Gears question
- Thread starter RickSkye
- Start date
Rubberchicken
Well-Known Member
It's nice that 1st is easier to find than neutral, as I usually have more time available to find neutral. Probably something along those lines.
Brilliant question, they are smart arses arn't they? How about because it does! And leave it at that.
i have no idea of the answer, but now it has been asked I am waiting for the answer a s well now.
In best pub quiz style my guess is its maybe that on older bikes sometimes you set of in second gear if its a downhill start because first gear was so low. Having neutral between first and second would be logical in that case.
Its great when they start asking really good questions, I used to enjoy the conversations with my daughter that followed a really good queation.
She once had to endure the description of how differentials worked and why there needed. I thought she hadnt really been listening untill work sent her on an off road driving course (crossing glaciers working in Iceland). She suprised the instructor with her understanding.
So you never know when it pays back.
i have no idea of the answer, but now it has been asked I am waiting for the answer a s well now.
In best pub quiz style my guess is its maybe that on older bikes sometimes you set of in second gear if its a downhill start because first gear was so low. Having neutral between first and second would be logical in that case.
Its great when they start asking really good questions, I used to enjoy the conversations with my daughter that followed a really good queation.
She once had to endure the description of how differentials worked and why there needed. I thought she hadnt really been listening untill work sent her on an off road driving course (crossing glaciers working in Iceland). She suprised the instructor with her understanding.
So you never know when it pays back.
Chewbadger
Active Member
Your more likely to want to select neutral from low gears, so as a sequential box it makes sense to put it between 1st & 2nd. You wouldn't want to go to neutral from 6th at 70mph would you?
austin
Well-Known Member
I seem to remember some bikes back in the 60s and 70s were 4 up or 4 down e.g. FS1E??. I never had one but sure they were 4 down, if it wasn't the fizzy then something like the Honda SS50 was. I also think some of the brit bikes were 4 down or 4 up as well as gears being on the right.
1 down, 4/5 up makes sense:
- Changing up is always physically an upward movement, and vice versa for down.
- Going into first by pressing down is a natural movement for engaging something.
- Lifting is more associated with disengagement so going form 1st to neutral (probably the most common) also feels natural.
- When pressing down to engage a gear at standstill its easier to keep your foot on the peg so keeping the bike more secure.
- Keep pressing down and you end up still in gear rather than in neutral. Its safer to be in gear than in neutral as you can still control the bike.
- You can go from 2nd to Neutral or 1st to neutral depending on what you are doing, both of which would be legitimate actions in different circumstances. Whereas with 4up or 4 down you could only go from 1st to neutral.
- At some time in the distant past some engineering type has said there's a good mechanical reason too.
- there's also probably the real reason and not one's I am making up.
Just my thoughts
1 down, 4/5 up makes sense:
- Changing up is always physically an upward movement, and vice versa for down.
- Going into first by pressing down is a natural movement for engaging something.
- Lifting is more associated with disengagement so going form 1st to neutral (probably the most common) also feels natural.
- When pressing down to engage a gear at standstill its easier to keep your foot on the peg so keeping the bike more secure.
- Keep pressing down and you end up still in gear rather than in neutral. Its safer to be in gear than in neutral as you can still control the bike.
- You can go from 2nd to Neutral or 1st to neutral depending on what you are doing, both of which would be legitimate actions in different circumstances. Whereas with 4up or 4 down you could only go from 1st to neutral.
- At some time in the distant past some engineering type has said there's a good mechanical reason too.
- there's also probably the real reason and not one's I am making up.
Just my thoughts
Alba
Active Member
Very interesting question, I have no idea so turned as one does to the internet 
Thank your daughter for prodding the grey matter...
"In the 60s and 70s, there was a growing trend toward placing neutral below first gear. My nephew, for example, had a Kawasaki 100 with a '4 up' shift pattern (N,1,2,3,4). As this shift pattern gained popularity, more and more motorcyclists were developing the tendency to instictively shift the bike all the way down into neutral as they slowed, sometimes accidentally, but most times intentionally. The idea was that you could stay in neutral at a light or stop sign, then clutch into gear and start rolling again when right-of-way was established. The habit was obviously flawed, and riders started getting hurt.
"The vast majority of injuries were caused when a bike was inadvertently upshifted from neutral into first gear at a fast coast. The resultant engine breaking caused instant rear wheel lockups, which in turn caused crashes. The mechanical aspects of neutral's location also caused various runability and logistical problems, as well.
"By locating neutral between first and second gears, the severity of engine breaking in the event of accidental upshift was reduced, as well as making neutral a relative inconvenience, rather than something riders depended on. It also made first gear the natural first position in the gear box, which is where the transmission should be adjusted whenever the bike is stopped in traffic anyway."
And here's another answer from "Fish":
"Neutral is in its odd location because that's where it makes the most sense to locate it. On a bike, you rarely need to be in neutral: you've a clutch, which is your primary method of disconnecting the engine from the transmission.
"Indeed, you could go completely without a neutral gear, if you could stand the monotony of holding the clutch as the bike warms up, and turning off the bike whenever you got more than an arm's-reach distance from it.
"First gear, however, is extremely useful. It's great for starting in. And it's great for stopping in. It's really good for driving slowly, too. So it's at the bottom: as you approach a stoplight, you start to brake, and you tap your gears down to match your speed. If the light goes green before you get there, you're ready to rocket. If it's red, you keep the clutch in, and remain in first gear, ready to rocket. You never do go into neutral when you stop. As you leave the stoplight, you tap your gears up to match your speed. You never do go into neutral when you accelerate.
"Now, imagine the situation if neutral were located at the bottom: you start slowing for the light. You begin tapping down. You're almost stopped, you tap into neutral, the light goes green, you rev the gas, and you tip over because you're out of gear. The asshole behind you runs you over as your engine shoots a piston through your groin. Damn, that sucks.
"As it's absurd to place neutral between 2nd and 3rd, or any of the higher gears, no example needed."
Thank your daughter for prodding the grey matter...
"In the 60s and 70s, there was a growing trend toward placing neutral below first gear. My nephew, for example, had a Kawasaki 100 with a '4 up' shift pattern (N,1,2,3,4). As this shift pattern gained popularity, more and more motorcyclists were developing the tendency to instictively shift the bike all the way down into neutral as they slowed, sometimes accidentally, but most times intentionally. The idea was that you could stay in neutral at a light or stop sign, then clutch into gear and start rolling again when right-of-way was established. The habit was obviously flawed, and riders started getting hurt.
"The vast majority of injuries were caused when a bike was inadvertently upshifted from neutral into first gear at a fast coast. The resultant engine breaking caused instant rear wheel lockups, which in turn caused crashes. The mechanical aspects of neutral's location also caused various runability and logistical problems, as well.
"By locating neutral between first and second gears, the severity of engine breaking in the event of accidental upshift was reduced, as well as making neutral a relative inconvenience, rather than something riders depended on. It also made first gear the natural first position in the gear box, which is where the transmission should be adjusted whenever the bike is stopped in traffic anyway."
And here's another answer from "Fish":
"Neutral is in its odd location because that's where it makes the most sense to locate it. On a bike, you rarely need to be in neutral: you've a clutch, which is your primary method of disconnecting the engine from the transmission.
"Indeed, you could go completely without a neutral gear, if you could stand the monotony of holding the clutch as the bike warms up, and turning off the bike whenever you got more than an arm's-reach distance from it.
"First gear, however, is extremely useful. It's great for starting in. And it's great for stopping in. It's really good for driving slowly, too. So it's at the bottom: as you approach a stoplight, you start to brake, and you tap your gears down to match your speed. If the light goes green before you get there, you're ready to rocket. If it's red, you keep the clutch in, and remain in first gear, ready to rocket. You never do go into neutral when you stop. As you leave the stoplight, you tap your gears up to match your speed. You never do go into neutral when you accelerate.
"Now, imagine the situation if neutral were located at the bottom: you start slowing for the light. You begin tapping down. You're almost stopped, you tap into neutral, the light goes green, you rev the gas, and you tip over because you're out of gear. The asshole behind you runs you over as your engine shoots a piston through your groin. Damn, that sucks.
"As it's absurd to place neutral between 2nd and 3rd, or any of the higher gears, no example needed."
Dee Dub
Active Member
I always assumed it was because bikes years ago would often need first gear when going up steep hills. As someone suggested above, you drop down, and down, and down, and end up in first rather than neutral. Nowadays most bikes can pull up most hills in higher gears so the need isn't so obvious. That's only my guess though!
Rubberchicken
Well-Known Member
It's by far better to unexpectedly find oneself in first than to unexpectedly find oneself in neutral while riding. Indeed, especially while going uphill.
I remember going up the Hardknott hairpins, and thinking bloody hell first it is then! If I'd have kicked it into neutral by mistake I would've been going backwards before I could get to the end of a certain four letter word. Then the Vaders would've had to scrape me off the scenery, probably...
I remember going up the Hardknott hairpins, and thinking bloody hell first it is then! If I'd have kicked it into neutral by mistake I would've been going backwards before I could get to the end of a certain four letter word. Then the Vaders would've had to scrape me off the scenery, probably...