You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My girlfriend is looking for a 29er mountain bike as her current bike is a little old. She has stood over some and it's looking like a 17" is best for her (5' 5", 29" inside leg)
Should we be looking womens specific? Or would an ordinary one be ok? Predominately looking second hand as she doesn't want to spend too much.
Don't discount men's cos there'll be more of them available. As always check the tt.
Haven't a couple of the big names dropped female specific geo recently?
A lady on our team who is of very similar size ordered a 17" 29er from the Mens range and it fits her fine.
Mostly it's commentary like bars and grips, that change with the base geo being the same. Look for the best spec/fit for the spec, Evans still look like they have a good stock of bikes on the floor so worth a look places like that too
Three of us in our family. All riding men's, running air forks and shock are a must due our weight but apart from that just throw a leg over any of them in the garage and ride it.
Like to ride my own pedals where possible
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I would have thought at 5 foot 5 a 15 inch would be better.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. I’m still a little unsure on the sizing, we may have to go and try a few more different sizes and brands, we’ve only tried Trek at the moment.
I'm 5'7" with a 29/30" inside leg, I ride a 15.5" frame and run a 120mm dropper with 15mm out of the frame. On a 17" frame I'd be looking at 85mm left for a dropper, which won't come as standard for sure, and you'll struggle to find a short drop dropper. Worth considering for the vertically challenged.
Thought this was going to be full of smutty comments about head angles and stem sizes ... 🙄
Guy on the Stumpjumper thread yesterday was selling a medium 29er which price wise wasn't too bad
In theory (whoever's theory it is?) women typically have a shorter torso / longer legs for a given height than men, and there was a time a few years back when women's specific bikes were built in that format - so shorter TT / longer ST as well as having different componentry (bar width, grip size, saddles and so on)
But bike geometry ideas have evolved in the intervening period too, towards longer TT/shorter stem ideas and I see no reason why if that make bikes 'better' then they'll also be better for women too instead of forcing them onto short TT bikes.
And anyway, not everyone is a typical size and shape.
So I'd suggest trying a few of different sizes and see what is comfortable in terms of standover and reach and don't count anything in or out until you've tried it. Through a shop, if the end result turns out to be a 'mens' MTB then hopefully they'd be able to change out some important stuff at point of sale to make it even better.
I doubt they'll stretch to respraying it pink though.
(it's a joke!! That's pretty much literally all some companies did 15 years ago to create a women's specific range!)
In theory (whoever’s theory it is?)
Which is all a bit backwards. There is as much varability within a gender as between. ( Contact points aside )
My theory is that manufacturers wanted to target a market segment and made the rest up as they went along.
In theory (whoever’s theory it is?) women typically have a shorter torso / longer legs for a given height than men
Think it was a marketeer's theory... there isn't any data to back it up. Average leg to torso ratio is the same for men and women, pelvis dimensions and other differences mean some minor adjustments to fit might work for women but as said above, same adjustments can work for men of different builds.
cynic 😉 [edit - that was @steve]
I also disagree about standardising bikes to a (marketeer's) approximation of what they think women's bodies look like, sorry if that wasn't clear. If pushed I would have been surprised to hear that there isn't a difference, but equally I wouldn't think it was so different that you'd need to redesign bikes for it (ie: that a 'typical' female T/L ratio isn't still within normal ranges of a mens and they don't design bikes for men to suit a variety of T/L ratio, they suggest you size up and down and change saddle and stem position accordingly.
“In theory (whoever’s theory it is?) women typically have a shorter torso / longer legs for a given height than men”
Unfortunately that theory is complete bollocks. The average leg to torso proportions and variability are the same for men and women of the same ethnic heritage.
However, people whose ethnic heritage is closer to the equator average more leg to torso length and people from colder climes average shorter legs vs torsos (to reduce the surface area and thus stay warmer). Similar to how the noses of people from colder climes are less good at allowing high rates of air flow but better at warming the air by being longer and narrower. And how pale skin is bad at stopping sunburn but better at making vitamin D if you live in a place with weaker sunlight.
I’ve yet to see any companies marketing white or black specific bikes though...
Unfortunately that theory is complete bollocks
Maybe that's where the theory came from...... when measuring inside leg do they account for the length of them? Or did the marketeers hoick them out of the way first?
A video on pinkbike for the ladies ( trek ) liv range said ladies on mens bikes are to far forwards in position or to far back. Not sure if thats true though.
Is that bottom photo Pila Tracey?
^ Liv have also decided that women can't ride 29ers so i'm not too sure I would believe much of that either.
I would take some measurements from her current bike if it fits well and the compare from there. One manufacturer's 15"/small might be longer than another's 17"/medium. Take into account effective top tube and the reach dimension for both siting and standing riding respectively, although you will probably find that the reach has gone up a bit recently. Try some out if you can, or at least mock up the fit on another bike to check if you can't try it.
Liv is the one brand that still pushes women's specific geometry. Maybe because they have built their whole brand around that.
Struggling to think of many women's specific bikes at the sharp end of enduro or DH. Is it more a beginner marketing thing?
I ride with quite a few women and I can't think of any that ride women's specific bikes. Bird, Orange, Lapierre, Cotic, Santa Cruz, Mondraker.
I get saddle shape, narrower bars relating to shoulder width etc, but that applies equally to both genders.
Bottom pic is Pila which was the first part of last years Alps trip, logistics meant I wasn't riding my bike that holiday, can only get four in the camper, and so first time for me on the 29er and I loved it.
Im not a believer in the gender bike stuff. I think its more of a marketing thing. How the bike is set up and feels is how it works for me and the girls.
Yep Pila and Italian bike parks in general seem very chilled to me. Happy days.
Thought I'd updated the thread. Managed to get her a used 2016 Cube Attention 29er Hardtail with a 17" frame yesterday. We went out and hit the trails in the afternoon, she loves it. Thanks for everyone's help!
I recently spent a day at a bike park with 3 ladies.
Very skilled and fast. They all rode 'mens' bikes.
Didn't seem to hold them back and they got on with the geo.
Main reason to stick to mens bikes is none garish colours and higher discounts.
In theory (whoever’s theory it is?) women typically have a shorter torso / longer legs for a given height than men
I have noticed a few women with particularly long legs and short torsos, but I think that might be because what they tend to wear makes it more noticeable.
Didn’t seem to hold them back and they got on with the geo.
Funny think about geo is that we can adapt to quite a wide range of geos.