Re: [CR]N.R. vs S.R. chainrings

(Example: Framebuilding:Restoration)

From: <NortonMarg@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:35:23 EST
Subject: Re: [CR]N.R. vs S.R. chainrings
To: jvs@sonic.net, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


In a message dated 12/17/03 6:50:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, jvs@sonic.net writes:
> Why do you prefer the S.R. rings to N.R.? They're the same aren't they?
> One is just cut out a bit more, or so I thought. Do tell......
>

The NR rings have the original stiffening ring? You can spot ones that have been cut out from across the room. Campagnolo eliminated this on the SR rings, but with a typical Italian flair for how things look, they made a very graceful line that is completely different from a cut out NR. Those look a little clunky in comparison. It's more fair to say that when the extra metal was removed in the SR rings, there was a lot more noticeable ring deflection when pedaling. At least I noticed it back when I was young, riding a lot, and strong. I saw a picture of some pro who had a NR 42 mated with a SR large ring. I tried it and it was almost as deflection free as double NR rings. Personally, I really like the look.
Stevan Thomas
Alameda, CA