safety standards on kids bikes

[alison_b]

Donga wrote:
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > I think 3 is a common number of bikes to have - the nice/race/long ride
> > bike, the wet-weather/commuting bike, and the off-road bike. Yes? Not
> > obsession at all, is it?! One of my other colleages has these three, as
> > I do.
> >
> > Now I need number 4, the shopping bike.
>
> Wet weather bike? Get titanium, then you can rationalise some of the
> others. Carbon doesn't rust either.

You got a CF chain? Titanium bearings?

Well, the "Bloke who has everything" recently had one of those special birthdays that end in a zero, and is now the proud owner of a gold-plated chain.

I'm not quite sure what he plans to actually do with it... It looks rather pretty though.

ali

 

[Gemma_k]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Gemma_k Wrote:
> >
> > There is already a standard 'AS1927:1998 Pedal Bicycles- Safety
> > Requirements'
> > In section 2.14 "Braking System"
> > it says "All bicycles shall be equipped with not less than two brakes,
> > one
> > acting on the front wheel and one acting on the rear wheel. On a
> > children's
> > bicycle one brake shall be a back-pedal brake". Further on in 2.14.2.3
> > it
> > says 'childrens bicycles - The maximum grip dimension ... shall not
> > exceed
> > 60mm' (this is the distance from the lever mid point to the back of
> > handlebar grip for the hand brake)...
> >
>
> 60mm!?!?!?!?!?!?
>
> you seriously thinking this 'covers it' ???
>
NO MORE THAN 60mm... (not 60mm exactly)
And having a rear brake
How would you improve it?

 

[Donga]

Bleve wrote:
> Donga wrote:
> > Tamyka Bell wrote:
> > > I think 3 is a common number of bikes to have - the nice/race/long ride
> > > bike, the wet-weather/commuting bike, and the off-road bike. Yes? Not
> > > obsession at all, is it?! One of my other colleages has these three, as
> > > I do.
> > >
> > > Now I need number 4, the shopping bike.
> >
> > Wet weather bike? Get titanium, then you can rationalise some of the
> > others. Carbon doesn't rust either.
>
> You got a CF chain? Titanium bearings?

Can I get one of those somewhere?
Seriously, I've never had a rust problem with a chain kept properly
lubed, and that's just the ordinary type. As to bearings, no issues to
report. I hose my bike down after a wet ride.

Donga

 

[Kingsley]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 11:29:49 +1000, flyingdutch wrote:

> [...] handbrake usage.
>
> they are not designed for the handsizes most likely to be found on
> such sized bikes and are therefore next to useless and dangerous.

The bike 20" we got for miss-seven has, what look like,
standard brake levers, but there are screws that screw in just
below where the cable comes out. This pre-tensions the cable,
but it does it by pushing the brake lever back towards the
bar (as if pulled). The net effect is that the home position
for the lever is significantly further within reach.

Brakes are pretty good on her bike, but she's not fully
accomplished at riding it yet - too much time on the
trailer-bike methinks.

http://cedar.maddogsbreakfast.com.au/k-n-me.jpg

--
Kingsley Turner,
(mailto: [email protected])
http://MadDogsBreakfast.com/ABFAQ - news:aus.bicycle Frequenly Asked Questions

 

[Gags]

"Tamyka Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> sinus wrote:
> <snip>
> > He much prefers this bike to the 2nd hand bmx, even though that can
> > skid. Probably because it is more like Dad's. It's a Giant, so it did
> > cost more than a Huffy, but, hey, it's a bike. N+1 etc.
>
> I was talking about bike storage issues to a colleague today. He asked
> how many bikes Steven and I have. Well it's currently six but on is in a
> workshop in Toowoomba. Seven if you include Charlie's bike. Steven has a
> steel roadie that will hopefully come back from England soon also, to
> make eight. I was trying to explain the N+1 rule but my colleague
> thought that indicated obsession.
>
> I think 3 is a common number of bikes to have - the nice/race/long ride
> bike, the wet-weather/commuting bike, and the off-road bike. Yes? Not
> obsession at all, is it?! One of my other colleages has these three, as
> I do.
>
> Now I need number 4, the shopping bike.
>
> Tam

My shed is chockas at the moment.....Good Roadie, Training Roadie, Fixie,
Dually, Hardtail, SS mtb (heavy rain bike). Then I have the wife's mtb,
son's bmx and scooter, daughter's current bike, old bike, and old trike.
There's also a couple of skateboards kicking around in there and a motorised
jeep (actually going to sell the jeep soon as it is too small for the kids
now and I need the room).

Maybe if I get rid of the jeep I will have room to finish building up the
track frame instead of have it hanging on the wall!!!

Always room for one more.........am currently looking at Mountain Unicycles
(29 inch and 36 inch).......now there is a good wet weather
commuter.....wonder if I could put a mudguard and panniers on one???

Gags

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Donga" wrote:
>
> Gemma_k wrote:

>> There is already a standard 'AS1927:1998 Pedal Bicycles- Safety
>> Requirements'
>> In section 2.14 "Braking System"
>
> Do bikes actually have to meet this standard? Refer to recent threads
> on helmets. They can be sold without meeting the standard,

Many years ago I worked for a bicycle assembler (low end of the market) and
it was my understanding that the earlier version of this satndard then
applying was something that was compulsory ie. all bikes sold in Australia
had to comply with the standard. It would surprise me if this has changed to
allow a non-AS 1927 approved bike to be sold. Privately imported bikes and
second hand sales of course are not subject to the standard.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[TimC]

On 2006-05-10, Gags (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Always room for one more.........am currently looking at Mountain Unicycles
> (29 inch and 36 inch).......now there is a good wet weather
> commuter.....wonder if I could put a mudguard and panniers on one???

A unicycle sounds a bit overboard. It has bearings that will wear
away when the dirt and rain gets in!

Shirley a plain wheel with just an axle jutting out is all that's
necessary for a rain bike?

--
TimC
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
-- Robert R. Coveyou, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

 

[flyingdutch]

NO MORE THAN 60mm... (not 60mm exactly)
And having a rear brake
How would you improve it?

Making the dimensions relevant to a kid's handsize might be a good start...

 

[Bleve]

Mick wrote:
> "Donga" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ...
> > So should I get the young'un a nice BMX (with good brakes) or a ****
> > 20" MTB?
>
> I'm going through the same thing. Have a boy 7 and a girl 9 and we
> ride a lot together. They have single speeds that they have outgrown,
> plus it's hard for them to grind up some of the hills around here.
>
> So the last few weekends I've been doing the rounds looking for
> 24" MTBs. 20" is too small, 26" too big. Problem is there is a lot of
> **** in the 24" range - token headsets, forks, ... I'd rather pay a
> little more and get something they can give a bit of a hard time.
>
> LBS can do a good deal on a Jamis Fester. Seems a decent spec.
> Any other suggestions?

Trek and Giant make some good kids bikes (better than the usual rubbish
anyway)- but expect to pay a bit more for them, mum & dad don't want to
spend $300+ on kids bikes, so not many LBS's will stock them. We
don't, for exactly that reason, they don't sell - too expensive even
though they're heaps better than the Apollos (some of the better cheap
& nasy ones) and other shitters people put under their kids.

 

[Terry Collins]

Bleve wrote:

> Trek and Giant make some good kids bikes (better than the usual rubbish
> anyway)- but expect to pay a bit more for them, mum & dad don't want to
> spend $300+ on kids bikes, so not many LBS's will stock them. We
> don't, for exactly that reason, they don't sell - too expensive even
> though they're heaps better than the Apollos (some of the better cheap
> & nasy ones) and other shitters people put under their kids.

Funny you should mention $300. that was just the magic price (less GST)
of all the bicycles (adult) in two of the better LBS yesterday.

 

[Gemma_k]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Gemma_k Wrote:
>>
>>
>> NO MORE THAN 60mm... (not 60mm exactly)
>> And having a rear brake
>> How would you improve it?
>
> Making the dimensions relevant to a kid's handsize might be a good
> start...
>
Which is what then?
(Just measured mine on road bike - 100mm)

Gemm

 

[slaw]

We bought a Raleigh Sugar 24" girly style MTB for about $260. The Giant was a bit over $300, a bit lighter, as the Raleigh has a suspension fork.

I really can't believe how good a bike it is for that price: hydroformed frame, v-brakes, indexed gears, one year's service etc. Sure it's a bit heavier than my dual susp mtb, but my yearly maintenance costs on that bike (chain, cassette, brake pads, suspension maintenance, etc) is more than the cost of the girl's whole bike.

Anyway, it does have reach adjust levers so the 9yo has no probs using them. Her prior bike from about 5yo to 8yo is a Giant 20" mtb we got 2nd hand for about $120. It has canti brakes with reach adjust levers, although one of the adjusting screws had stripped out. Still, I don't remember it taking too long for her to get used to the brakes. Prior to that, the 16" bmx style bike had coaster brake and a front brake which was very crappy - no adjustment and very hard to actuate. I tried to improve it, but the calipers were so flexy and the pads on the pink-painted rims had very little grip, I gave up on them.

 

[flyingdutch]

Which is what then?
(Just measured mine on road bike - 100mm)

Gemm

MUCH smaller than 60mm!

My mtb levers are 70mm
My chorus levers are sameish.
we must have bigger mm in Vic

 

[Gemma_k]

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

> MUCH smaller than 60mm!
>
> My mtb levers are 70mm
> My chorus levers are sameish.
> we must have bigger mm in Vic
>

I think you might need to check how you're measuring it...? My MTB levers on
my timetrial bike have a measurement of 90mm
The measurement in the standard for children's bikes (maximum of 60mm) is
supposed to be from the back face of the handgrip to the lever (midpoint of
the lever)..
So if the grips have a diameter of, say, 25mm then the lever's clearance
from the bar to the lever is only 35mm. Which is not a lot! Getting close to
crushing little fingers if you squeeze too hard distance?

Another way of looking at it is this.
make an "L" with your thumb and index finger. Jam a ruler at the base of
the "L" and measure to the end of your index finger. My 'Reach' is
therefore about 125mm. (Yes I have big hands for a girly!)

Gemm

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Gemma_k wrote:
<snip>
> Another way of looking at it is this.
> make an "L" with your thumb and index finger. Jam a ruler at the base of
> the "L" and measure to the end of your index finger. My 'Reach' is
> therefore about 125mm. (Yes I have big hands for a girly!)

You do indeedy! Mine is only about 100mm... if you include to the tip of
my fingernail!

Tam

 

[flyingdutch]

doh! was measuring it the grouppo-way, ie centre of bar to front-edge of lever where fingies go, so add 15mm to those figaws...

 

[flyingdutch]

all semantics anyhow as it still dont make kids brakes any betterrrrr...

 

[suzyj]

Gemma wrote:

> My 'Reach' is therefore about 125mm. (Yes I have
> big hands for a girly!)

Yeah, ya do. I thought my hands were enormous, but my reach is only 120mm... Your hands must be _huge_!

Suzy (beaten again)

 

[Mick]

thanks for all the advice folks.

Mick

 

[Bleve]

flyingdutch wrote:
> all semantics anyhow as it still dont make kids brakes any betterrrrr...

Dutchy, you want something for nothing. You can't have it. PI will
continue to be 3.141.... no matter how much you complain about it

The physics are simple enough - a brake lever trades throw length for
force required, in order to get sufficient braking force at the
brakepads. The compromise is either a long throw, which is no good for
small hands, or reduced leverage, requiring more hand strength to
operate. Hydraulics aren't an answer either, they do the same thing
(trade throw for pressure, P = F/A, they're just hydraulic levers, no
magic here, move along).

Coaster brakes are good for little kids. Handbrakes are not, until
they have both the hand strength and the hand size to operate them.
The only other alternative is drum brakes, but they have their own set
of problems, although they are "assisted" they have problems with
complexity and adjustment.