Small cycling update

Ekul Namsob said:

Grandparents have obtained (from a jumble sale, so we're not obliged to
keep it for any length of time) a BSO for her which weighs about the
same as Kate's Revolution Courier Nexus and so we would like to find
something lighter and better made.

Hold on for just a mo. Have you considered the advantages of keeping BSO for the moment
and looking at something better in the longer term. If BSO 'does the job' then just
because it isn't Rolls-Royce isn't reason in itself for ditching it. For example having a
bike that can be mistreated without worrying might be a good thing for a child. It gets
put on the ground, left unattended while playing and so on. And every day is another inch
taller. A bike that is a 'precious thing' to be treated with reverence (like we grown-ups
do) may not be the best thing for a kid knocking about with her mates.

I fully appreciate that you or I wouldn't ride such a thing with second or 3rd rate
fittings but if the brakes work and the bar-ends are plugged it might be ideal for now.

I don't know how long one bike will fit a growing child. 18 months? 6 months delay now
means 6 months gain later.

--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:57:40 GMT,

(Ekul Namsob) said:

We've just returned from our holidays, where we camped in Bavaria and at
Lake Garda, and Small is now so confident on her bike that she will
happily cycle with her feet on the top tube, much to my pride and alarm.

She has comprehensively outgrown her Raleigh Ollie 12"- with the seat at
its highest, Small's feet are flat on the ground- so we are looking for
something bigger.

Grandparents have obtained (from a jumble sale, so we're not obliged to
keep it for any length of time) a BSO for her which weighs about the
same as Kate's Revolution Courier Nexus and so we would like to find
something lighter and better made.

I know that Islabikes come strongly recommended but we wonder whether
Small would be better off with hub gears. Are there any other brands we
ought to be looking at?

Puky.

http://www.pukydirect.co.uk/puky_product/childrens_bicycles/

But you will need a generous wallet. The only way to think about it
it that you can buy two for the price of a Playstation 3. Still, it's
probably best to get very drunk before you hit that "confirm order"
key.

Where are you based? I'm in South East London (or Saarf Eest Lundon
as they say rand 'ere) and could offer "Small" a test ride on an
Islabike Cnoc 16 or Beinn 20. Otherwise you will need to go to
Birmingham for a test ride. The Cnoc 16 has back pedal brakes but no
gears. The Beinn 20 has 6 gears.

Am Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:57:40 GMT schrieb Ekul Namsob:

Quoted message said:

Grandparents have obtained (from a jumble sale, so we're not obliged to
keep it for any length of time) a BSO for her which weighs about the
same as Kate's Revolution Courier Nexus and so we would like to find
something lighter and better made.

I know that Islabikes come strongly recommended but we wonder whether
Small would be better off with hub gears. Are there any other brands we
ought to be looking at?

Have a look at the offers of Puky
http://www.puky.net/index.php
They offer a number of children bikes with 3 gear hub.

Andreas

Peter Fox said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Grandparents have obtained (from a jumble sale, so we're not obliged to
keep it for any length of time) a BSO for her which weighs about the
same as Kate's Revolution Courier Nexus and so we would like to find
something lighter and better made.

Quoted message said:

Hold on for just a mo. Have you considered the advantages of keeping
BSO for the moment and looking at something better in the longer term.
If BSO 'does the job' then just because it isn't Rolls-Royce isn't
reason in itself for ditching it.

Though of course one must keep one's eye on "the job". Unless she's out
all the time it's tricky to tell if the bike's weight is actually
putting her off, or if she just doesn't want to be cycling all the time.

Quoted message said:

For example having a bike that can be
mistreated without worrying might be a good thing for a child. It gets
put on the ground, left unattended while playing and so on.

But this isn't going to harm any decently made bike. Part of the point
of a good bike is it'll stand up to abuse well.

Quoted message said:

I don't know how long one bike will fit a growing child. 18 months? 6
months delay now means 6 months gain later.

From my first real cycling adventures (on a wee trike, though with a
proper chain rather than a toy with direct drive) I got through a total
of 3, each of which was a hand-me-down, before I had a full size frame
I'd "grow into". Given that current compacts will scale better than
70s80s frames did that suggests 18 months is a bit pessimistic.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tom Crispin said:

Puky.

http://www.pukydirect.co.uk/puky_product/childrens_bicycles/

But you will need a generous wallet. The only way to think about it it
that you can buy two for the price of a Playstation 3. Still, it's
probably best to get very drunk before you hit that "confirm order" key.

They're still not light. Others that do reasonable bikes in children's
sizes are Scott and Ridgeback.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Peter Clinch said:

But this isn't going to harm any decently made bike. Part of the point
of a good bike is it'll stand up to abuse well.

Kids see bikes in a completely different way to adults and its important,
if you want them to get a lot of use out of them, to ensure its a bike
they want to ride. Things like colour are very important and even a
cheap plastic basket with the right flower on can be the difference
between something they want to or don't want to ride. As adults we tend
to buy them bikes according to what we look for - weight, components,
build quality etc - which are the wrong criteria IMO. I just bit my
tongue, went with their choices and made sure it was properly set up or
upgraded to be safe to ride. Out cycling weight or the finer points of
the ride were never an issue to them.

Quoted message said:

Given that current compacts will scale better than
70s80s frames did that suggests 18 months is a bit pessimistic.

Trust me, its not!!!

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Kids see bikes in a completely different way to adults and its important,
if you want them to get a lot of use out of them, to ensure its a bike
they want to ride. Things like colour are very important and even a
cheap plastic basket with the right flower on can be the difference
between something they want to or don't want to ride. As adults we tend
to buy them bikes according to what we look for - weight, components,
build quality etc - which are the wrong criteria IMO. I just bit my
tongue, went with their choices and made sure it was properly set up or
upgraded to be safe to ride. Out cycling weight or the finer points of
the ride were never an issue to them.

This chimes very much with my memories of my own childhood experience.
So back to the original point, if the young lady in question /likes/ the
BSO then it's a good bike for this purpose (as long as it's roadworthy),
and if she doesn't then it isn't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Given that current compacts will scale better than
70s80s frames did that suggests 18 months is a bit pessimistic.

Quoted message said:

Trust me, its not!!!

Depends on whether one looks at what is ideal or workable. My folks
certainly weren't going to be able to keep 3 kids in new (even new to
us) bikes every 18 months, so faced with that reality it didn't happen.
But we were all riding bikes regularly.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Depends on whether one looks at what is ideal or workable. My folks
certainly weren't going to be able to keep 3 kids in new (even new to
us) bikes every 18 months, so faced with that reality it didn't happen.
But we were all riding bikes regularly.

Neither were mine which is why for a year I rode a bike I could only ride
standing up until I grew enough to reach the pedals from the saddle. I
don't recall it bothering me at all - having a bike was much more
important. It used to be quite common but not anymore. To keep ours in
bikes that fitted them required regular changing and with twins there
were no hand me downs to ease the pain :-(

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Peter Fox said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Grandparents have obtained (from a jumble sale, so we're not obliged to
keep it for any length of time) a BSO for her which weighs about the
same as Kate's Revolution Courier Nexus and so we would like to find
something lighter and better made.

Hold on for just a mo. Have you considered the advantages of keeping BSO
for the moment and looking at something better in the longer term. If BSO
'does the job' then just because it isn't Rolls-Royce isn't reason in
itself for ditching it.

Don't worry: we're planning ahead to Christmas.

Quoted message said:

For example having a bike that can be mistreated without worrying might be
a good thing for a child. It gets put on the ground, left unattended
while playing and so on. And every day is another inch taller. A bike
that is a 'precious thing' to be treated with reverence (like we grown-ups
do) may not be the best thing for a kid knocking about with her mates.

Small is unlikely to treat the thing with reverence. I'm still trying to
persuade her to treat the paintwork of my car with reverence as she
throws her monkey bike to the ground.

Quoted message said:

I fully appreciate that you or I wouldn't ride such a thing with second or
3rd rate fittings but if the brakes work and the bar-ends are plugged it
might be ideal for now.

I don't know how long one bike will fit a growing child. 18 months? 6
months delay now means 6 months gain later.

I'm led to believe that Small should be able to get a couple of years
use out of a bike. Indeed, Monkey Bike was bought for her second
birthday.

I don't know whether Small's even big enough to make use of a
three-speed hub gear yet but wouldn't be surprised to find she can cope
with one soon.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin said:

Puky.

http://www.pukydirect.co.uk/puky_product/childrens_bicycles/

But you will need a generous wallet. The only way to think about it it
that you can buy two for the price of a Playstation 3. Still, it's
probably best to get very drunk before you hit that "confirm order" key.

They're still not light. Others that do reasonable bikes in children's
sizes are Scott and Ridgeback.

With dynamo lights, hub brakes, hun gears, rear rack and mudguards it
ain't going to light. But at least all that extra weight is of more
benefit than front suspension.

Peter Fox said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Grandparents have obtained (from a jumble sale, so we're not obliged to
keep it for any length of time) a BSO for her which weighs about the
same as Kate's Revolution Courier Nexus and so we would like to find
something lighter and better made.

Hold on for just a mo. Have you considered the advantages of keeping BSO for the moment
and looking at something better in the longer term. If BSO 'does the job' then just
because it isn't Rolls-Royce isn't reason in itself for ditching it. For example having a
bike that can be mistreated without worrying might be a good thing for a child. It gets
put on the ground, left unattended while playing and so on. And every day is another inch
taller. A bike that is a 'precious thing' to be treated with reverence (like we grown-ups
do) may not be the best thing for a kid knocking about with her mates.

I fully appreciate that you or I wouldn't ride such a thing with second or 3rd rate
fittings but if the brakes work and the bar-ends are plugged it might be ideal for now.

I don't know how long one bike will fit a growing child. 18 months? 6 months delay now
means 6 months gain later.

This is M&S's boys' inside leg chart (they don't do inside leg for
girls):

Age: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Leg: 40 45 48 51 54 57 60 64

This is Islabikes' inside leg size range:
Wheel: 14 16 20 24 26
Leg: 36-45 42-50 47-60 57-68 64-74

Taking the Cnoc 16 as an example, it should be able to be ridden by
the average 3:4 year old until 5:10 or for 2 years and 6 months.

Taking the Beinn 20 as another example, it should be able to be ridden
by the average 4:10 year old until 9:0 that's 4 years and 2 months.

NOTE: The inside leg measurements for bikes is crotch to floor in
socks. The M&S inside leg measurement is crotch to where the trouser
is normally worn on the shoe, so the two charts above use slightly
different criteria. This should not affect the quoted range by much.

Am Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:15:06 +0100 schrieb Tom Crispin:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin said:

Puky.
http://www.pukydirect.co.uk/puky_product/childrens_bicycles/

They're still not light. Others that do reasonable bikes in children's
sizes are Scott and Ridgeback.

With dynamo lights, hub brakes, hun gears, rear rack and mudguards it
ain't going to light. But at least all that extra weight is of more
benefit than front suspension.

The models Skyride and Crusader 20-3 weigh 12.5 kg. A typical 26"
Full-suspension BSO weighs about 20 kg. The equivalent 20" version for kids
might somewhere around 14-15 kg. Even many 16"-wheel children bikes weigh
around 12 or 13 kg. So I would not say that the Puky bikes are that heavy.

Andreas

Ekul Namsob said:

She has comprehensively outgrown her Raleigh Ollie 12"- with the seat at
its highest, Small's feet are flat on the ground- so we are looking for
something bigger.

Be careful of kids and bikes which are too small for them. My 8yr old
daughter had a nasty crash a few months back. We were cycling home from
Brownies along the road and she was peddling like mad (as kids do). Next
thing there was a nasty thump and all I could see is her face down in the
road.

Turns out her foot had slipped off the pedal and gone forward into the
front wheel which then locked out. The bike was not tiny for her but
like your daughter her feet planted fully on the ground at max seat
height so reaching a foot into the front wheel was not too difficult.

She made a full recovery but it was pretty nasty and harrowing. Her shoes
were girly flat slip on ones (more like ballet shoes) which offered hardly
any protection and a neighbour and I had to cut the spokes to free her
foot from the wheel. Amazingly her foot was not broken (but the steel
forks were!) but she had a nasty wound on the top of her foot which we had
to get treated for several weeks. Her other injuries were some gashes in
her head and grazes on almost every limb. I think we were probably doing
about 12mph - maybe more.

She is back on a bigger bike now and I have almost got over the
nightmares! Thinking about it still makes my blood run cold though.

Cheers
Noel

Andreas Schulze-Bäing said:

The models Skyride and Crusader 20-3 weigh 12.5 kg. A typical 26"
Full-suspension BSO weighs about 20 kg. The equivalent 20" version for kids
might somewhere around 14-15 kg. Even many 16"-wheel children bikes weigh
around 12 or 13 kg. So I would not say that the Puky bikes are that heavy.

Islabikes Cnoc 16 is 8 Kg.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Kids see bikes in a completely different way to adults and its important,
if you want them to get a lot of use out of them, to ensure its a bike
they want to ride. Things like colour are very important and even a
cheap plastic basket with the right flower on can be the difference
between something they want to or don't want to ride.

I think it depends very much on the kid - I didn't care what I rode as
long as it had wheels and pedals. :-)

Tony Raven said:

Peter Clinch said:

But this isn't going to harm any decently made bike. Part of the point
of a good bike is it'll stand up to abuse well.

Kids see bikes in a completely different way to adults and its important,
if you want them to get a lot of use out of them, to ensure its a bike
they want to ride. Things like colour are very important and even a
cheap plastic basket with the right flower on can be the difference
between something they want to or don't want to ride. As adults we tend
to buy them bikes according to what we look for - weight, components,
build quality etc - which are the wrong criteria IMO. I just bit my
tongue, went with their choices and made sure it was properly set up or
upgraded to be safe to ride. Out cycling weight or the finer points of
the ride were never an issue to them.

Quoted message said:

quite as a kid i rode single speed kids bikes, probably weigh more than
my bikes now, and certinaly i had no chance of getting up the hills
though i did use one in junors for a few weeks doing cycle training. did
manage to get up most of the hills on the way back, must of been fun on
the way there!

roger

snips

--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:57:40 GMT,
[email hidden] (Ekul Namsob) said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

She has comprehensively outgrown her Raleigh Ollie 12"- with the seat at
its highest, Small's feet are flat on the ground- so we are looking for
something bigger.

We looked at Puky (obviously) but Pete chose a 20" Trek, and it was
surprisingly good. All kids' bikes weigh more than you think they
should, the Trek is at least aluminium and not a senseless Y-frame
thing.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound