Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
My mate is building up a bike for his relatively tall missus. Other than going women's specific, which frames tend to have shorter top tubes that might build up well for her?
Does she actually have long legs for her height? On average there is no difference in proportions between men and women, despite all the 'Women Specific Geometry' BS...
If you chose a frame designed for drops, such as the Griffon or Fargo, they have shorter top tubes than models designed for flat bars. This has worked really well for me as I need am upright position these days.
Brian
Merlin / Rock lobster are reputed to be quite short
Santa Cruz.
+1 on the Santa Cruz....
Ibis, agree with Rock Lobster and Santa Cruz.
Edit: I've also found that Cotic work well for me.
Give us a clue what sort of bike.
Some models come up short in certain brands, eg. Giant Trance a few years ago.
Transition Bandit .
Should have asked - is this an ht or fs?
+1 on the 'women don't need shorter top-tubes' thing.
+ 2 on Santa Cruz. Have had several models and always got on very well with the sizing.
Santa Cruz.
Hence why my small c456 is longer than my medium Nomad. The c456 is just right for me, the Nomad maybe a tad short though fine for the type of riding I do, plus I run a slightly longer stem on it.
CGG is correct on leg/body length proportions being on average the same for men and women, but women's arms tend to be a little shorter, shoulders are narrower and weight distribution can be different.
So WSD is over-emphasized at times / isn't vital imo but there are some changes that ON AV can help women be more comfortable on a bike. Generally, things that can be done with seatposts, stems and bars if the basic frame size suits. Or, the frame geometry does this allowing 'normal' parts to work better.
Current SC seem to measure up about the same as some of the Spec range.
Simple answer try bikes
but women's arms tend to be a little shorter, shoulders are narrower
Mine aren't!
CGG is correct on leg/body length proportions being on average the same for men and women, but women's arms tend to be a little shorter, shoulders are narrower and weight distribution can be different.
The academic paper I found on this showed no difference in average arm vs torso lengths either.
It did show a clear difference between Americans of white (predominantly Northern European) and black (predominantly West African) heritage, with the whites having longer torsos and shorter limbs for their height. However, I've yet to see anyone making BSG to improve diversity in cycling...
oh and the major tweak between the Juliana Joplin (womens Tallboy) is different bars, grips, saddle and cranks. That and the paint job.
I said on a previous thread the missus rides a med SC Blur LTc same as me and a Med Tallboy perfectly well and they fit well. We did the bar & saddle tweaks as we went along.
cube have short front ends.
Avoid scott and Whyte, they are long
CGG, they're close (close enough to say 'same' really) but the average ratios always seem to work out a little different in some areas. Not much though, 2-3%. Yet we seem to think 3-5% on a top tube or stem can be significant, so that's where my 'tends to be a little different' take comes from when it comes to bike fit.
Averaging data to compare different studies I've found (all European or US data) is tricky but it's safe to say that on average the differences aren't large at all, a range of people of one gender will vary as much as a range of mixed gender. So height-specific is still more sensible than gender-specific, imo.
I expect C of G is more variable than limb length and I'd say that has more effect on bike positioning than measurements, but c of g data is all but non-existent.
CG - sure, we're all different proportions, that's the point really.
..to add for comparison, sitting height vs stature varies less between sexes over a few studies (~0.5% in some, around 1% in another). Inside leg vs height is practically the same ratio but sitting height is both more common in studies and more related to bike fit - sit bones on saddle. One study seemed to show a 9-10% variance in male-female leg-torso ratios but that was so different to the other info that it needed more investigation - turns out it was East Asian women vs US men (afro-carib and white/european mix), ie the extremes perhaps. So race-specific may have some legs .. : )
The 'race specific' thing has a delightful irony because the more you look into it, the more it seems that the adaptations for a cold dark climate which white people have makes them less well optimised for modern life - risk of sun burn, more prone to overheating, nasal passages more restrictive at high flow rate, more prone to heart problems if you get fat, worse build for many sports, etc etc. So much for white supremacy...
The CoG thing is interesting because that would suggest that men would tend to prefer bigger bikes for the extra stability they confer due to their higher CoG and that women would prefer smaller, quicker handling bikes because their lower CoG makes it harder to maneouvre a big bike. Conversely it would suggest that women need at least as wide bars to help initiate the turn due to them needing a large lateral weight shift, which is again at odds with women specific idiocy/geometry!
I'm 5'7 and get on well with Genesis (currently running a Core 50, 17.5").
Merlin / Rock lobster are reputed to be quite short
+1
Didn't realise SC were short TTs. I like longer bikes like my C456. My Scandal 29er is the same frame size but shorter which I notice.
According to Steve Jones from Dirt magazine, every bike on the planet apart from YT Industries and GT have short top tubes.
So the helpful advice from STW to the short top tube question is
'She doesn't need one'
Quite fed up with these answers - what if she does? My wife is 5'2" and were struggling to find anything comfortable.
Quite fed up with these answers - what if she does?
But what if she doesn't? Might as well confirm that simple fact first before going any further. Also, we have no idea what kind of bike it's about so most replies might be redundant anyway until the OP provides some more information.
Santa cruz have moved away from the short top tube in recent years.
Older coves were short, 15.5" stiffee shorter than 14" scandal.
Ibis have short top tubes for their size.
Also as we're in the business of making sweeping generalizations... I'm 6ft with a 34" inside leg. Sweamrs is 5'9 with a 33" inside leg.. therefore on a sample of one she has longer legs and a shorter torso when compared to me 😀
She rides a medium Blur LTc and it fits fine; I'm on a large Ibis SL. We can just about switch frames with limited issue and they look almost the same size if put next to each other...
Quite fed up with these answers - what if she does? My wife is 5'2" and were struggling to find anything comfortable.
So what kind of bike is she after? There were some fairly valid points about WSG being nothing more than sparkly pain jobs with certain brands. How does she size up on Small frames?
Are you looking new or used?
I'd suggest getting down a few bike shops (Evans etc. in this case might have a bigger range) to just throw a leg over and think about it.
mikey-simmo - MemberSo the helpful advice from STW to the short top tube question is
'She doesn't need one'
Quite fed up with these answers - what if she does? My wife is 5'2" and were struggling to find anything comfortable.
my wife is 5'1", we struggle to find comfortable bikes for her because they've all got stupid-short top-tubes (among other daft geometry choices forced upon us)
the point we tried to make is: don't assume that you/i/we/he/she needs gender-specific geometry.