Re: [CR]chainrings

(Example: Framebuilders:Alex Singer)

From: "Diane Feldman" <feldmanbike@home.com>
To: "Jim Foreman" <JIMFORE@compuserve.com>, "Rick Miller" <millere@telenet.net>
Cc: "[unknown]" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <200101311055_MC2-C3B8-F099@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]chainrings
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:31:31 -0800


Durham, aka Bullseye, went to a more drastic extreme with this idea a few years before Biopace. I forget the product name but their chainring was too ovalled to use as part of a multiple chainring system, was made in a range that STARTED at about 54 teeth. I rode the Davis Double one year in the mid-70's in a group with a guy who was completely sold on these football-like rings; as the day wore on he was more and more envious of the rest of us in the group, looking longingly at our 42/24 low gears! David Feldman


----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Foreman
To: Rick Miller
Cc: "[unknown]"
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:54 AM
Subject: [CR]chainrings



> Message text written by "Rick Miller"
> >I have an early 80's touring bike equipped with Shimano Bio-Pace rings.
> I've rarely seen them used and wonder what their purpose was? I suppose it
> should be obvious but I prefer the round rings.<
>
> Bio-Pace rings were just another one of Shimano's me-too deals. A
> couple years before it was SunTour with their OvalTech rings. SunTour found
> out just how unpopular they were and dumped them about the time Bio-Pace
> came out. Shimano stuck with them for several years.
> The idea is that the ring has a longer radius like a bigger ring
> where the most power is exerted on the pedals is the greatest and the
> shortest where you can apply the least power.
> I agree, they are a bad idea and like most everyone else, went to
> round rings as soon as possible.
>
> Jim
>
> http://www.geocities.com/jimforetales/