Originally Posted by
Phil_gretz
1) unnecessary weight
2) clumsier shifting
3) slightly more exaggerated chainline issues at the extremes
4) doesn't add much in the way of gear combinations, except perhaps at the lowest end
Do you need more reasons?
BTW, I have a triple on my current touring bike and have had many triples over the years. They're fine, but they do suffer from the above limitations.
If I'm building a general purpose road bike, or a faster road bike, it'll be a modern 11-speed double for sure. 53-39, 52-36, 50-34, 46-36...there are many options to suit just about all tastes.
In answer to your cons:
- The weight is only “unnecessary” if you don’t need it. If you need it, it’s worth carrying.
- I’ve never had a triple that was “clumsy” while shifting. I have 8 bikes with triples on all of them from mountain bikes to touring bikes to fast road bikes. All of them shift crisply in all gears.
- Maybe the chainline is exaggerated but as you say it is only slightly and cause no issues that I can see.
- The low end gearing is the point. Look at the system I posted above. Should I choose between having a high gear or a low gear? Should I coast down every hill I run across or walk every hill I come across? When covering 1500 miles over the course of 5 weeks, that either a lot of coasting or a lot of walking. I don’t particularly like either.
I’ve had many, many, many triples over my life. I’ve like them all and, at some point, used the gears they have provided...usually multiple times per ride.