What happened to 3 chainring setups

[Pentti]

Do these 1x systems need chain keepers at the front to prevent it jumping off?

Narrow Wide Chainrings do a good job of holding the chain in place, the teeth are alternate Narrow/Wide to fit between the chainlinks properly. Plus modern derailleurs have a clutch system keeping better tension on the chain

 

[matticus]

Narrow Wide Chainrings do a good job of holding the chain in place, the teeth are alternate Narrow/Wide to fit between the chainlinks properly. Plus modern derailleurs have a clutch system keeping better tension on the chain

Yeah, a narrow-wide ring completely solved my jumping problems, even with very antique derailleur.
(Quite fun, as I'd never needed to know about such beasties before, in <mumble> years of bike maintenance. Including BMXes! I also think the chainring wear has been remarkably low, considering the neglect this bike gets. Dunno if that's normal ...)

 

[wafter]

I don't do videos, they take ages to get the same amount of info across as a sentence or two, and make it impossible to refer back too.

What's the widest range CUES setup possible - gear inches range?

Abovementioned Sora triple gives 18-112 gear inches.

Not sure tbh as I was only half-paying attention since I have no intention of replacing my entire drivetrain.

I think the range was over 600%...

But surely front derailleurs account for a tiny %age of problems out on the trails?!?
Having a triple means the rear can be much simpler => more reliable**, less expensive.

But in terms of use, it's the wide gaps that most deter me. I even notice them on my (mostly flat-land) commuter - 1x8*, usually 11-32cassette.
Seems a bad trade-off for a bike with a smaller overall range than my triples :P

*Yes I know a 10sp would suffer less, but that's more cost, more cleaning, etc etc ... And my friction shifter would work much less well!!!
**If your rear shifter/der' croaks, you still have 3 gears with a triple!

Some good points, certainly.

However, as much of a fan as I am of triples in isolation (as attested to by my utterly infuriating, self-defeating efforts to successfully nail one to my stagnant new utility bike project), I'd not swap the 1x setup on my hard tail for anything else as IMO it suits the bike perfectly.

 

[Ian H]

Outside of this tiny group of islands is a world with many millions of gravel roads where that 'marketing term' is just common sense.

People have been riding on gravel trails for decades. They used 'bikes'. Before Gravel we had CX as a term for bikes that were never going to see a cyclocross competition. Before that they were Expedition or just Touring.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I can't really add anything useful as I've only ridden a bike with a triple once, for about 30 mins. But I won't let that stop me.

Throughout my cycling life I've always been on a quest for lower gears, and the industry has obliged by making sprockets bigger and chainrings smaller.

In my youth my bike had a double. I don't know why I never fitted a triple, I was always fiddling with the bike. Maybe I didn't realise it was possible. I just stuck with my bottom gear of 38/28 or whatever it was and accepted that life was hard and cycling especially so. Then I had a hiatus from cycling and when I came back compact doubles were all the rage and 32T sprockets were a thing.

But in all this time, I never thought "what I want is more gears". I always thought "what I want is lower gears". And I can do that now (my next chainset will be a subcompact).

So maybe that's a possible clue to their demise. Their USP is more gears, and that's not a big sell. Their other selling point is lower gears, but that's no longer unique.

Also - the pros don't ride triples. Ok they don't ride compacts either, but from a distance they look the same.

Edit: Another reason is possibly the rise of brifters. Having to design, manufacture and sell two variants of a complicated indexed shifter, one of which doesn't sell well, may have been a challenge that the manufacturers would prefer to avoid. Maybe once we're all electronical they'll make a comeback
.

 

[FishFright]

People have been riding on gravel trails for decades. They used 'bikes'. Before Gravel we had CX as a term for bikes that were never going to see a cyclocross competition. Before that they were Expedition or just Touring.

Then progress happened and now they have bikes designed for the job in hand

 

[Fastpedaller]

You’d like the “straight block” freewheel on my ‘77 Centurion touring bike.

12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 teeth.

how’s that for close ratio.
View attachment 790652

Can't get any closer, also, the jumps are closer together when using the inner ring!

 

[tinywheels]

It sounds like nearly everyone is happy with a single chainring, however I'm still dubious.
I'm trapped in a circle of indecisive behaviour.
Think l will go and lay down for a while.

 

[PaulSB]

It sounds like nearly everyone is happy with a single chainring, however I'm still dubious.
I'm trapped in a circle of indecisive behaviour.
Think l will go and lay down for a while.

Not everyone. I won't be getting one, I like to be able to use the small ring. Possibly it's just a confidence thing, it did take me a long time to move to a double.

 

[Webbo2]

So with one chainring how do you do that personal battle of I’m getting up this hill in the big ring even if it kills me. Everything is on the little ring.🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[ColinJ]

So with one chainring how do you do that personal battle of I’m getting up this hill in the big ring even if it kills me. Everything is on the little ring.🤷🏼‍♂️

Put it in 42/11 if you really want to hurt yourself!

When my 1x11's 42 tooth ring wears out I will probably replace it with a 40, or even a 38 if I can find one that fits. 40/11 or 38/11 would probably be high enough for me these days, and 40/42 or 38/42 would be nicer on 20+% climbs than 42/42.

 

[Webbo2]

Put it in 42/11 if you really want to hurt yourself!

When my 1x11's 42 tooth ring wears out I will probably replace it with a 40, or even a 38 if I can find one that fits. 40/11 or 38/11 would probably be high enough for me these days, and 40/42 or 38/42 would be nicer on 20+% climbs than 42/42.

Come on 42 is a little ring.

 

[ColinJ]

Come on 42 is a little ring.

Climbing in 42/11 is way more macho than climbing in (say) 50/21!

 

[presta]

When I first noticed that triples were going out of fashion I had a look for a groupset with a double that would do the same range as I have on my Deore 11-34, 22/32/44, and there weren't any.

 

[Ian H]

...Also - the pros don't ride triples. Ok they don't ride compacts either, but from a distance they look the same.
.

The triple gives you a nice double, the rings just nicely* spaced, no horrible drop, and an inner ring for those moments when you need the lower gear.

*in its old-fashioned meaning.