fat, slick rear tire....why?

http://tinyurl.com/7tkss

Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the advantage?

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/7tkss

Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the
advantage?

It's just style. There's no advantage. If you see one of
these, pick it up. I don't mean "buy it", I mean just
physically pick it up. These are heavy and it's hard to see
them used by real children.

Did you also notice that on the right side of your page is a
link to a Schwinn Sting Ray Electric Bike? This is for ages
10-16 (i.e. pre-drivers' licence), which is curious. It has a
250 watt engine, which frankly is more than I'm putting out
these days ;( We can all bemoan the use of motors to
pedal kids around, but with the natural fascination of young
boys with motors this one might sell.

Mike Kruger wrote:
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/7tkss

Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the
advantage?

It's just style. There's no advantage. If you see one of
these, pick it up. I don't mean "buy it", I mean just
physically pick it up. These are heavy and it's hard to see
them used by real children.


Actually, I have picked upa Schwinn kids bike before. I was amazed at how
heavy they are...must heavier than my bike....I'd hate for a kid to crash on
one of those as it would hurt if the bike were to land on him...of course,
since the bike is so heavy....the kid likely won't get going so fast....so
maybe it's a safety feature

Did you also notice that on the right side of your page is a
link to a Schwinn Sting Ray Electric Bike? This is for ages
10-16 (i.e. pre-drivers' licence), which is curious. It has a
250 watt engine, which frankly is more than I'm putting out
these days ;( We can all bemoan the use of motors to
pedal kids around, but with the natural fascination of young
boys with motors this one might sell.

The reason I asked the question is the first place is that I have a
friend who is interested in getting a bike....and she is afraid of falling
over and thought that perhaps the fat tire might help...and she was curious
about the motorized bike when I told her about it...

Why not give a 16 yo a moped? Also, if this bike has a motor, doesn't that
mean the rider is a driver and needs a license? Hmm....

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:36:48 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote in message
:

http://tinyurl.com/7tkss
Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the advantage?

Because it makes it look more like a motorcycle. That is a toy, not a
bike.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:36:48 -0400, "Roger Zoul" wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/7tkss

Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the advantage?

Fun, amusement, visual entertainment.

I sorta can't agree with some of the criticism here. The rider positioning is
more of a problem than the weight or the silly tire.

Youth bike have always weighed a freeking ton and still do. My neph's 13" framed
Haro weighs as much as my MTBs. Just to make sure he hadn't been deprived or
defrauded I went and hefted a Trek 220. Nope, not a lightweight either.

I'm coming to believe that the 24" BMX bike is what yute's should be riding.
Simple, rugged, relatively light and large enough to fit in a bicyclic way.

Ron

In article ,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:36:48 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote in message
:

http://tinyurl.com/7tkss
Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the advantage?

Because it makes it look more like a motorcycle. That is a toy, not a
bike.

Guy

Guy is right. The laid-back, nay, _recumbent_ position this bicycle
would force the rider into is unnatural, and probably untenable.

No serious cyclist would be caught dead with their feet that far ahead
of their seat. I mean really, what next? Put the cranks above the front
wheel? It's silly.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

"RonSonic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:36:48 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/7tkss

Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the advantage?

Fun, amusement, visual entertainment.

I sorta can't agree with some of the criticism here. The rider positioning
is
more of a problem than the weight or the silly tire.

Youth bike have always weighed a freeking ton and still do. My neph's 13"
framed
Haro weighs as much as my MTBs. Just to make sure he hadn't been deprived
or
defrauded I went and hefted a Trek 220. Nope, not a lightweight either.

I'm coming to believe that the 24" BMX bike is what yute's should be
riding.
Simple, rugged, relatively light and large enough to fit in a bicyclic
way.

It seems to me the Sting Ray would be an excellent second bike for a kid,
but would absolutely SUCK as an only bike. No way to take that thing off
road, and I don't imagine it would be a lot of fun to ride long distances.
BMX or a youth MTB would be a far better choice. I had a chopper bike in the
late 70s, complete with springer fork. It was cool, but I don't think I rode
it very far...

RonSonic wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:36:48 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/7tkss

Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the
advantage?

Fun, amusement, visual entertainment.

I sorta can't agree with some of the criticism here. The rider
positioning is more of a problem than the weight or the silly tire.

Youth bike have always weighed a freeking ton and still do. My neph's
13" framed Haro weighs as much as my MTBs. Just to make sure he
hadn't been deprived or defrauded I went and hefted a Trek 220. Nope,
not a lightweight either.

I'm coming to believe that the 24" BMX bike is what yute's should be
riding. Simple, rugged, relatively light and large enough to fit in a
bicyclic way.

What's a 'yute'?

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/7tkss

Why put a fat & slick rear tire on this thing? What is the advantage?


I think this one is a dead horse! The only point is for looks, it serves no
real purpose.

Ken

On Sun, 01 May 2005 07:14:48 -0700, Ryan Cousineau
wrote in message :

No serious cyclist would be caught dead with their feet that far ahead
of their seat. I mean really, what next? Put the cranks above the front
wheel? It's silly.

Er, hang on a minute, no, that can't be right...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound