women's specific roady

This replaces the previous forums at womenscycling.com.au.
User avatar
blybo
Posts: 7930
Joined: Thu 10 Jan 2008, 2:11 pm
Location: in a sleep deprived fog of nappies and formula...
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby blybo » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 10:12 am

Also keep in mind that steep seat angles, as often resulted in from shortening the top tube can also have negative impacts on geometry. Mrs B bought a Cervelo after lots of searching as Cervelo and BF (I think that's the name) were the only manufacturers making off the shelf carbon frames with standard seat tube angles on small frames, ie. 73 degrees. Cervelo's seem very popular with women in the states, maybe this is the reason.

Mrs B has found womens specific frames cause her severe knee pain due the steepness of seat tubes.
Neil
The older I get, the better I was...

squeazasis
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sat 23 Jan 2010, 12:16 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby squeazasis » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 12:11 pm

PiledHigher wrote:
squeazasis wrote:
PiledHigher wrote:
squeazasis wrote:Just out of interest, what is different about the frames of women-specific bikes (apart from being one size smaller)? When I was looking at bikes in shops, at one point one staff member said to me "women have longer legs and shorter trunks...." er, hello, isn't it the opposite??


On average women have proportionally longer legs and shorter trunks, that is different from teh fact that on average they are shorter as well.

I knew that either way it was different from the fact that on average women are shorter.... but I really thought it was the opposite!


Best not to let facts get in the way of a good argument...

You may be joking about facts/arguments or I may be missing something.... but just this info about proportions (assuming it's correct) is news to me.

squeazasis
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sat 23 Jan 2010, 12:16 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby squeazasis » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 12:26 pm

sachamc wrote:I've found that "women's specific" sometimes means a compact style frame, or it can mean the standard geometry frame with girly bits on it. I think Giant does the latter, or at least they did a few years ago when I was looking for a bike. I have a short torso and long thigh bones and no amount of adjustment was going to get me to fit on a Giant road bike, "women's specific" or not. Then I tried a Specialized Ruby women's specific bike and it fit within about 10min of adjustment.
When I went looking for my next bike I knew the frame measurements and geometry that fit me best and I looked at a whole heap of brands and compared the frames, some womens's specific and some "mens" (unisex). None of the mens compact frames that I looked at came in a size small enough to fit although the angles of the frame were pretty good. So I ended up buying another WSD bike. An Orbea. It only came in 2 sizes and luckily I fit the smallest size. Not sure what you would do if you were shorter. I'm 5'4" so not exactly short. Knowing a bit more about bikes by this time I had the bike put together to my specifications, choosing shorter cranks, and a saddle I liked (I need a narrow saddle, not a big wide one they usually put on women's bikes) In terms of the handlebars, when they measured me up the guy said he'd never seen anyone with narrower shoulders. So I had to get the smallest bars you can get, which really are still a bit wide for me, but not much I can do if there are no narrower ones (plus it's annoying that it reduces the amount of space for lights and such things)

So I'm only half an inch shorter than you lol! I notice not many shops have xs men's bikes in shops set up ready to try (and likely not a huge number of people selling good road bikes of that size second hand either).

Re handlebars, it would be good if they made narrower handlebars that can be attached to adult bikes.... what about all the tall skinny kids around! Also not all ethnicities have the broad-shouldered (although not me obviously) proportions of Anglo Australians!

When I was trying out bikes at Ivanhoe Cycles I was told that if I were to end up choosing a men's bike I should replace the handlebars for narrower ones (such as are on women's bikes).... although seeing one of the comments above, perhaps it doesn't always work that way anyway!

When I tried out a second-hand Scott Addict (men's xs), the male owner had replaced the low wide racing handlebars with normal recreation drop bars.... his shoulders were a lot broader than mine, but he had still found the original bars too wide.

User avatar
PiledHigher
Posts: 9708
Joined: Mon 21 Aug 2006, 1:48 pm
Location: Internet, serious stuff..
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby PiledHigher » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 12:33 pm

squeazasis wrote:
PiledHigher wrote:
squeazasis wrote:
PiledHigher wrote:
squeazasis wrote:Just out of interest, what is different about the frames of women-specific bikes (apart from being one size smaller)? When I was looking at bikes in shops, at one point one staff member said to me "women have longer legs and shorter trunks...." er, hello, isn't it the opposite??


On average women have proportionally longer legs and shorter trunks, that is different from teh fact that on average they are shorter as well.

I knew that either way it was different from the fact that on average women are shorter.... but I really thought it was the opposite!


Best not to let facts get in the way of a good argument...

You may be joking about facts/arguments or I may be missing something.... but just this info about proportions (assuming it's correct) is news to me.


It is correct, you are wrong, bike manufacturers design for it.

Hence my comment about not letting facts get in the way of an argument..
Sent from my iThingy using Tapatalk....*

*Not really Frosty

squeazasis
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sat 23 Jan 2010, 12:16 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby squeazasis » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 12:39 pm

Perhaps that's why long-legged women are considered attractive lol!

Helgirl
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue 20 Oct 2009, 6:33 am
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby Helgirl » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 12:45 pm

I think what they are trying to say is that just because you are short it doesn't mean that you don't have longer legs than a man who is the same height as you. What the WSD design is trying to cater for is that most women have a different leg:torso length ratio than men, women's legs are longer & torso shorter. Men have a longer torso & shorter legs, so just because you are short doesn't mean that you don't conform to those proportions. There are bars around that cater for narrower shouldered men too (and I am fairy certain that different riding requirements would probably require them too). I am quite out of trend as far as my shoulder width is concerned so I would not be at all surprised if many guys out there would find themselves swapping out the bars on my bike. In fact I know of one who rode it and said he would probably prefer it with a set that were slightly narrower. It's what fits you that counts WSD or not :D

squeazasis
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sat 23 Jan 2010, 12:16 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby squeazasis » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 1:00 pm

Helgirl wrote:I think what they are trying to say is that just because you are short it doesn't mean that you don't have longer legs than a man who is the same height as you. What the WSD design is trying to cater for is that most women have a different leg:torso length ratio than men, women's legs are longer & torso shorter. Men have a longer torso & shorter legs, so just because you are short doesn't mean that you don't conform to those proportions.

Hope you don't mind me saying ;) I knew quite well what they meant, just I'd always thought before that the proportions were the opposite! Hope this clears it up lol!

Helgirl
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue 20 Oct 2009, 6:33 am
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby Helgirl » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 1:56 pm

No probs at all 8) , you 'sounded' confudulled :lol:

squeazasis
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sat 23 Jan 2010, 12:16 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby squeazasis » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 2:18 pm

Yes, I think at times I tend to assume that what's obvious logic to me (and presumably to you too, on the topic of proportions) must be obvious to everyone, so I didn't spell it out.

Having always thought that women had proportionally LONGER trunks compared to men, rather than the other way around, learning that women-specific road bikes have shorter top bars I thought that seemed odd..... and then when the guy from Ivanhoe cycles said about the proportions I assumed that he must be mistaken, hence my comment in my original post! The only thing that I wasn't sure about with the posts in this thread was what PH said about facts getting in the way of a good argument.... I guessed he MIGHT have simply been having a dig about me being wrong (and he's confirmed that that was the case) but thought there might be otheer possible meanings.

User avatar
PiledHigher
Posts: 9708
Joined: Mon 21 Aug 2006, 1:48 pm
Location: Internet, serious stuff..
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby PiledHigher » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 2:25 pm

squeazasis wrote:Yes, I think at times I tend to assume that what's obvious logic to me (and presumably to you too, on the topic of proportions) must be obvious to everyone, so I didn't spell it out.

Having always thought that women had proportionally LONGER trunks compared to men, rather than the other way around, learning that women-specific road bikes have shorter top bars I thought that seemed odd..... and then when the guy from Ivanhoe cycles said about the proportions I assumed that he must be mistaken, hence my comment in my original post! The only thing that I wasn't sure about with the posts in this thread was what PH said about facts getting in the way of a good argument.... I guessed he MIGHT have simply been having a dig about me being wrong (and he's confirmed that that was the case) but thought there might be otheer possible meanings.


And yet you have repeated to yourself and the forum your incorrect theory again, better to repeat the correct answer again and again so that is what you remember....

http://www.teamestrogen.com/content/wsdBikes

Shortening the top tube decreases the reach between the saddle and the handlebars - the most common problem for female cyclists due to our shorter torsos. Just shortening the top tube, though, can lead to other problems - less stable handling and increased toe overlap - unless other modifications are made.
Sent from my iThingy using Tapatalk....*

*Not really Frosty

squeazasis
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sat 23 Jan 2010, 12:16 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby squeazasis » Mon 19 Dec 2011, 2:50 pm

PiledHigher wrote:
squeazasis wrote:Yes, I think at times I tend to assume that what's obvious logic to me (and presumably to you too, on the topic of proportions) must be obvious to everyone, so I didn't spell it out.

Having always thought that women had proportionally LONGER trunks compared to men, rather than the other way around, learning that women-specific road bikes have shorter top bars I thought that seemed odd..... and then when the guy from Ivanhoe cycles said about the proportions I assumed that he must be mistaken, hence my comment in my original post! The only thing that I wasn't sure about with the posts in this thread was what PH said about facts getting in the way of a good argument.... I guessed he MIGHT have simply been having a dig about me being wrong (and he's confirmed that that was the case) but thought there might be otheer possible meanings.


And yet you have repeated to yourself and the forum your incorrect theory again, better to repeat the correct answer again and again so that is what you remember....

http://www.teamestrogen.com/content/wsdBikes

Shortening the top tube decreases the reach between the saddle and the handlebars - the most common problem for female cyclists due to our shorter torsos. Just shortening the top tube, though, can lead to other problems - less stable handling and increased toe overlap - unless other modifications are made.

That's not something I'll have any trouble remembering, but thanks anyway ;)

User avatar
Wheels Too
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:35 am
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby Wheels Too » Fri 30 Jan 2015, 4:33 pm

Jump to 2015

Recommendations for a Women's Specific framed carbon, road bike (ultegra mechanical but maybe di2 if the $'s stretch) something with a bit of oommph for 175 cm female of typical female proportions?
(Have looked at Trek and Ridley LIz. Trek don't import a frame size in the Silque `tall' enough).

User avatar
Kaz
Posts: 3243
Joined: Tue 30 Jan 2007, 10:13 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby Kaz » Sat 31 Jan 2015, 5:40 pm

I love my specialized amira.
I am 180 cm, so ride the 56. I do like the wsd geometry. It just feels better.
I have also heard great things about the wsd Giants.
Kaz
Get well soon Angelo

User avatar
Canuck
Posts: 9642
Joined: Sat 30 May 2009, 9:28 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby Canuck » Sat 31 Jan 2015, 8:22 pm

My women's Giant small is at least 4 (5?) yrs old now, and while it does feel pretty good, I think it's more because the TT / reach are better for me than on my 'male' Trek, which is a 56. But the Trek feels much better in every other aspect. I'm 173cm, but very short torso, very long legs. One is too small in some ways, the other too big in some ways.

I think looking specifically for the specs you're after is important, as when I bought, the 'equivalent' male version of mine had higher specced components :evil: Don't rule out non-wsd in the search.

User avatar
Kaz
Posts: 3243
Joined: Tue 30 Jan 2007, 10:13 pm
Contact:

Re: women's specific roady

Postby Kaz » Sat 31 Jan 2015, 8:58 pm

Canuck wrote:My women's Giant small is at least 4 (5?) yrs old now, and while it does feel pretty good, I think it's more because the TT / reach are better for me than on my 'male' Trek, which is a 56. But the Trek feels much better in every other aspect. I'm 173cm, but very short torso, very long legs. One is too small in some ways, the other too big in some ways.

I think looking specifically for the specs you're after is important, as when I bought, the 'equivalent' male version of mine had higher specced components :evil: Don't rule out non-wsd in the search.

I find the wsd bars the biggest improvement, and they would be easy to change on a boys bike, so Canuck is right. Don't rule out non- wsd.
Doesn't it make you crazy that a lot of wsd bikes only come in midget size? Orbea is another one. Grrrrr.
Get well soon Angelo


Return to “Women's Cycling”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron