Mens vs Womens models: is there really much difference??

Perhaps the most important thing about buying a bike is to get one that fits well. The modern women’s bike models are supposed to address this by having a slightly different geometry to account for the typical difference in body geometries, mostly the longer leg length for women compared to men of the same height. Otherwise, women who buy a men’s bike have to resort to using a very short stem to be able to reach the bars. There may be a few other differences, such as narrower bars, and maybe a women’s specific saddle. However, there are plenty of women who have been able to get a comfortable fit on a men’s bike, so if she finds one that fits her well, then she shouldn’t worry too much about it.

I would guess that by the time a lady is 5′ 11″ the fit will not be dependent on some small tweek to the standard human formula but more based on frame size, saddle hight and setback, bar hight and stem length. I would also think that for a fit lady a road bike would be more comfortable in almost all conditions. Her regret might be the flat bar rather than a men’s frame

FYI Marcia was 5′ 9″‘. Her bike sounds like it would be one size down but usable for test rides if you can steal it from Becka’. T Bird’s road bike is underused right now and I also have a 100% ready to ride SST that would be in range of fit. Welcome to use ether for fit and desire testing

I was referring to the formulas bike makers use to make off the shelf bike frames. Some smaller size frames require adjustments to compensate for the fact that things like the wheels are not going up and down in size along with the frame. My kids road bikes are built around 650 wheels to correct for toe overlap and the like for example.

Also. We vary a lot less that you might think. Many things that we think are large variables are when examined in large samples are surprisingly small variables overall. To say hight as little to do with a bike fit is hard to agree with. Overall hight is the largest variable, age, fitness and body mass aside. We humans range from 4′ 11″ to 6′ 5″ in normal format with a small group of outliers beyond but the ratios vary less than people might think. Another misconception is that femails have longer legs to torso ratio than males. They don’t for the most part. Male waist lines are not in the same place and this makes the torso look longer. The real difference is width of some areas such as shoulders and hips. The rest is surprisingly similar in adult men and woman with regards to vertical axis ratios. Men’s and woman’s saddles and handlebar widths are where the differences are best dealt with.
As to bike fit most small ratio variances are often easily compensated for in all but the most high end requirements. Keep in mind we are discussing a new to riding rider, not a Cat-1

@mstone 116982 wrote:

And a maybe more than you think. If it’s an upright bike it mostly doesn’t matter. On a drop bar bike where a cm either way can mean the difference between a comfortable or uncomfortable ride, yeah, a the difference in leg length between two people at the same height can be pretty significant. If you fall into the range that’s accommodated on an off the shelf bike then great, you’ve got nothing to worry about. (I’m in the same range and usually don’t even have to touch the stem length.) OTOH, I know people who have to go the custom route to get something that fits well enough for them to ride comfortably, and that gets expensive quick. It is true that most people who ride aren’t in that camp, but that’s also somewhat self-selecting–the people who are uncomfortable from day one tend not to stick with cycling long enough to get a custom bike that actually fits them. Anyway, the original question was about “mens” and “womens”, not “too weird for anything off the shelf”. As an example compare the seat tube of the size 54 specialized roubaix — 495 — and ruby — 457. For roughly the same top tube length, it’s got almost 40mm less seat tube. For reference, that’s about the difference between the size 52 and 56 roubaix models (skipping entirely past the size 54). Now it may well be that none of this really matters and that the manufacturers could just sell small, medium, and large frames. But if the difference between a 54 and 56 is significant enough to justify having both, then it seems that there’s at least as much justification for having both the roubaix and the ruby.

I don’t profess to be knowledgeable and am only chatting away here….I know and ride with the OP from time to time.

I get what you are saying but keep in mind the original condition, a 5′ 11″ lady looking on CL for a bike.
A CM might be important to some but many people could equally ride a 54 or a 56 depending on the setup. the adjustment allows them to skip 53 and 55 ect. Myself I fall right between a 56 and a 58 Tarmac but i like a smaller frame so I bet there is some other 6 foot guy that thinks he falls between a 58 and the next one up. I can ride long untroubled miles on an off the shelf bike after only saddle height and setback adjustments. Most people fall into this category.
Perhaps there is a real or mostly marketing reason that the two frame formats noted are different. Might be why the Ruby is being marketed as more of a gran fondo format and the ST to TT ratio shift makes the frame capable of a more upright riding position within its fit range? Same frame maker, different models in name and intended gender of user but same overall intended use. The 2015 Tarmac 56 (mens racing) ST is 501 and TT is 565. The Amira 56 (women’s racing) ST 510 TT 548. Add to this that the largest Amira frame is the 56. The Tarmac runs well past 56.

From what I have been reading much of fit and fine tuning of frame size and dimensions is more for the riders fitness and intended use than human body frame dimension. Sore hands might be poor core condition rather than incorrect reach or the like. Beginners often have problems with hands that tend to go away after getting some experience and fitness. This is why Clovis is not a tape measure and a chart.

And I think you are spot on about kids bikes. Most are so over the top they make me cringe. I call them metal things that sort of look like bikes.

A few months ago I tried out a mix of specialized, trek and raleigh upright bikes. I’m 5’8″, so not as tall as your friend, but still taller than average for a woman. I finally took a measuring tape to the bikes I was trying (salesperson thought I was crazy) Frame sizes/tube lengths and all of that stuff was identical for almost every one between the mens and womens models. Saddles and handlebars were different though. I ended up going for a “unisex” raleigh, but I had to change the saddle out. That is one point where mens and womens items are very different. The mens saddle caused me tons of pain. I’ve never been able to use one for long.

I think as other commenters have said, road bikes are where there appear to be more differences. When getting my current “mens” road bike fitted I was told it would work fine, but my next one needed to be a womens one since my legs are long, and it’d make the fit much better. On my road bike I had to change out the handlebars (stock ones were too wide and thick for my build and hand size), and the saddle which I expected.