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:

GXP BB30
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.

SRAM.com

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

38 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bas
Bas
7 years ago

isn’t this what absolute black already offers? great way of upgrading your XO1 crank to XX1 weight at a lower price!

Tim Krueger
Editor
Tim Krueger(@timkrueger)
7 years ago

Yeah for 28t!

Pete
Pete
7 years ago

Basically same weight and $25 more than the Wolf Tooth direct mount chainring. Good try Sram.

Galen
Galen
7 years ago

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.

the other Andy
the other Andy
7 years ago

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.

Trenton
7 years ago

I’m going to wait for Praxis to come out with a direct mount and support the local santa cruz flavor.

K11
K11
7 years ago

I don’t worry about what 1x ring to use…because, well call me whatever cute BR commenter name you want, but i use a 2x. What?!

Edubs
Edubs
7 years ago

Does anyone know if these rings can replace the spider replace on the CX1 cranks?

mudrock
mudrock
7 years ago

These would be stiffer than Wolftooth or Ab Black, which lack the stiffening webs.

Parker
Parker
7 years ago

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.

Taylor
Taylor
7 years ago

Edubs – It looks like a very similar interface. not sure though

Alex Ibanez
Alex Ibanez
7 years ago

yeah, finaly they did it;

seems like they took their design from here:

http://en.garbaruk.com/products/chainrings-melon

but the weight and probably a chainline are still a bit far:)

absoluteblack
7 years ago

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.

J Train
J Train
7 years ago

WTC direct mount rings are offset accordingly. And they’re made in the USA. And they’re prettier. And they’re cheaper.

GrandesRoues
GrandesRoues
7 years ago

I would like to know if theses will be offered in a boost148 offset/chainline…

gerald t.
gerald t.
7 years ago

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.

Camberto
Camberto
7 years ago

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?

epicthroatbeard
epicthroatbeard
7 years ago

how about
http://chromagbikes.com/chainrings/sequence
they were ahead of the pack on this and, unlike the absolute black or wolf tooth (yarrr matey, that’s a nice design you got there, might just take it from ya!) etc…theirs is made from the actual SRAM X-Sync pattern. They aren’t a close copy but fully licensed.

the dude
the dude
7 years ago

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 $$$.

T
T
7 years ago

Oooh, could I run this on my sram s900 crankset on my cross bike?

k
k
7 years ago

wolf tooth will keep my business.

Stuart English
Stuart English
7 years ago

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.

MissedThePoint
MissedThePoint
7 years ago

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.

mateo
mateo
7 years ago

Just an FYI, you can search SRAM’s website for GEN.0000000004737 to see the crank compatibility chart.

Tom
Tom
7 years ago

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?

JEFF
JEFF
7 years ago

i’ve used the ab black on 2 different bikes and the chain will not stay on in rough terrain,it changes the chainline too much.

King County
King County
7 years ago

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.

rupert3k
7 years ago

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.

windywheel
windywheel
7 years ago

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…

fast foreward freddie
fast foreward freddie
7 years ago

chainring stiffness only applies to shifting. no amount of steroids can make you flex any chainring torsionally.

NG-Man
NG-Man
7 years ago

What is the chainline with this new chainrings ? Is the same? If is the same the chainring must have a little offset ?

a
a
7 years ago

@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: http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SRAM-direct-mount-X-Sync-chainrings-3.jpg (grainy)

http://www.absoluteblack.cc/images/sram-pho/sram_spiderless_bb30_absoluteblack_32.jpg (smooth)

Ashok Captain
Ashok Captain
7 years ago

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.

Cheers,

A

Dan
Dan
7 years ago

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?

Accident
Accident
6 years ago

Anybody figure out if these will work with the cx1 cranks?

Jimmymats
Jimmymats
6 years ago

“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?

Thanks,

JM