SRAM X-Sync direct mount chainrings for 1x11 drivetrains

Perhaps spurred by the popularity of Race Face’s CINCH 1x rings and other 3rd party, lighter chainrings, SRAM’s finally taking advantage of the weight savings to be had by moving to a direct mount chainring system. Their direct mount design is already in place, but until now it’s been used to hold the spider.

The new X-Sync drops the two piece design to save weight, and it’ll open up smaller tooth counts. You can now get an X-Sync chainring with just 26 teeth or up to 40 teeth, with all even increments in between accounted for. Aftermarket cranksets will all ship with the popular 32 tooth ring. They’re compatible with XX1, X01 and X1 1400 cranksets. And while you won’t be able to retrofit them to a standard XX or X9 because of the spider interface with the chainrings, you will sort of be able to mount them to X0 (UPDATE: and X9!) crank arms from the past few years…

SRAM X-Sync direct mount chainrings for 1x11 drivetrains

SRAM’s MTB PR man Duncan Riffle told us these are specifically designed for the chainring offset of their 1x crank arms, but that the direct mount interface will fit modern X0 and X9 crank arms. The only caveat is that you’ll need to pay attention to offset to ensure proper chain line and tire/frame clearance. We should have more specifics soon, but it’s worth checking into before purchasing. And SRAM has different offsets depending on whether you’re running GXP or BB30 cranks.

Like the originals, they’re fully CNC’d alloy, engineered in Germany and use SRAM’s X-Sync wide/narrow tooth profiles to keep the chain in place and help shed mud. They’ll be available for both GXP and BB30 spindle versions. Weight savings over the spidered versions range from about 25 to 50 grams, here’s the claimed weights:

26T 61g 52g
28T 66g 58g
30T 68g 61g
32T 71g 66g
34T 76g 71g
36T 91g 82g
38T 101g 94g
40T 119g 106g

Perhaps the only tradeoff is that you’ll have to remove your driveside crank arm to change the rings, something you don’t need to do with the two-piece design. So, if you’re constantly changing chainrings to suit conditions, might be worth hanging on to your 2-piece setup.

SRAM X-Sync direct mount chainrings for XX1 1x11 drivetrains

SRAM X-Sync direct mount chainrings for X01 1x11 drivetrains SRAM X-Sync direct mount chainrings for X1 1x11 drivetrains

The 30, 32 and 34 tooth counts will all be available this month (December, 2014). All other sizes will follow in April 2015. Retail is $99 / €88 / £75.


  1. Galen on

    Taking off a crank arm to pop on a new ring would probably be faster than removing and replacing chainrings on a spider. I think it would be even more beneficial if you were swapping rings often, not less.

  2. the other Andy on

    The problem with the current rings is that the bolts strip out quite easily.

    With 3 good steel T25 bolts, this should be much less of an issue.

    That said, I’ll be going with WolfTooth or Absolute Black for what looks to be the same product at a much lower cost.

  3. Parker on

    My thoughts as well mudrock. Especially on the larger tooth counts the added stiffness would probably be worth the price differential. Also, it looks like WT doesn’t have a different offset which would negatively affect the chainline. Kudos SRAM.

  4. absoluteblack on

    We can assure you mudrock that our chainrings are plenty stiff. If you would ever bend our ring while pedaling or complain about stiffness I will personally send you another one or product you like..

    Sram is stamping/forging their rings first, then finishes it of on CNC. This requires softer material to start with to be able to forge/stamp. Hence chainrings are much heavier than ours as you need more material to keep same stiffness.

    If you use much stronger material and cnc it fully you can get away with different and more lightweight design.

  5. gerald t. on

    grandesroues- this offset will actually work better with 148 than they do with 135/142, despite what AB is about to tell you in an effort to shill his rings.

    Remember when AB recomended dropping the 11tooth cog when using his cassette adapter? I do.

  6. Camberto on

    As long as it doesn’t fold over on itself while pedaling, and can take a hit from a few rocks, how stiff do you need a chainring that doesn’t shift to be?

  7. the dude on

    This will be really good for OE. Customers next year rejoice, weight savings and I imagine cost will go down (if they’re good PMs). Shave weight and some $$$.

  8. Stuart English on

    I weigh 255 and ride in very rocky terrain. I can attest to the strength and lack of deflection of the Wolf Tooth chainrings. I have a single speed and a Heckler running them and they are hard to beat.

  9. MissedThePoint on

    I can’t get excited by these when they don’t clearly justify the higher pricing over the existing competition.

    I’m curious though, how did SRAM put that grainy texture look on these rings? Is it from the black coating? Looks sand casted almost.

  10. Tom on

    So if I put one of these chainrings on my XX1 crank which has “extra” offset to account for the Boost 148 rear hub with which I am cursed, will I maintain my chainline?

  11. King County on

    I am not sure if any of the 1 piece 1x ‘rings do this, but if not, it would be cool if the chainrings were reversible with a different offset to each side.

  12. rupert3k on

    I used a pair of absolute black chainrings prior to getting Next SL.
    While any 1x chainring mounted to a 2x crank will degrade the chainline, I never dropped a chain running an 34t 104BCD ring on a SRAM crank with X9 Type 2.
    After trying the 34 I switched to an absolute black 30t 64bcd which naturally offers near perfect chain line.
    Although I enjoyed experimenting with 1x rings on 2x crank, I probably should have directed my funds towards a proper 1x crank earlier.

  13. windywheel on

    absoluteblack – I always thought you guys were tech savy and made good rings, but get your facts straight before trying to get a leg up on competitors…I know for a fact SRAM doesn’t stamp/forge their previous X-Sync chainrings. If you read the article, it says these direct mount rings are the same fully CNC’d alloy as the previous ones, so if this is correct then these are not stamped/forged either. Hence, not softer material. Probably the exact same alloy as yours. If weight claims are accurate, you have some competition for a lightweight direct mount. Plus these rings look like they’ll be wicked stiff too with the I-beam looking arms. Can’t wait to try one. Too many engineers into bikes dude, you gotta do your research before making claims…

  14. a on

    @windywheel unlike many, I think SRAM does a lot of great stuff (incl. road stuff).

    That said, these sram rings do look forged then CNC’d. Now you can’t be sure without getting one and breaking it in half, but by the look of it on the picture you can see it pretty easily. That’s the grainy look. CNC gives a perfectly smooth look.

    One could argue its some paint they used but really, that wouldnt make sense (paint with grain would make it heavier).

    Therefore, I believe these are forged then CNC’d just like absoluteblack said. The CNC only remove the rough edges of the forging process. “Fully CNC machined” is just marketing to say all teeth have been CNC machined.

    Pics: (grainy) (smooth)

  15. Ashok Captain on

    Could someone please explain:

    Why are the tangential arms of the chainring ‘pointing forwards’ instead of trailing (kinda like the pulling v/s ‘passive’ spokes on a traditional 3X wheel)? It just seems that the design would be better with trailing arms.



  16. Dan on

    Did anybody ever figure out if these would be compatible with the CX1 cranks, or any of the road cranks with removable spiders, like s900?

  17. Jimmymats on

    “The only caveat is that you’ll need to pay attention to offset to ensure proper chain line and tire/frame clearance. We should have more specifics soon, but it’s worth checking into before purchasing.”

    Have you found out what the chainline would be using these on X0 cranks? I’ve searched but can’t find much info. I have a set of these cranks and am interested in converting to 1×11 for a 2014 Salsa Spearfish (BB92 bottom bracket). Is the chainline further in or out compared to the standard Sram 1x cranks?




COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

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