What happened to 3 chainring setups

[yello]

I wasn't aware that triples were going out of fashion. Should I be sourcing spares? I just kinda think, maybe wrongly, that I'd always be about to find a veloce 10sp cassette somewhere.

 

[ColinJ]

Even though I like my 1x11 Devon bike, I also like my Cannondale CAAD5 which I converted from a 53/39 double chainset to a much more hill-friendly 48/36/28 triple chainset.

I would quite like to replace the 28 with a 26 but my 10-speed Chorus groupset is already bodged to the max to get it to work with the triple crankset from Spa Cycles; I think a 26 would be a bodge too far!

 

[N0bodyOfTheGoat]

To have a bailout gear similar to my hybrid's triple 26/36 with 1x, I'd need something like a 36 or 38 ring with a 10/11-50 cassette... And then be slightly more compromised at the top end compared to the 48/11 on my gravel ebike when descending or in an amazing tailwind on a really good day!

 

[tinywheels]

the bike I'm looking at has a grx 11 speed.
They acknowledge it may be a challenge on steep climbs. WTF, is all gravel riding done on the flat. Considering the high cost of the bike I'm not over enthusiastic now. I could get a mondraker with a motor for less and never worry about a hill again. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

 

[Webbo2]

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

I think you might be taking this a bit more seriously than I intended. Wheres the tongue in cheek emoji when you need it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

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.

Sadly, those moments happen more often and are much longer than moments these days.

 

[rivers]

the bike I'm looking at has a grx 11 speed.
They acknowledge it may be a challenge on steep climbs. WTF, is all gravel riding done on the flat. Considering the high cost of the bike I'm not over enthusiastic now. I could get a mondraker with a motor for less and never worry about a hill again. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

There are hacks to get lower. Currently running an 11-51 and a 40t chainring (will swap to a 36 for bikepacking). Mix of different groupsets though (105, grx, and deore)

 

[oxoman]

Currently riding 1x12 with 10 to 44 cassette and 40t chainring. TBH when its fully loaded with bikepacking gear unless your built like Chris Hoy your walking on anything steep and offroad. Bits of the north York Moors where interesting at times

 

[ColinJ]

I think you might be taking this a bit more seriously than I intended. Wheres the tongue in cheek emoji when you need it.

Well, I did use the 'whistle' emoji to show that I wasn't taking it seriously...

 

[biggs682]

It's called progress so must be better.....not

 

[mustang1]

Real reason: free chainrings means things are cheaper.

Other reasons: gear ratio overlaps, looks cooler, a bit lighter, perhaps easier maintenance. But really, it was always about the cost to manufacture.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Real reason: free chainrings means things are cheaper.

Other reasons: gear ratio overlaps, looks cooler, a bit lighter, perhaps easier maintenance. But really, it was always about the cost to manufacture.

Did you mean to type "fewer"?

I suspect you're right, but it's not just the number of chainrings. The whole system can be simplified. There's also the complexity of having to design, manufacture and sell 2 and 3 speed variants of the same thing (shifter, chainset, BB maybe, possibly other bits). The wider variation of chain angle might have a knock-on effect on rear mech and cassette design too, possibly (I'm guessing). So that can be optimised for 2 rings.

 

[matticus]

The one pro team (that I'm aware of!) to use exculsively 1x failed. Admittedly there were also some financial shenanigans behind the scenes, but in hindsight everyone agreed the transmissions just weren't suited to Pro racing.
https://accidentalrandonneur.wordpr...d-1x-drivetrains-for-road-bikes-a-postmortem/

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Real reason: free chainrings means things are cheaper.

Other reasons: gear ratio overlaps, looks cooler, a bit lighter, perhaps easier maintenance. But really, it was always about the cost to manufacture.

I don't think this is cost driven. More that wider ratio cassettes with more sprockets make triples less attractive - if you can get the same range and sprocket spacing with a double, why wouldn't you? And that's possible with the range any reasonable day rider on road would like.

MTBs have simply had the top end of gears removed. My old '90s MTB had a triple with pretty high top gears. Modern MTBs just don't bother with those, and as the comments above suggest, it's a gap for "gravel" setups too.

The gap it leaves is for setups where you want a really large gear range, which doubles, at least as currently constituted, can't deliver.

Spa cover this gap in a similar way to my own setup with 9 speed Sora; the double options either require big cassette steps (11-40 9 speed) or low top gears (40 tooth), which is why a triple is attractive. "Gravel" groupsets just don't have low enough gears, unless the gravel isn't too steep IMO.

https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m1b0s225p4912/SPA-CYCLES-DTour-725-Disc-Tourer-9spd

 

[presta]

Assuming it were possible to design a derailleur to handle the bigger step, I could get the same range from just the large & small rings, without the middle one, and still not lose gears in the mid-range. The problem is that for normal everyday cycling, without steep ups & downs, I'd have to keep switching chainrings every verse end, instead of leaving it on the middle one most of the time. Just a needless PITA.