Road bike, TT bike, Cyclocross bike

biondino

I guess you could make a diagram purely of the contact points of a man's bike and a woman's bike and see how they differ - the frame could be a pure circle or a non-euclidian polygon for all it matters. Anyone want to have a go?

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

biondino wrote:

Women are a different shape, full stop - presumable there's a venn diagram that could be drawn with men and women and a crossover section, but for the women who don't fit in the crossover then clearly they'll be wanting different things from their bikes. I assume - never having ridden one - that manufacturers understand what these things are and cater for them.

I get that: I've seen magazines and tinternet things that leave me in doubt that they're a different shape. Men, women, venn diagram. You're a dirty minded boy. We all know what bits would be in the so-called "crossover" section, eh, eh...

All I said was that I've not seen anything that explains to me what the makers do, why and to what end in a women-specific frameset. I'm open to being persuaded. I just haven't seen the evidence. I wonder how many female pros ride women specific frames.

It's an interesting debate, this one. Various manufacturers maintain that they, and only they, have designed womens' frames which are actually designed around a woman, which, by the way, was where I got the idea that women are longer of leg and shorter of body.

They all agree, perhaps misguidedly, that due to this leg to torso ratio, women need the top-tube to be shorter.

Some of these sites, however, also maintain that women have longer femurs in relation to their lower legs than men, and therefore need the seat-tube further back. Other sites argue that women have different hip mechanics and need the seat-tube further forward.

However, many though not all of the sites which are 'by women for women' maintain that womens' fit bikes are only of any use if you are under 5'2".

TBH, it's all a bit tiresome.

Greg, you have a PM.

EDIT: turns out, thanks to my inscrutable and tolerant PA, that my understanding of being 5'8 is slightly inaccurate and I'm more like 5'7... weird!

Jen J

I appreciate that women and men have different body shapes. But some women have different body shapes to other women.

I go to the gym once or twice a day, and see all kinds of body shapes in the changing room - and that's just the fit ones.

No one size is going to fit all, and in a lot of cases, women-specific products are an excuse to extend a range rather than be fundamentally different to the original product. And make them pink and flowery.

Interesting that 4 females seem to have commented about this, and three of the four of us have noted that we are more 'male' shaped (with short legs/long torsos) than female shaped? Does that mean the 'female' shape is just an ideal?

dafruk

Just to really make Biondino sick, have you checked out what the Cayo Expert 08 is selling for, though not everyone is allowed to go buy one, as I want one and need to get paid first!

£1280 for a bike which has been selling well at £1500 (the 1600 price on their site is just a made up rpi, never seen it costing that).

For a slightly seperate question. (if you don't mind me adding to this thread).

SRAM vs Campag vs Shimano - other than brand preference what are the real differences?

don_don

They all agree, perhaps misguidedly, that due to this leg to torso ratio, women need the top-tube to be shorter.

It seems to make sense to me, that if you have 'longer' legs and a 'shorter' upper body, then (as a general rule) a slightly shorter top-tube makes sense. That way, you can 'size up' a bit to get a seat-tube long enough for the longer legs, but with a TT that isn't too stretched, if that makes sense? Apologies for the excessive use of the word 'sense'

AFAIK that is the basis of most of the 'Womens specific designs', although I'm sure there are plenty of blokes who could benefit from the same changes, if only the WSD bikes didn't have baby blue and pink colour schemes :roll:

As for me, having 2' legs and a 4' upper body means I'm stuck with my BMX for the moment. At least it stops my knuckles from dragging on the floor

lost_in_thought

don_don wrote:

They all agree, perhaps misguidedly, that due to this leg to torso ratio, women need the top-tube to be shorter.

It seems to make sense to me, that if you have 'longer' legs and a 'shorter' upper body, then (as a general rule) a slightly shorter top-tube makes sense. That way, you can 'size up' a bit to get a seat-tube long enough for the longer legs, but with a TT that isn't too stretched, if that makes sense? Apologies for the excessive use of the word 'sense'

AFAIK that is the basis of most of the 'Womens specific designs', although I'm sure there are plenty of blokes who could benefit from the same changes, if only the WSD bikes didn't have baby blue and pink colour schemes :roll:

As for me, having 2' legs and a 4' upper body means I'm stuck with my BMX for the moment. At least it stops my knuckles from dragging on the floor

I agree, it does make sense, but as Greg66 has pointed out to me, where they shorten the top tube, they also shorten the head tube, placing the handlebars further down. This plus the longer legs needing a higher seat position seems to explain why I feel like I'm craning my neck a bit on the Bowery...

But yes, women's geometry to the extent that it offers a shorter top tube does make sense.

biondino

I got my Cayo Expert through Cycle to Work so let me know when it's under £900 and then I'll get annoyed

don_don

as Greg66 has pointed out to me, where they shorten the top tube, they also shorten the head tube, placing the handlebars further down. This plus the longer legs needing a higher seat position seems to explain why I feel like I'm craning my neck a bit on the Bowery...

I hadn't considered the head tube thing, good point.

There seem to be so many 'sportive' type road bikes out there now, with taller head tubes than 'of old', so hopefully you'll be able to get something that fits you well. Happy shopping

Bugly

lost_in_thought wrote:

Thanks people! It's becoming clearer!

So: what I have learnt so far...

...
So the road bike it is. What's this 'criterium' (street circuit) bike, as mentioned by Bugly?

And I can definitely stand last year's gear!!

Then... carbon is worth it. I can understand that!

Deep rim wheels - I won't be commuting on this - I have the Bowery for that. Good but tricky with the tyres. Are they all like that?

For the shops - I will check out Sigma and Condor, thanks.

Do they let you ride the bikes? I know it seems like a silly question... but they're expensive pieces of kit! :oops:

Also, do they do a good fitting service anywhere? That's the problem with being a slightly-taller-than-average girl - I've been told that many womens' frames won't fit me. And I don't want to buy a bike that's the wrong bloomin' size!

Hi - Criteriums are races held on street cricuits in towns usualy around a city block or equibelent. The bikes tend to be more upright with shorter chain stays, steeper head angles less fork rake. As a result the bike is twitchy super stiff and responsive.

Deep section wheels are good for speed but going too deep can have negative effects on handling. Deep sections are not great in cross winds - they can get you blown across a land in gusty conditions and not sure that they would be much fun to ride with lorries and buses.

Good fit is vital - some things can be fixed by user changes - cranks, stems, bars but its an added expence and wont truely compensate for a badly sized bike.

Good luck

lost_in_thought

biondino wrote:

I got my Cayo Expert through Cycle to Work so let me know when it's under £900 and then I'll get annoyed

They're on sale on Wiggle - the Cayo (probably not the expert) is £900...

Thanks for all the advice peeps!

il_principe

Always Tyred wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

It's a lovely bike, I used to have one and can strongly recommend them:



And yes yes I know the brakes are loosened - I know one of the resident pedants will point that out if I don't.

And you've heinously crossed the chain...

Red wheels are just SO last year.

Lucky that was last years bike then!

Oh, you're being sarcastic again aren't you.

*makes small note re sarcasm and always tyred.

:shock:

always_tyred

If I was a lawyer I'd be supercilious, but I'm only a scientist so I have to make do with sarcasm.

il_principe

Always Tyred wrote:

If I was a lawyer I'd be supercilious, but I'm only a scientist so I have to make do with sarcasm.

May I suggest you augment your armoury of rhetorical devices?

Bugly

[quote="Always Tyred
The compact frame shouldn't really be an issue - the frame is simply something that joins together the pedals, bars and seat.
/quote]

Yes but the geometry is governed by lots of constraints you can make the top tube shorter by standing up the seat tube but this is limited by wheel size and rear triangle geometry, or you can just shorten it but this is limited by front fork geometry, wheel size and crank length and foot placement (toe overlap issues) or you can make the head angle slack to reduce the toe overlap but the bike will tend to wallow, or you can go to 650c wheels or at least front wheel. Every change you make to the geometry to accomdiate a rider has a handleing change associated with it.

'Womens' frames ie built for women with longer legs and shorter torsos relative to men have to make a number of adjustments to all dimensions and still maintian a ridable bike. Same issues with mens frames of course but the manufacturing industry is and was historicaly biased to that geometry and have the compromises worked out for bikes based on 700c wheels.

Women can make adjustments on standard frames and buy new cranks, seat posts, stems and bars but this adds to the expences. If your body portions (male or female) are not the western standard which modern bikes are designed around; and you are serious about cycling and getting a nice bike you really need to look at custom or specialist frames for a great fit. If your body conforms to the norm then the job is relativly easy and becomes an excercise in selecting brand/colour/gear that you like, if you have long torsos to compared to your legs or short torso to leg ratios the task is not that simple.

biondino

Bugly wrote:

If your body portions (male or female) are not the western standard which modern bikes are designed around; and you are serious about cycling and getting a nice bike you really need to look at custom or specialist frames for a great fit.

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

Bugly wrote:

If your body portions (male or female) are not the western standard which modern bikes are designed around; and you are serious about cycling and getting a nice bike you really need to look at custom or specialist frames for a great fit.

I prefer her avatar.

Bugly

so the LIT is about 3 feet tall and is of green coloration? :shock:

And she currently rides a bike with the cranks on the LHS? :shock: :shock:

lost_in_thought

Bugly wrote:

so the LIT is about 3 feet tall and is of green coloration? :shock:

And she currently rides a bike with the cranks on the LHS? :shock: :shock:

All the rumours you hear about me are true.

Bugly

Ah well LIT it's good to be green