Child carrying advice please

[R.White]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> pas wrote:
> >
> > http://www.specialtyoutdoors.com/misc/babyseat.jpg
> >
> > here's how they do it in some countries. We built one like this ourselves
> > for around town, it's actually much more stable than over the back wheel as
> > the CG doesn't change a whole lot and the kid is inside your arms.
>
> I've never liked this kind of arrangement as it places the child at some
> risk in the case of an emergency or sudden stop. At least the example
> you show has a rigid back that should help prevent the adult crushing
> into the child. the worst are those clamp on saddles that go on the top
> tube with two foot supports attached to the down tube.
> However I don't like the idea of the child being flung forward onto the
> handlebar clutter or worse, which even with strapping is possible with
> some arrangements. At least if they are on the back they have a soft
> back to knock into.

I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.

 

[Sverre Amundsen]

On 5 Aug 2004 05:26:11 -0700, Rory <[email protected]> wrote:

> Some trailer plus points:

[snip]

> * Exhaust fumes measured in a child trailer are lower than inside
> a car
> * Studies in Germany show that even in the case of impact with a car,
> the trailer being light is shunted out of the way, rather than
> crushed.

Can you document this? I'd like to read these studies myself. I'm not
trying to troll, I own a trailer, but I'm very concerned about using it
anywhere close to traffic.

Sverre


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

[Paul Hamilton]

I've tried trailer, backpack, and child seat. I have found that the
trailer is by far the best option in terms of stability, comfort,
riding qualities, effeciency, safety, and payload. As you have
undoubtably noticed, any travel with a child requires a lot of stuff
-- at first a diaper bag, later the child's backpack. The trailer
hauls all this.

I've put about 600 miles/1000 km on my trailer this summer alone,
taking my daughter to day camp. If I didn't have the trailer, my car
would have been the sole practical alternative.

Paul

 

[Peter Clinch]

Sverre Amundsen wrote:

> Can you document this? I'd like to read these studies myself. I'm not
> trying to troll, I own a trailer, but I'm very concerned about using it
> anywhere close to traffic.

Why? Might just as well be concerned that the pavements are close to
traffic if your kids are ever walking or being wheeled along them.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[JohnB]

"R.White" wrote:


> I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.

Did you fall out of a seat as a kid then ;-)

John B

 

[R.White]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "R.White" wrote:
>
>
> > I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.
>
> Did you fall out of a seat as a kid then ;-)

Yes, but I was wearing a h*lmet.

 

[MattB]

Rory wrote:
<snip>
> * Get a good coupling (Becco or Weber are my favourites) - don't
> use the Trek / Burley clamp-on one, it is utter ****, and interferes
> with the wheels when turning on many bikes.
> * Ensure the coupling is firmly attached (I don't like the QR skewer
> ones)
> * Always use a secondary retainer strap in case the coupling breaks

I have a Trek ball in socket coupling that goes on the rear axle that came
with my Rocket and it works very well. I wonder of your experience was on
older designs. It also has a built-in secondary strap in case of failure,
which has not been needed after daily use for the past couple of summers.

We keep one on each of our (my wife and my) town bikes for easy trailer
swapping. We just got the socket part since they don't have QRs and that
makes them pretty permanent and solid.

I agree the clamp-ons are a bad idea, even though I've never used one they
don't look as reliable as an axle mount.

Matt (haven't lost a kid yet...)

 

[scurry]

J G wrote:

>>we can't decide whether she should go for a seat on the back or a trailer.
>>
>>Can anyone tell me from experience which is the best/safest way to
>>carry my 21 month old daughter. She weichs approx 28 - 30 lbs
>
>
> With a seat, if rider goes down so does baby,
> With a trailer, if rider goes down baby laughs at rider

I used to take my son XC skiing with me when he was around three,
pulling him in a sled. Every fall on my part would be followed with
giggles and "Do it again daddy!".


Shawn

 

[Clive George]

"MattB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I agree the clamp-ons are a bad idea, even though I've never used one they
> don't look as reliable as an axle mount.

You mean the burley ones? I've never heard of any failures. The only
problems I've heard of them having are with drum brakes on tandems (and
possibly discs?). Looking at one it seems to be a very well engineered piece
of kit.

cheers,
clive

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> > I'd be more concerned about the sky falling.
>>
>> Did you fall out of a seat as a kid then ;-)
>
> Yes, but I was wearing a h*lmet.

Ah, top heavy then. ;-)

 

[JohnB]

Clive George wrote:
>
> "MattB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I agree the clamp-ons are a bad idea, even though I've never used one they
> > don't look as reliable as an axle mount.
>
> You mean the burley ones? I've never heard of any failures. The only
> problems I've heard of them having are with drum brakes on tandems (and
> possibly discs?). Looking at one it seems to be a very well engineered piece
> of kit.

I'd agree. We had a Burley and the hitch was excellent, especially the
ability to lay the bike/tandem down while still attached. It look a
matter of seconds to attach/detach. That said it wasn't quite as easy as
the Weber hitch I now use on my utlity trailer, but that really needs
the bike 'end' to be left permanently attached.

We also had the drum brake issue with the tandem and had to attach the
clamp slightly higher than usual which meant extending the arm of the
trailer - a feat ably carried out by the late George Longstaff.

John B

 

[Mike Kruger]

"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>... I've taken four children the tandem route
> (after trailers and seats) with occasional forays onto our Hannington
trailerbike.
> The latter has had them freewheeling at times.
> However, I do agree about the cost and it can be expensive, but luckily
> with four we were able to make teh most of the outlay.

There's a gap here; at least there was for my kids.

Even with the tandem seat at its lowest setting and with pedal blocks, they
were 8 or 9 before they could ride on the tandem.

They had given up the seat on the back of the bike long before, at maybe 3.

 

[JohnB]

Mike Kruger wrote:
>
> "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >... I've taken four children the tandem route
> > (after trailers and seats) with occasional forays onto our Hannington
> trailerbike.
> > The latter has had them freewheeling at times.
> > However, I do agree about the cost and it can be expensive, but luckily
> > with four we were able to make teh most of the outlay.
>
> There's a gap here; at least there was for my kids.
>
> Even with the tandem seat at its lowest setting and with pedal blocks, they
> were 8 or 9 before they could ride on the tandem.
Mine went on between 3 1/2 and 4 yrs but the kiddiecrank attachments
was high on the frame. as they grew the saddle went up then teh
attachment was moved down the froame to its lowest. they came off at
between 7 and 8 and moved onto solo bikes.
I'm going to guess your kiddiecranks were set high, perhaps because of a
lateral tube (a common problem)?

> They had given up the seat on the back of the bike long before, at maybe 3.

Yes, three was the age for our first too, who used a seat. However a
trailer can easily be used for all ages up to solo use, so aother vote
for the trailer as it can fill the 'gap' - and more.

John B

 

[Rory]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Rory wrote:
>
> > * Sort the lights. I have a hub dynamo and B&M make a "weicher" - a
> > junction box so you can plug the trailers lights in when you hitch
> > up. I also have recharagble lights as backup.
>
> While "sort the lights" would be a Cunning Plan, it strikes me that both
> rechargeables and dynohub links may be rather more complex than really
> needed. A good quality rear LED light (such as the Cateye AU100) lasts
> for /ages/ on a couple of AAs. Put a couple of them on would be cheaper
> and easier and the batteries last long enough that the running costs are
> a non-issue. Easily transfer to other cycles too.

I've a garage full of led lights, battery lights, side-wall dynamos...
All failed eventually, after proloned exposure to rain, snow, salt,
dirt, sand. It always seemed to get in and banjax the lights.

It took me a long time to arrive at my current setup, but the B&M
lights and Shimano hub dynamo have been totally reliable for over a
year, plus I use Sigma rechargeables (front & rear) as back-ups (not
yet needed) and for fog and heavy rain (big improvement on single
lights).

I'm switching to a SON next month, not because of any fault with the
Shimano, just my tractor unit is being upgraded to a Thorn Raven
Adventure Sport - no more bloody derailleurs! No more figure-eight
rear wheels (I hope!).

 

[Rory]

"Sverre Amundsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<opsb9i17b0vapsmc@pr6370>...
> On 5 Aug 2004 05:26:11 -0700, Rory <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some trailer plus points:
>
> [snip]
>
> > * Exhaust fumes measured in a child trailer are lower than inside
> > a car
> > * Studies in Germany show that even in the case of impact with a car,
> > the trailer being light is shunted out of the way, rather than
> > crushed.
>
> Can you document this? I'd like to read these studies myself. I'm not
> trying to troll, I own a trailer, but I'm very concerned about using it
> anywhere close to traffic.

The main research was done by TÜV Rheinland and the Allianz-Zentrum
für Technik (AZT), there is an article about it here ("Des Zöglings
Sänfte" - "The Pulled/Pupil Gently??") with pictures of the
crashtests:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1033/9602anhaenger.html

Loads of german sites quote it, so fire off a query with "kinder",
"fahrrad", "anhänger" plus "Allianz" should return plenty of hits.
As for the exhaust aspect, I haven't yet been able to refind the
website where I read this (still looking), but it had an interesting
graphic that showed the cross section of a city street with the toxic
gas concentrations: it looked something like (excuse the bad ascii
art):

-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
====================|=====================
centre line

With the highest concentration between the two lanes. There was a
note that said that even higher concentrations were measured inside
cars themselves.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Rory wrote:

> I've a garage full of led lights, battery lights, side-wall dynamos...
> All failed eventually, after proloned exposure to rain, snow, salt,
> dirt, sand. It always seemed to get in and banjax the lights.
>
> It took me a long time to arrive at my current setup, but the B&M
> lights and Shimano hub dynamo have been totally reliable for over a
> year

My SONs (one in the 'bent, one in the Brom) have never put a foot wrong.
The B&Ms on the 'bent have been fine for 3 years now, the first B&M
front on the Brom died a death but was replaced FOC, its successor seems
to have been fine. The B&Ms on the 8 Freight have been fine too, as has
the B&M bottle powering them but every now and then it flicks off the
wheel to the "off" position of needs the tension racking up in mud and
rain. But the AU100 I've run on the back of the Brom, and before that
my upright tourer, has been fine for quite a bit longer. The only place
for crunge to get in is at the switch, but that's fairly well proof
against ingress and is on the bottom anyway.

Guy has been rather dismissive about the longevity of B&Ms, at least the
front circular ones, though mine have been okay so far. Couple of years
for the present front on the Brom.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Roos Eisma]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

>rain. But the AU100 I've run on the back of the Brom, and before that
>my upright tourer, has been fine for quite a bit longer.

Until I lost it somewhere between Dundee and E'burgh that is....

Roos

 

[Rory]

"MattB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Rory wrote:
> <snip>
> > * Get a good coupling (Becco or Weber are my favourites) - don't
> > use the Trek / Burley clamp-on one, it is utter ****, and interferes
> > with the wheels when turning on many bikes.
> > * Ensure the coupling is firmly attached (I don't like the QR skewer
> > ones)
> > * Always use a secondary retainer strap in case the coupling breaks
>
> I have a Trek ball in socket coupling that goes on the rear axle that came
> with my Rocket and it works very well. I wonder of your experience was on
> older designs. It also has a built-in secondary strap in case of failure,
> which has not been needed after daily use for the past couple of summers.
>
> We keep one on each of our (my wife and my) town bikes for easy trailer
> swapping. We just got the socket part since they don't have QRs and that
> makes them pretty permanent and solid.
>
> I agree the clamp-ons are a bad idea, even though I've never used one they
> don't look as reliable as an axle mount.

My brother had the clamp-on on his Trek trailer: we couldn't get it to
not interfer with the spokes (no enough clearance between chainstay &
wheel with his 7 speed hub), plus it was very hard to get the QR tight
enough so that it wouldn't move. We went around to his local trailer
expert (this is in Munich, Germany) who took one look at it, sucked in
his breath and said the Barvarian equivalent of "they all do that".
He sold us the ball and socket one, which has been fine.

I have a Becco which consists of a pair of ally triangles that clamp
between seat & chain stays, which works well - I have to hitch/unhitch
twice a day five days a week, so ease of use is important. The
Elastomer link seemed like a bad idea, but it has worked well, the
bike's been laid down a few times too many without damaging it. The
Weber would have been my first choice, though.

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

"doctormick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

By the ears mate.







Shaun aRe

 

[Pistof]

Get a trailer. You can also load 'em up with water, food, diapers,
baby-butt wipes, and so on... They can keep the kids dry if you get caught
in a shower, too.

Dave


"doctormick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You've probably seen similar messages before but I can't find the
> advice I'm after in any archive.
>
> My wife wants to buy a bike to go cycling with my ten and seven year
> old daughters but also want to be able to take my 21 month old
> daughter with her. However we can't decide whether she should go for a
> seat on the back or a trailer.
>
> Can anyone tell me from experience which is the best/safest way to
> carry my 21 month old daughter. She weichs approx 28 - 30 lbs
>
> We live in a rural location between Brighton and London, therefore
> busy main roads and narrow country lanes. It's also pretty hilly
> immediately around us. Any ideas would be gratefully received.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike Turner
>
> email [email protected] removing the words "no chopped
> ham" from the address. Keep Britain Spam Free!