Eric Elman wrote:
>
> My reply:
>
> I may have caused your confusion when I wrote on a different thread:
>
> Crankset: Stronglight 105bis with Stronglight Ti spindled sealed
> bearing BB
> (Stronglight 107 would be a bit more period correct but is Campagnolo
> NR/SR
> looking so let's stick with the 105)
>
> If my statement is what caused the confusion, let me clarify. I was
> commenting that the 107 looked similar to the Campagnolo item when
> compared to the 105 crankset which has a distinctly different look.
> The 105 has similar crank arms profiles but the very different and
> unique to Stronglight "star pattern" inner webs.
>
> The 106 and 107 are very similar looking but not identical to one
> another. The most notable difference is that the 107 was their top
> model and although I have looked and cannot find my catalog, I believe
> the difference is in the metallurgy or way they were manufactured.
> Someone help me here. Was the 107 forged and the 106 not?
>
> Either way, back to your question which is that the 106 and 107 look
> very, very similar to one another and could also be claimed as one of
> the many Campagnolo copies. The 105 is easily seen as being quite
> different.
>
> Hope that helps a bit.
>
> Eric Elman
> Somers, CT
Thank you, it does.
Part of the confusion comes from my ignorance of Stronglight model numbers. And the fact that I have yet to find a pic of a crank like mine on the net. So imagine my confusion when I find there is yet another number I am not familiar with. :-o
So that brings another question. Were the Stronglight Campy copies susceptible to breakage ala their Campy counterparts?
--
Lynn Travers
Hazelwood, MO