GENTS v LADIES bikes

is this separation of bike types into gents and ladies not absurd in
the 21st century ?

would any males here ride a bike with a ladies frame ?

just what is the point in having separate frames ?

wrote in message
...
is this separation of bike types into gents and ladies not absurd in
the 21st century ?

As someone who has a very short torso in comparison to other women, much
less compared to other men, I am very interested in Women-Specific Design
(WSD) frames. An example of one of the bikes I'm considering you may view
he (http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkMode...0084&spid=5934).
The other option for me would be to go custom.

would any males here ride a bike with a ladies frame ?

If they also were very short waisted I don't see why not. Many WSD bikes
also have accomodations for smaller hands, shorter legs, and so forth, that
might be useful for a smaller man. Perhaps a name like "Bella Eros" would
turn them off, but maybe not. I think many people, both male and female, see
their bikes as feminine in nature (the topic of another post I'll write one
day), and men might see the bike, not themselves, as "Bella".

just what is the point in having separate frames ?

See above.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 07:28:22 +0100, wrote:

is this separation of bike types into gents and ladies not absurd in
the 21st century ?

would any males here ride a bike with a ladies frame ?

just what is the point in having separate frames ?



I don't get it either. On the 31 December 1999 I was transfixed in Times
Square, anticipating a great heavenly flash that would cause all people
(*ahem*) to assume the exact appearance of Adam (or was it Eve?); every
man on earth to possess an IQ of 100; and each to enjoy an income of
precisely US$38,742. Alas, this vision of nirvana was never realised:
perhaps the Powers that Be had overdone the sherry that evening?

The last occasion on which I went exploring (Thursday evening around
eleven o'clock, IIRC), it was apparent that, on the question of male vs.
female anatomy, evolution had yet to catch up with advancements (sic) in
socioeconomic thinking. Darwin was an indolent old scoundrel, I just knew
it!

So, until Nature rivals the intellects of the more sophisticated of our
number, the following may be of interest:

http://www.caree.org/bike101bikesforwomen.htm

Which pretty much answers the second question. As for the first, then,
surely, it would depend upon what fits the best? The nomenclature used in
marketing bikes (and many other consumer goods) makes it easy for the
'average' person to start off in approximately the right place. To imply
that this is an anachronism ("absurd in the 21st century") would be as
helpful as suggesting that my tailor stock brasseries simply because there
are obese men out there.

Sorry, that's an Eros *Donna* -- Bella's different bike. To make up for it,
I'll include the link for the Donna he
http://www.bianchiusa.com/eros_donna.html


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:40:26 GMT, "Claire Petersky"
wrote:

would any males here ride a bike with a ladies frame ?

If they also were very short waisted I don't see why not. Many WSD bikes
also have accomodations for smaller hands, shorter legs, and so forth, that
might be useful for a smaller man. Perhaps a name like "Bella Eros" would
turn them off, but maybe not. I think many people, both male and female, see
their bikes as feminine in nature (the topic of another post I'll write one
day), and men might see the bike, not themselves, as "Bella".


The OP was talking about bikes without top tubes, meant to be ridden
with skirts on.

My schoolboy insticts tell me that conveyances--ships and aircraft,
most notably, but by extension trains, autos, and even bicycles
(?)--are feminine in gender, even where their names are masculine.

Some of my bikes are more feminine than others. My pink mixte in
London was blatantly a girl. I left Bekah behind, and she's with
another grad student in the east end soemwhere.

Grammatical genders are always interesting. I always liked how Force
and Violence in Latin ("vis" and "vires) are feminine nouns--as is
Courage (Veritas).

-Luigi

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:44:02 GMT, Glm wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 07:28:22 +0100, wrote:

is this separation of bike types into gents and ladies not absurd in
the 21st century ?

would any males here ride a bike with a ladies frame ?

just what is the point in having separate frames ?



I don't get it either. On the 31 December 1999 I was transfixed in Times
Square, anticipating a great heavenly flash that would cause all people
(*ahem*) to assume the exact appearance of Adam (or was it Eve?); every
man on earth to possess an IQ of 100; and each to enjoy an income of
precisely US$38,742. Alas, this vision of nirvana was never realised:
perhaps the Powers that Be had overdone the sherry that evening?

The last occasion on which I went exploring (Thursday evening around
eleven o'clock, IIRC), it was apparent that, on the question of male vs.
female anatomy,

last time i looked men and women had very similar shaped legs as you
would notice if you watched the swimming from the olympics.

my real gripe is with the stereotypes attached to these things.
a man just wouldnt be able to ride a bike without a crossbar without
getting abuse (mild ? ) from motorists and cyclists alike.

Glm wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 07:28:22 +0100, wrote:

is this separation of bike types into gents and ladies not absurd in
the 21st century ?

would any males here ride a bike with a ladies frame ?

just what is the point in having separate frames ?



I don't get it either.

See Claire's post above.

Women aren't just smaller versions of men. We tend to have
proportionately shorter torsos and longer legs. (That's *TEND* to, it's
not an absolute rule. My best friend is very long in the torso and is
far more comfortable on men's bikes.) Women-specific frames THESE DAYS
don't have anything to do with the presence or absence of a top tube,
but instead tend to imply shorter top tubes that take our shorter torsos
into account. Women-specific frames are also more likely to have
smaller sizes available; there are some pretty interesting bikes that I
can't even try because the smallest frame is 50cm and the biggest frame
I can safely ride is 47cm.

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:42:13 +0100, wrote:


last time i looked men and women had very similar shaped legs as you
would notice if you watched the swimming from the olympics.

I believe that the need for distinguishing between the two in bicycle
design is more about hips, reach and what I have seen most delicately
referred to as "soft tissue".


my real gripe is with the stereotypes attached to these things.
a man just wouldnt be able to ride a bike without a crossbar without
getting abuse (mild ? ) from motorists and cyclists alike.


A 'man' or, for that matter, a 'woman', wouldn't care a fig's for the
opinion of those who cannot see beyond stereotypes. I can think of
several men, all able riders, who prefer, largely as a result of spinal
injury, to ride bikes without crossbars. And women, likewise, regularly
ride machines with crossbars.

Still, this doesn't mean that the designation of "gents' versus ladies'
bikes" is unhelpful or any way deleterious. After all, if we renamed the
latter to "bike for individuals with shorter reach, more ample hips and
somewhat delicate pudenda" those fools wedded to stereotypes would soon
find a way to make fun, no?

wrote:
my real gripe is with the stereotypes attached to these things.
a man just wouldnt be able to ride a bike without a crossbar without
getting abuse (mild ? ) from motorists and cyclists alike.

On my daily commute, I see quite a few men riding bikes without top tubes,
and no one abuses them. Some of these bikes are traditional "women's bikes"
with two down tubes to accomodate skirts. Many are more "exotic" frame
geometries that often don't have down tubes or seat tubes either.
--
Darin McGrew, , http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, , http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

politician n. one who double-crosses a bridge when he comes to it

Darin McGrew wrote:

On my daily commute, I see quite a few men riding bikes without top tubes,
and no one abuses them. Some of these bikes are traditional "women's bikes"
with two down tubes to accomodate skirts. Many are more "exotic" frame
geometries that often don't have down tubes or seat tubes either.

Growing up, it always seemed to me that the designation for these things
was backwards. No top tube seemed a fine thing for bike designed for a
man. Less untoward accidents involving crushing of external genitive
tissues.

I realize now the reasons for these things are more to do with skirts and
what-not, but back then it seemed an odd distinction.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"It could probably be shown be facts and figures that there
is no distinctively native American criminal class except
Congress." -Mark Twain