Lots of manufacturers stop calling that frame shape woman's bikes, but rather find terms like step through or low step and so on to be better suited. This frame design is a lot more accessible for people who aren't as mobile anymore (think old people, people with hip problems, heavy people) and are also much easier to handle with tall cargo on the back, typical example would be a child seat.

For the average person, this frame design is probably preferable as there are no benefits to the typical male frame shape.

My parents think it looks odd when a guy sits on one of these, but then my parents are in their sixties :>

[–] leross@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Since I am a father and decided to bring my kid with me on bike rides, I needed that frame. It's just convenient to not have to Jean Claude Van Damme before each ride.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't understand why there's even a difference? Seems like that frame design would work great for everyone?

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 1 year ago

They were originally made so that a woman could ride a bicycle while wearing a dress or skirt.

[–] noobnarski@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

The disadvantage is higher weight for the same structural strength because the lower and upper tube are closer together (or combined into one tube) so the leverage is much less.

I dont mind the "mens" frame, but if other people want to use a low step frame I am not going to call them sissies or something stupid like that.