Why no more road triples?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Ron-da-Valli

It's a bleedin' miracle!
Location
Rorke's Drift
I have always had triples on my touring bikes. I was recently looking for a new "roadbike" and despaired at the insistence on compacts until I saw the Cube Peloton. It has a triple and is a competitively priced bike. I bought last years model for about £460. Great bike.
 

TheJDog

dingo's kidneys
Why have road bikes with 3 chainrings become so much less common? Everything is a 10 or 11 speed double. Im not a fan of 11 speeds due to the potential for wider chain angles aswell as having a narrower chain to begin with. But even with wider range cassettes, triples offer so much more range. The weight of an extra cog is negligible.

when you went to 10-speed (or 9, or 8) did you worry about the wider angles and narrower chains over their predecessors?
 

rebelpeter

Well-Known Member
Yes i have just bought a 2016 model Cannondale and it has just two front cogs and 11 back ones seems rather daft to me perhaps its for cheapness for the manufacturer theres usually cheapness in mind when they change something...
 
OP
OP
U

User16625

Guest
when you went to 10-speed (or 9, or 8) did you worry about the wider angles and narrower chains over their predecessors?

TBH I cant even remember the last bike I had that was less than 9 speed. With that said the issues mentioned probably arent major ones. I personally think 9 or 10 is about ideal, particularly if you have another 3 cogs up front. I do get on well with my 50/34 speed Scott CR1, but I dont commute on that with a rucksack full of stuff which is when a smaller front ring can prove handy on the climbs.
 

DiddlyDodds

Random Resident
Location
Littleborough
Both my Scott road bikes are triples, i tried a compact and always up and down the big and small ring , but with the 39 middle front on the triple its does most riding without having to change.
 

Smokin Joe

Legendary Member
I hope this isn't going to turn into a bunfight.
 
Apparently 52/36 'semi-compact' is the new 50/34 compact set to take over the cycling world... http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/is-it-the-end-for-the-34t-chainring-171057

At the end of the day bike manufactures have to sell stuff to make a living and continually reinventing/fettling with their products and selling as a 'new' idea is one way to make sure we keep on giving money to them.

I cycle with a 50/34 and 10 speed 12-25 cassette and rarely have any problems needing more gears. Spin a fairly high cadence but can still set off with the cassette on the 2nd cog. Rarely use the small ring on the flat/gently uphill unless I am definitely going up and yet to meet a hill which I can't get by up in the small ring/25 tooth cog. If I was planning to cycle up a mountain then I would probably need to change the cassette but for everyday riding I can't see what advantage a triple would give other than maybe slightly smaller gaps between gears (but then I would have to change up/down a ring more often which I prefer not to have to do).
 

Dec66

A gentlemanly pootler, these days
Location
West Wickham
I've got a triple (B'Twin Triban 500SE); 50/39/30 up front, 8-speed 12/25 at the back.

On the flat it never goes off the big ring.

I'm toying with the idea of swapping the cassette for an 11-28, and if there's any big changes in cadence required between gears, well, that's what the middle one's for, isn't it?

Actually, my Mongoose Crossway's a triple as well (48/38/28 front, 8-speed 11-32T rear). Don't think I've ever used the granny ring on it.
 

TheDoctor

Europe Endless
Moderator
Location
The TerrorVortex
I've never really needed a higher gear, but I've often wanted a lower one.
But a compact with a wide cassette gets pretty low and is easier to set up than a triple. You're right about forever swapping from the big ring to the little one and back though...
 
Top Bottom