Technical & Reference Section > Tech and Restoration

Flightring differences?

<< < (4/4)

58 delray:

--- Quote from: S&MAlex on June 15, 2011, 06:50 PM ---
--- Quote from: 58delray on June 15, 2011, 06:43 PM ---not sure about the machining but measure the centre hole as i'm sure some of the later one's didn't need a top hat washer as they were 19mm

--- End quote ---


Non of mine need a top hat washer, they all have a 19mm hole. Thats the main reason i used flight rings, I didnt (& dont) like top hat washers.

They are all still the early font, so they defo aint mid 90s ones. There were big changed in flight rings when they tried to make them stronger. There was a bulge where the crank arm bolt goes, and the cutouts were smaller

--- End quote ---
i have them with 19mm holes and two that take top hat washers, the one i had from new in 82 had a top hat washer, one i got in 85 didn't  :daumenhoch:

SaMAlex:
For ages, flight rings were the only (?) chainring that you could get with a 19mm hole. I WAY prefer it.
Shame that new school rings still have the top hat. Im gunna change to a spline drive sprocket soon, mainly to get shot of the top hat ..... again!

58 delray:

--- Quote from: S&MAlex on June 15, 2011, 07:09 PM ---For ages, flight rings were the only (?) chainring that you could get with a 19mm hole. I WAY prefer it.
Shame that new school rings still have the top hat. Im gunna change to a spline drive sprocket soon, mainly to get shot of the top hat ..... again!

--- End quote ---
the first one's had a top hat washer though  :daumenhoch:

ron burgundy:
The one without the machine work on the back is an early one.

ozone:

--- Quote from: 1mancity2 on June 15, 2011, 03:13 PM ---Maybe its to take a thinner chain?

--- End quote ---

That's what I thought - machined one is 3/32" and t'other one is 1/8" IMO...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page