RADBMX.CO.UK
Technical & Reference Section => Tech and Restoration => Topic started by: SaMAlex on June 15, 2011, 12:21 PM
-
I have 2 flightrings which I thought were there same but they are different. The front of them are the same and they have the same “font” but one has a machined lip on the back (the same as the front) but the other has no lip. (the are both 45t). Does anyone know the deal, which one is earlier or whatever.
(http://www.radbmx.co.uk/archive/albums/r313/alexleech/Flightrings.jpg)
-
Phew. 30 reads and no reply.
I thought i was going to get shot down for asking a silly question! ;D
My guess is the "non-lip" one is later cos it'd be easier to make; all the machining is from one side. It might have been changed to save cost.
-
a really wild out there thought now
Would the one which is machined both sides be made from a slightly stronger alloy, therefore allowing for thinner teeth, and perhaps a weight saving, is there any difference in weight at all. I would imagine this would lend itself to being later as stronger materials are generally later on
Really out on a wild limb arent I. but noone else is chipping in, so may as well have a punt
-
THICKNESS. Nice point.
Non-lip: Main body = 5.4mm Teeth = 3.5mm
twin-lip: Main body = 5.0mm Teeth = 2.35mm
-
has the one been refurbed by one of the polishers out there to make it nos again :LolLolLolLol:
-
has the one been refurbed by one of the polishers out there to make it nos again :LolLolLolLol:
If by "refurbed" you mean "sat in my shed for 20 years with about 10 other flight rings" ..... then yes :LolLolLolLol:
I gave them a good wipe before I took this photo. Thats gotta be the first time they have ever even been cleaned!
-
THICKNESS. Nice point.
Non-lip: Main body = 5.4mm Teeth = 3.5mm
twin-lip: Main body = 5.0mm Teeth = 2.35mm
To my eye those are substantially different, and too much to be an acceptable manufacturing tolerance difference. Just which is older
-
I think the machined one, that's also the thinner one is later as the material was stronger making thinner possible
or that the thicker one is later and truely midschool made like that to deal with the hard use the stuff got in the 90s.
lots of help eh?
-
Here's a bit more info
(http://www.radbmx.co.uk/archive/albums/r313/alexleech/ringends.jpg)
-
old frame geometry vs newer frame geometry maybe, could explain the teeth being offset. or are they made specifically to go with a certain era of flight cranks,
-
Maybe its to take a thinner chain?
-
chain alighnment sounds good to me , just guessing realy, :) although if you've got a spare 45t i'd be interested :LolLolLolLol: :daumenhoch:
-
"sat in my shed for 20 years with about 10 other flight rings"
OK, i might have been a bit over the top there. I only have 7 flight rings. 5 of them have the double lip, 2 have the single lip.
Im sure some flightrings have a different size "ring" and it was thickened up on later ones but Ive not checked my ones yet. Lots of them are on bikes so its not easy to put them side by side.
-
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
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:
-
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!
-
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!
the first one's had a top hat washer though :daumenhoch:
-
The one without the machine work on the back is an early one.
-
Maybe its to take a thinner chain?
That's what I thought - machined one is 3/32" and t'other one is 1/8" IMO...