georges1

Not true, I still see mountain bikers riding triples and doubles where I live and not everybody has fallen in the hype of the 1x. Let's make it clear, I don't have any low end bikes but only high steel end framed mountain bikes mountain biles with modern XT 780 T transmission
1998 JamisDragon in Reynolds 853

1998 Kona Kilaeua in Reynolds 631

1996 Scapin Dedacciai 18MCDV6HT

1992 Merida Albon

I also have in the works and as mountain bike projects these three frames a 1996 Gary Fisher Hookoo Ekoo in True Temper Optibutted OXP platinum specially made for Gary Fisher, a 1999 Trek 6700 in SLR Alpha Aluminium and a 2006 Trek 6500 SLR Alpha Aluminium. They will get the same transmission XT 780 T with 30 speed
Low end for me starts with a low grade aluminium or low grade steel frame with average quality wheels and acera/alivio transmission. XT is high end , the Gary Fisher will have XTR and also XT and custom made wheels mavic d521 rims laced to hope hubs with DT Aerolite spokes.If something works well that is not a valid reason to change it because of the hype made by a manufacturer.

Jeff Neese

3x still gives you more range. A granny gear with a 28 or 34 tooth cog in the back may not be needed very often, but on a triple it's there if you need it. What configuration in 2x 11-speed would give you the equivalent?

Like everyone else, I rarely use my granny gear. A couple steep hills on our normal route are pretty long and sometimes I want to take the whole thing seated. I appreciate that my Trek Elance is a road triple. I wish my Fuji were.

PeteHski

I must be dreaming that it's 2023 and 1x never happened. Anyway you firmly fall into the "riding an older pre 1x mtb" category I stated).

PeteHski

What 3x are you using? Not hard to make a range comparison.

Trakhak

I'm 72 years old and started track and road racing in the early '60s. My favorite bikes are two 3x (road and hybrid) and a fixed gear. I don't care how often I shift on any of my geared bikes---I just find my one remaining 2x road bike irritating to shift.

It was my mistake, buying a Campy 53/34 crankset just because it was deeply discounted. The setup of that crankset with an SRAM braze-on front derailleur is maybe the best front shifting I've ever had, so that's a bit of a consolation.

But the most useful gear combinations for riding on the rolling hills that constitute most of my outings have me nearly cross-chaining a lot of the time. So I find myself riding along thinking in the back of my mind about the next time I'll have to shift in front.

The irritation is mild, of course, but it's constant, like an itch in the middle of my back that I can't reach, which is why that bike mostly stays home.

PeteHski

Is that a fundamental flaw with 2x or you just ending up with an inappropriate crankset and cassette for your riding? A 53 big ring wouldn't be my first choice for rolling hills.

Maelochs

I am not sure why this discussion invites so much emotional involvement.

First off ... 3x and 1x are not better or worse than 2x on the road, nor is 1x better than 2x or 3x off the road. Flat screwdrivers are not better than Phillips screwdrivers.

Fewer road bikes come with 3x because most riders do not Need 3x and with wide-range 2x systems can ride just fine. Most of my bikes are 2x so I feel I can say this with some real-world informing my statement.

Some of my bikes are 3x, and in certain situations I have been very glad of that. people who do not have this experience personally and thereby deny that anyone else can possibly have this experience are ... well there is no nice way to say it so I will just let it go. it is a phenomenon seen all to often nowadays ... "It never happened to me therefore it never happened." .... Okay ......

MTBs were early adopters of 3x because of the varied terrains over which one might ride, from soft sand to deep mud, to steep uphills to steep downhills to flat hard-packed trails to tree-slaloms and switchbacks. As the range of gears available with 1x increased from a max of 36 to now, 50 teeth on a cog, 1x became more popular.

Of. course, as with 3xc on the road, the popularity of thing is partly controlled by the availability of a thing. I have heard a whole lot of people wishing for the direct simplicity of rim brakes ..... discs, particularly on the road, don't offer that great an advantage to riders who don't do mountain descents and in fact, given the increased weight and complexity, really are not an improvement for Certain riders on certain terrains ... but manufacturers have gone all -in on discs so, too bad you you.

Similarly, for business reasons most road bikes will only offer 2x. Doesn't mean 2x is better, just that it is good enough not to hurt sales, while 3x is still available for those who really want it and are willing to pay for it. Commercial strategy does not determine mechanical excellence ... it just makes more money to do some things some ways.

I notice that even the most die-hard 1x MTB supports (staring right at Mr. Hski) also are hardcore supports of 2x road bikes. Could it be that ... different riding situations suggest different optimal mechanical solutions?

Because that is really all anyone here is saying ...

The underlying issue is people saying, "My way is better for me," versus people saying "My way is better for everyone."

Nobody is trying to take away your 1x MTB or your 2x road bike. People are trying to explain that what works for you, or the compromises forced by business plans which are designed to increase corporate profit, not to maximize rider satisfaction across the board, are not necessarily the best options for everyone, everywhere.

Why this would be hard to accept is a little mystifying to me .... but, whatever.

Trakhak

You're absolutely right, of course. I should have thought that purchase through. A 53 big ring was fine racing and training in packs in the '80s, but I'm almost 40 years older and am down from 135 to 120 lbs. With that amount of muscle loss, a vet would probably recommend putting me down.

But the triple cranks combined with moderately spaced cassettes let me park in the middle ring, thus giving me in effect a 1x with overdrive and bailout options. One could set up a 2x with a small ring the same size as that of a 3x middle ring, but at the cost of some versatility.

I'm fully aware, by the way, of the irony of worrying about details of chainwheel choices and shifting patterns for the same roads that I happily ride on a fixed-gear bike.

PeteHski

What I think drives the emotional involvement is when some tech becomes largely obsolete in the mainstream market and then the old tech diehards try to convince everyone that the newer tech is just a fad or marketing scam or simply inferior. I honestly don't care what other people ride, but the arrogant nonsense some people spout (not aimed at you, but I'm sure you can guess who I'm talking about) simply to deride newer tech is laughable.

My stance on 3x is that I've never been particularly in love with front shifting (particularly for mtb), so the less of it the better. But I can see how it could be necessary if you need both a very wide gear range AND very close ratios. A tourer or cargo bike for example.

1x is easily my preferred option for mtb and how fortunate I am that the industry has evolved that way nearly 100% . Coincidence? I don't think so.

2x is only marginally my preferred option for road and I'm looking forward to more road 1x options and maybe hub gears in place of FDs for wider range.

3x has never been on my radar for road. If I was touring fully loaded I'm sure I would have appreciated it.

PeteHski

That all makes sense. A 3x with the same number of cassette gears will always be more versatile than a 2x. But that becomes less and less of an issue as the number of cassette gears increases. For example I can make more of a valid case for 3x5 than 3x12. The industry has evolved toward more rear gears and less front gears. There was that thread recently asking why it didn't evolve toward more front and less rear gears.

GamblerGORD53

Bike hubs HAVE evolved >>> to ROHLOFF14...... Luddite Riders?? Not so much. LOL.
On rolly roads, I'm jumping 3 gears at a time more often than 1.

Trakhak

Roll up, bowl a ball, a penny a pitch!
Roll up, bowl a ball, a penny a pitch!
There stands me wife, the idol of me life, singing
Roll up, bowl a ball, a penny a pitch!

:

georges1

The early days from mid 1980's until 2010' were where the triple was the king and you probably never rode probably a mountain bike from 1990's. Furthermore what works for you and some others , doesn't work for everybody. You think that every person is following the industry? I don't think so as much as I am firm believer on the double for road bikes, the 1*12 or 1*x11 on the MTB is just hype but whatever makes you happy. I have overtaken during my last trail people riding 11speeds and single cranks.You know the saying "old tech that works is good tech". 10 speeds with a triple crankset offers on MTB more than enough versatility in any condition and probably much more than having a single crankset with a 12 speeds

tomato coupe

Or they dream up reasons why the old tech is superior. "Down tube shifters allow more precise handling because dropping your hand to shift gears lowers your center of gravity."

Carbonfiberboy 

Oh - sorry. Didn't mean it as a personal criticism. Maybe you just put it in the big ring and ignore the terrain. But it's my observation that weaker riders commonly go back and forth between the 34 and 50, the 34 being too small for flatter terrain and the 50 too big for minor risers. Shifting the back isn't noticeable for a following rider, but shifting the front and then the rear will cause a climbing bike to slow for a bit before resuming its former pace. Whereas a 39 or 42 middle ring works well in a much larger range of terrain than a 34 or 50. (50+34)/2=42.

I remember a period maybe 20 or so years ago when I'd ruined the big ring range of my left brifter. So I just left it in the 42 almost all the time, keeping up with most big ring riders just fine. That 42 seemed like a good idea to Shimano at the time. I was using a 12-25 in back. It was nice to get that brifter replaced on warranty.

PeteHski

So 1x12 mtb is just hype then? All the best riders are on 1990s MTBs with triples. Got it.

PeteHski

My main road bike has a 48/35 with 12-speed 10-33 rear. Pretty much all my local terrain is rolling hills, some gentle and some pretty hilly. On the gentle rollers I can comfortably stay in the 48. I only switch to the 35 for the steeper hills. There is enough overlap to stay in either ring on much of the terrain, so I often do that and just switch rings on a downhill or at the foot of a steeper climb. Then just ride the rollers in either front ring using the cassette range.

Todays’s ride was like this. 40 front shifts and 250 rear shifts over 50 km and 600m elevation gain. Almost equal time in the 2 front rings.

georges1

Nice try of humoring me.The best mountain bike rider champions were and are Ned Overend, John Tomac, Julien Absalon, Thomas Frisknecht, Bart Brentjens, Miguel Martinez, Nino Schurter, Pauline Ferrand Prévot , Anne Caroline Chausson, Christoph Sauser, Flying Tinker Juarez , Cedric Gracia, Paola Pezzo, Alison Sydor, Cadel Evans, Missy Giove, Myles Rockwell and Brian Lopes all won back their first titles on triple. Those people were and are legends , newer champions, I don't know about them. My generation was a lot into these champions.

PeteHski

If you paid ANY attention to what pros ride today you would know that they ALL ride 1x12. Every single one of them. Winners and also-rans. Back in the day, there was no option to race on a 1x12. You can’t ride something that doesn’t yet exist.

If I wanted to buy a brand new high-end 3x mountain bike, what options would I have? Link please?

georges1

Triple disappeared today and that I am well aware of. You will have no new bike offered with a triple or unless you want to do your own build à lacarte, buy a frame and buy an older transmission groupset from the previous years. But as you are so much fond of new tech,you would rather buy the new 1*12

Germany_chris

You can’t put a triple on my Karate Monkey, you might be able to get a mountain double to work.

Maelochs

Wel ... if you are one of the best MTB riders in the world ... then of course, ride what the rest of the best ride.

I don't try to buy or build a TdF-style road bike because it would not benefit me. The gearing, the riding position .... I would not get any benefits except while sipping coffee while others admired my bike.

The whole "it's what the pros ride, therefore it must be the best" is pure garbage. We each need bikes which suit our abilities, our preferred riding styles .... shoot, take a racing hardtail MTB and try doing North-Shore or freeride riding and watch the frame snap. Even the F/S bikes used in UCI-sanctioned MTB races wouldn't cut it on a downhill course ... which is why the downhill pros ride ridiculous 50-lb. rigs with a foot of travel at each end.

But wait .. if that is what the best ride, why don't you ride one? Because it doesn't suit you as well as what you do ride.

Pretty much all of us with many decades of riding experience have mad e the same choice ... because we don't ride with our egos any more ... we come here to wave our egos around ... but out on the road or trail, the ride is a personal thing and most of us are too old and wise, or old and tired, to play childish games miles from home on roads or trails.

Please try to understand that no one is saying your personal choices are wrong ... and none of the rest of us have made wrong choices either. We are different people and we have made different choices.

tomato coupe

So your point is: people in the past competed on the equipment that was available to them at the time. Shocking.

Maelochs

Yeah, and so what? Trying to ride the gear that racers ride or rode only really pays off if you are a racer.

Also, while I recognize the names, I don't identify with any of them. I am not a wannabe. I don't want to ride what they rode (or ride,) wear what they wore or wear, or any of that. I ride bicycles, i don't play hero-worship or try to imitate sports stars.

Find out what you need to ride the way you want to ride and ride it ... and if for you, the best thing is to imitate you older or current stars, that is fine with me too. I just don't care.

A fine musician who wasn't so good at managing life once said, "I am the one who is going to die when it is time for me to die, so i will live my life the way i want to." Not flawless reasoning but a pretty clear basis for further consideration ..... when I am on my death bed I am not going to care At All, how many likes I got on my BF posts.

Maelochs

Yeah, this is a silly debate .... what people used to do or do now at the top level of a sport only matters if you happen to be participating in that sport at the top level.

Is 1x better of UCI MTB-style racing? I think so .... is that the only type of off-road riding there is? I think not.

Maybe some people here need to .... well, in any case, people need to stop trying to establish status by comparing to others. What others do might be different than what you do, and it might work better for them than if they tried to imitate what you do. Likewise, if you tried to do what they do, successfully, you might find you are not unsuccessful because ... you are not them. it is not complex math.

Basically, anyone so insecure that they freak out because someone has more for fewer cogs or chain rings on their bikes ... you need more help that the latest drive train tech can provide.

Chill out, folks ... it is just Bike Forum.