Re: [CR] Dumb track bike question--block vs. roller

(Example: Framebuilders:Alex Singer)

From: "P J Rutledge" <prutledge1@comcast.net>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <63905F71CF9A794F80217187D219FA4B01B01117@EX07.ad.tulane.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:12:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [CR] Dumb track bike question--block vs. roller


I've been noticing a tendancy in some of the answers to this question to refer to a 1" pitch chain as a "block chain." Actually, 1" pitch x 3/16" width chain came in two varieties: block chain and roller chain. The block chain variety had a "solid" link between the cog or chainwheel teeth, often made of laminated plates. It was said to be stronger, more responsive, and yes, it made more noise (kind of nice) than the roller variety. The roller variety was open between the teeth and was quieter. Block chain would be considered a premium chain compared to an equivalent roller chain. Roller chain is much easier to find today because it was used on common, everday bikes before 1/2" pitch became standard. I think it's fair to say that 1" pitch by 3/16" width block chain was uniquely for track bikes; it is a lot harder to find and a lot more expensive when you do.

Pete Rutledge
Woodbridge, VA, USA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Strickler, George M"
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:23 PM
Subject: [CR] Dumb track bike question



>I never raced on a track. We didn't have one. I have now acquired a
> 70's era Frejus track bike which I'm building up. The chain is much
> beefier than road chains and the chain ring (Campy) has big teeth that
> are widely spaced. Is this all about stretch - providing a transmission
> that does not have any give in it? Or is there some other reason for
> the big chain and different chain ring?

>

> George Strickler

>

> New Orleans