Anyone miss a triple?

[Bearbonesnorm]

When i was out the other day I got to thinking how I used to like cruising along those flatish bits in big ring. I can't help thinking that although the overall gear may be similar, pedalling in the big ring used to feel smoother, less 'stabby' and somehow more 'circular' ... hard to explain but I'm sure that overall it felt nicer.

Anyone else or just me? If it wasn't for the fact that triples seem (a) scarce and (b )quite expensive, I could be tempted back.

[fatbikephil]

Like a hole in the head. I remember agreeing with my LBS proprietor that an 'Exage' triple would make a good weapon (it weighed about 2kg) and those early XT chainsets did look the thing back in 1988. But after years of mashing front changes, always being in the wrong ring, dropping the chain off the inner just as you hit a climb and stopping dead, dumping the chain over the big ring and jamming it into the crank arm, bending the big ring on a rock, clogging the back wheel with mud, 'chainsuck' (remember that?!) plus the extra weight; going to a single ring up front was a total revelation. Less is most definitely more.

Your right that bigger rings / sprockets will be smoother and more efficient as there is less bending of the chain and therefore friction but add mud into the equation and I suspect the difference will be marginal. I guess that I'm not really pedaling hard in the taller gears so I don't really notice any major disadvantage of turning two diddy sprockets and I've always favoured the lowered end of the gearing spectrum so only use 26 or 28t chainrings....

Singlespeed? (ducks....)

[lune ranger]

I think I remember reading there is some advantage or other from pushing a gear with a larger chainring compared to the same ratio achieved with a smaller ring.
I may of course be making that up.
I agree with you though , the feeling is quite satisfying. My gravel type bike has a double and I do like being in the big ring.
Isn’t the drive to single ring set ups about frame design constraints (in MTB) and fashion rather than to do with advantages from a gearing perspective.

[lune ranger]

I remember agreeing with my LBS proprietor that an 'Exage' triple would make a good weapon (it weighed about 2kg)

Aren’t you just swapping it for a 2kg cassette instead, either that or a cassette that costs £300

[Bearbonesnorm]

But after years of mashing front changes, always being in the wrong ring, dropping the chain off the inner just as you hit a climb and stopping dead, dumping the chain over the big ring and jamming it into the crank arm, bending the big ring on a rock, clogging the back wheel with mud, 'chainsuck' (remember that?!)

It's weird because lots of people mention similar things when the subject's brought up but I never really remember them as much trouble. Maybe I've a lot of mechanical sympathy

Isn’t the drive to single ring set ups about frame design constraints (in MTB) and fashion rather than to do with advantages from a gearing perspective.

I imagine so Luke. I always found it somewhat ironic that the industry 'took away' peoples gear range, then began looking for ways to give it back.

[lune ranger]

Isn’t the drive to single ring set ups about frame design constraints (in MTB) and fashion rather than to do with advantages from a gearing perspective.

I imagine so Luke. I always found it somewhat ironic that the industry 'took away' peoples gear range, then began looking for ways to give it back.

Like gravel bikes took away XC MTB’s and are gradually giving them back

[Bearbonesnorm]

Like gravel bikes took away XC MTB’s and are gradually giving them back

Exactly that ... I'm sure peoples 'ultimate gravel bike' will turn out to be a 1988 Stump Jumper.

[ScotRoutes]

I didn't "dump" the triple on my #gradventurer until I could replace it with a 2x system that had equivalent range. I can't say that I've noticed any difference in pedalling smoothness dropping from a 52 to a 50 outer ring.

[ScotRoutes]

But after years of mashing front changes, always being in the wrong ring, dropping the chain off the inner just as you hit a climb and stopping dead, dumping the chain over the big ring and jamming it into the crank arm, bending the big ring on a rock, clogging the back wheel with mud, 'chainsuck' (remember that?!)

It's weird because lots of people mention similar things when the subject's brought up but I never really remember them as much trouble. Maybe I've a lot of mechanical sympathy

Yeah- I don't recognise that list of faults either. I do think some folk just don't have the ability to co-ordinate two hands and two levers.

[HUX]

Still got a 9spd triple here on my 29er. Only had 1 front mech mishap in 30 years and I can always find just the right gear.

[whitestone]

Nope.

[woodsmith]

I run a triple on my road bikes ( Rohloff on the mtb) which is terribly unfashionable. But a compact chainset is a triple with the most usefull ring thrown away. I spend about 90% of the time in the 39T middle ring. The 30T granny ring is reserved for serious hills and the 50/52 for downhills, tail winds or days when I'm feeling fit. There does seem to be a bit of a mental block among cyclists to using the front derailleur, witness the number of riders I've seen riding along cross chained, sapping lots of watts, on their compacts " because thats what the pro's use".

[voodoo_simon]

I hated the damn things for singletrack use in forests etc, so much so, I ditched them for singlespeeds many years ago. It was only when 1x system came in, that I returned to gears on some bikes

[ton]

no. i thought i would, but a 22/32 set up is ideal for me with a 12/36 cassette.
but both my bikes are on single chainrings. obviously on the rohloff and the fatty has a 28 front with a ?/51 on the back.

[RIP]

Me neither. Don't miss them because they never went away.

[fatbikephil]

But after years of mashing front changes, always being in the wrong ring, dropping the chain off the inner just as you hit a climb and stopping dead, dumping the chain over the big ring and jamming it into the crank arm, bending the big ring on a rock, clogging the back wheel with mud, 'chainsuck' (remember that?!)

It's weird because lots of people mention similar things when the subject's brought up but I never really remember them as much trouble. Maybe I've a lot of mechanical sympathy

Yeah- I don't recognise that list of faults either. I do think some folk just don't have the ability to co-ordinate two hands and two levers.

I did. You must only ride in the dry, guys; and have almost prescient anticipation of the trail ahead. I'm not particularly hamfisted and I became adept at setting up front mechs to perfection but I experienced some of all of the above on most rides. You got used to it as there was no choice but my first 1x was the Ice cream truck and it was a revelation. I used a 1 up sprok and mech converter back then but sunrace cassettes and superstar rings make it a very cheap undertaking and I was losing rings off the other bikes within a few months. That said I don't get 13 sprockets as a 6 speed 11-46 would do me but thats 'cos I'm not a racer.....

Why would you want more weight, more complexity, more stuff to break, more stuff to replace?

[FLV]

Nope from me too. Nor do I miss doubles. Nor front mechs in general.

I dont like the way front mechs work, never did. They're just a bit crap.

For me, front mechs and multi ring chainsets are superceded by larger range cassettes. Old hat for anything but road racing (again, for me)

[BigdummySteve]

I don’t miss them in the slightest, 500% gear range and oval front ring feels fine.
I think it depends on fitting 1x systems to the right bike, if I had a gravel bike it would be 2x, on the Fargo 1x with a 10-50 and electronic shifting is as close to perfect as I need.

[Loki]

I miss them, I used to love the 3x10 set up on my old Surly Troll, 22/32/42 on the front and an 11-36 out back, I could get up everything and never had any issues at all, I tried 2x but never felt comfortable with it for some reason, I am just living with 1x11 until sense is seen and triples are restored.

[jameso]

I don't miss triples much but the lack of choice in doubles for MTB and gravel bikes seems crazy. Still. Doubles are great if you set them up for riding in the large ring most of the time and use the inner more for climbs, loaded riding etc. Either/or up front and a reasonable range at the back works so well.

I'd be tempted with a triple on a proper touring bike but even then I think a double's enough. Rarely if ever need more than a 42 outer on anything bar my 700C road bikes. Would depend on what wheels were on the tourer.

On a 24-28 and 38-42 sort of double I very rarely make a shift at the front that needs compensation shifts at the back, in fact dropping off the 40 onto the 28 is a good alternative to 4 or 5 lower shifts at the rear. I suppose what bugs me is the industry take that 1X is a better system - yes for hard-riding MTBs that need the retention. For other bikes it's not, it's just a good option but one that's detracted from the development or viability of good doubles. Shimano side-swing mechs are incredibly good and the cable routing is excellent. What I'd do for a purpose-made side-swing and 26-42 chainset combo, 50mm chainline. Side-swing FD with a bar-end shifter, the perfect stick shift front box.

[PaulB2]

Not really, no but that's got a lot to do with each time I've moved from a triple to a double I've been upgrading from a 10+ year old bike with a lower level drivetrain. On the road bike I really don't miss the triple losing the big ring or more importantly the little ring at the wrong moment - on one climb it lost the little ring at the bottom and the big ring at the top. My current commuter bike is a triple but the commute is short enough that it's really just an overengineered singlespeed - that and I've not been in the office in coming up to two years now.

[Kumquat]

Maybe miss them a bit yeah.
My retro bike still runs an LX triple.
Although, all those years ago I nearly always used to ditch the outer chainring. Better ground clearance of somefing.
These days the bike I ride the most, runs a 46/31
which I like a lot.
So um, no not unless it's a proper 26" mtb set up for hauling gear/shopping.

[Alpinum]

Nope. Don't miss a triple nor a douple for all the types of riding I do.
1 x 12 or 1 x 1 KISS.