Praxis Works Wave ring

In February, it was discovered that SRAM was moving to protect their X-Sync narrow wide patents. Court cases against three companies could be found online with one of those focusing on Praxis Works. While we’re not sure of the outcome of the case, one thing is clear – Praxis Works is no longer going to be offering narrow wide chainrings. Instead, they have partnered with MRP to help further the later brand’s Wave Tooth technology.

Instead of the typical narrow-wide tooth pattern, the Wave rings use the same shaped teeth that alternately push against the inner plates of the chain to obtain the same retention. MRP’s claim is that the design results in increased mud and debris removal since there is more room inside each plate. Praxis Works will be offering them in both Direct Mount and 104 BCD in addition to the rings MRP is currently offering…

praxis_1x_wave_ring-01-500x500praxis_DM_wave_rings-01-500x500

Stamped and machined from 4.5mm thick 7075-T6 aluminum and hard anodized, the chainrings use either a standard 104 BCD bolt pattern or the SRAM 3 bolt style direct mount. 104 rings will be offered in 30, 32, 34, 36, and 38t with the 30t using threaded bolt holes which need a special 7.5mm M8 bolt. Direct mount rings will be available in 26-36t sizes, and in either 49 or 52mm chainlines. Both styles are meant for 10/11 speed Shimano/KMC/SRAM or 11 speed Shimano XX1 chains. Like MRP, Praxis Works recommends still using an upper guide for added security and requires the use of a clutch style rear derailleur.

Depending on the ring, pricing ranges from $50-75, and many of the sizes are in stock now.

praxiscycles.com

31 comments

  1. yard dog on

    Looks like less material in contact with the chain. half the retention capability compared to normal narrow/wide?

    Reply
    • Ol'shel' on

      It should be the same amount as a non-narrow-wide ring. Each full tooth is offset. Yes, a narrow-wide would have more contact, though.

      Reply
  2. r0b0tat0ms on

    Very interesting concept. I wonder if this design will magnify minor chainline issues that wouldn’t arise with a std/NW ring?

    Reply
  3. Patrick on

    Very interesting. On paper, it seems like brilliant thinking. My one question would be about chain wear. Does Praxis expect this new design to impact the life of a chain? One would think the flexing might speed up the wear of the chain.

    Reply
    • Groghunter on

      Speaking for myself, yes. Taking an existing concept(chainrings that mesh with the chain this way are NOT new, just new to bikes) & saying “but on bikes” is the same sort of bullsh*t that has patent trolls trying to claim they own the entire concept of a copier because they filed a shady patent application that included the words “on a computer,” & then trying to collect from small business(who can’t afford to go to court to get these patents invalidated.

      Patents must meet the requirements of being Novel, Non-obvious, & useful. Narrow-wide isn’t Novel, the patent never should have been granted, & bullying a small company like Praxis is despicable.

      Reply
      • stiingya on

        disagree, SRAM put time, effort and money into developing the narrow-wide for bikes. Sure they might have taken an existing concept and made it work for mountainbikes. But that in itself was “novel” at the time. Praxis and others just copied that and started undercutting SRAM.

        If I were to take the idea of a clutch derailleur, and utilized it and took the time, effort and development money to make the blade on my chainsaw more efficient/cut faster and get a patent for it than I should be protected when taking that idea to market.

        That’s the point of the patent system. Nobody said it has to be a brand new never thought of idea…

        Reply
        • i on

          you have the point of the patent system wrong.
          Sram (like Specialized) is a big company that can throw money at lawsuits. The point of the patent system is to protect big companies like Sram from small companies like Praxis, that can’t afford to defend. Notice how Sram aren’t going after, for example, Raceface? Wonder why? To use your example of clutch derailleurs, notice how the 2 biggest companies in the bike industry came out with very similar technology about the same time; surely that was patent-able tech, right? Yet neither sued.

          The US patent office issued patents for the wheel and fire. Patents are never, ever reviewed by anyone with any knowledge of the subject matter.

          Reply
          • Dinger on

            Re: ” The point of the patent system is to protect big companies like Sram from small companies like Praxis, that can’t afford to defend.”

            The Patent system is to protect individuals and small entities from larger companies taking their work and using it for profit without threat of recourse. That it can be used the other way does not diminish it’s value to innovators who seek patents for their ideas.

            If SRAM owns the patent and other brands are infringing on it, SRAM has the right to defend their intellectual property, whether the companies they defend against are larger or smaller.

            Reply
          • Veganpotter on

            Patents actually protect small companies just as much if not more since many make only one product. Rotor is a small company relative to the biggies and their oval rings and adaptability keeps them afloat.

            ***As for the derailleur thing, they’re both clutch derailleurs but I’m guessing both failed to patent the idea and instead, patented their design. They don’t actually work with the same exact mechanisms.

            Reply
          • citizen zero on

            SRAM did go after Race Face (and Wolf Tooth as well). But as Race face is now part of Fox Factory Holdings, they (Fox) turned around and sued SRAM over some suspension stuff.
            You can still buy RF narrow wide rings, so I think it all came out in the wash (and the lawyers wallets).

            But yeah, that SRAM narrow wide tooth patent never should have been granted. Stoopid claim.

            Reply
  4. Tom on

    Looks like a way to get around patents, not a way to make chains stay on better. A win for the manufacturer, a lose for the consumer. I’ll pass.

    Reply
  5. bearCol on

    It’s been my experience the clutch does 95% of the work. I was pretty shocked at how poorly NW rings work when my clutch stopped working. If Wave is better that would be great but I’m not convinced any tooth shape will keep your chain on unless your clutch stops the chain from flopping wildly.

    Reply
    • xxx on

      true, nw just adds some security but arent the main reason for chain retention at all, specially after a few hours on the ring.

      Reply
    • 1368439846 on

      Not to be a contrarian, but I have a NW with an old clutch-less x9 rear D on my rigid bike and have never dropped a chain. Though I agree the clutch on my XT bike really stops the chain from moving.

      Reply
      • bearCol on

        To add to your comment I’ve run non narrow wide, but dedicated single ring (MRP Bling ring) which had taller teeth but they weren’t NW. I experienced identical chain retention as NW meaning few and far between drops. When my clutch stopped working multiple drops in one ride with a good NW ring.

        I personally can’t isolate what NW accomplishes on its own. Based on my bling ring experience, making the teeth as tall as possible seems to accomplish as much as the shape of the teeth. I run NW rings now. I’ll run a wave ring. I’ll run any tooth shape that comes out that fills the gaps because it can’t hurt and I’m sure it does something I just can’t find any benefit to tooth shapes on their own.

        Reply
          • bearCol on

            Before clutches, short cage mechs to shorten up the chain worked ok. . It’s still a good move to go as short as possible. This is part of the reason I’ll never go 1×12.

            Reply
  6. Justin on

    Wickwerks Z-Rings have been doing this for years.
    So Praxis can’t take the Sram profile, so they team up with MRP to take someone else’s? Fantastic.

    For what it’s worth, the Z-rings work great on my cross bike with no clutch derailleur.

    Reply
  7. Dave on

    Yet another way to force a chain to work with such extreme offset that chain driven systems were never meant to have. It would be nice if drivetrain companies were to solve the root cause by getting back to bikes with better chain lines and more efficient power transfer. Chain wear comes from the chain line prying the link plates apart at the engagement and disengagement points with every crank rotation at those extreme angles. It reduces the retention capabilities of all these rings with use hence the continued need for chain guides.

    Reply
  8. motojames on

    i have one of these on my reign, its about 2 months old and dropping the chain all the time, its never felt smooth pedalling backwards, i think as someone above said that it has worn the chain prematurely , having that flex in the centre gears prob isnt an issue, but when the chainring is trying to flex that chain and you are on the outsides of the cassette I think its too much flex and its wearing the chain out. Plus now I find its not a std boost direct mount, and praxis say you can only use their wave chainring if you want correct chainliine…..it stinks

    Reply
    • Gwoity on

      I’ve been running this Praxis ring for a while and it stinks. Never dropped a chain with my Sram Narrow Wide but dropping it a couple times every ride with the Praxis. A new chain was put on at the same time as the ring. Do not buy this ring.

      Reply

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.