seylerc

@TheR: Both of my kids that learned on balance bikes without handbrakes learned to foot drag as I eventually brought them out to muddy trails and all sorts of fun places with a bit of incline. When they started on pedal bikes, they still had this tendency to foot drag which they had to unlearn. It's a terrible habit that I wish could have been avoided. I can't remember how many times I had to say "brake with your hands not your feet!" as they would slide at speed foot dragging prior to colliding with brush or a fence. I think the big challenge would be handlebar/lever combo that a 2-3yo can actually produce any reasonable braking force with. They need 13-16mm handlebars, thin grips and really well adjusted brakes to do this. I'm happy to see some brands get it right, but every 14 to 16" bike out there with standard 22mm handlebar tubing basically gives you two choices: 1. full handlebar grip 2. four finger braking grip. No ability to "cover" the brakes with 2 fingers how we are used to doing. The levers are just way too far way.

@jwa9681: Unfortunately from what I have read there are not and this is part of what makes kids bikes so heavy. I would be fine having a weight limit specified (say 110lbs) and for the frame, handlebar, cranks, hoops, all to be lighter. My kids Norco Fluid 20" definitely looks like I could ride it without braking any part of it and it is relatively heavy due to this. Woom definitely appears to make stuff lighter and something that could be broken by an adult. Early Rider also makes their stuff kids weight specific.

@trillot: we were born with two good mitts! No levers needed.

Totally agree. I have been slowly finding ways to drop weight on my kid's Park Cycle's 14. The handlebar/stem combo is a brick. the seat tube is thick steel. the rims are steel. So far just adressing the stem/bar combo and the seat tube is helping. I've heard, but haven't verified that part of the problem is the testing for kids bikes requires the same strength as adult bikes. If I can jump on my 3.5 year old's bike without breaking it, then it is too heavy.

Being an Oregonian, that jumped off the page at me too. I am so happy that we have this in my backyard. Many benefit from this being here, but I love that we see trail updates and see top guys shredding the local trails. The photos are amazing as well!

I missed it, but WAKIdesigns partly addressed this

@humoroususername: I see what you are saying and I can partly agree, but you have to look at this for what it also is: I am surprised no one has mentioned that this is unsprung weight. The difference between this and weight on the frame adds up as far as suspension performance, small bump sensitivity, etc of the rear suspension. You want everything along the pivot end of that rear triangle (derailleur, axle, tire, rim, hub, cassette) to be as light as you can.

Wow, this thread is old but I can't help but notice the comment by dannythekiwi being shut down. He is dead on here. Jagarcia89, you are confusing torque with tension. Torque is nothing more than the rotational force placed on a nut or bolt. The tension exists lengthwise in the bolt and is a combination of the thread pitch, thread friction, and torque applied. This is why when you change the friction you effectively change the tension the bolt applies on the materials it holds together, even though the torque is the same. If you replace "torque" with "tension" then your statement of applying a lubricant allowing the bolt to receive the tension becomes absolutely correct. The problem as dannythekiwi has stated it is that torque specification only apply to a specific thread friction (lube vs no lube). In situations where lube is part of the torque spec, going dry would mean you aren't applying appropriate tension, the torque is whatever your torque wrench reads when you stop cranking. If we reverse the above situation where the torque rating was specified for a dry bolt, and you lube it, the same torque will put excess tension that could make components fail.