Changing gears

My girlfriend has just got her first bike with more that three gears!

How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two cogs to
contend with, i.e. when moving from fifth to sixth, do you move the rear cog back to first, then
shift the front cog, or both at once??

Any advice appreciated!

Andy

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> My girlfriend has just got her first bike with more that three gears!
>
> How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two cogs to
> contend with, i.e. when moving from fifth to sixth, do you move the rear cog back to first, then
> shift the front cog, or both at once??

Neither; that's probably not an upshift anyway. Have her just stay on one chainwheel (probably the
small one) all the time until she gets used to derailleur riding. Then only jump wheels when she
runs out of gears on the one she's on. I almost never get onto the small chainwheel unless I can't
push the big/big combination.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

 

Your girlfriend isn't interested.
--
Ron Hardin [email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 

archer <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > My girlfriend has just got her first bike with more that three gears!
> >
> > How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two cogs
> > to contend with, i.e. when moving from fifth to sixth, do you move the rear cog back to first,
> > then shift the front cog, or both at once??
>
> Neither; that's probably not an upshift anyway. Have her just stay on one chainwheel (probably the
> small one) all the time until she gets used to derailleur riding. Then only jump wheels when she
> runs out of gears on the one she's on. I almost never get onto the small chainwheel unless I can't
> push the big/big combination.

never ever ever ride in the big/big combination! bad chainline wears down your chainrings &
sprockets & chain quickly....

As to learning to shift...well...there's always

www.sheldonbrown.com/beginners

I don't think of my gears in sequential order; I just think: do my knees hurt? or am I spinning with
no progress? If it's the former, I move the lever that makes my knees not hurt. If it's the latter,
I move the lever that feels good. Nothing beats good old skinnerean conditioning for learning...

-Luigi

 

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

...

> never ever ever ride in the big/big combination! bad chainline wears down your chainrings &
> sprockets & chain quickly....

Probably not as bad on my old 10-spd (2x5) as on a newer 8- or 9-spd cluster, but I don't put many
miles on that gear anyway.

> As to learning to shift...well...there's always
>
> www.sheldonbrown.com/beginners
>
> I don't think of my gears in sequential order; I just think: do my knees hurt? or am I spinning
> with no progress? If it's the former, I move the lever that makes my knees not hurt. If it's the
> latter, I move the lever that feels good. Nothing beats good old skinnerean conditioning for
> learning...

That's the way I do it, but as I said, I hardly ever need to use the small chainwheel, and only
rarely have to use big/big. I just wish I had smaller steps between my other cogs on the rear and a
smaller small one.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

 

On Mon, 05 May 2003 07:18:38 +0000, Andy Leates wrote:

> My girlfriend has just got her first bike with more that three gears!
>
> How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two cogs to
> contend with,

Think of the chainrings as broad ranges, and the rear cogs as fine-tuning. This makes the most sense
with a triple front. Big ring for downhills and very fast riding, middle for most flat situations,
and little ring for hills.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and _`\(,_ | Excellence. (_)/ (_) |

 

David L. Johnson wrote:
> > How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two cogs
> > to contend with,
>
> Think of the chainrings as broad ranges, and the rear cogs as fine-tuning. This makes the most
> sense with a triple front. Big ring for downhills and very fast riding, middle for most flat
> situations, and little ring for hills.

Being a girl, she can't figure this out.
--
Ron Hardin [email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 

Ron Hardin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> David L. Johnson wrote:
> > > How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two
> > > cogs to contend with,
> >
> > Think of the chainrings as broad ranges, and the rear cogs as fine-tuning. This makes the most
> > sense with a triple front. Big ring for downhills and very fast riding, middle for most flat
> > situations, and little ring for hills.
>
> Being a girl, she can't figure this out.

Dang, I wish there was a way to killfile people using Google...

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

 

[email protected] (Claire Petersky) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> Dang, I wish there was a way to killfile people using Google...

yeah; some people I actually enjoy hearing from on my 'real' nntp server (i haven't got one to
connect to out here) keep putting that no-archive tag in their headers, and so they self-killfile
on google.

self-killfile--suicidefile?

-Luigi

>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
> http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

 

.
>[email protected] (Claire Petersky) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Dang, I wish there was a way to killfile people using Google... Warm Regards,
>>
>> Claire Petersky
There is with Agent - www.forteinc.com

 

Claire Petersky wrote:
> > > > How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two
> > > > cogs to contend with,
> > >
> > > Think of the chainrings as broad ranges, and the rear cogs as fine-tuning. This makes the most
> > > sense with a triple front. Big ring for downhills and very fast riding, middle for most flat
> > > situations, and little ring for hills.
> >
> > Being a girl, she can't figure this out.
>
> Dang, I wish there was a way to killfile people using Google...
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
> http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

Ah, a knee-jerk feminist. Inability to read is the hallmark.

The effect discussed is the male hope that the female will be interested in his hobby, bicycling.
Visions of cycling together - you see it out in the wild, a male poking along next to his female at
riding at walking speed on a new bicycle - but in fact the female is not interested and won't be at
all once she gets to get her way. This is why she cannot learn the gears. They're proof for her that
she isn't interested.

Still the male is hopeful. Getting laid is the the incentive, behind displacements and veils that he
doesn't understand.

The girl is following her own interests. Bicycling, she can see, is an escape

Similarly mathematics and physics. Count the postings from women in the last thousand in sci.math
and sci.physics. It's probably zero. Nothing keeps women from posting. There are heated discussions
there by complete morons, of things they're intensely interested in. That interest is what's missing
in women, not ability to do technical stuff.

Similarly in the case of bicycle gears. The woman doesn't care.
--
Ron Hardin [email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Luigi de
Guzman) wrote:

> [email protected] (Claire Petersky) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Dang, I wish there was a way to killfile people using Google...
>
> yeah; some people I actually enjoy hearing from on my 'real' nntp server (i haven't got one to
> connect to out here) keep putting that no-archive tag in their headers, and so they self-killfile
> on google.
>
> self-killfile--suicidefile?

There have been a few posters I've debated who've had a curious tendency to include the X-No-Archive
tag, making it difficult to catch them in a contradiction because their earlier posts expire quickly
and can't be retrieved. So yes, they're self-Google-killed, but ironically they're self-preserving
when it comes to arguing with them.

I've come to put them in a category between trolls and gadflies -- not quite trolling because they
actually believe what they say, but too good at being a**holes to think they're simply contrarian.
They act, well, kinda Jobstinate, if that were a word. ;-)

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com ...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing /
Skydiving / Mountain Biking ...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip" ...thinks - "An
Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Andy Leates) wrote:

> My girlfriend has just got her first bike with more that three gears!
>
> How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two cogs to
> contend with, i.e. when moving from fifth to sixth, do you move the rear cog back to first, then
> shift the front cog, or both at once??
>
> Any advice appreciated!

The front chainrings are for major overall changes in gearing range; the rear cogs are for minor,
more gradual shifts. Shifting one gear of the front is roughly equal to two to three (or more)
shifts of the rear.

Cyclists usually do most of their shifting with the rear, changing the front less frequently. I
pretty much stay in the middle chainring unless I go really fast (20mph+) or climb very steep
off-road grades (15%+).

Have your girlfriend stay in the middle chainring in front and concentrate only on shifting the rear
cogs. That should be a pretty good overall range for flat terrain and gentle slopes, and will do her
fine as she gets used to her bike.

When she grows confident with steeper climbs/descents or faster cruising speeds, she'll start to
notice that being in the middle won't let her go low enough or high enough. She can then start using
the front shifter for a major change of range and still use the rear (which she will have grown
accustomed to by then) for the most part.

As far as _when_ to shift, it's simple: if the legs hurt (pedaling's too hard), shift down; if the
lungs hurt (pedaling's too easy), shift up! Shift down _before_ you stop at an intersection so you
can accelerate easily afterward.

Advanced: soon she can learn to make "lateral" shifts, where the gearing doesn't change appreciably,
by shifting the front down (or up) while simultaneously shifting the rear up (or down) two or three
gears. This is a useful preparatory move, such as when transitioning from downhill to uphill where a
lower gear range will soon be needed.

She should never shift the front while pedaling under load such as on a steep climb: it's better to
shift laterally into the small ring in front before the big climb while the pedaling's still light;
then, when she need to drop down a gear, use the rear, which shifts under tension better.

Above all, and especially on climbs, let her ride at her own pace, however slow you may think it. If
you go macho and drop her, she won't enjoy the ride, the gearing won't matter, and you won't have a
riding partner for long. If you keep her pace, she'll appreciate your company, you two will ride
more, and you'll be luckier in the long run.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com ...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing /
Skydiving / Mountain Biking ...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip" ...thinks - "An
Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

 

In article <[email protected]>, Ron Hardin <[email protected]> wrote:

> David L. Johnson wrote:
> > > How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through the gears when she has two
> > > cogs to contend with,
> >
> > Think of the chainrings as broad ranges, and the rear cogs as fine-tuning. This makes the most
> > sense with a triple front. Big ring for downhills and very fast riding, middle for most flat
> > situations, and little ring for hills.
>
> Being a girl, she can't figure this out.

The original poster didn't figure it out either. It's not about gender in this case.

about having his girlfriend shift her rear more than her front, and figured it was best not to.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com ...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing /
Skydiving / Mountain Biking ...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip" ...thinks - "An
Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

 

"Ron Hardin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Claire Petersky wrote:
> > > > > How can I best explain to her how to change up and down through
the
> > > > > gears when she has two cogs to contend with,
> > > >
> > > > Think of the chainrings as broad ranges, and the rear cogs as
fine-tuning.
> > > > This makes the most sense with a triple front. Big ring for
downhills
> > > > and very fast riding, middle for most flat situations, and little
ring for
> > > > hills.
> > >
> > > Being a girl, she can't figure this out.
> >
> > Dang, I wish there was a way to killfile people using Google...
> >
> > Warm Regards,
> >
> > Claire Petersky Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
> > http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky
>
> Ah, a knee-jerk feminist. Inability to read is the hallmark.
>
> The effect discussed is the male hope that the female will be interested
in
> his hobby, bicycling. Visions of cycling together - you see it out in the wild, a male poking
> along next to his female at riding at walking speed on a new bicycle - but in fact the female is
> not interested and won't be at
all
> once she gets to get her way. This is why she cannot learn the gears.
They're
> proof for her that she isn't interested.
>
> Still the male is hopeful. Getting laid is the the incentive, behind
displacements
> and veils that he doesn't understand.
>
> The girl is following her own interests. Bicycling, she can see, is an
escape

>
> Similarly mathematics and physics. Count the postings from women in the
last thousand
> in sci.math and sci.physics. It's probably zero. Nothing keeps women
from posting.
> There are heated discussions there by complete morons, of things they're
intensely
> interested in. That interest is what's missing in women, not ability to
do technical
> stuff.
>
> Similarly in the case of bicycle gears. The woman doesn't care.
> --

Strongly reminiscent of H.L. Mencken's "In Defense of Women". Have you read that?

--
Robin Hubert <[email protected]

 

Robin Hubert wrote:
> > Similarly in the case of bicycle gears. The woman doesn't care.
>
> Strongly reminiscent of H.L. Mencken's "In Defense of Women". Have you read that?

I have read a lot of Mencken but don't remember seeing it. What book?

I took a liking to R Emmett Tyrell because he resembled Mencken (which he no longer does - Ann
Coulter is the closest to Mencken we have to day, I just noticed).

I'd say the immediate influences are Jacques Derrida (_Choreographies_ and _Dissemination_ and
_Spurs_ which made one of his translators Gayatri Spivak very angry) and a nice chapter from Vicki
Hearne in _Bandit_ called ``Beastly Behaviors.''

Probably the Mencken was actually pro-woman, which is what would make it interesting.

Here's my position: feminism is not a transcendent truth about men and women

man has to change to fix it.

Feminism just formalizes the woman's position in the war. Man is out golfing or something in the
meantime until it blows over.

The orginal poster was still in the situation where he imagined success combining girlfriend and
bicycling; fat chance. Bicycling is for waiting out mood swings in a safe place.

Women are interested in different things from men; it's not ability that's in question.
--
Ron Hardin [email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 

Ron Hardin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Ah, a knee-jerk feminist. Inability to read is the hallmark.

None of your argument, which you have expressed below and on which I will comment shortly, was
explicit in your single-line reply. How the casual reader would be able to discern it from your
terse post is something of a mystery.

>
> The effect discussed is the male hope that the female will be interested in his hobby, bicycling.
> Visions of cycling together - you see it out in the wild, a male poking along next to his female
> at riding at walking speed on a new bicycle - but in fact the female is not interested and won't
> be at all once she gets to get her way. This is why she cannot learn the gears. They're proof for
> her that she isn't interested.

What on earth do you mean, precisely? Not interested in *what*? Get her way--at *what*? Proof that
she's not interested in cycling?

From the information given, we cannot make any claim to know what the woman is or is not interested
in doing. Andy Leats, in the post which occasioned this discussion, merely said that his girlfriend
had acquired a new bicycle:

"My girlfriend has just got her first bike with more that three gears!"

Note that the subject is Andy's girlfriend, and the voice of the verb is *active*. The bike was not
gotten; it was not acquired by him for her--she has acquired it herself.

As to her interest or lack thereof in the proper operation of its gears, we can know nothing, as we
are given no explicit information to that effect.

<snip>

>
> The girl is following her own interests. Bicycling, she can see, is an escape

Again, an unsupportable assertion. How do we know this?

>
> Similarly mathematics and physics. Count the postings from women in the last thousand in sci.math
> and sci.physics. It's probably zero. Nothing keeps women from posting. There are heated
> discussions there by complete morons, of things they're intensely interested in. That interest is
> what's missing in women, not ability to do technical stuff.

I don't see how this is relevant. If we can reasonably assume that sci.math and sci.physics are
populated by mathematicians and physicists, perhaps the lack of women posting has something to do
with the disproportionate overrerpresentation of men in those two professions?

-Luigi

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"

 

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

> There have been a few posters I've debated who've had a
curious tendency
> to include the X-No-Archive tag, making it difficult to
catch them in a
> contradiction because their earlier posts expire quickly
and can't be
> retrieved. So yes, they're self-Google-killed, but
ironically they're
> self-preserving when it comes to arguing with them.

The x-no-archive tag is pretty useless, since it doesn't stop other people from quoting you and
those messages being archived. So if your pettiness gets the best of you such that you really need
to hold someone to their word, just quote them liberally when you post back.

> I've come to put them in a category between trolls and
gadflies -- not
> quite trolling because they actually believe what they
say, but too good
> at being a**holes to think they're simply contrarian. They
act, well,
> kinda Jobstinate, if that were a word. ;-)

Try to see it all as part of a great Socratic dialogue...

Matt O.

 

> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"

Must we really ? C'est pas marrant !

 

Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> > The girl is following her own interests. Bicycling, she can see, is an escape

>
> Again, an unsupportable assertion. How do we know this?
>
> >
> > Similarly mathematics and physics. Count the postings from women in the last thousand in
> > sci.math and sci.physics. It's probably zero. Nothing keeps women from posting. There are heated
> > discussions there by complete morons, of things they're intensely interested in. That interest
> > is what's missing in women, not ability to do technical stuff.
>
> I don't see how this is relevant. If we can reasonably assume that sci.math and sci.physics are
> populated by mathematicians and physicists, perhaps the lack of women posting has something to do
> with the disproportionate overrerpresentation of men in those two professions?
>
> -Luigi
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"

That was Wittgenstein's characterization at the end of the Tractatus, which he more or less
abandoned, showing some tremendous courage. Bertrand Russell in recommending that he be hired said
``I certainly hope his ideas are wrong.''

sci.math and sci.physics are populated by morons, but intensely interested morons, all male. It
shows that in spite of all efforts, women don't have the delusion that

which, obviously, women are not particularly driven to.
--
Ron Hardin [email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.