WIckwerks SRAM XX replacement chainrings for 2x10 in 42-28 and 40-26 chain tooth combinations

Wickwerks has added a larger 42/28 chainring combo in the 120/80 BCD for SRAM and Race Face 2×10 drivetrains. This larger setup complements their 40/26 originals, but upgrades the big rings bolt holes to threaded cutouts that don’t require a bolt and nut.

The new rings give riders a refreshingly larger option to the increasingly diminutive gearing on new bikes, and the direct-thread mounting design is pure bonus. Wickwerks’ chainrings are CNC machined from 7075-T6 aluminum then hard anodized with military grade ano treatment. Engineer Eldon Goates says this process doesn’t give them control over the color (hence no purple, blue or red ano), but its far more durable than cosmetic anodization. He says under a microscope it has a hollow wormy surface, which they apply a Teflon finish. Goates admits the Teflon won’t last more than a couple hundred miles, but it improves performance while it lasts, so why not?

Detail pics and actual weights after the break…

Wickwerks SRAM XX replacement 2x10 chainrings with 42-28 tooth counts actual weights

Retail is $132.50 and includes the bolts. Actual weights are 78g for the big ring and 31g for the little. Total = 109g.

No more nuts, just thread into the chainring and head out for a ride. This makes it quicker and easier to both install and check/fix on the trail in case things come loose, as happens from time to time. We have a set of Wickwerks rings on review now.


  1. 42-28 isnt some new option that wasn’t available before. Sram offers that combo in all of their 120bcd cranksets already.

  2. uuuuh…. I thought the reason why other chain ring companies were NOT offering the 42/28 and the 39/26 of SRAM was because they (SRAM) had a patent on the 3:2 gearing of the 2×10 option. (large ring has 3 teeth for every 2 teeth of the small ring). How is WickWerx getting around that? Or am I off the mark on this one? If you look at all the other 2×10 companies, shimano, race face, FSA, Rotor… none of them offer a 42/28 or 39/26 in the same combo.

  3. Allright, why are the companies seeing hard anonizing as a strength indication?

    Hard Anonizing is great for making a nice and hard surface, but not very fine when the parts are under stress and wearage.

    “Hard anodizing of aluminum, in contrast to cosmetic anodizing, produces a porous ceramic oxide that forms in the surface of the metal, as much as 1/1000 inch thick, about half below the original surface and half above. It is not thick enough to affect the strength of the rim but because it is so rigid, acts like a thin coat of paint on a rubber band. The paint will crack as the rubber stretches before any load is carried by the rubber. Similarly, anodizing cracks before the aluminum carries any significant load. ”

    How can it be more durable when it’s easier for the surface to develop microcracks?
    Please, do not use surface treatment without proper investigement, and without knowing
    the disadvances/advances, but I don’t expect that the manufactures should know that,
    for they’ll earn more money when they do include inproper treatment which raises the pricetag.

    hard anonzing is never a feature when it’s mentioned with strength in the same sentence.

  4. I don’t think the manufacturers are claiming that hard surface ano makes the structures better; hard surface treatments makes the surface stronger!

    This means more resistance to scratches and scoring, better resistance to damage when the chain is thrown etc. One might argue that this is cosmetic but if a chain ring develops burs and nicks these can hook and misdirect the chain. Anodising is also a protection against uncontrolled oxidization, which has far more impact on structural strength than the disparate elasticity Sheldon Brown describes.

  5. Henry makes a good observation from Sheldon’s website although there is very big difference in the types of anodizing. The difference between and Mil Type I and Type II versus a Mil Type III hard coat is very noticeable. Type III is a true hard anodizing, or engineered anodizing. Type I is chromic acid anodization, Type II is sulfuric acid anodization, and Type III is sulfuric acid hard coat anodization.

    Type I and II are as much as 1/1000 inch thick (0.001″), about half below the original surface and half above. Type III on the other hand can be between 0.0005″ to 0.006″ thick, about half below the original surface and half above. There is a BIG difference in thickness. Anodizing thickness increases wear resistance, corrosion resistance, ability to retain lubricants and PTFE coatings, and electrical and thermal insulation.

    I can take a flat edge screwdriver and with the edge easily scrape the regular anodizing right off of most manufacturers rings with one scrape. With the Mil-Type III true hard I have to use a lot of force to even break through the anodize, it takes repeatedly scraping the same spot back and forth to get through the hard true anodize. I know which one I’d rather have on my rings, the one that lasts the longest and performs the best over time and that’s Mil-Type III true hard.

    WickWerks did numerous testing of anodizing types and without question the one we use, Mil-Type III, true hard anodizing, is the best. Thick coatings require more process control and are produced in a refrigerated tank near the freezing point of water with higher voltages than the thinner coatings. It cost more and takes longer but it’s well worth it! I hope this helps to explain to the readers why WickWerks uses this for all our rings.

  6. Sulfuric acid anodizing (Type II & III)
    Sulfuric acid is the most widely used solution to produce anodized coating. Coatings of moderate thickness 1.8 ?m to 25 ?m (0.00007″ to 0.001″)[9] are known as Type II in North America, as named by MIL-A-8625, while coatings thicker than 25 ?m (0.001″) are known as Type III, hard coat, hard anodizing, or engineered anodizing. Hard anodizing can be made between 13 and 150 ?m (0.0005″ to 0.006″) thick.

What do you think?