I recently sold some womens frames since nobody around me wanted to ride the complete bikes. So I decided to part them out. In measuring i found out that they are relatively long. As an example a 51 frame had a 57cm toptube-length. My conclusion was that they made the seat tube shorter for use of a longer seatpost in order to obtain a shorter and therefore stiffer rear triangle to compensate for the loss of stiffness due to the lowered toptube. I might be wrong here since I am not a geometry expert. My girlfriends always prefers mens frames for better handling qualities and a stiffer ride. Whenever I tried to ride a womens bike it felt sloopy and not stable. I think it does not make sense to alter the well constructed mens diamond frame setup in a race bike just to make it easier to mount the bike without having to lift your leg over the saddle. It makes some sense in city or touring bikes when women ride with a skirt but I have never seen a woman ride a race bike with a skirt. My impression is also that those bikes were mostly bought by men for ther wives in order to get them into riding but then those bikes are never ridden. All women I know who ride seriously ride mens frames.....
Michael Schmid Oberammergau Germany Tel.: +49 8821 798790 Fax.:+49 8821 798791 mail: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.zunterer.com
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Im Auftrag von Jerome & Elizabeth Moos Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 19:04 An: Mark Stonich; email@example.com Betreff: Re: [CR]Woman's frame (not mixte) lightweights?
I've thought about picking up a women's Paramount for my wife if I find a bargain. One thing I've noticed on those on eBay. The headtubes seem to be very long compared to the seatube, which would place the bars high for a "normal" amount of exposed seatpost. That is, it seems that if there were a toptube connecting the seatlug and headlug, it would slope noticeably upward from seatlug to headlug. I suppose this might have been done to raise the bars as Rivendell much more recently has advocated. Was there some other reason for this design feature? Did other makers of this type of frame do the same?
Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX
Mark Stonich <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Does anyone have experience with "Woman's" frame (not mixte) lightweights? They get no respect, but builders not known for putting out floppy frames, such as Grandis http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/06bicycles/grandisEXrs.JPG Schwinn Paramount P65 http://www.geocities.com/sldbxtralite/1974/74xlite06b.jpg or Colnago. http://www.hollywoodsgarage.ca/images/body/large/showbikes.jpg have used this design.
BTW I'd love to see links to others
I'm wondering if they performed significantly differently than the men's versions of similar bikes.
I also would like to know what size seat posts they used. (To estimate seat tube wall thickness.)
I'm thinking about building my wife a lighter frame.
I could build her another, lighter, mixte. But the article by Peter Weigle in this month's Bicycle Quarterly has me thinking about the relative merits of the Woman's frame vs. the Mixte. Most of the added rigidity of a Mixte over a "Womans" frame seems to be in the vertical plane.
One of the challenges of building a good frame is reducing vertical stiffness (within limits) without sacrificing torsional rigidity. A high quality seat tube can give significant vertical compliance without ever nearing it's yield point. I'm wondering if it might be better to invest the weight of the mixte stays in slightly heavier seat tube and chainstays.
This bike would be used for day trips or supported touring by a rider who probably weighs about 180 lbs and who never stands when riding.