Originally Posted by
Kapusta
I miss my old triple on my road/gravel bike, but it has nothing to do with the overall range.
Its the middle ring I miss. On gentle rolling hills, and on quick ups and downs, I could just stay in it almost indefinitely. With my double I am having to shift the front a lot more.
With MTB its different. I ditched the big ring on my 22-32-44 triple 20 years ago and ran 2x9 ever since. But in that case the 32t middle ring worked for most conditions until it was time to grind out a long climb. So it was more like having 1x with a bail out ring.
i’m sure doubles works better for many folks, but the “triples are obsolete” notion is largely group-think, IMO.
The only two downsides I see to triples are a) a weight penalty and b) a more challenging/less forgiving front derailleur setup. The former is insignificant (a small chainring plus bolts). The latter can be a nuisance for many, and seems like a legit reason for some to go with a double.
Did you find that you had to replace that middle ring with more frequency since you were in it so much? How important is it to you that the middle ring have great shifting? I ask this because in keeping my triples optimized I’m learning that I can live with slightly less optimized shifting in exchange for absolute drivetrain strength & quietness.
I’m a pretty strong rider and there have been times where I’ll be pulling on group rides and know that I have people close on my wheel. This is
not a very good time to drop your chain from the top chainring, past the middle and all the way to the 30 tooth. Oh well, I haven’t gotten rear ended yet, but I have been asked (more than once) “are you all right?” when my velocity falls off abruptly. Fortunately I’ve learned how to quickly flip that chain back up in the middle ring where it belongs and get back on it while I chase - which is what I mostly do as a 200 pounder anyway.