At 01:07 PM 1/6/04 -0800, you wrote:
> > I accidentally rediscovered the drawback to
> > the Stonglight triplizers. Might have to
> > grind off the little shelves on the crankarm
> > spider arms (non-Stronglight arms) that
> > position the inner chainring. I think the
> > Stronglight triplizer ring needs a flat/flush
> > surface to mount to.
>
>The Stronglight is a bad design! On the Willow rings, the 74mm
>holes are offset from the larger BCD (130/135/144mm) holes. So
>no modification of te crank arm is required. Although the
>Willow might be of moderm manufacture, it is very unobtrusive
>and will essentially look like a "nice" version of a no-name
>ring.
> Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia
>
Found a line drawing of a Willow ring in an old Rivendell catalog, and offsetting the two bolt circles was the solution there. Merz did the same with his triplizer rings. But I also have a recent TA triplizer ring that was buried deep in the debris at home, similar to the Stronglight in that the bolt circles/centers are aligned. But on the TA there is a horizontal slot located between each pair of holes to allow the ring to sit on the shelves on the spider arms. An interesting solution. Beats the heck out of grinding on the crankarm.
We can argue asthetics all day, but that's not one I'm going to get into. I catch enough flak just for having mis-matched water bottle cages on my riders. None of which coordinate well with my baboon butt ugly orange jerseys. One man's high visibility in traffic is another man's eyesore. We all have our own priorities.
Pics of the TA, Willow, and Merz available as email attachments to anybody who's curious.
Larry "tripled or crippled?" Osborn Morgantown WV