Good child (small adult) bicycle

[Jeff]

"L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> I would like to add that over the last few years, the prices of bikes
>> seem
>> to have gone down, not up. You can also get a better deal, either from
>> your
>> local bike shop or a box store, at the end of the season. So if you can
>> wait
>> two or three months, you might be able to save a bundle. (Of course, if
>> everyone goes to the box store for bikes, the bike dealer will go out of
>> business. But if he charges twice as much as the box store, do you really
>> need him?)
>
> There is a huge difference between the biikes carried by Target and
> Toys-R-Us and bikes made by bicycle specialty companies that are sold
> in bike shops. The difference in ride and performance is astounding,
> and maintenence on the more expensive bikes is easier and needed less
> frequently. It's the difference between buying a Ford Focus and a
> Toyota Land Cruiser. Sometimes with the cheap bikes they simply can't
> be fixed if something goes wrong because spare parts for them aren't
> marketed. Personally I want my kid riding a safe bike that is well put
> together by a professional - not something thrown together by some
> pimply faced teenager at Target. Half the time the parts don't even
> fit together properly because the design is so bad.

I disagree. The bikes at Target and other box stores are just fine for most
people. The quality of bikes have increased while the prices have come down,
thanks to competition. For most people, I don't think the better bikes are
worth the extra money. But, that is up to people to determine for themselves
based on their needs and budget.

>> You might also be able to get a demo bike at the end of the season for
>> even
>> a better deal.
>
> Bike shops also sell used trade-ins for reasonable prices. Bike snobs
> like me trade in bikes that are practially brand-new and have plenty of
> road time left in them - and the shops do maintenance and replace any
> parts that need to be replaced before putting them on the floor. You
> can get a $700 or $800 bike for $250 or less.

Excellent idea.

Jeff

> -L.
>

 

[Pat Lamb]

Jeff wrote:
> "L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> I would like to add that over the last few years, the prices of bikes
>>> seem
>>> to have gone down, not up. You can also get a better deal, either from
>>> your
>>> local bike shop or a box store, at the end of the season. So if you can
>>> wait
>>> two or three months, you might be able to save a bundle. (Of course, if
>>> everyone goes to the box store for bikes, the bike dealer will go out of
>>> business. But if he charges twice as much as the box store, do you really
>>> need him?)
>> There is a huge difference between the biikes carried by Target and
>> Toys-R-Us and bikes made by bicycle specialty companies that are sold
>> in bike shops. The difference in ride and performance is astounding,
>> and maintenence on the more expensive bikes is easier and needed less
>> frequently. It's the difference between buying a Ford Focus and a
>> Toyota Land Cruiser. Sometimes with the cheap bikes they simply can't
>> be fixed if something goes wrong because spare parts for them aren't
>> marketed. Personally I want my kid riding a safe bike that is well put
>> together by a professional - not something thrown together by some
>> pimply faced teenager at Target. Half the time the parts don't even
>> fit together properly because the design is so bad.
>
> I disagree. The bikes at Target and other box stores are just fine for most
> people.

Perhaps. But "most people" ride these bikes less than some very low
number of miles (300? 500? Nowhere near 1000, for sure!).

> The quality of bikes have increased while the prices have come down,
> thanks to competition. For most people, I don't think the better bikes are
> worth the extra money. But, that is up to people to determine for themselves
> based on their needs and budget.

I have a problem recommending an expensive bike for an 8-year-old,
because they'll outgrow it soon. But if the choice is $200 for a
mis-assembled, mal-adjusted Bicycle Shaped Object (BSO) with the
suspension gimmick, for which the "warranty" is likely replacement with
more of the same, or a solid rigid mountain bike or hybrid for $300,
properly assembled and adjusted, with a local bike shop standing ready
to keep it that way -- well, I'd spend the extra money. That could be
$100 lost, or it could be the difference between a garage decoration or
a well-used bike ridden by a child who loves to ride.

For the OP, unless you or your husband are skilled enough to keep this
new bike properly maintained and adjusted, I'd suggest you buy whatever
the LOCAL bike shop carries. At this level, there's not much difference
between one bike shop brand and another, but there's a big difference
between local service and having to drive a significant distance (maybe
twice) to get the bike tuned.

Pat

 

[Buck]

Jeff wrote:
> I would be surprised to learn that the materials for the same model of bike
> are different materials for a specialty shop bike and a department store
> bike. I have a department store bike, and it doesn't rust. It is made of an
> alloy (or maybe alluminum). Of course, a bike bought at a box store may be
> made of cheaper materials than at a specialty store, but it will be a
> different model.

Please put your surprised face on because what I wrote is the truth. As
an adult, it is likely that you don't leave your bicycle in conditions
which facilitate rust. You should also note that it is not the frame
which rusts (frames are often made from aluminum even in the department
store) , it is the parts attached to the frame. Where the bits and
pieces on my bikes are stainless steel or aluminum, those same pieces
on the department store bikes are not. Yes, that equates to cheaper
materials which are prone to rusting. Our local Wal-mart stores some of
its bicycles outside. A few days in the weather and the *brand new*
bikes already have rust.


> For most of the readers of the misc.kid news group, a department store bike
> will be as good as a specialty shop bike. For readers of the
> rec.bicycles.misc, I would think that a specialty shop bicycle would be
> worth the extra money.

It matters not where you read these postings. Ignorance is behind the
assumption that all bicycles are created equal. I would hope that the
cross-posting of this thread would enlighten the readers of misc.kids
and encourage them to purchase a bicycle that will fit better, ride
better, and last longer than the department store junk. As a nation,
the U.S. is concerned about obesity. Yet parents are willing to spend
much more on a video game that will encourage their children to park in
front of the television than on a bicycle which will encourage fitness.
It just seems backwards. By the way, my own children would rather go
for a ride or play in the pool than sit and watch TV.


> I don't think of a bicycle as a toy either. But, that doesn't mean that I
> would benefit from a specialty shop bike over a department store bike,
> either.

Perhaps you wouldn't benefit from a quality bicycle. But I'd bet that
you do prefer some specialty items over the generic. Perhaps you have a
Toyota instead of a Kia. Maybe it is an Onkyo instead of a Pioneer. The
members of rec.bicycles.misc recognize that a Trek is better than a
Pacific and understand why. You either don't understand why or don't
ride enough to see the difference.

-Buck

 

[Ericka Kammerer]

Buck wrote:

> It matters not where you read these postings. Ignorance is behind the
> assumption that all bicycles are created equal. I would hope that the
> cross-posting of this thread would enlighten the readers of misc.kids
> and encourage them to purchase a bicycle that will fit better, ride
> better, and last longer than the department store junk. As a nation,
> the U.S. is concerned about obesity. Yet parents are willing to spend
> much more on a video game that will encourage their children to park in
> front of the television than on a bicycle which will encourage fitness.
> It just seems backwards. By the way, my own children would rather go
> for a ride or play in the pool than sit and watch TV.

I would certainly agree that a good bike is better than
a mediocre bike, and that your odds of getting a good bike are much
better at a bike shop. At the same time, I think the implications
of the above are a bit out of bounds. We *ALL* have areas that
are of more importance or less importance, and just because
biking is of less importance to some doesn't mean that their
kids are video game playing couch potatoes. Kids have only
a certain number of hours in the day. I'm going to buy a bike
that fits the particular child's needs and interests. The
kid whose passions lie elsewhere who wants a bike to ride
on rare occasions and isn't likely to take good care of it
is not going to get the same bike as the kid who wants to
ride with some regularity, enjoys riding, and is likely to
take care of his bike. Similarly, the kid who invests the
time and energy and passion into playing a musical instrument
will get a better instrument, and the kid whose passion is
dance will get better dance shoes/equipment/attire, and so
forth. I'm sure it would be nice if we could all afford to
kit our kids out with the best equipment for everything
they've ever expressed the slightest interest in, but that
just isn't reality for most. I'm sure that you also have
some areas where you settle for something that isn't the
best quality in order to pursue some activity that you
only have a moderate interest in. And that's okay. It
doesn't justify trying to claim that the average bike
store bike is just as good as the average box store bike,
but it's certainly a justification for saying that a
lower quality bike is a reasonable solution for *some*
kids in *some* situations.

Best wishes,
Ericka

 

[Cathy Kearns]

"Ericka Kammerer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm sure it would be nice if we could all afford to
> kit our kids out with the best equipment for everything
> they've ever expressed the slightest interest in, but that
> just isn't reality for most. I'm sure that you also have
> some areas where you settle for something that isn't the
> best quality in order to pursue some activity that you
> only have a moderate interest in. And that's okay. It
> doesn't justify trying to claim that the average bike
> store bike is just as good as the average box store bike,
> but it's certainly a justification for saying that a
> lower quality bike is a reasonable solution for *some*
> kids in *some* situations.

I absolutely agree with Ericka here. The one thing I'd like to point out is
expectations. If you expect your child to ride to school everyday (even if
biking is not their passion, it is their form of transportation), it seems
only fair you don't make it unduly hard on them by getting them a bike that
doesn't fit or is hard to shift or is very heavy when trying to get it up
the hills. The advantage to getting them a bike that is easy to ride is
they may then want to ride it even when they don't have to. Last week we
had tickets to the semi finals of a WTA tennis tourney. My daughter, having
seen the other semi in the afternoon, wasn't that big on seeing more tennis,
but was willing to go to ride the 6 miles there and then the 6 miles home at
10pm at night. Night riding is magical. She really enjoyed it. (Note, you
need proper lights and reflective clothes to do this...)

And to the original poster, we only have treks (other than the co-motion
tandem) but we have five of them for 3 people. We adults each have a very
old steel hybrid and a fairly new carbon fiber road bike. My daughter just
moved up to a small adult bike from the kids versions, and found it much
faster with less effort. I think the adult bikes have different gear
ratios, and she really finds riding this bike a literal breeze. Note, our
LBS carries treks, if they only carried some other brand, and was familiar
with servicing that brand, that's what we would have gone with.

 

[chickenfishies]

Jeanne,

I am an avid bike rider too. I am 5"2 and 108 lbs and I ride a aluminum
frame Raleigh. I love it. I feel "sturdy." I do have the Women's. The
whole pelvic thing!

And for the cost... let me commend you on being an excellent mother. It
is easy to spend a lot on a good bike but it is also easy to spend on
video games and having an inactive kid!

I have two kids, my older is nine and still on a Schwin- still fits
her. My youngest is three and just go a "real bike" I thought it
important that she learn to pedal up and down rather than out and in
like on a tricycle.

If she is into biking- spend on a new one and let her break it in. If
it is not so much or something that is a "phase" I would get a good
trade in.

DW

L. wrote:
> Jeanne wrote:
> > My 8 year old daughter has vastly outgrown her 20" bicycle
> > (Performance). Yesterday we went to the LBS to see what size bicycle she
> > best fits. She's very leggy, she even doesn't fit onto a child's 24"
> > bicycle - her knees come close to the handlebars and that's with the
> > seat down. The LBS guy recommended a 12"-13" adult frame. He put her on
> > a Raleigh M20 Men's bike but he also had the Women's frame. She
> > definitely sat better on this bike. Her legs fit perfectly, she wasn't
> > stretched out with her hands on the handlebars.
> >
> > Any opinions on this bike? The one thing that struck me was the aluminum
> > frame (it's been a while since I've bought a bike) - is that okay for a
> > child? Alternatives? The LBS only sell Raleighs.
>
> I would get her the women's version or she may rack her pelvic bone
> like I did as a kid - NOT fun! I can only recommend Trek and Nishiki
> bikes as I am a bike snob. I have a Trek Millenia urban street bike
> and love it. It has fatter tires like an off-road bike but it's
> designed for riding on paved surfaces so the tires are smooth and it
> has extra suspension in the seat and handlebars. They don't make this
> model any more, but they make similar ones. IIRC I paid aroun $370
> back in '97 for it.
>
> -L.
>
>
> -L.

 

[Jeanne]

Pat Lamb wrote
> I have a problem recommending an expensive bike for an 8-year-old,
> because they'll outgrow it soon.

And I'd have a hard time buying an expensive bike for an 8 year old
No one is suggesting buying an expensive bike for an child. Of course,
it depends on what "expensive" means. I suspect to many parents,
anything over $150 is expensive for a child's bike. To many avid
bicyclists, spending $250-$300 on a child isn't unreasonable, especially
if you expect the child to participate in bike rides.

> But if the choice is $200 for a
> mis-assembled, mal-adjusted Bicycle Shaped Object (BSO) with the
> suspension gimmick, for which the "warranty" is likely replacement with
> more of the same, or a solid rigid mountain bike or hybrid for $300,
> properly assembled and adjusted, with a local bike shop standing ready
> to keep it that way -- well, I'd spend the extra money. That could be
> $100 lost, or it could be the difference between a garage decoration or
> a well-used bike ridden by a child who loves to ride.
>

Well, it's a given that we will purchase from the local bike shop. I
don't want to spend over $350; even $300 seems high. I'd be willing to
go to a bike swap if I knew there would be used bicycles in her size
there. We've gotten a LOT of parts and stuff from bike swaps.

> For the OP, unless you or your husband are skilled enough to keep this
> new bike properly maintained and adjusted, I'd suggest you buy whatever
> the LOCAL bike shop carries. At this level, there's not much difference
> between one bike shop brand and another, but there's a big difference
> between local service and having to drive a significant distance (maybe
> twice) to get the bike tuned.
>

We can tune our bicycles ourselves. With so many bikes, it's not
practical to take them all in for tune-ups. At some point, you just got
to learn how to take care of the bikes yourself.

 

[Jeanne]

Cathy Kearns wrote:

>
> And to the original poster, we only have treks (other than the co-motion
> tandem) but we have five of them for 3 people. We adults each have a very
> old steel hybrid and a fairly new carbon fiber road bike.

Who rides the tandem? At one point, we were thinking about getting a
tandem for DH and DD. DH and I are not compatible on a tandem (talk
about a test for couples...). Both DH and DD put down their right foot
but I put down my left foot while stopping. Sounds trivial but it isn't.

> My daughter just
> moved up to a small adult bike from the kids versions, and found it much
> faster with less effort. I think the adult bikes have different gear
> ratios, and she really finds riding this bike a literal breeze. Note, our
> LBS carries treks, if they only carried some other brand, and was familiar
> with servicing that brand, that's what we would have gone with.
>

That makes sense. That makes the decisionmaking much easier. I hadn't
seen or ridden Raleighs (brand at the closest shop) since the 1960s or
70s when they were good English bicycles. We aren't so loyal to either a
brand or LBS. We have 2 Treks (mountain), Batavus (racing bike),
Diamondback (road), 2 Bianchis (road) and Performance (child); they were
bought new, used, at LBS, at bike swaps.

 

[Buck]

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
> I would certainly agree that a good bike is better than
> a mediocre bike, and that your odds of getting a good bike are much
> better at a bike shop. At the same time, I think the implications
> of the above are a bit out of bounds. We *ALL* have areas that
> are of more importance or less importance, and just because
> biking is of less importance to some doesn't mean that their
> kids are video game playing couch potatoes.

<big Snip>

> I'm sure that you also have
> some areas where you settle for something that isn't the
> best quality in order to pursue some activity that you
> only have a moderate interest in. And that's okay. It
> doesn't justify trying to claim that the average bike
> store bike is just as good as the average box store bike,
> but it's certainly a justification for saying that a
> lower quality bike is a reasonable solution for *some*
> kids in *some* situations.

The biggest problem with your assertion is that a crappy bike will
never turn a child into a cyclist. While a Stradavari may not make a
mediocre violinist into a prodigy, a good bicycle will be more rideable
than a toy-store bicycle. This can be the difference between a kid who
rides for fun and one who refuses to ride at all.

My point about the gaming systems is that parents are willing to spend
a small fortune on a specialized toy that does little more than keep a
kid parked on the couch, but are are unwilling to spend similar amounts
of money on a good bicycle which will promote a healthy activity. I
agree that a kid who doesn't care for his things doesn't deserve to
have nice things. I also recognize that there is no reason to spend a
fortune on a bicycle for a kid who refuses to ride. But the **** at the
department stores actually makes the experience *worse* for the
would-be cyclist. They are heavy, they are difficult to maintain, they
often don't fit properly, they are uncomfortable, they have
sub-standard and irreplaceable parts, they fall into disrepair easily,
they are often not assembled properly, and they often have "trendy" but
disfuntional parts like suspension.

An Xbox core system costs $300 and games cost $40 or more apiece. For
the cost of an Xbox and two games, a parent could buy a dang nice
bicycle which will provide healthy and fun transportation which will
last through several children.

I have an uncle who had similarly skewed priorities. He spent thousands
on baseball equipment for his kids. He spent less than two-hundred for
bicycles. As a result, he or his wife had to drive the kids to the ball
park nearly every day during the season. The park was less than two
miles from their house. The route was completely safe - bike lanes all
the way, or for the extremely paranoid, sidewalks all the way as well.
But the kids *couldn't* ride it because their bikes quickly turned into
rust buckets which wouldn't work.

I am not against people choosing to allocate their limited budgets in
the best way they see fit. I am against the ignorance that drives
people to poor decisions. There is a big difference between a product
that is adequate and a product that is junk. The bottom end of the bike
shop lines are adequate. The toy-store sells junk.

Just so you understand where I stand in the cycling world, most of my
bikes would be considered part of the low end of the spectrum. While
inexpensive by bicycle standards, they are more than adequate and have
survived many years of abuse by both me and previous owners.

-Buck

 

[Ericka Kammerer]

Buck wrote:

> The biggest problem with your assertion is that a crappy bike will
> never turn a child into a cyclist. While a Stradavari may not make a
> mediocre violinist into a prodigy, a good bicycle will be more rideable
> than a toy-store bicycle. This can be the difference between a kid who
> rides for fun and one who refuses to ride at all.

Believe me, a good instrument makes a huge difference
to a beginner as well. Nevertheless, you're still asserting
as your goal turning a child into a cyclist. That may be
a goal for some, especially in families that do a lot of
riding together. For other kids and other families, it
simply isn't a goal or a necessity. The kid who has
other passions that take up the vast majority of his or
her time and only wants a bike to tool around the
neighborhood on with friends on occasion likely doesn't
need to spend the money on a good bike versus the
other things in his or her life where there *is* a
need for higher quality equipment. Some kids simply
aren't going to ride for fun enough to require better
equipment. They've already got other irons in the
fire taking up most of their time. Why would one
take money away from something they're actively
involved in and interested in to spend it on something
they don't have the time or inclination to do more
than a few times a month, max?

> My point about the gaming systems is that parents are willing to spend
> a small fortune on a specialized toy that does little more than keep a
> kid parked on the couch, but are are unwilling to spend similar amounts
> of money on a good bicycle which will promote a healthy activity.

Everyone makes his or her own judgments about what
the priorities are within a family or for a specific kid.
And not all parents are willing to shell out a fortune
for video games either. And I'm sure there are parents
who are unwilling (or unable) to shell out for video games
*OR* bicycles, but might be shelling out for top of the
line equipment/materials for *other* activities (physical
or not).

> I
> agree that a kid who doesn't care for his things doesn't deserve to
> have nice things. I also recognize that there is no reason to spend a
> fortune on a bicycle for a kid who refuses to ride. But the **** at the
> department stores actually makes the experience *worse* for the
> would-be cyclist.

But not everyone is a would-be cyclist. It's not
all that unusual to have some kids who could care less and
just want a bike for occasional use and some kids who have
the potential for more interest. And, as I said, a good
instrument makes a huge difference in picking up an
instrument. Heck it's true that good equipment makes
a real difference--even to the beginner--in nearly
everything that requires equipment. We don't all run
out and buy Steinway grand pianos when kids start
piano lessons, *even though* it makes a difference.
Many can't even afford to test the waters with a
better quality student instrument. I'll bet the majority
of kids who start piano lessons start with relatively crappy
out-of-tune pianos. Is that ideal? No. Does that turn
off some potential budding musicians? Sure--though
probably not those with any sort of real passion. Does it
make sense to shell out a lot of cash to provide a great
piano for every beginner? No. You make a judgment
call based on your best assessment of the child's
readiness and commitment and priorities and the state of
your bank account and do what you can.

> I have an uncle who had similarly skewed priorities. He spent thousands
> on baseball equipment for his kids. He spent less than two-hundred for
> bicycles. As a result, he or his wife had to drive the kids to the ball
> park nearly every day during the season. The park was less than two
> miles from their house. The route was completely safe - bike lanes all
> the way, or for the extremely paranoid, sidewalks all the way as well.
> But the kids *couldn't* ride it because their bikes quickly turned into
> rust buckets which wouldn't work.

You're pitting things against each other that
make no sense. They're separate decisions. People spend
money depending on where their priorities are. You enjoy
getting your exercise via cycling, and I'm sure find plenty
of other benefits as well. So, you choose to spend money
on it. Others might enjoy baseball and simply not enjoy
cycling to the ballpark and choose not to spend their money
that way. I am a musician. I like music. I spend a significant
amount of money on music. I'm not so fond of films. I
spend relatively little on going to movies, DVD players,
and DVDs. For what I spend on things related to music, I
could have a very nice home theater. So what? It's not
where my priorities are. It's not so hard for me to
imagine someone who enjoys baseball and doesn't enjoy
cycling to the ballpark (or cycling home exhausted,
or has too much equipment to comfortably carry on a
bike, or whatever).

> I am not against people choosing to allocate their limited budgets in
> the best way they see fit. I am against the ignorance that drives
> people to poor decisions. There is a big difference between a product
> that is adequate and a product that is junk. The bottom end of the bike
> shop lines are adequate. The toy-store sells junk.

So? I've got no beef with describing the pros
and cons of various options. Even those who are unwilling
or unable to spend much money on something benefit from
being informed consumers and getting the best product
available for the money they're willing to spend. Are
you arguing that no bike is better than a junk bike?
I can assure you that some kids will disagree ;-)

> Just so you understand where I stand in the cycling world, most of my
> bikes would be considered part of the low end of the spectrum. While
> inexpensive by bicycle standards, they are more than adequate and have
> survived many years of abuse by both me and previous owners.

And one of my sons has a very nice bike from a
local bicycle shop. That doesn't mean that I think all
others must do the same for all children, or even that
I'd make the same choice for another of my children
looking for a bike under different circumstances. Not
having unlimited funds, I have to suit the expenditures
to the priorities.

Best wishes,
Ericka

 

[L.]

Pat Lamb wrote:
> I have a problem recommending an expensive bike for an 8-year-old,
> because they'll outgrow it soon. But if the choice is $200 for a
> mis-assembled, mal-adjusted Bicycle Shaped Object (BSO) with the
> suspension gimmick, for which the "warranty" is likely replacement with
> more of the same, or a solid rigid mountain bike or hybrid for $300,
> properly assembled and adjusted, with a local bike shop standing ready
> to keep it that way -- well, I'd spend the extra money. That could be
> $100 lost, or it could be the difference between a garage decoration or
> a well-used bike ridden by a child who loves to ride.

Plus you can resell or trade-in the nicer bike once the time comes to
upgrade. You're lucky to get $20 at a garage sale for the crappy one.

-L.

 

[L.]

enigma wrote:
>
> how did you do that?

Stopped short and rammed my crotch into the cross-bar. :/ Never felt
agony like that before. Probably similar to childbirth. Took
*forever* to feel normal again.

-L.

 

[L.]

Jeff wrote:
>
> I disagree. The bikes at Target and other box stores are just fine for most
> people. The quality of bikes have increased while the prices have come down,
> thanks to competition. For most people, I don't think the better bikes are
> worth the extra money. But, that is up to people to determine for themselves
> based on their needs and budget.

Perhaps they have improved but I doubt they have improved *that* much
since I last bought a crappy bike in '99. IMO, the extra expense is
well worth the difference in ride and performance. If you are riding a
bike every day as most 8 year old kids do, IMO, go for a nicer bike.

-L.

 

[Cathy Kearns]

"Jeanne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Who rides the tandem? At one point, we were thinking about getting a
> tandem for DH and DD. DH and I are not compatible on a tandem (talk
> about a test for couples...). Both DH and DD put down their right foot
> but I put down my left foot while stopping. Sounds trivial but it isn't.

The tandem is for my husband and I, though now my daughters could also ride
with their father. Before test riding tandems the LBS that specialized in
tandems would give a 30 minute lesson on how to ride tandems. Found out
they sold many more tandems if the pairs came back from the test ride still
speaking to each other. They suggested in the lesson that the stoker (the
person on the back) not unclip either foot when stopping, just when getting
off. And at that point the captain should have both feet down. I noticed
most tandem teams that I've ridden with go with that.

We've toured the Dordogne and Avignon areas of France on this tandem, with 3
other couples on tandems, and two couples each on their own bike. There was
a reason those couples weren't on tandems. And a third couple that after
that trip, seeing that you really could haul on a tandem, actually were
thinking of trying one out. Tandems won't work for all couples, and it has
nothing to do with what foot to put down. We ride ours every Sunday we are
home, for a short 25-30 mile jaunt. It's our time.

 

[dragonlady]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Buck" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I also recognize that there is no reason to spend a
> fortune on a bicycle for a kid who refuses to ride. But the **** at the
> department stores actually makes the experience *worse* for the
> would-be cyclist. They are heavy, they are difficult to maintain, they
> often don't fit properly, they are uncomfortable, they have
> sub-standard and irreplaceable parts, they fall into disrepair easily,
> they are often not assembled properly, and they often have "trendy" but
> disfuntional parts like suspension.

They seemed to work out fine for the limited riding my kids did. And a
better bike wouldn't have mattered: I don't ride (orthopedist forbade
it), DH doesn't ride, and none of the kids around them used bikes for
more than modest transportation.

If one of them had been interested in serious cycling, I'd have first
tried to borrow a decent bike for them to try out, then researched and
bought a more expensive one -- but the $$ we had went for the things
THEY were interested in doing: decent dance shoes, for example, and
decent hiking boots. And always a decent sound system so we could
listen to good music, and I didn't want to buy a piano until we could
afford a fairly decent upright.

Not every kid IS a "would be cyclist", nor is it necessary for every kid
to be one. For kids who are likely to just tool around the neighborhood
a bit, the cheap ones work fine.

As has been pointed out, you can't go high end on everything. For my
friend whose daughter is artistically gifted, they buy paints and such
that are expensive; for my kids, crayolas did just fine -- with an
occassional splurge into small amounts of more expensive things. She
doesn't accuse us of somehow stifling our kids' artistic abilities by
not going high end (though it DOES make better pictures and is pretty
satisfying to work with if you can fork out the dough) any more than I
accuse HER of stifling her kids' musical abilities for not forking out
Big Bucks for a decent sound system in her home or being satisfied with
a pretty cheap electronic keyboard. You spend money on what matters to
you, and on following your kids' interests.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

 

[enigma]

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

>
> enigma wrote:
>>
>> how did you do that?
>
> Stopped short and rammed my crotch into the cross-bar. :/
> Never felt agony like that before. Probably similar to
> childbirth. Took *forever* to feel normal again.

ow!
i'm not sure, but i think i'd prefer that to what happened to
my leg though.
lee <needs shinguards to ride a bicycle>

--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Buck]

dragonlady wrote:
> As has been pointed out, you can't go high end on everything.

And the point I am trying to make is that we aren't talking about "high
end" bicycles. We are talking about decent, safe bicycles that will
last.

In the cycling world, "high end" is breaching $5,000. We are talking
about entry level.

And I'm not trying to convert the kids to cyclists. "Cyclist" is a bit
of a vague term anyway. While I consider myself one, many of the racers
would say otherwise.

What anyone gets out of an activity is proportional to what is put into
that activity. But we should all agree that there is a basic level of
equipment that is necessary to make an activity enjoyable.

Try replacing all of the living room furniture with wooden kitchen
chairs and see how your family enjoys watching TV. This is what it is
like to have an ill-fitting, poor functioning bicycle. Most people just
don't know the difference because they haven't experienced the
advantages of decent bicycle.

I hated riding my bike as a child because I always had something that
didn't fit or was ill-suited to the purpose. I only rode because my
friends were riding and I couldn't keep up by walking. My first decent
road bike changed that and converted me to a cyclist.

-Buck

 

[Ericka Kammerer]

Buck wrote:

> What anyone gets out of an activity is proportional to what is put into
> that activity. But we should all agree that there is a basic level of
> equipment that is necessary to make an activity enjoyable.
>
> Try replacing all of the living room furniture with wooden kitchen
> chairs and see how your family enjoys watching TV. This is what it is
> like to have an ill-fitting, poor functioning bicycle. Most people just
> don't know the difference because they haven't experienced the
> advantages of decent bicycle.
>
> I hated riding my bike as a child because I always had something that
> didn't fit or was ill-suited to the purpose. I only rode because my
> friends were riding and I couldn't keep up by walking. My first decent
> road bike changed that and converted me to a cyclist.

But not all kids are in the market for that. One
of my kids had a (cheap) bike for a while. In the
course of a year, he rode it maybe (and I'm being generous)
two dozen times, for no more than 30-45 minutes each.
The problem wasn't that the bike was cheap or uncomfortable
or whatever. He rode it cheerfully whenever he had the
time and inclination to do so. He was simply much more
interested in doing other things. Right now he doesn't
even *have* a bike, and doesn't particularly care (back
then he *did* want a bike). It would have been ludicrous
to spend even $250 for a decent entry level bike for
the amount of time he spent on it. He just doesn't have
the interest. Most of his friends don't ride bikes. His
lifestyle isn't conducive to bike riding. He has lots of
other interests he is passionate about that do not leave
much time for bike riding. If he had some reason that
he wanted a bike to use for the little bit of time he
has available, I seriously doubt I would be shelling
out significant money for it, unless he was interested
enough to be getting rid of some of his other activities
to free up the time and money. He's not going to be
converted to a cyclist by a better bike, unless his
priorities change enough for him to give up something
else. You don't turn into a cyclist riding for a few
minutes here and there a couple times a month. When
I was in high school I used my bike for transportation
to get all sorts of places and was on it nearly every
day. If that's what you're going to do, it makes sense
to invest. Not everyone will do that--*regardless* of
how good the bike is.

Best wishes,
Ericka

 

[Jeanne]

chickenfishies wrote:
> Jeanne,
>
> I am an avid bike rider too. I am 5"2 and 108 lbs and I ride a aluminum
> frame Raleigh. I love it. I feel "sturdy." I do have the Women's. The
> whole pelvic thing!
>

That's good to know. DH also didn't think the aluminum frame would be a
problem, but he wanted to check out other bikes - mainly Trek and GT.
On the M20, the men's frame wasn't much different from the women's
frame. I think the women's frame cross bar was about 3 inches below the
seat post while the men's frame cross bar was at the seat post.

> And for the cost... let me commend you on being an excellent mother. It
> is easy to spend a lot on a good bike but it is also easy to spend on
> video games and having an inactive kid!
>

I thought about this after reading some of the posts. I would *never*
spend $300 on a XBOX or gameboy and games (I have absolutely no idea how
much these things cost so excuse the ignorance on pricing here) - I feel
it an incredible waste of money. But I think $300 is a perfectly
reasonable amount on a bicycle - actually it would be incredibly *low*
on an adult bicycle for me or DH. As a grad student, I spent $900 on a
new Bianchi bicycle in 1996 (not to worry, it was totally my money - no
student loans). Same amount of money but absolutely different reaction
depending on the item.

 

[Jeanne]

L. wrote:
> enigma wrote:

>>how did you do that?
>
>
> Stopped short and rammed my crotch into the cross-bar. :/ Never felt
> agony like that before. Probably similar to childbirth. Took
> *forever* to feel normal again.
>
> -L.
>

Ouch!! I remember doing that while riding my brother's bike. I learned
from *that* lesson to always ride a properly sized bicycle. Never again
did I ride a bike too big for me.