DaveSSS 

Here's a great tool to compare two drive trains. https://www.kstoerz.com/gearcalc/compare/

TakingMyTime

I run triples on my 2 most used bikes. I have an old friend who has had bad experiences with indexed shifting on his touring bike and swears that friction shifters give him the control he needs. We went riding the other day and we were talking on this subject and as we were moving along I told him to listen to the indexed shifts on my triple and he was amazed. Once you get your FD to respond as expected it can be a beautiful thing.

MikeWMass

I switched from a compact double to 50-39-30 triple, all Shimano 105 10 speed (mix of 5600 and 5700). The triple shifts better than the double ever did.
I think the gear overlap is a good thing, as it allows me to use either the middle or large ring depending on how hard I am going and what the terrain is like. Not like "back in the day" with half-step "Alpine" gearing!
Mechanical front derailleurs will never shift as well (or at least not as easily) as rear, because they are moving a tensioned part of the chain rather then a slack part. Electronics can overcome this, but I would guess they still benefit from soft pedaling during front shifts (I have never tried them, so I am speculating).
I have bought several chainrings, so I am hopeful that I won't have to replace my drivetrain (or bike), at least not because of shot chainrings!

HTupolev

I'm not sure what you mean by "half-step alpine", but half-step drivetrains generally put the two chainrings into almost total range overlap. They interleave the ratios, so that you can make fine-tuned ratio changes by shifting the front derailleur.

On the left is a half-step double arrangement with a wide-range freewheel, and on the right is a corncob freewheel with a wide-range double crankset:

Maelochs

Half-step requires frequent shifts with both derailleurs to get the most out of the gearing---to avoid bi jumps in ratios. I guess it made sense back before indexing, when shifting was an art form, and when six rear cogs were considered "a lot." Nowadays, with 9,10, or 11 cogs and indexing, half-step offers no advantage.

I agree with @MikeWMass about overlap, too. Sometimes I'd rather be cross-chained in the lowest chain ring to start a climb, than to have to try to shift the front without losing momentum, under full load, partway up a climb. This particularly matters if I am hauling a load, have a weak heart, asthmatic lungs, weak legs, and am about a quarter-ton overweight (which amounts to "hauling a load" even if my panniers are empty.)

DaveSSS 

If you're starting a climb of any significance, you should always be in the little chain ring, otherwise it's not really a climb. I ride a lot of steep hills that are at the end of a level road across a lake dam. Even worse than trying to shift the big ring is coming to a sudden halt and tipping over. I did this once. I day dream or problem solve while riding and forgot that I was in the big ring.

Drew Eckhardt 

You can hang any components you want on a frame.

I'm partial to 2010-2014 Campagnolo Ultrashift levers which will run triples and 2006 Record Titanium triple derailleurs.

The Ultrashift levers can shift five cogs smaller with a button press and don't have G-springs to wear out. Campagnolo discontinued small parts sales in 2009, but sells replacement shift units for under $100.

I run 10 speed because I can't buy an 11 speed crank/cassette combination which would make me happy.

Currently that's
50-39-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26
although I'm thinking about switching to a 24 ring because working too much instead of riding has me down on power which is not coming back quickly

Drew Eckhardt 

Pros preferred tight spacing over lower and higher gears until moving from 9 cogs 12-13-14-16-15-17-19-21-23 to 10 where some stuck to 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23.

There's no reason to assume amateurs don't benefit from the same tight spacing.

Keeping that spacing with 11-36 would mean
11-12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29-32-36 14 cogs
which doesn't exist.

Or 46-36-22 x 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26-29 11 cogs

L134 

They do if one likes to fine tune one’s cruising cadence.

Carbonfiberboy 

Exactly the reason I run as tight a cassette as the terrain allows along with a 26T granny in my 53-39-26 triple. It's lovely to have tight spacing in the back. Mourn the death of the triple - although I have parts enough to last a very long time.

DougG

I've long since moved on, but my favorite bike for gearing range was my Specialized Sequoia with its 3x10 gearing. I spent almost all my time on the 39-tooth middle ring, but had the lower and higher gears available while also having the tight shifting of the 11-27 (or 28?) cassette. My current bike has a 46-30 on the front (11-32 11-speed cassette) and is great for the (slower) riding that I do these days, but I can definitely spin it out under the right conditions or on a downhill. If they still made updated triples, I'd probably have one.

Caliper

I disagree. If you want to work through every ratio all the time, half-step will keep your fingers busy. But, it can also be run as a wide range cassette with the option to fine-tune your ratio. That is, shift the rear to make the big steps when doing big speed or cadence changes and then you have the option of doing a fine tuning shift when you're up to speed and want to dial your cadence a bit. It's a bit of a recalibration of how we think of shifting compared to a "normal" setup.


With modern 9-12sp drivetrains, a road cassette has gears spaced far too closely to work with a half step setup. But I've thought for a while that half step would be a great pair with some of these super-wide-range MTB cassettes. A 12sp 10-50 gives you all your big jumps, then use your half step to dial in. A half step chainring setup shifts superbly even with old tech due to the very small difference in tooth count and with modern shifters the gear changes are fast to make. With a cassette like this, half step would still give you the same advantage as always - every gear combination is unique and you have a wide range of ratios.

masi61

Just an update: I got a reply from WickWorks and they said that they no longer sell triple chainring sets. The reason given was that there was no demand for them.

it always bums me out when a company that makes a well regarded product stops making that product due to “lack of demand”. OK - I get it that aftermarket road triple chainring sets are a niche market, but a market does exist. Maybe folks here could also contact Wick Works and request that they go back to making the triple chainring sets.

This is sort of reminds me of the disappointment I experience when I consider new car shopping and realize that there are precious few car models available anymore with a manual transmission.

I’m considering making a mongrel 3x10 commuter/touring bike that will have an Ultegra 6600 ten speed rear shifter and the front triple will be a custom made SunTour Superbe Comp triple crank with Salsa 39/ 53 chainrings with no special ramping and a generic Shimano 30 tooth granny ring. I was going to shift the improvised triple with an extra SunTour Command front shifter and most likely a SunTour XCD front derailleur. AFAIK, this combo should work but I’m just not sure if the shifting will have to be babied in any way or if I need a dog fang or anything like that to prevent dropping the chain.

HTupolev

Yeah, that was the point I was making. The overlap issue for climbing is less of an issue for half-step than any other kind of gearing arrangement; if you're caught in the big ring, you can still get very close to your lowest gear.

The "non-overlap" drivetrain on the right in my image is the sort of situation where being caught in the big ring can suck, but it's basically the opposite of half-step.

What would really make sense is Di2 synchro half-step. You could have reasonably-even tight steps across a >500% gearing range with a 2x11, and the user would hardly need to think about the fact that it's half-step.

jamesdak 

Oh yeah, I actually talked to him about this the next day and he did say they stopped making them. Something to consider though is he is a small operation. He can't afford to produce products that then don't sell. I've been seeing lately all the time, effort, and money he spends to develop something new and it really is extensive. So unless you have deep pockets it has to be hard to please everyone.

indyfabz

Especially when riding loaded. Hell with have frozen over and all the little devils will have gone ice skating before I go to something like a 1x.

masi61

Understood.
Glad to know you spoke to him about the triple rings. I was impressed by the design details of their shifting ramps when I read up on them. Makes me want to just take my used XTR M-900 crank arms, which take 110 BCD chainrings and spec a compact double set of 53/36 110 BCD rings & then just fit a 26 or 28 tooth granny ring in the small chainring position.

Then I could get the benefits of their innovations at least for the outer 2 chainrings.

jamesdak 

Yeah, If I remember correctly on that Lemond I'm running a road ring on the outside and then the inner two or mountain rings. Works great which is all I care about. I ran a double setup of their rings for years and they shifted amazingly quick. I actually sold that bike recently and left them on there for the new owner to enjoy them.

Carbonfiberboy 

That middle ring will need to be for a triple, not a double.

masi61

These triple rings are becoming hard to find in road triple sizes - do you know of a source that sells triple specific middle rings in 110 bcd and 36, 38, 39, 40 or 42 tooth?

Did the out of production 105 5503 triple crank use this size?

Just trying to refresh my Shimano product knowledge. But also, did Specialties TA (or some other company) make what I’m looking for?

Drew Eckhardt 

Specialites TA and Stronglight.

No, that's a standard 130mm/74mm BCD road triple.

Kimmo

Just a sec... (need a link from my tag)

ETA: Au contraire - https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...l#post16877556

Project was shelved due to the fact it requires a special FD cage.

Maelochs

That is an amazing project, but without a lot of software to maximize it ... learning 33 ratios and knowing which was best at any given time would be a monstrous headache. Yeah, shifting would be easy because the computer would do the thinking .... but the last half-step bike I rode was a 6-cog triple .... this would almost double the available ratios ... no way i could make the best use of that most of the time.

If I were mountain touring and had the electronics ... or i guess, wherever i was riding if I had the electronics, this would be a fine solution to get really precise control of pedal pressure and cadence. For daily use, and without the software, it would all depend on how well the FD worked.

What I love about the 11-speed cluster is that I can shift under load if I need to. Maybe a DI2 FD can do the same, but I have never been able to manage a front shift without letting up for at least a quarter-rotation ... and when laboring up a hill, that is a long time.

Anyway ... it's a big world, with enough room for plenty of solutions to different situations, and plenty of opinions about them. I don't own (and likely never will) an electronic-shifting bike, but if I did I would want the kind of software that guy is describing.

HTupolev

You don't have to "learn 33 ratios."

A half-step pattern looks the same no matter where on the range you are, so it's no harder to learn it with an eleven-speed cassette than with a four-speed freewheel. And adding a granny ring doesn't add much complication, it's just extra gears that exist outside of the half-step pattern: you use it the same way you'd use a bailout ring on any drivetrain.

Cyclist0108

That's good to know. My Athena 11-speed triple has a 52 large ring and 30T small one, but the cassette I think only goes up to 29. So yours gives a significantly lower gear.