I've, not very long ago, switched away from using Surly stainless steel chainrings (was running my bike in single/fixed or 1x9 configurations) and I get the feeling that one thing I might miss about the SS chainrings is their superb longevity (and they could be flipped around for double the wear life!).

These days I am using a 10 speed Deore triple crankset up front with Sram 9 speed cassettes and chains and finding that I only get perhaps 1K miles out a chain before it shows 1/32" per foot stretch. I've so far rotated out 2 chains when they reached that point; today I installed the third and, I'm thinking, last new chain for this cassette. This third chain is only showing very minor slippage in a single one of the cassette's gears, and I fully expect that it'll settle in and function well for another thousand miles, at which point I plan on having another go on all three chains until they each in turn show 1/16" per foot elongation and I call it quits for the chains as well as the cassette.

Now -- setting aside my slight disappointment with the low mileage I seem to be getting out of these parts -- I'm wondering what kind of wear I should expect on the chainrings at that future point when I will be ready to switch in a new cassette/chains? I've sometimes read that chainrings seem to go on for ever -- and that was certainly true about the stainless steel variety -- but I worry about these softer aluminum ones.

Can it be true that I can hope to wear multiple cassettes/chains to 1/16" per foot stretch on the same chainrings without adverse consequences up front? If so, how many cassettes (figuring three chains per cassettes) do you think I might get out of the crankset before I need to look at replacement rings?

Thanks.

Yes, steel is more durable. Aluminum road rings should last at least 20k miles even under tough conditions. Your mileage may vary, greatly. There was a time when aluminum rings were heirlooms, fit to ride with 200k miles on them. Reasons to replace rings: chain suck, poor shifting, not smooth riding, looks like shift. Replacement on a schedule does not make much sense.

Sure.

But like I said, I'm coming off years of single chainring gearing, and the issues feel like news to me.

Speaking to chain suck, I believe it has to do -- for my case of new rings and relatively fresh chain, at least -- it seems to happen when I shift both front and back in close succession; I think it has to do with taking off tension from the rear D at the same time as shifting the front: the chain can easily be carried along the chainring with the front shift if the rear gets slacked by a poorly (read: simultaneous) timed rear shift.

That being said, the chainrings which have occasioned me to experiment this phenomenon are only as old as the first cassette which I've run through them, so I'm wary to account their behavior to wear, rather than poor use.

Speaking to the other issues you mention (ie. poor shifting, un-smooth riding, and 'looks like shift' (? -- never seen that one ): I don't much want to wait for my shifting to deteriorate beyond repair without my having replacement parts on hand, but seeing as how I don't quite know what to expect and I don't have spares in stock, I am hoping for an expert guess-timation at what I should be planning for.

Frankly, TLDR: would a rule of 3 kind of thing be conceivable (3 chains to a cassette, 3 cassettes to a chainring-set)?

Or does that strike you as way too few cassettes? Given that I'm not planning on using this information for scheduling replacements -- I will be taking that decision on an 'as needed' basis -- but rather on gleaming a vision of what may be to come for the chainrings, and possibly ordering prophylactic replacements sooner rather than later, depending on the consensus.