My brother and I are trying to settle this. My brother claims that women’s bikes don’t have a bar because back in the day women rode with skirts. I always thought women’s bikes didn’t have the bar because we have lower center’s of gravity. I thought it was balance related. Anyone here know the reason for the bar and lack of bar?
I always thought skirts were the reason. Big, floor-lengh skirts.
Seems like it was mostly to do with skirts and male prejudices (link) - if you think about it, this makes sense because precision of balance and consideration of centres of mass etc are modern design considerations; the bicycle is not a recent invention.
Although I know little about a bicycle except how to ride one, I think I can confidently say that it has nothing to do with centre of gravity.
The design for a “male” bicycle is far supperior in terms of strength compared to the low crossbar version. Also a woman can quite happily ride a bike with a high crossbar. If the reason was centre of gravity than the supposed benefit of better balance would be far outweighed by the disadvantage of poor strength.
Ok, now I’m off to google to back up my claims.
BTW, you say “we have lower center’s of gravity”, your user name would suggest that you are female. If the person riding the bicyle has a lower CofG then the CofG of the bicycle would need to be higher, ie a high bar to compensate (if compensation was deemed to be necessary, I don’t believe it is). This doesn’t gel with your explanation.
One last thing, women’s bikes do have a bar, it just meets the upright that the seatpost comes out of lower down than on a male bike.
Oh, and women who ride profesionally/competitively and need a bike built ideally for their body, have bikes built with a high crossbar.
This is a relatively modern development (70s I think). It is a compromise between the efficiency through stiffness of a regular crossbar and the skirt-friendliness of a traditional womens frame.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Skogcat *
[ The design for a “male” bicycle is far supperior in terms of strength compared to the low crossbar version.
I think that the “female” bike is far superior in terms of design. Has anybody besides me ever felt the “ouch” of falling on the bar? And as far as strength, I really don’t get that…Just what is it that you’re doing with your bike?
Note that here, in Japan, where bikes are still an important means of transport, almost all non-sport bicycles have low “women’s” bars.
The reason, I think, is that although they are structurally less strong, they facilitate getting on and off - 80 year-old men and women alike don’t have to raise their leg too high to get on.
Triangles are a very strong geometric shape. The thin narrow triangle formed by a low cross bar on a women’s bike is not nearly as strong and rigid as the more open triangle formed by a high cross bar.
It probably doesn’t matter for general commuting, but if you are riding down mountains and if your bike is made of the lightest possible material, then the inherent strength of the design becomes far more important.
I am pretty sure it has to do with enabling women, wearing skirts or dresses, to get on and off without swinging up a leg.
Skirts and dresses, plain and simple.
Note that no serious woman cyclist will ride a bike with a traditional woman’s geometry. You lose frame stiffness and perfomance.
There is a lot of stress on the frame even when riding on a regular road. If designed to withstand the same stress, the diamond frame (“men’s bike”) would be lighter.
I can’t say I’ve ever landed on the top tube. If you can’t stand over the frame without your groin touching the frame, your frame is too big. If you’re still worried about hitting the top tube, you could go for a “compact” frame like the Giant TCR series - those are properly triangulated frames but with sloping top tubes for greater clearance.
As for the OP, my understanding is that the women’s frames are designed to accomodate a skirt. In addition, it allows you to get on the bike without the undignified motion of swinging your leg up and above the seat. Most “shopping bikes” sold in Asia (like this) have the same design, and many women do ride them wearing skirts.
It’s not just strength but stiffness. A less stiff frame will flex when you peddle hard, wasting a lot of energy.
“Whatever” with the women’s style. I’d like to know why a MAN (and you know it was a man) designed men’s bikes with the ball-crusher bar. Why!? What is the purpose of putting an obstacle in such a sensitive region? You know damn well SOMEONE is going to rack themselves. You know sperm cells will die. Why!?
It’s an efficient design, with good strength and stiffness for minimal weight. If you lower or remove the top tube then you need to beef up the lower part of the frame to compensate. It’s like removing the roof of a car - you can do it, but you need to strengthen the rest of the frame and you end up with a heavier car than you started with.
Although there is another reason why the traditional diamond frame persists: UCI (Union CYcliste Internationale), the organization that organizes all major bicycle races such as the Tour de France. They specify that only diamond shaped frames made up of tubes are allowed in their road races. Bike manufacturers mostly make UCI-compliant bikes because non-UCI bikes don’t get much exposure and publicity. So revolutionary alternative designs like the Mike Burrows monocoque racer rarely go into production.
In the times of Betsy Ross, women were encouraged to do their stuff on a bike but keep their long skirts & no bar made it easier to get on the bike, so it’s just tradition. Women’s professional bikes are the same as mens.
It’s also no picnic for a woman to slip heavily onto one of those bars.
It’s because when bicycles were invented, women still wore skirts or dresses almost exclusively in public. I do recall actually reading that in a book on bike riding and maintenance back when I got my first 10-speed, but since we’re talking 20-25 years or so ago, unfortunately I can’t remember the title or any other info about it except that I got it at a ‘free book’ day at school, and that it was pocket-sized and wirebound.
Same reason why women used to (and occasionally still do) ride horseback side-saddle. I’ve ridden both ‘men’s’ and ‘women’s’ design bikes and men’s are definitely the better design overall. However I just bought a 50’s retro-style women’s bike just because it was too damn cute, and I’m not into competitive riding so it doesn’t matter as much. I’m just trying to figure out how to make pedal pushers and a head scarf work with all this newfangled safety equipment.
Well, frankly I’d be astonished if ‘Betsy Ross’ had ever seen a bicycle, must less ridden one.
Since the type with pedals was a bit in her future…
Sigh… I knew I must have been wrong when my brother started laughing at me saying “What? Center of gravity? It’s about skirts.” Thanks for all the info guys! I’m going to be in the market for a new bike soon and I’ll keep in mind all the info. But, I think I’d still get a traditional women’s bicycle. Because falling on the bar on a men’s bike? Hurts like hell! Plus I’m none too coordinated so swinging my leg over the bar will probably result in me eating pavement.
Actually women’s bikes aren’t exactly missing the top bar, it’s just that it’s moved down parallel with the one that’s already there on the men’s bikes.