[CR]Re: 38 th is the smallest stock for Stronglight 93.

(Example: History:Ted Ernst)

From: <BobHoveyGa@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:33:08 EDT
To: sachs@erols.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]Re: 38 th is the smallest stock for Stronglight 93.

In a message dated 9/20/2004 8:47:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sachs@erols.com writes:
>Jerry Moos wrote: Yeah, if a 130 BCD Dura Ace will take a 39T, a 122 BCD
>Stronglight ought to go lower than 38T.
> And, Bob Hovey wrote:
>I distinctly remember putting a 36 on my 93.
>Just a couple of observations: Not only does Sheldon Brown declare 38 as the >minimum, but so does Sutherland IV. That takes care of authority, w/o even
>checking Cyclo-Pedia.
>
>So, I got out a Stronglight 93 arm and an available 36 tooth (Campy, from the ugly >triple) to eyeball the things. If someone were willing to do almost anything to get >a 36 to run on a Stronglight, it would be possible. Of course, you would have to >grind off the tops of the arms, down to just about the top of the chainring bolt hole >(<1 mm clearance). Then find a ring that would sit on the arms - oddly enough, >the Campy 36 is pretty close, maybe half a mm too big in radius.
>
>For all that, the Stronglight 99 and its clones (86 mm BCD) do turn up
>occasionally, and have much greater flexibility.
>
>Good luck!
>
>harvey sachs
>mcLean va

OK, since I've gone out on a limb here, let me qualify the statement I made... First off, the bike was a 1972 Peugeot PX-10... I always assumed the crank that came on it was a Stronglight 93 but I could be wrong about that. It sure looked like every other 93 I've seen. Second, the 36 tooth chainring I put on there was a Stronglight, so I know for sure they made one in that BCD. Third, I can't say for sure if it would have worked without modification on the crank as a double since I never used it that way... I had it set up as a triple, so the chain only had to clear the bolt and spacer, not the spider itself, which of course had a larger diameter.

Bob Hovey
Columbus, GA