Evans Advertisement

Annoying Twit
Posts: 841
Joined: 1 Feb 2016, 8:19am
Location: Leicester

Evans Advertisement

Postby Annoying Twit » 7 Nov 2017, 7:46pm

Evans have been running a siderbar ad for women's cycling clothing.

It points out 'narrower shoulders', 'wider pelvis', 'lower centre of gravity', and then goes on to say 'we know the difference.'

But, it doesn't mention breasts at all. Are breasts unmentionable? Because while I'm no cycling clothing designer, I would guess that accommodating breasts would be an important factor in designing cycling clothing for women.

Not sure if the following will load the ad. Try to 'reload' if the animation doesn't start.

https://banners.host.bannerflow.com/597 ... dow=_blank

Tangled Metal
Posts: 2856
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Tangled Metal » 7 Nov 2017, 8:10pm

A lot of cycling tops stretch to accommodate. Take a look at some MAMILS! Serious moobs going on. If course I think you can take it as read that women's cycling tops can comfortably accommodate typical breast sizes.

Annoying Twit
Posts: 841
Joined: 1 Feb 2016, 8:19am
Location: Leicester

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Annoying Twit » 7 Nov 2017, 8:21pm

I just thought it strange that they wouldn't be mentioned at all.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 6511
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Cunobelin » 7 Nov 2017, 9:05pm

So...

Evans are failing to keep abreast of the issues

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 6511
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Cunobelin » 7 Nov 2017, 9:06pm

I thought the advert was about the bike and the design to accommodate women in bike design

Annoying Twit
Posts: 841
Joined: 1 Feb 2016, 8:19am
Location: Leicester

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Annoying Twit » 7 Nov 2017, 9:24pm

Oh, OK. I may have interpreted 'kit' as clothing.

Flinders
Posts: 2654
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Flinders » 13 Nov 2017, 12:55pm

It's all rubbish anyway. There isn't much difference between female and male leg:torso proportions even on average, and in any case, few people are 'average', like nobody has 2.2 kids, and many of both sexes have proportions that cross over any tiny average differences by a great deal (I measure people with no clothes on as part of my job :mrgreen: ).

The matter of breasts is the same- I had the same height and stats as my fellow-female flatmate back in the day. Nobody ever believed that, but it was true. The reason people didn't believe it was my chest measurement was all ribs, hers was, er, not. Her height was more in her legs, mine in my torso. So although we had the same actual overall height dimensions, our shapes were completely different.

I have broad shoulders and a flat chest, so mostly need mens' Medium shirts etc. If I get something that's like cycling gear (supposed to be close-fitting) with my chest size, that's designed for ladies, I physically can't get my shoulders into it. I know some men with proportionally far narrower shoulders than I have (and bigger breasts in the case of some men carrying a bit of weight). If I get a ladies' top I can get my shoulders into, I can usually get my torso in it twice over and the wrists would be down at my knees, because I'd need an XXL in some brands.

Why they don't just make a variety of sizes and shapes in all colours and describe them as such I have no idea.

Geoff.D
Posts: 1846
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 9:20pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Geoff.D » 13 Nov 2017, 3:40pm

Flinders wrote:Why they don't just make a variety of sizes and shapes in all colours and describe them as such I have no idea.


I'm sure that's a rhetorical question, Flinders. But I can't resist :wink: . So............

It's because they (the manufacturers) want to make the greatest profit they can. One way to do this is to cut labour costs (mechanisation or out sourcing to the third world). Another way is to optimise their production systems by having a limited number of styles, shapes and sizes. This means that they assume (or foist the idea upon us) that we, as individuals, will fit somewhere into that limited number.

Of course, we can choose to be fitted with wonderful cycling wear that fits us perfectly......but we're then into the realms of bespoke tailoring, and the cost goes up. You can't really expect someone who's spent 2.5K squids on a bike to then fork out 100 beer vouchers to have a tailor made top, can you? :roll:

It' was all summed up by Henry Ford when he said "You can have any colour as long as it's black". It's just one of the prices exacted by consumer fuelled capitalism.

Flinders
Posts: 2654
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Flinders » 13 Nov 2017, 6:13pm

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.....

What I meant was not saying 'women's' or men's' but saying 'long arms, narrow shoulders' or whatever. Not making more sizes, just describing them more accurately and without bringing gender into it, which is, as I pointed out, a red herring.

Oh, and not assuming all females like pink. I hate it. And I'm stuck with a weird pink logo on my saddle because it's the best saddle for my backside and happens to be a 'women's' saddle.

Geoff.D
Posts: 1846
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 9:20pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Geoff.D » 13 Nov 2017, 9:34pm

Flinders wrote:Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.....


:lol: :lol:
Waught a laugh.


(But, I do know I can go on a bit. :oops: )

Flinders
Posts: 2654
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby Flinders » 14 Nov 2017, 11:20am

Geoff.D wrote:
Flinders wrote:Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.....


:lol: :lol:
Waught a laugh.


(But, I do know I can go on a bit. :oops: )


I wasn't thinking of that aspect of it- I go on far too much myself! :mrgreen:

ianrobo
Posts: 199
Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 9:52pm

Re: Evans Advertisement

Postby ianrobo » 22 Nov 2017, 8:12pm

At least they avoided the Pinarello mistake !