Re: [CR]Re: Stronglight extractor thread


Example: Framebuilding

In-Reply-To: <4464EF8B.70807@new.rr.com>
References: <20060512134921.73576.qmail@web82203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9B0D2E2D-0CA7-44C5-93F7-158794B3AA23@earthlink.net>
From: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Stronglight extractor thread
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 13:37:34 -0700
To: CR RENDEZVOUS <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>


John Thompson wrote:
> Chuck Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>> Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> (cut) This is aggravated by the fact that Stronglight cranks are
>>> softer than Campy, preventing the frequency of brittle cracking seen
>>> with Campy, but making Stronglight more likely to seize to the crank
>>> axle.
>>>
>
>
>> I've never seen any evidence that Stronglight cranks are made of a
>> softer alloy than Campagnolo cranks. Any published data?
>>
>
> I don't know of any published data, and nothing on arms, but we (Trek)
> did some hardness testing on chainrings and found Stronglight rings to
> be the hardest, Campy second, with Shimano and Sugino a close
> third, and
> TA the softest of the lot. This was done back in the early 80s, so
> things may well have changed since then.

I remember a Campagnolo Neutral Support tech guy during the '84 LA Olympics showing me how a Campagnolo chainring could scratch a Shimano chainring, but a Shimano ring couldn't scratch a Campagnolo ring.

Chuck Schmidt
South Pasadena, Southern California