What are all the cogs for ?

"Tim Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On last Sunday's London to Windsor ride, I arrived late and rode through the back end of
> the field.
>
> What surprised me was observing the condition of the bikes being walked up the hills. (The hills
> weren't really much to write home about - at least I could get up them, which isn't saying much.)
>
> About 30% of the pushed bikes had two bigger spare cogs to the left of the chain position as I
> slowly chugged past them ; another 40% had one spare big cog.
>
> Do the panel think this is because
>
> the riders do not know what their gear lever does OR
>
> the bikes are out of adjustment so that the big cogs cannot be selected OR
>
> riders wanted a rest by pushing their steeds up the hill ?
>
> Regards, Tim

Sadly answer A. I went through a phase of mentioning to people in a friendly way that if they
changed gear things would be easier but stopped due to the hosility I got. Most people round here
have 21 speed MTB that might as well be 1 speed. They just stick it in top & leave it there. It is
quite funny though seeing people with a cadence measured in minutes per rev.

Stan Cox.

[email protected] (Tim Henderson) of http://groups.google.com/ wrote:

>On last Sunday's London to Windsor ride, I arrived late and rode through the back end of the field.
>
>What surprised me was observing the condition of the bikes being walked up the hills. (The hills
>weren't really much to write home about - at least I could get up them, which isn't saying much.)
>
>About 30% of the pushed bikes had two bigger spare cogs to the left of the chain position as I
>slowly chugged past them ; another 40% had one spare big cog.
>
>Do the panel think this is because
>
>the riders do not know what their gear lever does OR
>
>the bikes are out of adjustment so that the big cogs cannot be selected OR
>
>riders wanted a rest by pushing their steeds up the hill ?

Writing as one who walked up a hill just today, I suggest: miffed the gear change at the bottom
and couldn't be bothered to turn round, ride down and fix it. In my case only applies to short
hills though.

--
You can't have everything, where would you keep it? Steph Peters delete invalid from
[email protected] Tatting, lace & stitching page
<http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm

"Tim Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On last Sunday's London to Windsor ride, I arrived late and rode through the back end of
> the field.
>
> What surprised me was observing the condition of the bikes being walked up the hills. (The hills
> weren't really much to write home about - at least I could get up them, which isn't saying much.)
>
> About 30% of the pushed bikes had two bigger spare cogs to the left of the chain position as I
> slowly chugged past them ; another 40% had one spare big cog.
>
> Do the panel think this is because
>
> the riders do not know what their gear lever does OR
>
> the bikes are out of adjustment so that the big cogs cannot be selected OR
>
> riders wanted a rest by pushing their steeds up the hill ?
>
> Regards, Tim

If you own a bike and push it uphill without a very good reason, and I mean a very good reason
then you should be shot ! Bikes are for riding uphill and down not for walking next to.

Graham

> <snip> ...very good reason then you should be shot !

Am I the only one that has noticed this type of reaction for a lot of fairly minor transgressions.
Maybe I am too much the wooly minded liberal, but if 'shot' was turned to 'educated', on usenet and
the real world, then everyone would be a lot happier!

Fragg - pacifist

"Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> If you own a bike and push it uphill without a very good reason, and I mean a very good reason
> then you should be shot !

Does not being strong enough or running out of traction count as a very good reason?

cheers, clive

(awaiting summary execution)

Tim Henderson wrote:
> What surprised me was observing the condition of the bikes being walked up the hills. (The hills
> weren't really much to write home about - at least I could get up them, which isn't saying much.)
>
> About 30% of the pushed bikes had two bigger spare cogs to the left of the chain position as I
> slowly chugged past them ; another 40% had one spare big cog.

> Do the panel think this is because
>
/snip
> riders wanted a rest by pushing their steeds up the hill ?

That's probably what they're thinking. They just gave up before even trying bottom gear. I think
most cyclists know what their gears are and have them more or less working these days. Not so true
15 or 20 years ago when gears on average bikes were rubbish.

Or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, the riders changed up a couple of gears in advance before
dismounting because they prefer starting in that gear. That's what I like to do with my triple
chainset. Bottom gear is so low, it's hard to get the bike up to enough speed to balance before
getting other foot in the pedal - especially without doing a wheelie on take off - which is all not
nice on a steep hill. I very rarely have to walk up hills but do sometimes stop on them! Chains are
also more likely to derail in first gear when back-pedalled.

I suppose all that is unlikely - especially with those with double chainsets, but I'm feeling
generous

~PB

Pete Biggs wrote:

> That's probably what they're thinking. They just gave up before even trying bottom gear. I think
> most cyclists know what their gears are and have them more or less working these days. Not so true
> 15 or 20 years ago when gears on average bikes were rubbish.

Again the case that you have more faith in the general cluesomeness of the General Cycling Public
than I do. And when I was a shocking masher 20-25 years ago it wasn't because my gears were bad, but
because I really didn't appreciate the merits of the different ones. 1st wasn't for going up hills,
1st was for puffs!

Continental drift cadence is still quite common, as is the case that people tend to stand up and get
loadsatension on the system before they try and change, at which point it all goes Horribly Wrong.
I've come across several people buying a bike after a long layoff saying they couldn't get the hang
of the gears, and this isn't on gaspipe kit.

> Or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, the riders changed up a couple of gears in advance
> before dismounting because they prefer starting in that gear. That's what I like to do with my
> triple chainset. Bottom gear is so low, it's hard to get the bike up to enough speed to balance
> before getting other foot in the pedal - especially without doing a wheelie on take off - which is
> all not nice on a steep hill.

Another sad casualty of time is the rolling mount, which is quicker, easier and more elegant than
all of the getting on, getting the pedals sorted and then pushing off all as separate actions that
95%+ of the cycling population seems to do these days. It works fine on all but daft gradients and
gets the bike moving as you get on (fast enough to get your other foot in before you need to pedal
anywhere), avoids wheelies, and since you're climbing from the pedal rather than the ground you've
got a few inches start on getting your leg over[1].

Pete.

[1]fanrr fnarr
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[email protected] (Tim Henderson) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> the riders do not know what their gear lever does OR

Most likely this one. An acquaintance of mine (who will be nameless), remarked that she couldn't get
much speed up - on checking, her front triple was on the granny ring and she had no idea how to
change up.

Toby

--
Remove spamtrap to reply by mail

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>
> > That's probably what they're thinking. They just gave up before even trying bottom gear. I think
> > most cyclists know what their gears are and have them more or less working these days. Not so
> > true 15 or 20 years
ago
> > when gears on average bikes were rubbish.
>
> Again the case that you have more faith in the general cluesomeness of the General Cycling Public
> than I do. And when I was a shocking masher 20-25 years ago it wasn't because my gears were bad,
> but because I really didn't appreciate the merits of the different ones. 1st wasn't for going up
> hills, 1st was for puffs!

snip

Modern gear changers make changing gear very, very easy. In days of old, when one had to reach
between your legs for the changers being in the 'wrong'* gear was easier to do (*wrong in the sense
of not the one intended rather than in the sense of the inappropriate one for good cadence).

I know that, on my road bike with downtube changers, I change gear less frequently than I do on
my bikes were a change can be made with a simple movement of the thumbs and without letting go
of the bars.

That said, I am very sure many people do not appreciate that the gear ratios overlap between chain
rings. Cycling with my nephew and some of his mates (about 15 year olds) I was horrified that some
clearly had 'no idea' (tm) -- changing in to the very lowest gear for the merest pimple in the
landscape.

Of course, with 'glacial cadence' and low gears balance starts to become a problem. Maybe the riders
just decided to get off before they fell off. Maybe they wanted a **** and couldn't face starting up
the hill again.

What's the problem? I do not cycle every single hill. Sometimes I walk part of the way -- sometimes
there is a reason, sometimes I just decide to walk (and I know how to use my cogs).

T

> "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > If you own a bike and push it uphill without a very good reason, and I mean a very good
> > reason then you should be shot !

Perhaps "frowned at" would be an extreme enough punishment in this case?

> Does not being strong enough or running out of traction count as a very good reason?

There's a fella I occasionally ride with who seems to think the only macho thing to do is pull the
highest gear possible, and this will make him stronger/fitter/lighter - so its top gear up the hills
and freewheel down the otherside. He thinks that lactic acid burns are part of the "no pain - no
gain" thing.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

> Another sad casualty of time is the rolling mount, which is quicker, easier and more elegant than
> all of the getting on, getting the pedals sorted and then pushing off all as separate actions that
> 95%+ of the cycling population seems to do these days.

Not for me it isn't, on all three counts. It is something I have never mastered. I can't speak fro
the other 94.999%

Colin

It's the first one. 'twas the Long Hot Summer of '89 when the tube /and/ BR kept going on strike at
the same time. You could spot the Non-Cyclist Yuppie Pillocks, in spite of their possession of all
the top kit[1], by the fact that they:

a. ground away from the lights in top, or
b. were frantically spinning a 24-32 at 200 rpm

I sometimes wonder how they cope with having to waggle that stick around in the 3-series...

1 - this being the era when wearing cycling gear was hip and trendy when going "clubbing"
(whatever that is)

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

Peter Clinch wrote:

>> That's probably what they're thinking. They just gave up before even trying bottom gear. I think
>> most cyclists know what their gears are and have them more or less working these days. Not so
>> true 15 or 20 years ago when gears on average bikes were rubbish.
>
> Again the case that you have more faith in the general cluesomeness of the General Cycling Public
> than I do.

That's because I actually see the GCP using their gears better than they used to and modern
derailleur systems do work better. It was more common to see people never changing gear and
struggling up hills in too-high gears those years ago - in London at least.

/snip
> Another sad casualty of time is the rolling mount, which is quicker, easier and more elegant than
> all of the getting on

I aways found the cowboy mount difficult and poncey. Not good for the bike either. See:
www.sheldonbrown.com/starting.html

>, getting the pedals sorted and then pushing off all as separate actions that 95%+ of the cycling
>population seems to do these days. It works fine on all but daft gradients

I only use my bottom gear on gradients too daft to do a rolling start.

> and gets the bike moving as you get on (fast enough to get your other foot in before you need to
> pedal anywhere), avoids wheelies, and since you're climbing from the pedal rather than the ground
> you've got a few inches start on getting your leg over[1].

A curb helps a lot with the common method. If no curb then bike can be leant over to one side a
little. Not so good on bikes with high bottom brackets but no big deal on racers and tourers, IME.

Alternatively, follow Sheldon Brown's advice for the best method of all.

~PB

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Another sad casualty of time is the rolling mount, which is quicker, easier and more elegant than
> all of the getting on, getting the pedals sorted and then pushing off all as separate actions that
> 95%+ of the cycling population seems to do these days.

Seems to have all but vanished. Perhaps clipless pedals and derailleur gears (with a tendency to
slip once in a while) have something to do with
it.

Definitely seems to be associated with 3 speed roadsters, flat caps and a whippet in the
front basket.

T

Pete Biggs wrote:

> I aways found the cowboy mount difficult and poncey. Not good for the bike either. See:
> www.sheldonbrown.com/starting.html

Sheldon's not entirely on the money this time:

"The cowboy mount places the rider's weight on the bicycle while it is leaning over at a
sharp angle."

Well, no it doesn't, the whole point is that the bike bike is upright for the whole time. I never
lean my bike over to get on it.

"The Shuffle Mount, which involves standing on the low pedal, and trying to get the bike in motion
by pushing off against the ground with the other foot...you can't up to manoeuvring speed quickly
this way, and you can't get started uphill with this technique"

Well, you can actually get up to manoeuvring speed *straight away*, before you've pedalled anywhere
at all. And hills have to be very steep to make it unworkable. When I say "very steep" I mean the
sort of thing that has warning triangles posted.

A rolling mount is more difficult until you can do it, but then that's the same for moving from a
trike to a bike when you're a sprog and not a very good excuse not to get acquainted. My mum can do
it gracefully at 70, it isn't *that* difficult if you take the time to do a little practice.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony W wrote:

> Seems to have all but vanished. Perhaps clipless pedals and derailleur gears (with a tendency to
> slip once in a while) have something to do with
> it.

Never had a problem doing it with clipless, and because you're not actually using the gears to drive
the bike from rest then if something's going to slip it will work better rather than worse.

I used to get on my bike the more common way as a kid, I thought my mum was off her rocker getting
on like that. Then one day I decided that even if it was daft I should be at least capable of
*doing* it, taught myself, been using it ever since.

> Definitely seems to be associated with 3 speed roadsters, flat caps and a whippet in the
> front basket.

Which is probably boiling it down to being out of fashion because it's not in fashion, rather than
it being bad...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Pushing a bike is better than walking say's I.

Peter Clinch wrote:

>> I aways found the cowboy mount difficult and poncey. Not good for the bike either. See:
>> www.sheldonbrown.com/starting.html

> Sheldon's not entirely on the money this time: "The cowboy mount places the rider's weight on the
> bicycle while it is leaning over at a sharp angle."
>
> Well, no it doesn't, the whole point is that the bike bike is upright for the whole time. I never
> lean my bike over to get on it.

No, I'm the one not on the money. I misinterpreted your method - which must be closer to what
Sheldon calls the The Shuffle Mount.......

> "The Shuffle Mount, which involves standing on the low pedal, and trying to get the bike in motion
> by pushing off against the ground with the other foot...you can't up to manoeuvring speed quickly
> this way, and you can't get started uphill with this technique"
>
> Well, you can actually get up to manoeuvring speed *straight away*, before you've pedalled
> anywhere at all. And hills have to be very steep to make it unworkable. When I say "very steep" I
> mean the sort of thing that has warning triangles posted.

I find that technique unpleasant and less safe even on moderatley steep hills.

> A rolling mount is more difficult until you can do it, but then that's the same for moving from a
> trike to a bike when you're a sprog and not a very good excuse not to get acquainted. My mum can
> do it gracefully at 70, it isn't *that* difficult if you take the time to do a little practice.

It's easy for people who have always started like that but it's most un-natural for the rest of us
and it is genuinely difficult to re-learn such a fundamental skill, usually one learnt in early
childhood. The rolling start only has one real advantage of being quicker. Unless chasing a
robber, there's no reason for anyone to use that method if they already prefer the normal way,
which is safer.

Unlike Sheldon Brown, though, I won't call any of the ways to start "correct". Cyclists should do
whatever they feel comfortable with and it's silly to try and encourage others to do it "your way".

~PB

I wrote:
> Unlike Sheldon Brown, though, I won't call any of the ways to start "correct". Cyclists should
> do whatever they feel comfortable with and it's silly to try and encourage others to do it
> "your way".

Although that applies to plenty of other things as well, I'm specifically referring to starting
there. Some things people do on bikes obviously are dangerous and extremely inefficient so it's then
reasonable to encourage better techniques. How to get on a bike is not that important!

~PB