Terry Peloton

Tag: WSD

  • Bikes for Women: Looks can be deceiving

    When I first started building bicycles for women some 25 years ago, it took only a quick glance at a man and a woman of the same height to see that her legs were longer than his.  Her shorter torso was clearly the reason why she felt “stretched out” on a bike and had to endure discomfort in her shoulders and back. So Terry bikes were built with shorter top tubes on all sizes to address this concern.

    Around 1990, I decided to get a more analytical and less anecdotal about the root causes of some women’s discomfort while riding.  There’s a lot of information about men’s and women’s anatomy and I was looking forward to finding out just how much shorter a woman’s upper body was proportionate to a man’s.  Guess what?  Women have proportionately longer arms and trunks than men.  Looks can be very deceptive, thanks to women’s higher waist lines.

    Yet, women’s discomfort on bikes was very real. But what was the underlying cause?  We were doing the right thing but for the wrong reason.  We needed to know the right reason.

    Enter Laura Lund, then working on her Masters in Mechanical Engineering-Bioengineering at Carnegie Mellon University.  She did some research and came up with some possible causes for women’s discomfort.  In doing so, she confirmed why our designs were working.

    So what was going on? It has to do with the distribution of body mass and the location of the center of those masses. They differ between men and women. More of a woman’s body mass is in her trunk than a man’s. And, speaking in simple terms, it’s higher on her trunk than on a man’s.  Think of it like this: if you put a five pound weight on your lower back and then bend over, it will be a lot easier than if you bend over with the same weight on your shoulders.  Your total weight is the same in both cases, but in the latter case, you’ve moved the center of that weight up and away from the muscles that are doing the work.  This higher “center of mass” means more effort is required by the lower back muscles.  A similar situation exists in the arms with regard to the forces exerted on the rider’s shoulders.

    Add to this the fact that women tend to have smaller muscles than men to support these forces. Not a good scenario!

    But the story doesn’t end there.  Stay tuned….

    Tailwinds,

    Georgena

     

  • Where Have All the Women’s Bikes Gone?

    Based on a quick review of bike manufacturers’ websites, women’s bikes don’t seem to have gone anywhere, but a little probing shows the industry might to be in retrograde mode. Having made so much progress in the last 25 years, it would be a shame to lose sight of the goal: bountiful offerings for all riders.  Although there are more choices than ever for female cyclists, the true distinctions between those bikes and unisex bikes are disappearing quickly.

     

     

    Last month, Bicycling magazine’s annual Buyer’s Guide hit the news stands and for the first time in years, there was no mention of women’s bikes.  Poof! Gone with the wind! I haven’t been able to find the reason for this — so far, all Bicycling will say is women’s bikes will be covered in their Editor’s Choice and in individual bike reviews.  Gone, but not forgotten.

    Now, add to this the fact that, with the notable exception of Specialized, in the past most smaller women’s bikes have offered 650c wheel sizes to fit the rider properly. (At Terry, we go a step further with not only 650c and 700c, but 24” wheels as well.)  But recently, 650c has been disappearing from the lineup faster than real sugar in soft drinks.  No more 650c for Cannondale, Trek, Orbea or Fuji to name just a few.

    So what’s going on??? I spoke to some manufacturers — those who continue to carry 650c and those who have dropped them.  They all told me the same thing. 650c wheels are a must-have for a properly built small bicycle. But there is mounting pressure to build small bikes with 700c wheels.

    Some told me the consumer herself is driving this change. Apparently there are quite a few women who would prefer to ride an ill-fitting bike with 700c wheels than a properly-fitting 650c bicycle. This may be driven by hesitancy about the availability of 650c or the need to conform.

    Others think the “push back” is from those dealers who don’t really understand how a 650c wheel makes a difference in bike fit and choose to stay in the 700c comfort zone rather than educate the consumer.

    Once a manufacturer has decided to embrace 700c wheels exclusively, just how will women’s bikes be differentiated from “unisex” bikes?  Expect to see a lot more of this: “…a shorter crank and stem length, along with narrower handlebars, give it a women-specific fit”.  Gee, that’s just what we did in the good old days of unisex! I can guarantee you that women on the tail of the bell curve, i.e. those very petite women are in for a rough time of it.  As 700c returns, stand over heights are rising.

    Are manufacturers really reading the market correctly? Is there indeed a trade-off between the desire for a properly fitting bicycle and wheel size? What say you, dear reader?