The triple with 36T inner was made WELL before 1974. It is the original crank on my wife's 1970 touring Paramount. It's difficult to believe it did not appear in catalogs until 1974. UNLESS reports are true that this crank was developed in cooperation with Schwinn specifically for the Paramount. Even then, it is difficult to imagine Schwinn having an exclusive for three years. But then, Schwinn was an extremely powerful company in 1970, to a degree hard to imagine today.
BTW, reviewing again Bob Hufford's wonderful Schwinn Lightweight Data Book, which begins with 1960, I note that 1970 is the first year for the 15 speed Paramount. I had thought it a bit odd that the 1970 15 speed touring Paramount, but evidently not the racing models, was designated "Diamond Jubilee Paramount" celebrating 75 years since the founding of the company. But the introduction of the 15 speed model, with perhaps exclusive use of the new Campy triple crank, can justify a bit of hype.
By the way, I note that for most of the 60's there were two different road racing Paramount models, the P12 and the P13, the latter often called Deluxe Road Racer. Price difference was usually about $50. But it is not clear what the differences were between the two. Does anyone know how specifications differed between these two models?
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA
> From: verktyg <verktyg@aol.com>
\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] Original NR Triple vs. drilled and tapped NR Double converted to a Triple / Appropriate BB and axle length for a NR Triple for a 68 BB width
\r?\n> To: "Marc Winnikoff" <ciclo58@gmail.com>, Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
\r?\n> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 3:18 AM
\r?\n> Mark,
\r?\n>
\r?\n> The Campagnolo triple crankset with the 36T inner chainring
\r?\n> first appeared in the 1974 English Catalog 17 but they were
\r?\n> available before then.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> The number for the triple crankset was 1048/5
\r?\n>
\r?\n> 818 was the Triple Chainring Spacer for the 36t chain ring.
\r?\n> It definitely screwed into threaded holes in crank arm
\r?\n> spider. The thread size was about 6mm or 7mm.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> 761 was the Track Chainring Fastening Screw, same as for
\r?\n> Pista chainrings.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> 819 was the Right Hand Crank Arm drilled and tapped for the
\r?\n> 818 mounting spacers.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> 744/1 was the generic number for the triple spindle. The
\r?\n> number listed for the 68mm BB spindle was 68-SS-120X3 with
\r?\n> an overall length of 117mm.
\r?\n> The extension from the RH fixed cup was 20mm.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Back in the 60s Campy listed a triple crankset using the
\r?\n> standard 144 BCD chainrings with a 42T (later 41T) small
\r?\n> chainring assembled with longer chainring bolts. It used the
\r?\n> same BB spindles.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> I have an almost new Campy crankset that was precision
\r?\n> modified by a machine shop and it has a 28T small chainring.
\r?\n> It looks like a factory job.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> TA makes or made an adapter to use a smaller triple
\r?\n> chainring with a standard double crankset. Someone else made
\r?\n> an adapter too.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> One problem to watch for with a triple on a frame built for
\r?\n> racing is to make sure that there is enough clearance
\r?\n> between the inner ring and the chainstay. An adjustable BB
\r?\n> like a Phil is a good solution for spacing problems.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> On triples, I figure on only using the small inner
\r?\n> chainring only on the 3 largest freewheel sprockets and I
\r?\n> don't try to use those sprockets with the large chainring.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Chas. Colerich
\r?\n> Oakland, CA USA
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Marc Winnikoff wrote:
\r?\n>
\r?\n> > *Topic 1*
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Please weigh in on fitting a bike with an original NR
\r?\n> Triple versus a
\r?\n> > converted NR Double.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Monsieur Freitas pointed out that the conversion gives
\r?\n> you many more gearing
\r?\n> > ratio opportunities. Other than that I have
\r?\n> heard that the original NR
\r?\n> > Triples, which are press fitted, are prone to failure
\r?\n> under heavy use. Are
\r?\n> > the drilled and tapped conversions more durable?
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > I am constructing a "Randonneur" out of a '74 Raleigh
\r?\n> Pro and am pondering
\r?\n> > if I go with an original triple or a conversion.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > *Topic 2*
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Please let me know what is the appropriate NR BB and
\r?\n> axle length for a NR
\r?\n> > Triple for a 68 BB width (including cup thickness).
\r?\n> Also does a conversion
\r?\n> > use the same BB?
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Thank you.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Marc Winnikoff
\r?\n> > Santa Barbara, CA USA