?


Ask her and then let us know what she says. 
=sParty


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

KobayashiMaru said:


> I don't see bike design as sexist. If it is, I'm not putting enough thought into it to see that it is. To me, bikes are bikes. They just need to fit their riders.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 1977596




See post #9-

Also the reason "ladies" bikes have step through frames is based on the antiquated presumption that they wear long dresses when they ride.

Men's and women's bike sizing and fit are the same, it's based on the riders size and not their gender.


----------



## tdc_worm (Dec 10, 2008)

you know, lost in this discussion is the fact that man made....er, non gender binary made items exist for a reason, and that reason does not always have to be nefarious. if an item is not the item for you, then you have the free will to choose a different item. vote with your wallet. if there wasn't a market for an item, then that item wouldnt exist, and if it did, the company would be on its way to nonexistence. for low pass through frame heights, i know of several people with x chromosomes whom have experienced an increased desire to cycle because they feel safer. at the same time we have all seen just as many x chromosomers on bikes that aren't x chromosome specific. 

new topic:
the insidious symbolism of Victoria's Secret items fitting poorly on cross dressing y chromosomers.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

WHALENARD said:


> Why haven't road bikes moved to "sloping" top tubes?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


They have. Look at road bikes now v 20 years ago. The top tube was level with the ground then, it slopes down. 

Women’s frames served a legitimate purpose, but were also structurally weaker. Like many things, the design far outlived its purpose. It is not suprising, as until the 60s, we seemed hell bent and intent on making everything a binary of what boys do, or girls do.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

singletrackmack said:


> Wait, there is a women’s specific lounge on this website?!?!
> 
> But a women's lounge is a highly visible signal that we are committed to a gender binary (men and women are “opposite” sexes). It is some men and the defenders of masculinity who are most opposed to not having a women's lounge because collapsing the gender differentiation means collapsing a devalued category into a valued category. For individuals who embrace the valued category, this is a disaster. A women’s specific lounge is just one small way to preserve both the distinction and the hierarchy.


Correct, but I believe the primary reason it was made was so women had their own discussion area outside of the 99% of other posts on MTBR, many of which are “bro” type posts. There is no restriction on anyone posting, but except for the fact this popped up on the main feed, I do not come and post, I as believe it to be polite to respect that space.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

Sparticus said:


> Ask her and then let us know what she says.


She said she feels less feminine having such a big foot. She didn't say that she felt the shoe manufacturer was making her feel manly when she buys shoes (that are women's shoes) that fit her feet. I can wear my wife's shoes, but it doesn't make me feel feminine that I can. I actually won a prize at a company party for being the first man up to the podium wearing their date's female shoes. How dare they give away gift cards propagating the gender bias that a man would have a female date?!!?

Some of you smaller footed individuals... Do you feel feminine when you realize your foot could fit into a woman's shoe, just because your feet happen to be the same size? I doubt it, but maybe you do. Do you then extend some criticism of the maker of your shoe for making a shoe that fits your small foot, as if they were trying to feminize you, or are you just glad they're making a shoe that fits you?



J.B. Weld said:


> See post #9-


I'm with you on post number 9, but if asked which bike they wanted, a pretty pink one with rainbows and tassles, or a dark one with skulls and flames on it, a girl would probably prefer the former. Vice versa for the boy. Manufacturers are just catering to their customers wants in an effort to sell more product. How dare they? When I took my 11 year old daughter into a sporting goods store to just see her on different sized bikes, she was only interested in the ones that looked pretty and non aggressive in design. 

I didn't consider boys and girls bikes being overly genderized because I'm not a child. Adult bikes are made to fit their riders. I don't think bike makers are guilty of forcing a gender system in doing that. If women don't want to buy step through bikes, they'll eventually stop being made, sort of like how Ford stopped making cars except for the Mustang.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Cary said:


> …I as believe it to be polite to respect that space.


I agree. I try to show such respect as well.
In this case I popped in to find out how women feel about the topic.
I’m genuinely curious.

Have ‘women’s specific’ bikes gone the way of the dinosaur?
My GF is 5’2” and loves her size small Ibis Mojo 4. Not a ‘women’s specific’ frame but if I understand correctly, one of the owners/designers at Ibis is a woman (a short one, too IIRC.)
Even at only 5’2” tall, my GF’s size S frame can fit a 160mm dropper and with the dropper all the way down, she can flatfoot the ground whenever she comes to a stop — a confidence inspiring feature. This Mojo 4 frame was designed very well for the shorter rider.

Isn’t this the ideal? Design frames that fit people — from very short to very tall.
Gender blind.
Choose colorways and graphics that appeal to both (or should I say all 7) genders.

Bike manufacturers design & market their products to make money.
If ‘women’s specific’ bikes didn’t sell well, then bike companies would not offer them.

Still hoping more women join this conversation to express their invaluable perspectives.
=sParty


----------



## palerider (Jul 15, 2004)

Don't even start about saddles.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

palerider said:


> Don't even start about saddles.


Uh oh.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

It's great to hear form all these men what women need/want 

Anyhow, when I worked in a bike store in the early to mid 90's, we were kinda already understanding a "women's bike" was a bike that fit women. Back then we typically directed women to smaller bikes with higher seats and shorter stems, as the primary difference with men and women as far as frames go is leg vs torso/arm length. There is huge overlap though, and makers like kona and rocky by that time realised a bike was a bike and had dropped girl/boy frames altogether. Other anatomical things like seats, grips and brake levers needed new products, which were very slow to develop.

What shocked me back then though was how burned in the girls vs boys product was. Women would ask for the drop tube frame cause that was "for girls". It was a hard sell to put them on a good mountain bike that actually fit them. The pink and blue nonsense was always nonsense to anyone but marketing departments. Most customers never mentioned colour at all in their selection unless the bike they liked came in 2 colours.

I don't really pay attention anymore, but I haven't seen a new low bar frame in ages, even in the department stores. The exception are some of the new e-bikes with integrated batteries in huge down tubes where it really has a purpose, as mentioned earlier, for people with leg motion limitations. Many of these people would like to ride an e-bike, but probably can't pedal well on their own. A friend of mine had a heart attack and swapped his bike for his daughters old pink 1990 drop frame bike so he could get on it more easily. Most women I know do not wear dresses often or at all anymore, let alone when they go to ride a bike so that purpose is long gone. Although to be fair I did see a bank teller in full long dress business attire on a freestyle BMX a while back. Some people are just weird I guess hahaha


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

smashysmashy said:


> It's great to hear form all these men what women need/want


Huh. And all this time I though you were a guy. 
=sParty


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Sparticus said:


> Huh. And all this time I though you were a guy.
> =sParty


Rude


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

yeah, the true purpose of the step through frame now is for people with mobility issues. when I worked in shops, I helped a decent number of folks who couldn't lift a leg over a saddle (or who had balance issues) buy bikes and it was always a challenge to convince them that a step through frame was a better choice. thankfully, the shops I worked in at the time carried bikes with such frames in a variety of colors that didn't especially scream male or female, so they could pick whatever color they liked. it was still occasionally a struggle to convince a man to consider one, even if it was just a simple black frame.

the marketing from the bike mfrs mostly only exists for kids bikes anymore (and thankfully it's fading there, too). but the stereotypes still exist among a portion of the general public.



Sparticus said:


> Isn’t this the ideal? Design frames that fit people — from very short to very tall.


I think this truly is the ideal. I don't think the frames themselves necessarily need to vary all _that_ much, if at all. I get why you'd want touch points like saddles and grips to have shape variation. But again, I don't think it necessarily needs to be gendered. Just a range of fits that might work for a variety of people. And a variety of color choices to suit a variety of tastes. Make the frames and parts in solid colors and if people want graphics, then they can choose the stickers they want to put on, whether they're flowers, butterflies, flames, lightning bolts or whatever. 

Suspension needs to be available in lighter tunes for lighter riders, whether they're kids, women, or small guys. Brakes need to have shorter reach lever options (or suitably adjustable levers) for anyone who has smaller hands. Saddles need a wide variety of shapes to fit a wide variety of backsides.

The insidiousness comes from the marketing departments saying that these things are for women. It's generally more "acceptable" for women to alternately use things that are made for men if they choose to do so. It's far less acceptable for men to use things that are labeled for women if they happen to prefer the fit. If you need thin grips and short reach brake levers, then that is what you need. You don't need a marketing department telling you that those things are just for women. Just as if you need thick grips and a long reach on your brake levers, you don't need a marketing department telling you that these things are for men.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

KobayashiMaru said:


> I'm with you on post number 9, but if asked which bike they wanted, a pretty pink one with rainbows and tassles, or a dark one with skulls and flames on it, a girl would probably prefer the former. Vice versa for the boy.






Hmmm, I wonder why that is?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> My wife carries a “she pee” with her when travels so it’s easier to go outdoors, works great but she gets irritated cuz it dribbles


She shouldn't. 

Women have a pelvic floor muscle that has to be relaxed to urinate. It naturally stays taut in a woman when she is standing, holding back urine. 

Relaxing the pelvic floor while standing, in time, can lead to this muscle relaxing in the standing position on it's own and leads to incontinence. 

No doubt women have, and will continue to experience sexism. However 'different' does not mean 'unequal' all on its own. Men and women are in fact different and these differences should be celebrated and recognized, not ignored. 



Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Harold said:


> I think this truly is the ideal. I don't think the frames themselves necessarily need to vary all _that_ much, if at all. I get why you'd want touch points like saddles and grips to have shape variation. But again, I don't think it necessarily needs to be gendered. Just a range of fits that might work for a variety of people. And a variety of color choices to suit a variety of tastes. Make the frames and parts in solid colors and if people want graphics, then they can choose the stickers they want to put on, whether they're flowers, butterflies, flames, lightning bolts or whatever.


In the long run, I think frames need a "size" and a "profile". I could have sworn I saw someone doing this but can't think of the brands. But the basic is, you have a global size (short medium tall) and a length (short / long). We used to handle short and long with stem and saddle position, but we know now this can make a bike got from awesome to garbage in handling real quick. wheel size also needs to come into play. No point putting a 4'9 woman on a little frame with 29" wheels. She can have a 26. My 6'7 friend can have the 29er with the huge frame... BUT he's actually got the same inseam as me, so that's where the short and long comes in.

A lot of builders already (GT i know as i have a few) are using 27.5 on S and XS and 29 on M and L. Just add 26 back in for XS and XXS (kid), and maybe even bigger wheels for people like my friend.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

J.B. Weld said:


> Hmmm, I wonder why that is?


It's not the chicken or the egg debate you're trying to make it into. People have preferences. Sometimes they follow gender.

How many guys want to go see a chick flick, and how many women want to see shoot 'em ups? Certain things appeal to certain genders, at least in a broad sense. Think of how men shop versus how women shop. Think of how girls need a girl friend to spot them in the bathroom when they pee and how dudes would never do that.

You can try to make it about the whole nature vs nurture thing as much as you want, but some things are just hard wired into biology and won't fit into that debate.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

smashysmashy said:


> In the long run, I think frames need a "size" and a "profile". I could have sworn I saw someone doing this but can't think of the brands. But the basic is, you have a global size (short medium tall) and a length (short / long). We used to handle short and long with stem and saddle position, but we know now this can make a bike got from awesome to garbage in handling real quick. wheel size also needs to come into play. No point putting a 4'9 woman on a little frame with 29" wheels. She can have a 26. My 6'7 friend can have the 29er with the huge frame... BUT he's actually got the same inseam as me, so that's where the short and long comes in.
> 
> A lot of builders already (GT i know as i have a few) are using 27.5 on S and XS and 29 on M and L. Just add 26 back in for XS and XXS (kid), and maybe even bigger wheels for people like my friend.


this makes a lot of sense. in the end, I'm sure a sizing scheme such as that would give my wife far more choices that fit her. currently, most small frames are too big for her because they are too long. even though her height suggests she should fit on that size of bike. she found an xs frame that fits great, so that's what she rides. if someone made short/short frames, they'd probably work well for her.

I'm sortof the opposite. my height suggests medium, and that's what I usually get. but for the length of the bike, many larges actually fit better. it wasn't until the whole long/low/slack trend came about that medium frames started fitting me better. so maybe I'd be a medium/long under said sizing scheme.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Harold said:


> this makes a lot of sense. in the end, I'm sure a sizing scheme such as that would give my wife far more choices that fit her. currently, most small frames are too big for her because they are too long. even though her height suggests she should fit on that size of bike. she found an xs frame that fits great, so that's what she rides. if someone made short/short frames, they'd probably work well for her.
> 
> I'm sortof the opposite. my height suggests medium, and that's what I usually get. but for the length of the bike, many larges actually fit better. it wasn't until the whole long/low/slack trend came about that medium frames started fitting me better. so maybe I'd be a medium/long under said sizing scheme.


I have issues with many modern frames, I pick small usually, to get a short top tube, but because they assume short length means short legs, I need a 450mm seat post. And because they play to averages, if you pick the women's model (in GT) its really only 5-10mm shorter per size. Not helpful at all.

There's a joke about the US air force designing ejector seats, and they averaged out all the personnel's measurements and made the perfect seats.... not a single person fit in it.

Obviously we can't just have all frames custom or 47 different carbon moulds to handle just 10% of people, but they way it is right now isn't sufficient (a hell of a lot better than it was before though, so its not a knock on companies efforts).


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

smashysmashy said:


> Rude


Not intended to be so. Hence the smiley.
Sorry to offend.
=sParty


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Cary said:


> Correct, but I believe the primary reason it was made was so women had their own discussion area outside of the 99% of other posts on MTBR, many of which are “bro” type posts. There is no restriction on anyone posting, but except for the fact this popped up on the main feed, I do not come and post, I as believe it to be polite to respect that space.


Yup, and bikes with sloping top tubes were made so women had their own bikes that accommodated the dresses they wore.

The entire premise of the article is absurd.

On a side note, my grandpa bought the convertible version of this car with regular doors as the car with the gullwing doors made it hard for my grandma to get in the car when wearing a dress or skirt and it was “unlady like”. Man people were arrogant male chauvinistic pigs back then. How dare they make a car like this, or not? I am not really even sure what people are arguing here…


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

singletrackmack said:


> It is some men and the defenders of masculinity who are most opposed to not having a women's lounge because collapsing the gender differentiation means collapsing a devalued category into a valued category.


Plenty of that going on in here. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## beergust (10 mo ago)

Step-through design is brilliant for anyone who simply doesn't want to or can't swing a leg over their seat. Loaded touring bikes can be awkward to get a leg over, for example. Note that Rivendell has many beautiful models with step-through frames, and they're selling 'em as fast as they come in.


----------



## Cheap_Basterd (May 28, 2020)

1. Modern HT bikes are almost like step thru for men and women.
2. Is women's geometry still a thing? My wife's Furtado looks oddly similar to men's SC bikes.
3. My mom rides a step thru because she had ACL surgery and can't throw her leg over the top tube.


----------



## Mac_89 (Mar 24, 2021)

The Juliana Furtado _is_ a Santa Cruz 5010. Ditto the Roubion/Bronson. The only thing that differs AFAIK is the Julianas have a lighter shock tune and completes come with a different saddle. Oh and the colours are way better in most cases. Whoever has been squatting in SC's artwork department for the last few years needs to lay off the shrooms.

There are also fat person-specific bikes out there called "e-Bikes". I'm not sure if the geometry is different.
🎣


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

The average of a woman's proportions and weight distribution is enough different from an average man's that it should at least be a consideration in bike geo, leverage ratio, seat, bar width, etc.

Ultimately if women constituted a higher percent of bike sales, bikes would probably be a bit different. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Suns_PSD said:


> The average of a woman's proportions and weight distribution is enough different from an average man's that it should at least be a consideration in bike geo, leverage ratio, seat, bar width, etc.
> 
> Ultimately if women constituted a higher percent of bike sales, bikes would probably be a bit different.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk




I don't know, the normal available size range seems to cover it without any issues.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

palerider said:


> Don't even start about saddles.


Can one ride women's saddles side saddle? Asking for a friend.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Suns_PSD said:


> The average of a woman's proportions and weight distribution is enough different from an average man's that it should at least be a consideration in bike geo, leverage ratio, seat, bar width, etc.
> 
> Ultimately if women constituted a higher percent of bike sales, bikes would probably be a bit different.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


There's a couple companies that make women specific knee implants. In reality it's just marketing.


----------



## palerider (Jul 15, 2004)

milehi said:


> Can one ride women's saddles side saddle? Asking for a friend.


No, that would constitute gender appropriation, and we cant go down that slippery slope.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

cyclelicious said:


> Today I learned that the "lower bar" on women's bikes is antiquated and was created to accommodate the heavy dresses women wore in the late 1800s
> 
> And the high bar is designed to smash a dude’s nuts.
> 
> ...


Most kids and casual bikes still have chain guards.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> She shouldn't.
> 
> Women have a pelvic floor muscle that has to be relaxed to urinate. It naturally stays taut in a woman when she is standing, holding back urine.
> 
> ...


So you're suggesting on the women's forum, that a male, tell a female, to not use a product that she likes to use?

So maybe you've never used one of these, but my daughter, daughter in law, and my wife all use one when they are out biking, hiking, skiing, and paddling.

They like using it because it allows them to be more discrete when urinating.

I suspect you are a male, it sorta shows.

Perhaps you'd like their contact information so you can correct their misperceptions


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> So you're suggesting on the women's forum, that a male, tell a female, to not use a product that she likes to use?
> 
> So maybe you've never used one of these, but my daughter, daughter in law, and my wife all use one when they are out biking, hiking, skiing, and paddling.
> 
> ...


Didn't realize that providing valid health information to someone that might not be aware that their actions were unhealthy, was inherently sexist.

If you don't care that they are more likely to begin urinating on themselves unintentionally in their later years because of this unhealthy habit, I guess I don't care either. My advise though, you should at least show them the grace of letting them decide with all available information.

GL.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> So you're suggesting on the women's forum, that a male, tell a female, to not use a product that she likes to use?
> 
> So maybe you've never used one of these, but my daughter, daughter in law, and my wife all use one when they are out biking, hiking, skiing, and paddling.
> 
> ...


Can you refute anything he said?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

When I saw the seemingly complete lack of a top tube on that Schwinn, I was reminded of a few videos.

One video was a GCN challenge, where they bought cheap used bikes off ebay to do some challenges. One guy got a trike, which had no top tube. It folded on him on the mountain road climbing challenge. I don't think it was caught on film, but the aftermath of it was (at 20:15).











At 4:30 in this video, fears of the lack of structural integrity...

Don't remember the others, but I know they do work sometimes, after seeing those Citi bikes take abuse. I learned that those citi bike frames are made by Devinci cycles, at their Canadian factory.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

TwoTone said:


> Can you refute anything he said?


Yes. Not only is the poster a man, he’s trying to use pseudoscience to frighten women from expressing their choice, very misogynistic.

Here’s an easy one;









Women urinate in the standing position do not increase post-void residual urine volumes - PubMed


Though flow rates are decreased while standing, post-void residual volume is not significantly different. Women have another choice for voiding in public restrooms.




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





To be perfectly honest, anyone with a smattering of common sense and a basic grasp of human physiology, will recognize his straw man argument.

Even if a woman was to urinate standing up for certain activities, this would never rise to a pathological risk.

Absurd and hilarious, yes it is.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> Yes. Not only is the poster a man, he’s trying to use pseudoscience to frighten women from expressing their choice, very misogynistic.
> 
> Here’s an easy one;
> 
> ...


I know nothing about this topic, but your article is unrelated to the claim.

I pee more if I drink a lot of beer. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> Yes. Not only is the poster a man, he’s trying to use pseudoscience to frighten women from expressing their choice, very misogynistic.
> 
> Here’s an easy one;
> 
> ...


Good Lord good insight to your mindset.
So you think he post was from a misogynistic place of man power over women vs. concern.

Yea that says a **** ton more about you than it does about him.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Nurse Ben said:


> Yes. Not only is the poster a man, he’s trying to use pseudoscience to frighten women from expressing their choice, very misogynistic.
> 
> Here’s an easy one;
> 
> ...


It is more or less misogynistic that the study you cited was done all by men?


----------

