The Story of Shifting
The Story of Shifting
The story of shifting is quite an intriguing one with the Penny Farthing the basis of shifting. The Penny Farthings Cranks were attached to the wheel. This meant the rollout or how far the bike would move in one rotation of the pedals was all about the size of the wheel.
After the death of the penny farthing and the beginning of the then called safety bicycle the transmission was via a chain driven by a crankset. This meant that different ratios of gears could be used by altering the number of teeth on the sprockets or cogs on the rear wheel or the teeth on the front chainring. Bicycles from the late 1800’s to the 1930’s could have two gears with a sprocket on either side of the wheel. Those gears would be typically a flat gear and a hill gear.
The next important inovation was the what happened after the scene on the Croce D'Aune Pass in 1927. Tulio Campagnolo was in a chance to win the Gran Premio della Vittoria when he tried to change into his climbing gear. The axle nuts were frozen so he was unable to change gear. This cost the promising racer a chance at victory this brought a string of inventions that would improve gear shifting. It was on that mountain he muttered the legendary quote in cycling folklore “Something has to be changed in the rear”. He meant by this a new way of changing gear that was quicker and easier. What he did although quite a small change was to invent the quick release skewer. The skewer allowed quick wheel changes without much effort.
The next big innovation in cycling was only 10 years later with the creation of the Cambio Corsa rod gears . This worked with two rods. One was a quick release lever and the other was a rod that was used to push the chain before the days of the derailleur. Without the derailleur the dropouts would have to be long to take the slack out of the chain. How this would work is that the rider would open the quick release lever so that the wheel could move freely around the dropouts. Then the rider would push the chain onto a different sprocket and then let the chain take up the slack in the chain then you would close the quick release and then the shift was complete.
A few years after Tulio Campagnolo created the Roubaix gear shifter that combined The quick release lever and the chain pusher in one. However this didn’t last long because a couple of years later he created the Gran Sport derallieur. This was one of the single most important invoations in cycling. Put it simple it revolutionzed cycling. This meant that that the rod shifter could be replaced with downtube levers. That meant better ease of use and faster shifting as well as being more smooth with less rubbing of the chain.
Then after twenty years of innovation the changing stopped. It wasn’t that nothing improved it was just that there was no big change. The amount of gears increased as well as speed of shifting but in comparison there was no change. There has from then to now only one major innovation in cycling. Electronic shifting. The Japanese have added another innovation against the Campagnolo Italians. Electronic shifting is more efficient with the system run by a computer it makes little adjustments to the chain and overshifts to make a more efficient shift.
As you can see the technology has changed a huge amount since the now ancient Penny Farthing. Now are we at the peak can we improve the technology? There isn’t much we can think of but like the 40 year gap between Derallieurs and Dual Integration Levers not much happened. Could we say there will be another big gap in innovation all we can do is improve what we know. So that’s the story of shifting from the humble penny farthing to the Japanese computer shifting.
James Moffat
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh, my.
I’m sure you’re working on the formatting now, but for the future, may I suggest the Preview function before posting?
Looks like you copied and pasted from Word? One quick way to remove code is to copy your text from Word and paste it into Notepad, then copy it again from Notepad and paste it again into the post you’re creating here. Only takes a few seconds. You’ll lose any formatting, but can recreate most of it fairly quickly.
Good luck cleaning this up!
It was just a long race--Edvald Boasson Hagen, on the Giro
I cleaned it up
just took a moment. But James, do use the preview first.
"Harder! Better! Faster! Stronger!" Philippe Gilbert
by Chris Fontecchio on Dec 3, 2009 2:20 AM EST up reply actions
Nice overview, Jim
And well structured, too :-).
I am sure that the argument(/s) will also be instructive, LOL. (OK, I could be wrong… but it’s the off-season, everyone is stir-crazy, and I just have a hunch that there will be a shifting-related argument happening here shortly…)
An interesting article
Though where do hub gears fit into this?
Sturmey-Archer introduced their first three-speed hub gear in 1902. I always thought this was fairly irrelevant to racing but apparently Lucien Petit-Breton rode one in the 1913 Tour de France: http://www.sturmey-archerheritage.com/detail.php?id=200
Interesting the that the technology hadn’t reached Italy or that it was never considered better than flipping the wheel – presumably the weight penalty was too great?
some people are working on
“analog” gearing – in other words an infinite “number” of gears. Was a small german company that i read about a few years ago – they had developed some expensive prototypes was all. Don’t know if that will ever go anywhere or not. Sounds good though.
There are some interesting videos of that on YouTube
but I don’t think that I’d be keen on a transmission system that relied on a liquid magically turning solid at crucial moments.
Electric shift feels dirty
I have alwayss felt, for admittedly irrational reasons, that electric shifting is wrong (for racing anyway). Muscle power should be used to do anything that adjusts the power output of the bike. There are good points to be made otherwise, but still it just feels wrong to me.
In terms of new types of gearing, I don’t see why belt drive adjusted continuous hasn’t been developed more. seems like it could be lighter and simpler. I see some town bikes have this, at least the belt drive.
I know why belt drive has not developed... If your going fast and you go over rough road, you have a big chance of breaking the belt
Same goes for really steep hills. The belt would also be an akward piece to shift as well which is why they just have it on commuter bikes with internal gearing or singlespeed bikes. I would be curious to see prototypes but it is definitely a long road.
WIth the electronic shifting, you still have to shift the gears it is just much faster. Though I am in the same boat as you. I will never let electronic shifting be on my bike.
Belt drive is less efficient . . . .
. . . . so are continuous transmissions.
Those are just a plain facts.
according to wikipedia...
a chain drive system can be between 75-97% efficient and shaft drive is typically 95% efficient
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_shaft – opens in new window)
Huh
That list of pros & cons left me entirely unconvinced. Most pros seem contrived anti-chain. Efficiency of 94% seems very high, I wonder if that includes the hub gears, I think not. One problem not mentioned is the high force needed to keep the shaft & cogs together (the “bevel gears”). Might not be enough for strong cyclists.
With shafts, there are two main problems -
1 – Weight is ALWAYS going to be higher then a chaindrive.
2 – Friction is ALWAYS going to be greater then a properly cared for chaindrive.
The reason I ask
is I’m surprised you don’t see more of them on ordinary everyday bikes where the cleanliness and ease of care could be a major selling point.
economies of scale?
lots of people creating chains etc. means it’s cheaper – plus you’ve got to persuade people to buy something that looks a little odd
Hub gear, full chain guard
drop of oil every two years. What’s the saving there
Oh sure
if you wanna use facts.
The kind of tech that people (men mostly) adapt has sometimes vey little to do with rationality. I could just picture the shaft drive to be very marketable to mainstream , non-bikefreak users. The identification with a tried and tested car-technology not least being very attractive to a certain crowd.
I've seen a couple of shaft-drive bikes on sale
and they look like the sort of thing your grandad might buy (might, until he saw the price tag. How much? I remember when you could get a brand new car, a dirty weekend in Stockholm and almost a whole bottle of whisky for that price … ). Flashy, full-suspension shit is a lot easier to sell to the kids, with all of those big chunky springs and hinges.

by 














![This is funny on so many levels. [Html should open bigger]](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/239959/flagged_small.jpg)


