# Thoughts on the Surly stainless chainrings



## bigpoppabear (Mar 16, 2006)

My ride: Picked up a complete '06 Monocog a few months ago and have already fouled quite a few teeth on the aluminum chainring.

Power source: I'm a clyde (and proud of it thank you very much), 225# ex-powerlifter. I'm a masher. 

Most of the trails I ride have climbs that are short and steep with little to no time to build up momentum. So pretty much every climb is an out-of-saddle sprint to the base and gut-busting, vein-popping efforts to clean them.

My question is, will the Surly 32T stand up to this abuse? And what about the Boone's, would they hold up? I'm also open to aluminum suggestions, but leaning heavily toward steel.

Thanks.

Edit: Forgot to mention, I'm running a 16T cog on the rear.


----------



## craig (Feb 9, 2004)

I run a Surly chainring and cog - both steel. The ratio I use is 34-18. If you like the 2:1, you might want to go with 34-17 or 36-18...more teeth equals less wear.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

bigpoppabear said:


> And what about the Boone's, would they hold up? I'm also open to aluminum suggestions, but leaning heavily toward steel.


I'm a little guy, so take it for what it's worth. I have put a ton of miles (really, a ton) on my Boone 34T, and it is now 22 months old. It is showing very little wear and tear. I have to say it was well worth the money.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

craig said:


> I run a Surly chainring and cog - both steel. The ratio I use is 34-18. If you like the 2:1, you might want to go with 34-17 or 36-18...more teeth equals less wear.


Based on OPs description of his riding, I would recommend sticking with a 32T Surly, as the chances of the ring folding are reduced.


----------



## CB2 (May 7, 2006)

I don't know if this will help with your decision, but I bought a Surly stainless steel chainring so I could run my bike without a bash guard. I never ran a bash guard on multi-speed bikes, never destroyed a big chain ring, and love the way a bike looks with just a chainring, so my thinking was "Ah, Steel! Steel is strong! Steel will crush puny rotted logs!"
Well yesterday the rotted log won and I bent my chainring.
On the upside, me and my friend Mr. Rock were able to hammer the ring back into shape so I could finish my ride and fine tune my "truing" of the ring at home. The steel seemed very happy to go back to it's original shape.
Also the teeth of the Surly are nice and tall, which I think will help prevent the chain from jumping off of it.


----------



## PoorBehavior (Sep 1, 2005)

225lbs+, masher and I folded... well more like ovaled my surley, it is kinda round I suppose,(I did fold an AL truvativ). I finally went to a set of FSA nasty boy steel cranks and a BMX chainring/wheel. 
I have noticed a huge difference in stiffness in the cranks and the chainring is holding up nicely. I picked up the chainring off of ebay for $15.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Boone sounds great but not having one, I can't comment.

I run Surly rings (both 34t & 36t) and love 'em.

--Sparty


----------



## Adirondack Blues (Mar 4, 2004)

bigpoppabear said:


> My ride: Picked up a complete '06 Monocog a few months ago and have already fouled quite a few teeth on the aluminum chainring.
> 
> Power source: I'm a clyde (and proud of it thank you very much), 225# ex-powerlifter. I'm a masher.
> 
> ...


I'm 200lb masher, but I run 32:20 because of the need to climb steep and/or slow technical stuff. My Surly 32t ring is holding up just fine. I agree with staying with the smaller chain rings- they are stronger and more resistant to folding/bending. Here's another tip- use BMX or track bike quality steel chainring bolts (such as Sugino)- if you lose a chainring bolt, your ring will fold like it was made of paper.


----------



## dirtdirt223 (Mar 10, 2006)

buddy of mine elongated a surly chainring this past weekend on a jump. darndest thing i have ever seen. two of the four chainring bolts shot out of the chainring along with the chainring nuts. the two chainring holes on the chainring would no longer line up with the spider. it was on a pair of 180 mm xt cranks on his 1x1. he is known around our parts for tearing up bikes and parts on every ride.


----------



## bigpoppabear (Mar 16, 2006)

Thanks for all the advice! I decided to stay with a 32 and went for the Surly.


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

A little late but...I reeeealy wanted to like the Surly SS ring. And for the most part it is pretty nice. I will say that you can "blacksmith" it back into rideable shape, and that's a good thing. I dinged it on a log crossing in a 12hr race and bent it a little, and then when I stood on the pedals it bent more. It's NOT the super durable monster ring I was expecting. It's not bad, but I was expecting something more burly from Surly


----------



## ionsmuse (Jul 14, 2005)

The Surly rings are *really* burly, but only in certain ways. It holds up to wear exceedingly well, but stainless isn't a particularly hard steel.

Ergo: tighten yer fekin bolts and get a bashguard.


----------



## Vacation Special (Apr 12, 2005)

Expanding on what ionsmuse said:

To those who have had problems--its a chainring, not a miracle device. 
You can't expect it to work well if the chainring bolts aren't installed properly.
And anything that will bend a steel ring will likely crack an aluminum one.

I think using a steel ring (good wear resistance) and an AL bash guard (a lot of "dumb metal" for not a lot of weight) is a great idea.
Bashguards made of aluminum also deform to absorb some of the impact instead of giving it all to the parts that _need_ to work: Chain, chainring, crank, BB.


----------



## Englehardt (Sep 29, 2005)

I destroyed my Surly 110 32t SS chainring yesterday, it left me stranded in the woods. I was standing up cranking up a hill. Then it bent over 90 degrees. All of the bolts were tight and I don't recall banging it on anything.


----------



## Captain Crash (Apr 24, 2004)

*I Concur*



Sparticus said:


> Boone sounds great but not having one, I can't comment.
> 
> I run Surly rings (both 34t & 36t) and love 'em.
> 
> --Sparty


I bought one on advice from Sparty (thanks d00d). Since, then I have kicked to heck out of it, and there is not even a scratch. I bought a second for a second SS. They seem to work well for me at 180#.


----------



## Ross W. (Jul 3, 2006)

I don't know about their chainrings, but the steel cogs break when you hit them with a hammer.


----------



## biotruth (Sep 29, 2005)

Engleheart-

where did you get a 110 32t ring???? its a surly?

thanks


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

biotruth said:


> Engleheart-
> 
> where did you get a 110 32t ring???? its a surly?
> 
> thanks


Hey, that's a great question. The smallest 110 ring I've ever owned was a 33t, and I even had to have that custom made as I couldn't find anything in production below 34t...  









--Sparty


----------



## Englehardt (Sep 29, 2005)

biotruth said:


> Engleheart-
> 
> where did you get a 110 32t ring???? its a surly?
> 
> thanks


Woops I ment 104.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

Englehardt said:


> Woops I ment 104.


Four arm spiders........ no wonder it bent.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Zanetti said:


> Four arm spiders........ no wonder it bent.


So true... I have about a dozen bikes, all with 5-arm spider 110 square taper cranks. I'm "just" a cross country rider, but I ride a fair bit. Never had a problem with any of the cranks on any of my bikes nor have I wished for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

IMO 5-arm 110 square taper shouldn't be viewed as retro, it should be viewed as the direction cranks oughta be headed unless somebody can genuinely come up with something better.

Something better, not just something different.

That's all. Thanks for listening.

--Sparty

edit: Correction, one of my bikes is outfitted with 202mm Bullseye cranks (proprietary bearings). While I can't call this a troublesome crank, I know it would have become troublesome long ago if I hadn't found a way to deal with its inherently inferior bearings (I zerked the BB so I could continually wash the bearings in fresh grease throughout its life). Like I said, the Bullseye hasn't been troublesome, but nonetheless it's been more troublesome than all the other cranks I own put together. Okay, THAT'S it. Thanks again.


----------

