Challenges for Women in Cycling: Talking Handlebars

I've worked with hundreds of cyclists, from beginners to elite athletes. One pattern I see time and again is discomfort caused by handlebars that are simply too wide for the riders' anatomy. While broader bars can offer stability and control, they're often selected without considering individual parameters.

Although some manufacturers have started offering narrower handlebars, the default widths are still often unsuitable for riders with more compact upper body structures. In practice, this often leads to a cascade of issues: from numb hands and wrist discomfort to triceps fatigue and tension in the neck and shoulders. Wider handlebars also extend the effective reach to the controls, encouraging riders to roll their shoulders forward, something I regularly see contributing to postural strain in long rides or races.

Taking precise anatomical measurements, especially shoulder width, and considering the intended use of the bike along with the rider's individual posture is crucial for determining the ideal handlebar width. But with the UCI now enforcing a minimum handlebar width of 40 cm (measured outside-to-outside), that individualization is strongly being restricted, particularly for smaller riders and women.

Because this topic deals with women-specific physiology and experiences, I didn't want to write the article on my own. It felt important to include a female voice. To explore the impact of the new regulation and the broader challenges women face in cycling ergonomics, I spoke with Jen Newbery, an experienced bike fitter, physiotherapist, and former professional triathlete from Sheffield, UK, who works closely with female riders in both recreational and competitive settings.

N: Let's start with the core of the issue. From your perspective as a bike fitter and former pro athlete, how do you assess the new UCI regulations on handlebar width, especially in terms of biomechanics and performance for female riders?

J: The new UCI regulations on handlebar width raise significant concerns, particularly regarding their impact on female riders. From a biomechanical perspective, the rules appear to lack adequate consideration for the natural anatomical differences between male and female athletes. Women typically have narrower shoulders than men, and as a result, often ride with narrower handlebars to accommodate their unique biomechanical needs and to optimize comfort, control, and performance.

"For many women, a 40 cm handlebar is simply too wide, potentially compromising bike handling, efficiency, and even increasing the risk of injury due to poor positioning."

Jen Newbery, Professional Bike Fitter

N: In many of my fittings, I've seen how wider handlebars not only cause discomfort, but can also lead to numb hands, shoulder strain, or reduced bike control, especially in women with narrower shoulders. What impact do you see from the 40 cm minimum width in terms of comfort, performance, and safety?

J: By enforcing a minimum handlebar width, such as the proposed 40 cm standard, the new regulation risks disadvantaging a substantial portion of the female peloton. For many women, a 40 cm handlebar is simply too wide, potentially compromising bike handling, efficiency, and even increasing the risk of injury due to poor positioning. Optimal performance in cycling is highly dependent on a rider's ability to fine-tune equipment to their specific body geometry. A one-size-fits-all approach, especially in such a critical contact point as the handlebars, undermines this principle. As it stands, the rule may disproportionately impact female riders and limit their ability to compete on an equal footing, highlighting the need for the UCI to revisit the regulation with greater sensitivity to gender-specific biomechanical realities.

N: Speaking of performance: it's often seen as something that must come at the expense of comfort. But in the setups I develop with my athletes, I've often found the opposite to be true. Only a rider who feels truly comfortable on the bike can perform at their highest level. Discomfort creates tension, disrupts movement patterns, and leads to early fatigue. Real performance comes from working with the body, not against it and that starts with a position the athlete can sustain confidently and efficiently. Would you agree that comfort and performance aren't opposites, and that optimizing comfort can actually unlock greater racing potential?

J: I definitely agree with that. Comfort is directly linked to performance. When a rider is in pain or discomfort, their ability to generate power efficiently and maintain an aerodynamic position is compromised. Additionally, handling becomes more difficult, especially in tight or technical corners, because the rider must operate outside of their natural biomechanics. Reaching too far out can also increase the risk of losing control of the bike in high-pressure racing situations. Beyond performance issues, the safety implications are just as serious. Poor fit can result in nerve compression, leading to symptoms such as numbness, tingling, and loss of sensation in the hands. Over time, this not only reduces bike control but can also contribute to overuse injuries.

N: The UCI argues this regulation improves rider safety. From what I see in practice, poor fit often leads to greater risk, not less. Would you agree?

J: Absolutely. From both a biomechanical and practical standpoint, this ruling could actually reduce rider safety, particularly for those with narrower shoulders, which includes the vast majority of female cyclists. Forcing riders to use handlebars that are too wide for their body type compromises comfort, control, and handling.

N: Let's zoom out a bit. I often find that it's not just the handlebar width that doesn't fit. Other components like crank length, stem length, and overall frame geometry are frequently mismatched as well. Cranks, for example, are often too long, and we regularly recommend going shorter. The benefits are clear: reduced stress on the hips and knees, and a better ability to maintain an aerodynamic and sustainable position.

When it comes to women-specific frames and components, I often see smaller riders, especially women, struggling with stock setups that simply don't match their proportions. Overly long cranks, wide handlebars, and integrated stems often make it difficult to achieve an efficient and comfortable fit without costly modifications. What are the most frequent ergonomic issues you encounter in your work with female cyclists?

J: I'm completely with you on that. Even when a frame size is appropriate, the components that come with the bike, such as crank lengths, handlebars, and stems, are often too large. For example, it's common to see bikes in size XS fitted with 170mm cranks, which are often too long for riders of that stature.

There's also a clear disparity between entry-level and high-end options. For instance, with many manufacturers, the cheapest models only go down to size S or XS with 170mm cranks, while the more expensive models offer 2XS and sometimes even 3XS sizes with more appropriate 165mm cranks. This means that smaller women are often excluded from more affordable models that might otherwise suit their needs.

N: As a fitter, it's frustrating to see that these challenges are still so common. I'm also critical of bike sizing systems that rely solely on body measurements to recommend frame size. In my experience, individual factors such as flexibility, strength, and limitations like hip impingements or scoliosis have a massive influence on the right bike choice, and should always be taken into account. That makes it incredibly difficult to choose not only the right frame size, but also the most suitable frame geometry, without including these factors in the decision-making progress.

Some brands, like Orbea, have begun to offer more customization options, such as smaller frame sizes with 165 mm cranks and narrower 36 cm handlebars, which can make a meaningful difference for riders with more compact proportions. It's a positive development, although still the exception rather than the rule.

What's your take on what the major brands are currently offering in terms of women-specific bikes and components? Do you feel the industry is heading in the right direction?

"As a fitter, it's frustrating to see that these challenges are still so common."

Nils Kehrberg, professional bike fitter

J: Many women are riding bikes that simply aren't designed with their body proportions in mind. A major contributing factor is that bike sizing is still largely based on male-centric standards. Many bike shops rely heavily on generic sizing charts without fully understanding the anatomical differences between male and female riders. As a result, women are frequently sold bikes that don't fit them properly, leading to discomfort, reduced performance, and a greater risk of injury over time.

The range of women-specific bike frames and components has never been truly adequate, and I would argue it's still well below what's needed, particularly for smaller female riders. There are simply more small women than small men, yet the market continues to under-serve this segment.

Liv has made some effort as well, offering size XS frames with 165mm cranks, but the broader industry still falls short of meeting the real-world needs of female cyclists. More inclusive sizing and properly spec'd components should be the norm, not the exception.

N: Beyond bike fit: What needs to change to make cycling more equal and fairer for women?

J: First and foremost, equal pay is essential. Female cyclists often train and compete at the same elite level as their male counterparts but are not compensated or supported accordingly. This disparity sends a clear message about the value placed on women's sport and it needs to change.

Secondly, we need more research specifically focused on female athletes. Too often, findings from studies conducted on men are simply applied to women, despite clear physiological, hormonal, and biomechanical differences. Women are not just "small men," and training, equipment, and nutrition strategies should reflect that reality.

Improved media coverage, including more consistent and high-quality TV broadcasts, is also vital. Visibility drives sponsorship, fan engagement, and ultimately, growth in the sport. Likewise, greater support and promotion on social media platforms can help amplify female athletes' voices and achievements.

Together, these changes would not only improve conditions for women currently in the sport but also help inspire the next generation of female cyclists by showing them that they belong and can thrive at every level of the sport.

---

Thanks to all co-authors: