Are we seeing the death of the triple chainset?

I like a Westmalle Tripel or a Karmeliet Tripel.

Long live the triple!

I have three bikes currently in use; the B'Twin on my Trek trainer came with a triple but, from the point of view of my trainer I only use the big ring (so I could replace it with a single ring - but why bother?); the double on my B'Twin Mach CF and the triple on my Panorama DeLuxe World Tourer.

Interestingly, on some of my hillier training routes I'm faster on the Panorama than on the much lighter Mach CF because, as a big bloke, mass really starts to count against you when you get to over a 6% gradient and the touring bike gearing enables me to keep the cadence high.

Similarly, for load carrying, you cannot beat a triple, again because it gives you more flexible options for keeping the cadence high.

Last year I organized an 80 mile round trip from London to Southend (and back) and found a few really tough hills (in Essex!!!). I rode the route many times with friends. Interestingly, despite being the biggest cyclist (in respect of size and mass) I was almost always first up the big inclines because I could use the third ring on the triple and keep up the cadence whereas smaller riders on carbon bikes simply weren't geared for the hills because they were using 11-23 cassettes. A triple would certainly have helped them out. Eventually they would put a 12-36 cassette on, which helped but the gearing wasn't as well spaced as the gearing on my tourer.

We are not all speedy boys and girls and, for sure, we sexagenarians (and beyond), who have survived much of what life has yet to throw at the youngsters and who make up a vast cohort of dedicated cyclists may appreciate the benefits of the more flexible offering of the triple for some decades yet.

All that said, I love innovation and, pockets permitting, I'm always happy to try something new.

I'm one of those who just likes to ride a bike. Bought a new tourer a couple of years back,lost count of the times I was offered Audax, gravel and other bikes with the so-called compact-double where the gears were just too high, and (on paper) the jumps looked too big.

Triple - a la MTB or hybrid - is right foe me and I suspect a good many others - without having to go for thinner chains etc. that will probable wear out quicker for "normal" cyclists (mine is a 3 x 8 setup)

rock-on Spa Cycles!

I prefer a triple too. Again, being older it's what I'm familiar with so set-up and maintenance isn't an issue. I do have a double (53/39) on one road bike and have had various singlespeed/double/triple on MTBs.

The one I don't get though is the fashion for single ring on MTB coupled with a cassette sporting a dinner-plate sized cog. Some say it's for better ground clearance but the cranks don't get shorter with a single ring and the vulnerable rear derailleur needed for the dinner plate is practically dragging the ground when in the monster cog. On a downhill bike fair enough but the minute you couple it with that huge cog and associated dangly bits just to be able to ride uphill then the idea is flawed (i.m.o.).

I want a good Tripple. end of story.

Both my road bike have tripples so I have close  grears  for smoth riding. and then a granny gear for when the hills go stuppid.  you can't do that with a double or single. end of story.

I would love a elecronic tripple as it would manage the worst bit of the tripple by fine tweaks of the front derailer as you move at the back. Please some one make a good one (Shimano please).

The ability to mix and match is the best.  For commuting (my ride is quite flat) I am current using a 50/38 setup up front.  Given that I only seldom go over 50km/h on my commute, I could easily opt for a smaller big ring.  What would probably be ideal for my commute is something like a 46/38 or 46/39 setup, coupled with a 12-25 cassette.

I think one of the best advice I got was if you can't do it on a heavy gear, spin it. Installed a mountain triple on my road bike early '90's, paired it with a close ratio freewheel(then), now a cassette, tooth difference no more than 2, never looked back since then and still enjoying my triple.

this is seemingly a problem for manufacturers because they'd rather cut their production costs down and force the market to bend to their will rather than the market dictating what they want.

when you think how they ensure their new stuff is not backwards compatible or try to, it stinks big time.

Why was SRAM even asked to comment especially with respect to road triples, it's pretty clear what their position is.

40/42t sprockets, sure it'll get you up steep terrain but at a cost of massive jumps in between, no thanks, whether touring, ambling with a partner, kids or riding balls out, having the jumps reasonably close together means it's easier to maintain a comfortable cadence and not find your legs spinning like a whirling dervish or going down to a much slower RPM unless you flick two or three sprockets.

52/36/24 with a 12-30 is my sweetspot in terms of gear range for all occasions, whilst the vogue for many roadies is to go with a 34-32 to get up the hills I still get the impression for many this is still too high a gear especially for longer incIines or very steep roads, you can get another 3% lower with a 33T but then that's it.

Anything past a 32t and you're into the mid cage rear mech though some of the new stuff like the ugly 9100 rear d can handle a 32t apparantly, the previous DA9000 could do a 32 if you fiddled with the b screw.

Still once past 32 and because the manufacturers insist on having 11t starting sprockets the gaps are starting to get wider and wider. Sure if things change to 12/13/14 speeds at the back that might 'solve' a problem but it creates a shit ton more problems by doing so, not least frames, wheels, chains, gear changers, the cassettes themselves and so on.

I'm sticking with 6703 STIs on my audax, I don't need 11 speed for it and will use doubles and triples for particular bikes/rides as I see fit, dropping triple out of the equation for road going bikes and even for MTB I think would be a mistake but then the manufacturers can do what they want.

I dithered a lot before getting a triple to replace the (old, non-compact) double on my bike. Possibly it was the wrong decision, but I haven't regretted it. Yes, there's a lot of duplication, but that means I can generally just leave it on the middle ring when commuting, but do have the wider range when wanted.

1x is pointless for serious road riding, although I can see serious benefits for off road use, and for casual riders, many of whom seemingly fail to understand how a triple chainset works, and would be much better off with one less lever on the bars to contend with. Otherwise, the massive gaps in gearing is just unpleasant.

I detest compact chainsets, in both their 50/34 and 52/36 incarnations. The gap between the rings kills your cadence, and the huge gaps between the gears feels clumsy. I ride much more efficiently on my 53/42, switching chainrings much more frequently than on my compact. I use the small ring, rather than trying to force my way up hills in the big ring because the small ring is too small without shifting half way across the cassette (so smooth...).

My ideal race ride would have a modern standard 53/39 for the weight savings of having two rings. For casual rides and steep hills, a 52/42/32 or suchlike would be wonderful, giving a perfectly feasible bottom gear, while still allowing for smooth shifts between chainrings, and enabling a close ratio cassette at the rear - absolutely the best of both worlds.

I'm not just reminiscing about the good old days when bikes were heavy and kit was wrinkly. I'm 17, and grew up on compacts. I would never buy one now, having ridden standards. A standard with an extra granny ring is surely the way to go.

They may take our downtube shifters, but they'll never take our triples!

With ever narrower chains, surely the time of the quadruple is almost upon us. Think of the marketing advantage of being able to put "48 speed" on the promotional material for a new bike equipped with 12 cogs on the back and 4 rings at the front (and the obligatory bluetooth head unit displaying gears remaining before your speed drops below that required to remain upright.)

The triple will die when Shimano stops supporting it. No sign of that yet. 

These are just fads.  The route back to triples is laid out already.

When I first got a compact with a wide ranging cassette I felt would prefer the smaller jumps between sprokets from a triple with a narrow range cassette.  I haven't used a 1X but I've seen videos of off-the-peg bikes that shift up the cassette when pedaling backwards and very bad chainlines that increase drive train loses.   That along with tractor tyres and creaky bottom brackets all add up to bikes that are just waiting to be called out as inefficient and high maintenance.

Give me 500% range with no energy and cog teeth consuming cross chaining, with decent increments and a hollowtech crank that will cost no more than a Sora groupset does and I will be happy

I think triples will eventually die out as more and more people are introduced to cycling on doubles both on road bikes and MTBS. Or like myself, many may transfer from mtbing and bring along what we are used to.

Maybe just maybe we'll be here discussing the death of doubles due to the introduction of 13 cog cassettes on 142 wide axles, or the death of rim brakes....

I'm still riding a tripple on my racing bike, even tough i hardly ever use it: only when the odd 20 percent climb comes along.

Then thing with Doubles is that you have to adapt your gearing for the conditions your riding in:

on the flats a 36 is completely useless, even in a tuff headwind. When i'm bend out of shape a 39 can be quite though to get up the mountains and the +20 climbs a are a real struggle with that, especially +150 km into a sportive. 

The thing is i like thight gearing, and since i'm still riding 10 speed that's not yet easily doable for all conditions with one set of 52x39. with 52x11-25 i'm missing steps between gears

(the 53 is indeed really only for pro's: 52x11 is already really hard to use in flat conditions on your own)

(but the major reason i'm still rding my tripple is that it still works, and i'm holding out till all the new features become available in a complete package in Ultegra: Disc Brackes, DI2,  Sinchronized Shifting etc. I' the mean time i still have a working groupset and 3 sets of wheels not compatible with 11 speed, i just don't jump on the band wagon of buying everything new every other year)

Now't wrong with Triples....  easy to set up (if you don't follow the YouTube stuff..lol)  and to be fair they have and still do get people into cycling most of the disciplines. Nothing wrong with them on road bikes and many who have them like the option of the "granny" ring if they need to "bail out" while cycling climbs and roads which are in another region than familiar to them. Not eveyone is a racing whippet of 9 stone.... I have both... and tend use the triple for hilly sportives...if you are an old bloke like me who spends most of his time on the tools preparing bikes for others to ride....you will understand that I don't have the time to be "race fit" and the legs for big geared compacts on 20% climbs.....   There is not one size fits all....if there was we wouldn't have all the Bottom Bracket "standards" as we do..... and why many carbon framed bikes have press fit BB's and yet Pinarello remain with threaded type... old fashioned..or plain sensible... ?..... same can be said for Triple's I guess

Quote:

I liked triples. I probably sound like an old fogey, but it was just so much easier to change into the gear you wanted with a triple than a compact double. No faffing around with both levers, just flick one and you were there.

That is, surly, simply a case of knowing how to operate your kit?

From my experience of riding with guys using tripples - they seem to spend ages hunting around for the right gear, and trying to jump the chain across two chain rings at the bottom and top of each climb, where as, on the Compact, its "just one flick and your done"