StanSeven

I watched a couple season ending CX races with some of the best riders competing. Many used 1X11 most r reliability. One mechanic said the racers change the cassette gearing before each race and tailor it towards the course.

Makes sense. It gives them a choice of 11 gears, no overlap or duplication, and the highest reliability. They choose it to win.

For the rest of use, trying yo get 11 usuable gears that don't duplicate and makes shifting easy and fool proof is difficult.

Rowan

I also can't help but think the the 1x systems are some feeble attempt to "match" Rohloff's popularity, especially in the European market where internally geared hubs are more frequently fitted to bikes. That darned derailleur keeps getting in the way, though.

But I can see in maybe a decade that all derailleur systems will be replaced by internally geared hubs and this is just the softening up process in the long-term strategy. And to accommodate the cost, we'll be paying double to cover the production costs.

SS and FG do have their attractions...

Banzai

So, the beauty of the triple on my cross bike is that the few times I've done actual cross, I just leave it on the 39t ring the whole time. It's pretty much perfect.

I mean, I could replace it with a 39t single crank, and a chain-keeper, and a bash-guard. Or I could keep the FD, and the chainrings, and have them available for the road later.

cyccommute 

I've got to disagree with your opinion on square taper. There is a whole lot to like about external bearing bottom brackets. I don't find them to be "rubbish" nor to be any less robust than square taper bottom brackets. I've not worn out any bottom bracket since the advent of cartridge bearing units of any flavor. There's no longevity advantage for square taper that I can see.

But, from a mechanical and maintenance aspect, the external bearing system is superior to the square taper. I've had to change the inner ring on my touring bike and couldn't have done that as easily with a traditional square taper crank set. Removal of an external bottom bracket crank is trivial. All that has to be done is to loosen two pinch bolts and the crank is off.

The cranks are also easier to install and, in the event of a poor installation, less likely to be damaged and made inoperable. A loose square taper crank is a dead square taper crank. The same isn't true for an external. There is also the issue of the number of tools needed to install and remove a square taper if it ever does go bad. To remove a square taper bottom bracket and crank, I need a 14mm socket of some kind, a crank removal tool, a splined bottom bracket tool and a large wrench to hold the bottom bracket tool. At least 2 of these tools are specialized and nothing else will work in their place.

For comparison, I need a 5 mm allen wrench and a splined bottom bracket tool for the external. If I don't have the splined tool, a pipe wrench (I've actually had to use one) will work or even a very large adjustable plier. These are tools that I can find in lots of different places if needed.

fietsbob

The (logical) weakness is the assumption that it matters to anyone
not on the Hamster wheel..

Dave Cutter

You know... those old original 10 speeds with two gears in front and 5 cogs in the back... had all the balls needed to go any and everywhere. I know I was able to go just about anyplace with my old 63 Varsity. Maybe I am showing signs of weakness riding anything less (more?) than a 40 pound 10 speed.

But I really enjoy my old Cannondale R500 (triple). Why shouldn't everyone ride.... what they enjoy.

Steve B.

Have to agree with this. I do not miss the days of installing cranks on square taper and hoping, even with a torque wrench, that the crank bolt would stay on. As well it was a bit of a guessing game as to getting the chainline correct. Shop mechanics could do it in their sleep, me ?, not as well.

The Shimano BSA external bottom bracket and crank is so much easier to install and remove (if needed), as well the chain line is dead on and makes F derailer adjustment easier. At least this has been my experience.

Shimagnolo

My experience:
- Shimano square-taper cartridge: I've worn out one, which lasted about 10 years, (mtn bike).
- Campy square-taper cartridge: I've worn out one, which lasted about 10 years, (road bike).
- Shimano external BB: I've worn out several, one of which lasted only 18 months, (touring/winter bike).

I can't say what the mileages were, but the Campy is my summer bike which gets most of my warm-weather miles.

cyccommute 

I don't know what you guys do to wear out a bottom bracket of any kind. I've got ISIS bottom brackets that a supposed delicate to be that are well over 10 years old. I've got external bottom brackets...as in multiples...that have 10,000 to 15,000 miles on them. They haven't seized nor are they even rough.

Mobile 155

[QUOTE=Steve B.;18914759]
Ah but think Crit bike? Why even have the small ring if you are always in the big ring for the whole race? Hardly and real hills to speak of and you hardly have to shift so a 11-12-13-14-15-16-18-20-22-25-27 would be almost perfect. and you would never toss a chain. Just saying. That is why we have N+1>

Mobile 155

Maybe for those that only have one set of wheels. But if they are like Rohloff 500-14 at 1300 bucks a pop just for the hub I would have to put a cot in the shed. Doesn't the hub weigh about 3 or 4 pounds?

I believe the 1x system is really an attempt to avoid chain drop on Single track but maybe not. But I agree SS/FG has its advantages.

Rowan

Yes.

Also I was thinking about the BB30 concept and its copies/derivitives... and the major issues associated with creaking and general noise.

The other issue for outboard bearings is that the BB shell really should be faced to ensure proper alignment across the spindle/axle. This was less of an issue with the cartridge bearings that also came out with Octalink and other non-square-taper ends.

Rowan

As you have stated so many times before, especially in discussions about how great you think White Lightning is as a chain lube, you ride in relatively dry conditions. That contributes a lot to longevity in my book.

rydabent

The bottom line remains as I see it, the granny gear weighs almost nothing, and at the end of a long ride if presented with a really steep hill, it is great to have.

BTW the more gears you have in the rear cluster, the more subject to cross chaining you have.

StanSeven

People ride, raced, and toured everyplace with 2X5. Now 3X10 isn't enough. Everyone wants to maintain their cadence within a 5 rpm range. Funny but saying seated all the time in a narrow cadence range seems to make for weaker riders.

MRT2

You are not accounting for time. When we talk about the old 10 speeds of the 70s, we were a lot younger and presumably, stronger. And even so using modern gearing, I can say that I ride much further, and more frequently than I did back in the day. 25, 30, and 40 miles rides are on the menu for me just about every week during the riding season, even though I am 35 years older, and 50 lbs heavier than I was back then. As a teenager, I rode mostly to get around town and seldom ventured out more than 10 miles per ride.

cyccommute 

And I suppose that you and Dave Cutter rode on barbed wire saddles too

I'm not sure what era of masochistic bicycling you and Dave Cutter are being nostalgic for but it doesn't fit into any era that I can remember in the last 39 years of bicycling. Sure some people rode, raced and toured on 2x5 drivetrains but in 1976 during the TransAmerica craze, there were lots and lots of people who rode 3x5 systems.

I also can't think of a single mountain bike that was sold from 1983 to about 2014 when the current 2x and 1x goofiness started.

While I can agree that 3x10 (or 12 if you can find the shifters) mostly overkill, it's not the number of gears that a rider has but the overall range that important. Frankly, the problem I have with 10 (or 11 or 12) speed gearing is that the gears are all concentrated in the top of the range where a one tooth difference doesn't really have that much of an impact for the "normal" rider. The average rider could probably benefit from more divisions at the lower end of the range rather than the upper.

Triples don't make for "weaker" riders.

MRT2

Not weaker riders, smarter riders. I had this epiphany 3 or 4 years ago. I was riding up a hill with a group of people. The hill was not all that steep, but it was fairly long, and it was the first time I rode it. Riding on my middle ring and the biggest cog on the back and feeling tired, wishing I had an extra cog in back. And I did. All I needed to do was shift to my small chainring, and up a gear or two in back and Voila, I can suddenly climb with the group and I still have a couple of gears in back should the hill get steeper.

Steve B.

To each his own. With a 34/50 and 11-23 10 spd., I can spend a lot of time in the small ring and on the 12-13 & 14 cogs. I'm good from about 14 to 17-18 mph in that range. When I shift to the big ring, I wish for an 18. Note that I'm riding on flat Long Island and mostly deal with wind and the occasional steep but short hills. If I were riding Vermont or Virginia I'd use a cogset with more range, but otherwise a near straight block works well.

Thus would desire an 11 spd. with a 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23. Moving to a 36/52 and 12-25 doesn't seem to be a useful choice.

Drew Eckhardt 

Reasonable annual mileage for 1-2 years shouldn't wear out a bottom bracket.

cyccommute 

Well, I was trying to be diplomatic

That's usually what these discussions quickly devolve into, however. There are a whole lot of people out that think riding a triple is an acknowledgement of "weakness". We call the inner ring the "granny" gear after all...as in it's only meant for weak old grannies.

I look on triples as being just another tool that is available to enhance my ride. I'm not a "weak" rider...far from it. I've had a couple of experiences in the last few years that have shown to me the usefulness of triples. My normal touring bike gearing is a 46/34/20 crank with an 11-34 cassette. I've toured in a lot of the south with that combination and found it to be highly useful in the Appalachian mountains. Roads in the south are crazy steep compared to my Colorado mountains and that 20/34 combination is handy and, at times, a bit too tall.

When I did a tour in the Poconos I knew what I was getting into but, through some mistakes, ended up with a 48/36/22 and an 11-32 cassette. I really noticed the difference on those steep hills of Pennsylvania. Due to a mechanical issue, I couldn't use the inner ring for a while and had to suffer up climbs on a loaded bike in the 36/32 combination. Thankfully that occurred in relatively flat Canada.

Even around town...Denver is a bit hilly...I find triples to be useful. I don't use my inner all the time nor even that often, but when I need it, it's nice to have along.

cyccommute 

I would agree but I would go further. Like I said above, I've never worn out a cartridge bearing bottom bracket of any kind and I've had dozens and dozens of them. In my experience, I can't find a mileage that will wear one out. Not that it would matter that much. They are dirt cheap.

bwilli88 

I want to set up my 82 Centurion pro tour with shimano 5703 brifters, good luck finding them at a decent price.
Triple cranksets are relatively easy to find it is the shifters that aren't.

D1andonlyDman

Shifters for triples are easy to find. Downtube friction shifters are what work best with triples.

Rowan

Oddly, and you will laugh, I agree with everything you say about the use of triples, or more specifically the granny.

As you say, it doesn't get used that often, but in the middle of a cold night, climbing a 10% or steeper grade at kilometre 500 or a 600 randonnee, it comes into its own. This has been on several bikes including Ti and CF road bikes.

The same with touring in steeper terrain, whether loaded or light. I would prefer to have a triple on board at the start of a trans-continental ride despite all the flat riding that comes after the mountains... and before the mountains.

With a road triple, the middle and big rings are similar to the standard double, anyway. With an MTB triple, the middle and outer rings are probably even better because I would be more likely to use the big ring when compared with a road triple. It would depend on the tooth counts... I started with MTB triples at 22-32-44, but now have 24-34-48 and with a 32-11 on the rear, it's a pretty good and flexible set-up... for me.