Originally Posted by
noglider
About three years ago, I attended the Philly Bike Expo, and Terry gave a technical talk. She said that back in the 80s, she reached the right conclusion but for the wrong reason. It's not that the torso-to-legs ratio is shorter. It is, sometimes, but there are enough exceptions for it not to be a hard rule. Even if it were the rule, she later learned there is a more compelling reason for women to have a shorter reach. The reason is upper body MASS. Women generally have less, which reduces their STRENGTH for leaning forward.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Terry used to put out a Fit Guide in which she stated that, for males and females having the same length inseam, the female will typically have a shorter torso and arms. The guidelines for bicycle fitting are the same for a male and female, so the female's shorter torso and arms require a shorter stem and top tube combinations.
If it was strictly a matter of lower strength relative to upper body mass, then there would be different fitting guidelines for women and I have yet to see any. I've known several successful female competitive cyclists over the years and they all had sufficient strength to ride the drops for extended periods using stem and top tube configurations that fell within the standard fitting guidelines.
The strength to support a bent over torso is acquired through developing the muscles. If a person hasn't ridden before, this is a difficult and uncomfortable. It is no different for a male or woman. People who stick with the sport, slowly develop the necessary strength and it can be achieved more quickly with proper training to develop the specific muscles.