|[ Main index » Bicycle components tests » Bicycle kickstands||Dutch: Nederlandse versie van mijn standaarden test ]|
Possible reviews of more kickstands:
Note first of all that for touring with heavy load all kickstands are problematical. Look for example at the Hebie 672 rear fork stand: It is not good enough, because it's not strong enough, it will deform. The 611 is better but it still deforms too easily. The Hebie 632 could be a good option but it's in no way perfect. The 630 is better because it's not so wide, even though they specifiy a lower weight limit for this kickstand. Rear fork kickstands are better in the case of heavy load at the back of the bike, but the newer ones I tried from Hebie are weak...
Manufacturers may say a wide kickstand means it's more stable, but this is only true if you have very little bagage on the bike...
The only reason to have a wide kickstand is to be able to lean the bike a bit more than with a narrow kickstand, but when you do this (with a centre mounted kickstand, not so much with a rear-fork kickstand), then with bagage the bicycle wants to rotate with the kickstand's foot as the pivot point in case you have heavy baggage, thus toppling the bike.
So for heavy loads the bike must stay positioned as near vertical as possible, with the kickstand screwed out as high as possible, but of course, then there is no advantage of a wide kickstand over a narrow kickstand in being more stable...! In both cases wind can then topple a bike over (in the direction opposite of where the kicstand is mounted). And sometimes you can't get the kickstand high enough (not sure about the 632, I'd have to check this again).
A narrow kickstand is fine for a touring bike with heavy load, in fact the aluminium Mruichi kickstand can be used just as well as any of the much heavier ones, if you place the bike correctly (which can be a nuisance on inclines/hills/non-flat ground), then it can be used easily with ca. 25 kg bagage, but it's a 1990s kickstand and it's not available any more...
I think the Hebie 630 is a better option than the 632 for loaded touring as it's not so wide and even though they say it's only meant for 30kg, but with lots of bagage (30-40kg), you usually have to park the bike against a wall or tree anyway or it won't be stable...
Summary: A wider stance is only useful so that the bike can lean more and thus it's more stable against toppling with no load or little load, but leaning more makes the bike less stable with heavy baggage! At least, with a centre mounted kickstand. With a rear-fork kickstand this is not so much an issue but as I found with the Mruichi (which is almost straight), a wide stance simply isn't needed and only means more stress on the material which tends to deform. So with centre mounted kickstands there is a choice to make: Using a kickstand with a wide stance then you can let the bike lean more, but this only works with little load on the rear rack. If you don't let the bike lean much, then you might as well use a normal kickstand (there is a slight difference in favour of a wide kickstand against toppling, but only if you let the bike not lean more than with the narrow kickstand). Result: Wide kickstands are only useful in some cases.
When you look at what happens with the forces, you can see why a centre mounted kickstand is not as good as a rear-fork mounted kickstand for heavy loads: With the rear-fork kickstand, the kickstand is pushed into the ground by the load. This acts against toppling over. Of course the load is never exactly above the point where the kickstand is on the ground, but the effect as seen with centre mounted kickstands is far smaller.
For a centre mounted kickstand, the point where the kickstand touches the ground is far away, and what now happens is that the kickstand cannot counter any weight from the load, no, the countering comes from the weight of the bicycle itself: When the bike topples over, the mass on the rack, times distance to the line of the rear wheel and point where the kickstand touches the ground, is bigger than the mass of the rest of the bike times distances at which these masses are from that line. This is why with centre mounted kickstands, the width is not much help to counter rotation. It gives a bit more counter weight to the mass on the rear than with a narrow centre mounted kickstand, but, not enough.
Summary: Rear-fork/stay mounted kickstands are better for heavy loads than centre mounted (bracket) kickstands. I've seen dual kickstands (with one on the front lowrider) used for loaded touring which I haven't tried yet, but this should work for the front kickstand similar to the rear fork kickstand.
I've used this stand long ago, and they used to be put on all city bikes in the Netherlands. They are rock solid, not too heavy, with only 1 thing that could be improved on: To adjust the length of the kickstand (for 26/28 inch wheels) you need to saw off a bit of the kickstand... (though these days they come ready made in lengths for 26/28 inch). It works well and these kickstands can last decades.
Tested: No... I've got one, but I've got no plans yet to use it. Essentially it's a multi zoom without the adjustable height. You simply saw (or file for small adjustments) to length. This is the way it used to be done with Pletscher kickstands for city bikes here in NL in the 1980s and earlier (just about all such bikes came with Pletscher standard kickstands), and it just works, when being careful not to saw off too much of course. This is not so bad, or so much work, as it sounds. But I think that the adjustable version being not much more expensive, is the better option.
Tested: From 9 Feb. 2014
Mass: 442g with all mounting hardware.
You can mount this for forks of various sizes but I think the method chosen is a bit cumbersome. A front and rear plate with impression of a tube will work with any size tubing. At first I had mounted it such that the kickstand was quite far forward and I could even hit it with my heel if not pedalling exactly straight. So I changed it such that the arm to the rear fork is shorter and the kickstand is thus farther to the rear. Much better but still, why do these kickstands extend so much to the side (with the arm to the rear)? The 611 also has this but I will make some measurements to find out exactly with all rear fork kickstands (though I deformed my 672 and 611, so not sure what they were originally).
I like the positive action of this kickstand, I still need to test it with heavy load.
Update 2014-7-13: I've used this kickstand for 5 months, including heavy loads, and it is excellent. Far better than the rubbish rear fork kickstands by Hebie.
Changing the height must be done by unbolting the plastic end of the kickstand (which is fastened with inner-hex bolts), and then moving it to the required height. This works, but I'd like to have seen a rotating system as e.g. on the Simson kickstand, which makes easy and quick adjustments for different situations possible (e.g. with light load and if wind is strong, you might want to let the bike angle a bit more).
Conclusion: Excellent rear fork kickstand.
Tested from: Autumn 2010.
Mass: 415g with mounting bolt. The kickstand extends about 30cm from the bike when extended near the maximum.
I thought at first this was a good kickstand, and its length can be adjusted. However, there are some problems. This first is that if you ride with kickstand out backwards with bike on your hand the crank can drive the kickstand out of its socket. This also happens fairly easily if you kick the kickstand too hard when putting it out to park your bike. This has happened several times with me and my sister. It takes some (annoying) work to get the arm back in its socket again. Another problem is that it's a very wide kickstand. This may sound good, but I actually found out that with a wide kickstand and a heavy bag on the rear rack, the bike is more likely to topple over than with a more narrow kickstand (because with a wide kickstand you want to use that width and make the bike more stable when it hasn't got a load, which is mainly so if you let it lean more, see the section at the start that explains this). Then I had another problem on the bike shown: The kickstand hits the brake disc unless I very carefully retract it. This is because it keeps fairly high, it's fairly long, and the socket for the arm is from plastic, and flexible...
Conclusion: Poor, not recommended.
Tested: Since spring 2010
Mass: 393 g with mounting bolt.
Length is adjustable, the kickstand extends about 19 cm from the bike. This kickstand works well.
Tested from: End of July 2011.
Mass: 391g with mounting bolt. The kickstand extends about 28cm from the bike.
Also a wide kickstand, which thus suffers from the same problem of instability as the Spanninga Libra although it's slightly better. Beside that it has none of the other problems of the Spanninga libra, it looks nice, works nice.
Tested: July 2013 - August 2014.
Mass: 420 g with all mounting hardware.
This kickstand sucks. Its mount on the fork is from plastic with a steel u-beam added for strenth. The plastic deforms way too much when you have some stuff on the rear rack or in the rear bags, not that much weight, just 5 kg or so and the problems start. And no, the steel u-beam like thingy doesn't prevent bending, it gets bent... The threads on the metal part used to fix the stand at the bottom tube were not correctly angled which made it very hard to get the bolts in.
Conclusion: Poor, not recommended.
Tested: August 2013 - Feb. 2014.
Mass: ca. 503 g with all mounting hardware.
This has a steel base instead of plastic + steel in the 672. I used it on a long bike trip with heavy load, about 35 kg total in the front and rear bags, and it's not suitable for this. Hebie mentions the weight limit of 25 kg but of course that depends on how much you let the bike lean... See the section about wide-stance kickstands at the start of this page. And despite going over the weight limit, the way it bends which the Mruichi doesn't is pathetic. Manufacturers should look at what has been done in the past. What Hebie achieves with their rear-fork kickstands is quite poor, especially looking at how heavy they are.
Conclusion: Only reasonable, partly because of the high price. Not stiff enough despite being quite heavy. With heavy load it can bend more than I would want. Still way better than the 672.
Tested from: Spring 2007 (still in use as of Summer 2011).
Mass: 280 g.
This works pretty well but about after a year of intensive use during 2009 the steel gliding parts were worn away. However, I used the kickstand really intensively, on lots of long trips with almost countless stops. I think that year I used the kickstand so much that it would be equal to at least 10 years of normal use.
Tested: August 2013
Mass: 237 g. So very light weight.
Comparable to the Mruichi, but of lesser quality (no stainless steel protection as a slide-bearing against wear from the movement of the foot, for example). Works very well so far, height can be set perfectly, the bicycle is very stable on this stand. It does flex a bit much when putting several kilogram in the rear panniers. It's supposed to be a MTB kickstand and not meant for travel bikes. Wth a bit more solid construction it could be as strong as the Mruichi (which I've used for years wtih up to ca. 30 kg loads in the rear panniers) and this would not be an issue!
Conclusion: Good for MTB or other bike that you won't transport heavy stuff or groceries with, too weak for other purposes. This kickstand could have been made far better, see the much stronger and hardly heavier Mruichi 700-S
|To email me go to the email page|
Last modified: Thu Feb 20 10:39:24 CET 2014