> > > My guess:
> > > Men's bikes have the bar across because it makes the frame sturdier, or something along those lines.
> > > Women's bikes don't in order to leave room for the skirts of the womans dress.
> >
> >
> > your guess is almost exactly on target. Back in the old days when the bike was first invented (it didn't even have pedals, you just ran your feet on the ground), they made it with a triangle shape in the center section for strength. Then women started wanting to ride bikes. Of course, they met with the usual pigheaded resistance at first because they were women and therefore incapable of doing anything that didn't involve cooking, cleaning, or changing a baby. When they finally got acceptance, they found that their skirt would ride up a bit too much on the crossbar, which would show a little too much (i.e., maybe up to their shins ;) so they redesigned womens bikes to make room for the skirt.
>
> Heh. And talk about pigheaded resistance. How many girls have you seen wearing a long skirt to ride a bike these days? But they still make the bikes that way. Even mountain bikes have a discreet, ladylike inch or two lower on the crossbar, just to show it's a girl's bike. This is really funny because even if they thought people *would* go mountain biking in a dress, the small difference between the men's and women's bikes wouldn't be enough to make the skirt thing work.
>
> Brunnen-"It was right in 1912, it's gotta be right now!"G

Hehe. I don't know just how much difference it would make on the structural integrity of the standard diamond frame -- but I'm going to go ahead and argue that perhaps the industry standard OUGHT to follow the so-called "lady's bike" shape. With the top tube sloping 2-4 inches downwards to the saddle tube, and using wider gel saddles for a more comfortable rear-end fit.

I reason that when buying and teaching their children to first ride a bicycle, many parents get something that is near adult-size, knowing that the kids are bound to "grow into" their bikes. But hey... that means there's a period of several years when the bike isn't really *safe* for the kid to ride it! Salespeople know that when a rider stands stationary and upright with both feet on the ground, there's supposed to be some 2-4 inches leeway between the top tube crossbar and the rider's more tender parts; it also helps a person to brake with his feet on the ground in an emergency. But all this sound, solid reasoning seems to fly out the window when buying bikes that kids can "grow into". I think it's pathetic. And I think the only way to combat this particular form of pathetic-ness is to idiot-proof the standard frame design, and make ALL bike frames into "lady's bikes". So there!

Wolf "Did someone back there imply that Sam had an immense knowledge of 'female physics'?" spirit