Women's Specific Design Triathlon Bike

Trek makes the Speed Concept 2.5 WSD (Women's Specific Design).  It is an aluminum bike with a retail price of $1,900.  I found one google result for it for $1,700.

ETA: Quintano Roo has some bikes marketed to women (a pink Dulce model and a pink CD0.1) but I don't think there is any difference other than the colors. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I ride a women's bike (Quintana Roo Dulce).  We bought it after the frame on my previous bike (Quintana Roo Lucero - a "men's" bike) was cracked just before our A race because the 2011 Dulce had the closest measurements to my year of Lucero.  How is that possible?

There is an interesting article in this month's Bicycling magazine that mentions several assumptions that people make about woman specific design (WSD):  (1) that all women have a body-type that requires a certain stack and reach (the WSD), (2) that no men need this stack and reach, and (3) that WSD is somehow magic.

Until bike designers come out with a levitating seat, I don't think there is any magic in WSD.  Sure, the cute colors are nice, but you just need to find the bike that fits you the best (may be WSD, maybe not).  For example, if you have a longer torso and shorter legs, WSD may not work for you.

That said, the Dulce works great for me and I would buy it again.  I don't know your size, but there is an XS (650 wheels) 2010 on Craigsliist right now and an XS 2011 on ebay.  I also have an older K2 Title 9 that I use to commute and it works fine also.

Good luck with your bike shopping!  Hope you find a great ride!

First of all welcome!!!! x2 on the Trek 2.5, I am a guy and i have the 2.5. Cannot say enough good things about this bike. If you get the chance to score a leftover 2011 2.5, go for it. Good luck, bike shopping is always fun!!

Andy

This, right in here. The difference would be in the stack and reach ratio would be more towards an average woman, who tend to have a bit longer legs and shorter torsos than guys. That's it.* Find a bike that fits into your stack and reach and you're good, doesn't matter if it's WSD or not.

*From a functional perspective. Colors are a different story though.

If you do a statistical analysis of gender based torso to leg length ratios (I have) you discover the ratio of torso length to leg length within the context of overall height is identical for men and women.

Identical.

However, the sporting goods industry's blanket policy of marketing to women, "shrink it and pink it" has carried over to bikes. And it works. Women are almost always more compliant to the idea of a "women's specific design" bike than they are a non-gender oriented bike.

The overwhelming truth of the matter is individual dimensions determine best bike fit to the rider, not gender.

I've always regarded gender-specific marketing, especially of "Women's Specific Bikes" as incredibly condescending and, really, insulting. The market and most customers seem to disagree. Female clients are more receptive to a so-marketed "Women's specific" bikes than a non-gender marketed bike. The irony is in the geometry chart, where you discover a large number of "Women's specific" bikes have the same geometry as their equivalent non-gender models. The primary differences sometimes lie in stem length (shorter, because, you know- girls are petite) and saddle choice. Some companies go so far as to shorten cranks and remove the manly 53 tooth chainring in favor of the decidedly more lady-like 50 tooth. Some nice pastel trim colors help too.

Don't even get me started on "women's saddles", and yes, I know, I am a man so I "couldn't possibly know what its like for a woman to sit on a bike seat". So, yeah, you need to try a few women's specific seats at about $150 a pop to "find the right one for you"... Visa or Mastercard? It's simply easier to "knock 'em where they lean".

The truth is bike fit and position is bike fit and position. Some gender biases may exist: A female with a large bust may have issues with the top of her femur hitting her chest in the aero position. But even that is rare and limited to a short torso rider with a lot of saddle to handlebar drop who is about a D cup. In thousands of fits I've only seen that a few times and it is easily accomodated with the right cockpit configuration.

A further irony is that when you get to the upper levels of female multisport competitors you see less and less pink bikes, fewer and fewer "female specific" saddles. You just see good basic racing equipment fitted correctly for athletes who are accustomed to a good posture on the bike. That takes time and training, not a pink bike and a wide saddle with a hole in it.

I work with one top professional female who podiumed in the top three pros in Kona last year who does use an unconventional saddle. The rest use non-gender saddles. As it trickles down to the rank n' file of us recreational athletes the numbers shift, partially due to our acclimaton to the bike and partially due to marketing influences.

It's an odd conundrum, and one that is unlikely to change. I suppose, and I have caved into this in my fourth decade in this industry, that if it makes you feel comfortable, then voila! There you go.

Agree x1000!  I want the most badazz bike, not the cutest bike.  If you go to a lbs that insists you need a women's bike without doing any measurements, RUN!  Of course, I wear a lot of hot pink and I'm kinda girly but I'm also an ATHLETE and I want the best bike for an ATHLETE.  Pretty sick of the attitude that if you're a cute chick, you have no idea what's going on and need a pastel colored bike.

Moving on, I have a felt b16 that I love.  They have men's and women's models, though my understanding is that the bikes are the same except for the color scheme and there are more smaller sizes in the women's version.  I bought the men's.  My advice would be to go to a lbs and try some bikes out.  See what fits the best and what you feel most comfortable on.  The saddle does make a difference.  I used to ride a terry butterfly, you know, because that's for girls.  Then I switched to the Adamo (for men and women)- much better!  A good saddle is important and individual.

Yeah, the other response was a bit rushed and left out things like this. There may or may not be geometry differences in the bikes put out. It could very well just be a different paint job. In any case, get fitted, and look for bikes that work with the info given. Disregard whether it's WSD or not.

.

I have nothing other than to say THANK YOU TOM!!!  I am really tired of the pretty princess mentality.  To the OP, buy the bike in your budget that fits and feels comfortable. This may change over time as you develop skill and better posture on the bike.

Tom Demerly- I wish there was a like button on here! I completely agree, when I ran track in college/high school I had a similar problem with racing shoes.  I wanted a nice pair of racing spikes. And my choices were either the one "women specific shoe" that was pink/purple and fell apart after a few races, or buy mens shoes.  Seems like bikes are similar.

The only reason I would want a WSD bike is because it may be fun to pass guys on a pink bike . Also, if size of the bike is an issue, Felt also makes some smaller sized gender neutral bikes (I'm kinda short, have a 50cm bike, and found a B2 that fit me perfectly).  

In the same sense, I would not rule out a WSD.  My first roadie was Trek 1000 WSD and I still love it.   Fortunately it's a sort of neutral light blue.  It just felt right.

I remember looking at the "Chicquilo" when shopping for tribikes, which was supposed to be the girl version of the Kilo.  Too bad the Kilo actually had better components and, I believe, was a bit cheaper!  That's just a shame.   The ONLY thing in it's favor was it came in a 46 cm, and the smallest Kilo was a 48 or 49 I think. 

I'm going to pipe up here in defense of women specific bikes when it comes to road bikes.  Personally, while I have shorter legs and a longer torso like a man, my overall dimensions made every single non-WSD road bike too big when I was doing my shopping in 2006.  I had NO CHOICE but to shop for a WSD because there weren't any 'men's' bikes that were small enough unless I was willing to go custom or to step well out of my budget.  That was 5 or 6 years ago.  Now?  There appear to me a lot more options out there in 44/46/48cm bikes both for women AND men.  Is that a result of the WSD marketing blitz of the last few years?  I don't know.

Anyway, my point is that you don't want to rule out WSD as just a marking thing.  If a WSD bike fits you, then don't NOT buy it because you are afraid of looking like a sucker.  As others have said, fit is what matters.

I will also mention that when I went to buy my tri bike last year, I found ZERO difference between a WSD tri bike and a men's version.  WSD might have had a different saddle and paint job, but the gearing, geometry and specs were the same.  So, definitely do your research!

(and of my 5 bikes, 3 are WSD and NONE of them are pink)

Whenever this topic comes up, I refer people to this page.  These guys seem to know a thing or two about bikes.

http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/women/#video_headline

Ok, gotta throw in another 2 cents..................just cause my wife and I both got bikes in the past 30 days.............the F.I.S.T. fitter we saw was not at a shop, him and his partner have a triathlon coaching business and that is one of the services they provide.  I definitely think that might provide some comfort if you can find a situation like that in your area, go to slowtwitch, they are in a directory there. 

I've just heard too many people say stuff like "..........so the guy at the lbs that fit me came to the conclusion that brand x would be a great fit but so would brand y, coincidentally they sell both, so it worked out good........"

I think in extreme circumstances, a WSD will fit better. For instance, I'm 5', and I have short legs and short torso. 

Comparing a QR Dulce and a CD0.1. The Dulce's standover will be way better for me than the CD0.1, even though the CD0.1 has 650c wheels while the Dulce doesn't.     My current road bike frame is 44cm WSD that has 700c wheels. The reach was a  little smaller on the WSD model than the unisex model, which is what I needed. 

In *my* case, sometimes a WSD will be a better fit.  But for a "normal" woman size, I think it's better just go to what fits. :-)

Pink...nah...I want PURPLE...now, that's hawt. :-D

Well, this assumes our industry has a consensus of sorts on what crank length is appropriate or optimal for a given rider.

It never has.

Ask Lennard Zinn, author, engineer and framebuilder. Lennard replaced me as Technical Editor for Inside Triathlon and he's an engineering grad from the Colorado School of Mines.

Lennard did a year long (at least) study on correlating crank length to body dimensions and performance. Ultimately his goal was to derive a formula for computing optimal crank length based on some known parameters; if this was this you used this crank length for best efficiency.

Nope. Nada. No consensus.

As such crank length has ridden a wave of whtever the top riders happen to be doing in their era. When Jacques Anquetil became the first rider to win 5 Tours de France on custom 188mm crank arms clearly the answer was longer is better. That moderated with Merckx on 172.5's and 175's but went back up with Hinault, the next 5X Tour winner when he (at 5'8") used 175mm cranks. Lemond trended long too, often using 175mm's.

Armstrong went shorter (172.5mm) post cancer but TT specialist Dave Zabriskie, whose bike I had here a while ago, was on whopping 177.5mm cranks. Hre is an article I wrote on his bike when I had it here:

http://university.tri-sports.com/2011/10/19/fastest-bike-in-the-world/

Dave is 5'11" tall. I'm 5'8" and I use 175mm on everything and I'm a three-time USCF state time trial champion and one time state road champion.

Dan Empfield's insights on using crank length (shorter cranks) to open the angle between the femur and the torso also make for an interesting argument. And another phase in crank length trends.

So, at the end of the day, the trends are very interesting but they've yet to settle.

I know this thread is a little old and you might not even check this but I thought I would try.

I am looking at the Trek Speed Concept 7.0 WSD and was curious to know what your wife thought of it.

Thanks

If you are looking at really entry-level road bikes, I've been very happy with my Trek 1.2 WSD. No particular reason I bought a WSD (I'm 5'7 and change, so could easily ride a men's bike, and in fact also have a Trek 1.5 men's in the US), but when I was bike shopping in Singapore, there was a limtied selection in my price range, and it just felt better than the others. Yesterday I had the fit readjusted (correcting screw-ups in the initial fit and putting on aerobars) and took it out for a spin today--super comfortable still, even in aero. It still feels a bit more comfortable to ride than the 1.5--hard to define why exactly--a bit lighter, better maneuverability, frame a bit more compact; maybe just that I've ridden this bike longer. It's not the fastest or slickest-looking bike out there, but very comfortable for the long haul. I'd happily do a century, bike tour (on good roads) or IM on it.

That being said, I think it's more a matter of match between rider, fit, and bike. The Trek WSD geometry is supposedly different than the men's bikes, which isn't true for all makes. There aren't girly colors (1.2 WSD is white with red trim).  I really have the stereotypical build that WSD tends to be designed for--very lightweight (115 pounds) for my height, long legs, narrow shoulders, fairly small hands. Many women don't, and in that case, unless you're so short that you can't find a men's model that fits, there's really no point in looking specifically for a WSD.