Review: Race Face's Era Chainring Uses Steel, Carbon, & Aluminum

Apr 16, 2024
by Matt Beer  
Era Chainring

Ever hear the saying, “Buy once, cry once, or buy twice and pay the price?” Well, that’s the angle that Race Face is playing with their new Era chainring.

A carbon body holds steel teeth in place to make up an extremely strong and durable chainring. Bonding the steel teeth to the carbon body was an idea borrowed from the ski industry, using one method of bonding the edge into the ski’s composite layers.

With a price tag of $149 USD, it’s by no means cheap, at least at first glance. After thorough testing though, Race Face claims that the Era chainring will last 5-times longer than aluminum, which will save the consumer money on the wear item in the long run. That said, it's also possible to purchase a steel chainring for $20, so the main selling point of the Era ring is the weight, which is half that of a full steel option.

Era Chainring Details

• Steel teeth, carbon body, alloy spindle interface
• Chainline: 52 and 55mm
• Compatible with any 10, 11, 12-speed Shimano or Sram chains
• Cinch spindle mount
• Sizes: 30, 32, 34 teeth
• Weight: 83g (32-tooth, HG+ DMW)
• Price: $149.00 USD / $190.00 CAD
raceface.com


Era Chainring

Features and Specifications

Using three materials to manufacture a static bike component seems complex, but Race Face used the same compression and co-molding process developed for the Era cranks. The carbon body holds an aluminum Cinch mount at the center and a steel wrap of teeth around the outer edge.

According to Race Face, in a fatigue test that involved loading and unloading a chainring, two aluminum rings from major drivetrain manufacturers failed around 400,000 cycles. Race Face stopped the test on the Era ring after 2.1 million cycles and still found it to function normally.

You have the choice of three ring sizes; 30, 32, or 34 teeth, two chainlines; 52mm (DM) or 55mm (DMW), and two tooth profiles. Race Face produces an Era chainring specific to the 12-speed HG+ Shimano system. All other 10, 11, and 12-speed chains use the NW Era chainrings.

Race Face and SRAM are competitors in the scope of drivetrain and suspension products, so it’s not entirely surprising to see that there isn’t a T-type crank mount option for the Era chainring. However, it can be used in conjunction with any 12-speed chain on the market, which means that Race Face cranks allow for the ring to be used with a T-type rear derailleur.

photo

bigquotesThis little spider can withstand the equivalent output force of a 5.9L Cummins diesel engine.Race Face




Era Chainring

Pricing and Weight

The Era chainring costs $149 USD / $190 CAD - that’s higher than almost all other aluminum rings. The pricing remains the same across the board regardless of ring size, offset, or chain type.

Is the added cost worth it? As mentioned, the aim of the Era is to offer durability in terms of a low wear rate and high structural integrity. Given the two-factor durability, it's warrantable to reach for an Era chainring and save cash in the long run.

Steel is hard-wearing, yet heavy and that’s where the carbon comes in to save the day. The 32-tooth Shimano HG+ DMW Era chainring I weighed came in at 86g, 3 more grams than the equivalent aluminum Cinch ring of the same parameters.




Era Chainring

Performance and Durability

Will those hardened steel teeth lead to your chain wearing out faster? That's tough to prove outside of a controlled environment. Something does have to give though. An aluminum ring is softer than a steel chain, and those chain links will wear, albeit, mostly from side-loads under shifting. The SRAM XX1 Eagle chain used for the Era chainring review is still sitting at the 0.75 wear indicator that it started off at.

What’s most important, in my opinion, is chain retention. On the security front, hammering down my usual flavor of trails in the Sea to Sky region never led to any dropped chains. The steel teeth maintained their shape longer than any aluminum ring and therefore held the chain in place impeccably. That’s critical if you’re riding at higher speeds often, such as in a bike park setting. Those forces really take a toll on an enduro bike’s drivetrain.

And how about the bonding of those three materials? I’ve only had the Era chainring for a few months, however, it hasn't produced any creaks. Visually, it’s hard to tell it’s even been ridden.




Pros

+ Very durable teeth
+ Equal weight to full-aluminum ring


Cons

- Cinch-mount-only limits crank options
- Expensive




Pinkbike's Take

bigquotesRace Face has added a valuable component to the premium line of Era components with this new carbon/metal combo chainring. There is value in the long run - the added security means your chain will drop less, compared to a faster-wearing aluminum chainring. However, if weight saving isn't a concern, going with a full steel option is the most economical route.Matt Beer


Author Info:
mattbeer avatar

Member since Mar 16, 2001
375 articles

199 Comments
  • 224 3
 Gonna be honest, this is pretty cool. Needed? I dont know. But the idea is cool and seems well executed. Good job RF
  • 62 0
 That's an actual good application of technology...unlike some of the other crap that's been coming out for bikes lately.
  • 27 4
 Cool idea i'd want to try, but thanks Raceface for the cinch only option, i get to save money.
  • 37 1
 Wayyy better than through headset routing.

Also, I was curious, so I looked it up to double check. The Raceface steel chainrings weigh 154g in the 32t size, while this carbon one is 83g. So a bit over half the weight of the steel one.

I know it mentioned "half the weight" in the article, but I was wanting the actual numbers Smile .
  • 34 20
 Cool? Yeh, but very hard to recycle. I prefer a full steel or alu chainring which can be recycled so much better.
  • 7 1
 there are places on my bike where I am willing to pay extra for weight savings, but chainring ain't it Big Grin

I agree with you in regards tech - def pretty cool
  • 5 1
 @dennis72: I have the full steel one and can promise, there is no way I would know the difference between this and the fancy one, until it had to be replaced (steel is like 30 bucks!). I like RF stuff, though and this looks cool!
  • 10 2
 @dennis72: where do you take it to recycle?
  • 6 3
 @valrock: our city separates waste with different techniques, like magnets for steel. Alu can be disposed separately at the municipal yard.
  • 5 0
 Gonna need this on your Atherton bikes, no?
  • 1 1
 @dennis72: sweet, I doubt my city would do that. Maybe eco station will take rings and chains? Does anyone from CA knows?
  • 3 0
 Pretty cool copy of Gemini Rigel?
  • 8 0
 @dennis72: I'll recycle this by nailing it up in my garage once it someday wears out.
  • 10 1
 As cool as the way cheaper Shimano rings with the same technology-and better crankarms????!
  • 6 1
 @dennis72: significant complain because the major pain for the waste disposal is where to recycle composite chainrings...haha...the earth is literally overflowed with old chainrings, yeah!! Smile
due to fact that this ring will serve for years (I have one steel chainring that looks new after couple of years) or even for a lifetime so I am not sure you will need to recycle it at all
  • 3 0
 @valrock: scrapyard
  • 5 3
 @dennis72: even though it won't get recycled? look up how much "recycling" actually just goes to the same landfill your garbage goes to becuase recycling doesn't pencil out.....
  • 6 3
 @Mtbdialed: Indeed. Sadly, 'Recycling' is a sham for the most part.
  • 1 0
 @ocnlogan: But according to PB weight doesnt matter so you should save the money and buy a steel one for the same durability.
  • 10 0
 @suspended-flesh: Only plastic recycling is a sham. Because only small fraction of all plastics can be recycled and even for those making new virgin plastic is way cheaper and results in higher quality products. For a lot of other recyclable stuff it's opposite: making new virgin metals is much more costly compared to recycling. For some stuff, like low-background steel, it's even impossible to produce new material anymore and recycling is the only source.
  • 6 0
 @valrock: any metal recycler will take aluminum from you.
  • 3 1
 @suspended-flesh: @Mtbdialed aluminum recycling has a 76% efficiency rate, globally. So, you're points are invalid.
  • 2 0
 @suspended-flesh: @Mtbdialed *your*, dang smart phone...
  • 1 0
 By my calculations, I'll have a chain ring that outlast the next two bikes I buy.
  • 3 3
 @RBalicious: just because something *IS* recyclable, doesn't mean it *GETS* recycled. THAT is my point.
  • 5 0
 @Mtbdialed: steel and aluminum definitely do get recycled through. Metal is very profitable to recycle.
  • 2 2
 @thevoiceofchaos: I never said it doesn't, simply that it doesn't get recycled at nearly the rate people think, or even the industry states.
  • 1 1
 @Mtbdialed: because you are an expert in this field, I am sure...
  • 1 1
 @Mtbdialed: That is data geared towards aluminum cans. If only people would quit chucking their damn Hard Seltzer, and Natty Ice cans out their windows when they are in the woods, bet that would be a higher percentage of consumer recycling. Good on ya for the narrow scope on dive for info.

On an industrial level, it's much higher:
www.aluminum.org/Recycling
  • 2 1
 @RBalicious: aluminum cans are the bulk of aluminum use though! bikes don't get recycled at any higher rate than a thing you pay a damn deposit on and has literal instant cash value!
  • 153 0
 I was thinking of putting a 5.9L cummins on my hardtail, and then this drops. I guess it's a sign.
  • 12 0
 Dmtb
  • 20 0
 @RonSauce: it's class 1 pedal-assist diesel
  • 9 0
 12v or 24v?
  • 2 0
 Just make sure you dont buy a 53 block.
  • 3 0
 4bt is the way to go
  • 3 0
 Dat 6BT idle(r) tho...
  • 7 0
 Yeah idk, I’m more of a 6.7 guy so idk if this chainring is for me.
  • 4 1
 Could someone please translate in non-Murica terms.
  • 5 0
 @High-Delberg: you don't use volts and liters?
  • 7 0
 @High-Delberg: Small bus engine, pushes up to 900Nm. Me at 120kg just standing on the edge of a 155mm crank pushes 180Nm ish. It's just a cool way of saying it's strong.
  • 1 0
 @RonSauce: I believe the "v" above is actually referencing the number of valves in the Cummins rather than volts.
  • 1 0
 @Mr-Monterey: yeah, right after I submitted i was like "why was I thinking about volts", I wrestled with a double post to correct it then decided to let it ride.
  • 53 0
 This little spider can withstand the equivalent output force of a 5.9L Cummins diesel engine.... VIDEO OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN !!
  • 2 0
 That's make for a sweet reel.
  • 31 0
 It does say on Racefaces website "We checked". So come on @raceface, we need a video of you dumping the clutch on a 5.9L diesel while bolted directly to this chainring.
  • 1 0
 This was my EXACT first thought!
  • 10 0
 “This chainring is so expensive because we spent $187,000 on a setup to connect a 5.9L engine to this chainring just to test the strength of the chainring using good ol Merica style testing. Screw your fancy computer machines that do this analysis for you.”

I wish everything were tested this way
  • 7 0
 So a 90kg rider putting all their weight on a 175mm crank is 158Nm, close enough to a Ford 1.0L Ecoboost. Just under a quarter of the Cummins. If you put a safety factor of a 4 against the rider torque on the chainring, which seems plausible, then it would take the quasi-static torque (after the flywheel). Wouldn't last more than a few seconds if you're lucky in reality.
The potential human torque is the challenge for gearboxes - the gears have to be big (heavy, friction) to handle our torque even if our power is tiny. A step up gear to add speed and reduce torque adds too much friction.
  • 1 0
 @joecrosby: I mean there is no substitute for real life testing.
  • 1 0
 So a 90kg rider putting all their weight on a 175mm crank is 158Nm

if you're riding spds you can pull up with the other leg (and if you're not you can apply more than your weight's torque by pulling up on the bars), so the (very short lived) max torque is probably higher than that. still well within boundaries though
  • 20 3
 I am very meticulous with my drivetrain wear. i change chain around the 100h mark, and an alloy ring is done by 150 ish hours. I currently have an ERA ring with 336h and it doesn't look like any wear yet, new chain still work fine, and it got smashed few times. i think for twice the money of an alloy, it already pays for itself. of course a straight steel ring cost less, and last, but the compromise is great in my opinion
  • 11 1
 Alex, if you can't wear it out, no one can
  • 11 0
 Wow! I Can't imagine swopping out chains every 10 weeks.
  • 10 0
 Are you on SRAM or Shimano chains? 100h seems very short unless you're in sandy mud all the time.
  • 1 2
 Any chance we can get a conflict of interest disclosure? Information like this would be a big selling point for me and also more close to home than 400k cycles vs 2.1mil cycles.
  • 12 2
 @Snowytrail: mainly dry. The chain still passes the tool check at 100h but the side to side play becomes bigger. I run XX1 cassettes and I found if I never pass 120h on chain, I can keep those cassettes for years. Those are the priciest pieces, even working in the industry! So I d rather spend $50 on new chain every couple month than 400 in cassettes 4 times a year!
  • 3 0
 @redmountaingoat: I don't put in your hours, but sit at +110kg, so the actual Nm I lay into the system JRA plays. Never buy a chain under SLX / GX quality, I run 3 chains a year (on 3 different bikes) swapping every 10 rides. My cassettes make about 3 years now. Prefer steel cahinrings to (using WT camo system on my dually) DCA chain/cassette works out pretty well, even with that....
And to alleviate an enviro angst out there steel chains (well all steel things) are the MOST recyclable part of any bike
  • 4 0
 @jethromtbr: the GX chains are still pretty wear-prone - the X01 chains last several times longer. Can't remember where the difference in hardening is, but they certainly work out much cheaper in the long run
  • 3 0
 @mountainsofsussex: Agree. My rule of thumb - GX mech for value, XO cassette for weight and XX chain for wear
  • 1 0
 I have the straight steel ring for us poors. It really has never worn.
  • 1 0
 Maybe, I switched to wax and now my chainrings don't wear. Absolute Black wax/lube and ti coated ring. I can put a brand new chain on a ring that's a few years old, runs smooth as new. I also run my chains (XX1) for what I'd estimate to be 300 hours. The lube isn't cheap but it lasts long enough one bottle will last many years.
  • 19 7
 So I can buy ~6 steel RaceFace 'normal' rings for the equivalent price of one ERA ring for a weight penalty of 70g in 32T?
Not sure im a fan of the math for the ERA ring.
  • 27 9
 Its prolly not aimed at you brah, Think Summer Olympic games, not weekend warrior on the Shore
  • 10 10
 @onawalk: You honestly think that XC racers in the Olympic games would be using a steel chainring?
  • 6 7
 @shoreboy1866: Just giving you a "type" no need to get so stressed about it....Doughnut
  • 5 0
 @shoreboy1866: Well it's a carbon chain ring with steel teeth that weighs the same as an alloy ring. So yes?
  • 2 1
 I want RF to start making the cheap steel chainrings for Shimano SM cranks. Or anyone really.
  • 2 0
 @leon-forfar: It does not weigh the same as the aluminum rings XC racers use. XX SL chainrings are 76g for 32T. Is that a bit nit picky? Yes I concede that it is. But every gram counts on a race bike. It may only be 10g, but since I assume WC racers use a new chainring each race or two, Im pretty sure wear isnt an issue for them.
  • 1 0
 @shoreboy1866: Yes, but if an athlete in the olympics isn’t a sram rider and is a Race Face rider, I guarantee will use this ring versus the regular cinch alloy ring is they weigh the same just for marketing reasons regardless of whether they get near gear every race.
  • 1 0
 @leon-forfar: Honest question. Are there any WC XC riders who run RaceFace components? I dont think I have ever seen one.
  • 1 0
 @shoreboy1866: can’t say I watch XC
To be honest. Just out here speculating. RF is definitely aimed more at the enduro-dh end of the spectrum though, so I don’t doubt there are no XC RF sponsored riders.
  • 12 0
 I want to see the cummins 5.9l chainring output tested on here. is this a new metric for chainrings? @brianpark
  • 4 0
 Between this and standing on derailleurs, I'm not sure why I took science classes in school.
  • 3 0
 @noapathy: lets see a 5.9 Cummins sitting on a SRAM Transmission and make it the universal unit of measurement.
  • 2 0
 @Andykmn: I volunteer my First Gen to run over SRAM derailleurs.
  • 1 0
 @Mick-e: Science says "thanks". Smile
  • 7 0
 The things the writer liked about this ring is why I like the XT rings. But the Race Face ring is about 40 grams lighter. Having steel rings is a good thing for a drivetrain especially if you prefer fewer teeth.
  • 36 0
 Just like meth. (a good thing if you prefer fewer teeth)
  • 3 1
 The problem with XT/SLX rings is those anti tamper bolts tend to back out, or blow their head off. Happened to me, happened to a local guy recently, we discovered it together in the parking lot.

One of the best parts of direct mount rings is they can be, should be, one piece - Shimano even knows this, the XTR ring forgoes all the extra parts and complexity of the cheaper rings.
  • 1 0
 @Glenngineer: good to know. I haven’t experienced that myself yet but I will watch for that. I do use a bash guard on both my bikes though.
  • 14 6
 It's like they designed this for galvanic corrosion of the aluminum spindle interface
  • 4 3
 grease??
  • 5 1
 @mior: That's not what he's talking about.
  • 5 4
 I like how you got downvoted when probably nobody who downvoted has any idea what you're talking about.
  • 2 0
 hes right,
compositeenvisions.com/document/galvanic-corrosion-carbon-fiber-and-aluminum

I saw that titanium is one of the only metals that is resistant to CF corrosion
  • 1 0
 I slather antiseize on everything that I don't put dieletric grease on, personally. Not pertinent to this thread, but.
  • 2 0
 @suspended-flesh: the problem is that the insert is inside the carbon matrix, maybe its not an issue based on the way its bonded but who knows
  • 1 0
 @mariomtblt: It's not the easiest to create physical separation in bonding carbon to metals in complex parts. However in this instance I'm assuming that the aluminum part (which extends to include the spindle: so far as the sacrificial anode is concerned) is large enough that severe galvanic corrosion is not a problem. Pretty sure the RF engineers didn't come down in the last shower, carbon crank pedal insert issues notwithstanding.
  • 1 0
 @mariomtblt: humm after reading this, I can says that in the design they can acheave close to non-galavanic corrosion IF they actually isolate the aluminium frome the CB fibers. It a way to mate 2 material that have a dissimilar eletronegativity and prevent galvanic corrosion to happen. It's not impossible to do, and easily tested to check if galvanic corrosion is happening. And yes, alumium(---), is at the end of the spectrum so and carbon (+++ even more than gold) is at the other, try to not have have a direct contact. Even titanium can have galvanic corrosion with carbon...
  • 1 0
 The carbon fiber electrically connects the steel to the aluminum. The steel steals electrons from the aluminum over time and weakens it
  • 1 0
 Typically this is solved with a "sacrificial anode" which because of the metal to metal contact with the crank spindle is probably enough material to have the whole thing's charge/rust-creationability distributed over a large enough area the effect wouldn't be noticeable.

IDK, does that sound smort? Makes sense to me
  • 5 0
 Not knowing exactly the steel ( stainless steel in this case )and heat treatement done to the one in the Era, it's bold to say that you can compare with a "cheap steel" chainring. They most probably are even better wearinn than the "cheap steel" chainring.
  • 3 0
 you don't need that to sell this, just mention CARBON and shit is gonna sell like hot croissant in the morning
  • 7 0
 SRAM steel cahinrings cost around 14€ and will usually last more than the lifetime of the frame. I'll take that 80gr penalty.
  • 1 0
 Yeah I am in team 14€ chainrings too and fine with that.

Even if I was willing to spend the money I would also let others be the guinea pigs of another carbon/metal bound tech from raceface after their earlier carbon cranks fiasco. I once broke a crank, the long ride home on a bike converted to balance bike wasn't that fun.
  • 7 0
 Nah, only because this will only generate more time wasting parking lot chats
  • 16 0
 People ask you questions about your chain rings???
  • 3 0
 @wobblegoblin: ask me about my chainwear!
  • 2 1
 Why are you wasting time going in parking lots instead of riding for a start?
  • 7 0
 i really liked the cummins reference, could you specify a little more? commonrail, 12v, 24v?
thanks,
-management
  • 4 0
 A chainring that's all about durability can ONLY be tested against the 12 valve... thought that would be obvious. Anyway, I hope Raceface doesn't have to pay 1.67 Billion dollars for lying about the environmental impact of their products.
  • 5 1
 Wish someone would just make an aluminum spider/carrier with steel replacement out teeth. Less money, most of the weight savings, and no questionable carbon bonding. Paging wolftooth…
  • 1 0
 Wolftooth already makes this. They have the CAMO system which is an aluminum spider or bashguard and replaceable outer ring in aluminum and stainless steel.
  • 2 0
 I can't edit my post but it looks like Wolftooth no longer offers stainless steel camo rings on their website anymore. Maybe they'll bring them back
  • 4 2
 A "static bike component"? It's moving like half the time of any given trail ride, and when moving it's in a constantly changing (ie: dynamic) interaction with one of the most obviously dynamic components in the chain. Pretty far from "static".
  • 2 0
 "Cons: - Cinch-mount-only limits crank options". But hey, the cinch-mount doubles the life span of a chainring. When it gets worn out, you simply rotate it by 90 degrees and you have a "new" ring. Shimano and Sram can't do that...
  • 2 0
 I've always used steel chainrings because it was cheaper, but also lasted way longer. It was hard for me to consider ponying up extra cash for something that was way less durable.

This is of course more expensive, but at least should last as long as the steel ones. Then it becomes a question of "how much do I care about weight and money". So its good to have these exist.

Hoping these go on sale on as part of their annual black friday event Big Grin .
  • 2 0
 Didnt guess this with the contest. f*ck

I use to use their $24 steel one but found it got super loud dry, like way before the chain made dry noise. I put an aluminum on and going to see how long it lasts.

Not sure but i remember going thru 2 chainrings a summer so this might interest me. But im like the same build and size as Jason Kelce so the light weight doesn’t matter haha
  • 2 0
 It's cool and all but I'm not sure where this wins.
If you want light weight then aluminium is lighter and you could have 3-4 of them before you've spent the same money, would this last 4 times longer?
If you want durability then full steel is the same durability for 1/6th the price and it's only about 70g heavier.
So if 70g is worth $125 to you then yes this wins, i suspect it's not to most poeple.
  • 4 0
 It definitely looks nice, but I don't know man... I've got some Gabaruk ring for 40 bucks, weighing around 50-60g. After 100h+ it's more than still fine.
  • 2 0
 Garbaruk rings are great, mine seem to last quite a bit longer than the old race face alloy rings I used to run.
  • 2 0
 So, this chainring uses steel teeth.
Uses same plastic/carbon/steel construction as XT 12 speed narrow/wide chanrings. SLX also uses glass fibre steel construction chainrings.

Benefit = its about 35grams heavier than a full steel narrow/wide chainring.
T H I R T Y F I V E G R A M S.
0.035 KG
  • 6 1
 That is pretty neat. Looks awesome!
  • 5 0
 At first glance, that chain looks rusty AF...
  • 4 0
 Buy once… or until your new cranks have a different mount. It’d be nice to have just one.
  • 7 4
 Add carbon to make 'a thing' more expensive for no reason... Cool, got it. (thumbsup)

That is this entire industry in a nutshell.
  • 2 0
 Yes, and funny thing is that for example Garbaruk aluminum chainring weighs ~60g and costs ~60EUR..
  • 2 0
 @nerdymtbiker: and they seem to last longer than other alloy rings
  • 5 3
 narrow wide race face I have used for 10 years on a dozen bike is 50 CDN and never had a single issue ergo no need for CARBON or CINCH. More tech, more problems, more $$$$.
Hard AF no
  • 1 0
 'This little spider can withstand the equivalent output force of a 5.9L Cummins diesel engine.' That's nothing, have you seen my legs and the amount of power/torque I can put out? Sadly, I fall a touch short of a 5.9L diesel engine though I guess if I'm really honest.
  • 4 1
 More complicated construction, more expensive, and questionable durability. Considering Raceface had some carbon crank issues, I think this is a hard pass.
  • 1 1
 Not to mention overpriced and overweight. For less $ there are plenty of aluminum chainrings that are significantly lighter.
  • 1 0
 I can honestly say that I have never changed the chainring on my bike and can’t remember the last time I dropped a chain. Chains, yes I have changed them once worn but the ring itself never. By the time it’s done (and I cover some miles) then it’s new bike time as most of the bike would be destroyed by that point.
  • 2 0
 Steel 1x chainrings are $19. And they last forever. Might weigh a touch more, but that's negligible in my book when compared to the fact that they'll last 3x as long (or longer) as an $80 alloy ring.
  • 3 0
 How many people wear an aluminum chainring so often that they would go through more than one or two in a couple years?
  • 4 3
 @Libikerdad I wear out 3 a year pretty consistently.
  • 3 0
 @Superboost: do you lube your chain often? On my current bike I have about 3k miles and I'm still on the same absolute black oval I built it with. I'm not the heaviest rider at 165lbs but maybe you are doing crazy mileage or maybe there is a certain power threshold that I'm just not hitting at my weight and power level (I would think at my weight I'm above average in that regards) because I'm definitely not seeing that kind of wear on any of my geared bikes or my singlespeed.
  • 2 0
 I've got a wolftooth aluminum ring that's going on 6 seasons now and looks great. It gets about 1000 miles a year. I know guys that go through 2 cheaper rings per season though.
  • 3 0
 @RonSauce: just looked at strava, I have over 3500 miles on my current ring and it is barely showing any wear
  • 1 0
 Had an alloy chainring that went through 3 chains before requiring replacement. Didn't look terribly worn but with the newest chain would make clunking noises like the chain was being caught in it. Put back on the steel ring and no noise. Could have also been the chains causing premature wear as two of them snapped for seemingly no reason and low mileage on both.
  • 1 0
 How do you guys measure chainring wear? I have a tool for the chain but what's an objective way to check a chainring other than eyeballing?
  • 1 0
 @nbbb: eyeballing, or when chains start dropping.
  • 1 0
 Well-most brands I get 2-3 years out of. RsceFace aluminum rings are actually made of a soft cheese and I’ve burned them up in under 6 months. And my drivetrain is always clean, chain always lubed.
  • 1 0
 @Libikerdad: I’m pretty diligent with chain maintenance. In the past I ran boeshield t9 in the summer and Pedro’s syn lube in the winter. Over the last year I’ve been running Silca super secret drip wax, and this past winter I’ve been running Sica hot melt wax. I generally ride 3009-5000 km a year and live in BC so usually around 75000 meters of climbing give or take. I run dual sided power meters and generally sit at 3.5 watts per kilo or a 275 watt ftp ish. My ego thinks that number would be a lot higher if I spent more time on the road bike lol.
  • 1 0
 @nbbb: I usually start to feel a grinding sensation. Or the chain starts popping off.
  • 1 0
 @Superboost: I'm usually around 2k miles 200k ft elevation, so not that far off from you. I use t9 but have used finish line and others in the past. I'm getting about 2.5miles out of a xt cassette but have yet had to replace a front chain ring. Wondering if it's a difference in the type of aluminum used. Asked a bunch of riding buddies and they pretty much said the same. One guy I ride with is an absolute monster (has tacod cassettes) and said he used to go through the Chinese rings quite a bit but hasn't had to replace a single AB of 5dev one yet
  • 1 0
 2.5k miles out of a cassette
  • 3 0
 "With a price tag of $149 USD, it’s by no means cheap" dontch just hate it when they preempt the comments section
  • 5 2
 does in spin in a circle and drive the chain better than their 30$ chainring?
  • 2 0
 exactly this
  • 3 3
 Why is it a Con that Race Face only supports their own chainring mount on their product? Does Sram make transmission chainrings for Race Face cranks? I honestly find it silly that you would spin that as a con when almost no other player in this game offers support for other companies cranks.
  • 5 0
 its a 3rd party drivetrain solution. Not being able with one of the major drivetrains seems like a fair con. Doesn't mean its a bad product, just that it lacks compatibility
  • 1 0
 Given it's just the spline, and given this construction method, it's probably very easy for them to add other direct-mount splines to their existing design....if they wanted to do it. But I can fuly understand launching an all-new ring only to work with their own crank spindle standard at launch.
  • 7 4
 Great...more overpriced bike components made out of plastic, that should NOT be made out of plastic. Great job everyone.
  • 3 0
 If these new Era cranks are anything like my SixC, the chainring's gonna outlive them.
  • 1 0
 5+ years into my165mm SixCs with no probs - how did yours fail?
  • 1 0
 loose pedal inserts.
  • 1 0
 @miuan: Got it - thanks. So far so good, but that did seem like the weak spot.
  • 1 0
 @suspended-flesh: RF's Next R cranks were famous for loose pedal inserts as well, but it seems like RF was hoping to fix this with the Era cranks. Too rich for my bank account at $500, sadly.
  • 1 0
 @dcaf: I got a set a the SixCs at end of model ife close out price - been good through 3/4 pairs of pedals. All paint wore off - just carbon.
  • 1 0
 @suspended-flesh: Good for you mate! Both of my cranks came loose and my friend's too. Had much better luck with SRAM carbon cranks so far.
  • 5 4
 So…….same tech as an SLX or XT chainring for waaaaay more money. AND…….only attaches to cranks that aren’t as well made as SLX or XT crankarms.

Yay for irrelevant choices.
  • 1 0
 truth
  • 3 1
 Raceface, thats very American of you to measure strength in something as silly as "...output force of a 5.9 Cummins
  • 2 0
 What happens when I put a big turbo on the Cummins and run this chainring?
  • 2 0
 I could have sworn that a few days ago added weight around the bottom bracket improved suspension performance
  • 2 0
 @raceface Will you be making an oval ring? And what about a 28 tooth for us old farts?
  • 6 6
 So now when you'll notice some play in your transmission, it's EITHER the crankarm insert coming loose OR the chainring insert coming loose. Maybe both.
  • 5 2
 Yeah hope not. But I will say RF is awesome about warranties and I think the era stuff has a lifetime warranty
  • 1 1
 Good point but I think they have fixed those issues after way too many years of failed cranks.
  • 3 2
 @brycebee: Practical Product Lifetime. A lot of people are going to be shocked when their lifetime warranty claims are denied in the future. Wouldn't be surprised if it's a classic corporate move of using hard-earned brand goodwill now to get sales then shaft customers later.
  • 1 0
 @skimgosu: maybe but they warrantied my 8 year old next sl cranks. Kudos for that
  • 3 1
 Can I get an Oval? Please?!!
  • 3 0
 Then can I get the cheap full steel one in oval please?
  • 2 0
 aw man I needed a chainring for my 6.7 cummins!!
  • 2 0
 And glue! Don't forget to mention the glue!
  • 2 0
 Worth using a bash guard with this then.
  • 2 0
 Shimano SLX chainrings have been lasting me 3k miles and cost $30.
  • 2 0
 How many Ali Express rings will this much money buy?
  • 2 0
 Fails the $1/gram weightweenie sanity check.
  • 1 0
 I LIKE it - PROPER!!! - but I'm an 28T Oval GXP Chairing kind of guy these days... I HOPE such options become available...
  • 1 0
 race face out here doin the old triple material gangbang the good ol metallic threesome
  • 4 4
 Wow.. didn't expect a carbon chain ring. I wonder if an oval version would ever be introduced!
  • 5 1
 I vote for square.
  • 1 0
 @bigtim: I vote for an icosidodecagon.
  • 2 1
 @RonSauce: Mobius strip for me thanks
  • 2 1
 @N-60: Would infinite teeth be harder to pedal or easier?
  • 1 0
 @RonSauce: Oblong. Kid's of the 70's rejoice, there were a lot around at the time.
For years as a child I thought that was what a rectangle was called.
But a Rectangle sounded like a pterosaur, not a shape.
And they were mostly brown, or orange. The Oblongs.
  • 3 3
 So I can buy 7 Sram steel chainrings for the same price. Which will last me 10,000 miles of riding. Ok.
  • 6 0
 You could also buy 7 RF steel chainrings. Not like they discontinued steel.
  • 2 3
 With that logic it will also excite you (and 7 of your buddies) to know that you can buy 8 Mazda Miatas for the price of 1 Porsche GT3 RS.
  • 2 0
 @nzandyb:
Having been involved in racing on 4 wheels also, the Miata would win in most races at the amateur to mid level groups against the Porsche.
  • 2 1
 $200 chainrings are part of the reason gearboxes and belts make sense.
  • 1 0
 I wish they offered some other mounting standards. Love it.
  • 1 0
 It would be relatively easy to do the way it is constructed.
  • 1 0
 Deore XT Mega9 mid rings used to be this. They were pretty snazzy.
  • 1 0
 HOW MUCH?!?!?!?!! haha thats mental!!
  • 1 0
 I prefer more weight in that location of the bike, not less.
  • 1 1
 Let’s see how they work for someone else because.……RaceFace’s carbon products have never failed before
  • 1 0
 Can't wait to smash it into a rock!
  • 1 0
 These would be great for the e-mtb's,but don't see a listing for them?
  • 1 2
 I really like the Cummins brand of hard apple Cider. Feels great after a hard day.
  • 1 0
 lol
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.077352
Mobile Version of Website