Anyone have a chart for this ? The one in question is a Stronglight, but I don't suppose there's a lot of difference since for a specific chain pitch, the size would always be he same (give or take tooth variations). I am trying to figure out how much bigger the OD would be for a 56 vs. a 52 (so, same question for the 52 .
Zog The Undeniable 12 March 2005 01:43:12 [ permanent link ]
Retroed Bob wrote:> Anyone have a chart for this ? The one in question is a Stronglight,> but I don't suppose there's a lot of difference since for a specific > chain pitch, the size would always be he same (give or take tooth > variations). I am trying to figure out how much bigger the OD would > be for a 56 vs. a 52 (so, same question for the 52 .
The circumference (measured near the top of the teeth) is obviously 28" for the 56T and 26" for the 52T, because chain has a half-inch pitch. Diameter is circumference divided by pi, so the 56T is 8.91" across and the 52T is 8.28".
Zog The Undeniable wrote:> Retroed Bob wrote:> > Anyone have a chart for this ? The one in question is a Stronglight,> > but I don't suppose there's a lot of difference since for a specific> > chain pitch, the size would always be he same (give or take tooth> > variations). I am trying to figure out how much bigger the OD would
be for a 56 vs. a 52 (so, same question for the 52 .>
The circumference (measured near the top of the teeth) is obviously
28"> for the 56T and 26" for the 52T, because chain has a half-inch pitch.
Diameter is circumference divided by pi, so the 56T is 8.91" across
the 52T is 8.28".
Uh, no... that gives you an approximate diameter at the midpoint of the tooth, roughly where the chain contacts the chainring. However, the difference between the chainrings is still about the same: the 56 toother is 0.63" larger in diameter. If you're changing from a 52 to a 56 tooth chainring, you'll have to raise your front derailleur by roughly 0.315", or (even more roughly) 3/8".
That's assuming both chainrings have the same tooth profile. This is not a given.
"Retrobob" wrote: (clip) I am trying to figure out how much bigger the OD would be for a 56 vs. a 52 (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The stuff Zog wrote is correct. But, more simply, if all you are looking for is the difference in diameter between two chainrings, then it will be the difference in circumference divided by pi, which is (difference in teeth)/2pi.
Zog The Undeniable 12 March 2005 15:02:09 [ permanent link ]
JeffWills wrote:> Zog The Undeniable wrote:>
Retroed Bob wrote:>>
Anyone have a chart for this ? The one in question is a>
Stronglight,>
but I don't suppose there's a lot of difference since for a>
specific>
chain pitch, the size would always be he same (give or take tooth>>>variations). I am trying to figure out how much bigger the OD would>
be for a 56 vs. a 52 (so, same question for the 52 .>>
The circumference (measured near the top of the teeth) is obviously>
28">
for the 56T and 26" for the 52T, because chain has a half-inch pitch.>
Diameter is circumference divided by pi, so the 56T is 8.91" across>
the 52T is 8.28".>
Uh, no... that gives you an approximate diameter at the midpoint of the> tooth, roughly where the chain contacts the chainring.
Depends on the tooth profile. Most modern chainrings have rather low teeth for easy derailing of the chain. Track/singlespeed rings have taller teeth, but even then they hardly make it above the middle of the plates.
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:02:09 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote:
Depends on the tooth profile. Most modern chainrings have rather low >teeth for easy derailing of the chain. Track/singlespeed rings have >taller teeth, but even then they hardly make it above the middle of the >plates.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:29:09 GMT Retroed Bob <uctraingNOSPAMO@ultranet.com> wrote:
Anyone have a chart for this ? The one in question is a Stronglight,>but I don't suppose there's a lot of difference since for a specific >chain pitch, the size would always be he same (give or take tooth >variations). I am trying to figure out how much bigger the OD would >be for a 56 vs. a 52 (so, same question for the 52 .
Assuming that the tooth profiles are the same, which is a good assumption if the maker is the same, then the 56-52 diametral difference is the same as the 52-48 diametral difference. ie, any 4 tooth change will make the same change in diameter.
- ----------------------------------------------- Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org Madison, WI 53711 USA -----------------------------------------------
Anyone have a chart for this ? The one in question is a Stronglight,> but I don't suppose there's a lot of difference since for a specific > chain pitch, the size would always be he same (give or take tooth > variations). I am trying to figure out how much bigger the OD would > be for a 56 vs. a 52 (so, same question for the 52 .
Anyone have a chart for this ? The one in question is a Stronglight,>> but I don't suppose there's a lot of difference since for a specific >> chain pitch, the size would always be he same (give or take tooth >> variations). I am trying to figure out how much bigger the OD would be >> for a 56 vs. a 52 (so, same question for the 52 . >
The circumference (measured near the top of the teeth) is obviously 28" > for the 56T and 26" for the 52T, because chain has a half-inch pitch. > Diameter is circumference divided by pi, so the 56T is 8.91" across and > the 52T is 8.28".
I believe that calculation will give you the diameter at the center of the chain rivet - not the top of the tooth.
Anyone have a chart for this ? The one in question is a Stronglight,>>> but I don't suppose there's a lot of difference since for a>>> specific chain pitch, the size would always be he same (give or>>> take tooth variations). I am trying to figure out how much bigger>>> the OD would be for a 56 vs. a 52 (so, same question for the 52>>> . >> The circumference (measured near the top of the teeth) is obviously>> 28" for the 56T and 26" for the 52T, because chain has a half-inch>> pitch. Diameter is circumference divided by pi, so the 56T is 8.91">> across and the 52T is 8.28".> I believe that calculation will give you the diameter at the center of> the chain rivet - not the top of the tooth.>
Right, but the OP was looking for the change in diameter, which is independent of the diameter. If you increase the circumference by two inches, the diameter increases by 0.64 inches (2/pi) whether you start with a circle 8 inches, 8 meters, or 8 miles in diameter.
Zog The Undeniable 14 March 2005 22:09:25 [ permanent link ]
Jim Smith wrote:
Right, but the OP was looking for the change in diameter, which is> independent of the diameter. If you increase the circumference by two> inches, the diameter increases by 0.64 inches (2/pi) whether you start> with a circle 8 inches, 8 meters, or 8 miles in diameter.>
Reminds me of the old brain teaser (not all that difficult):
If a worm crawls round the equator and a bird flies 2 metres above the worm, how much further has the bird travelled when they get back to their starting point?
Most people think it's thousands of miles...it's actually about 6.3 metres.
Zog The Undeniable wrote:>>If a worm crawls round the equator and a bird flies 2 metres above>> the>>worm, how much further has the bird travelled when they get back to>>their starting point?>>Most people think it's thousands of miles...it's actually about 6.3> metres.
A Muzi wrote:> >> Zog The Undeniable wrote:> >>If a worm crawls round the equator and a bird flies 2 metres above> >> the> >>worm, how much further has the bird travelled when they get back to> >>their starting point?> >>Most people think it's thou sands of miles...it's actually about 6.3> > metres.>
For either perverse or sinister reasons, Google randomly puts an extra letter at the end of every one of my posts. This time, it was a 'u'. Also, randomly intersperses blanks throughout, if the message is long enough. Wonder what will happen to this one.
Zog The Undeniable wrote:>>>>If a worm crawls round the equator and a bird flies 2 metres above>>>>the>>>>worm, how much further has the bird travelled when they get back to>>>>their starting point?>>>>Most people think it's thou sands of miles...it's actually about>>>> 6.3>>>>metres.
41 wrote:> For either perverse or sinister reasons, Google randomly puts an extra> letter at the end of every one of my posts. This time, it was a 'u'.> Also, randomly intersperses blanks throughout, if the message is long> enough. Wonder what will happen to this one.>
