To be angry about the names of these bikes in Halfords?

[CalmConfident]

In Halfords this week getting essential car stuff...and had a look at the bikes. I was a bit taken aback to see these ladies bike names from the Apollo brand. Entice & Virtue. There was also Jewel.

AIBU ? If so, any suggestions who to shout to about it

The male equivalents were slant, phase and evade.

I agree @CalmConfident However I think you should've posted this in the Feminism topic 😬🙄

But then we wouldn't have got the interesting range of views

this is why you don't buy anything aimed at women. Victoria Pendleton was flogging a line of ladies bikes; weighed a ton, over priced, badly designed and of course pink.

If it is aimed at women it will be shit. Always buy the bloke alternative.

I thought the saddle for bikes needs different padding, if it's aimed at women?

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

I thought the saddle for bikes needs different padding, if it's aimed at women?

No, they don't "need" different padding. Some entry level bikes are sold to a female market on the idea that they "need" different this, different that, etc. While some women, along with some men, might prefer more padded or wider saddles, to be honest, wide padded saddles really make my bum ache in a way that a narrow unpadded saddle aimed the "mens' market" does'nt.

Its like those weird shaped cross bar things on "womens' bikes" - designed for women cycling wearing a skirt. Nothing at all to do with female anatomy but still, bafflingly, sold.

I think that's a bit of a generalisation Greenland. Not all women's saddles are enormous padded things. There are plenty of narrow women's specific saddles - the majority of the "serious" female cyclists that I know, which includes a few professionals, ride on women's specific saddles and all the high end saddle companies seem to include saddles for women in their range these days. The cut outs/pressure relief channels are in different places, for obvious reasons, and as women do typically have a slighly wider gap between their ischial tuberosities than men, female saddles are often marginally wider.
Sexism is, without doubt, rife in cycling and needs to be tackled. But personally I don't think that women should have to make do with bikes and equipment designed for men any more than they should have to put up with cheap tat.
This article, though a bit gory, illustrates why it is a good thing that more saddle companies are starting to take female cyclist's needs more seriously and not assume that we are just smaller, lighter men.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/26/hannah-dines-saddle-research-pain-swelling-female-cyclists
Some women will get along just fine with men's stuff, but plenty won't. Women are physically different to men - most women are quite different in build to men even if they are the same height - and I think that it is good that an increasing number of companies are producing women's bikes and kit based on actual science rather than the "shrink and pink" ethos that unfortunately tends to dominate the cheaper end of the market. Canyon's WMN range is a good example of what women's bikes should be like.

@GreenlandTheMovie

Why do you think the same seat padding would be appropriate for men's bodies and women's bodies, seeing as the anatomy is vastly different?

What PPs have said - it's part of a bigger issue. Nowhere did OP say this was her greatest problem.

I'm with you OP.

I also think the names for lads' bikes were shit too. Evade evokes someone jumping onto their bike after they've nicked some cider from an off licence.

[quote Eckhart]@GreenlandTheMovie

Why do you think the same seat padding would be appropriate for men's bodies and women's bodies, seeing as the anatomy is vastly different?[/quote]
Because I've ridden thousands of miles and it works for me and most other women cyclists I know. It clearly is "appropriate" for many women, whatever you think. My bike saddle has no padding at all, its very comfortable. Its something that you get used to as you train more. Not everyone, but perpetuating this idea that unisex saddles are "inappropriate" is just a tad Victorian...

Some of us are more concerned about going fast than being "appropriate".

But if you look at it like that, saddles designed for men should be the ones with more padding, to protect their anatomy. Men suffer far more issues from cycling in that area than women do.

I remember hiring a "woman's bike" on holiday - Christ, I have never been so uncomfortable as on that wide sofa like thing!

@GreenlandTheMovie

I see. So you take you and your friend's experience and apply it to everybody.

It's widely accepted that women are a different shape from men, so whilst you and your mates are fine (and I'm sure a lot of women are fine) with a saddle designed for men, it could be more comfortable, and better moulded to the bodies of women.

Nobody was arguing that women can't sit on men's saddles, so the fact that you and your friends can doesn't prove anything and isn't relevant.

Some of us are more concerned about going fast than being "appropriate

And with this attitude, you'll screw up your body somehow, in fairly short order, whether you're on the right seat or not.

@Eckhart

Some of us are more concerned about going fast than being "appropriate

And with this attitude, you'll screw up your body somehow, in fairly short order, whether you're on the right seat or not.

I doubt it. I've been racing for 30 years, since I was 14, and still don't have a "screwed up body". Thats what racing is about.

You're actually attacking me for being a woman who races and tries to go fast. Fortunately, I've also learned resilience and to only listen to people that actually know what they're talking about. You just do not have the faintest clue. So...go and do one, and take your misunderstanding and desire to force fairy cycles upon people who don't need them elsewhere.

@GreenlandTheMovie

Nobody attacked you. I've made 2 points: Men's and women's bodies have different requirement in order to optimally meet their needs, and those who put speed above the needs of their body will reach an uncomfortable end. It seems your 'resilience' plan isn't working too well because you've clearly listened to me, taken what I've said to heart, and I've clearly touched a nerve; calm people with a strong argument don't tell other people to 'do one'.
We can agree to disagree. Neither of our opinions matter in the slightest in the grand scheme of things.

Lets leave it there. Unless you'd like the last word?

What exactly is different about the wmn range or a woman specific bike?

The adaptations mentioned upthread are all things I do to my bikes. I'm probably considerably smaller in build and height than most people itt, despite being a bloke

@EnolanotAlone

I have a halfords special, Vixen subservient it is an absolute dream bike, did everything I asked. Better than the masculine version 🤫

There is a bike called Vixen Subservient'? Wow.....

Yes there are worse things in the world, if these names do bother me - especially if they are girls' bikes (as opposed to women's).

Saddle design is about the worst justification for having a women specific bike. Saddle fit is so personal so you don't buy a bike based on the saddle, you buy a bike despite the saddle knowing you can change the saddle if you need to.

Saddle design is about the worst justification for having a women specific bike. Saddle fit is so personal so you don't buy a bike based on the saddle, you buy a bike despite the saddle knowing you can change the saddle if you need to.

Same with bar width, you either replace them or cut them down

[quote Eckhart]@GreenlandTheMovie

Nobody attacked you. I've made 2 points: Men's and women's bodies have different requirement in order to optimally meet their needs, and those who put speed above the needs of their body will reach an uncomfortable end. It seems your 'resilience' plan isn't working too well because you've clearly listened to me, taken what I've said to heart, and I've clearly touched a nerve; calm people with a strong argument don't tell other people to 'do one'.
We can agree to disagree. Neither of our opinions matter in the slightest in the grand scheme of things.

Lets leave it there. Unless you'd like the last word?[/quote]
Yes, you are attacking me. You are trying to boss me about and saying I'll ruin my body when you clearly know nothing about the sport at all. Now you are telling me that I'm not allowed to reply to you.

Lets leave it there. Unless you'd like the last word?

What a wierd, controlling thing to write.

I actually think perpetuating outdated stereotypes about women and sport is quite harmful, I've had to deal with it all of my sporting career, the amount of sexist rubbish I've heard is baffling, but it never, ever comes from fellow competitors or proper coaches.

Chanjer What exactly is different about the wmn range or a woman specific bike?

Good question. In places like Halfords, the main difference is that womens' specific bikes are generally heavier as they are made of cheaper components, and they do something like stick a heavy, massively wide cushioned saddle on and give it a name like "Entice" and market it to women. Some of them still have that odd cross bar arrangement designed to accommodate skirts but serving absolutely no other purpose.

But, hey, if it gets people out cycling, then thats great. At that price for the Entice (£220) you are obviously going to get something quite heavy and clunky to ride anyway. But even better if we don't think marketing bikes to women have to be called stuff like "Entice". It just comes across as really old fashioned. Halfords might sell more bikes if they moved with the times.

Say at around the 1k to 1.5k are there big differences though?

Looking at the geometry of some of those wmn and other mid range women's bikes in not seeing a massive difference really

Same with bar width, you either replace them or cut them down

True at a certain level of bike, but given these are 200 quid BSOs aimed at first time cyclists, the likelihood of rhem feel confident enough to start playing with the geometry is slim. Most likely they'll just think, 'it isn't comfortable to rode' and leave it mouldering in the garage.

@KathleenTurnerOverdrive

Same with bar width, you either replace them or cut them down

True at a certain level of bike, but given these are 200 quid BSOs aimed at first time cyclists, the likelihood of rhem feel confident enough to start playing with the geometry is slim. Most likely they'll just think, 'it isn't comfortable to rode' and leave it mouldering in the garage.

More than likely. What would be helpful to women, and shorter men, would be features such as a shorter top tube and shorter stem.

It's easy to replace a saddle for one that suits you best, but you can't do anything about a top tube so long it gives you back ache after you've ridden it twice.

Isn't that just modern road bike geometry though? Even on really small bikes I find them pretty uncomfortable. On my track bike I have a bmx stem cos it's the shortest thing I could find and it's got a relatively short top tube anyway and is a pleasure to ride

@Chanjer

Isn't that just modern road bike geometry though? Even on really small bikes I find them pretty uncomfortable. On my track bike I have a bmx stem cos it's the shortest thing I could find and it's got a relatively short top tube anyway and is a pleasure to ride

Yes, it is. I use an upside down mountain bike stem on my road bike because that's the shortest I could find to fit!

But if companies are making a big ploy fur the womens'" specific market, I'd expect to see shorter top tubes and stems, but that's often not the case.

And just trying a DH bike to fit a small woman at all!

@Chanjer

What exactly is different about the wmn range or a woman specific bike?

The adaptations mentioned upthread are all things I do to my bikes. I'm probably considerably smaller in build and height than most people itt, despite being a bloke

Well I'm no expert, but as I understand it, women tend to have different proportions, joint angles and flexibility compared to men of the same height and the frame geometry of a well designed women's bike will reflect that. If I recall rightly, women typically have longer legs in proportion to their torsos than men, so the top tube needs to be slightly shorter in comparison to the seat tube. I would also hazard a guess that the different shape of the female pelvis / femoral head angle would mean that optimum pedalling efficiency would require a different Q factor and possibly seat tube angle, but my maths is nowhere good enough to calculate it. Very short women like me (I'm 5ft0) have particular challenges when it comes to bike fit. It is hard to find a bike with very small frame that doesn't have problems with toe overlap for example - just proportionally shrinking the frame doesn't work very well.

Yes, you can compensate for most of these things at least to a degree, by changing components, and yes, of course lots of riders of either sex do end up tweaking things to suit their individual anatomy and riding style but why not have a starting point that is more likely to suit a woman? The good manufacturers that have women's ranges started by collecting lots of anatomical data and designing the frame geometry from scratch based on that data, not just shrinking their men's frames. The differences will not be huge but as anyone who rides regularly will know, even differences of a few mm can make big differences to comfort and efficiency.

I struggle to understand why anyone would object to bikes for women being designed to fit the typical female build. Men and women are different. Why should women have to make do with adapting things designed for the male body? And it is always that way. If you buy a "unisex" bike the components it comes with will be the average male version. You're not likely to find a sales assistant saying "Well this comes with 38cm bars as standard sir, but as you are a man with wider shoulders you'll need to spend an extra £££ to change them for 42s." But the opposite is very common.

Buying a female specific bike doesn't guarantee a perfect fit of course but for many women it will be closer to their ideal and require less modification. I see it as similar to buying clothes. Sometimes I have to make minor alterations for a perfect fit because I am an individual, but I expect what I buy to be designed for the female body. Imagine if all clothes shops started stocking only men's trousers and women were told that they just needed to take the waist in a few inches, let the hips out and alter the legs and they'd fit ok. That would be ridiculous, but it is effectively what a lot of women are expected to do with bikes.