GhostRider62

I counted. I have 5 bikes with a triple. I forgot about the tandem. I cannot imagine not having a triple on it or a nice big gear for slight downhills like in a river valley. We had 6 triple cranked bikes but recently got rid of my wife's road bike. The tandem is 3 x 8.

PaulRivers

Sure, could be, I'm more familiar with the average bikes than racing trends.

In racing? Sure, could be.

But what percentage of bikes a shop sells are actually used for racing or something close? I bet it's only like 20%.

Was there somewhere that suggested this topic is only about racing? I checked the forum - "General Cycling Discussion". Reread the OP's post but it doesn't specify racing only. I looked for the thread on gearing that was mentioned and this was the closest I could find and I didn't read through it all but it seems to be clearly about all kinds of biking not just racing:
https://www.bikeforums.net/general-c...our-needs.html

And the OP there seems to have the same general sentiment I have:


The Triple is nearly perfect for this - you can ride with both chainrings in the middle for most of a flat ride, and maybe never actually shift the front derailler. It's mentally easy.

Harder / impossible to do with a Double, without losing some range at the top or the bottom.

But you know, this might be a moot point if we were only talking about racing.

PaulRivers

I remember someone saying there was little point in reading past the 1st page of a thread if what you wanted was info rather than argument.

They kinda had a point...some people just like fightin' on a friday. People who, uh, aren't me. Yeah...definitely not me. (cough) (cough) Nope. (Furiously starts deleting post history).

PeteHski

I was replying to YOUR post:-

My only point in replying to you was that racing had nothing to do with 3x drivetrains, weight or marketing.

The OP for whatever reason picked on what is now standard MTB 1x gearing. Not even road 1x gearing.

I'm not seeing the logic in your argument about not needing to shift the FD when riding on the flat with a triple. You can make the same argument for both 1x and 2x and they have more gears available on any given chainring. I would have thought the main argument in favour of a 3x is when you absolutely need to be using all 3 chainrings on a regular basis.

I don't know what 2x gearing you have that requires more front shifting than an equivalent 3x. I'm guessing it's just got the wrong ratios for your riding style, rather than a fundamental limitation of 2x gearing.

Actually on second thought, I can see what you are getting at IF your triple only has a couple of extra gears at the low and high ends of your range. So you spend 90% of your time in the middle ring. Whereas on a similar range double you might find you are riding more often at the crossover point between the two rings.

What has changed over the years is a much larger range on any given chainring due to an increase in the number of gears on the cassette. So it is hardly surprising what has happened to the number of front chainrings. If you took the other extreme, you might have a 5x front with a 4 gear cassette. That would be silly right? Front shifting is much less efficient than rear shifting. So they naturally went the other way with less front and more rear gears.

BobG

The 1230 would be a closer comparison. Paired with a 40T chainring it would provide almost the same range as my Sugino triple with 9 speed cassette and should (?) be compatible with my older Shimano freehub. Still almost 3X the price of 9sp. A solution looking for a problem? I'll stay with what I have until it's no longer available.

GhostRider62

My touring bike is half step plus granny, so, I do shift the FD. But, I agree. Using a fairly tight cluster and in some terrain, only the middle ring is needed on my 4 other triple bikes. In hills, I appreciate the 26T granny chainring on the tandem and the 24T on the loaded touring bike. I use all three rings on my mountain bikes, too.

Imagine lining up to a criterium with a triple crank>...I suppose someone did it........ once.

Germany_chris

you could also use the 12sp cassette with your triple wide range cassettes don’t have to be used with a single ring

Maelochs

Say, @GhostRider62 ... are you the guy building the electric CVT velocipede? I have a little time to watch your video or whatever but I cannot find the link.

seypat

https://www.usmint.gov/learn/product...oin-production

seypat

It makes cents.

kingston 

Here's an example. These are two bikes that I actually own and ride a lot. One has a standard 50-34 compact crank with an 11-speed 12-25 and the other has a road triple 50-39-30 with a 10-speed 12-25. The double is fine for fast group rides, but terrible for brevets, especially longer ones. On a 400k in rolling terrain I normally average somewhere around 24-25 kph on the bike. On the triple, I only have to front shift if the hill is big enough that my speed goes below 17 kph or above 38 kph, so in rolling terrain, I might literally go hours in the middle ring without ever making a front shift. On the double, I have to front shift if my speed ever goes below 26 kph or above 31 kph, which is essentially every little incline, so I'm constantly cross-chained and making front shifts. The compact double is great if I'm riding steady in the 30's kph, but it's almost unusable if my pace is in the mid-20's kph. Of course a sub-compact crank solves that problem, but they haven't been widely available until pretty recently when gravel started gaining popularity.

livedarklions

Your emoji has requested deletion from that post. Maybe put up a photo of Alan Smithee.

70sSanO

Basically you are riding a 1x with occasional venture into the big and small chainrings when necessary.

Except for half step setups, I would guess that this is quite common among those with triples, especially riders who are a bit older.

I can relate because I ride a triple, but the middle gear is all purpose as I can climb in it, up to a point, and when things are open enough to ride at 20+ mph for some distance I can go to the big ring.

But I’m old, have an older bike, bins of good older stuff, that I’m not interested in swapping out my 3x8 drivetrain. But I mix-n-match cogs and set it up how I want, it doesn’t apply to anyone else. I profess no magic gearing formula for others.

I’m not stupid, I could duplicate what I have with a 1x if I was so inclined. I also realize that the future of the sport lies with the youth.

But hopefully I can continue to ride for enough years to eventually have a 20lb 1x with a bit of e-assist to flatten things out when needed. And dump that FD for good.

John

seypat

Since this was posted, here is the reason I ride triples. The top 3 gears are the same. Let's say you are rolling along on the 41.9 or 45.1 ratio. You encounter a terrain change that requires a ratio in the 18-19 range. Let's say you only need to get to a ratio around 32.5. Those are about the same in each layout. You can always get there and back with less shifts on the triple layout than the double. Over a day of riding, it really adds up, at least for me. Then I look at replacing either one of those with a 1X, no thanks.

genejockey 

My experience is that the reason you find yourself shifting FD so much is that this is the nature of the compact 50/34 double, when run with a standard-ish cassette like 12-25. That's what it's like with my Bianchi, which has a 50/34. It only annoys me the first time I ride it after riding my other bikes. The other bikes in question have 53/39 x 12-30 (10)or 52/36 x 11-34 (11), and especially on the latter, I shift the FD a lot less. So, it's not so much a function of double vs triple as it is a function of the actual chainrings.

gpburdell

My Trek 8.6 DS hybrid has a 48/36/26 crank set and 11-36 cassette.

While I didn't choose the bike based on it being a triple, I do find it useful. When riding on a paved environment I tend to stick to the two bigger rings and when on dirt/gravel/light-single-track I stick to the smaller two rings.

base2 

This 100% coincides with my experience in 1997 when I was resting on a park bench & stopped by an older gentleman in Honolulu, Hawaii to discuss my very modified Trek 6500zx hardtail with slicks & a road triple I had propped up against my knee. That man sat down & asked A LOT of questions. I mean A LOT. It felt like an interview. The next year is the first year I can recall of the road/mountain bike "hybrid" coming to market.

Coincidence? Probably. But, I like to think there was something there.

livedarklions

I'm pretty sure I bought a Miyata hybrid in 1991 or 92 (I definitely bought it, I'm not sure of the year).. They were definitely commercially available well before 1998.

I had a 1994 Specialized Santa Cruz Cross something or other a few years back, was definitely a hybrid.

PeteHski

This ^
With a modern 2x you can achieve the same result as an older 3x if you choose the right chainrings and cassette. Again this is the main reason why 3x is now obsolete. There just isn't much point in producing 3x11 or 3x12 drivetrains to go with the current cassettes. 3x9 still obviously works, but it doesn't offer any advantages over a 2x12 and most people would prefer to minimise front shifting.

Gravel Rider

I can't believe the obvious of why everyone is missing the necessity of 3 chain rings.
One for uphill.
One for downhill.
One for flat.
Duh.
You're welcome.

livedarklions

Please note the date of this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/27/n...-2-styles.html

livedarklions

I thought it was one for chocolate, one for vanilla, and one for swirl.

But for me, you're kind of right--I tended to use the triple as a three speed bike, but I almost never used the smallest ring..

kingston 

I agree with you 100% which is why it's always puzzled me that 50-34 has become the de-facto standard recreational chainring size. I'm about 3 w/kg FTP so not massively underpowered compared to the average recreational cyclist. My conclusion is that most people don't care about narrow spacing and run wide cassettes.

base2 

Ok. Then it was just some weird dude. I'll take that. I had never heard of a mountainbike with road gears before, so I modified & made one to suit my uses of climbing Oahu's hills, the nimbleness to draft/dodge busses, garbage trucks etc, & flat land speed to keep up at or near the speed limit.

(No, I did not ride very smart back then.)

NumbersGuy

I'm not sure I'd agree with that statement. I know it seems popular here on bf to misunderstand and misrepresent what gravel bikes are, but they really have nothing to do with a high-end hybrid.

Hybrid bikes, regardless of price point, are generally flat bar, have an upright riding position, and area geared/tired for road/path riding. Gravel bikes are generally drop bar, a lower, more aggressive riding position, and especially the last few years have moved to sub-compact gearing and wider, more aggressive tires for rougher terrain.

The two types can converge toward each other, but I would definitely not say that the term gravel bike is being used for many (and certainly not most) high-end hybrids.