You are reading a single comment by @B0N0R and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
the problem is, i think you're the only person who cares.
Isn't that to do mostly with this "standard" being in place before narrow wide rings were a thing anyway?
B0N0R-
Trading standards would care if anybody brought it to their attention.
N/W is irrelevant, the chain guard requirement is about keeping people out of the chain/ring interface, not keeping the chain on. If anything, typical N/W rings with their tall and chamfered teeth are a bigger danger than old fashioned rings with flat-topped teeth.
-
@mdcc_tester
I found this interesting actually, thanks.
gbj_tester
TM
Long trousers are one of the reasons why they are a good idea, the reason why they are not optional is that the legal standard for "City and trekking" bikes is different from the one for racing bikes. The racing bike standard says that chain guards are not normally fitted to racing bikes, but then defines the parameters if they are. The city and trekking bike standard says a chain guard must be fitted and then defines the same parameters. Spotter's home build doesn't have to conform to the standard but does, PX's OTP bike should conform to the standard but doesn't.