If you see this in terms of numbers of women vs. men in races translating into who gets more prize money, etc..., then I think these arguments are somewhat valid.
But fact is more than half the cyclists in the U.S. are women (or at least that was the case the last time I saw these statistics). Weirdly, that by and large hasn't translated into hiring an equal number of women as sales people and mechanics in shops, equal offerings (quality-wise) in the way of equipment, equal opportunity for women with the industry, etc. I am not saying it is overt discrimination, but the industry itself could do a lot better (and make more money) by taking women as seriously as men when it comes to marketing the sport and product development. I have to say, however, it is hugely improved over even a decade ago--and that is mostly because women have spoken out and the industry is beginning to get it that women are willing to spend money given a good-fitting, quality product.
You should. I don't see how providing at least a few bikes for those at both ends of the spectrum (small and tall) is marketing 100% of the bikes to 1% of the population. I have many customers and potential customers who literally feel it has been impossible to access or enjoy the sport because equipment does not exist for them, or their LBS isn't willing to carry it. My suppliers are always out of 165mm cranks and never seem to feel the need to order enough of them, even though they exist and I buy up pretty much the whole lot whenever they do bother to stock them. If my supplier doesn't buy them (despite my begging them to), then the next thing that happens is Shimano stops making them (as Campy did a few years back). I have never seen this issue to this degree with other sports equally enjoyed by both sexes: skiing, running, hiking, etc., although I am not on the industry side of those sports.It's not uncommon that I walk into a bike shop and there are NO bikes that fit me let alone high end bikes that fit me; it's also not uncommon that a brand will not even make a bike small enough. Should that be labeled as discrimination against small female riders or is it a prudent business move due to limited production funds and limited demand (hence a more limited supply). As much as it annoys me, and as much as I support those who change their definition of prudent business to cater to me, I don't find the ones that don't discriminatory. 100% of the bikes should not be marketed to 1% of the cyclists or the whole industry would crash (numbers pulled out of my rearend and are completely fake). Obviously I support those companies that supply a product for my niche; I hardly expect every company to do so.
And Oakleaf: +1.
my dos centavos.



Reply With Quote