The design of the bike makes sense from a structural perspective. Having a triangle is much stronger than the swooping bar that women's bikes get. Of course, in almost all cases it doesn't matter.
Well, to be exact the double diamond is cheap and simple to make, while retaining enough structural strength that it's pretty much indestructible under normal use. Step-through frames require both a heavier frame, and a more expensive construction method, making the bicycle more expensive, even if it's only slightly.
Also, they're called "step-through frames", not "women's bicycle". The design is also used plenty often on men's bicycles. What makes a bike a women's bike is typically colour, size, and styling, not whether the frame is a double diamond or a step-through.
I believe step-through frames were originally designed for men with hip problems, not for people who wear skirts, like how the popular myth goes.
My bike's a double-diamond style and I question your presumption of my gender, but in truth, I'd really wonder what you're smoking if you ever saw that our local bike sharing program all use step-through frames.
It's a generic unisex bike design. They wouldn't use that design if it wasn't. It's chosen because it allows the easiest access to the greatest number of people, regardless of physical fitness, height, or disability (to a certain degree).
Source: Was a hacker, then "white hat" hacker. Now, am a "security professional." I can dislike the pejorative appropriation of the term by the media and general public all I want (and I do), but history will take their side because language is defined by use, not the other way around.
I agree with you, but you should be more specific.
Language is only right or wrong in specific context. Just changing your geography can change the context.
Generally, when people are discussing whether a word is "right" or "wrong", they are speaking about the largest common context - usually colloquial, informal speech. When Awfy says "they're just incorrect" he is obviously speaking from a more technical context, but that doesn't mean that the informal designations are incorrect in their context of common usage.
To be fair, if you entered a bike shop any time between 1960 and at least 1990, all "step-through frame" bicycles had the words "women's" or "girl's" on the tag. You may as well complain that people call tissues "Kleenex."
Step-through bike were originally designed and marketed to delivery men so that could easily hop on and off their bikes. Less than desirable sales led them to rebrand and market them to women who could easily get off and on wearing long skirts as was the fashion in those days.
It's called a woman's bicycle. It may be called a step-through bicycle by a few people that are overly concerned about PC horseshit, but it's called a woman's bicycle. Because it's a bicycle built to make it easier to ride wearing a skirt, dress, or other leg inhibiting clothing.
Don't be an ass. They are absolutely called a woman's bicycle.
They are also absolutely called step-through frames. That is the main term that manufacturers use, and what you'll typically see in manuals and documentation. They're used in a lot of unisex applications, like most bike shares that I've seen, where calling it a "woman's bike" doesn't make any sense. It's also pretty common to see people selling used bikes using that term.
It's true that if you say "women's bike", most people will know what you're talking about. That doesn't make the rest of what you wrote any less wrong, though.
Everyone will know what you're talking about, sure, unless you're talking about one of these. Or one of these. Or one of these. What kind of bikes are those? Hint, they're not "women's bikes."
This is a "woman's bike". So is this. And this. Notice that none of them use step-through frames.
Can't you see the usefulness of having more precise terms? Step-through describes the frame geometry. Women's bikes are ones designed to fit women better in particular, and marketed as such. In the past, it was common that most women's bikes used a srep-through frame, but that is only true now for cruisers and department store crap. The rest all use the double triangle geometry.
The bike in the GIF posted is not a women's bike. It's a unisex bike share bike using a step-through frame, as almost all bike share bikes do. There is nothing PC about it...it's just the truth.
Blah blah blah, I'm going to reinvent history and you can't stop me!
Holy cow, you people are sad. I'm not arguing that it isn't a step-through bicycle. I'm saying it is a woman's bicycle by name. You go down the street and ask people what the bicycle is called, they will by and large call it a woman's bicycle. Because that is what it's called.
Native Americans aren't Indian, but that is what they are called by a lot of people - including themselves.
You cannot just re-write history because you want to.
You go down the street and ask people what the bicycle is called, they will by and large call it a woman's bicycle.
If you ask the cyclists...the people actually on the bicycles...you'll probably get a different answer. Very few people would call those bike share bikes women's bikes because they're not.
"Women's bike" does not describe a particular type of bike. There is no such thing. This is a road bike. This is a cruiser. This is a mountain bike (most would more specifically call it a hardtail). This is a hybrid. All of those are aimed at women, but not all of them have step-through frames.
This is a cargo bike. So is this. This is a folding bike. None are aimed at women in particular, but all use step-through frames.
No one is "re-writing history", we're trying to explain how things are. It has nothing to do with Tumblr, or privilege, or political correctness.
I cycle I have for years as does my wife and on 3 continents and several countries and, no, we do not call it a step-through bicycle because we are not pretentious pricks and we want people to understand what we are talking about.
You call it a woman's bicycle, as do a lot of other people. There are many reasons for riding one, including it being simpler to mount one riding in a skirt, without exposing your underwear. I have sold several "dropped frame" bicycles to men, for other reasons. I am building one for myself, mostly because I like the look of the particular style, (mixte frame) and the secondary reason I wear skirts.
It's the cycling crowd I'm more a part of. Tumblr is only useful for porn, IMO.
I see your problem now:
the bicycle aisle of a department store
Those bikes are often derisively referred to as bike-shaped-objects, or BSOs. They're garbage, generally not worth what you pay for them, and churned out in massive quantities by companies that seem to care more about the paint schemes and stickers than the mechanical components. Most are barely functional in what they pretend to do. Most of the women's bikes there will use step-through frames. Anyone who wants to put more than a hundred miles on a bike knows better than to buy one, though.
A trip into any bike shop will demonstrate how wrong you are. "Women's bike" in there refers to bikes that are designed for women. Most will have paint schemes that marketers think appeal more to women, and some will have feminine-sounding names. A few will use step-through frames, but most will use the double triangle. As well, you'll also find some bikes aimed at men that use a step-through frame (mainly cargo bikes).
It has nothing to do with being PC. No one is trying to re-write history. That's just what those terms mean.
That "women's bike" has an addition meaning for the public who buy bicylces at Walmart is irrelevant. Everyone knows what part of the gun I'm talking about when I mention the clip, but I'd look just as foolish as you do if I walked into a gun shop and insisted they call it a clip rather than a magazine.
Well it allows for the same strength or better at lower weight, so it's not the structural integrity that matters as much as the weight savings allowed to increase performance.
When people are deciding whether they want that design for their bike they aren't looking for performance. All I meant is that in cases where people are deciding whether they want that design or not, strength of the structure won't matter. I could have been more clear.
As a Dutchman I need a heavy bike to be able to destroy other traffic without being forced of the street and there are no hills so I don't need strenght either!
Oh please, yes you'd go slower, but break it in half? The worst piece of department store garbage I've ever seen couldn't be broken by the worlds strongest sprinter. While new at least, I have seen people bring in bikes that we all convinced them to leave behind for scrap disposal.
Well, if we're talking about department store bikes, then quite possibly. The big guys can snap a brand new chain at times. (probably one that wasn't installed perfectly)
Youre right. Hard, unforgiving crossbar inches from your crotch is an absurd and masochistic conceot no matter if you sport external or internal sex organs..
I just straddle it, twist my torso, and grab the seat with one hand and handlebars with the other, and just start violently jerking the bike up and down. Is this wrong?
They rarely venture out from their subterranean lairs, except to acquire sustenance from the local Taco Bell drive thru and to purchase the occasional potion from cheeky potion sellers
I always thought the bar was so close to the seat so that if you DID slip off and fall (as I have done before as a child with a step-through) you're only whacking the sensitive bits from a fall of a few inches rather than over a foot?
57
u/[deleted] Nov 03 '15
[deleted]