Author Topic: Flightring differences? (Read 2923 times)

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.

SaMAlex · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:01 PM »

Phew. 30 reads and no reply.
I thought i was going to get shot down for asking a silly question!

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.

Jaymz · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:05 PM »

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

SaMAlex · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:12 PM »

THICKNESS. Nice point.

Non-lip: Main body = 5.4mm Teeth = 3.5mm

twin-lip: Main body = 5.0mm Teeth = 2.35mm

brummie · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:14 PM »

has the one been refurbed by one of the polishers out there to make it nos again

SaMAlex · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:17 PM »

Quote from: brummie on June 15, 2011, 02:14 PM

has the one been refurbed by one of the polishers out there to make it nos again

If by "refurbed" you mean "sat in my shed for 20 years with about 10 other flight rings" ..... then yes

I gave them a good wipe before I took this photo. Thats gotta be the first time they have ever even been cleaned!

Jaymz · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:19 PM »

Quote from: S&MAlex on June 15, 2011, 02:12 PM

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

JT71 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:24 PM »

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?

SaMAlex · « **Reply #8 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:29 PM »

Here's a bit more info

Jaymz · « **Reply #9 on:** June 15, 2011, 02:36 PM »

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,

1mancity2 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2011, 03:13 PM »

Maybe its to take a thinner chain?

oldtired · « **Reply #11 on:** June 15, 2011, 05:08 PM »

chain alighnment sounds good to me , just guessing realy,

although if you've got a spare 45t i'd be interested

SaMAlex · « **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2011, 05:33 PM »

Quote from: S&MAlex on June 15, 2011, 02:17 PM

"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.

58 delray · « **Reply #13 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

SaMAlex · « **Reply #14 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

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

58 delray · « **Reply #15 on:** June 15, 2011, 07:02 PM »

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

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

SaMAlex · « **Reply #16 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!

58 delray · « **Reply #17 on:** June 16, 2011, 10:17 AM »

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!

the first one's had a top hat washer though