Re: [CR]Why block chain?

(Example: Framebuilding:Restoration)

From: "Ken Sanford" <kanford@comcast.net>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, "John Betmanis" <johnb@oxford.net>
References: <3.0.6.32.20071212094932.015981a0@mailhost.oxford.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Why block chain?
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:58:56 -0500
reply-type=original

John

I ain't no expert but:

Inch pitch chains were available in either block or roller.

Block is actually circa 25% lighter than roller. It provides more lateral stiffness, and was perceived by sprinters as giving a quicker response - and thus was the chain of choice for sprinters. Most of these were also wider - 3/16 of an inch as opposed to modern track width of 1/8 inch. Not sure what difference wider makes. Some riders used inch pitch roller chain for training and the block for racing.

It (the block chain) is costlier. A lot of it was tradition; which was why they chained only reluctantly and gradually in the mid-sixties.

Ken Sanford
inch pitch fan in Kensington, MD


----- Original Message -----
From: John Betmanis
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:49 AM
Subject: [CR]Why block chain?



> I've been around vintage bikes for decades before they were ever vintage,
> but I still don't know why block chains were used on old track bikes. They
> can't be stronger unless the side plates have more cross-section area and
> I
> can't see how they could be smoother. The gear ratios available are just
> half as many as with regular roller chains. So what's the reason? Could it
> just be tradition, or that's how all chains were before the roller chain
> was invented?
>
> John Betmanis
> Woodstock, Ontario
> Canada