Amazing the information available here. So if I understand it, there were at least 3 types of 49D outer rings, the old pattern with 7mm holes, the star pattern with 7mm holes and the later and more familiar star pattern with 10mm holes. In fact it looks there may also have been an outer ring with holes for a 3 hole rather than 5 hole inner. And it is interesting the difference between the mod 49D inner with no shoulder by the bolt hole and the mod 57 inner with the shoulder to engage the spider arms. So at what point were the distinct mod 49 inners discontinued in favor of the star pattern 10mm inners with shoulder that seem to have been common to mod 63, mod 93 and later mod 49D among others?
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA
> From: Stronglight49@aol.com <Stronglight49@aol.com>
\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] ID for Stronglight rings...
\r?\n> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
\r?\n> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 5:12 AM
\r?\n> The model 63 (in roughly 1963) was
\r?\n> the first Stronglight crank
\r?\n> set to use the now virtually universal 10 mm bolt
\r?\n> sets with the
\r?\n> hollow bolts with hex-key (Allen) openings. The mod
\r?\n> 57 used
\r?\n> solid hex-head bolts and nuts with 7 mm outer
\r?\n> diameters.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Many of the mod. 49 chainrings of the earlier 1950s
\r?\n> and well
\r?\n> into the 1960s also used solid bolts. Some of
\r?\n> these chainrings
\r?\n> also had what was in fact more traditional cuts for
\r?\n> the chainring
\r?\n> web pattern, similar to those which were most
\r?\n> famously recognized
\r?\n> as the mod. 57 "Super Competition" model ring style.
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> That pattern was really very consistent with much earlier
\r?\n> chain
\r?\n> rings reaching back to the early 1900s and were quite
\r?\n> commonly
\r?\n> see on steel single rings of both 1/8 inch and the
\r?\n> even wider 3/16'
\r?\n> thicknesses - a chain width which was still
\r?\n> used for track racing
\r?\n> applications even into the 1960s. Here is an
\r?\n> example of an early
\r?\n> Williams (UK) single steel ring, a model in
\r?\n> production from the
\r?\n> 1930s through 1950s in the web pattern from which the
\r?\n> model 57
\r?\n> pattern double chainsets were really derived:
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> http://www.flickr.com/
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Here is a 1958 catalogue page from the UK importer
\r?\n> Evian which
\r?\n> shows an earlier style mod 49d double chainset with
\r?\n> the earlier
\r?\n> pattern - similar to that of the mod. 57... I would
\r?\n> imagine this would
\r?\n> have been offered as a "Racing" style (versus
\r?\n> Touring) model set-up,
\r?\n> so the inner rings were only shown as available down
\r?\n> to 44 teeth.
\r?\n> In reality, they could have been offered down to 40
\r?\n> teeth - eventually
\r?\n> 38t in the later Star pattern which also used the
\r?\n> same 122 BCD.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> http://www.flickr.com/
\r?\n> /
\r?\n>
\r?\n> As Jerry Moos mentioned, the Cyclo Rosa type Touring rings
\r?\n> which
\r?\n> allowed smaller inner chainrings were still common during
\r?\n> the 1950s
\r?\n> although they first appeared much earlier. Here is a
\r?\n> Rebour image
\r?\n> published in the late 1940s:
\r?\n>
\r?\n> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> And, of course the Specialites TA Cyclo-Touriste and
\r?\n> Randonneur rings
\r?\n> were available throughout the 1950s, and were completely
\r?\n> compatible with
\r?\n> the 49D crank arms. So, Stronglight seems
\r?\n> to have concentrated on the
\r?\n> racing applications for their light alloy crank sets.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> The more familiar style of 5-pointed Star cut outer
\r?\n> rings seen on so
\r?\n> very many Stronglight cranks was (I believe) first
\r?\n> stratified on the
\r?\n> model 63. The 49d rings with this same
\r?\n> pattern and with solid
\r?\n> chainring connecting bolts may have continued on for
\r?\n> some time
\r?\n> after the model 63 began to use the hollow bolt sets
\r?\n> before this
\r?\n> "innovation" [already used by Campagnolo, et al]
\r?\n> finally trickled
\r?\n> down to use on the more common mod. 49 sets,
\r?\n> too. See here
\r?\n> some variations of the venerable mod 49d chainring
\r?\n> sets in the
\r?\n> familiar Star pattern:
\r?\n>
\r?\n> http://www.flickr.com/
\r?\n>
\r?\n> I believe the specific inner chainrings which Ted
\r?\n> Baer is seeking for
\r?\n> a proper mod 57 chainring set would be the earlier
\r?\n> style of inner
\r?\n> chainring pattern which split into thin forks past
\r?\n> the fixing bolts...
\r?\n> not the more common star pattern inner rings which
\r?\n> exited the bolt
\r?\n> holes with a single bar. I've seen some mod 57 sets
\r?\n> fitted with
\r?\n> incorrect inner "early" and even "middle era" 49D
\r?\n> rings (as used
\r?\n> with star pattern 49d outer rings) sold with mod. 59
\r?\n> cranksets on
\r?\n> eBay. Those sets STILL commanded quite high prices
\r?\n> on ebay -
\r?\n> in spite of the extremely (and of course increasingly) rare
\r?\n> inner rings
\r?\n> which a "restoration" of those chainsets would
\r?\n> require. The later
\r?\n> 49D rings (early star pattern) of course will fit the
\r?\n> application, but
\r?\n> they really do not look quite right to my eye.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Here is an interesting page which I just uploaded
\r?\n> which shows the
\r?\n> sometimes overlooked differences between the quite
\r?\n> similar looking
\r?\n> 49d and 57 inner rings of the very same period.
\r?\n> Perhaps this will help
\r?\n> distinguish what is sometimes quite erroneously being
\r?\n> sold as complete,
\r?\n> original, and "correct" model 57
\r?\n> cranksets:
\r?\n>
\r?\n> http://www.flickr.com/
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> ... Well, now that this thread has inspired me... Here is
\r?\n> the complete
\r?\n> 1958 catalogue which I have just uploaded. It shows
\r?\n> showing many of
\r?\n> the sometimes unique features of the various
\r?\n> components. Some
\r?\n> (such as the headsets and bottom brackets) really remained
\r?\n> virtually
\r?\n> unchanged and were in continuous production for the next
\r?\n> 20 years.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> http://www.flickr.com/
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Hope this info was useful. I always find it
\r?\n> fascinating (and challenging)
\r?\n> to ferret out some of the data regarding French components
\r?\n> for which
\r?\n> there is often little documentation available.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> BOB HANSON, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, USA