View Single Post
Old 08-30-21 | 05:56 PM
  #1  
jonwvara's Avatar
jonwvara
Senior Member
Titanium Club Membership
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,046
Likes: 936
From: Washington County, Vermont, USA

Bikes: 1966 Dawes Double Blue, 1976 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1975 Raleigh Sprite 27, 1980 Univega Viva Sport, 1971 Gitane Tour de France, 1984 Lotus Classique, 1976 Motobecane Grand Record

Stronglight 122 BCD chainring variants

I recently dug out four different 122 BCD Stronglight chainrings for someone who needed one, and found that they varied in several ways. Two of them had "pointy" teeth. (One was actually unused and the other had minimal use, so the sort of "shark tooth" effect you sometimes find on very worn rings wasn't responsible.)

The other two had blunter teeth, similar to what you see on pretty much all modern chainrings.

Sorry, no pictures--they're in my phone, but resist transfer to my computer.

Also, one of the "pointy" rings and one of the non-pointy rings were drilled and tapped for a little screw and a spacer, obviously intended to keep the chain from wedging between the crankarm and the ring.

I've seen these variants before, but never really thought about them. I have a vague notion that the pointed-tooth design is older than the non-pointy one, but have no idea if that's really the case, or when the change from one to the other occurred. I imagine that the same may be true of the anti-chain-jamming screw, but again, no idea. I don't know the provenance of any of these rings, so it's also possible that different 122 BCD cranksets (93, 49d, 63, etc.) were outfitted with slightly different rings, though that doesn't seem especially likely to me.

Since I'm always eager to add to my little stockpile of arcane and useless knowledge, I can only hope that someone here will shed some light on this.
__________________
www.redclovercomponents.com

"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long."
--Ogden Nash

Last edited by jonwvara; 08-30-21 at 06:08 PM.
jonwvara is offline  
Reply