pstock

When a not-very-tall female friend (about 5' nothing) asked me for help finding a road bike that fit her, I got curious with the Georgena Terry story.
I eventually secured 2 models. and I am still trying to figure out, completely, how her designs work.

One is a classic GT with the mixed 24x700c wheels. a 24" front wheel. It measures 44cm ST X 47.5cm TT c-c)
and that one I kind of get (I think). the small front wheel allows a decent length headtube (107mm) which in turn allowed her to still fit a rather short toptube (in this case, about 47.5cm. the shortest TT I think you can fit onto a frame with full 700c wheels is about 52cm. So, that's a savings of 2 inches of reach)

but the other one, the blue Symmetry, baffles me a bit.
it's a big frame 56cmST (c-c) and has two 650c wheels.
so what's the design point here? maybe that even a tall women (I figure a 56cm frame would suit someone about 5'10") would still want a shorter toptube? and the 650 wheels allow that? (this one has a 51cm TT which is unheard of I think for a standard wheeled bike.)

But why did some Symmetries have the small 24" wheel while this one has 2 matching 650 wheels?

RobbieTunes

The main point in the 700c/520c frame design was to keep the power and enable the fit to a smaller person, generally with shorter legs. Ms. Terry knew that sacrificing speed would probably not market well. I have seen these do quite well under rather short riders at triathlons. I chatted up the owners, but had to run when they called 911.

The 650c/650c design with a steel bike is generally about gearing, not sizing. When used with "normal" gearing, you should be able to spin better and climb. Still, gear inches are gear inches, so if you want to go the same speed, you have to increase rpm's (seems like that should be r'spm) somewhere to compensate for that.

Schwinn, for example, had the Series 7 PDG Paramount, a well-made and very nice steel frame, funky paint job, and it came in both 650c/650c and an amoeba "splash" paint scheme, and a 700c/700c "splatter" scheme. Per Schwinn's ad, it was "reduced frontal area/wind resistance." I had one and noticed "not much." Of course, being fat may have been a factor. However, given the 650c rear wheel, Schwinn spec'd it with a 54/42 crankset. Maybe it was psychological, but when I climbed on that big ring, I thought it was harder, and when I fell out of a pace line, I had to climb 2-3 cogs, spin back up to cruising speed. Herewith a 56cm Series 7/650c:


The aero "advantage" was all the rage when Cervelo and Kestrel were making the P2 and the 650c Airfoil. Spinning is also kind of a triathlon trait, if you will, so it worked for them. Apparently, not well enough. My problem on this one was fear and loathing of the aero position. I felt so "vulnerable." The Airfoil, also a 56cm:


PS: My Pedal Room page says both cranksets are 56/42.

I truly can't remember, but doubt I ever turned a crankset that big.
Maybe, as the photos show an extremely small likelihood of chain slap, eh?

My mind is not what it used to be.

canklecat

The Terry (and Ironman... Ironwoman... Ironperson) with the smaller front wheels should have been hits. But none of the woman cyclists I know would ride one, even the very diminutive women (a couple of friends might crack 5 feet tall in heels). They prefer their appropriately sized carbon frames with regular 700 wheels.

I suspect the problem was marketing. The Terry and Ironwoman models probably came across as condescending. Instead, they should have emphasized the advantages, pointing to the '90s funny bike trend for time trials.

If I had the money and garage space I'd buy a couple that have lingered on craigslist for months, fix 'em up and coerce a couple of friends into trying them just to get their feedback. I know one who's been making noises about trying a single speed or fixie but can't find an affordable frame her size. The Georgenas and Ironwoman models I've seen locally were asking around $200 and would probably go for much less.

T-Mar

Given equivalent height, a female typically has longer legs than a male but a shorter torso and arms. Consequently, an ideal fitting frame will have a shorter top tube. By utilizing 650C wheels this can be achieved, to a point, without increasing the toe clip over lap with the front wheel.

Having both wheels the same size preserves the traditional appearance, while also reducing weight. However, the reason 650C is popular with triathletes is the decreased aerodynamic drag. The smaller diameter rims are stiffer, allowing them to be built with fewer spokes. Also, it lowers the head tube, allowing for much lower handlebar and torso positions, which further reduce drag.

A lot of average size male triathletes used 650C wheels for the decreased aerodynamic drag. For instance my standard road bicycle is 56cm square (ctc) with 700c wheels. However, my triathlon/TT bicycle uses 650C wheels and has a seat tube that is 49cm (ctc), allowing for a lower aero bar and torso position.

While 650C has lower gear-inches, this is generally not a concern for the typically weaker female cyclist.

The 24" front wheels were used in cases of very short cyclists where a 24" front wheel was necessary to achieve a very short top tube without excessive toe clip to wheel overlap. Originally, it also lowered the head tube allowing for a ver6y low standover height, back when lugs were used and top tubes were horizontal. This last reason has been eliminated by the ability to use TIG welding and sloping top tubes.

Of course, you could obviously have designed around two 24" wheels. While there is a gearing concern, that is relatively easy to solve. The bigger issue was the stygma of riding what is perceived to be a child's bicycle based on the 24" wheel size. Utilizing a 27"/700C rear wheel solves both problems though introduces other issues, such as having to carry two sizes of spares.

pstock

I also wrote Georgena Terry directly about all this. How great for her to reply to me. Here's what she says:

"Thanks for taking time to email me about the wheel sizes. Here’s the scoop on the wheels:

In the beginning, which was around 1984, the 650c tire wasn’t on anyone’s radar. The market was familiar though, with the 24/700c configuration. Not only was I using it, but my initiative came from Bill Boston, a custom builder in Connecticut, who used it on all of his small bikes for both men and women. Your reasoning about the design is correct. It allows the builder to lower and shorten the top tube for smaller riders. The small front wheel is lower than its 700c brethren, so the head tube can be lowered, allowing the top tube to be lower.

The 650c wheel addressed the issue some riders had with the appearance of two different wheel sizes. (I heard one person refer to the design as a “circus bike.”) 650c works well for that rider who may be on the verge of having too long an upper body for 24/700c, but not long enough for twin 700c. I’ve found that even “tall” women prefer a shorter reach to the bars than a man of the same height.

Symmetry was first introduced around 1986 and had a long history. It came into being during the 24/700c era and carried on through 650c. That’s why the same model has both configurations. It just depends on when it was built.

BTW, I still build 24/700c for certain riders. As for 650c, I’ve replaced the 650c size with ISO 559 (26”) because so many more tires are available and the diameter of the tire still allows me achieve a proper fit for some riders.

This video series I did on frame design may shed even more light on things:

Frame Design Videos | Hand-built Steel Bicycles for Women by Georgena Terry

Thanks again for writing. Please let me know if you have more questions.

Best, Georgena"

noglider 

About three years ago, I attended the Philly Bike Expo, and Terry gave a technical talk. She said that back in the 80s, she reached the right conclusion but for the wrong reason. It's not that the torso-to-legs ratio is shorter. It is, sometimes, but there are enough exceptions for it not to be a hard rule. Even if it were the rule, she later learned there is a more compelling reason for women to have a shorter reach. The reason is upper body MASS. Women generally have less, which reduces their STRENGTH for leaning forward.

noglider 

I'll also note that I went to a bike swap with a 5'0" woman friend of mine who was shopping for a bike. She tried out a Terry with a 24" front wheel. She didn't like it because it felt too light. This may have been because of the short wheelbase or the light weight of the front wheel or the nimbleness that a small front wheel creates. She's riding a Surly Cross Check with 26" wheels. She seems to prefer a heavier, slower bike, and the Terry with the 24" wheel appears to be built for speed and nimbleness.

bargainguy

I'll admit to having had a personal bias here, that I thought the 700/520 arrangement looked a bit odd, and the idea of stocking two tire and tube sizes for the same bike didn't help.

Then a few years ago, I decided to build up a commuter bike for the missus, and whadya know, a 700/520 Terry landed in my lap.

The steering feels lower and tighter, like I could swerve on a dime, with a lower center of gravity. I don't think it would feel as tight in dual 700c configuration, it would be a little more upright and a little more sluggish. So what I thought was strange looking is actually quite nice in practice from a riding standpoint. Well worth the inconvenience IMHO.

jimmuller 

All very interesting. Decades ago I bought my sweetie (who is, ah, 5'2" or a bit less) a 19" Motobecane Nomade and she rode it a fair amount. Then we found a 48cm C-T frame built as a showpiece by a local builder. That fit her better than the Nomade and probably handled better too. She rode that a fair amount too but for various reasons stopped. Of course once we started riding the tandem the chances of her getting on a solo bike again weren't very high.

Anyway, a year or two ago I built up a Terry Bandit for her. It's a lower-end bike with 24" & 700c wheels, not especially light but not really heavy either, just a decent medium-weight bike. I gave it 140mm crank arms, just like her crank on the tandem. So far it has spent most of it's useful life on a trainer, and by golly she rode it LOTS. With a short stem it seemed to work for her. Toe-clip/wheel overlap isn't a problem on a trainer and really isn't such a big deal on the road either, but reach to the bar certainly is.

T-Mar

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Terry used to put out a Fit Guide in which she stated that, for males and females having the same length inseam, the female will typically have a shorter torso and arms. The guidelines for bicycle fitting are the same for a male and female, so the female's shorter torso and arms require a shorter stem and top tube combinations.

If it was strictly a matter of lower strength relative to upper body mass, then there would be different fitting guidelines for women and I have yet to see any. I've known several successful female competitive cyclists over the years and they all had sufficient strength to ride the drops for extended periods using stem and top tube configurations that fell within the standard fitting guidelines.

The strength to support a bent over torso is acquired through developing the muscles. If a person hasn't ridden before, this is a difficult and uncomfortable. It is no different for a male or woman. People who stick with the sport, slowly develop the necessary strength and it can be achieved more quickly with proper training to develop the specific muscles.

pstock

No need to agree to disagree. You could ask Georgena herself. She graciously replied promptly to my query to her website's email address.

gt@georgenaterry.com

Indeed she seemed to encourage questions. She actually added a note in her initial response which I didn't copy earlier.

"It makes me crazy when I see people trying to answer questions about my bikes without taking the time to ask me. "

fietsbob

year of production is my guess 24/28 was when drivetrains had freewheels ,
once the 11t cassette was common, the larger rear wheel was unnecessary...



The smaller front wheel was already in use in motor-paced track racing..

fietsbob

how it's done

noglider 

@T-Mar, without training, the average man is stronger than the average woman. Your example uses well trained women, who are categorically not average. The average woman has different needs from a well trained woman. The average woman does not like to lean far forward on a bike.

unterhausen

you can go play with bikecad online and you'll find that toe overlap is a real problem on a bike with a short top tube unless you throw fit out the window and use funny angles, or use small wheels.

I'm really tempted to move this thread to fitting. And please just stop arguing about strength.

noglider 

It's not a tangent. It is a factor in bike fitting, because ... science.

fietsbob

average riders are a much larger market sector , so you sell more bikes..

a lot of engineering goes into letting the rider think about less , also increasing ridership sales volume.

jimmuller 

Toe overlap is almost never a problem on any bike. Check out your own. Except for making a u-turn in the width of a normal 2-lane road you never turn the handlebar enough for it to matter.

Andrew R Stewart 

Having known Georgena since before she tried to build her first bike I feel I have some validity in discussions about her bikes. I'll add that over 10% of my frames have been patterned after her designs.

No where, not ever was strength as a pedaling power aspect ever mentioned. Now strength as an upper body supporting aspect has, right from the beginning. So perhaps Robbie Tunes has miss read the Terry written words...

Georgena was looking for a more comfortable reach (and one that allowed for more hand positions on drop bars instead of the tops only, as is common when reach is too far) and more stand over clearance. As she started to build for others (and yes, for some guys too) she sought out different solutions for these two goals, which led her to Bill Boston and his long/short series of bikes.

I find it so interesting that the riders of her bikes don't tend to follow our industry's fashions or traditions, being a male dominated business there is no surprise at how the products offered are so extremely male view focused. How many female shop owners are there now in this too slowly changing gendered world? Now travel back to the Regan world of the 1980s and guess again... Like is so popular today, when facing facts that run counter to someone's views, defining your competition to fit your views seems to be the winning formula. So too it is in the male centric world of bike shops and bike brands. If a guy didn't have the problem of not being able to confidently reach the brake levers, come to a stop without potential pain and control loss, didn't suffer from shoulder/neck tension after only a few miles and had to suffer with floppy/truck like steering with way high a center of gravity then neither should his lady friend. I don't know how many guys I worked with who would blame the female (you just need to get stronger, get faster, learn how to ride better... suck it up, riding isn't meant to be easy) Like I said, very much like what many do today in blaming the victim.

It was this, and a few other perceptions, that made it so hard for the Terry bikes to meet with greater acceptance. When some brands did try to mimic her designs they usually didn't go far enough. The small ft wheel but with the same top tube lengths as their dual 700c wheeled bikes had, handle bars speced for male width shoulders, brake levers same, Bike models only at the lowest price points (as though women couldn't appreciate nice things and have the money to get them). So often the Terrys in the LBS were off to the side, not showcased. They were sold by guys who didn't understand their potential customers and used male code words (like "fast" or "power") that many women were already tired of hearing elsewhere in their lives. No wonder that many Terrys sat around and didn't sell in enough volume to make it worthwhile to both reorder and expand the women's offerings in general.

One example of this is the spare tube. That one might carry a second tube was considered so wrong, so not fast, so much trouble. Another was the test ride and the Terry's handling. With a smaller wheel the bikes handled with a quicker reaction then the poor geometries of a 700c wheeled bike when small in size. Initial riders would say that the bikes were twitchy. And they were at first. So the solution that was rarely suggested was to go ride their current bike and note how slow/sluggish the handling was then return and retest the Terry to see how much more freely it felt without any toe overlap at all. I'll admit that the time investment a Terry often took to sell was beyond many shops' practices. But as a shop owner who sold Terrys from the very beginning I found those riders often became very profitable with add ons, clothing, service and some of my best word of mouth advocates.

As the 650c wheels became more common (and accepted, after all Moser set his hour record on one, Olympic team event bikes were using them, even tri guys sought them out so they must be faster...) this opened up new options for fit, handling and such. But, like to a degree with the 520 wheel bikes, brands didn't like carrying the extra SKUs of bike models and parts. As the sales (see my earlier comments why) were low in these offerings more and more were dropped. It's easy to believe what you have to sell is what you need to sell.

So to go back, using differing wheel sizes is not about pedaling strength or power. When I hear these arguments used I know that the speaker is buying into the hype of marketing and don't truly understand what's it's like to not fit what's offered. Having such a narrow view of bike design (power, speed) so misses the boat as to why so many riders are rolling along, male or female.

BYW if you really want to learn about the Terry brand and it's history/story just wait a bit. Georgena has told me that she's writing a book about it. When it's published every guy who has a female friend who rides should read it, then pass it along to their friend. Andy. (who notes that there are so few women who post to this forum... no surprise)

Andrew R Stewart 

Spoken like someone who hasn't ever had this problem. I wonder what your front center dimension is? Andy

79pmooney

My first thought when I saw this thread was "Why don't you ask her? She is very approachable."

I have been a fan of hers a long time. I raced when all women raced man's bikes. (Well, not all. A small few had access to framebuilders.) Georgena and I raced the same time although we never crossed paths. New Jersey and New England. Some of the women on men's bikes accommodated them better then others. My training partner did quite well on an Italian Masi. A woman I used to see on my commutes every morning went from a men's bike to a Terry and the difference was like night and day. Now women specific bikes were not invented by Terry. The first women's national champion raced a bike built for her by her dad; Doris Kopsky in 1937. (I met her and saw the bike in the '90s, I have a photo of her on it. It fit. Full sized wheels but it was not a man's bike and it fit.

Ben

jimmuller 

I'm not sure what your question is, but I can say this. I do have bikes with some overlap and I used to worry about it. Then I read a similar statement here in BF and it tweaked my interest. So fairly recently I've watched my wheel when I turned just to see how it worked. It is true, unless you (or at least I) are turning very tight such as in a u-turn the wheel never turns enough to enter the arc of the toe clip. And that explains why I've never experienced any trouble despite my bikes' setups.

79pmooney

I have a couple of bike with overlap. I have to remember when I pull U-turns as they are fix gear. If you are going slow, turning and hit; you may get a real scare. Yes,it is a slow speed fall-over, but it is a harder fall-over to manage nicely than say forgetting your toestraps.

I guess if I just used my bikes to go fast, that overlap wouldn't be an issue. But as a tool that gets used when the "ride" isn't the primary focus, that overlap can be a real nuisance.

Ben

Andrew R Stewart 

Different riders have different issues, fears, experiences and ways to do things. I hear the same thing about toe overlap from my coworkers who don't go slow, don't do many U turns, don't use fenders and who are very experienced. Most of the customers I have dealt with are not these type of riders.

What I was specifically asking is how far apart is your BB center from your ft axle, front center. About 580mm is about the min for a 170 crank arm and not have much more then a brushing of the toe on the wheel. When you push the design math this is around a 515mm top tube with slightly truck like steering geometry and a steep seat tube. Add a fender, a bootie, a wider tire...

Bike are most unstable at slowest speeds. So much of this view depends on how one rides. Slower riders who aren't rather stable and graceful at starting/stopping, at hill climbing or just pulling out of their driveway see toe overlap quite differently. When someone who you care for says they are concerned about jamming their foot on their tire do you not listen and if you can do something about it? Andy

Andrew R Stewart 

Ben- I didn't know that Georgena raced. I believe she did a few time trials locally for her fun. Is that what you meant? Or do you mean riders who she helped to sponsor raced with you? With only one fully working leg she would have been at a big disadvantage against able bodied riders. Andy