nslckevin

What would the lowest and highest gear combinations on a triple be? With SRAM Force AXS group you can get a 10-36 cassette and a 33x46 crank set. You can even get a 30x43 crank set made for gravel bikes. It’s got a slightly wider Q factor than a double, though perhaps so does a triple?

So you got options for a 33x36 low gear matched with a 46x10 top gear or a 30x36 with a 43x10 top gear.

I’d be curious to hear how that compares to the range of a triple. You might get less gear duplication with a double vs. a triple.

Maelochs

Don't make empty threats. Report me, if you think you have a case. Otherwise, take it lightly. If you think all this sis serious .... Wow. Really? Then you sdhould have nop difficulty understanding that 1x has valid applications. I assumed you did, in the post you tried to threaten me over .... and thank you for agreeing with me.

Actually, again, you know better. 1x is taking of in gravel biking because fo teh nature of the sport---it is more about adapting to a variety of road conditions over the length of a ride than holding a specific position and being as as efficient as possible. Different tools for different jobs. It has NOT caught on in road biking .... apparently people are biting. but oh .... you actualy say that down below, undercutting your own argument .... good lack of logic there.

Yup. 1x was not introduced so much as to be "The Next Big Thing," but to suit the actual riding situations of a certain anumber of specialized riders.

This is why 1x has already taken over most MTB lines---people who actually ride off-road realized that they didn't need 24 closely-space gears, but needed fast shifts over a very wide range of gears--and rear shifts are faster. Further a lot of MTB riders found that they spent most of the ride in the middle gear, only very occasionally dropping way down or going way up ... so 1X made a lot of sense.

Your whole premise here is nonsense, and You Know it. You know enough about cycling, after 60 or 70 years of riding, that you understand why everything you are posting here is nonsense. You Knwo Better.

You know--and admit---that 1x is not the "Next Big Thing" after you claim it is. You say it is pointless when you Know, from years of riding, that in certain situations i tis very useful.

You also understand why for Most Road Riders, a good 2x system is more efficient and more effective than a triple.

You just come here because you are lonely, and maybe need some Metamucil.

I will tell you this--I have always teased you but respected you. Don't start trying to intimidate me with pretended threats. You can say what you ant about what I post, but don't try to escalate beyond a friendly discussion. You don't have many friends here, ... maybe I am the only person here who takes you seriously, respects you for the cycling life you have lived, and knows that you are not serious about these posts ... you are just doing you "get off my lawn" act.

If I am wrong to feel this way ... cool. I can adapt. You decide.

rsrogers

I have several 3x bikes in my family (I also have several 2x bikes - gravel and road). Where the triple excels is in road touring/bikepacking. Extra low gearing with small to modest jumps is needed for long, loaded rides, with wind and hills. 26/36/48 in the front and 11-36 in the back gives me 18.7 gear inches on the low end and 113 GI on the high side - all with very manageable jumps between gears to keep a good cadence and energy conserving power requirements. I generally stay in the middle for most road conditions and can find a comfortable gear for my cadence. Drop the chain on the 26 ring up front for long steep uphill grades to find 3 unique, energy conserving gears below those possible on the 36 middle chainring. Same sort of thing on the high side for couple of unique gears for the 48 big ring for downhill stretches or with a nice tailwind. With my road cadence between 75 and 85 rpms and 10 cogs on the back it effectively turns into a range of 15 unique, non-overlapping gears with this 3X. I've never had any issues to speak of with 3x front derailleurs.

3x's have a place and probably aren't going anywhere as long as people get into road touring/bikepacking.

kingston 

Here's a comparison to what I have on my touring bike. For touring I'll take my 9-speed triple over that 12-speed double 10 times out of 10.
Source: https://www.gear-calculator.com/

PeteHski

There is always an overlap in gear ratios between chainrings on a 2x or 3x. There is no difference in torque between the same ratio on the granny ring vs middle ring. It’s only the gear ratio that defines the torque. So for example a 40T:20T would give the same torque as a 30T:15T. In other words they would both produce the same road speed at the same cadence. You only get more torque from the granny ring when the overall ratio is lower, as it would be in the larger rear sprockets.

PaulRivers

My opinion is similar to the OP's.

Triples are great, I can sit in the middle front rung for 80%-99% of the ride depending on terrain.

1x sounds pretty cool. I haven't been willing to fork the money out for it but not shifting the front at all sounds great.

2x is just awkward. I have a bike with it, you have to shift the front ring a lot more than you do with 3x. I think it was done because racers wanted to drop a few grams and marketing wanted to change for the sake of change that makes some feel they need to buy buy new bikes. It's not better unless a few grams makes a big difference for you.

tomato coupe

Why is it that so many people on this forum can't understand that others can have different gear requirements and / or preferences, and they're not mindless rubes that are victims of marketing?

kingston 

2x is fine if you are strong enough to push the big ring 90% of the time. I can't manage with a 50t but have found that I'm ok with 46t..

PeteHski

Your triple appears to have 14 gears with the overlap, while your double has 15-16 gears. So I’m not really seeing a fundamental advantage of a triple when comparing 3x9 vs 2x12.

PeteHski

There was never a change from 3x to 2x on road racing bikes. With only a few exceptions they were always 2x in my lifetime. So there was no marketing involved there. They basically went from 2x5 in the 70s through to 2x12 today. Triples were the domain of Tourers and MTBs until most people realised they didn’t need them anymore due to ever wider range 11,12 and now 13 speed cassettes.

kingston 

I don't understand your point. What does # of gears with overlap have to do with anything?

Ianohian

I guess what I mean is that a using the granny gear gives better leverage, like a 40t x 20t is the same as 38t x 22t, but the 38 x 22 will feel like a lower gear.

genejockey 

I'm not sure how that makes the slightest bit of sense.

kingston 

makes perfect sense to me.

genejockey 

But even in the example you posted, your big ring only has maybe 4 gears that aren't also covered by your small ring. So, why would you need to stay in the big ring 90% of the time? Based on what the gears unique to the big ring are, you could probably stay in the SMALL RING 90% of the time.

genejockey 

It IS a lower gear. 40/20 = 2, whereas 38/22 = 1.72.

tomato coupe

The 2x12 setup actually gives you more non-redundant gear choices than the 3x9 setup.

PaulRivers

Shimano Dura-ace came in a triple until they went from 10 to 11 speed, which was...5 years ago? Fairly recently.

Either way it agrees with what I'm saying about the double being about shaving a few grams. Probably should have mentioned fashion as well.

kingston 

my touring gearing example and my comment about 2x are unrelated. On a road 2x I like to run a narrow cassette and only drop to the small ring for big hills. With a compact chainring and a narrow cassette I'm cross-chained all the time and constantly front-shifting so it doesn't work for me at all. I can stay in the big ring on a sub-compact so it works fine. If I were stronger I could use bigger chainrings, but I'm not so I need lower gearing. I'd much rather have low gears I don't use than high gears I don't need.

kingston 

The only things that matter are range and spacing. I couldn't care less about the number of gears that overlap across the rings. It's like saying 3 is bigger than 2.

tomato coupe

The 3x9 setup has a slight range advantage over the 2x12 setup, giving you 2 extra gears at the bottom, and 1 less gear at the top. But, the average step size of the 3x9 setup is 15%, whereas the average step size of the 2x12 setup is 12%, giving the spacing advantage to the 2x12.

3 is bigger than 2.

kingston 

yeah I looked at it again and I still don't see where you are getting that. I count around 20 gear steps I can use on the triple and only about 13 on the double and 3 of those are gears I would never use, so fine if it works for you or anyone else. It wouldn't work for me as well as the 3x9. Again this is for a touring rig, and I could buy this setup today so I'm not whining about big-bike or whatever. Just trying to help explain why someone might possibly prefer a triple sometimes.

PaulRivers

You can replace the front rings with whatever size you want. "stronger" isn't a factor.

What I can't do is get the same gear range in the middle ring on a double that I could on a triple, without losing gears I'd like to have either at the top or the bottom. Definitely seems like I spend more time shifting with the double whereas I barely have to shift the front ring on the triple.

WinterCommuter

there are lots of things that were once good ideas that are now parts bin collections:

triple cranksets
Down tube shifters
long reach, deep drop handle bars
toe clips

i have a box full of each. That certainly doesn’t make them bad, just antiquated.

Rear derailleurs shift better than front derailleurs, particularly under load. No front derailleur simply means better/faster/more consistent shifting. No front derailleur also means one less cable/shifter/derailleur to break, replace, and adjust. That said, eliminating both derailleurs is too restrictive for me most of my riding.

i’ve “upgraded” one old school 3x8 mtn bike to 1x10. After 7 years, it still shifts flawlessly. Note, i did the “upgrade” because i didn’t like how slowly and inaccurately the 3x8 version worked. For me, finding a “good enough” gear very quickly (on 1x10) is much more important than finding a perfect gear very slowly (on 3x8).

None of this says triples are bad, just not what i find relaxing and joyful.

nslckevin

Also, “back in the day” (mid to late 80’s) women in the Tour de France used triples. Inga Thompson and Maria Canines for sure used triples. I remember racing against Inga in the Men’s P/1/2 race in Diamond Valley (near Lake Tahoe) when she had a triple on her bike. For the exact reason you mentioned. The standard low gearing for racing at the time was too big for them.

But as you mentioned, other than that it was mostly loaded touring riders who used triples. When compact cranks and slightly lower rear gearing (28 tooth cogs) came out, that killed most of the market for non-touring triples.