Why is race shift not standard?
Discussion
Last summer, I spent plenty of time flitting between my bikes. One has left foot gear change, standard. One has left foot gear change, race (upside down), and one has right foot standard. Within no time at all, changing between the bikes became second nature and the action of manipulating the controls became totally subconscious.
It seemed patently clear to me that the race pattern shift is the most intuitive and easy to use. Generally, when changing up a gear you are accelerating and therefore the shortest and most positive movement to select the next gear seems the obvious solution. Similarly, when changing down, you are off the gas and can afford a slightly longer timeframe and movement to select your gear.
How is it that "standard" shift got adopted when it does not seem the most elegant solution?
It seemed patently clear to me that the race pattern shift is the most intuitive and easy to use. Generally, when changing up a gear you are accelerating and therefore the shortest and most positive movement to select the next gear seems the obvious solution. Similarly, when changing down, you are off the gas and can afford a slightly longer timeframe and movement to select your gear.
How is it that "standard" shift got adopted when it does not seem the most elegant solution?
Standard makes sense if you engine brake or just shifting down as your'e slowing down as you are moving forward your body is going with the momentum of the bike or rather you feel like you are moving more into it, and it seems more natural to shift downwards through the gears. Having never ridden a race set up I could be talking crap but it feels natural.
Harji said:
Standard makes sense if you engine brake or just shifting down as your'e slowing down as you are moving forward your body is going with the momentum of the bike or rather you feel like you are moving more into it, and it seems more natural to shift downwards through the gears. Having never ridden a race set up I could be talking crap but it feels natural.
I know what you mean, but the sensation of changing down the gears with race pattern (clicking up) feels like you are curling your foot under the selector and it also "adds a bracing point" if you know what I mean.Don't see it makes a massive difference for most road use.
In racing being able to shift up when cranked over mid-turn is worth a fraction of a second per lap & that counts. Can't say I've ever felt I was lacking that on the road :-)
Incidentally, what do you call "standard" on a right hand gear shift? It's years since I rode my old BSA & I can't remember if that was 'down for down'. By the way I still think that was a more intuitive set up. It seemed to offer more of a balanced approach as in left clutch & right gear change with right front brake lever & left rear foot brake pedal.
In racing being able to shift up when cranked over mid-turn is worth a fraction of a second per lap & that counts. Can't say I've ever felt I was lacking that on the road :-)
Incidentally, what do you call "standard" on a right hand gear shift? It's years since I rode my old BSA & I can't remember if that was 'down for down'. By the way I still think that was a more intuitive set up. It seemed to offer more of a balanced approach as in left clutch & right gear change with right front brake lever & left rear foot brake pedal.
sprinter1050 said:
...Incidentally, what do you call "standard" on a right hand gear shift? It's years since I rode my old BSA & I can't remember if that was 'down for down'. By the way I still think that was a more intuitive set up. It seemed to offer more of a balanced approach as in left clutch & right gear change with right front brake lever & left rear foot brake pedal.
Everything was "1 up" (down for up), except Triumph.Then there were BSAs with Triumph badges, and I can't remember if later BSAs changed to the Triumph pattern.
Of course, a lot of British bikes in the 1960s/70s had rearsets with a reversed lever, but some factory AJS/Matchless models had a reversed lever and a reversed camplate.
Add to that, Kawasakis with neutral at the bottom and everything up, and rotary gearchanges that allowed the rider to change from top to first, and it's no wonder that the USA legislated for standardisation.
Edited by gareth_r on Tuesday 16th January 13:40
gareth_r said:
Everything was "1 up" (down for up), except Triumph....Clear as mud there fella :-)
Then there were BSAs with Triumph badges, and I can't remember if later BSAs changed to the Triumph pattern.
Of course, a lot of British bikes in the 1960s/70s had rearsets with a reversed lever, but some factory AJS/Matchless models had a reversed lever and a reversed camplate.
Add to that, Kawasakis with neutral at the bottom and everything up, and rotary gearchanges that allowed the rider to change from top to first, and it's no wonder that the USA legislated for standardisation.
I'm talking standard factory issue stuff. I do remember the common trick of reversing gear levers for rearsets.Then there were BSAs with Triumph badges, and I can't remember if later BSAs changed to the Triumph pattern.
Of course, a lot of British bikes in the 1960s/70s had rearsets with a reversed lever, but some factory AJS/Matchless models had a reversed lever and a reversed camplate.
Add to that, Kawasakis with neutral at the bottom and everything up, and rotary gearchanges that allowed the rider to change from top to first, and it's no wonder that the USA legislated for standardisation.
Edited by gareth_r on Tuesday 16th January 13:40
sprinter1050 said:
In racing being able to shift up when cranked over mid-turn is worth a fraction of a second per lap & that counts.
It is more than just against the stopwatch. Sometimes it is just the natural point when you need to change up, and you are cranked over whilst accelerating. Many years ago on a Suzuki with normal shift, on the long uphill left hander after the corkscrew at Aragon, for example, you keep on accelerating whilst the bike is leant over just as it tightens left a little more. I found my foot was jammed between the lever and tarmac unable to shift when I wanted to resulting in a low side. If my bike had race shift, the incident would never have happened as my foot would have been over the lever instead of under (it was still under following the previous gear change coming out of the slower corkscrew). I changed to shift pattern after that incident on my sportsbikes and have never looked back.Always preferred 'race' shift, not because I'm a racer but because, to me it just seems more natural.
Probably because, my first bike had a 1 up, 4 down shift and so I learnt that way? (it was also on the RH side).
I've had bikes with both styles but all my current bikes are race shift as they were easy to convert, some bikes are not so easy or I never looked into it so I left them as they were - not a problem either way and (so far at least) I have never mis-shifted because of it.
Probably because, my first bike had a 1 up, 4 down shift and so I learnt that way? (it was also on the RH side).
I've had bikes with both styles but all my current bikes are race shift as they were easy to convert, some bikes are not so easy or I never looked into it so I left them as they were - not a problem either way and (so far at least) I have never mis-shifted because of it.
sprinter1050 said:
Incidentally, what do you call "standard" on a right hand gear shift? It's years since I rode my old BSA & I can't remember if that was 'down for down'. By the way I still think that was a more intuitive set up. It seemed to offer more of a balanced approach as in left clutch & right gear change with right front brake lever & left rear foot brake pedal.
My Triumph, with right hand change, is 1 down, 3 up.sprinter1050 said:
gareth_r said:
Everything was "1 up" (down for up), except Triumph....Clear as mud there fella :-)
Then there were BSAs with Triumph badges, and I can't remember if later BSAs changed to the Triumph pattern.
Of course, a lot of British bikes in the 1960s/70s had rearsets with a reversed lever, but some factory AJS/Matchless models had a reversed lever and a reversed camplate.
Add to that, Kawasakis with neutral at the bottom and everything up, and rotary gearchanges that allowed the rider to change from top to first, and it's no wonder that the USA legislated for standardisation.
I'm talking standard factory issue stuff. I do remember the common trick of reversing gear levers for rearsets.Then there were BSAs with Triumph badges, and I can't remember if later BSAs changed to the Triumph pattern.
Of course, a lot of British bikes in the 1960s/70s had rearsets with a reversed lever, but some factory AJS/Matchless models had a reversed lever and a reversed camplate.
Add to that, Kawasakis with neutral at the bottom and everything up, and rotary gearchanges that allowed the rider to change from top to first, and it's no wonder that the USA legislated for standardisation.
All other British bikes were up for 1st, then down for 2nd, 3rd, 4th.
Known colloquially at the time as "1 up" or "1 down".
As in, "Lend us your bike, mate.". "OK, it's one up. Don't drop it.".
Edited by gareth_r on Tuesday 16th January 15:28
gareth_r said:
Add to that, Kawasakis with neutral at the bottom and everything up
My father had a quad with neutral at the bottom that I'd ridden a fair bit before learning to ride a bike. I spent quite a bit of my CBT stalling my 125 because I was trying to pull away in second 
Mind you learning to ride a bike then caused some issues when I next got on the quad as it had a centrifugal clutch and the left lever was the rear brake
Rat_Fink_67 said:
I always thought it was just because "standard" shift was the most logical; up for up, down for down.
That’s my thoughts as well. I’ve never had a problem with road shift until this year at Donington, when my left boot was grinding out at Schwantz. New racebike has raceshift so I guess I need to get used it fairly quickly.
I think Whitham always used roadshift throughout his career.
gareth_r said:
Triumphs, from neutral, were down for 1st, then up for 2nd, 3rd, 4th.
All other British bikes were up for 1st, then down for 2nd, 3rd, 4th.
Known colloquially at the time as "1 up" or "1 down".
As in, "Lend us your bike, mate.". "OK, it's one up. Don't drop it.".
Far from all other British bikes were one up. Off the top of my head (that I've ridden recently) a Bantam is one down, as is the pre-war BSA twin and Velocette KSS - although the Venom's one up. I think the Vincent is one down too All other British bikes were up for 1st, then down for 2nd, 3rd, 4th.
Known colloquially at the time as "1 up" or "1 down".
As in, "Lend us your bike, mate.". "OK, it's one up. Don't drop it.".
Edited by gareth_r on Tuesday 16th January 15:28
srob said:
Far from all other British bikes were one up. Off the top of my head (that I've ridden recently) a Bantam is one down, as is the pre-war BSA twin and Velocette KSS - although the Venom's one up. I think the Vincent is one down too
The Bantam is really German, pre-war doesn't count, and Vincents were mythical. Edited by gareth_r on Tuesday 16th January 16:38
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff