sjef schellings wrote:
> Hi, and thank you all for your input, apparently the VELVET- lady does want any mail in her mail
> box, therefore here is my answer to her question and to the benefit of the group:
>
>
> Hi, Regarding your question mark on my referring to recent empiric results on differences in sizes
> of male and female riders: the following: Almost 35000 riders, among them 6856 female, have been
> measured and the results have been collected in a database (www.bikefitting.com). Timeperiod: from
> 1994 - 1999. Western Europe, including Italy. Grouped in three size-categories, it appears that
> differences (between male and female sporters) in lengths of legs, torsos, arms, shoulders etc. is
> measured in millimeters, not centimeters. Greatest difference is torso-length of men and women of
> 165 - 170 cm: females 7 mm shorter. These averages are based on tens of thousands! Exceptions
> compensated for. Minor lesson: differences among men are just as great as between men and women.
> MAJOR CONCLUSION: THERE ARE NO EXPLANATORY DIFFERENCES IN RELATIVE BODY SIZES BETWEEN MEN AND
> WOMEN. This common thought appears to be a prejudice. There must be another explanation. Kevin
> Franks of Specialized explains: tilting the pelvis more vertical than men (or more backwards)
> reduces the pressure on sensitive parts and therefore gives a more comfortable position as a
> matter of fact. The need for a shorter top tube, longer head tube and shorter stem a.s.o is
> thereby explained. Which explains the need for special female geometry bikes. Distribution of
> weight therefore is also different. (Trek says women exert less pressure on the handlebar and
> therefore need a longer trail of the fork, to maintain stability.). All this not because there is
> a fundamental difference between relative sizes of limbs between men and women, but because of a
> fundamental difference in attitude on the bike! Leontien van Moorsel (do not need to introduce
> her, do I?), who sits very low and does not use a ladies saddle, after a long time trial: about
> the look of her private parts: "it really looks like a mess". Anyway: have you tried a 650C
> wheeled bike? Top tube can be up to 3 cm shorter (48.5 cm)! And wheels are lighter. Although
> rolling resistance is 8% higher. I know, tires are not so easy to find, too. My question: don't
> you hit the handlebar when climbing "en danseuse"?
>
> Sjef
>
Sjef, I've found from past experience the easiest way to avoid spam is to not have a valid mail
address (or even a munged one) when posting to news groups - sorry, that's just the way I do it, and
anyway, I think the group benefits from additional information being shared with all, not just one.
I have to wonder though about the study group - I think many women are discouraged from cycling,
especially on the more serious side of it, by the very fact that they find racing/touring bikes just
don't fit well, or are unwilling to even try them. There just aren't that many recreational-only
cyclists that would go and have a bike fitted in this way (I had mine done similarly, but only after
I realised it just wasn't fitting me right, and it wasn't at one of bikefitting.com's places) - it
takes being pretty serious about it to know there's such a thing in the first place, I think. So, I
think the people that would go have a fitting done are going to tend to be those who have cycled
enough to know they want a frame that fits perfectly, and are prepared to shell out the money for
that frame and the fitting, and that is probably going to be the more serious cyclist. That means
all the ones who didn't persevere through the ill-fitting frame before, and who gave up, won't be
part of the study group, so it's actually not all that accurate a sample, IMO.
(I'm not explaining this very well, apologies.)
I can understand tilting the pelvis back to keep the weight off the front would be different and
could contribute to the perception of shorter arms/torso, but that's a moot point from what I can
tell, whatever the root cause, women (or at least this one) need a shorter top tube to accommodate
that. I haven't tried a 650C bike - budget and weight criteria left me with really only one choice
of bike, back in the days when I wasn't quite as aware about fitting etc. I would think it would be
more suited to my needs, but I'm not about to swap now ;-) As for climbing 'en danseuse' - I can't
do it. Just can't get out of the saddle with the bars low. I can do it with them a little higher
than they are at the moment, and I'm at a loss to explain the difference other than it being a
confidence issue of being so far over the front of the bike when climbing out of the saddle. I'm not
a confident cyclist - still not having put in the hours necessary to get there! That, and my knees
won't take much punishment, so it tends to be sit and twiddle rather than stand and grind.
The dark side = recumbent bikes
Velvet
