Are there any actual disadvantages to them? They seem to perform as well as standard bike frames but with the advantage of being easier to mount and dismount without the top bar getting in your way. I know they were originally marketed to women who wore skirts because the top bar on traditional bikes got in the way and exposed their panties but it never quite made sense to me why these weren't just the "default" frame style in the first place, especially since most utility bikes and pretty much every single E-bike on the market uses this style of frame.

Heavier, lower stiffness, not as aero. Basically performance disadvantages that won’t affect most riders.

Also less space for bottles and frame bags and a bit awkward cable routing.

I have 26” mixte bike as my commuter and for me it’s been every bit as good as a regular double diamond frame.

Good quality mixte frames get slept on for being grouped with horrible granny bikes

>>2046766
>lower stiffness, not as aero.
I honestly can't even see these as being a real factor. The riders own body is going to impact aerodynamics before whatever part of the frame that is behind the fork will

>>2046762 (OP)
Of course there is a disadvantage: The geometry does not lend itself to high degrees of stiffness. So if you compare it to a traditional diamond frame and assume that the material you used for both is the same and especially has equal elastic modulus you will either end up with a more flexible bike of the same weight or if you want an equally stiff bike of much greater weight.
You might also argue there is an additional but miniscule weight penalty because of the effectively longer top tube.
Regarding the supposed advantages: I mean I could imagine a scenario where I have injured myself and can not swing a leg over either end of the bike without experiencing pain anymore. But this feels a bit too forced to be a real use case.

Is frame stiffness really that much of a significant factor in the real world? Step through frames still have top tubes, and the entire point of the top tube is make the frame more rigid, so does lowering it slightly actually make a difference? Are there any real world tests to determine what that difference is?

>>2046770
Yes especially since things like stiffness, bending, buckling and so on are often proportional to area or area. moment of inertia.
If you want a bicycle that is fun and feels good and such then it is a huge issue.
If you are only concerned with using it as a meams of transport then some added weight and some reduced stiffness will matter fuck all. I would even go as far and claim that in an endurance setting you are just as fast as the guy on the traditional diamond frame for the same energy input, frontal area and aerodynamic coefficient. It just doesnt feel as fast or precise. And you might actually be ever so slightly slower when sprinting. We are talking single digit percent differences at best here.
One thing that I forgot to mention earlier: It will, all other things being equal again, also have a detrimental effect on robustness. The frame will fail catastrophically as a reaction to a force that the other frame survives and it will fatigue before the other frame. Again: If it's not super lightweight, you dont ride it for 2 million miles and you dont get big air or load real heavy stuff this too is inconsequential.

>>2046778
I want to make two more points.
I almost expect you to point out: 'But modern bicycle designers... '
Yes. They do that to get more people to fit on one frame size so they need less. molds for manufacturing saving a good amount of money. They get away with it because modern materials make super tiff bikes anyways and UCI mandates a minimum weight, so they can just slap that on there, otherwise they'll be forced to add dummy weights later.
>picrel
noodly asf geometrically speaking

>>2046779
meanwhile this is as stiff as possible for the given tubing and while maintaining the same aerodynamic potential you'd get with the same size bike utilizing a horizontal TT.

>>2046770
>Is frame stiffness really that much of a significant factor in the real world?
Not when you're just riding along at slow speed. But it becomes really fucking important when you're sprinting in a race or loading a lot of stuff. Which is why city bikes are often step-through, but road bikes and touring bikes aren't.

>>2046768
It doesn't matter how you see things. Aero is a real factor, it's just that the use case for these kinds of bikes prioritizes other factors. And stiffness is also a real factor. You do not need to be "Lance Armstrong" (as people like you like to say) to notice these things. However, as the anon suggested, there are many factors that need to be considered when choosing a frame for a condition. And if you have never used a bicycle in other conditions, that was optimized for conditions, the whole thing probably seems like voodoo to you.

>>2046762 (OP)
Main inherent disadvantage is bad compatibility with frame bags and bottle cages.
Other disadvantages I could think of are more of a question of how these frames are designed but could possibly be fixed : frames are designed for upright sitting because "step-through = city bike", cables can be a hassle but there is no reason a step-through frame couldn't be designed to have internal routing, a lot of step-through bikes come with big chain guards because "city bike, so you gotta protect your pants".

>>2046762 (OP)
Stiffness is not an issue unless you’re obese stuffed into your riding suit like these gear whores you could smoke on an incline:
>>2046769
>>2046778

>>2046806
Especially this pudge:
>>2046794

Are you Lou Reed posting via a medium?

>>2046806
If the physical properties of a bicycle don't matter then by the same logic the physical properties of the rider also don't matter. Nothing actually matters, unless it makes me feel superior to someone in which case it does.

>>2046782
>slow speed
I beg to differ. And I want to repeat my point: It's not about speed but power delivery. If it is a sustained effortil it makes no difference at high speed either.
>>2046806
Your comment is rather undifferentiated. Also what has obesity to do with it? When we talk stiffness we are talking deflection over force and certainly in a stati contect the obese person burdens the bike with a higher force. But cycling is dynamic and I sure hope I put more force into my bikes than an obese rando would.
The observation of the extreme ends should always be a first step in your dialectic process and you sure must agree that you can not ride a wet noodle. You may then go to argue that there was a magical point of diminished returns where adding stiffness does nothing more and any bicycle was stiff past this point. Then where is this point. Alot of engineers would like to know, so they get to shave of weight off nlunsanctioned hillclimb bikes at the cost of making them acceptably noodly. Id love to watch those races. Can't make out such point? So you'd have to agree there does indeed exist a continuum.
>>2046810
He's got a point.

>>2046762 (OP)
>Are there any actual disadvantages to them?
you get called out for riding a "girls bike"

>>2046834
The average cagie doesn't own a bike and wouldn't even be able to tell the difference and the averge bikefag wouldn't give a shit either because they're desperate for other riders that aren't on e-bikes anyways

>>2046770
>>2046768
They usually compensate for lower stiffness by being heavy as fuck. You can see the difference on bikecad very easily. E bikes give no fucks about weight, and have a super heavy, overbuilt bottom triangle tube because of the battery anyways so it's not as much of an issue.

>>2046769
It makes more of a difference if your'e short, and at risk of nutting yourself on any stop.

>>2046806
Cargo.

my mtb is step trough

>>2046768
You haven't ridden actually floppy step-throughs. They are terrifying. Aero is worthless, but a bike can definitely be not stiff enough.

>>2046944
True, the only step throughs I tend to ride are cruisers or utility bikes but they're usually made with relatively thick frames

>>2046762 (OP)
they are better for free hand riding as there is more room for your knees to counterbalance while pedalling
>>2046944
kek, and it only gets worse if you try and fight the wobble.
that said id still rather have a step though bike for loading up with pannier bags.

>>2046898
>nutting yourself
skill issue.
You can't just make a list of things that you could do to yourself using a bicycle and then claim no bicycle at all is the best bicycle because you can not do all those things to yourself anymore.

>>2046890
They absolutely would. From childhood, step-throughs are coded as feminine and most everybody had a bike as a kid.

>>2047181
Most step through bicycles aren't pink tricycles anon

>>2047186
Its a quad.

>>2046766
>not as aero
All I needed to hear. Thanks anon

>>2046762 (OP)
they kind of suck at climbing up hills due to the handle bar types fitted to them, and the seats being a bit too low.
>.t megadrive swapped an old Giant sphere

>>2047186
If you know so little about bikes that you call one with training wheels a tricycle, then I feel comfortable discarding your ideas as retardation written by a loser. Your childhood must have sucked and you should feel bad about yourself for that.

>>2047299
OP was specifically asking about frames. Not bars typically fitted to those frames.
I think they 'usually' come with swept back bars btw.
Would the skirt guars benefit aero

>>2047181
Funny, I associate that mono tube design with the srs bzns mountain bikes of yesteryear

>>2047348
dont be lazy
>decathlon rockrider

>>2047330
>Would the skirt guars benefit aero
In my experience, skirt guards, mud guards, chain guards et al usually add extra drag surfaces and generally make aero worse but at the benefit of going through a puddle not leaving a skidmark on your back. I took the fenders/mud guards off of my bike because for me it did make a a significant difference in how the bike handled and accelerated but I kept the chain guard just to help keep it from rusting

>>2047330
its also partly the frame geometry placing the rider a further back on the frame, could be corrected with a longer seat post with some set forward.
the first gen Giant TCR is a bit like this in having a long tear drop shaped seat post. the seat being forward on its rails, and a fairly long quill stem.
anyway I found bull horns bars were best for climbing, good grip that's easy on the wrists and the bars are typically a little wider so allow the lungs to work better.
>Would the skirt guards benefit aero
idk maybe, nullwinds aerodefender made some claims to that effect, they are fairings that only really cover the top of the wheel
>>2047362
>tfw the uci banned enclosed chain cases

>>2047362
someone here said that Sheldon said that fenders are aero.

>>2047362
>>2047367
I was mostly ironic. Vut then again I've made the claim before and will do it again. Some surfaces on a bicycle are particularly bad news for aerodynamics, like the wheels. A wheel, with its spokes, mkves in the dirdction of travel at up zo twice the velocity of the bicycle. Aerodynamic drag increases with the square of thaf velocity. So up to 4 times the drag the frontal area and shape of those surfaces would otherwise suggest. Which is why particularly fenders have the potential to be at least neutral if not positive. It is also why fenders are the wet dream of engineers in open wheel formula car racing.
The chain case starts to be a very intersting part for optimization once you consider reducing or doing away entirely the chainstays.
But in that case irs important to consider the conditions under which you reap the benefits and with that who the design is for and who not. The chaincase adds alot of lateral area. As such the benefit is very sensitive to apprent wind direction and apparent wind direction on average improves with the speed you go. So such optimization may benefit the rider who goes 45 but can be detrimental to riders who slow roll.

I check /n/ like once every 3 years or something and this thread encapsulates everything wrong with this board to the point of comedy

I hope you guys find god or a girlfriend, whichever comes first

>>2046762 (OP)
Sex for real

>>2047500
Things wrong with this board:
(You) being here every 3 years.

>>2047500
I wouldn,t be here if it weren't for
>tfw no step-through riding gf

>ITT
>step-throughs are less aero because they flex
???
Shit argument, Mountain Bikes are literally designed to flex under load for example, so clearly that's not a deal breaker

>>2047181
Yeah but all the bike sharing bikes are step through

>>2048152
Step-throughs are basically the default frame for e-bikes in general

>>2048156
I just got an e-bike (tho its a mtn bike) and embarrassed myself by barely being able to sit on it cuz the seat was a bit too high and he was like goading me to sit way higher than i was comfy
step through sounds nice as fuck but i dont want to compromise structural integrity