Paul Components 1x single chainring and adapter

Paul Components has a new 1x adapter and chainring combo designed to fit their standard cranksets.

The chainring has thinner teeth for 1x geared systems, letting it work with the thinner 10 and 11 speed chains.  The chainring is 3/32″ wide, versus 1/8″ for the or singlespeed rings. It’ll come in 32/34/36/39 tooth counts.

The black spacer pushes the ring closer to the frame, keeping the chain line at the center of the cassette. Basically in the middle of the 2x double chainrings it replaces. Closeups and more below…

Paul Components 1x single chainring and adapter

Retail’s $294 for the whole crankset, or $91 for just the spacer and chainring.

Paul Components 1x single chainring and adapter

The teeth are standard shapes, no extra tall or narrow/wide designs, so they’re designed for use with one of Paul’s various chain guides:

Paul Components chainguides for single ring drivetrains

Paul Components quick release skewers with protected cam mechanism

The new quick release uses a protected cam to prevent damage from rock strikes or the elements. Available in 100, 130/135 and 170mm sizes. Retail is $50, each, $100 for the set. They might be working on a thru axle version, too. Maybe.


  1. Its super slick and real sexy, but seems a bit antiquated with all the new XX1 and other malarkey out for a single ring set up.

  2. These guys should really do a narrow wide chain. For typical trail riders a chain guide is really uneccesary if you are running a new fangled chainring and on a 1x setup. Pair that with a clutch rear DR and you need to be doing significant drops etc. to warrant the need for a chainguide. Those cranks are awesome, though.

  3. Why do these guys still only make cranks that fit square taper BB’s? …serious question, would really like to know why. (I guess this same question can be applied to White Industries as well.).

  4. @logic I’ve only used square taper BB’s so far simply because its a proven and affordable option for most joe-schmoe guys like me. Designing for the best, newest, or greatest technology or the basic tried and true technologies all have their places.

  5. @logic

    The whole saga of why everyone now rides Bullseye cranks courtesy of Shimanos predatory business practices and our general trendwhoreyness, is a sad, depressing and unflattering tale. So skipping over that,

    The boring old square taper BB managed to achieve a near-perfect blend of spindle strength and bearing size for actual riding, & did it at relatively light weight & low maintenance. The bearings in a proper Phil Wood square taper bb can handle 3100 lbs of static load (bb rpm’s are so low it’s basically a static load). Even that was right on the edge of being not enough; if you racked up the miles, you *might* toast them in a couple seasons. …though for people who werent gonzo or lucky enough to get to ride in wet conditions, those BBs could last decades. That fancy new splined axle & its outboard “oversized” (but narrower & smaller dia ball) bearings? 1140 to 1380lbs static load, depending on if the mfg cheaped out on balls (& they do, especially now that they’re expected not to last). Either way, that spindle comes at a huge cost in bearing life, & even after the isis debacle, people are still blowing through multiple bearing sets in a single season reflecting that problem. Paul & WI make cranks for riding, not ski-jumps and stunts, thus, square taper.

  6. These high praises for square tapered BB gives me tears in my eyes.
    I fully agree. Shimano UN-73 / UN-53 are cheap and very reliable. I had a Phil Wood BB and it was so smooth and sweet that I got almost diabetic, so I had to sell it.

    Maybe BB was too cheap so Shimano had to change it to make more money?
    Look at octalink, ISIS and suddenly we got BIG oversized BB who always needs better precision, sealing and alignement each next year and later these got PressFitted instead of threads who had over 60 years of proved history.

    The hidden cost with expensive tools and maybe that need of (higher) threshold of experience/competance will discourages new customers, which makes them more helpless in life. Which may result in that they’ll not ride their bicycle as much they would like…

    And sorry for the nitpicking:
    The Paul SS-chainring is NOT 3/32″, it’s THINNER than 3/32″ , it’s for 10speed which needs thinner tooth = less contactarea to the chain = slighty increased friction and slighty shorter chainlife. I use 3/32″ chains and I prefer to use a proper tickness.
    Sadly it’s difficult to find correct size and width for the chainring, and it’s cheaper for companies to have one stock instead of two; which I can fully understand.

What do you think?