WSD vs Men's frames

OK, I know we've discussed this before, but it pertains to ME now ;) Shopping for a new bike, which is difficult in July. Supply is limited and you can't order anything yet. I'm learning that "women's bike" just means different handlebars (drop/reach) and saddle. I thought it also meant shorter top tube, but if you compare Trek Madone 5.2 men & women's, the geometry is exactly the same! (Of course, finding a small men's frame isn't easy, either)

Then I read this on Cervelo:
“Women have proportionally longer legs than men and therefore need different geometries” – that’s the statement most commonly used to justify women-specific geometries. The only problem is, that’s not true. Analyzing anthropometric studies and crunching the numbers, men and women aren’t dramatically different. Yes, on average women are statistically shorter than men. But no, small women are not proportionally different from small men. And likewise, tall women do not have much different body proportions than tall men. This is what the numbers clearly say. You’re wondering why there are still gender-specific bikes on the market? Sometimes stereotypes are easier to grasp than science. Even the big proponents of women’s specific geometry are quietly agreeing - many are now offering “advanced women’s geometries”, which – surprise, surprise – is identical to their “men’s geometry”.

I'm looking to upgrade to carbon fiber, shimano ultegra, relaxed geometry and compact double. I know some of you out there ride "men's" frames.

I'm 5'5. Thought I needed a 50, but headed to the fitter on Wed to see if the 52 would also work.

Thoughts on this WSD? Marketing mumbo jumbo? It isn't making MY shopping experience any easier. One of the bike shops tried to explain it to me, but clearly, they aren't supposed to poo-poo the women's frames, in case they offend the mother ship. Is there anything else I need to know if I try a man's frame? (I'm switching to a bike shop with VERY reputable fitters).

I tend to think it's mostly marketing mumbo jumbo, although I happen to ride a WSD bike that actually is somewhat different than most bikes of comparable size (a 2006 Bianchi Eros Donna). At the end of the day, you just need to analyze whether any specific bike's geometry will work for you irrespective of whether it is WSD or not. Of course, there's more to fit than top tube length or standover.

I only ride men's frames. (even the mixte I'm considering has "men's" geometry)

I tried a WSD once and hated it thoroughly. The short top-tube was not my friend. Yup, I've got long legs, but I've also got long arms. (my wingspan is nearly 6 feet, but I'm only 5'8" on a good day)

WSD proportions probably matter for some women - and some men. But not all women are going to love WSD. Just as not all men are going to fit perfectly on the typical men's frame.

Didn't we have a guy visit TE a while back saying he fit WSD best and did we know of a WSD that wasn't pink or floral?

Perhaps a lot of it now is marketing hype. Kind of like the minimal shoe "revolution" happening right now in running. Some folks do better in minimal shoes (like we all wore 30 years ago). Some folks do better in highly constructed shoes. We're riding the minimal wave right now, but expecting everyone to wear minimal shoes is much like expecting all women to go for short top tubes.

(when we're not talking about slapping some pink and some narrow bars on a frame and calling it WSD)

ETA: I ride 52cm and 53cm frames for the most part. According to every "magical equation" I've plugged my and my bikes' measurements into, each of my bikes is the perfect fit. I used to poo-poo "magical equations", but then I played with them all weekend. I'll accept them for frame size, but I'm very VERY not convinced they work for fine-tuning fit and position. Those are just too personal and variable to each rider.

Hey Indysteel!
Standover: I can barely stand over my current bike. I was told that wasn't an accurate analysis. However, another bike shop used it to determine I needed a 50 instead of 52. Still confused.

(disclaimer- I have worked as a marketing person for a bike company).

Not really mumbo jumbo. The bike is designed DIFFERENT. However not ALL women need to ride WSD bikes and sometimes maybe a man might need it.

Ride the bike that fits you best. My DH and I can ride the same frame size even though he is taller- our inseam lengths are the same. However his torso and arms are very much longer than mine so he can go for a longer reach handlebar setup.

Everyone is different and I personal did not like the push of- "you're female so you need a women's bike" some lazy bike store people seemed to have.

FWIW, I used to have a men's Trek 2000. I put the shortest possible stem on it and still had to hunch my shoulders to reach the handlebars. Last year I bought a WSD Trek (Madone 4.7) in the same frame size. It fits me much better. The geometry is definitely different from the old bike. And I don't hunch my shoulders anymore.

I'm starting to think that a lot of it's marketing. Some manufacturers seem to shave a minimal amount off the top tube and call it WSD. I do ride a WSD frame, but it's got a top tube that's only half a centimeter shorter than the "men's" model. I need a short top tube, but I'm starting to think I can get away with a unisex frame provided that the ETT is short enough.

I went bike not-shopping the other day at an LBS I've never visited except to buy tubes. I had a nice chat with the owner. He guessed that at 5'6.75" with a short torso, I could ride a 52cm Madone WSD, or a size smaller unisex.

I think it depends on the bike.

Fit is what counts, so I'd try all bikes possible. I don't ride a WSD frame (I tried a couple during my recent search for a new bike; did not care for them, but it was related to how bike felt to me). My old bike was a Felt with very traditional geometry, 54cm, with reach that was too long for me. I now ride a Cannondale Synapse, 53cm, and I love it. I did not have to change anything out of the box.

@ny_biker: the Trek 2000 also looks like classic geometry, longer top tube...

I have a unisex x-small Kuota, that has had everything changed; stem, handlebars, shifters/levers. The ett is OK, but I would like a bike with more relaxed geometry. The stem is cut so much, it feels squirrelly. Some of it is my handling skills, but I've learned my lesson. No new carbon for me in the immediate future, though. Next year I will most likely buy a custom titanium or steel bike with couplers and that will have everything the way it should be.
I had 2 WSD bikes that fit fine, particularly my Trek 5200 47 cm. The only issues i had were my own physical issues that I didn't attend to with stretching or PT. Both of those bikes had 650 wheels, which I never saw any difference with.

For me, WSD on the 2006 Bianchi made a big difference (I have short legs AND short arms. I need a shorter top tube). I really think there's no one conclusion about this, and that you just plain have to test-ride both and not let any store person talk you into anything that doesn't feel right, period.

Good fit is good fit, whether it's WSD or not. As long as you can achieve a good fit, the label isn't important. The contents of the geometry charts are much more important, IMVHO.

Of all of my bikes, only one is WSD, but they all fit well. On a related note, my WSD roadie is a Fuji, and their WSD geometry chart that year was the same (line for line!) as their unisex CCR geometry (Carbon Comfort Road, I think). It fits well and, in the end, that's what mattered most.

Well said, Becky. Whether it's a marketing gimmic or not, it comes down to the numbers, not the label, as they relate to YOUR body. Even assuming that some manufacturers actually do offer WSD bikes that are truly different from their unisex counterparts (and from what I've seen, some do, some don't), they aren't going to work for all women. So, no matter how you view it, you still need to figure out what's going to work for you.

As for standover, so long as you can straddle the bike safely with your road shoes on, I don't think it's as critical as other measurements. I have very little standover on my Bianchi, and it's never caused a problem. I have short legs, however, and it is a limiting factor when it comes to some bikes.

I rode a unisex 10 speed as a teen, but since taking up cycling again, I didn't try any men's bikes. Both my bikes were 44 cm, WSD, but the Ruby fits me much better- I'm not so stretched out on it. I never actually analyzed the geometry. I don't know if that's helpful or not.

I don't know generalities, but I certainly have longer legs than most men my height. But I also have ridiculously long arms and a long torso. I ride unisex frames and at 5'7", generally start by looking at a 54cm (or 52 for cross) and work from there. My little sister, same height as I am but completely different build, rides a 51cm WSD. So there really is no right or wrong answer. Go with what works :)

I'm 5'0 and currently have a 47cm Trek 2000 men's bike. My biggest issue was being short (short legs with longer arms and torso) and having no adjustability in the handle bars and limited with the seat. We had gone back to Charlotte to get some stuff out of storage (all stuff now here) and stopped by our old LBS and told them what was going on with the bike I had recently bought (didn't take it with us). Anyway got us an adapter and picked a stem they thought would work. We got it home and hubby changed it out and we got it adjusted and now I have a bit better adjustability and have it where I'm not at the complete edge of being able to fit it. Also due to that I'm thinking when I'm ready for a new bike it's going to be a men's frame and I'm also either driving two hours to the LBS I like in Raleigh or driving 5 hours back to our old LBS in Charlotte for my new bike. Will NOT deal with the local LBS for certain things such as clothing or a new bike. They think because I'm a woman I have to have women's clothing or a women's bike. The LBS in Charlotte wants to make sure I fit what I like as does the one I like in Raleigh.