[Closed] We Don't Need Bikes For Women

I completely agree but I'm pretty sure Transition made this point in the last year already. Yes they didn't have a Women's specific range to abandon in the first place, so kudos to specialized for being bold enough to give up the idea.

So Hannah, after your review of the Liv ( "I came back feeling like I’d conquered a whole bunch of stuff I didn’t realise I could, and thinking that perhaps there was something to said about ‘women’s specific geometry’ after all.") what is your view on this?
Not a dig of any kind but there are now two totally different views out there on women specific bikes from two women in the industry.

Some good points of view there Hannah! Does this extend to the Body geometry components too as I though that was what the only differences between some of the bikes was?

"the 5’4″/short torso/long legs stereotype that dominates the womens-specific argument"

An argument not backed up by any of the anthropometric data I've looked at, data that's also available to the brands that make the pro-WSD points. There are some general/average differences but it's not in leg to height ratios.

I've just re read it and Hannah's Liv test and I really don't see any contradiction between the two. It is a marketing mindset that needs changing but it will be fascinating to see the outcome.

Bikes for people. Could not agree more.

What an astonishingly confused article. Please don't give up the day job... Or is your day job actually supposed to be journalism? That was quite an excruciating read.

When my partner finally and very reluctantly had to retire her top notch, 20 year old, Specialised hard tail (size M), she eventually chose a Lapierre Womens Mountain Bike and she is extremely happy with it. Apart from the geometry, it was tremendous value for money. Surely the issue is that any choice is good and we're all free to buy whichever bike we want - subject to what we can actually afford.

See Juliana Bicycles....and almost every other brand that either figured this out some time ago, or didn't have the investment in womens specific geometry that required a couple of seasons ROI before giving it up.

We never made a women's specific bike because when we crunched the numbers we realised that we could make bikes in something like 5mm increments in all the most important dimensions without a pink paint job. Its working alright for us - but I tell you the one thing that makes a difference? Saddles. We offer only 1 non-gender-specific (Its the Fabric Gel womens-but-not-a-woman's) saddle, but give free reign to provide your own, but a bike without one. Whatever. If ever there was a minefield its Women's saddle preference! Otherwise its just the right sized bike for the right person. Everything between your smallest bike and your biggest bike is just a size.

nxgater, the vast majority of men and women overlap each other in basic proportions. The primary differences are at the extreme ends in overall height. The frame itself is unimportant because you can add/remove stack with spacers and stem angles. You can add/remove reach with different length stems or even bars. Even shoulder widths and hand sizes are generally consistent for men and women of equal height. The main difference as one person mentioned above, is in the distance between the ischial tuberosities and what's exposed around the perineum. Still, there is mostly overlap there as well. The key is to make bikes for people, whether they have bad flexibility or can bend in half. Whether they're 4'10" or 6'6" If you've ever seen a size 44cm or 64cm road bike, you'll know that many compromises to frame geometry have been made to accommodate 700c wheels. Why aren't 44cm bikes built around 650b wheels. Why aren't 64cm bikes built around 36" wheels?

I want to get my other half involved but it is virtually impossible to find a full suspension bike for someone that is 4'8", she is very small!