>>2046762with modern materials not really
but i find them annoying for mounting cargo within the frame. too many weird angles and not enough space overall. they're also annoying to service for the sole reason that the angled top bar of the frame makes it wonky to lift and maintain level.
they're not bad and i wouldnt not buy a bike over it but if i had the option i would get a "male" frame just so i can mount bags and accessories in it easier and lift/hang it by the frame without wanting to kill someone for the 30 seconds it takes me to finangle it
>>2047181this has historical precedent; the step-through frame was made to adapt for skirts/dresses/cloaks. though i think it was less because of pantyshots (this will happen while pedaling anyway) and more because it would compromise the warmth of the skirt to not let it drape properly.
>>2046762>and pretty much every single E-bike on the market uses this style of frame.this is one of those "one manufacturer got big and everyone copied them" things
but it originally came in because a thicc single bar extending from the pedal gives you room to mount a battery and route cables and spyware internally and such. and once you have all that there and it's as thick as two normal frame tubes anyway, why even bother with the top bar. seriously, the og reason for it was because they were made for rideshare companies and needed to mount mid 00s GPS units and much larger batteries and such in them, and they can get away with just having way thicker walls on the tube because they already need it to be crash and nigger proof.
on a normal bike all that stuff will be frame, handlebar, or pannier mounted though so it's not relevant and an inappropriate design due to the extra weight, unreliability, and generally looking cringe. but you can also get them on liquidation for 3$ and the extra five grams is not worth caring about so whatever