Good child (small adult) bicycle



dragonlady wrote:
>
>
> 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.

What's with the hyperbole? Who said anything about high end? I'm not
looking for a $1000 bicycle for my daughter (which by the way is
"moderate" in the bicycling world). I'm looking for a decent bicycle. I
understand there are different standards for different people - to you
maybe spending $300 is "high-end" but to me it's pretty much
entry-level. Unless we're talking used, I think most bikes under $200
(usually sold in TRU or Target or Walmart) are worse than no bike at
all. They are hard to pedal, impossible to change parts and very heavy
with the bonus of usually be incorrectly assembled.

When I was 8, my parents bought me a Raleigh bicycle. Nothing fancy but
it was a good bicycle that lasted and served me well. I'm looking for
the same thing for my daughter.

Trust me, we are NOT talking high-end anything.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jeanne <[email protected]> wrote:

> dragonlady wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> What's with the hyperbole? Who said anything about high end? I'm not
> looking for a $1000 bicycle for my daughter (which by the way is
> "moderate" in the bicycling world). I'm looking for a decent bicycle. I
> understand there are different standards for different people - to you
> maybe spending $300 is "high-end" but to me it's pretty much
> entry-level. Unless we're talking used, I think most bikes under $200
> (usually sold in TRU or Target or Walmart) are worse than no bike at
> all. They are hard to pedal, impossible to change parts and very heavy
> with the bonus of usually be incorrectly assembled.
>
> When I was 8, my parents bought me a Raleigh bicycle. Nothing fancy but
> it was a good bicycle that lasted and served me well. I'm looking for
> the same thing for my daughter.
>
> Trust me, we are NOT talking high-end anything.

You are talking higher end than *I* wanted to spend, and the bikes I
bought on sale at Target worked fine.

With 3 kids, $300 bikes runs to almost $1000 -- that's a lot of money.

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

>
> You are talking higher end than *I* wanted to spend, and the bikes I
> bought on sale at Target worked fine.
>
> With 3 kids, $300 bikes runs to almost $1000 -- that's a lot of money.
>

Uhm, okay. I wasn't asking you to buy all 3 kids bicycles at one time.
FWIW, DS will get DD's old bike when he gets older and eventually DD
will get one of my old bikes. So, I'm not talking about buying everyone
new bicycles either.
 
"Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Walmart is famous for selling cheaper-made goods than the same brand at
another store.

>> 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.

By the same logic, parents should spend more on sports socks than on a video
game.

>> 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.

Correct. But, the question for each parent is, "Will my child ride enough
for the child to benefit from the difference to make the cost worth it?" I
would think for the majority of parents, the answer is that the department
store bike is more than good enough.

Jeff

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

> dragonlady wrote:
>
> >
> > You are talking higher end than *I* wanted to spend, and the bikes I
> > bought on sale at Target worked fine.
> >
> > With 3 kids, $300 bikes runs to almost $1000 -- that's a lot of money.
> >
>
> Uhm, okay. I wasn't asking you to buy all 3 kids bicycles at one time.
> FWIW, DS will get DD's old bike when he gets older and eventually DD
> will get one of my old bikes. So, I'm not talking about buying everyone
> new bicycles either.
>

Only works if the kids aren't the same age. Yes, I could have gotten #1
a bike and handed it down to ONE of her siblings, at which point I would
have been able to buy "only" two more at one time (one for #1 and one
for her other sibling). That's "only" $600 -- and a cost that has to be
repeated as the kids get older and outgrow their bikes. (Actually, we
DID hand bikes down, and bought used ones when we could find them -- but
cheap used ones.)

Look, I don't object to other people spending that kind of money -- if
you have it, and if your family plans on doing a lot of biking, it makes
sense.

However, for us, the choice was NOT between $70 bikes and $300 bikes --
it was between $70 bikes or NO bikes. Perhaps your position is that NO
bike is better than a cheap one.

I'm telling you that the cheap ones worked OK for my kids, and met their
needs.

You are, perhaps, telling me that

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jeanne <[email protected]> wrote:

> dragonlady wrote:
>
> >
> > You are talking higher end than *I* wanted to spend, and the bikes I
> > bought on sale at Target worked fine.
> >
> > With 3 kids, $300 bikes runs to almost $1000 -- that's a lot of money.
> >
>
> Uhm, okay. I wasn't asking you to buy all 3 kids bicycles at one time.
> FWIW, DS will get DD's old bike when he gets older and eventually DD
> will get one of my old bikes. So, I'm not talking about buying everyone
> new bicycles either.
>

Only works if the kids aren't the same age. Yes, I could have gotten #1
a bike and handed it down to ONE of her siblings, at which point I would
have been able to buy "only" two more at one time (one for #1 and one
for her other sibling). That's "only" $600 -- and a cost that has to be
repeated as the kids get older and outgrow their bikes. (Actually, we
DID hand bikes down, and bought used ones when we could find them -- but
cheap used ones.)

Look, I don't object to other people spending that kind of money -- if
you have it, and if your family plans on doing a lot of biking, it makes
sense.

However, for us, the choice was NOT between $70 bikes and $300 bikes --
it was between $70 bikes or NO bikes. Perhaps your position is that NO
bike is better than a cheap one.

I'm telling you that the cheap ones worked OK for my kids, and met their
needs.

You are, perhaps, telling me that NO bike at all is better than a cheap
one. I suspect my kids would disagree.

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

> 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.

I think the point I've been trying to make is that it's
not about the *item*. It's about the use to which you would put
the item, and how valuable that is to you, personally, in your
specific situation. It's not about how much money, per se.
It's about the value you get from what you've bought. Some
folks get a lot of value out of a bike, even if it puts a dent
in their bank account. Others don't get much value out of it
regardless of how much it costs. I think it's important in
life to figure out how to align your expenditures with your
values and priorities. It may be hard to believe for those
who are passionate about cycling, but there exist those odd
folks who just don't get much value out of a bike of any
sort, yet might still want one for occasional use ;-) Of
course, there are folks out there who don't like chocolate.
If *that* can happen, pretty much anything is fair game ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka
 
"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
> Walmart is famous for selling cheaper-made goods than the same brand at
> another store.
>
>>> 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.
>
> By the same logic, parents should spend more on sports socks than on a
> video game.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Correct. But, the question for each parent is, "Will my child ride enough
> for the child to benefit from the difference to make the cost worth it?" I
> would think for the majority of parents, the answer is that the department
> store bike is more than good enough.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -Buck
>>
>
>

You really need to look at the number of lawsuits that have been filed
against the manufacturer and sellers of department store bikes, mainly
because of inferior materials, components and most of all shoddy assembly
practices. There are so many of them that have the forks put on backwards
and have non-working or poorly working brakes.
 
"dragonlady" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> However, for us, the choice was NOT between $70 bikes and $300 bikes --
> it was between $70 bikes or NO bikes. Perhaps your position is that NO
> bike is better than a cheap one.

I'd say that a used real bike is better than a new *mart bike, and they'd
cost about the same. My teenaged daughter currently rides a 1986 Specialized
Rock Hopper that probably doesn't have a value over $75 on the used bike
market, but is a great all-rounder bike that's far superior than a
Roadmaster Fury for the same price.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:37:14 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Jeanne
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In a nutshell, we're looking for straight handlebars, reasonable tires
> (at most 2" - narrower is good). No BMX, no cruiser, no road bikes. We
> want a good frame, reasonable weight and of course, decent price
> (arbitrarily, let's say under $400).
>
is there an REI store in your area? their bikes are OK.

of course aluminum frames are OK for kids --- lighter than a
steel bike.

given how many kid's bikes get left out to rust, or left at
friend's houses, or stolen when left unlocked at school or the
park...

i would only buy a $300-$400 bike if the kid rides a lot and
takes good care of her stuff. at 8, she's old enough to learn
how to do simple maintenance like oiling the chain or greasing
the pedals. remember, she's growing so you have to assume that
you're buying a 2 year bike unless she has younger siblings.
 
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

> I think the point I've been trying to make is that it's
> not about the *item*. It's about the use to which you would put
> the item, and how valuable that is to you, personally, in your
> specific situation. It's not about how much money, per se.
> It's about the value you get from what you've bought. Some
> folks get a lot of value out of a bike, even if it puts a dent
> in their bank account. Others don't get much value out of it
> regardless of how much it costs. I think it's important in
> life to figure out how to align your expenditures with your
> values and priorities. It may be hard to believe for those
> who are passionate about cycling, but there exist those odd
> folks who just don't get much value out of a bike of any
> sort, yet might still want one for occasional use ;-) Of
> course, there are folks out there who don't like chocolate.
> If *that* can happen, pretty much anything is fair game ;-)

And the point that we have been trying to make is that there is a bare
minimum of quality that drastically affects how an "item," be it
bicycle or otherwise, will be used. My uncle fell under the "occasional
use" philosophy. But when the kids went out to "occasionally use" their
bikes, they discovered the cables and chains to be rusted into an
unusable condition. It took less than two months. Those kids got less
than four rides out of the bicycles. At $150 per bicycle, that works
out to $75 per ride (two kids).

My in-laws bought recorder-shaped toys for my kids so they could
develop an interest in music. Even I can't get a decent note out of
either of those "instruments." A good recorder from a music store
wasn't much more expensive. But the grandparents didn't know that what
they were buying was junk.

Examples such as these abound in every subject of interest. Here we
have a bunch of enthusiasts trying to educate a bunch of
non-enthusiasts about the difference between bicycles and
bicycle-shaped toys. One can provide years of enjoyment (even with just
occasional use). The other is destined for the trash.

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

> Here we
> have a bunch of enthusiasts trying to educate a bunch of
> non-enthusiasts about the difference between bicycles and
> bicycle-shaped toys. One can provide years of enjoyment (even with just
> occasional use). The other is destined for the trash.

And what some of us are telling you is that those "bicycle shaped toys"
worked out just fine for our families. Kept in the garage and given
reasonable care, they lasted about as long as they needed to last, and
the kids enjoyed riding them.

And buying used only works well if you are already knowledgeable enough
to know what you are getting. At least where I was at the time, the
"bike shop" used bikes were still really expensive (and they seldom had
kids' sizes), and buying from a stranger -- which we did once -- can
(and did) turn out to be a disaster.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
 
"Banty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Buck
> says...
>>
>>Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>>
>>> I think the point I've been trying to make is that it's
>>> not about the *item*. It's about the use to which you would put
>>> the item, and how valuable that is to you, personally, in your
>>> specific situation. It's not about how much money, per se.
>>> It's about the value you get from what you've bought. Some
>>> folks get a lot of value out of a bike, even if it puts a dent
>>> in their bank account. Others don't get much value out of it
>>> regardless of how much it costs. I think it's important in
>>> life to figure out how to align your expenditures with your
>>> values and priorities. It may be hard to believe for those
>>> who are passionate about cycling, but there exist those odd
>>> folks who just don't get much value out of a bike of any
>>> sort, yet might still want one for occasional use ;-) Of
>>> course, there are folks out there who don't like chocolate.
>>> If *that* can happen, pretty much anything is fair game ;-)
>>
>>And the point that we have been trying to make is that there is a bare
>>minimum of quality that drastically affects how an "item," be it
>>bicycle or otherwise, will be used. My uncle fell under the "occasional
>>use" philosophy. But when the kids went out to "occasionally use" their
>>bikes, they discovered the cables and chains to be rusted into an
>>unusable condition. It took less than two months. Those kids got less
>>than four rides out of the bicycles. At $150 per bicycle, that works
>>out to $75 per ride (two kids).
>
> I understand the point you're making. But some of this has to do with
> what you
> are doing.
>
> For example, no way even a cheeeep bike would be rusted out in a coupla
> months
> if it were stored properly. (It always kinda cheesed and amazed me how
> some
> folks think the cheaper something is, the less care it warrants, it's
> actually
> the opposite IMO.)
Is $150 bike really a cheap one? Dh bought his bike new for £90, which is
roughly similar isn't it? He's used it to ride to and from work daily-a
journey consiting of mostly ups and downs (!) taking about 20 minutes. That
was nearly 6 years ago. It's kept in our garage, which is not next to our
house and is cold and damp, and his idea of keeping it in order is to
occasionally oil the chain, and maybe pump up the tyres if they get too bad.
And that's the most either of us ever has paid for a bike.
Debbie
 
Jeanne wrote:
>
> 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.

I dunnno. We spend according to how much enjoyment the family would
obtain from the item. We tend to buy things new and take care of them,
and look for value for the money. Cycling is important to us, so good
bikes are important. I can see how others might be perfectly happy
with KMart bikes. Personally I think they are wasting their money, but
it's not *my* money, so no loss. ;) DH is a huge fan of computers
(he's a hardware engineer), computer parts, computer games and DVDs so
we spend quite a bit of our entertainment budget on these things.
Consequently, DS has a bigger collection of kids' DVDs at age 2.5 than
most families do. But we live in an area where it rains half the year,
so inside entertainment is a must. That might horrify some parents,
but for us, it's a necessity. We tend to spend a lot on travel and
recreation (hiking, water sports) because those things are important to
us. Some people see that as a waste of money. I like video games and
would love to have the time to play them, so $500 for the latest XBox
or whatever wouldn't be a big deal to me. But I have no time for it
now, so we don't have one. :) Everyone has their own priorities in
entertainment.

-L.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Claire
Petersky says...
>
>"dragonlady" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> (Though I DID spend serious money on getting bike helmets
>> that were good.)
>
>Oh NO! She used the H word!
>
>(for those on misc.kids: bringing up h*lm*ts is like bringing up, I don't
>know, circumcision or something)
>
>

Oh, I thought you meant the ****** word :)

At least we can continue this thread..

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm
 
"Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I understand where Buck and Jeanne are coming from. You were lucky with
> your box store bikes. They very well could have turned out like your
buying
> from a stranger experience. Just because the bike is shiny when you bring
> it home doesn't mean it's properly built.

All the bikes I have bought from TRU worked out just fine for us too. There
have been no repairs, no rust (you do have to take care of it) and many of
the bikes have been passed down to siblings and then sold to other people.
Seems like they did just as well if I would have spent $200 plus on them.
The girls have not been uncomfortable, the pedals worked fine, the seats are
comfortable, etc.....

--
Sue (mom to three girls)
 
Sue wrote:
> "Cathy Kearns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>I understand where Buck and Jeanne are coming from. You were lucky with
>>your box store bikes. They very well could have turned out like your
>
> buying
>
>>from a stranger experience. Just because the bike is shiny when you bring
>>it home doesn't mean it's properly built.
>
>
> All the bikes I have bought from TRU worked out just fine for us too. There
> have been no repairs, no rust (you do have to take care of it) and many of
> the bikes have been passed down to siblings and then sold to other people.
> Seems like they did just as well if I would have spent $200 plus on them.
> The girls have not been uncomfortable, the pedals worked fine, the seats are
> comfortable, etc.....
>

I am not questioning your experience. I know other people buy their
bicycles from TRU and/or Target and the bikes may or may not last. But
I'd rather not buy from these stores; I would feel better buying from a
local bicycle store. I have to confess that my favorite store
configuration would be a combination book/bicycle/coffee place - think
REI with a coffee bar/cafe. I feel more comfortable in a bicycle store
than in TRU.

We have the resources. If your girls don't feel uncomfortable - that's
great. DD's first bike *was* from a toy store (she was 3 or 4 years
old). DD noticed a difference when she went from the little bicycle to
her latest 20" bicycle which we got from a bicycle shop. So for us,
going back to a TRU/Target-type bike is not an option. Remember, she's
outgrown the children-sized bicycles so now we're looking at adult-sized
bicycles.
 
Buck wrote:

> And the point that we have been trying to make is that there is a bare
> minimum of quality that drastically affects how an "item," be it
> bicycle or otherwise, will be used. My uncle fell under the "occasional
> use" philosophy. But when the kids went out to "occasionally use" their
> bikes, they discovered the cables and chains to be rusted into an
> unusable condition. It took less than two months. Those kids got less
> than four rides out of the bicycles. At $150 per bicycle, that works
> out to $75 per ride (two kids).

I think you're being unduly pessimistic. Those
of us who have purchased the odd box store bike don't
seem to have had as much trouble as you describe. No,
they're not as good as a higher quality bike, and they
don't last as long. However, the times we've gotten
them when we knew they weren't going to get much use,
they haven't posed any problems for the year or two
they were used. No complaints, no injuries, nothing
falling apart, etc. So, I just have to be a little
skeptical. Yes, I'm quite aware they're not as good,
durable, or easy to ride as a better bike, but it's
hard for me to buy into your horror stories when they
run contrary to our experience. <Shrug> As they
say, YMMV.

Best wishes
Ericka
 
> they need work) -- but I DON'T buy them the newer cars with all the
> newest safety features. We buy old, beat up used cars -- I don't think
> we've paid more than $1000 for any of the cars that are primarily for
> the kids' use.

I'm paying more for my new bike than I paid for any of the last 5 cars
I bought. LOL!

Sojourner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Trailer for small child
Replies
8
Views
380
Road Cycling
bob prohaska's usenet account
B
S
Tandem question: how to ride with small child (6 mos-2 years)?
Replies
10
Views
622
Road Cycling
Gawnsoft
G
N
  • Locked
Teaching a small child to ride?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Road Cycling
M Gagnon
M
swampy1970
Do Bikes really promotes your child's health
Replies
0
Views
823
Road Cycling
swampy1970
swampy1970
S
Order your "Action Against Hunger Official Jersey" to help victims of Child Hunger !
Replies
0
Views
1K
Road Cycling
ShiftCycle
S
Top Bottom Back