The Pinkbike Podcast: Episode 28 - All About Women's Bikes

 100% agree been checking pinkbike twice a day recently for this! The Pinkers are disappointed. Not even a double length episode to make up for it

 @Scotj009: only twice a day? that shows significant and admirable restraint.

 @Scotj009: This Pinker noticed they missed a week for sure.

 Sorry for the delay, Pinkers! Bit of a pause for all the Field Test filming we're in the middle of, but this one's almost twice as long to make up for it

 @mikelevy: Apology accepted. Just don't leave us hanging again dude!

 @mikelevy: Don't you have to pay a terrible price for calling us that? Gravel bike head to head or something?

 @mikelevy: I’ll muster up some forgiveness when I see the Grim Donut Part 3

 @conv3rt: plus bike head to head, with all the lockout levers, and zero water bottles.

 @brianpark: That was it. I assume open weeping will be permitted on the video. At least I hope so (don't judge me).

 @brianpark: is there a support group for people who bought plus bikes four years ago and have since learned that was a mistake? Asking for a friend…

 @brianpark: A sacrifice we all are willing to make!

 @bh406: Plus ain't dead!!!!! :-)

 Agreed

 Agreed. I'd like to see the industry move towards custom ordering where people can choose things like paint/finish, stem, bar and maybe crank length etc. Do this and there wouldn't be a need for gender specific bikes.

 TWO DUDES AGREE!

 As long as you are 120Lbs or heavier. I'd like to see a legit tunable suspension for people lighter than 100lbs.

 @jedi-son: So true!

 I sure wish La Senza made male oriented underwear

 @jedi-son: THANK YOU. also, getting an XS Juliana has been life-changing for me. I'm always used to having to make big bikes work. the suspension piece is super real though and I've seen little to no progress in options for light riders in the past couple of years.

 @lehott: They don't? ....shit..... literally.

 ...coming from a man...

 Interesting thing about shock tune, why does it need to be lighter for woman? It doesn't. Any random woman could potentially riding hard, or weight more, than another random dude. Maybe statistically less likely, but that is just a statistic. I've been involved in a thread with a 120 pound guy who rides XC style trying to tune the suspension on his enduro bike, the same bike tuned for a 150 pound rider that is often purchased by 180 pound riders.

 @JSTootell: When my son was 90 lbs I had issues. He rides like a monster on the North Shore and Whistler, rock drops, 30 foot gaps, pretty much anything. When I rode behind him in rock gardens I noticed the bike doesn't track as well as it should. Borrowed a Shockwiz to help configure the shock and fork, and even at the max settings couldn't get the HS/LS compression and rebound to be perfect. Air was fine and spacers were good enough. He did grown out of this (he's now 110lbs) but there are others who won't and I see their issue.

 @jedi-son: It'd be rad to have the option to swap out the shock for a different tune at the time of sale regardless of gender. I got to demo a bunch of bikes last year before Covid, and every time, I found myself running the compression damping wide open, and rebound only a few clicks in. That's at 145lb on a size large. My wife is in an even worse position since she's tall enough to ride a medium, but in most cases still gets the same shock tune as I would despite being a good deal lighter.

 @gibspaulding: I've just bought a new fork. At the point of purchase the company take your weight and riding style so they can tune the damper (dampener?) to fit you. Surely this could be done if buying a new frame, or certainly for a complete bike.

 @tremeer023: It definitely could be done, but at present isn't until you're at a pretty high price point. I was thinking of sub ~$5000 completes.

P.S. Your first guess is right. A damper manages your shock's motion, a dampener makes things wet.

 @roberm, yes!!!

 I really like that there’s so many options. When we went to get my wife (then girlfriend) her first bike, she tried several Livs, a Juliana, and a Giant Trance and ended up getting the Trance because she liked it the best.

 Totally agreed. Except I'd like to see the sport indistinctively be made more welcoming, approachable and inclusive for anybody - not just women specifically.

 @BenTheSwabian: Agreed, however this podcast is about the underrepresentation of women in the sport, not inclusivity or approachability of the sport across the entire market, hence the specific and targeted goal of growth and accessibility for women in a sport that is dominated and directed primarily by men.

Further to the other comments that I've read of yours on this forum, the industry is attempting to do a good thing by opening up and trying to make the sport more inclusive and attractive to women. The best way to do it is through marketing, in the same way that they market to you and I (who according to our profiles are men). How else would you suggest you appeal to a marginalized group who doesn't necessarily share the same perspectives as you? This specific conversation has focused on gender, but could have easily focused on ANY other marginalized group that requires a shift in industry marketing campaigns, and serves as a starting point. Other marketing campaigns are ongoing throughout the industry to shift conversations and attract other marginalized groups into the sport (see PinkBike's Video: Exploring the Oregon Backcountry for the First Time in 'Pedal Through'). At the end of the day, if you really want to see the sport be more inclusive, then shifting the marketing conversation away from what your use to and towards new segment of ridership shouldn't offend you, as it literally has nothing to do with how you enjoy the sport.

 @roberm: There is still progress to be made when you consider YT's ads:

www.pinkbike.com/u/DoubleCrownAddict/blog/yt-marketing-the-most-offensive-mysogynist-violent-pro-trump-company-in-bicycle-history.html

 I CERTAINLY HAVE AN APPETITE TO MESH MY CONCURRENCE INDEX ACROSS AN OMNICHANNEL SAMPLING OF YOUR OPINIONSPHERE ON THIS METRIC

 Pipe down you pinkbike ad impression

 @dfiler: WHEN THE RIBBON OF LOAM POINTS DOWNHILL AND IT'S TIME TO TICK THE ROWDY BOX, GRAB THIS RIG AND A;LSKFJ;SALDKFJ;SALFJS;DALKFJ

 It probably makes the investors feel comfortable. Make it into a leading marketing position and you're practically forced to talk this way. It can then be hard to let it go when it's not needed.

 Maybe not everybody agreed.

 Gender specific bikes involve both social considerations (marketing) and biological considerations (engineering). Brands sometimes address one, the other or both. That's why it can be useful to distinguish between biological gender and gender identity. They are both important to this topic.

 @IntoTheEverflow: I see primarily 'woke' people using the term 'people identifying as women' and everybody else (at least in my country) just calling people that changed sex by the gender they changed into. I sometimes get the feeling that the emphasis on 'identifying' is only placed by
A. Very conservative people that refuse to call a person that changed into the female sex a woman, or;
B. Very woke or PC people that sometimes seem to find the whole changing thing more important than what the changed person actually wants or needs. They might have good intentions (and sometimes just want to stroke their own ego), but I personally feel it actually is counterproductive. Someone that feels like a woman and had a sex change doesn't want to be remembered of the change, but wants to be treated like every other woman. That's the whole goal of the serious procedure. So just call them women if you really care about their feelings. Unless you find being PC more important than the actual people you're 'defending'. Then just keep reminding them they're not real women, but 'people identifying as women'.

 people who refer to themselves as someone who "identifies as a woman" want to be treated differently to how you would treat a woman.

 @dfiler: engineering doesn't care about gender or sex. Chemistry (material science) nor Physics (force propagation) doesn't change because the presence of a vagina or penis.

 @JoshieK: No argument with that. Rather, being specific with language is useful when talking about a topic that many people feel passionate about. There's a difference between a bike product being targeted at women vs people who identify as women.

 @dfiler: "There's a difference between a bike product being targeted at women vs people who identify as women." can you elaborate on this idea as it sounds very vague and i am not sure how an individual can make that distinction.

 @Mac1987: Agreed. It seems like an overt gesture to avoid offense and specify their intent to be inclusive. If they don't do it there's a risk they will be accused of being insensitive or worse. It's gone a little too far imo.

 @dfiler: Sorry, but no. Gender identity has literally no influence at all on what bike is the right for you. At all. Biological gender probably has, becasue it has an influence on body size, etc. But the engineering doesn't care what gender anyone identifies with.

 @BenTheSwabian: maybe preference for certain colors, but then again that isn't 100% linked to gender (biological or otherwise).

 @davec113: probably, although people assuming that the line 'bikes for women' only applies to people born as women should look in the mirror instead of attack the writer. They're making the distinction, not the writer (unless further information proves otherwise).

 f*ckING YES! My wife is just a smidge over 5ft and rides an XS yeti sb75 - it was affordable, versatile and rides really well, but the standover is too high for her. It’s so hard to find a bike (even kids bikes) that would work for her.

 Pivot Switchblade 29" XS (142mm rear travel) Standover = 648mm (25.5")
Size specific geometry is real and it appears that 5'0" riders were taken into consideration for this bike (and its a 29"!).

 YES! I'm 5'0" and it took me about 10 years to find a bike I could stand over--just barely. Clearance? That would be great!

Part of the issue was that, searching online for small bikes, I could only find really small ones at very high prices, twice my budget at the time. I could not justify investing that much when I didn't even know if I'd like the sport.

If you ask me, these are two huge barriers for women in the sport. The cost of just trying the sport and the terror of trying to ride trails when you can't stop without tilting the bike WAY over to the side (with your foot perhaps off the trail, in a hole).

I finally found a small bike (used, through Pinkbike) but it would have been fantastic to be able to demo and compare and figure out what would suit the type of riding I like. Instead, I just bought the first one I found with a workably low standover.

I should add that I'm a lifelong road cyclist and it wasn't until women-specific bikes came on the market that I got a bike I could stand over. But doing that on mountain bike singletrack is a completely different and terrifying experience.

 Would be interesting if more female athletes (who've been riding bikes for different brands and aren't necessarily on a Liv or Juliana team now) would have joined the discussion.

 @vinay: Well just any female riders without brand affiliation. At the end of the day sponsored riders are not the cash cows for the industry, average Joe and average Jill are. And whats best for a pro rider isn't whats best for the weekender.

 Exactly! I found the whole podcast kinda dull because I’m not a bike marketing exec, but that was the focus. This should have been focused on how can a female find the right bike, and more easily start/progress in the sport.

 I notice how the last from Juliana swerved the question about no ladies on the syndicate

 It's the same problem with tools. Women that are really into DIY/mechanics don't want pink drills with female branding. They want the same Bosch drill with a smaller grip. You want to make everything inclusive? Find out what everyone wants and needs and not what fits current hype or preconceived thoughts of the marketing department.

 I was about to buy a women's specific SUV with a narrower rim steering wheel and lighter suspension tune (it also happened to have a real glitter paint job) but then I wondered if it was really necessary...

 And my wife loves the idea of women specific bikes and getting to have something different from the boys. She also eats cliff bars. You, your wife, and people against women's branding should just buy what you want and let others buy what they want. Also, sure grip, saddle etc are easy to change, but if you can buy a bike with it already changed you've saved yourself a couple of hundred bucks and less waste.

I'm loving all these comments from white knights that don't even realize/care that there are women out there that like things that look feminine and are marketed toward women (not referring to you here giebs). Nothing is stopping women buying unisex bikes whilst female brands exist so chill!

 It's the "pink tax": take something which was equally used by men and women, paint it pink, and charge some more for it because it has been "designed for women". Razor blades are the first example that comes to mind, but there are a ton of them. In average, women-targeted products have a 7% surcharge respect to those labeled as "universal" or men-specific:

www.listenmoneymatters.com/the-pink-tax

 Yup, it's all a marketing campaign.

 @bishopsmike: but the impact of rider/driver weight on suspension is not the same between a 4000 lbs SUV and a 30 lbs bicycle, is it ? Agreed that this is a weight and size problem and not gender problem though.

 @southoftheborder: What are you on about? Maybe do some research next time. Santa cruz/juliana are the same price and spec, liv/giant same price and spec (I checked intrigue advanced vs trance advanced), norco women's bikes are same price/spec as unisex.

 @Mac1987: And arguably even some men wouldn't mind having the option of a smaller grip.
(Edit: Sorry I know this may sound like innuendo, but intended as a genuine statement.)

 @mick06: I'd much rather see companies offer different tunes, touch point options, more colors and sizes for unisex bikes than gender-specific bikes. I prefaced my original comment with the bias b/c that's the lean in our household while recognizing that some women like the idea of specific bikes marketed to one gender.

 @Lankycrank: haha I understand what you mean. I have small hands myself. My last purchase was a Garmin Fenix. I had to buy the 'female' version (6S) because of my tiny wrist. I have the exact opposite problem as described in this article: Garmin only sells a rose golden metal bracelet aimed at women and I want a black one... Of you're a woman with big wrists you're forced to buy the large version with 'male' colors.

 @giebs8: Absolutely I agree, and some places seem to be trying to do this as much as the economics work. I don't feel that having women's specific marketed bike brands slows any progress of that type of thing though. It's simply a different way for women to feel included if they choose. If they don't choose the brands will die off anyway. I don't understand all these dudes hating on women specific bikes like it affects them.

I gota say though, to me anyway mountain biking seems very inclusive to women as much hate as I read on here that it doesn't.

 Mine too she would rather ride the wrong bike than a wsd

 What really puts me off about the whole thing is not corporations doing proftiable things or women wanting to make mountainbiking appeal to other women more. And I'm certainly not saying that those three girls on the interview weren't genuine. What puts me off big time, is that this whole thing is basically just a marketing campaign - but dressed up all fancy. It's corporations using words like inclusion, empowerment and so on - to make it seem like they are the good guys, while in reality they are just doing business.

 @BenTheSwabian: getting more women into the sort can be a nice side effect of them doing business though.

 @Mac1987: Yes absolutely! And I'm all for more equal representation of both biological genders! It's just that I don't like the corporations trying to seem all pregressive and liberal when in reality their motivation is just money...

 @BenTheSwabian: true, and they aren't the only ones I doubt the sincerity of (insert some politicians and people that have no own opinion).

 The opposite is true in regard to geometry. Marketing gender specific geometry is more like virtue signaling than a different paint job. It comes down to whether there is actually such a thing as gender specific geometry. I believe the variation between individuals is massively bigger than the variation between genders. Regardless of the average for your gender, you need a bike built for your weight, height, limb ratios, flexibility, etc. Maybe you have long arms and short legs, or any other random variation. That matters more than gender. So maybe it makes sense for brands to have a long-leg version more than a male or female version.

 True. Most of these brands will only care about identity politics as long as they can sell it to somebody.

 As reach has grown longer over the past couple of years (and bikes from the past are considered insanely short now), isn't it true that "unisex" bikes of yore were actually better suited to women than they were for men? My 2007 Cannondale Prophet size medium (about 400mm reach, I think) works well for my 170cm girlfriend, but feels cramped for me (180cm).

 @dfiler: My current XC race bike came from a current female XC pro. I changed virtually nothing, her fit worked for me near perfect right out of the box. Either she is masculine, I am feminine, or it is BS.

 @JSTootell: So we're in agreement! Good to see many people are seeing through the snake oil claims of gender specific geometry.

 Actually wasn't it recently that more brands dropped their women specific line ups because it didn't make much sense? Especially for a frame, just get the reach and stack you need. There is enough room for saddle height adjustment so for seated pedaling, those different proportions don't make that much sense anyway.

 @skinuts I Agree , I would love to see some review on the Meta AM 29 too.
Try to search in youtube , I found in youtube a couple of reviews on this bike... I'm in the same situation bro

 That and make the saddle type and size optional (we men do have other shapes down below). Add a better range of paint jobs and everybody should be able to find a bike they like. Not all women are small or like everything pink, and not all men are tall with huge hands and like everything black.

 @Mac1987: I'm strong believer when you pass certain price mark, saddle / pedals / grips / even stem and handlebar / tires.- should be customizable to certain point out of the box, so you o not have problems what you should do with saddle grips or types that does not suit your riding style on 10$k bike;

 @Mac1987: The only problem with that is it screw up mass production. You can't just give a guy a crate full of generic saddles and tell them "slap one on each bike that passes you", or tell the painter that "all of the frames hanging on this rack should be painted red".

 @MaplePanda: then sell them without saddles and lower prices. They do the same with pedals. The chance I like and fit a stock pedal is bigger than me liking and fitting a stock saddle.

 @MaplePanda: agreed about color, although customisable frames can be a huge USP over cheaper direct sale bikes.

 @nickmalysh: If you're buying a 10k bike and you're stressed about spending another 2-500 on touchpoints you should probably buy a cheaper bike.

 @LeoTProductions: he didn't say he minded the extra expenses, but doesn't know what to do with the stock gear. It might be of use to someone else, but it might also be thrown in the corner and years later on the landfill. That's a shame and unnecessary.

 @leotproduction i would not agree about wasting $500, also it is about the waste and unnecessary efforts for the build finalization; tires for example climate specific, so muddy tire suitable for uk (sorry uk, not familiar with local area names) riders rather then us california or so, it could be just choice of tires from one manufacture, that will be installed depending on customer choice

@Mac1987 get that perfect

 I agree. Anyone can take the time to understand bike design but it’s invaluable to hear discussions from people who have tested hundreds of bikes as they’ve progressed through the years.

 I'd like to hear from the engineer that designed the Juliana bikes on what design queues they took from Santa Cruz and what unique things they designed just for that brand

 @j-t-g: I was under the impression that Juliana was essentially repainted/retuned Santa Cruz? Touchpoints notwithstanding, I thought they had the same build kits and everything for the same price points.

I could be totally wrong, though, since I don’t pay too much attention to them because I can’t afford the Santa Cruz tax...

 Thats the joke

 @Osirian: 'woman-identifying touchpoints' on a transgender chassis. Does Nina Hoffman feel underrepresented?

 @Osirian: I believe you are right. She made it sound like the differences are colors, grips, saddle and suspension tune.

 @j-t-g: I just got wooshed, huh...

 Too late.

 @mikelevy: with strict social avoidance and washing out mouths with soap this pox can be eliminated. Lol

 Who?

 *Top 5, EWS has 3 on the podium

 No, don't do that. That would immensely drive up the prices and make the sport even less accessable.

 Would be awesome to beat all the bro's down a black trail in that outfit though...

 Bros like flowery shirts too.

 Oh they work, just not as good.

 @mikelevy: You and I will probably never agree on plus tires. Not everyone rides the same way. Not everyone rides the same type of terrain. I've always disliked narrow tires and have always run the widest tires I could fit in a frame. I'm not interested in tires over 3", but I wish that more brands would keep 3" compatibility for 27.5 tires.

 Love the 29 x 2.8's on my Stache.... Terrene Cake Eater's.

 @krka73: agreed actually, 29+ is pretty fun on a hardtail. But I think I'm in the minority here, IIRC that bike got discontinued...

 I have a plus bike (stache) and a 'regular' bike. I fricken love my plus bike in the desert. I cant tell you how many times I come up on people plowing and tillering through sand and such and I just rip on by. Plus it rolls the rocks so nicely. My regular bike has 2.6s and the plus is noticably better.

 @mikelevy: they aren't as good but they did help 2.5 and 2.6 to become commonplace, which is better.

 @brianpark: bike is frame only, not fully discontinued. Makes sense, frame and geo was old af

 @mikelevy: Take of the BC blinders and realize there are regions with terrain that is best ridden with higher volume tires. Hint, it typically involves slower, flatter and more rugged technical trails rather than fast and roostable flow trails with hard cornering.

 @dfiler: Yup, I've said the same thing many times and I'm mostly joking when I say that plus tires suck I also love that sort of riding and would rather be on 2.1" semi-slicks at 70psi than plus-sized tires.

 @mikelevy: All of this tire stuff is why I'm very impatiently waiting on the new Salsa frames reviews...they'll take a 27.5x3.0 and I need a new FS frame to replace my 27.5x3.0 hardtail frame(stupid getting old knee).

 @krka73: I have the studded version of those (Cake eaters) on an i45 rim and they measure exactly 2.6" knob to knob and don't seem to be any bigger than the 2.6" WTBs that came on my non-plus bike.

 @tremeer023: haven’t maxxis been making 2.5 minions for decades, arguably one of the most popular aggressive tires on earth? Heck, I ran 2.7 minions 20 years ago.

 @silverstanktions: Well, I have the 29 x 2.8 non-studded "Light" version, and I have them mounted to a 45mm internal rim, and they measure just shy of 2-7/8" wide.

Why the discrepancy w/ your set up? No idea...

And I have several 2.6" tires as well (love those too). While I can mount them on the 45mm rim, it's pushing the boundaries a little too much as far as I'm concerned. So I use them on a 32mm rim and there is a noticeable difference in volume/feel. Especially when I have that combo on the Stache, but I use them mostly on my Tallboy4.

 @rippersub: true. I also had a 2.7 Minion a looong time ago but it was heavy AF. 2.6 feels like the sweet spot for the front end to me on a lighter weight carcass tyre. It's all about the terrain though, just like matching your bike to what you ride most often.

 It is amazing how we have virtually every kind of different terrain available in the United States alone. That doesn't include NA, or the rest of the world. Lots of terrain, and in some of those places, plus is better. Better for me? No. But there are occasions where I have thought about building some for local winter riding.

Lots of sand in my area that doesn't require a fat bike, but 2.6 just sucks in. A 3.0 would work and let me cruise around, especially the horse trails around me.

 @JSTootell: plus isn't that good for winter. Not really big enough to float on the snow like a fat tire, and too fat to cut to the hard pack below with studs.

 @j-t-g: well, depends on how much snow, and what type of snow..... as I'm sure you know living up in the great white north. Snow type varies as much as dirt type.

 @j-t-g: I wasn't talking about YOUR winter, I was talking about MY winter. In my winter, the sand has more moisture so you need less flotation, so a plus tire will work. In summer that same sand will be way too dry and a minimum 4" tire would be required.

 @j-t-g: I live in a 'high mtn desert' area- it's plenty cold enough for snow, but it just doesn't snow that much because, well, desert. But when it does snow its very drifty, then crusts and ices over. Not enough snow really for fat tires. Studded would probably be perfect. Plus works pretty well here too- especially smaller knobs.

 @brianpark: You mentioned in the podcast that you are a believer in scaling. Wouldn't tires be one of the scale-able areas? I'm weighing in at roughly 215 lbs. That puts me at 1.23 percent heavier than a 175 lbs rider. So if we scale our tires, a 175 lbs rider on 2.3 tires equals me on 2.8 tires.

Speaking of weight - on the question of worst ideas/inventions/concepts in mountain biking, I'd put forward that weight weenie-ism is the meta villain that held back the industry for literal decades. Just look how much we have been able to progress as a sport with wider rims, beefier tires, stiff forks, dropper posts, etc.

 @enurjetik: 1.23%? - more like 23%?

 @rippersub: Ha! True. I multiplied 2.3 by 1.23 to get to 2.8 and slapped that into my comment too quickly. Worked for the arithmetic, but not for the words.

 oh no the bad terrible evil toxic rapey men care enough to comment on a topic about wymxnz.