Talk:Balance bike

List of commmercial balance / training bicycles

• BugaBike Canada
• BugaBike USA
• BugaBike Europe
• Kettler Sprint
• [1]
• [2]
• Pedobike
• Puky Learner
• Glider
• Radio Flyer
• [3]
• Cruzee
• Papapit Performance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.155.167.11 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longkidsland (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the above list from the article. I didn't think it was a good idea to begin with, but if we're going to list products then lets (a) list all products and (b) stick to the product (manufacturer) sites, not list dealer sites. Una Smith 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to manufacturers

I do not see anything in the policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_should_be_linked discouraging links to manufacturers. I think it makes the article more useful for those interested in purchasing a balance bike.

I also prefer listing the manufacturers over retailers. But the retailer I included listed several balance bikes for which I could not find manufacturers' websites. Gary

The relevant policy is WP:NOT#DIR. There are so many retailers, and so many of them carry so many different products. It's not fair to pick just one retailer, or just a few, and not desirable to list them all. Readers who want to go shopping can type "balance bike" or "laufrad" or whatever into their favorite web search engine. Or visit a website that reviews bicycles. Okay? Can you find a review website with a good review of balance bikes? That would make a good external link. Una Smith 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What about a link to an external list of models as I have added. It's not a review, but it does mention which ones have footrests and brakes. Is this a problem, too? (the disadvantage is that others can't add new models).Gary

A link to a consumer (not retailer) page that reviews products would be ideal. I do appreciate the aggro of maintaining a non-wiki page. Gary, could you put it on a wiki? It looks like your page is a wiki of sorts. How do you like it? For now, I propose to leave the product list here on this talk page, so people can continue to add to it (as someone already has done). Una Smith 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Features

There is a well-written review of the most popular models on the market. Go to http://tview29.wordpress.com/ to view it.

The article would benefit from an informed discussion of the pros and cons of various features: brakes, footrest, restricted turning radius front fork, wheel design (are spokeless wheels an important safety feature?), etc. Una Smith 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all the Puky models have brakes, by the way, and on at least some models the brakes are optional. Una Smith 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Checkout this link it compares some of the models http://www.glidebikes.com/compare.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.55.227 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam deleted

I didn't see anything in the External Links section that passed the WP:ELNO test. Please do not add any more external links unless they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:External links. Instead, please add inline citations to reliable sources. --Dbratland (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The Learning Method section currently reads as if it was written by someone who was run over by a balance bike at a young age and has held a grudge against them ever since. The only positive claim is prefixed by "Manufacturers of balance bicycles say ..." in spite of the fact that at least three of the articles in the References sections that endorse balance bikes are written by neutral third parties. Indeed, there are no references at all written by manufacturers in this version of the article. The fact that training wheels need to be adjusted correctly to perform well is mentioned twice, even though this has little to do with balance bikes. Finally, the section ends with a suggestion to remove the pedals off a bicycle instead of buying a balance bike.

In short, this section should be re-written by someone with a more balanced point of view than the current author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.129.170 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There were references written by manufactures of these bikes, but I deleted them. No less than three of the sources cited said that an easy alternative to a balance bike is removing the pedals from a normal bike. Multiple expert sources quoted said that there was no proof that balance bikes made learning to bike faster. Sheldon Browns expertise helped explain the issue: poorly adjusted training wheels hinder learning, but not if they are adjusted as needed. The bike magazine article which disagrees with Brown and says training wheels prevent countersteering is clearly cited.

I checked several web sites of balance bike makers, and though they have links to press articles about themselves, none of them could cite independent sources that back up the claim that they speed learning.

If independent information supporting other claims is found, it can certainly be added to the article. Further explanation can be found at Wikipedia:Third-party sources WP:NPOV. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As written, the "Learning Method" section reads like a debate about training wheels. We should get rid of all such language, other than a brief (one sentence or less) reference to the pros and cons of training wheels versus balance bicycles as platforms to teach youngsters to ride. This is not an article about training wheels!

I agree that it is out of place here, but I wouldn't like to lose it altogether. Perhaps a learning section would fit better in the bicycle or cycling articles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Using the citations currently provided, I think it would be safe to change "Manufacturers of balance bicycles say ..." to "Proponents of balance..." But, again, let's keep this section short. There are simply not enough RSs weighing in on the matter to justify a lengthy opus. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the language and references I put together here. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. But none of the articles I read said any pediatricians were "opponents" of balance bicycles -- they only expressed neutrality, that neither balance bikes nor training wheels had *proven* to be better. Sheldon Brown used the words "waste of money" in comparison to just removing the pedals from a normal bike, but he also seemed to think training wheels were generally a hinderance. So I wouldn't call him an "opponent" either -- just somebody who thinks you can more easily make your own balance bike rather than buy one. As far as I know, nobody opposes balance bikes. There are just varying degrees of support. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. If I were me, I'd remove the pediatricians reference and just keep "opponents." The Sheldon (RIP) cite covers training wheels AND balance bikes, so maybe we should tweak the language leading up to it a bit. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I removed "pediatricians" and included Sheldon's (RIP) recommendation that users simply remove the pedals to make their own balance bicycles in the "History" section. Check out my suggestions here. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lost track. Did all the issues get resolved. I can see not major problems with the section as currently written. Can we remove the neutrality tag now? -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm calling it good for now, unless someone wants to discuss more. Saying you can't compare and contast with alternative methods because this page is only about balance bikes violates WP:POVFORK, so I think it's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Adult balance bike prototype

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/08/would-you-ride-a-pedal-less-fliz-running-bike.html --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

New lead image makes this look like a Strider ad

The lead photo added here makes this look like an ad for Strider. We've had several SPAs working on this article in the past, all Strider sales and marketing people. Now we're back to a balance bike article that has a huge Strider logo at the top of the article.

Must we shill for Strider this way?

Second question: previously this article had 4 images, now there are 10. What information is conveyed by all these pictures? I get the point of showing there is no drive train. I understand the desire to show both wooden and metal balance bikes. I can sort of tolerate the urge to show low down tube "step" thru balance bikes. But 10 images? What are we communicating with all these pictures? What is the reader learning? To me it's repetitive and redundant and it's showing the same thing over and over in a slightly different context. We have enough verifiable facts on this subject to support perhaps 5 images, though 3 would be plenty. Why so many? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are so worried about inadvertently aiding some commercial enterprise, download the image, white out the logo, upload a new copy, and replace the original. I chose it because it shows what a balance bicycle is better than any others available on wikimedia. It is a lot better than the one it replaced, which conceals where the crank and pedals would be with the kid's leg.

As for the gallery, I chose pictures that show the variety of designs, and show kids riding them. I don't have a video, so several stills are the next best thing. I was unaware of the gallery size limit -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)