In my case, for road riding, a standard triple would work very well for me. I ride mostly flats as well as routes with lots of rollers. The 39 would be far preferable for flat land spinning compared to a 34. The 50 is fine for descents and for spinning on slight descents and false flats. The 30 would be great as a bailout ring, and for rides in the future which involve a lot of climbing. Shifting would be a bit smoother as well with the smaller jumps between rings.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the road triple has become incredibly unfashionable. A part of me wants to grudgingly accept the possibility that reducing the amount of mechanism might be of slight benefit as well.

The 34 is an attempt to combine and therefore offer SOME of the benefits of both the 39 and 30 rings while not offering the full benefits of either. It's a compromise that just doesn't work out very well.

I suppose a 1X system is inevitable. On the mtb side, 2X systems are increasingly rare in the high and even middle end. On the road side, 3X systems are rare, and doubles are standard. With SRAM's 12 speed cassette, obviously the 1X will be specced with increasing frequency.

So many people complain about 2 tooth jumps, now we're getting 3, 4, 5 tooth jumps with 1X systems and no one is complaining and only singing the praises of losing the front derailleur? It seems like sheep like thinking to me.