Shopping for a new bicycle, I happened to find the following prices on Cannondale’s website and can’t help but wonder, what is Cannondale’s justification for charging more for their women’s bikes than the ‘normal’ bikes? (+$330 for Slice with 105 build and +$550 for Ultegra). Are narrower handlebars really costly? Are they charging labor for pre-cutting the seat post to a more likely height? Looks like the exact same frame/geometry, so what gives??
That’s just it. These frames are not different. They show the same geometric measurements.
I’m willing to buy that my shoulders might be more narrow than those of a man of my same height (5’3"), so I can see why I would want narrower handlebars (particularly on my road bike). But other than that, is the saddle maybe chemically coated to resist menstrual flow? Gross, I know, but really, $330-$550 for the word “women’s” is pretty outrageous.
They do appear to be the exact same bike with same geometry, except the women’s is available in a 44 with 600 wheels and the men’s has a couple of larger sizes. If you fit on a 48-55 then I don’t see why anyone would pay more for the “women’s” bike.
Other than pandering, I’ve been wondering why ‘women’s’ bikes exist. Are there genuine fit issues necessitating a different frame?
There are some genuine fit issues that can make women’s frames a better choice for some women. Many women have relatively long legs and shorter torsos, at least when compared with the average guy their height. So the seat height is fine, but the top tube is a bit too long, even with a short stem. Also, some of us women have smaller hands, so reaching the brakes/shifters can be less than ideal on a “man’s frame”. And narrower handlebars can make for an overall better fit for some. Then again, a women’s frame (so long as it’s not in girly colors and doesn’t look like a women’s bike), may in fact be the better fit for some smaller men as well. But do these changes cost any more money- no!
And that pink/purple crap frustrates me. I just want a bike that fits right and looks like a unisex bike. And don’t charge me more for the same bike!
There are some genuine fit issues that can make women’s frames a better choice for some women. Many women have relatively long legs and shorter torsos, at least when compared with the average guy their height. So the seat height is fine, but the top tube is a bit too long, even with a short stem. Also, some of us women have smaller hands, so reaching the brakes/shifters can be less than ideal on a “man’s frame”. And narrower handlebars can make for an overall better fit for some. Then again, a women’s frame (so long as it’s not in girly colors and doesn’t look like a women’s bike), may in fact be the better fit for some smaller men as well. But do these changes cost any more money- no!
And that pink/purple crap frustrates me. I just want a bike that fits right and looks like a unisex bike. And don’t charge me more for the same bike!
This apparently isn’t true. Shorter and taller people may have different proportions, But a similarly sized man and woman will have similar body proportions. No need for a unique frame geometry for ‘women’
"Unlike many companies in the bike industry, Cervélo does not build a frameset specifically for women. “I really can’t ride the women’s bikes as they’re made by the mainstream companies,” I commented. “That’s because you are a woman,” quipped Vroomen. Vroomen has strong feelings on this subject, and recognizes that he is working against the grain. “It’s based on the theory that women have long legs and a short torso. The only problem with the theory is that it’s just not true,” said Vroomen of the approach to building women’s bikes adopted by many companies in the cycling industry.
We need to “debug the myth” that women need separate bikes, Vroomen believes. Some women may want a more upright riding style, as may some men. But that preference is separate from dialing in bike fit for women"
Now, when it comes to handlebars, it seems like the majority of bikes today come with a ‘compact’ style handlebar that are sized appropriately to the frame. i.e., a 48cm cervelo is sold with a 38cm handlebar! This decision doesn’t seem to be driven by a man / woman thing, but rather a scaling down of the bike to suit the proportions of the rider.
After shopping for bikes for my wife lately I have noticed this as well. It seems that some companies will also have similar bikes at similar price points with different specs. Many of the women bikes are generally spec’d with Tiagra and the men bike will have 105. And if they are both spec’d with 105 the women’s will be a little more expensive. I guess some bike manufacturers may not purchase as many women specific saddles or shorter crank arms and thus not get the same price point when building them out, I dont know. It just seems odd to me.
I guess that is a way to fix the gender pay gap. We will start to pay women the same as men but charge them more for stuff… HAHA. We will be able to keep screwing them over and they wont notice.
I have thought about return on inventory as the only logical reason but really, charging one gender more for what is essentially the same bike is really shoddy.
I noted the same thing about components a couple of years ago when shopping for a road bike, and more than 10 years ago when shopping for women’s hockey equipment, which back then was a new thing. F hockey stuff was made of less robust construction and I stayed away from the sham of it.
I wonder if Cannondale figures women are too technologically/mechanically challenged to research the products we buy. I mean, with all those little spinny parts, I get all confused, shake my pretty head and just throw my money at them saying it’s shinny and I want it. /pink
It appears that Trek charges the same for their women’s specific Speed Concepts with the only difference being in paint jobs. I didn’t double check the components be believe they are the same. It’s just crazy that they would need to up charge bikes for women at all let alone by hundreds of dollars.
I agree with the Cervelo guy. The thing is that typically shorter people have longer torsos relative to leg length that taller people do. That is what bike manufacturers need to take into account. It isn’t gender specific. I am a woman who is 5’4", and I have found that unisex bikes fit me better than women’s bikes because I need more reach than women’s bikes have. And I always have them put on my saddle when they assemble the bike anyway, so the justification that the saddle is what makes a bike women specific is BS.
Mountain bike shopping was especially frustrating because shops would try to put me on a WSD bike, and they all come with crappy drivetrains for the same price as the men’s. Bike shops need to understand that if I buy a bike, it becomes a woman’s bike, no matter who it was designed for. Whenever a bike shop tries to push a WSD on me, I make them justify it. Sometimes the bikes will have different components that can explain the price, but if not, I assume they just slapped some pink paint on it and jacked up the price.
I guess it would depend on your fit coordinates, but I would wonder why anyone would look at the Cannondale’s price structure from their own website. With all the other bikes out there right now, I really cant see why anyone would be looking at the Slice anyway, but that is just my opinion. Maybe it is because of the awesome paint on Michele Vesterby’s bike. I guess I could see if one was to look at getting the Nytro Tri package as it seems that the price is less than the MSRP on just the bike.
After looking at a few other brands it seems there are only a few outliers on price differences between M/W bikes. However, some like the Giant Trinity/LIV Avow have some spec differences (besides some design differences) which would account for the pricing differences. When the W bike is more it is because it comes with carbon wheels vs stock wheels or different crankset.
Trek and Canyon bikes seem to be the same pricing for the same level of components. Even the big evil Specialized bikes pricing and specs seem to be the same between M/F.
Some manufacturers are hard for me to tell (like Scott) because they mark their bikes with different levels and somewhat step the Women’s bike between the mens. Scott Contessa Speedster 25 vs Scott Speedster 20 or 30. They then will mix/match components and adjust prices, somewhat within what one would expect. Though this creates a position where there is not necessarily an exact equal component/pricepoint match, which could very well be a benefit at some price points/ levels.
All in all, in the very short amount that I have looked into the bikes it seems Cannondale pricing is out of line. Maybe they have to charge women more since they sponsor the same number of male/female triathletes where the S has 2x more male than female.
I picked up one these new and direct from specialized last year for nearly 70% off MSRP http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/archive/2013/amira/amirasportcompact. It was being sold so cheaply because the market for ‘women’s specific’, and in this case pink accented, 54 and 56cm race bikes is REALLY REALLY small. This puts companies in a hard spot. The cost to manufacture a bike is proportionally to the number of bikes you are building/selling so I am will to bet it does actually cost Cannondale more to make women’s bikes than to make seemingly the same men’s bike. When you factor in the additional risk of not being able to sell the frames I can see how Cannondale justifies the costs.
The plus side is that if you can find a women’s specific frame that is last years model you are in a strong position to negotiate. This is also true for everything else targeted towards the female cycling market. I have been able to get matching pink bottle cages, pink saddle bag and pink bar tape, ect all at steep discounts presumably because no one else is buying pink kit.
It may or may not be relevant that I’m male, and I’m honestly not sure if my wife would have been able to negotiate the same price on the bike. The sales people would have used everything ‘women’s specific’ about the bike to keep the price high where-as I used the same meaningless marketing hype to drive the price down.
I looked up the Nitro package. I think that bike is spec’d differently than how the Ultegra models are spec’d as listed on C’s website (crank, rear cassette, wheels).
As to the wheels… I don’t know the relative worth of Mavic (C-site build) vs Shimano RS11 (part of Nitro build) wheels, but do note the black/green Ultegra on C’s site is spec’d with Vision Team 30 wheels. If someone can tell me that Vision Team 30 wheels are better than Mavic, then this will solve for me the rationale for the black/green Ultegra bike (W’s) costing more than the black/blue Ultegra bike.
Anyone? Is this the case?
(Though, that only explains the difference for the Ultegra build. The 105 build still looks the same to me, but differently priced for the matte grey vs black/green frame).
I have thought about return on inventory as the only logical reason but really, charging one gender more for what is essentially the same bike is really shoddy.
Same bike, different colors (aside from some sizes at the extremes), from what I can tell from a quick look. That’s just marketing, no different than paying more for a specific paint scheme like a team edition. They’re smart to try to capture this market and charge what that market will bear. Plenty of women I know who go into tri look specifically for a “women’s” bike specifically for the colors, even when I tell them that geometry is the same. I have heard disdain from some (not all) female friends at the darker bike colors with no options for lighter colors. Maybe Cannondale would have equal success just adopting the lighter paint schemes as options and charging more for them, but seems like they’re just using “Women’s” as a label for “lighter colors” and some smaller size options.
Not everything has to be a gender issue. There are real, important gender issues. This is not one of them and just adds noise/does a disservice to people seeking real equality.