James Thomson
12-31-1969, 08:00 PM
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> a écrit:
> the S-5 was a minor rework of the long-produced and popular
> FW gear train, so it wasn't, in a design sense, a totally new leap
> for Sturmey Archer. Twenty years of FW by 1966.
>
> There's no difference in the low gear of an FW or an S-5, the
> same parts being used in both.
Thanks Andrew, I'm aware of that - I rode FWs for quite some time before my
first five-speed, and still own a few, the oldest being a 1948. The
interesting thing is that you never hear this myth in relation to the FW
which, as you say, is mechanically identical except for the gear selector.
> p.s. I'd take a trigger shifted FW, FG, FB 4 speed over an
> S-5 with factory SA five speed controls any day.
So would I, but I prefer a double-trigger S5/2.
James Thomson
> the S-5 was a minor rework of the long-produced and popular
> FW gear train, so it wasn't, in a design sense, a totally new leap
> for Sturmey Archer. Twenty years of FW by 1966.
>
> There's no difference in the low gear of an FW or an S-5, the
> same parts being used in both.
Thanks Andrew, I'm aware of that - I rode FWs for quite some time before my
first five-speed, and still own a few, the oldest being a 1948. The
interesting thing is that you never hear this myth in relation to the FW
which, as you say, is mechanically identical except for the gear selector.
> p.s. I'd take a trigger shifted FW, FG, FB 4 speed over an
> S-5 with factory SA five speed controls any day.
So would I, but I prefer a double-trigger S5/2.
James Thomson