Home > Other Fun Stuff > Uncategorized

IB14: Wolf Tooth Components introduces Single Speed 00 Cogs, 50t 1x Ring For Road, More

Written by Zach Overholt
39 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

IMG_3111.JPGSeeing as how 1x drivetrains have taken over mountain bikes, and now cross bikes as well, road bikes can’t be far behind. For those looking for a viable 1x option for their next road or gravel build, Wolf Tooth has just dropped the hammer with a new 50t Drop-Strop option. Wolf Tooth had this Salsa gravel bike set up with a 50t ring and an 11-40 cassette with their GC adapter. Along with the new chain ring Wolf Tooth is getting into the single speed cog market and literally got the very first sample in at Interbike today.

Roll Wolf Tooth Single Speed after the jump…

IMG_3112.JPG
IMG_3108.JPGWhile probably not the most practical for many road cyclists, gravel riders or those looking for just a simple, lightweight set up may be interested in the new 50T Drop Stop 110 chainring. Using the same anti chain drop technology as the rest of their proven designs, the ring will fit standard road cranks and offer a true single ring option.

IMG_3106.JPGComing in at 122g, the ring should have a similar weight saving story as other 1x conversions with the removal of the front derailleur, shifter, and cable. Chainrings will be available in 50 and 52t and in 110 and 130 BCD for $79-90.

IMG_3104.JPGWhile Wolf Tooth cut their teeth on the Drop-Stop design, the company is getting into single speed cogs with both an aluminum and 416 series stainless steel. Available in 16,18, 20, and 22t, the cogs use a standard tooth profile.

IMG_3105.JPGBoth models offer a wide base to prevent damage to freehub bodies and provide a secure connection. Aluminum OO cogs will retail for $40 in black, while the stainless cogs will have a natural look for $60.

IMG_3103.JPGThis 20t stainless model came in at 39g.

IMG_3109.JPG
IMG_3110.JPGWolf Tooth is also continuing to expand their tool offerings with a new Light Weight Lock Ring Tool. Completely machined from light weight aluminum, the tool provides a standard outboard bearing bottom bracket wrench (also the standard for thru axle Centerlock rotor lock rings), as well as a hex fitting that will hold different tool inserts with a system of magnets. Steel inserts like the cassette lockring tool above will be available and snap into place.

IMG_3107.JPGTrue to the name, the tool weighs only 108g with the steel insert, making it an excellent option for those who need to fly with their tools, or just don’t want to lug around a super heavy tool box. The aluminum tool will retail for $33 and the mini cassette tool insert will be an additional $16.
Zach Overholt
5,726 articles

Zach Overholt is the Editor in Chief of Bikerumor. He has been writing about what’s new in the bicycle world for 12+ years. Prior to that, Zach spent many years in the back of a bicycle shop building and repairing nearly every type of bike, while figuring out how to (occasionally) ride them.

Based in Ohio, Zach is now slowly introducing a new generation to cycling and still trying to figure out how to fit the most rides into a busy schedule as a new dad.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
anonymous
anonymous
10 years ago

Why go with a weaker chainring by utilizing a smaller BCD?

Why go with a 50t instead of something more reasonable for 1x road use like 40-46? 44×11 gets you the same classic high gear as a 52×13 on an old ten speed.

0
Reply
Jeb
Jeb
10 years ago

Good god, when with this idiocy stop. Modern front road derailleurs work amazing, if you are too friggin lame to press a small button or flick a finger to make a shift and are willing to give up useful gears on the top and bottom end because of this you should probably take up jogging.

0
Reply
Psi Squared
Psi Squared
10 years ago

I can’t remember the last time I had issues with a front derailleur on the road. I can’ think of any way that an FD on the road is a handicap.

0
Reply
Mike A
Mike A
10 years ago

I kind of agree with the first poster, 52-50 tooth for a single ring is kind of counter intuitive for road 1x (unless your a ultimate hardman) Something in the 42-48 tooth range seems a bit more practical. I’d rather sacrifice high end power over climbing. Also bash guards are commonly available in sizes up to 46t for cross, which is nice for those of using 1x in a urban setting.

0
Reply
Brad
Brad
10 years ago

To me, this “idiocy” is a reaction to the real idiocy, which is an ever-increasing number of cassette cogs rammed down our collective throats. At some point rear rims will be 100% dished to one side – all the better for manufacturers because wheels will be so weak as to be disposable. Either that or rear axles on road bikes will have fat-bike spacing.

If we were still at 8 or 9 speed rears, I doubt this 1x would have taken off to the huge extent that it has.

All that being said, I have a 1×10 on my mtb (w/ wolf tooth) and like it well enough. However, the drop-stop rings do seem to add some noise and friction. My road bike is 1×10 with a Paul chain guide.

0
Reply
gg
gg
10 years ago

what generally is the issue on the cogs is that i use like 4 of them.
id rathet have less cogs (which are heavy btw) and a new tech for larger cog jumps.

0
Reply
Nash
Nash
10 years ago

This would be good for road if the gradient you ride is fairly flat, I would ride it if I hadn’t a steep hill on my everyday ride. Saying that some people make do with riding track bikes on roads

0
Reply
Brad
Brad
10 years ago

What is the orange bike in the first photo?

0
Reply
Rich Lather
Rich Lather
10 years ago

50T? On a gravel rig???
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I think someone has never ridden REAL gravel. Fine for the bike path, but for some washed out, backwater dirt road… or baby fist sized gravel? I’ll stick with 2×10

0
Reply
craigsj
craigsj
10 years ago

Rear wheel dish hasn’t changed in some time, Brad. Cogs are getting closer together.

I agree that 50T is dumb and that single ring is also dumb. I also don’t understand how you’d call that “for road” and then put an 11-40 on the rear. Idiotic.

I think the 34-50 compact is dumb for many riders as a double. I’d like to see a smaller double option. I’ve used a 27-44 converted from a triple and really liked it. To me a 4:1 top gear ratio, as the first poster mentioned, is fine for a top gear, though that depends on wheel and crank size of course. I don’t understand why the bike industry so consistent fails to understand real gearing needs.

0
Reply
Aaron
Aaron
10 years ago

@Rich Lather: 50T on a gravel is no big deal. I’m currently running a SS gravel setup with a 50×18, and it gets me everywhere. The only time I’ve walked it is on FRESH gravel, about 4″ thick, on a 20% grade. It was more a traction/sinking in issue than anything else.

My near-future plans are for a 1×10 setup with a 50T and 11/32. That makes for a great sprinting gear on the top end, and more than enough climbing ability on the low end. Get some quads, man.

0
Reply
don
don
10 years ago

A 50×40 combo = 34×28. We ride real hills and if you are fit a 34×28 will make you hurt on the longer/steeper stuff, but doable. If you need a 36×36 gear most likely you are a recreational rider and a 1x system isn’t for you anyway.

I prefer 1x, but for all my competition who likes to shift front rings I agree with you. Please stick with your set-up.

Was an early adopter of the wolf rings last summer testing for my cx set-up. Did not experience a single drop till I started racing, then after the 3rd race which I did I went back to a double. To be fair I did not run a clutch derailleur. Guessing the improved wolf rings solve this. Would like to see wolf have a trade in program for those of us who went with version 1.

don

0
Reply
JC
JC
10 years ago

You ride what you want, how you want…
BUT
A simple buid up like 1×9-1×10-1×11 will offer you by anyway a simple way to ride with less issues, less weight and less money. Only world champions and mythomans need the top of the top. Ride simple, live simple and enjoy!

0
Reply
BMANX
BMANX
10 years ago

1 X ?? just simplifies things so much. I normally ride my 50 x 11/28 everywhere and up hills with no issues. I live on the West Coast and very close to the world famous North Shore mountains in BC. If I change my cassette to an 11/32 then I never have to get out of the big ring. My GF has a 48t X 11/32 and she just started riding 2 months ago and can stay in her big ring for almost every single hill we ride. Yes there are a few exceptions. So I think a 50/40 = 34/28 should be more than enough for most people riding.

1
Reply
michael
michael
10 years ago

sign me up for the 50t chainring! It will work great with Sram’s CX1 11-32 11-speed cassette.

0
Reply
Sam
Sam
10 years ago

The range is not the issue with a 1x for road, its whats in between. I personally get annoyed by the jumps on an 11-28 cassette. I would not want to use an 11-40 on road/gravel, thats a serious case of grinding or spinning.

0
Reply
JBikes
JBikes
10 years ago

Are all these 1x 50t ring people also 65 rpm cadence mashers?
My Campy Chorus FD shifts nearly as fast as my RD, although I am “burdened” with a slightly longer lever push. Oh the humanity.

Also, am I the only one that seems to find that dropping from big ring to small ring tends to be a nice jump setting into many climbs? Why go through a bunch of rear gears when I can do the same in one jump with my FD?

I think a lot of this is that people really do not know how to set up and adjust their bikes mechs. I’ve never had an issue with any of mine. The FD is literally the lowest maintenance item on my bikes.

0
Reply
dimpled pig
dimpled pig
10 years ago

clearly not everyone rides the same way or in the same terrain. I think this setup looks like it could be fun, but for all-day riding, give me as many gears, spaced as closely together, as you can. Spinning a high cadence at a measured power output is the name of the game. If I had a bunch of bikes I don’t ride that much, I might want to try this 1x thing out though.

0
Reply
lonefrontranger
lonefrontranger
10 years ago

if I still raced a lot of crits and had a dedicated crit bike like I did back in the 90s/early 00s, I would absolutely go single ring. Removes a chunk of weight and there is literally no time at which I ever used the small chainring in a criterium.

So there is that.

1
Reply
pile-on
pile-on
10 years ago

@gg +1

0
Reply
Dirty-D
Dirty-D
10 years ago

give me a 44 or a 46 and I’m yours! oh yeah and do it in a 135 campy BCD so I can replace the 39 tooth ring that I’m rolling with on my cross/commuter bike and spin out at about 22mph on.

0
Reply
David
David
10 years ago

I’ve had very good luck riding a 53×17 for commuting and general road riding. A 50×16 would be great for me and my riding style. My wife is a prime candidate for 1x on the road. I have never encountered anyone else who cross-chains as aggressively [despite bribes, lectures, cajoling, lectures and threats on my part – she just doesn’t GAF]. I doubt she uses the top or bottom 1/4 of the available gear range. 1x FTW.

0
Reply
wzrd
wzrd
10 years ago

things that worry me about this

– cadence jumps
– chain life (not stretch but roll)
– chain ring life

0
Reply
bikemike
bikemike
10 years ago

Specialized just came out with the Venge Lunch Race bike that has a 52t/11-28. Brilliant. If it can work on mountain bike where you eliminated 2 chainrings and CX, then why not road? Plus, you eliminate a hand full of redundant gears. Cleans up the front end of the bike. Bring it.

0
Reply
Chris
Chris
10 years ago

For me it’s less about the complexity of a front derailleur and more about wondering how many gears you really need. A 2×11 drive train seems like overkill to me. Eddy won the Tour several times and he only had 10 gears to chose from. You’re going to tell me that you really **need** more than that? Highly unlikely. Also something most people seem to ignore in the “more is better” quest is that more isn’t always more. A 2×11 drive train will almost certainly not have 4 more gears than a 2×9. The more cogs you add in back, the more duplicate cogs you will likely end up with. I don’t think 1x drive trains are across the board better than 2x drive trains but at the same time there are plenty of scenarios/uses where a 1x offers advantages over a 2x.

As for maintaining an even cadence no matter the terrain I’m not convinced this such a good thing. I find it curious that rider complaints about numb hands and nether regions seem to have become more common since the introduction of integrated brake/shift levers. I’m convinced that one leads to the other. Many riders these days put their hands on the brake hoods and pretty much never move them. I don’t even know why they bother with drop bars since the only time they ever seem to ride in the drops is on a descent. In the days of down tube shifters you were forced to take your hands off the bars more often and the gaps in 5-6 speed clusters meant getting out of the saddle to get over small hills, not just tapping a shift lever with your index finger. All that moving around had the benefit of keeping numbness at bay. It’s similar to how the move to thinly padded ass-hatchet saddles has in turn led to most shorts having super thick pads in them and feeling like a pair of diapers. Find a pair of shorts from the 1980s and the pad is nothing more than a piece of deer skin leather. No foam, no gel. In fact the whole reason cyclists wore “padded” shorts had nothing to due with padding and more to do with chafing. It worked because the saddles of the era were much more heavily padded and supportive. Now we have much lighter saddles but all we’ve really done is shift all that padding and weight from the saddle to the shorts.

I know this makes me sound like a luddite but I’m not. I love electronic shifting, hydraulic brakes and clipless pedals. But I also think sometimes some “improvements” really just end up creating new problems or adding needless complexity.

0
Reply
logic
logic
10 years ago

@ricklather — lol “real gravel” is no problem at all on a 50T. Done a number of gravel races on 50T single ring set-ups (on a heavy 130-BCDSurly steel chainring…non narrow-wide, they’ve made these for years)…and scored overall podiums as well. It’s not a big deal.

0
Reply
c.
c.
10 years ago

the problem with 1x road is that there is only one combination of cassette / chainring to cover the wide ratio from 52/12 to 34/28 (at 110BCD, its 44/10-34 11sp).
but with this combination you got great gear steps so its only acceptable for touring/long distances, no technical rides/criterium.
every other choice leads to the point where you have to decide: speed or mountain.
the clear advantage (as seen on every XX1 bike) is that its really a no-brainer to decide where to shift – no more *mmh.. current gear ration is same as left chainring and two sprockets higher*.

I want to wait, but i’m interessted.

0
Reply
WV Cycling
WV Cycling
10 years ago

craigsj – 09/12/14 – 6:48am
I think the 34-50 compact is dumb for many riders as a double.

In WV, I use a 48/33 on 110bcd. I have two rear wheels with a 12-23 and 12-25 cassette depending on my planned ride.

I love the spacing between the 48/33 for tight cassettes! <3

0
Reply
Antoine
Antoine
10 years ago

Now that we have 10 or 11 gear, front is really dumb. 11 step to adjust cadence are way enough. Every medical study on power show that change in cadence inferior 10% around optimal shows no difference in efficiency.

So that is the future for sure. Beauty in simplicity. I’m a true believer in this thing. After all spedd variation in mtb are greater than on road and any serious racer is on single now. This cadence jump fear from roadies make me laugh (and i’m more road nowaday).

However i won’t adopt single stuff just now for some practical reasons. In 11speed there is nothing between 11-32 and 11-40 XTR. And 11-40 is XTR and i don’t know if road brifter works with mtb derailleur. Plus XTR is just too damn expensive as a cassette derailleur combo.
So i’ll be there… soon. For now double is just much more simple and economic even if dumber.

0
Reply
michael
michael
10 years ago

it’s funny the guys concerned about the spread of wide range cassette & maintaining their cadence, they forget that an 11speed 11-32 cassette (11-12-13-14-15-17-19-22-25-28-32) has the same gear jump as a 9speed 11-25 cassette (11-12-13-14-15-17-19-22-25).
The 11speed cassette just has two more lower gears.
9speed cassettes were not that long ago, I imagine they maintain their cadence just fine (especially since it was a improvement from 8speed cassettes).

0
Reply
anonymous
anonymous
10 years ago

@Chris
Yes, Merckx needed more gears. Courses were designed around the equipment of the time. Downtube shifters discouraged frequent shifting uphill anyways. Freewheel customization was also a huge thing back then, not just general selection, but selection of each individual cog. I am 100% Merckx could have done better with more gears and brifters. Maybe you can ask the man what he thinks.

@michael
11-25 9spd is pretty much a modern thing meant to cripple low end cassettes by removing a midrange cog. You will notice that Shimano cassettes start dropping midrange cogs as the technology trickles down. The standard cassette was 12-25, 12-25 was also pretty standard with 10spd. Check documents for CS-6600/6500 (no 11-25) and Campy 10 cassettes back then. You picked narrower spaced cassettes when possible, like 11-23 or 12-23 for time trials. The superhuman doped up lance even had a custom cassette made with 21-22-23 spacing for the Alpe ‘d Huez.

So no, a 11-25 9spd cassette is not what they used back then, and they took the gears they wanted when they could. An 11 speed cassette has 1 higher gear, and 1 lower gear than a 12-25 9spd cassette, and much appreciated if you ever hit bottom or top gear.

0
Reply
JBikes
JBikes
10 years ago

I’m waiting for a road bike with fat bike crank spindle adapted to allow 10×1. Yeah, that’s right, a 10x. Future here I come.

0
Reply
goridebikes
goridebikes
10 years ago

I ride 52 front, 11-28 and rarely use small ring except when i’m exhausted on a climb – a 50t 1x is totally doable and I’m super stoked on this. Personally, 50 x 11-28 is ideal, I don’t see the need for anything beyond maybe a 32 for climbing…

If you need a 34×28 gear, you must be going quite slow.. For racing or weight weenie purposes, 1x is ideal on road, just wait and see.

0
Reply
Psi Squared
Psi Squared
10 years ago

It’s cool that so many know what everyone else needs or how everyone else rides.

0
Reply
What_the_****
What_the_****
10 years ago

Single chain ring would be 44t or less. 40t & 42t
I Think you have a solution with 9t cog.
Check here. http://doval.me/

0
Reply
rupert3k
rupert3k
10 years ago

Fantastic, I have been waiting for 1x road rings for ages!!
Although you naturally lose the full range (until 16sp cassettes come along) for me personally it’s worth it as I love the simplicity & light weight of 1x.
Although I have never dropped a chain running a conventional ring with 11-28 using a Saint rear clutch mech, I’m still hanging for larger narrow wide “road” rings (or wave, alternating etc)
I was pleased to read about a Venge “Lunch ride” bike shown recently with 1 x 11sp.
Hurry up with a 1 x 14sp 10-28 tubeless Venge with hydraulic Shimano direct mount disc brakes!

0
Reply
Offrhodes
Offrhodes
10 years ago

The 50T will be great for a dedicated crit bike or a tri bike for sprint distance courses that have no big hills.

0
Reply
david
david
10 years ago

HEY GUYS WELL I CAN RUN A 60T ON GRAVEL UP HILLS I LIVE IN A HILLY PLACE *(deleted)*

0
Reply
Jorge Luiz
Jorge Luiz
9 years ago

Exaclly what I was looking for!

0
Reply

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.