Well, yet another myth exploded, then. It is certainly widely believed that the mod 49 referred to the year of introduction. I now hestitate to state that the designations of mods 57 and 63 reflected their introduction dates. You're right, one does see a great many 49D cranks with TA Cyclotourist rings. Seems odd that buyers would not simply buy a complete TA crankset, though. What was the attraction of the 49D arms that caused consumers to go to the trouble of buying them, yet substituting TA chainrings? Hard to imagine that sort of thing happening much in today's marketing environment.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Hilary Stone wrote:
> As I I said in my reply I'm not certain exactly which year the 49D was
> introduced though it is definitely in the 1938 Constrictor catalogue I
> think perhaps a year or two earlier. But it always was called always 49D.
> The (( series was never so widely used as a touring crank partly because the
> inner ring only went to 28T rather than 26T and partly because of the easy
> TA ring availability which were far more often used than the Stronglight
> rings. The 49D rings in any case were a superior quality to the 99s.
> Hilary Stone
>
> David Goerndt wrote:
> Was it always listed as that model number?
> > It seems Stronglight's designs borrowed bits from previous designs and gave
> > them a new model number, as an example, the model 57's arm is carried over
> > to the model 63 with new chainrings, then the arm is redesigned and called
> > the 93 using the same rings as the 63.
> >
> Jerry Moos wrote:
>
> Hilary, was the 49D designation, at least, first adopted in that year?
> Also,
> granted that the mod 93 wasn't primarily a touring crank, but didn't the Mod
> 99,
> with a much smaller bolt circle than the mod 93, and often configured as a
> triple, displace the 49D as the top Stronglight touring crank in the 70's?
> For a
> touring double, the mod 99 should have been superior, as it had an 86mm
> inner
> (and outer) circle, while the mod 49 inner was 122mm.