Kiddy Trailers

[Graeme Dods]

On Sep 12, 10:49 am, Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, having stub axles for the wheels is a useless design. Yyou would be
> better off with an upside down Y or V shape that goes around the outside
> of the wheels. So your wheel wouldn't clip something or bounce back,
> but the trailer would slide sideways.

I wouldn't go as far as to call the design useless. Like SMS wrote,
you quickly get used to the width of your trailer. Had I ever
accidentally knocked a bollard (theoretically of course) then I'm sure
it would have been on only my first trip with the trailer and I'm sure
my son's reaction would have been "Oops!" followed by a giggle, but I
guess I'll never know

There are plenty of designs out there with exposed wheels and I'm not
aware of there being a big issue with any kiddy trailers flipping.
I've certainly heard of a few stories of the bike having a bit of a
tumble (ice/mud/whatever) and the cyclist receiving a few bumps but
the kids in the trailer being perfectly upright, safe and highly
entertained by their parent's prat fall.

Now a kiddy trailer with a single wheel, like the BOB Yak, would
certainly be an interesting design. I'm sure my son would love leaning
round corners, but although he's of an age to enjoy it properly, he
should be out on his own bike! I love the idea of Chariot's side car
kid carrier, shame that it's only available for the wrong side of the
bike (and the price!).

Graeme

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Patrick Turner wrote:
> LotteBum wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who still refers to the female population as 'Sheilas' would
>> be hard up getting a root, as is Patrick Turner by the sound of his
>> sh!t.
>>
>> Patrick, in case you faile to notice, this is a thread about
>> transporting children on pushbikes, not about your pathetic
>> existence.
>>
>> If you have nothing positive, nor relevant to contribute to this
>> thread, I hereby ask you in the nicest way possible to f*ck off.
>>
>>> D

> It is my right to call a sheila a sheila.
>
> I am well used to many sheilas objecting to the word sheila.

I suppose you are used to being called a ****** as well?

> My contribution HAS been positive, and gives challenging reasons why
> or why not one might/might not
> cart the kiddies around in a trailer.

Geez, I must have missed it.

> If you want to insist my existance is sad and pathetic, then I can
> only wonder what yours is like,

Sounds colourful and fulfilling.

> and what sort of a partner in a marriage you'd make.

That's just a bit low ******.

Put the shottie down Lotte, he's not worth the ammo.

Theo

 

[Terryc]

Graeme Dods wrote:

>
> I wouldn't go as far as to call the design useless.

I'm thinkg from the view point of buying stub axle wheels especially for
a the project. I'll just do something with recycled standard wheels.

> Like SMS wrote,you quickly get used to the width of your trailer.

Mine seems to have fat **** days for some reason. OTOH, I'm probably
like a catand like to brush my whiskers across stuff as I go around
stuff and occassionaly woops.


> There are plenty of designs out there with exposed wheels

I think that is a marketing design. Enclosed wheels mean extra width,
extra weight and extra cost.

> I'm not aware of there being a big issue with any kiddy trailers flipping.

I think you have to ride for load and conditions.

> I've certainly heard of a few stories of the bike having a bit of a
> tumble (ice/mud/whatever) and the cyclist receiving a few bumps but
> the kids in the trailer being perfectly upright, safe and highly
> entertained by their parent's prat fall.

That is the advantage of a two wheel trailer.
>
> Now a kiddy trailer with a single wheel, like the BOB Yak, would
> certainly be an interesting design.

I don't like the Bob Yak and similar as the load is above the lines
through the axles. One built more along the line of the one produce by
Jack (?) London in england circa 1901. Basically it is a lowered tray
with a single rear wheel. (Can not find the url for the image.)

A single wheel with a largish wheel (26/27/7000) at the rear would
probably help with larger children.

> I'm sure my son would love leaning round corners, but
> although he's of an age to enjoy it properly, he
> should be out on his own bike!

The problem is when you crash, they do as well. Unless you get into
safety cages which also require inside handlebars so finger do not grip
the cage and get skidded.

I was taking local pre-schoolers bush inside a cage strapped to my flat
bed trailer. We used a small librarian step as the seat. I restricted it
to pre-schoolers as they seem to get a growth/weight spurt around
starting kindetgarten.

The worst that happened was I'd bottom the trailer out on rocks I went
over. Yer,they were old enough and attitude adjusted enough to enjoy the
ride.

Actually the worst aspect was how much rubbish little boys can find in
urban bushland that they want you to take back for them in the trailer.
99% ended up in my rubbish bin, although SWMBO gained a nice old shovel
head as a gift one day (They also like sampling produce from her garden
{:_0.


>> I love the idea of Chariot's side car kid carrier,

I gather it was a bolt on attachment?
Might be another project to build.



> (and the price!).

Unfortunately, good steel costs a real motza these days. I've even had
to suspend mucking about with low-carbon **** as it just went thrugh the
roof.

 

[LotteBum]

It is my right to call a sheila a sheila.

It sure is - same way it's my right to call you a w*nker, and to tell you to f*ck off.

I am well used to many sheilas objecting to the word sheila.

Hence you are an undersexed moron.

My contribution HAS been positive, and gives challenging reasons why

or why not one might/might not cart the kiddies around in a trailer.

In case you missed it, that wasn't what I was after. I was after advice on USING trailers, not advice on what else to do.

If you want to insist my existance is sad and pathetic, then I can only wonder what yours is like,

Heh, who's the egocentric knob making useless comments on this forum?

and what sort of a partner in a marriage you'd make.

Patty boy, if that's the best of your insults, then you're going to have to step it up a little. You see, I'm young and sensible and don't believe in the same religious gibberish old poons like you obviously fall for (ie. I'm not religious and I don't believe in the religious institution that is marriage).

Lotte

 

[Dave]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:38:13 +1000, LotteBum wrote:

> Patty boy, if that's the best of your insults, then you're going to
> have to step it up a little.

What?!

Congratulations Lotte. Not just on the pregnancy, though that's extremely
congratulations-worthy, but I think this is the first time I've ever
noticed you not bite at a troll. And I should know, since I'm normally the
one trolling.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
We are, in fact, at the cutting edge of cocking about
- Richard Hammond, Top Gear

 

[Dave]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:35:55 +1000, Resound wrote:

> Oh yeah? Well YOU...are...umm

Danish. That's normally good for an explosion or two.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"Forty-two" - Deep Thought

 

[Duracell Bunny]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:35:55 +1000, Resound wrote:

> Oh yeah? Well YOU...are...umm

Danish. That's normally good for an explosion or two.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"Forty-two" - Deep Thought

Don't annoy the Great Dane

DB

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Sep 13, 2:34 pm, Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Graeme Dods wrote:
> > Now a kiddy trailer with a single wheel, like the BOB Yak, would
> > certainly be an interesting design.
>
> I don't like the Bob Yak and similar as the load is above the lines
> through the axles.

Makes sense, though unless you go for an excessively long frame and a
large wheel then you're stuck with the weight above the axle for
clearance reasons I guess. Though does the front end being connected
to the higher bike axle not help a little in terms of stability?

> > I'm sure my son would love leaning round corners, but
> > although he's of an age to enjoy it properly, he
> > should be out on his own bike!
>
> The problem is when you crash, they do as well.

Oh I wasn't talking about safety and practicality, I was talking about
fun! Mind you, I've been told I'm meant to get more sensible now
I'm a dad. I've fought it for a while but it seems to happen no matter
what I try. Maybe I've less time for filling with frivolities :-/

> Actually the worst aspect was how much rubbish little boys can find in
> urban bushland that they want you to take back for them in the trailer.

I could not possibly comment on that, though my wife might make claims
to similar problems with me.


Graeme

 

[Terryc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

>>and what sort of a partner in a marriage you'd make.
>
> That's just a bit low ******.

Theo
What else did you expect from a man clearly unable to have a long term
meaningful relationship with a woman?

<ditto, a man, if that is his bent?>

I'm having a chuckle because I remember a lady's man co-worker's
discovery. He came into the office one Moday looking a bit shocked.
"They are using me" "The women have been using me".

Finally found out the whole story. He had joined a local social club,
which was run by older, single (divorced, separated, etc) women and
whilst he had not been able to be "successful" with the women he wanted,
he had been invited some nights they went out to take home certain
women, which lead to....

Finally, he was dropped from the loop and eventualy asked a close women
friend what had he done. He was given the news that none of the women
though he just was good enough in bed for a second invitation.

 

[monsterman]

Now that you mention it, we haven't seen a post from Paulie for at least 3 months

DB

Lotte got a post from Paullie 3 months ago. Thats what Paullie calls it anyway, but he is prone to exageration.

 

[LotteBum]

What?!

Congratulations Lotte. Not just on the pregnancy, though that's extremely
congratulations-worthy, but I think this is the first time I've ever
noticed you not bite at a troll. And I should know, since I'm normally the
one trolling.

It really depends on the person... why would I care what this geriatric has to say?

Lotte

 

[Theo Bekkers]

LotteBum wrote:

> It really depends on the person... why would I care what this
> geriatric has to say?

Damn it Lotte, now I'm insulted. Patrick is a few years younger than me.

Theo

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 14, 10:55 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patrick Turner wrote:
<snip ****>
>
> > But none of them had the courage my mother had,
>
> Etc, etc, etc. So you really wanted to marry your mother?
>
> Theo

ROFL! I was wondering about his strong Oedipus complex too.

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2007-09-14, Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> LotteBum wrote:
>> It really depends on the person... why would I care what this
>> geriatric has to say?
>
> Damn it Lotte, now I'm insulted. Patrick is a few years younger than me.

Age is as much attitude as it is time elapsed since birth. Patrick is
well and truly past it; you, Theo, are not.

(Funny how the signal to noise ratio in here improved when I plonked him
.... haven't had to put up with any of his ramblings except second hand.)

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terryc wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>>> and what sort of a partner in a marriage you'd make.
>>
>> That's just a bit low ******.
>
> Theo
> What else did you expect from a man clearly unable to have a long term
> meaningful relationship with a woman?

He says he's been rejected by the twenty women he's allegedly lived with. As
in, they left.

Theo

 

[Terryc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> LotteBum wrote:
>
>
>>It really depends on the person... why would I care what this
>>geriatric has to say?
>
>
> Damn it Lotte, now I'm insulted. Patrick is a few years younger than me.

Umm "this geriatric".
You're not included, unless you wanna be {.

 

[LotteBum]

Damn it Lotte, now I'm insulted. Patrick is a few years younger than me.

You're only as young as the woman you feel, and you, Theo, can.... uhh, maybe I should grow up and refrain from making lewd comments.

Anyway, Theo, you should post your picture on here and I will tell you if you are a good looking lad or not.

Lotte

 

[Terryc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Terryc wrote:

>>What else did you expect from a man clearly unable to have a long term
>>meaningful relationship with a woman?
>
> He says he's been rejected by the twenty women he's allegedly lived with. As
> in, they left.

In that regard he is just a pearl. We get these wild claims and then he
shoots himself directly in the foot in the next sentence.

I missed that all that, I skimmed to big arsed women and fell off he
chair laughing. Boy, does he still a lot to learn.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

LotteBum wrote:

> Anyway, Theo, you should post your picture on here and I will tell you
> if you are a good looking lad or not.

Here's one in my play-group outfit. I've since traded the white hat for a
yellow one (lieutenant).

http://www.chitteringfireservices.org.au/history.html

Theo
Waiting in trepidation to see if I'm attractive to pregnant women.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:36:35 +0800
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Theo
> Waiting in trepidation to see if I'm attractive to pregnant women.

I thought it was well known that no man is attractive to pregnant
women? Or is that just during the labour, and mostly just the one
responsible?

Zebee