[CR]Was: Pantagraph Parts? Now: chainring makeup

(Example: Framebuilding)

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:24:48 -0800
From: "Chuck Schmidt" <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
References: <l03130301b669506df8c0@[128.111.201.65]>
Subject: [CR]Was: Pantagraph Parts? Now: chainring makeup

Monkeyman (Brandon) wrote:
> (snip)
> Thinking about chainrings made me look at an old Campy ring and compare it
> to a newer campy 9-speed ring. I think the new rings are a 7000 series
> aluminum so I'm wondering about the aluminum makeup of the older rings.
> Does anyone know what it was? I can tell the older rings are "softer" but
> make up for this with thickness. There has been some talk about chainring
> coating in the past but it seems the "type" of aluminum used in the past
> for rings, and other parts, really didn't matter. I can only think of a
> few ads that ever mentioned the superiorness of their aluminum over the
> competitors. Am I missing somthing?

This reminds me of a buddy of mine who was one of the Campagnolo tech support people for the bike events at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

He would take a Campagnolo chainring and put these really nasty scratches in a Shimano DuraAce chainring and then take the DuraAce and try to do the same to the Campy chainring and nothing would happen. When I say "a Campagnolo chainring" I mean any Campy chainring from the cheapest group to the most expensive; no difference. Even the cheap Campy rings were made of the same stuff as the Super Record/ C-Record rings.

As they say... "First hand experience!"

Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena, California

http://www.velo-retro.com (NEW list of reprints and T-shirts)