Are chamois pads the only cycling tech that need to be female specific?

There seems to be a move towards 'unisex' within the bike industry, with fewer ‘female-specific’ options compared to a few years ago. Does this open up more choice for women because the range of available products becomes wider, or is it just an opportunity for brands to reduce the number of units they otherwise would have to produce? Or is it because ‘female-specific’ in cycling is just not required?

There is no doubt that women and men are anatomically and physiologically different. Women, on average, are shorter and smaller. They are also lighter, with less mean muscle mass. They have narrower shoulders and wider pelvises and hips, a lower waist-to-hip ratio, and breasts.

The aforementioned wider pelvis led to the creation of the female-specific chamois, which has now been in existence for many years. It remains perhaps the most obvious example of the genuine need, at times, of the industry to create products solely designed for women. Indeed, women's cycling clothing lines remain a staple of the industry, although there have been recent attempts to produce unisex jerseys, most notably from the Italian brand Santini.

Whilst there have been several studies that state that women have relatively longer legs and shorter torsos compared to men, as a physiotherapist and bike fitter, I have not found this to be the case from statistics collected in the clinic I work in. I have seen a general trend for women to be more flexible than men, which is also supported by research studies. However, there is a high degree of overlap between typically male or female traits.

Therefore, I have always been of the opinion that ‘women-specific’ is a marketing myth when it comes to bikes and components; the rider should always be assessed as an individual and fit accordingly, rather than based on their gender.

In terms of bike geometry, ‘women-specific’ has typically meant a shorter reach and higher stack, which puts it at the endurance end of the continuum rather than race, the argument being that women have longer legs and a shorter torso. Perhaps it could also be conforming to the stereotype that women are less likely to adopt an aggressive position than men. This shape of bike may suit some women, but in my experience, it suits just as many men, especially those who are inflexible or have poor posture on the bike.

So, if women don’t need a bike or components that are ‘women-specific’, does the average woman have different needs compared to the average man?

With women being shorter in stature, they will generally need a smaller-sized bike, especially those at the shorter end of the bell curve. Some bike manufacturers just don’t make bikes that are small enough for a large proportion of women. There are also challenges in bike design for those who are quite short in stature (under around 160cm).

They may need narrower handlebars and shorter cranks. Again, the small end of the bell curve may struggle to access appropriately sized components and have more difficulty with availability due to the smaller numbers of these sizes being produced.

Statistically, most women have wider sit bones than most men, by nature of being designed for childbirth, so they are more likely to need a wider saddle. Saddles are becoming increasingly unisex, and whilst some brands still label their saddles as male or female, it is becoming less common. Saddle suitability and comfort is incredibly individual, with factors such as your pelvis width, riding style, and soft tissue anatomy all influencing personal preference. I have seen a number of men comfortable on a 'womens' saddle.

If a ‘women-specific’ bike is already fitted with narrower handlebars and a wider saddle (compared to the corresponding size in a ‘men’s’ bike), this can be useful and cost-effective, as it may lessen the need to change them.

As mentioned, clothing on the other hand, is a different matter. Women have quite a different body shape to men, and you will find that the majority of brands offer separate men’s and women’s ranges, as well as some unisex items (gloves, arm warmers, socks etc).

I spoke to Nicole Stanners, creator of Muze, a cycle clothing brand intending to “make cycling more inclusive, comfortable and exciting for all women at all levels – starting with our clothes”. She consulted an anthropometric expert to study a large group of women of different shapes and sizes before designing her clothing.

“The differences make it important to have specific clothing for such a technical sport as cycling with hundreds and thousands of body movements in a ride to ensure comfort and performance”, Stanners states. “If you try and fit women into men’s clothes then they will generally be too tight in the hips and thighs and too large in the upper body”.

“In relation to chamois, women have a wider pelvis and a greater pubic arch angle than men, therefore most of the pressure points in women occur within the pubic area. A women-specific chamois is designed to prevent excessive pressure over this area, especially when the weight over the saddle shifts forward. Also, differences in external genitalia need to be considered, to protect them from irritating chafing.”

So, even though ‘female-specific’ choices may not necessarily be needed in all areas of the cycling industry, there may be a place for it. It can make women feel included and catered for in a male-dominated domain. Women may also want to support companies that produce women’s products, especially if they are also owned or operated by women.

However, with women making up a much smaller slice of the market, investing in ‘female-specific’ products can carry commercial or financial risk. Participation numbers seem to show that of all cyclists, around 25-35% are female.

Perhaps Trek has summed it up accurately in a statement on their website: “A women’s bike is any bike that a woman rides”. Amen to that.