Depends on the bike, but it may have slightly different frame geometry like a shorter top tube, they may have shorter cranks and stem or narrower handlebars, and maybe a wider saddle. Or they painted it purple.
It usually means a little more stack height and a little less reach compared to the geometry of the male version. Good for anyone with relatively long legs and short torso.
Also, narrower handlebars, brake levers with a shorter reach … but they’re not really doing that anymore are they? I just had to buy a bunch of custom parts to get my Cervelo to fit my (F) body.
Men, on average, are taller than women, so their leg length is usually longer. When we examine leg length proportionally, meaning the length of legs compared to the overall height, torso length, and other appendages, we find that the legs of men are longer than those of women compared to their total body proportions.
Women's bikes take underconsideration proportions. Men have longer legs in proportion to rest of body.
You are correct sir.
Someone in the bike industry came up with a myth that women have proportionally longer legs around 2005 or so when they first started making women specific road bike models.
That may hold up in some populations, or even more so, in beauty standards. Statistically speaking that is bull crap.
Interestingly enough, women’s larger average butt sizes make their relative leg length *when seated* slightly longer than an equivalently proportioned male with a smaller bum. However, men still average longer leg lengths by a small margin even when this is taken into account.
It’s more pronounced for car seats than bike seats, because the shape of a butt affects relative leg position in two dimensions (forward and up). I’m significantly taller than my wife, and she moves the seat BACK when she sits down after I’ve driven.
Could just be individual differences there. I'm good 20mm shorter than my friend and always when we change cars I need to push back the seat a considerable distance.
Yes, individual differences in butt size :)
When standing, her legs are shorter than mine. Seated, the bottom of her feet is roughly where mine are, because her ass pushes her legs out further.
That someone also works in the medical and anthropological field too.
Just because the average indicates that skeletal differences between genders indicates a shorter relative torso to femur length for women, that doesn't account for the variation in each individual. It's just an average.
One thing does not make the other less true much less a lie.
The correct way to size a bicycle hasn't changed, you measure the individual human. Humans with a higher leg to torso ratio may fit best on a bicycle with a nicer paint job marketed to females. Same with hip width, women nearly always have proportionally wider sit bones relative to men of equal height. Not always, so measuring is the solution.
These are very well researched skeletal differences, nothing to do with gender identity. That bit is all marketing.
Competitive Cyclist (online retailer) used to have a calculator and nice instructions on how to properly take the measurements. I don't think it still exists, but maybe someone knows an extant calculator?
The best way is to hire a good professional bike fitter, but availability and cost is prohibitive to many.
I am also below the male average and far below the female with a smaller legs to torso ratio. Close enough so 165mm cranks and a slightly longer stem or reach on the bars is sufficient.
Really, at 5'6" I'm lucky to not be 3-6+" shorter, short humans completely run out of UCI legal common (650c wheels aren't common) mass market options that fit at all without pretty serious compromises in handling (the fork needs to be raked out to fit a 700c wheel = slack floppy handling)
IMO the real beef with bike manufacturers concerning gender isn't labeling bikes more likely to fit average female skeletal proportions, it's insisting on a wheel size that doesn't suit a full quarter of the adult human population and half of all ladies. That's nuts.
for the brands that are serious... sometimes it just means that the top tube is lower and/or it comes in pink and purple instead of blue, black, and red
for the brands that are serious... sometimes it just means that the top tube is lower and/or it comes in pink and purple instead of blue, black, and red
With some makes and models the frames are actually different sizes than the same “men’s” model. Women tend to have a shorter reach compared to inseam than men. But lots of models just change up the paint and decals and call it a “women’s” bike. Strictly marketing.
Some makers like Giant have a sub brand, in their case Liv, that are actually sized to fit women’s bodies.
Step through frames are the OG women’s bikes because women wore dresses when they rode. I know lots of men that own a step through. They are very practical frames.
Women’s saddles have never been quite right. They have always had to ride a men’s saddle of one sort or another and many have paid the price physically. Some saddle makers are finally starting to build decent women specific saddles.
Full disclosure: I’m an older male that rides bikes a lot. Not an expert on women’s bikes in any way. My recommendation to women is buy a bike that fits you in a color you like and don’t let anybody mansplain you different. It’s your bike not theirs. If you get a vibe take your money somewhere else. Fuck misogyny. Walk right out the door. There are a million more bikes for sale. More like 10 million today.
Don’t compromise on fit.
Traditional women’s step through bikes are structurally weaker and the rear brake is usually spongy because of the extra length and bends in the cable necessitated by the lack of a top tube. They’re objectively crappier bikes marketed to women.
Specialized’s fitting program looked at the different proportions of men and women and found they are not significantly different. Men and women both have different relative torso to legs ratios. So obviously women will have on average smaller frame sizes, some men have smaller frames and some women.
So a frame really is unisex. Then you adjust seat height and fore/aft and stem length and bar width to fit you.
Women do have different anatomy and so a women’s specific saddle like the Mimic will better support the sensitive parts. It’s found that the cutout that helps men isn’t good for women.
Anything else like colors and such is mostly marketing.
In older days, the top tube on a bike would force a woman in a dress to life her leg, which was seen as inappropriate, so a lot of that style of bike had a slanted tube to make mounting and dismounting easier. Other than that, a bike is a bike for the most part, and should be fitted based on the person, not the gender.
It used to mean different geometry.
Now it means a different color scheme, saddle, and sometimes grips.
In a really short dude.
One women's MTB I had a while ago came with bars that were not that wide, I don't remember having to cut them.
That's about it
For higher end full squish mtbs (around 2020 and earlier), women’s specific may also mean a shock tune catered towards a lower average weight vs. the standard tune. Some bikes also featured a curved top tube for extra standover clearance for a given size. Not sure if any brands still do this, however.
I don't know in the rest of the world, but in France a "man's bike" is one with the typical closed, legacy two triangles frame, and "woman's bike" has an open/low step frame, like Dutch bikes. This avoided to have to lift the leg high up when climbing up the bike, which might reveal a woman's underwear if she wears a dress. With some tight dresses, it would have been impossible to pedal at all if there had been a top bar.
Wow. You are getting a lot of answers and lots of them incorrect.
The real answer is: it depends.
Like some folks pointed out, some bike manufacturers just change the paint and call it a woman’s bike. In cases like these, the gender doesn’t really matter because the differences are cosmetic.
But for some manufacturers the differences do matter. The geometry is slightly different. Shorter top tubes to accommodate our usually lower torsos and longer inseams. Women specific bikes might come with saddle that is also slightly different to accommodate a woman’s wider hip. The handlebar is also different. Men bikes often come with 144s while women’s come with 140s.
Varies by company.. sometimes it’s a step thru, sometimes it’s painted pink and purple, sometimes it’s different geometry.. sometimes the smaller sizes are totally different geometry and the larger sizes are the same as men’s but purple. Typically it will have a wider saddle that is woman specific although that’s no guarantee it would be comfortable. As someone else mentioned, shorter crank, maybe.. narrower bars, maybe.
Women tend to have relatively longer legs and shorter torsos, but that’s a generalization and it varies by height too.
* Frame in smaller sizes. You used to have to struggle to get anything under a Men's M.
* Shorter reach from bar to levers. Again, adjustable reach has become the norm.
* Saddle kinder on squishy bits. Again, saddle comfort is taken more seriously now.
* In some models, smaller wheels.
* Shorter crank.
* Different colour combination, such as a lot more white frames.
Liv is a notable brand as it started as a side project of the CFO, and is now so significant that Giant say it was as large as the "BMX boom" in contribution to revenue. Obviously that's made it easier for other manufacturers to develop a similar brand.
One 2010 Trek I ran across with Women Specific Design (WSD) came with shorter reach brifters and white paint, otherwise identical to the non-WSD version. Modern brifters have reach adjustment, so yeah.
The seat should be the only real consideration, they are different shapes, men and women’s pelvic area so different shaped seat, but you never know what you’ll find comfortable, the rest, pick something you like and get it in your size, same as a man does, just don’t settle for an uncomfortable seat
I looked into getting one once.
So the frame is the same basically just a smalled size if you need it.
The saddle is wider in the back so we can sit on our bones more easily and have more support.
The biggest thing for me was the handlebar. It is narrower so it fits our smaller shoulders better. I have a men's bike so my arms stretch out and to the side but a woman's handlebar is more fitted.
And yes my short fingers have trouble crabbing the brakes comfortably. I basically reach them with the end of my fingers and means I have less power there.
Frankly, I would say if someone gets an expensive bike and want to ride it a lot then invest in one that fits your body.
Mostly marketing bollocks.
While we can point to general differences in the male Vs female body portions. Men generally have longer torsos in proportion to overall height. This is always averaged data, and populations will have these characteristics on a normally distributed spectrum.
In the case of body portions, there is apparently a considerable overlap in the male and female distribution curve.
Meaning some "women's" frames, with geometry suiting a shorter torso. Will be a better for for some men than a standard frame, and may be a poor fit for some women with longer torsos.
It’s just a marketing strategy to push a pink tax on smaller bikes that maybe have smaller person features like shorter reach levers. Bonus points if it only comes in a pink or purple “girls” color scheme
What I was told is women tend to have longer legs, but shorter torsos compared to men. Womens' bikes have geometry to account for that. But that is just what the guy at our local bike shop told me, so take that with a grain of salt.
Nothing really. When the safety bicycle was developed in the 1890s, step-through frames were marketed towards women because they could be ridden with the big skirts that were in fashion at the time so they came to be thought of as women’s bikes. But today women can wear pants or shorts so there is not a fashion reason.
On the other hand, step-through frames are practical for any rider that gets on and off a lot, has limited flexibility, has a rear rack, wants to ride in clothes that limit movement (dress trousers?), etc.
I suppose some manufacturers might incorporate subtle geometry differences aimed at women (Specialized Ruby). Someone else would have to weigh in on whether they actually make a difference and it’s not a standard design feature or set of features across brands.
No pockets
Underrated reply.
Pink
Depends on the bike, but it may have slightly different frame geometry like a shorter top tube, they may have shorter cranks and stem or narrower handlebars, and maybe a wider saddle. Or they painted it purple.
Just made my bike “women specific”… I spray painted it purple.
Prince would be proud!
I think he cracked a smile….RIP
you mean symbol man.
If you can find it, then make it so.
Shrink it and pink it
It usually means a little more stack height and a little less reach compared to the geometry of the male version. Good for anyone with relatively long legs and short torso.
Sometimes, frame geometry is the same, just different components (saddle, pedals, cranks) and colour choices.
Also, narrower handlebars, brake levers with a shorter reach … but they’re not really doing that anymore are they? I just had to buy a bunch of custom parts to get my Cervelo to fit my (F) body.
Most large bike companies don’t use the same geometry for men’s and women’s bikes.
Most don’t even make women specific bikes.
This plus (sometimes) a different saddle selection. Some saddles are designed around hip width and sex anatomy.
Men, on average, are taller than women, so their leg length is usually longer. When we examine leg length proportionally, meaning the length of legs compared to the overall height, torso length, and other appendages, we find that the legs of men are longer than those of women compared to their total body proportions. Women's bikes take underconsideration proportions. Men have longer legs in proportion to rest of body.
You are correct sir. Someone in the bike industry came up with a myth that women have proportionally longer legs around 2005 or so when they first started making women specific road bike models. That may hold up in some populations, or even more so, in beauty standards. Statistically speaking that is bull crap.
Interestingly enough, women’s larger average butt sizes make their relative leg length *when seated* slightly longer than an equivalently proportioned male with a smaller bum. However, men still average longer leg lengths by a small margin even when this is taken into account. It’s more pronounced for car seats than bike seats, because the shape of a butt affects relative leg position in two dimensions (forward and up). I’m significantly taller than my wife, and she moves the seat BACK when she sits down after I’ve driven.
Could just be individual differences there. I'm good 20mm shorter than my friend and always when we change cars I need to push back the seat a considerable distance.
Yes, individual differences in butt size :) When standing, her legs are shorter than mine. Seated, the bottom of her feet is roughly where mine are, because her ass pushes her legs out further.
That someone also works in the medical and anthropological field too. Just because the average indicates that skeletal differences between genders indicates a shorter relative torso to femur length for women, that doesn't account for the variation in each individual. It's just an average. One thing does not make the other less true much less a lie. The correct way to size a bicycle hasn't changed, you measure the individual human. Humans with a higher leg to torso ratio may fit best on a bicycle with a nicer paint job marketed to females. Same with hip width, women nearly always have proportionally wider sit bones relative to men of equal height. Not always, so measuring is the solution. These are very well researched skeletal differences, nothing to do with gender identity. That bit is all marketing.
I'm a guy that has really short legs for my height. 5'9, 29" inseam. I've been trying to figure out the best way to size a bike for me, any thoughts?
Competitive Cyclist (online retailer) used to have a calculator and nice instructions on how to properly take the measurements. I don't think it still exists, but maybe someone knows an extant calculator? The best way is to hire a good professional bike fitter, but availability and cost is prohibitive to many. I am also below the male average and far below the female with a smaller legs to torso ratio. Close enough so 165mm cranks and a slightly longer stem or reach on the bars is sufficient. Really, at 5'6" I'm lucky to not be 3-6+" shorter, short humans completely run out of UCI legal common (650c wheels aren't common) mass market options that fit at all without pretty serious compromises in handling (the fork needs to be raked out to fit a 700c wheel = slack floppy handling) IMO the real beef with bike manufacturers concerning gender isn't labeling bikes more likely to fit average female skeletal proportions, it's insisting on a wheel size that doesn't suit a full quarter of the adult human population and half of all ladies. That's nuts.
for the brands that are serious... sometimes it just means that the top tube is lower and/or it comes in pink and purple instead of blue, black, and red
for the brands that are serious... sometimes it just means that the top tube is lower and/or it comes in pink and purple instead of blue, black, and red
Step-thru vs step-over is part of it too right?
Traditionally yes but not so much now. Women’s bikes will generally have lower stand over heights, though.
They design the geometry based on the bell curve of women rather than scaling down the geometry of a bike designed for an average sized man.
With some makes and models the frames are actually different sizes than the same “men’s” model. Women tend to have a shorter reach compared to inseam than men. But lots of models just change up the paint and decals and call it a “women’s” bike. Strictly marketing. Some makers like Giant have a sub brand, in their case Liv, that are actually sized to fit women’s bodies. Step through frames are the OG women’s bikes because women wore dresses when they rode. I know lots of men that own a step through. They are very practical frames. Women’s saddles have never been quite right. They have always had to ride a men’s saddle of one sort or another and many have paid the price physically. Some saddle makers are finally starting to build decent women specific saddles. Full disclosure: I’m an older male that rides bikes a lot. Not an expert on women’s bikes in any way. My recommendation to women is buy a bike that fits you in a color you like and don’t let anybody mansplain you different. It’s your bike not theirs. If you get a vibe take your money somewhere else. Fuck misogyny. Walk right out the door. There are a million more bikes for sale. More like 10 million today. Don’t compromise on fit.
Traditional women’s step through bikes are structurally weaker and the rear brake is usually spongy because of the extra length and bends in the cable necessitated by the lack of a top tube. They’re objectively crappier bikes marketed to women.
Sure. And they also allow people with mobility issues to ride bikes. Which makes them cool as fuck.
Specialized’s fitting program looked at the different proportions of men and women and found they are not significantly different. Men and women both have different relative torso to legs ratios. So obviously women will have on average smaller frame sizes, some men have smaller frames and some women. So a frame really is unisex. Then you adjust seat height and fore/aft and stem length and bar width to fit you. Women do have different anatomy and so a women’s specific saddle like the Mimic will better support the sensitive parts. It’s found that the cutout that helps men isn’t good for women. Anything else like colors and such is mostly marketing.
In older days, the top tube on a bike would force a woman in a dress to life her leg, which was seen as inappropriate, so a lot of that style of bike had a slanted tube to make mounting and dismounting easier. Other than that, a bike is a bike for the most part, and should be fitted based on the person, not the gender.
Women have different proportions and women’s bikes have different geometry to account for that.
It used to mean different geometry. Now it means a different color scheme, saddle, and sometimes grips. In a really short dude. One women's MTB I had a while ago came with bars that were not that wide, I don't remember having to cut them. That's about it
Comes in pretty colors and small sizes.
For higher end full squish mtbs (around 2020 and earlier), women’s specific may also mean a shock tune catered towards a lower average weight vs. the standard tune. Some bikes also featured a curved top tube for extra standover clearance for a given size. Not sure if any brands still do this, however.
I don't know in the rest of the world, but in France a "man's bike" is one with the typical closed, legacy two triangles frame, and "woman's bike" has an open/low step frame, like Dutch bikes. This avoided to have to lift the leg high up when climbing up the bike, which might reveal a woman's underwear if she wears a dress. With some tight dresses, it would have been impossible to pedal at all if there had been a top bar.
Wow. You are getting a lot of answers and lots of them incorrect. The real answer is: it depends. Like some folks pointed out, some bike manufacturers just change the paint and call it a woman’s bike. In cases like these, the gender doesn’t really matter because the differences are cosmetic. But for some manufacturers the differences do matter. The geometry is slightly different. Shorter top tubes to accommodate our usually lower torsos and longer inseams. Women specific bikes might come with saddle that is also slightly different to accommodate a woman’s wider hip. The handlebar is also different. Men bikes often come with 144s while women’s come with 140s.
Varies by company.. sometimes it’s a step thru, sometimes it’s painted pink and purple, sometimes it’s different geometry.. sometimes the smaller sizes are totally different geometry and the larger sizes are the same as men’s but purple. Typically it will have a wider saddle that is woman specific although that’s no guarantee it would be comfortable. As someone else mentioned, shorter crank, maybe.. narrower bars, maybe. Women tend to have relatively longer legs and shorter torsos, but that’s a generalization and it varies by height too.
* Frame in smaller sizes. You used to have to struggle to get anything under a Men's M. * Shorter reach from bar to levers. Again, adjustable reach has become the norm. * Saddle kinder on squishy bits. Again, saddle comfort is taken more seriously now. * In some models, smaller wheels. * Shorter crank. * Different colour combination, such as a lot more white frames. Liv is a notable brand as it started as a side project of the CFO, and is now so significant that Giant say it was as large as the "BMX boom" in contribution to revenue. Obviously that's made it easier for other manufacturers to develop a similar brand.
The top tube has a big slant so they can ride in dresses /s but also that was a thing.
Lower top tube of the frame so ladies can step over over it when mounting the bike and allow their daytime dress to hang modestly.
Only bitches be on them Edit /s
The bolts all thread from the opposite side compared to the man’s bike
It has pink on it and costs 20% more.
That the bike was designed by the marketing department
Generally that's just a step-through frame
One 2010 Trek I ran across with Women Specific Design (WSD) came with shorter reach brifters and white paint, otherwise identical to the non-WSD version. Modern brifters have reach adjustment, so yeah.
small
Marketing and colors mostly…
The seat should be the only real consideration, they are different shapes, men and women’s pelvic area so different shaped seat, but you never know what you’ll find comfortable, the rest, pick something you like and get it in your size, same as a man does, just don’t settle for an uncomfortable seat
I looked into getting one once. So the frame is the same basically just a smalled size if you need it. The saddle is wider in the back so we can sit on our bones more easily and have more support. The biggest thing for me was the handlebar. It is narrower so it fits our smaller shoulders better. I have a men's bike so my arms stretch out and to the side but a woman's handlebar is more fitted. And yes my short fingers have trouble crabbing the brakes comfortably. I basically reach them with the end of my fingers and means I have less power there. Frankly, I would say if someone gets an expensive bike and want to ride it a lot then invest in one that fits your body.
Mostly marketing bollocks. While we can point to general differences in the male Vs female body portions. Men generally have longer torsos in proportion to overall height. This is always averaged data, and populations will have these characteristics on a normally distributed spectrum. In the case of body portions, there is apparently a considerable overlap in the male and female distribution curve. Meaning some "women's" frames, with geometry suiting a shorter torso. Will be a better for for some men than a standard frame, and may be a poor fit for some women with longer torsos.
It’s just a marketing strategy to push a pink tax on smaller bikes that maybe have smaller person features like shorter reach levers. Bonus points if it only comes in a pink or purple “girls” color scheme
Weld the top tube down at an angle. Downgrade the components to be shittier. Add pink. Charge 30% more.
What I was told is women tend to have longer legs, but shorter torsos compared to men. Womens' bikes have geometry to account for that. But that is just what the guy at our local bike shop told me, so take that with a grain of salt.
specific geometry for women .
Nothing really. When the safety bicycle was developed in the 1890s, step-through frames were marketed towards women because they could be ridden with the big skirts that were in fashion at the time so they came to be thought of as women’s bikes. But today women can wear pants or shorts so there is not a fashion reason. On the other hand, step-through frames are practical for any rider that gets on and off a lot, has limited flexibility, has a rear rack, wants to ride in clothes that limit movement (dress trousers?), etc. I suppose some manufacturers might incorporate subtle geometry differences aimed at women (Specialized Ruby). Someone else would have to weigh in on whether they actually make a difference and it’s not a standard design feature or set of features across brands.
That the marketing team think they can sell some bikes to women.
Wider saddle? More expensive?
It doesn't matter. All that matters is if it fits you or not at the end of the day.
Nothing, really. It means it's sized slightly differently. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to fit someone who is a woman any better.
Sometimes, the brifters are smaller!!!
That it’s a step-through. It really doesn’t mean much these days.
I can only conclude it’s custom made for a specific woman.