Home > Bike Types > Cyclocross

Paul Components Adds 1x Single Chainrings & Adapters, New Quick Release Skewers

Written by Tyler Benedict
13 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

Paul Components 1x single chainring and adapter

Paul Components has a new 1x adapter and chainring combo designed to fit their standard cranksets.

The chainring has thinner teeth for 1x geared systems, letting it work with the thinner 10 and 11 speed chains.  The chainring is 3/32″ wide, versus 1/8″ for the or singlespeed rings. It’ll come in 32/34/36/39 tooth counts.

The black spacer pushes the ring closer to the frame, keeping the chain line at the center of the cassette. Basically in the middle of the 2x double chainrings it replaces. Closeups and more below…

Paul Components 1x single chainring and adapter

Retail’s $294 for the whole crankset, or $91 for just the spacer and chainring.

Paul Components 1x single chainring and adapter

The teeth are standard shapes, no extra tall or narrow/wide designs, so they’re designed for use with one of Paul’s various chain guides:

Paul Components chainguides for single ring drivetrains

Paul Components quick release skewers with protected cam mechanism

The new quick release uses a protected cam to prevent damage from rock strikes or the elements. Available in 100, 130/135 and 170mm sizes. Retail is $50, each, $100 for the set. They might be working on a thru axle version, too. Maybe.

PaulComp.com
Tyler Benedict
11,282 articles

Tyler Benedict is the Founder of Bikerumor.com, where he’s been writing about the latest bikes, components, and cycling technology for almost two decades. Prior to that, Tyler launched and built multiple sports nutrition brands and consumer goods companies, mostly as an excuse to travel and ride in new places.

Based in North Carolina, Tyler also loves the Vanlife & family adventure travel and is always on the lookout for the next shiny new part and off-grid adventure.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mudrush
Mudrush
10 years ago

Its super slick and real sexy, but seems a bit antiquated with all the new XX1 and other malarkey out for a single ring set up.

0
Reply
chuck
chuck
10 years ago

“They might be working on a their axle version, too. Maybe.”

What?

0
Reply
Jesse Edwards
Jesse Edwards
10 years ago

These guys should really do a narrow wide chain. For typical trail riders a chain guide is really uneccesary if you are running a new fangled chainring and on a 1x setup. Pair that with a clutch rear DR and you need to be doing significant drops etc. to warrant the need for a chainguide. Those cranks are awesome, though.

0
Reply
bikeguy717
bikeguy717
10 years ago

Is that a stevil kinevil action figure?

0
Reply
bin judgin
bin judgin
10 years ago

I would love to run a narrow wide Paul chainring. Cmon guys!

0
Reply
Jay
Jay
10 years ago

their = thru

0
Reply
Kyle
Kyle
10 years ago

@bikeguy717 Can’t be, I don’t see a can of Budweiser anywhere in sight.

0
Reply
Mark @ GRAVELBIKE
Mark @ GRAVELBIKE
10 years ago

Action figure lacks wizard staff.

0
Reply
logic
logic
10 years ago

Why do these guys still only make cranks that fit square taper BB’s? …serious question, would really like to know why. (I guess this same question can be applied to White Industries as well.).

0
Reply
capner
capner
10 years ago

@logic I’ve only used square taper BB’s so far simply because its a proven and affordable option for most joe-schmoe guys like me. Designing for the best, newest, or greatest technology or the basic tried and true technologies all have their places.

0
Reply
PedroM
PedroM
10 years ago

@capner Well WI and Paul C. both are more on the expensive side than on the affordable side.

0
Reply
Paco Siffredi
Paco Siffredi
10 years ago

@logic

The whole saga of why everyone now rides Bullseye cranks courtesy of Shimanos predatory business practices and our general trendwhoreyness, is a sad, depressing and unflattering tale. So skipping over that,

The boring old square taper BB managed to achieve a near-perfect blend of spindle strength and bearing size for actual riding, & did it at relatively light weight & low maintenance. The bearings in a proper Phil Wood square taper bb can handle 3100 lbs of static load (bb rpm’s are so low it’s basically a static load). Even that was right on the edge of being not enough; if you racked up the miles, you *might* toast them in a couple seasons. …though for people who werent gonzo or lucky enough to get to ride in wet conditions, those BBs could last decades. That fancy new splined axle & its outboard “oversized” (but narrower & smaller dia ball) bearings? 1140 to 1380lbs static load, depending on if the mfg cheaped out on balls (& they do, especially now that they’re expected not to last). Either way, that spindle comes at a huge cost in bearing life, & even after the isis debacle, people are still blowing through multiple bearing sets in a single season reflecting that problem. Paul & WI make cranks for riding, not ski-jumps and stunts, thus, square taper.

0
Reply
Henry R
Henry R
10 years ago

These high praises for square tapered BB gives me tears in my eyes.
I fully agree. Shimano UN-73 / UN-53 are cheap and very reliable. I had a Phil Wood BB and it was so smooth and sweet that I got almost diabetic, so I had to sell it.

Maybe BB was too cheap so Shimano had to change it to make more money?
Look at octalink, ISIS and suddenly we got BIG oversized BB who always needs better precision, sealing and alignement each next year and later these got PressFitted instead of threads who had over 60 years of proved history.

The hidden cost with expensive tools and maybe that need of (higher) threshold of experience/competance will discourages new customers, which makes them more helpless in life. Which may result in that they’ll not ride their bicycle as much they would like…

And sorry for the nitpicking:
The Paul SS-chainring is NOT 3/32″, it’s THINNER than 3/32″ , it’s for 10speed which needs thinner tooth = less contactarea to the chain = slighty increased friction and slighty shorter chainlife. I use 3/32″ chains and I prefer to use a proper tickness.
Sadly it’s difficult to find correct size and width for the chainring, and it’s cheaper for companies to have one stock instead of two; which I can fully understand.

0
Reply

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.