robow

cyccommute, what is it about the higher line of shimano FD's that makes them useless or at least not as forgiving ? Is it simply the width of the cage ? I've never sat down with a mic and compared examples.

djb

come on a ride with me Papa and you'll get out of that mid ring.
but we are talking touring here, so with any sort of touring load, and going from the short or long climbs I've been touring on for the last 30 years, my personal experience just doesnt fit with your comment.
but maybe you ride in more flattish areas or you're a tractor stump pulling sort of build guy.

veganbikes

No my point was that SRAM going almost exclusively 1x wasn't hard to figure not that 1x as a concept is hard to figure.

Maybe their MTB stuff is better for the front. I haven't really had many problems at the front with Shimano now I haven't used the E-type stuff at all personally but their road stuff is fantastic and haven't yet had issues mechanical or Di2. I do know people who have run the modern Shimano MTB stuff and haven't had issues but I have no personal usage as my MTB is 1x11 and a 3x9 vintage set up that I am working on.

elcruxio

I guess it depends largely on what and how you ride. I see multiple positives with 1x on mountain bikes and no real negatives. But I ride almost solely trails so if I had a double or triple it'd be chain drop and slap galore as it was when I actually had a double. Even shadow mechs slap something horrible when the going gets even moderately fast.

So number one is the elimination of chain drops and chain slap. Clutch rear mechs are awesome but they don't work with front shifting. Also a big thing eliminating chain issues is the narrowide tooth profiling SRAM uses or the weird shape Shimano uses.

also since I ride trail I don't need the tighter road gearing a triple would give me. If I did fire road marathons tighter gearing would probably be handy. But for the typical up down of our trails the looser gearing is actually a benefit.

I have enough low range to go up a tree. With 500% I'd need to ride a seriously steep and straight road down to spin out. It has never happened on my mountain bike.

3x is more efficient but again efficiency is a road thing. Doesn't really matter much in mtb.

swapping chainrings is usually easier with 1x but it's still a chore.

I dunno. It seems to be a manufacturer thing rather than how many speeds. Some 9-speed chains wear significantly faster than some 12 speed chains and vice versa. Sram typically only lasts around 2000km's no matter shat speed.

cyccommute 

I don’t see why it is obvious that SRAM when to almost exclusively 1x. Their triple stuff for mountain bikes was excellent. I run SRAM triples on 4 out of 5 of my mountain bikes and I have it on 3 of 4 bikes my wife owns. They all work flawlessly. Those are not Grip Shift, by the way. Not a fan of those.

The one mountain bike that has Shimano on it is in Tucson and I’ve had to replace a stick shifter...never had that problem with SRAM.

The issues I’ve had with higher end Shimano have to do with the range of gears they will cover across the cassette. I put an Ultegra on my touring bike to as an upgrade from the Tiagra that came on it and immediately found the new derailer to rub in more combinations that I’d experienced before. When I looked at the derailers side-by-side, I noticed that the distance between the inner and outer plate on the Tiagra was wider. The outer plate of the Tiagra was also less deeply sculpted. All of this allows for usage of more gears across the cassette without rubbing than the “upgrade”.

I’ve noticed similar differences in the mountain bike line. Shimano tried to be even more clever on mountain bike front derailers like the XTR with the inner and outer plate moving on the derailer. That one was a nightmare to get to work right.

cyccommute 

I ride trails and long range off-road tours as well as often riding to trailheads. A triple isn’t an impediment off-road and offers speed both on- and off-trails. I have had places where I’ve done 30 mph on dirt roads and I can pedal most of the way to that 30 mph. There are places where I’ve done 15+ mile downhills and being able to pedal down those is far better than having to coast for that same distance.

I seldom see chain drop or chain slap when off-road. Avoiding chain drop is fairly easy. Just set up the derailer properly so that it doesn’t overshift. That’s something I learned how to do about 30 years ago. Chain slap is avoided by upshifting to the middle ring on downhills. That tightens up the chain and keeps the chain from slapping around. Again, something I learned 30 years ago.

Your statement about narrow wide does point out one of the problems with 1x. You have to do something to avoid chain drops as well. I don’t necessarily see that as a possitive.


I don’t know why you think I have a tighter gearing on a mountain bike. I have 11-34 and 11-36 cassettes on my mountain bikes. I wouldn’t call that “narrow” nor “road gearing”.

I probably have a lower low than you do and a much higher high. I have a range of about 720% from around 15 gear inches to 100 gear inches (1.1 to 8.5 meters development). I have had ample places to use all of those gears on a single ride. I have spun out that 100 gear inches often. I do use my mountain bikes in a very wide range of conditions, however. Single track is nice and fun but there are other places here in Colorado where a mountain bike shines.

I don’t look at 3x in terms of “efficiency”. I look at it in terms of gear range that allows me to ride up stuff but also ride down stuff.

My point is that I agree that changing chainrings completely changes the character of the bike. Carrying along the rings and having a mechanism for changing those rings on the fly does change the character. I can grind up one side of a hill and fly down the other. I hate to coast more than I have to.


I’m not sure what you are doing to your chains but I get closer to 5000 km (3500 miles) on 9 speed chains. I have a couple of 10 speed chains that seem to be lasting just fine as well. I don’t keep strict track of my chain wear but I don’t replace them all that often. I did do a mileage check on one 9 speed chain because I know when I had installed it and kept track. It was replaced at just about 3500 miles. 1500 miles of that was done on a mix of dirt roads and paved roads while on tour in the eastern US. It was certainly put through its paces as the hills there are short, steep, and mean. I did a lot of shifts over that 1500 miles and put a lot of stress on the chain.

Happy Feet

I think this is a good example of where context really matters. I don't know what Papa rides but I can see, if one primarily did rail trails or tow paths etc... that one might never get out of the middle chain ring. It's a good argument for a 1x system in the sense that you can get a good enough gear range with a decent cassette and one chain ring. I did this on a bike - 42x11/40. For a relaxed tour along the Danube river that would be a pretty good choice (for me anyway). There's no need for a triple or even a double there. It's why the Dutch can ride the bikes they do.

However, riding in Western Canada with the Rocky Mountains etc... there are long stretches where I never get out of the granny gear. For example, there is a 60km sustained climb out of Hope towards Alison Pass in Manning Park. That's an all day uphill grind.

That's pretty well my take on it too. What I want mtbing is the quick linear shifting up and down that 1x allows. I would be happy as a clam to have a wide range cassette with the lowest gear possible. I'm rarely maxing out my top end because there are rarely long and straight trails to do so. Generally cranking up, switch backing down with occasionally overcoming short up hill sections along the way.

On the road, where I see 3x systems having the most benefit, is in the back and forth of rolling hill terrain where one spends enough time either going up or down to appreciate finding the best possible gear.

Tourist in MSN

For riding around home I use a different chainring on my Rohloff bike than I use for touring. Agree that it is time consuming, but it is just busywork, easy to do. For chain length change, I use a second quick link to make the change when I switch to the bigger chainring.

Tourist in MSN

There were a lot of days on my last tour where I spent most of the day going over endless closely spaced hills in Nova Scotia, up and down and up and down, and on those days I was really happy I brought my Rohloff bike.

Do not get me wrong, I am a firm believer in triples, have triples on my rando bike and two touring bikes. And in some ways I prefer a wide spaced triple for a lot of things over an IGH. But, where you are shifting several times a minute, minute after minute, for hours, a single shifter is pretty nice to have.

elcruxio

To be clear, you need the triple to pedal down roads? I get that. However it really isn't a trail if you're able to pedal when going downhill. Except if there's a quick lull in action so to speak. 30mph on our trails would be a death sentence. Most I've ever managed has been 40km/h and that was with snow making gaining speed actually easier.

You must either be doing something revolutionary no one else has had the foresight to try or you must be using some revolutionary gear because that's not how front or rear mechs work in mountain biking. You can't avoid chain slap by just shifting to the middle ring. Not even the stiffer Shimano shadow rear mechs can avoid chain slap no matter what chainring you use. There are pretty good reasons why downhillers and the more rowdy mountain bikers still used chainstay protectors just a few years back. No need for that anymore with clutch rear mechs. Also on that point adjusting the front derailer doesn't matter when the chain physically lifts off the chainring due to momentum. Again that's one reason why downhillers still to this day use heavy chain guards and pulley guides to avoid just that.

You might wonder why I'm discussing downhillers. The reason is that you don't actually need all that much speed on a hardtail on any trail of even moderate difficulty to face the exact same issues downhillers face with significantly higher speeds on more difficult trails. You ride bumps fast enough your chain is flying off if you're using a double or triple. The beauty of clutch rear mechs is the fact that they don't actually move all that much when they're engaged. That in and on itself pretty much eliminates chain slap but then the narrow wide tooth profiling physically prevents the chain from flying off as the profiling holds the chain in place.

I don't understand this statement. I'd get it if using narrow wide or other tooth profiles was a compromise or detriment of some kind. But to my understanding narrow wide doesn't have any negative effects at all. Using chain guide pulleys would add friction so that'd be a compromise.


I use 11-32 on road and 11-36 on my touring bike. I use 10-50 on my mountain bike so I do consider 11-34 to still be quite narrow. I've never understood anything below 11-28 if you don't live in flatlands or if your chainrings aren't particularly small.

I checked and my 28t chainring and 50t rear cog gives a pretty low low gear. Haven't needed lower because a hill that's steep enough to require more will become impossible to climb due to other reasons. The high gear of 28t and 10t is something I have never needed on a trail. Granted I don't live in the more hilly region of my country any more but even if I do face longer stretches of downhills I usually won't have an opportunity to pedal since there's rocks and stuff. I typically have to brake to reduce speed as not to overmatch my suspension rather than try to get even faster.



I actually don't mind coasting in places where pedaling is impossible. But I hate collecting pieces of broken chains or fishing the chain from between chainrings or lifting the chain back to the chainrings mid ride even more than coasting.


With SRAM chains you only really need to ride them in perfect conditions and they'll last you 2000 klicks. I've had better luck with other brands. KMC and Shimano both make chains which last significantly longer and the PNY brand my LBS stocks seems to be nigh indestructible. I also have one wipperman that's been on my touring bike for a few years now and no noticeable wear yet. 11 speed chain that. My point was that in our household we have chains from 9 speed to 12 speed and the brand matters more in terms of durability than the speed count of the chains.

cyccommute 

It’s the width between the cages and the width of the sculpting on the cages themselves. Both make for a narrower range of gears that can be used in the back without rubbing. I’ve had rubbing issues in the large ring and the 4th cog (from the inside) with Ultegra. They are more difficult to set up than the cheaper ones

djb

I guess the reasoning behind this is trying to reduce weight with less material and or having tighter clearances=fractions of seconds/faster/crisper shifts for the crowd where seconds over a days stage worth of shifts is important.

Carbonfiberboy 

Nothing wrong with used on ebay if the item looks good and is returnable. I'm running quite a bit of 20 y.o. components, still work fine. That MTB stuff is well made and tough. I run 9 speed Shimano MTB RDs with Shimano road brifters, both 9 and 10 speed.

cyccommute 

I’ve ridden lots and lots of trails where I pedaled downhill. There are some where I don’t pedal but I don’t coast down every thing either. I’ve been on rides...single track trails...where I’ve had to coast for miles and miles because I’ve run out of gears. The trail went down into a valley, up another hill, down into another valley and then had a massive climb to the top of a pass. It was an out and back ride. At the bottom of the hill from the pass, I had to climb over that hill in the middle and that was one of the most painful things I’ve ever had to do. 5 to 7 miles of not moving my legs made for a very hard climb followed by another coasting downhill and another hard climb. This was back in the days of 44 tooth outer rings and 14 tooth freewheel cogs or an 80” gear. Having a little resistance and being able to pedal keeps your legs fresh for another climb.

To be clear, the 30 mph downhills are on the road sections of my rides. I’m not shamed to say that I ride single track as well as dirt roads as well as gravel roads and even a few paved roads. Frankly, riding single track all the time bores me to death.

There is nothing revolutionary about upshifting on downhills. It’s a very old mountain bike technique and it’s exactly how rear derailers work. I’ve been riding mountain bikes since 1984 and have always upshifted to the middle or large ring on downhills. Chainslap is caused by not having enough tension on the derailer. Upshifting increases the spring tension at both the A and B knuckle and tightens up the chain. It doesn’t bounce when the spring is tighter. The current “clutch” systems are doing the same thing but 1x doesn’t have the ability to tighten the derailer springs because it only has one size for the chainring.

Downhillers have used chain guides for a long time because they do put more force on drops than most people do but the chain guide isn’t there to prevent chain slap but to prevent derailment.

I’m not sure what your point is here. The spring tension in the rear derailer keeps the chain from lifting off the chain ring. Tighter tension on the rear derailer means the chain is tighter around the ring. Modern clutch derailers use stronger springs to do the same thing.

Why can’t I use a clutch rear derailer on a triple to do the same thing as you say is happening on a 1x? In fact, I do have a couple of bikes with clutch rear derailers on triples. But I’ve never had a bike derailer off a triple because of chain bounce...even in a 20 tooth inner ring. I’m not running that gear below about the 20 tooth cog on the cassette anyway because the chain gets too slack. And I upshift to the middle or outer ring for anything higher.

The narrow-wide chainring is needed on a 1x because there isn’t anything to keep the chain in place. On double and triple bikes, the front derailer acts like a chain guide and keeps the chain from being thrown off the ring. Without the narrow-wide ring, the 1x system tends to do just what you are claiming triples do...i.e. dropping the chain on impacts.

When talking about dropped chains, I thought you were talking about doing that during shifts. I’ve never had a chain fall off while on a downhill unless I’ve botched a shift.

What’s not to understand? Narrow-wide was invented as a workaround for the dropped chain problem (due to chain slap) of early 1x systems. The earliest 1x systems didn’t have clutch derailers...that was another workaround for dropped chains...and in higher gears the chain bounced off the ring. Downhillers, as you pointed out, added chain guides to avoid that problem but downhillers aren’t pedaling all that much anyway.


I suppose it’s relative but, honestly, I’ve never heard anyone refer to an 11-34 cassette as “narrow”.


I don’t know what you are doing wrong but in 37 years of mountain biking (and a bit over 40 years of biking in general), I have never broken a chain for any reason. Nor have I had to fish a chain from between chainrings because it bounced off a chainring on any kind of downhill. I have overshifted on the low gear and dropped the chain but that I consider a user error/improper mechanical adjustment problem which is generally easily fixed by proper adjustment of the front derailer.


I don’t agree at all...and I ride in far from perfect conditions. My mountain bikes get ridden in dust and mud (occasionally) and sand and rain and snow. They occasionally get ridden in cow patties. I use SRAM chains almost exclusively. They all last about 3500 miles, independent of the bike that they are on. The bike that I tracked was a SRAM that I used on a hilly tour which included about 700 (of 1500) miles on gravel roads and gravel towpaths in the eastern US. That included a couple of all day rain events which is rather unusually for me here in the dry western US.

I don’t use Shimano because of their silly pin system but have used a few in the past. I have used a few KMC in the recent past on bikes that were used primarily for winter riding. None of them have worn faster than any other.

djb

it is interesting to note how for some, shifting techniques , or perhaps I should say, "technical" aspects of it, come more naturally and instinctively. One of my kids surprised me very early on in her riding, where on a three day family tour, I noticed that she was instinctively upshifting one gear when going down to a smaller chainring at the start of climbs. I had never "taught" her that, but either from observation or simply having a good feel for things and using common sense, she figured it out on her own.

Other folks daydream and regularly don't know what ring they are in or whatever, and in the thread recently about 1x9 system, the european guy who was vigorously defending 1x systems at one point said something along the lines of "for the experts, shifting a triple is fine" (paraphrasing on my part) but it showed that for him or her, gear changing with a triple is a challenge, either with knowing what gear they are in or not doing it properly and causing chain drops (both things that they mentioned they suffered from and as negatives against triples).

so the whole "keeping chain tension" through proper rd tension, through proper chainring position, is something that for a lot of us, comes naturally and also comes from lots of riding practice and remembering/learning techniques to reduce chain slap etc.
Its not to say that gear advancements are bad, but for lots of us who have ridden a lot for a long time, this stuff is engrained pretty much.

I almost relate it to automobile ABS and Traction and Stability control stuff found on nearly all cars now. For those of us who grew up sliding cars or motorcycles around on dirt and snow, we had to develop and learn the techniques of "feel" for gear selection, front wheel direction, throttle control, braking control, how to hold a slide for a given surface traction and speed--basically a whole crapload of info that we learned, and some people had the aptitude for it, while most drivers/riders didnt.

Cue forward to computer driven safety controls, and hell, dont get me wrong, this stuff saves lives and damages up the ying-yang, and is nothing but good, but it is weird for those of us used to controlling and reacting to slides etc ourselves, and I always remember the first time going out in a car with stability control etc in a snowstorm and goofing around in a roundabout, purposely trying to put the car in to a long powered slide--and the stability control stuff of braking opposite corners and cutting the power even though I was deep in the throttle and countersteering by instinct, practically put the car off the road because it countered the big slide I had swung the car into, but my "old" reactions werent necessary and messed things up.

does all that relate to modern rd's ? Probably not, but I guess my examples are more to show that a triple can still be very useful and effective, moreso if one has the right techniques---but yes, technical advancements generally are successful because they are improvements, and thats great.

I guess all my blah blah is more as a defence for triples and their real world advantages for touring, while acknowledging that new stuff has a place too....

Tourist in MSN

I was still using friction downtube until 2004, shift front or rear but not simultaneously. When I built up an indexed shifting bike that was not downtube shifting, I was quite impressed with the concept that you could shift front and rear simultaneously. I often do that, but I have several bikes with different drivetrains so I have to think about it first, what works on one bike might not on another.

Width of the gap for the chain in front derailleur cages, I have often bent the cage to the width that I wanted it to be. That said, most of my bikes have friction front shifters, not indexed, so the precision of the front derailleur is not that critical. I have front derailleurs for a double on a couple of my bikes that have triple cranksets.

djb

re shifting both simultaneously, I actually dont do both exactly at the same time, but with a slight slight delay. I used to shift dt shifters teh same, with my right hand doing both levers. Part of my hand would do the front downshift and then the other half of my hand would do the one or two upshifts at the rear.
I'd describe the two shifts as overlapping each other in a slight way.

with STI or trigger shifters, I do the same, shift the chainrings and then a fraction of a second later do the rears, to make sure that the chain tension is constant for the front shifting, which I find to be better overall.

but its all about timing with this sort of stuff isnt it?. Kinda like back in the day shifting a motorcycle on track without using the clutch, it was all about exact timing of backing off the full throttle for that fraction of a second, and timing both the upshift and back on the throttle again in a smooth yet super fast way.

and you aint gonna learn all this stuff or get good at it reading about it on the interwebs, you have to have a feel for it.

Tourist in MSN

On my half step plus granny gear bikes, if I am looking for the next higher or lower gear, bar end shifters make it easy to shift both. If I am downshifting to the granny gear, I simultaneously upshift a couple gears in back.

And on my road bike with brifters front and rear, compact double (50/34), when I shift the front I often have to make at least two shifts in back, sometimes three.

Rando bike has brifter for rear, friction downtube for front, that one I always shift one at a time. I never got in the habit of shifting the brifter with the other hand off of the bars.

I always used the clutch, but I did not race. And with four speed transmissions and a very wide power band from about 3000 up to the horsepower rating at 7850, little need to shift often. (No published red line, so I treated the horsepower rating as the red line.) But if you were racing two strokes with narrow power bands, I can see lots of shifts and looking for ways to make them fast.

Russ Roth

No real purpose for a triple any more.

The more expensive solution
12sp Campy Chorus 48/32 with an 11/34 cassette. If you're touring you never really needed the 53, racing sure, but getting a touring bike to the speed a 53/11 would give you just doesn't seem safe loaded down. While the 32/34 will math an old 30/28 or even 30/30 if that's what you had. Not too expensive if doing rim brakes, disc is affordable if you buy form Europe.

The cheap solution
You can buy individual microshift shifters.
so Microshift 110 right shifter, works with 11sp Shimano mtb rear derailleurs
pick any microshift double or triple, personally I'd go double,
FSA, Shimano GRX or While Industries sub-compact crank and go 48/32, let your budget decide.
Shimano GRX front derailleur
Shimano 11sp 11/34 cassette
For brakes I'd go trp hy/rd if disc since microshift doesn't offer hydraulic.

If you're really worried about gearing with the cheap option you could do a 46/30 or with the cheap option you can go 36t

robow

A 32x34 or 25.4 gear inches is often not a low enough gear for most mere mortals when fully loaded and having to deal with sharp inclines. You've either not toured under those conditions or you are an exceptionally strong rider. I'll presume the latter.

Tourist in MSN

I did a two week tour in Southern Florida, the only hills were approaches to bridges, that gearing would certainly work in much of Florida.

If I tried to pedal with your suggested gearing up some of the shallower hills that I have often encountered on tours, my knees would hurt for months afterwards. Some of us carry our camping gear on our bikes, cooking gear, food, etc. This is the touring board.

Russ Roth

The OP is swapping from a campy triple. I don't believe in the past they offered a taller cog then a 28t, coupled with the small ring which was a 30? A 32/34 would be easier by a decent amount. The cheaper option did offer the possibilities of a 36, 38 and supposedly a 40. My current set-up is a 32/34.
I toured Prince Edward Island with this gearing and while the trail wasn't too hard the hills off of it were rough but I was also towing a trailer since the 3 kids pack their own clothes, sleeping bags and eating equipment.
This year we're planning on doing the Erie canal with them but the two older can carry their own gear. The wife and I are also planning a cross Vermont gravel ride we found and I will be using that gearing for it. 4-5 days loaded. Plenty of climbing but I think my gearing should be sufficient for the task. Thankfully the in-laws will watch the kids since they haven't seen them in so long and the wife and I get some much needed alone time.

djb

RR, a 25 gear inch low that you have will show itself up to be not low enough as soon as you do some touring in hilly areas carrying a typical or average touring load, or even a lighter touring load.
I fully realize that until you've toured in very hilly or mountainous areas over many days, and or over many years, that you won't believe the thing about lower gears. The age thing is probably a factor, although to be frank, I figured out 30 years ago that the gearing that you have wasn't working for me. I'm sure if you tried touring in the Gaspe, or really anywhere with lots of either short, constant steep up and downs (the Pacific Coast lets say) or long long reasonably steep hills, you might acknowledge that 25 gear inches is too high.

and you know, the bottom line is that having lower gears has no downside, it doesnt affect or change your average speed, it doesnt change how fast you go downhills, and in fact it does help you overall day because you arent lugging your legs at times, so your legs and knees are fresher. And yes, it is possible to upshift....

really, it comes down to the whole "roadie view" and "take" of what is acceptable gearing, and the associated htfu view. Campy has such a road heritage that for years, even on their Tourismo or whatever it is model for years, they put road triples on them, ie 50/39/30

the whole "overgeared" thing is not new, and so many gravel bikes out there are overgeared too, so the issue hasn't changed that much over the years.

in the end, if your bike works for you and what you do, great. I would only suggest trying to look objectively at your gearing and wondering how it could be different to make your bike touring more enjoyable.

oh, and a big shout out to in-laws and taking kids off your hands for a bit. Super important isn't it. We certainly appreciated all those times that allowed us time to do stuff on our own.

Tourist in MSN

The way I read it was that the OP in the past used Campy triples, but due to absurd prices does not want to buy another Campy triple. And I have observed how high the prices have shot for Campy triples, since I also have a preference for Campy triples.

I have two touring bikes with Campy triples, the ones I have are the old square taper ones with a 74mm BCD for the granny gear. I fitted 24T granny gears to both. I also swapped out the 52T big ring for a 46T instead. On the second photo, the silver color granny gear makes it hard to see unless you look for it.

Both bikes have a 11/32 eight speed cassette in back, first bike is a 26 inch wheel, lowest gear is 19.2 gear inches with a 40mm wide tire, second bike is 700c, lowest gear is 20.7 gear inches with a 37mm wide tire.






I also enjoyed the Confederation Trail system on PEI, but that was pretty flat, low gearing not really needed. I had my Rohloff bike on that trip, not one of my derailleur bikes.

Russ Roth

When I lived in the Finger Lakes, technically Sterling,NY is the northern most point of the Finger Lakes, and rode there it was sufficient, actually didn't have that good of gearing riding along the Lake Ontario shoreline up to the Thousand Islands 30/26 was my easiest but it still worked fine and I didn't have to walk. I will put it to the test this summer as the VT ride is 30k feet of climbing which still isn't the most I've done but that was paved and not gravel so I'll have to see.

The trail is mostly flat, the campground we stayed in on the south and the lighthouse we went to visit were not flat at all, getting to and from the campground was 4 miles of steep rollers with no flats at all, those were a strain.
I've never run into a campy crank set up like yours, my old tandem has a similar setup but haven't seen that on a Campy touring bike which have been largely nonexistent since i started working in shops in the late 90s. Plenty of racing triples but that's all I was aware that was made. I was basing my options on what I presumed he must have a 30 chainring and usually a 28t max cog. If he's got lower like yours I haven't seen where he's said. In which case I'd still go the microshift option with mtb crank which could still be set up with a 44/28 and up to a 40t in the back. Although I wouldn't be happy to be limited to a 44, loaded its only on the downhills I would use a 44/11 and even then I limit myself to 30mph loaded anyways.