Re: Another curiosity question



On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:37:01 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Tom Weaver" (clip) Why do the front and rear shifters work opposite to
>each other? (clip)
>A couple of others have mentioned possible confusion regarding which rings
>and cogs are closest to the frame, so I will leave that alone. I would like
>to answer the question I have clipped from your post. Front and rear
>shifters work opposite, in the sense that the motion on the rear shifter
>that gears you down does the opposite on the front shifter. This is because
>going to a larger sprocket, front or rear requires more force than dropping
>to a smaller one. For this reason, shifting "larger" is always done with
>cable tension, and going the other way is done by creating cable slack,
>allowing a spring to do the work. Following this rule, you downshift in the
>rear with tension, and upshift in the front with tension. It's the SAME in
>terms of the mechanism, and OPPOSITE in therms of effect.

Except with low-normal rear ders, of which I have two now. They work
just fine, thank you, and they make shifting *far* more intuitive.
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.