It just doesnt make any sense
 

After pondering other threads on gearing, it just doesnt make any sense to get rid of the front triple. A bike report I read had a bike with a 34 front and 12 gears in the cluster. The reason it doesnt make sense is:

1) The are only 12 speeds, which flies in the face of those that demand ever more gears.

2) The rear cluster goes from 12 to 51, which flies in the face of those that want small steps between each gear change.

3) The 51 tooth low gear flies in the face of the weigh weenies because that 51 tooth gear has to weigh much more than twice as much as a 26 tooth granny gear.

So my question is why get rid of the triple?

1) Some people only want 12 widely spaced gears. You and I aren't those people, but those people should be able to buy a bike that suits them.

2) See answer to 1.

3) The added weight of the big cog is less than the buyer cares about. Also, it's offset somewhat by not needing an additional chain ring. Some people want a 34x51 gear. You and I aren't those people, but those people should be able to buy a bike that suits them. BTW, "weight wienies won't like it" is an awfully weird argument to make FOR putting on two more chain rings.

I will probably never buy a 1x bike because I like higher gears, but I would never argue they shouldn't be available. Isn't your real question why it's so hard to find triples for people who like triples? It has nothing to do with 1, 2 or 3.

I like triples quite a bit. It is kind of frustrating that there are no current higher end triples offered.

You're describing a 1x setup. People who use and like 1x setups have different requirements and preferences than people who use triples. Your likes and preferences are not shared by others.

To OP, that makes no sense,

Personally, with a 2x11 setup on a modern road bike, I have a tremendous amount of flexibility as to what terrain can be tackled effectively between 50-11 and 34-30, and the gaps between the taller gears are satisfactorily small. I wouldn't want a triple.

​​​​​​
​​​

Thinking that your preference is the only one that makes sense, makes no sense.

How many versions of "Why must people insist on doing things in a way that is at variance with how I do things?" can we post in one lifetime?

(I have 3X and 2X but no 1X. But I do recognize there is one very distinct advantage of 1X: Your chain ring won't saw into your leg.)

Actually, on second thought, this post is worse than that. He's complaining because they don't meet other people's preferences. This is "they shouldn't sell heavy bikes because some people are weight wienies" dumb.

That makes sense.

[QUOTE=rydabent;22285587]After pondering other threads on gearing, it just doesnt make any sense to get rid of the front triple. A bike report I read had a bike with a 34 front and 12 gears in the cluster. The reason it doesnt make sense is:

1) The are only 12 speeds, which flies in the faceof those that demand ever more gears.

2) The rear cluster goes from 12 to 51, which flies in the face of those that want small steps between each gear change.

3) The 51 tooth low gear flies in the face of the weigh weenies because that 51 tooth gear has to weigh much more than twice as much as a 26 tooth granny gear.

So my question is why get rid of the triple?[/QUOTE]
Yep, even on a 'bent it's a good idea to ride with your mouth closed.:thumb:

[QUOTE=shelbyfv;22285749]Yeah, I didn't realize riding a 1x setup was so hazardous. So many things flying in your face !!!

Not everyone can afford 3 gears in the front...some of us can barely afford 1.

Those who want/benefit from 1x12 are most likely not those who want/benefit from 3x.

In cycling, there are multiple disciplines and multiple rider abilities. What one person wants and likes can be different from what another person wants and likes.
Ill give you an example- a recumbent bicycle. This is a goofy contraption that quirky folk who enjoy riding in jeans and full brim hats like to ride. You often see them decorated with quirky flags and streamers that belong in a flower garden. That is a bicycle which some people want/benefit from. Not everyone wants it though.

[QUOTE=shelbyfv;22285749]He must have been on my most recent road rides, where I swear I got hit in the face with more bugs than ever.

Why do people want more gears int he back when they could have more gears in the front? Well, the rear derailleur is a marvelous piece of engineering that moves the jockey wheels so that they stay pretty much the same distance from the cog the chain is running on and maintains the tension on the chain all of which is optimized for quickly and accurately shifting from cog to cog.

The front derailleur is a crude slot your chain runs through that you use to shove the chain one way or another.

You forgot the weight of the front derailleur, weight of the FD cable, and weight of the front brifter.

+1. I’ll never buy a bike with a front derailleur again. (I’m not too crazy about rear derailleurs either, tbh.)

Where I live, where I ride, and at my age, weight, and level of fitness, I need both derailleurs. I just don't need three chainrings.

i'm no mechanical engineer and RD may not be crude in comparison but it still is shoving the chain. it shoves from the inside rather than the outside. i'll grant you that it is more graceful about it but i suspect that is more due to the difference between neighboring cog sizes.

“My preference is the only one that makes sense” is the theme of most (if not all) of his threads.

He’s a one trick :troll:. And this is coming from someone who loves his triple on his touring bike.

OP misses his youthful days when downshifting meant putting a smaller front wheel on the penny farthing.

It's nearly always possible to verbally simplify two things being compared so that they appear to be more similar than they, in fact, are.

If we all adopted recumbents, he'd still post about how we adopted the WRONG recumbents.