Anonymous wrote:I understand the safety issues. That's why I've waited this long! But here's my problem: trampolines have been a pandemic purchase in literally EVERY household we know. So my kids are actually playing at other homes, without my supervision, where there are trampolines - and prefer to do that because it's more fun that an empty backyard. Fwiw neither of my kids has any gymnastic pretensions - they couldn't do a flip if they tried - and I won't permit more than one kid on the trampoline at a time, which I can't assure at somebody else's house.
And on the safety nets, I'm tracking all the specs. Skybound has a 6ft net which seems to be the norm for Springfree and most others. I found only one that is higher (6.5ft), also with a high weight limit but it had a lot of questionable reviews (Merax brand.)
Can you tell I do research for a living?
PP here who was concerned about the Skybound. My concern isn’t actually about the height of the enclosure itself, I’d kind of assumed it was fairly standard. It’s more about what the decision to use that photo (which is probably photoshopped) to promote their product. Using an image that depicts their trampoline being used in an unsafe way does not reassure me that they are a company that takes safety seriously. I’d be more concerned about things like how securely the springs are covered, the durability of the mesh itself, the structural integrity of the frame. Where might they have cut corners in a way that affects safety to make their product cheaper or otherwise more appealing to consumers who aren’t digging deep into the safety issues.
Again, I’m not anti-trampoline. My kids use outs every day (weather permitting). It’s about the particular brand of trampoline that gives me pause. Nothing about the Avon gave me pause right off the bat (although I didn’t dig too deep into it, just looked at the photos).