Harvey M Sachs wrote:
> Mark Stonich wrote <but I snip to leave only one of his interesting
> points>:
>
> [relative to 3/32 and/or 1/8" chains] There must be some cost in
> strength though as 3/16" is coming back in vogue for BMX and modern
> Single Speed.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> May I suggest that this might be a fashion, not driven by serious
> analysis? In 4+ decades, I've rarely broken a 3/32 chain (and one of
> those times was riding an on-topic triplet with a pretty strong team,
> and required missing a shift, too). Besides, one wonders if the side
> plates are thicker or stronger on the new 3/16" chains. Or do they
> claim that better bearing surfaces give enough advantage to overcome the
> certain increase in weight? My sense is that these are chosen primarily
> for visual impact, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong - off-list, of
> course, unless the argument is on-topic. :-)
Maybe this isn't even very new. I just picked up an old (1960s vintage) Zeus double crank and was surprised when it arrived that the outer ring was stamped "PISTA" when it was clearly for a 3/32" chain. Sure 'nuff, a 3/32" chain settled on it just fine. Then I looked in my 60s vintage Zeus catalog and found -- sure enough -- that Zeus offered PISTA rings for both 1/8" and 3/32" chains way back then!
How the PISTA ring ended up on a double crank is still a mystery, though.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
Appleton WI USA