Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 1
    No, the bike is definitely not too big. We had a smaller one (16" wheels) and that was so small he could barely sit on it anymore. The saddle on the current bike is also at a medium height, not even close to minimum. But I do agree about the weight. The bike is quite heavy compared to the kid. Unfortunately lighter bikes at this size cost a fortune. And anyway - shouldn't a larger mass result in more inertia? It might take more energy to get up to speed, but after he's there he could just keep on rolling.
    – Vilx-
    Commented Jul 4, 2020 at 11:07
  • 1
    Could it be that the axles are not running smooth which would require more effort to keep going?
    – Carel
    Commented Jul 4, 2020 at 11:21
  • 1
    I think 20" wheels would be fine for a 5-7 year old child. More likely the weight of the bike is the problem. Commented Jul 5, 2020 at 19:57
  • 1
    Yeah. Although it is stil pretty heavy compared to the kid. Not sure if it's good or bad. A lighter bike would make accelerating easier, but it would also have even less inertia after he's picked up speed. That's the main difference I notice between him and the rest of us - he requires nearly constant pedaling, while we just pedal a bit and then coast, pedal a bit and then coast...
    – Vilx-
    Commented Jul 6, 2020 at 12:16
  • 1
    Inertia doesn't really work that way. If you want to get an idea about what the bike feels like to the kid, try strapping stuff to your bike until it weighs more than half of your weight and try how it handles. Those tires aren't really helping, though.
    – ojs
    Commented Jul 6, 2020 at 16:50