tomato coupe

Start at the top and work your way down the gears:

For 3x9: 14 gears in sequence
46 x 12 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 24 (then shift to middle ring and back one gear on the cassette)
36 x 21 , 24 , 28 , 32 (then shift to small ring and back 2 gears on the cassette)
26 x 24 , 28 , 32 , 36

For 2x12: 15 gears in sequence
43 x 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 28 (then shift to small ring and back 2 gears on the cassette)
30 x 21 , 24 , 28 , 32 , 36

The unused gears don't offer gear ratios that are significantly different than those in the sequence, and you'd have to double shift to get to them.

On edit:
The last triple setup I had was a 52/39/26 with a 10 Spd 12-23 cassette. It had an average step size of only 7%, and 21 non-redundant gears. It was very nice with one big exception -- you had to shift back 4 to 6 gears on the cassette when you shifted to a different chain ring. Ugh.

nslckevin

When SRAM came out with 12 speed I was not a big fan of the 10 tooth cog. I get what they are doing, but I’ve always been a big fan of the 16 tooth cog. I can’t tell you how many races I’ve been in when the 17 was too small and the 15 too big but I had to make that choice to get the climbing gear I needed. I thought 12 speed was the perfect opportunity to take the existing 11x28 and 11x30 cassettes and stick a 16 in there to basically solve all of life’s problems!

One other thing that I think would make the 2x more of a fit for you is the EXPLR setup they have. Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure it’s 1x specific. But it has a longer cage rear derailleur and an 10x40 cassette. If they made it an 11x40 and you could make it work with a front derailleur it might fit the bill. Sure, that is a lot of if’s and’s or but’s, but it feels like they are so close. If somebody REALLY wanted to tour properly on 2x you could get a custom 11-40 cassette and make the rear derailleur work I’ll bet. But I also bet that it wouldn’t have the capacity so you’d have to be very careful about crossing over big-big.

Anyway, blah, blah, blah. Every use case has it’s specific needs, but it seems like they could make a 2x setup that might fit your bill if they wanted to. But I’m guessing that they don’t feel there is a market to sell it to anyway. Also, I can imagine that needing to recharge derailleur batteries on a long back country tour could be problematic. Oh, and the group will run you $2k…

Gonzo Bob

So let's eliminate that as a choice for everyone.

Gonzo Bob

Are you serious? My 3x6 gives wider range *and* tighter spacing than a 1x12.

tomato coupe

Note the bold.

Gonzo Bob

Yeah, I saw that after I posted. Since the thread is primarily about 1x, I thought the post I replied to was, too.

AlanO

What?

Gonzo Bob

I don't understand this argument. I run 2x6 on my old roadie - 53x42 with the freewheel chosen depending on terrain (13-19 to 13-30). I probably ride the 42t chainring around 80% of the time. Why? Because I space my 6-speed freewheel with small jumps at the small end and larger jumps as the cogs get bigger. I could ride the big ring more than I do, but most of the time it would be on the bigger end of the freewheel where the jumps are bigger. Sure, I double shift, but only when it really matters (the effort is extremely high). So why do I keep the 53t ring? Well, it's needed in group rides where some hammerheads show up, and I need it when I'm riding solo with a big tailwind.

Gonzo Bob

Did you not read the original post? The question it posed was "Why get rid of the triple?" Just because you don't need one is not a valid reason to get rid of them.

Gonzo Bob

OMG! Me, too! But a single cog without chainring and wheel size info isn't specific enough . But I assume you mean a 52 or 53 big ring with 700C wheels. I raced triathlons in the mid 1980's with 700C wheels and a 53x42 chainset, and initially a 13-24 6sp freewheel. After a couple of years I changed to a 13-21 6sp freewheel. In 1990, I built a set of super lightweight semi-aero wheels and decided to go with a 13-18 straight block for the freewheel which was the first time I had a 16t cog. Damn, that 53/16 was sweet!

SpeedyBlueBiker

One of my road bikes has a triple, 52/42/30 with a 9spd rear cassette ranging from 12-28. Granted, I don't ride it that often anymore as I prefer my other road bikes that have a 52/36 and 11spd 11-32 and 52/36 11spd with 12/28 cassettes. The triple affords me the ability to climb very steep hills if needed. I don't worry about gear ratios or inches, I just ride the bike!

PeteHski

Nevermind

PeteHski

wtf?!

PeteHski

I was saying that 99% of road race bikes sold in the last 30 years would have come with a 2x drivetrain. 3x on road race bikes has always been a niche market since I've been on this planet. Of course 3x was popular on Touring bikes and still is to a lesser extent.

Talking of fashion, that's about the only thing that could bring back 3x drivetrains for road racing. But it isn't going to happen for obvious reasons.

GhostRider62

Are you implying that 99% of bikes did not sell with a triple? Road racing bikes are a minority, they were not 99% of sales. The three bikes I bought for my wife over the years all had triples, for instance. It is more likely that the triple was killed to juice the boom of the e-Bike market.

What you fail to understand is the lack of choice for a market that isn't as small as you make it out to be.

PeteHski

No, I'm not saying that. Read what I wrote.

I think the triple was actually killed by 11,12 and now 13 speed wide range cassettes and faster shifting.

PeteHski

Earlier you had to resort to Trikes and Velomobiles to make that point. Plus some imaginary touring cyclist who really needs ridiculously wide gearing. The mainstream market for triples is shrinking by the second. That's the main reason they are largely dead in the water. But I was never even arguing about the use of triples for those who prefer them for whatever reason. I was just arguing that the 1x gearing slated in the opening post actually makes sense for a lot of people.

Maelochs

Nope, you are flat wrong. Please read this actual, factual account:
Triples were a new thing, when people started using bikes for more than either commuting/fun/utility cruising or racing/fast riding.

Shimano offered triples until some number of years ago, but they were not Replaced by doubles. Doubles were always the norm and the bulk of sales. Triples were phased out because of low demand, because people coudl get almost the same gear range with doubles, and most people didn't need touring gearing. People who Did need touring gearing went with Deore or some other MTB group. most of the people buying the high-end groups were racers or wannabes, and for them, 52-42 or later, 53-39, and 11x23 was just fine .... and more casual road riders could get a wider-spaced cassette with lower gears.

Once doubles hit about 18 ratios, most riders simply didn't need triples for regular use. As has been noted, triples were great when most bikes had ten or twelve ratios--a triple allowed 18, which meant all the top and more bottom and still reasonable steps in between. Now with 2x11 or 2x12 a rider has almost the same range, little overlap, and about as many useable gears with a double or a triple .... unless it is a special-needs rider, for instance a loaded tourer.

Two rings though, have been the Norm and the Standard since the early '60s. Triples came later and were always niche products.

Sorry for the facts.

Maelochs

Again ..... for MOST road riders a double offers all they need.

You are a special-needs rider who is trying to explain why something not geared for your needs doesn't work for you, and the other guy is trying to explain why for anyone but a special-needs rider, certain stuff meets their needs. You are debating in agreement.

Maelochs

Please, everbody, read this over until you unsderstand.

A Triple offers a few extra ratios--usually lower---but Also allows for tight spacing in the middle.

Riding isn't about ratios only---we all ride so we all know this. Front derailleurs are harder to shift under load, so most folks like being able to get in a lower ring to go up a hill---but particularly if you are loaded, so efficiency Really means something, having a handful of closely-spaced gears on the low ring, and a Low low, really matters. While cruising, most people want small steps again for efficiency. And when you want to push hard, to get crazy on a downhill of just for the fun of it, you want that tall gear. A triple gives all that.

Overlap is Not an issue---in fact I Like having and knowing where the similar ratios are so I can shift rings ahead of a terrain feature and not have to change my cadence. (Three up in back and down in front is usually a tiny step down on most of my doubles, for instance, and two down in back and up in front is also a slight step---so if I am approaching a hill, I got 3 up and 1 down and get into the top of the small ring at the bottom of the hill, and have ten steps down in back for climbing, and if I approach a corner slowly and then want to power out and stay in the big ring I go two down 1 up and am low on the big ring for smooth steady acceleration.)

On my touring triple it is the same deal .... I pick the ring which suits the terrain and then use double shifts when needed to get into a different ring in approximately the same gear. Duplicate ratios can be a drawback or a feature, it depends on the rider.

A triple can still give a wider range And close spacing .... there is no way to argue against that rationally. Most road riders simply do not need a 28- or 26-tooth ring, but those that do, .... or those that have open minds and can think---realize that some riders need triples for some rides.

If you have not ridden up and down steep hills all day with 80 pounds of gear, you might not understand ..... but I think we all Can understand If We Want To ......

But maybe I am wrong .... about everything.

GhostRider62

Triples were never used on racing bikes. 99% statement and saying triples will never come back to racing bikes is a specious argument.

Women, old men, touring cyclists, trikes, recumbents, and velomobile riders could take advantage of a sub 20 inch gear on steep hills

Again, Shimano makes high quality triple cranksets. They are sold for instance in Germany like at Bike24. Try to buy and ship to the USA. Shimano will not allow it. This is not the market making the decision, it is Marketing forcing choices upon us.

I am not sure what faster shifting has to do with anything. Some would dispute whether electronic shifting is actually faster. I did not see 11s etap as especially fast. I understand 12s AXS is faster but I have not installed mine yet, need the chain and cassette to complete the group.

GhostRider62

1. There never was a mainstream market for triples but there was a loyal, albeit small market for them

2. 1X only makes sense for gravel and Mtb

3. 1X tooth jumps is too high for road use and the gaps are annoying and it only solves the problem of cyclists too lazy to learn to shift.

livedarklions

TBH, all you have to do is change the size of the chain rings on the double, and you can get the same range.

PeteHski

No argument with this. But I think the need for both super-low and super-high gearing simultaneously is actually a rare requirement. I expect a modern 2x11 or 2x12 would suit most guys looking for a Touring setup eg. Shimano GRX. The only small sacrifice is a bit of top end gearing that most people would never use anyway. 2x12 gives you a lot of gears to play with over a pretty wide range. 3x12 gives you even more of course, but who really needs that much resolution? People on this thread lamenting the passing of 3x drivetrains are mostly talking about older 3x9 setups, where a triple still made some sense over a 2x9.

livedarklions

Again, in the US, triples on a hybrid were very common, and for the most part that seemed to be a marketing gimmick to list 21 gears instead of 14.