Today we have the Canyon launch of lady specific bikes.
I'm sure over the last year we've had features that it is vital to have lady specific geo and yet it was followed by an announcement that that was crap and there is no gender based difference in bike needs except in maybe two of the three contact points.
So what gives?
When is International Men's Specific Geometry Day?
Marketing
So what gives?
Marketing ...
A.N. Other Mag did a review of the Liv Women Specific ..one of the ones with a change in Geo...
This was not bad until the reviewer rode the "Mens" version.
From what I remember there was some implication that women had a lower COG and so the BB didn't need to be so low.
The summary was even if you do have a lower COG (and many athletic women that might be debatable) why wouldn't you want the more stable build?
I'm not sure why but it reminds me of an old VHS video recorder I had.
Quite separate to the quality from speed of the tape there was a switch on the back for enhanced/normal...
As far as I could ever work out there were no downsides to the "Enhanced Switch" (it wasn't like a tape was half the length in time etc.) .. I always thought of it as the Shitty/Normal Switch .. which is how I viewed the Giant/Liv thing...
The other point is the number of XS womens bikes where they come with cranks in 170-175.... sure they put on a womans saddle .... did they put on narrow grips and did they choose brakes with reach adjust or did they change a saddle and spray in pink?
It's so stupid. The heights, weights, proportions and even physical strengths of men and women overlap so much that making gender specific geometry is illogical. Better to make bikes with short seat tubes and lots of dropper post space, so riders who prefer a short reach for their height can size down and vice versa. And offer lighter shock/fork tunes for lighter and/or less strong riders. And if you're selling complete bikes offer a variety of saddle widths, bar widths, stem lengths and crank lengths.
But curiously that appears to be harder to do and less easy to sell than "women's specific" bollocks.
From what I remember there was some implication that women had a lower COG and so the BB didn’t need to be so low.
Surely that makes no sense??
CoG depends on your build and your stance.
It's not like they are banning women from buying 'mens' versions, don't see why anyone would fuss about a wider range of sizes and layout options being available. Some men or kids might even take advantage.
My girlfriend has a 2017 Liv Pique 3, small. She loves it. She’s 5 3” with short legs and average reach. She loves it. Yes, the geometry on the Liv bikes seems to differ from regular geometry and that higher bb and steeper head angle seems to work. Her body position is central and even though the hardtail she came from had similar numbers in reach and head angle, she is much more confident on this. The wider bars help of course, and she loves the colours - which I think look great.
Yep, marketing spiel. The number of frames I've had runs into double figures, only one was women-specific.
If you look at the data available there isn't a significant difference in average proportions of men and women at a given height. Women differ in shoulder and arm a little and average c of g is likely to be different, some aspects of pelvis differences can affect fit also but it's all within a stem or seat post adjustment or a narrower bar. WSD geo was about 90% marketing but having bikes well designed for women is a good thing.
They seem to think women'll pay five hundred quid more for a pretty colour (they're probably not wrong 😉
Canyons are some of the worst bikes for anyone to fit due to the stupid stems/bars.
Shimano brifters must be shite for women aswell; I find them less than ideal and I've got very big masculine hands.
Handlebars and saddles are the main things that'd need changing if you're a woman.
tt can make a big difference.
I've noticed quite a few women with long legs and short torsos. I've not noticed as many men like that, but I'm not really looking as closely.
But they perhaps should be bikes for small people, or bikes for people with long/short legs, or bikes for light people rather than 'women' specific...?
“I’ve noticed quite a few women with long legs and short torsos. I’ve not noticed as many men like that, but I’m not really looking as closely.”
I found some detailed data on this years ago, and posted a link to it on here. It showed that the average limb vs torso length and the distribution of ratios is the same for men and women of the same racial origin. You probably notice the women with long legs because they dress to accentuate them.
That anthropomorphic study also showed that people of African heritage have longer limbs for their height than people of Northern European heritage (it was a US study). Longer torsos are a cold weather adaptation, like long narrow noses and pale skin.
I’ve yet to hear of any bike companies making Black Specific Geometry...
You probably notice the women with long legs because they dress to accentuate them.
It was announced earlier today that they've been dropped from cycling.
What hasn't been considered is the need for twist in the frame to compensate for the females' COG being quite set to one side*
*sidesaddle
(Hopefully interpreted as a gybe at silly marketing, not at women)
WSD geo was about 90% marketing but having bikes well designed for women is a good thing.
The question is do they get put together.
For example:
Shimano brifters must be shite for women aswell; I find them less than ideal and I’ve got very big masculine hands.
SLX is a high percentage (between mech and shifter) less force required than XT. Personally, I'm fine with XT and barely take a mens large in gloves. However what you don't see is companies saying "we selected the 5g heavier SLX component for the womens x-small because it requires less force from smaller hands"
Plenty of supposedly WSB's have 170+ cranks on a XS frame etc....
I found some detailed data on this years ago, and posted a link to it on here. It showed that the average limb vs torso length and the distribution of ratios is the same for men and women of the same racial origin.
Doesn't surprise me at all.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">You probably notice the women with long legs because they dress to accentuate them.</span>
Also I like looking...
The question is do they get put together.
I suppose what I'm saying is there's an argument for unisex bike geometry, equally you can adapt a bike as a 'WSD' (remove the specific part perhaps) by doing as you say.
Plenty of supposedly WSB’s have 170+ cranks on a XS frame etc….
It's rubbish but at lower price levels it can be hard to find 160 and 165mm, or certainly was a couple of years ago. I'm 6' and prefer 170-172.5mm on my road bikes. imo cranks should be 165-170-175 as standard, 160-165-170-175 next then go 2.5mm increments if you must at, say at Ultegra level.
average limb vs torso length and the distribution of ratios is the same for men and women of the same racial origin.
Exactly. Or, look at an average national population with a racial mix and it still averages out. The leg to torso to height ratios are same for men and women and the variation or range is very similar - men or women vary as much at a given height as you see if comparing men and women at that height.
The 'women have longer legs' reasoning came from at least one large bike brand selling WSD early on. It may be what their customers wanted to hear but it's not true. Specialized U-turned on that point not long ago yet here's Liv saying the same thing - https://www.liv-cycling.com/global/about-womens-specific-design
The most influential measurement we look at for frame geometry is the torso to leg length ratio. Instead of focusing on height alone, we have learned this ratio has the biggest effect on how a woman rides and how she is balanced on the bike. The data from the global body dimension database shows women tend to have shorter torsos and longer legs than men.
It’s rubbish but at lower price levels it can be hard to find 160 and 165mm, or certainly was a couple of years ago.
SRAM make 155mm and up ... but yes there is a dearth of shorter cranks. But we are not only talking budget bikes here... (unless £3000 is still budget)
However 90% (wild guess) of cranks are not sold separately.. they are fitted to complete bikes
The problem is the big 5 have contracts with Shimano/SRAM...getting a price on 100,000 units is far more important to their marketing than rider comfort. The price they negotiate is interdependent of other components ... and they will throw in wild cards like Raceface or E13 etc. to negotiate a price - it's not about what's better its about what leverage they have with Shimano/SRAM.
it’s not about what’s better its about what leverage they have with Shimano/SRAM.
It won't make much difference on price really and it's OK to add cost to upgrade a rear mech etc. They're simply giving people what they believe people make buying decisions on - if more buyers asked for shorter cranks they'd do it.
It won’t make much difference on price really and it’s OK to add cost to upgrade a rear mech etc.
Unless you negotiate the mega contracts with Shimano/SRAM and the big 5 you don't know what cost it adds.
It will have nothing to do with the actual costs ... it's about leverage and the overall deal.
e.g. If say Giant threaten to use Raceface cranks ... unless they get a group set for 10% cheaper ... or threaten to move an entire range over to the competitor etc.
However:
They’re simply giving people what they believe people make buying decisions on – if more buyers asked for shorter cranks they’d do it.
Nearly, they don't care what you ask for... they only care if it loses sales.
So if you are willing to sell the cranks and replace they didn't lose a sale. If you buy a competitors bike instead then they lost a sale and they care.
Companies like Bird will put on whatever you want.... but Shimano/SRAM don't really care what Bird do as its not enough sales... equally this is WHY Bird can afford to be flexible.
Incidentally, Hope make short cranks (they get put on the Academy bikes) but they won't sell them. (I know I tried)
Unless you negotiate the mega contracts with Shimano/SRAM and the big 5 you don’t know what cost it adds.
Current OE price lists says they're all the same starting price (ie for small qty) and they're made to order per PO, so making every bike a 170mm won't save anything. Yes leverage counts but it'll not affect this area of spec. At the small brand end of the scale it means it's easy to spec cranks based on frame size, yet you can't do things like custom fork decal colours for under 300 sets.
As you say, chainsets are one area where many brands don't spec Shimano or SRAM so it's competitive - it's in a manufacturer's interest to offer options at no added cost.
To a point in the OP
So what gives?
RE the Canyon test, interesting that a bike that felt to short to the tester to start with felt good after a number of hours. I go between short and long bikes and don't really see longer being 'better' as such, just pros and cons to both (assuming they're not too far off either end). Perhaps WSD here just gives more range of fits - on road WSD has less / no reason, with MTBs the reason for WSD increases as reach of 'unisex' bikes increases.
Current OE price lists says they’re all the same starting price (ie for small qty) and they’re made to order per PO, so making every bike a 170mm won’t save anything. Yes leverage counts but it’ll not affect this area of spec. At the small brand end of the scale it means it’s easy to spec cranks based on frame size, yet you can’t do things like custom fork decal colours for under 300 sets.
As you say, chainsets are one area where many brands don’t spec Shimano or SRAM so it’s competitive – it’s in a manufacturer’s interest to offer options at no added cost.
James, I'm pretty sure Giant (Trek or .... ) don't order chain sets in batches of any less than 10,000. More likely their deals are for 500,000 but based around (just for example) 150,000 XT brake sets, 210,000 Sora, 76,000 Ultegra and 220,000 drive chains (plus or minus the cranks) etc.
it’s in a manufacturer’s interest to offer options at no added cost.
You'd think so but obviously not!
In many cases they don't even offer a XS with different sized cranks to a XXL... or kids bikes with kids sized cranks
I've spent a lot of time looking for cranks... initially trying to find my kid a bike but in the end I did what most did and bought the bike and threw away the cranks. My own trail bike I did the same ...
Here's the newer model of my trail bike... and I'm deliberately choosing a smaller manufacturer.
Notice they do XS through XL but they won't list the crank size.. even though the XS gets a shorter dropper!
They wouldn't offer an option on the dropper either .. it's what they can FIT in the seat tube.
Incidentally, I'm just over 5'10" (not tall but hardly XS...) and my medium frame I can JUST USE a 125mm dropper (it's slammed both RS and Thomson). I can fit a 150mm <span style="text-decoration: underline;">in the frame</span> but I can't extend it
I can tell you that the 2015's ALL came with 175mm cranks... which are useless to me so I had to sell the cranks.
Same if mine came with a dropper .. I'd have to sell it and buy the shorter one.
If this is what a [b]small[/b] company like Whyte do .. imagine Giant, Trek or Spec
The thing is most people are either like me, accept you have to change the parts to fit or don't even think about crank length. Though you obviously do!
I’m 6′ and prefer 170-172.5mm on my road bikes.
Thing is your kinda lucky.... you can probably get away with a 170-175.... I'm 2" smaller and a 175mm kills me. The XS is 10" smaller than you ands comes with a crank 5mm longer than you find optimal!
Most 24" kids bikes come with 152mm or 155mm as these are commonly available. It's not smaller cranks don't exist.. (e.g. SJS resell lots) but they just don't care. My kids Cannondale 24 (Med Frame HT- which is really small as they only do M/L) came with 155mm ... his Norco (FS) 152mm... both have cranks on about 140mm though I'm saving the 152mm for when he can ride an adult XS
https://www.liv-cycling.com/gb/hail-1-2018
XS for 5'0" ... crank length unlisted - dropper length unlisted
BUT ... most people will buy it anyway.
You’d think so but obviously not!
My point was that crank brands do offer the options at no difference in cost, where the options exist : ) I just checked the price lists (bike industry job).
In many cases they don’t even offer a XS with different sized cranks to a XXL…
That probably isn't about costs though, it's about either poor product management or no options at the price point (or a bit of both). Product managers who understand a demand will react to it, but crank length is low on the attention list compared to ultraboost and the upgraded fork with varioshim tech and so on.
Most 24″ kids bikes come with 152mm or 155mm as these are commonly available.
From not understanding what makes a good children's bike, or hitting a price people want to pay rather than what a good value product costs and not having short cranks available at the price they want to pay. Skewed priorities, but cheap, low-value stuff exists in all markets. Shorter cranks for kids bikes were also rarer 3 years ago than they are now.
I think we're basically in agreement here. I find it frustrating that Shimano think an Acera level crank doesn't need a 165mm option. I'd say if they only want to make 2 sizes then they don't need the 175mm.
I can tell you that the 2015’s ALL came with 175mm cranks… which are useless to me so I had to sell the cranks.
Same if mine came with a dropper .. I’d have to sell it and buy the shorter one.
If this is what a small company like Whyte do .. imagine Giant, Trek or Spec
I specced a 170mm crank on a reasonably low BB 2016 29er, med size for 5-9 to 5-11 riders, and MBR criticised it saying they were 'losing power' due to the shorter crank. We got asked if the bike came with 170 or 175 (175 being what people wanted) for 2 years after that.. What can you do.
