Thank you : )

For higher-end road bikes, there's a bigger difference than just paint colors: the geometry is different, to account for the typically-different proportions that women have (usually shorter arms and torsos). My bike, the Specialized Roubaix, has a women's counterpart called the Ruby. It's identical in every way (including price) except for paint colors and geometry of the frame (and the fact that it comes in smaller frame sizes). If a women's frame fits you better, then go for it. Honestly, I like the color choices on the Rubys better anyway; the men's bikes tend to have pretty boring color choices. But I'm over 6' with long arms, so there's no way a women's bike is going to fit me well.

"Gender specific" geometry is generally just a guess based on pitting the "average" woman vs. the "average" man. As in all other fit issues, no one is actually average, and virtually everyone diverges from average in one or more aspects, so it's completely unsurprising that some men would find "women's" bikes a better fit and some women prefer "men's".

After WWII, the Air Force figured out that a huge number of crashes during the war were caused by the cockpit being designed for the "average" pilot, which in practice meant that it was poorly designed for everyone.

Exactly what is your alternative? Make a custom-designed airplane or bicycle for everyone? If you're going to manufacture something to fit humans in mass quantities, you have to pick some sizes and go with them. Most bicycle buyers are not going to pay the money it would cost for a custom-made frame, and with carbon fibre in particular that would be exorbitantly expensive since molds are used. The best you're going to get is taking "average" people in a range of sizes and making the thing to fit them, and it's absolutely true that average men have different proportions than average women so that justifies the manufacturing cost of women's-specific bikes at the higher price points.

The sad thing is in training, the primary trainer plane in ww2 could adjust pedals and seat height for a height difference of almost a foot. The fancier fighter planes were not so versatile as they had a lot more going on. The adjustability in the aviation world is still pretty hit or miss. A lot of the planes I work on still subscribe to the add-a-pillow method for short people. Comical sometimes for a $200k+ machine.

What's funny is a 5'9 man can be a different bike from a 5'9 woman, but sometimes inverse from the expectation. I often like large(19-20") frames where several men I know in the same height prefer 17".

How does an average size of a person that happens to be forced into a binary justify a higher cost? Because an average of people have different sizes like everyone else on the planet does not mean something should cost more unless we are talking really big outliers like say a tall basketball player for instance or someone with some odd fit requirements. Carbon can be made from tubes and lugs, like Colnago has done. However I would rather have a nice steel or ti frame and you could pretty easily offer more sizes then just a few stock sizes like say Rodriguez does and there bikes while hand made in 'Merica aren't super expensive and certainly if that market could grow and no more silly tariffs that have hurt a lot of american manufacturers it could come further down in price. I don't think this is a complete pipe dream but a realistic goal we could meet. Plus it doesn't have to have anything to do with binary constructs but just getting people better fitting bikes.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Mass-produced products are made in discreet sizes specifically to reduce costs, usually dramatically. There's a reason we all buy mass-produced shoes these days instead of custom-made ones from cobblers. Products with higher prices will frequently have a wider range of sizes however. The bikes at Walmart do not come in the range of sizes that $2k-$5k bikes do.

People way outside that standard range don't buy enough to justify manufacturing something for them; the cost to produce the product for them will be more than the profit made from selling it to such a small customer base. That's why people with really odd sizes do have to get stuff custom-made or tailored.

And it'll suffer in many ways compared to a one-piece frame. There's a reason almost no one makes them that way: cost, weight, mechanical properties, etc.

Almost no one agrees with you, which is why carbon bikes sell like hotcakes and Ti bikes are a tiny niche. Titanium has some interesting properties, but the performance, strength-to-weight ratio, raw material cost, workability, etc. just don't compete well with carbon fibre made in Taiwan in gigantic volumes. Have you even looked at the prices of raw titanium stock (e.g. tubes)? It's little wonder no one makes bikes out of them, despite it seeming at one point 2 decades ago to be the "next big thing" for bike frames.

Wow, what an amazingly stupid and uninformed post!
Airplane cockpits are customized by making everything adjustable. If you drive, you'll know that the same solution has been used in the driver's seat, with the seat, the steering wheel, the pedals and the mirrors all allowing a "customized fit" for the driver. Obviously, this approach doesn't work as well for bicycle frames, although some other bicycle components can be adjustable to some degree. The solution has been to present a wide range of bike frame geometries. All I am saying is that designating part of that range as "women's" bikes is really just a guess based on averages, and it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that there aren't a significant number of men who would find that part of the range fits them better. So, basically, if men categorically won't try "women's" bikes, some of them may find themselves looking at bikes that don't really fit well.
Where you got the idea that I was advocating customized frames for everyone is a complete mystery. Nothing I wrote remotely suggested that.

Look you moron, I specifically said before that if a woman's frame fits someone better, they should use it. They're made for women to fit average sizes of women, who are typically shorter and have shorter torsos. Men like this might do better with those. Are you too stupid to understand this? You were complaining about bike mfgrs making frames for average people, so it totally looked like you advocated custom frames for everyone, because that's the only logical alternative to what they do now. Talk about a stupid and uninformed post.

Not that I have ever worked with airplanes, but I am old enough to remember when phone books were the default seat adjusters in most contexts!

I'm about 5'9" myself , and I am often surprised by how much leg and arm length can vary between people of the same height. This "no one is average" thing is a really hard concept for people to grasp, but you just posted the perfect example.

Nope, didn't say that or anything close to it. I just said that the gender labels are a guess based on averages, and no one is actually average so the distinction shouldn't be taken seriously. You should really learn how to read before calling someone a moron.

​​​​​

I am talking about the silly gender binary you brought up in your post. You claimed that because someone is say lumped in to the women's binary that would justify a higher cost. The """""bikes""""" at wally mart typically aren't sized at all. That is a bad comparison to anything.

As far as outliers yes really big people, I can see a higher cost not just because low volume but also potentially a lot more material being used. However lumping a wide range of people into a few "averages" doesn't really work super well and even worse when they are marketed within a binary.

Almost no one agrees that I would rather have a steel or ti frame? Who are all these people who are dead wrong? I will state it again, I would rather have a steel or ti frame. Carbon or aluminum doesn't excite me and again I would rather go steel or ti!
Steel and ti are quite popular still and while yes aluminum tends to be the cheap material now everyone is going towards and carbon is the great wonder material, plenty of people are still very interested in steel and ti and I think those that get a chance to ride a decent steel or ti bike would agree. Nobody said ti was cheap but it will last a lifetime and if it gets scratched you just buff it right out.

....or you keep asking, "Does this bike make me look fat?"

I said no such thing. I only discussed why having women's-sized frames makes sense for some bikes (namely higher-priced ones): they have different proportions, and at those price points, it justifies the higher manufacturing cost of having more frame molds and sizes made. Walmart bikes are too cheap to have 15 different sizes (mens + womens) for the same bike, but a $2-5k bike can justify it. I never said anything about someone "lumped into the women's binary". Some people will fit certain-sized bikes better than others, and having a wide range of sizes in both mens- and womens-specific geometries mean any given person is more likely to find a more comfortable bike in such a product line than they would in a product line with 3 sizes (S, M, L).

Obviously you haven't even looked at them; they certainly are sized, and even advertise it loudly on cardboard inserts between the spokes. They even go so far as to tell you what height range likely works best, something you don't get from expensive bikes at the LBS (they rely on salespeople to help you find the right size).

Ok, you obviously have little idea of how economics in manufacturing work. The extra material used in a 61cm frame versus a 54cm frame is not significant; most of the cost of the frame is in the labor, and a significant portion of the cost of the total bike is in the other components (wheels, shifters, brakes, crankset, seat tube/seat, etc.). But that's only if you can fit on one of the offered sizes. If you need something custom-made, now you're looking at much higher costs, if you can even get it.

First, no one is forcing women to buy women's-sized bikes, or preventing men from buying them. That's ridiculous.
Second, you *have to* lump a wide range of people into a handful of sizes. That's how EVERY mass-produced product works: shoes, shirts, pants, etc. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you people. Do you have only custom-made clothes or something? Any normal person buys pants with the inseam and waist that's close as they can get, and then uses a belt to make up the difference.

Almost no one else wants a Titanium frame. If this weren't true, then we would all be riding Ti bikes instead of CF or Al ones.

Is English not your first language, or do you have a reading comprehension problem? I really feel like I'm arguing with someone who doesn't understand basic English here. This isn't about your personal preferences, this is about the preferences of the whole market. You do not represent the vast majority of bike-buyers.

This is a blatant falsehood, particularly for Ti. The number of Ti bikes sold every year is insignificant compared to everything else. Steel isn't terribly popular either; even Walmart bikes are frequently Al.

This thread is too far gone to save.

Closed