Why don't Pros use triples?

[Smokin Joe]

No current front mech would cope with a 70t outer ring and a 34t inner. Besides, they can go as fast as they dare go by simply getting into an aero tuck.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Maybe it's because you would need a longer cage on the rear mech to take up the slack when you use the smallest chainring.

Or a clutch RD

 

[HLaB]

I would have thought its just an extra complexity and something extra to go wrong.

 

[classic33]

I would have thought its just an extra complexity and something extra to go wrong.

Which is more complex, an 11-12 speed on the rear, with derailleur to suit, or a front derailleur that can manage a triple?

 

[HLaB]

Which is more complex, an 11-12 speed on the rear, with derailleur to suit, or a front derailleur that can manage a triple?

I thinking of a front deraileur and levers that needs to move to at least three positions (more if there trimming) v a deraileur/ lever that has to move to at least two positions. Also there's more chance of chain drop moving across 3 rings as oppose to 2. 3 is more complex than 2 in my opinion and probably the opinion of the pro's too hence why we don't see them :-)

 

[ColinJ]

Anyway, if I could ride like a pro then I'd love to have a 70 tooth outer ring - just think how cool you'd look going down the hill at 50mph grinding away while overtaking the guy spinning out...

Not very - I have hit 55 mph on some of the local descents while freewheeling!

 

[Edwardoka]

If anything they're going the other way with the advent of 1by gearing - which sounds like an excellent way to fall off when the chain gets thrown instead of just calmly shifting the front in whichever direction is necessary to get it back on.

It was an expensive nightmare to switch my gravel bike to triple for touring because the integrated shifters didn't have the pull between "clicks" to manage the full width. Ended up with a mix of mountain bike components controlled by a bar end shifter, all because of road bike tech going out of fashion for no discernable reason.

 

[mjr]

An 11sp double is pretty much equivalent to a 7 or 8sp triple anyway.

Only in range, shirley? An 11sp cassette is near 40mm wide instead of 7sp 32mm, so the chain gets more twisted which is less efficient in the edgier gears and the rear wheel is more dished which is weaker.

Chains and sprockets are also thinner but that's not really a concern for sponsored pros who replace stuff long before it wears out.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Chains and sprockets are also thinner but that's not really a concern for sponsored pros who replace stuff long before it wears out.

Don't you believe it. That may be true for the guys at the very top such as Chris Froome or Peter Sagan, but pro teams have budgets to stick to and most riders get equipment replaced only when it has to be. And in the lower division teams that sometimes means having to beg for a new chain or buying your own.

 

[KneesUp]

I'm thinking of a team like Sky. Marginal gains and all that. When there is a long descent, there is time to be won because it's all aero, gravity and taking the right line - but they all have to brake for some of the corners, and at a good descending speed, none of them have a high enough gear to use their legs to accelerate - it just seemed to me that if they could add higher gearing for no weight penalty, there must be a reason why not.

I was expecting answers to do with rotating mass and aerodynamics rather than 'you can't buy them' or 'they don't need them' - a team like Sky could, I'm sure, persuade a manufacturer to make whatever they wanted, and of course they don't need them, but it seems to me there would be an advantage of having them, at least for some stages. On the subject of aerodynamics, a larger front chainwheel means you can you a cog nearer the wheel on the cassette, reducing the aero drag of the rear derallieur. Also, any drag from the extra chainwheel could be offset by some sort of carbon wind deflector / chain guard thing, unless UCI rules prevent that?

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Because the manufacturers don't want to advertise something they're wanting to get rid of.

 

[ColinJ]

If anything they're going the other way with the advent of 1by gearing - which sounds like an excellent way to fall off when the chain gets thrown instead of just calmly shifting the front in whichever direction is necessary to get it back on.

That is why Narrow-wide chainrings were invented!

It was an expensive nightmare to switch my gravel bike to triple for touring because the integrated shifters didn't have the pull between "clicks" to manage the full width. Ended up with a mix of mountain bike components controlled by a bar end shifter, all because of road bike tech going out of fashion for no discernable reason.

It was an inexpensive dream to switch my road bike to triple for Yorkshire and Lancashire's tough 20-25% climbs because my Campagnolo integrated front shifter not only has enough pull for the full range of movement for the triple rings, it also has multiple intermediate click points to allow trimming of the derailleur cage position to eliminate chain-rub.

 

[Edwardoka]

I'm thinking of a team like Sky. Marginal gains and all that. When there is a long descent, there is time to be won because it's all aero, gravity and taking the right line - but they all have to brake for some of the corners, and at a good descending speed, none of them have a high enough gear to use their legs to accelerate - it just seemed to me that if they could add higher gearing for no weight penalty, there must be a reason why not.

Thing is, unless you're a demon descender racing against a terrible descender (naming no CC Ecosse members), you won't gain a meaningful gap on a descent compared to what can be gained on a climb.
Additionally, as drag increases exponentially with velocity, above a certain speed you'd lose more time to drag by being in a position to turn the cranks than you would by freewheeling in that terrifying hunched-forward pose pros use when attacking on descents. As evidenced by @Scoosh and his chaise longue hitting close to 90km/h on Arran

 

[dantheman]

^ that's a good reason why not, but what about when a long descent turns into a long flat, or a shallow incline -- surely a larger chain ring would enable you to carry on the speed gained in the descent for further? At the top level every little counts..

 

[Lee_M]

I would have thought that someone would have tried it possibly but I can't see how they would need three rings and they are doing over 80kph already on descents (on a 53t big ring).

As a 50+ year old roadie who averages around 30kph+ on rides I've never seen the need for a triple so can't see how a pro would need one.

as a 56 year old roadie, I'd love to average 30kph, and sometimes I'd love a triple, 36/28 sometimes just isnt enough