I hear you. While I've always used doubles and don't ever see myself using a triple on the road, I've listened to and ridden with enough people who use them to know how they get used. And for those who use them that way, they make perfect sense.

Ride on!

Manufacturers (Shimano, Campy and SRAM) all seem to think the demand for triples is very small. The choices for new are extremely slim. That says fellow buyers are happy with doubles, especially compact, for non heavy loaded touring.

So comparing your setup to a compact setup with similar range.

You cover from 113 to 28 gear inches. you have 9 redundant gears. Your biggest spacing jump is 14%, and you have to make two double shifts to cover the range. (51/15 to 39/12, and 39/17 to 28/12)

http://www.gear-calculator.com/#unde...&SL=2.6&UN=KMH

Using a compact with an 11 speed 12-29, you cover almost the same range, only 4 redudant gears, biggest jump of 13%, and only one cross over shift.

http://www.gear-calculator.com/#unde...&SL=2.6&UN=MPH

Go to an 11-32, and you cover a wider range, still reasonable development between gears, and only one corss over shift.

http://www.gear-calculator.com/#unde...&SL=2.6&UN=MPH


If you actually compare the ratios of specific setups some of the triple dogma breaks down.

Actually, your comparison re-enforces the superiority of the setup I use. The concept of redundant gears is not important when you have 27 of them - or really even 22 of them. What it's about is having wide range where you need it, narrow spacing where you want it, and easy single shifts most of the time to get what you want. I used to have an 18-speed triple with half-step granny gearing that only had 2 redundant gears. But the shift pattern was lousy, more often than not requiring double shifts. I got rid of it for a setup that had several more redundant gears, but with a 28-38-50 on that bike, and it was a vast improvement despite having several more redundant gears. What the triple setups that I prefer offer is basically the opportunity to shift up and down the cluster on whichever chainring you are on without a double shift most times - while keeping narrow shift gaps in doing so, and deferring the front chainring shift to when it's convenient.

If I were to use a 34 inch smallest chainring and a 12-29 freewheel, my lowest gear would be 11% bigger than it is on my setup. That is a HUGE difference, and is enough in and of itself to make this setup less useful to me. It's nowhere NEAR the same range. If I wanted to use an 11-32, I'd need a wider cage derailleur, which means less crisp shifting overall, and the gaps are not as good in the range I normally ride - and BTW, I have no use at all for the 11 cog, so that's effectively a waste of two gears. As I said, the 9x3 setup I use is clearly superior in just about every way to that setup.

The fact is, I actually COULD design a 2x11 setup that would be almost as good for me, but it requires a cassette that spans from 12-32 with the following spacing:
12-13-14-15-16-18-20-22-25-28-32 And it would require a front that shifted better than anything that spans from 34 or smaller to 50 or higher actually does, cleanly, and a rear derailleur that was designed for a 32 max, not a huge mountain bike type mechanism that was less crisp at the rear. Again, the 11 cog is basically just a waste of a cog for me personally.

And your 11-speed setup is much more expensive and less durable than a setup using 9-speed components. Typical costs of 9-speed components: Cassettes, widely available for $30, Chains widely available for $15 - good triple cranksets easy to find under $100, some under $50 (I use a tripleized Campy Record crank that cost me $80). Square taper BB for under $15. Good front and rear derailleurs can easily be found under $20 each. 9 Speed Dura Ace index shifters, under $70.

My entire 9x3 drivetrain cost me around $200 and went on a complete custom build that cost me under $500 including $120 for the frame (A Schwinn Paramount PDG Series 7).

Not sure of your grasp of cause and effect there -- more likely, the major companies don't want to make triples anymore and they've been successful at convincing most people that compacts are just as good.

Just speaking for myself, I can't stand the large jump between 50T and 34T chainrings, so it'll be a while before I adopt compacts.

When I had a triple a few years back the front shifts were always clunky and it was prone to drops. Thinking back now that I have more experience I'd say it was user error for the most part, but I don't miss the triple at all. I never used the middle ring. It was just this annoying thing I had to get through in order to get to my climbing ring or my descending/flat terrain ring.

This is my reasoning as well. The 42 middle ring is quite nice for most stuff with a 12-25. I've thought of going to a 12-27 for 2 hills, I sometimes ride, but I probably just need to get in better shape.

Currently, I find that on most triple setups that only shift 10-12 teeth between rings shift far cleaner than compact doubles that shift 16 or more teeth. And invariably, shifting 16 or more teeth in the front is done with a double shift that also involves shifting the back - because moving 16 teeth in front is usually equal to moving 3-4 cogs in the back.

I'll take 3x8 over 2x11 any time, for several reasons - price, durability, forgiving maintenance (friction shifters?) etc.

3x10 and 11 still make sense for very steep climbs.

What are everyone's opinions on quads? I hear people talking about their quads all the time and how massive they are. Is the size a hindrance?

If you look at the chart for your setup, you need a double shift of at least two cogs in both chainring shifts.

As to the shifting of a long cage RD, I think you'll find an 11 speed Ultegra or 105 will shift quite nicely on a 12-32 cassette. Given that current 11 speed Shimano has improved over 9 speed, which is more than a decade old, I'm willing to bet an Ultegra 6800 long cage derailleur will outhift anything currently avaialble in 9 speed. And BTW, technically, to stay in spec for capacity, you need a long cage RD on your setup.

Obviously you should use what you like, and what works for you. And the econmics of staying with 9 speed may be compelling for you.

My point in all this is that with all the options available in 2x11 setups, you can accomplish almost all of the thing people have thought triples were necessary for.

And the market tends to agree with me, with triples largely going away in favor of compact doubles. Heck, triples are even starting to go away on tandems, which tend to utilize very wide range gearing.

Is double shifting that big of an issue? I double shift every time I change chainrings: one rear cog on a road standard crank, two cogs on a road compact. Or am I misunderstanding what people mean by "double shift"?

Granted, I also consider a 12-26 9-speed to be a wide cassette, and prefer 12-23.

A couple of points: In the real world, I actually usually DON'T need to double shift when changing chainrings. Frequently, the change in chainrings coincides with me wanting to move the equivalent of two cogs on the back in any case. Changing the chainring is usually about an equivalent to wanting to move two gear increments on just the back. With a compact double, that change is more like 3 or more cogs in equivalence, which usually requires a double shift to partially lessen that much of a change. And actually, I am right at the limit on the Shimano specs for 9 speed SS derailleurs, I've not exceeded it - the limit is 27 T cog, and 37T wrap range. I'm using a 27 cog, and since I'll never come close to using the smallest chainring, smallest cog combo (I won't ever use any of the 3 or even 4 smallest cogs with the granny chainring) that smallest-smallest combo is irrelevant for the wrap range spec even if it didn't work reliably (but it does, I tested it). As for 11x2 shifting better, my 9x3 setup using mainly the newest 9-speed components shifts flawlessly, and you can't get noticeably better than flawless.

Second point: Who's 11-speed drivetrain components can be gotten for anything close to the costs I mentioned previously for 9-speed components with a triple?

Third point: It's not the demand side of the market that agrees with you, it's the supplier side - predominantly Shimano, who is a virtual monopolist in the moderately priced consumer space who's basically choosing not to offer triples going forward. As I said, I don't need to spend close to $500 for an 11x2 speed group, when a 9x3 group can be gotten for half as much, and offers at least as much functionality and lower maintenance cost over time due to cheaper and longer-lasting chains and cassettes.

Again, I built a very high quality road bike for under $500 with both wide range and narrow spaced gearing all in using a 9x3 drivetrain. That's simply not remotely possible with an 11x2 drivetrain. And were I to spend over $200 more for an 11x2 drivetrain, the added benefits I would get for that extra $200 is exactly nothing, and the downside is significantly shorter chain life.

I guess when I'm propelling myself across pavement for miles upon miles hours at a time I don't find shifting a couple cogs over when I shift the front a very big inconvenience.

I'm willing to spend a bit more for the 2x11 or even settle for a 2x10 or 2x9 over purchasing the triple.

Are you certain about the reduction of available triples being supplier driven and not demand driven or is this just speculation?

I'm certain about it being driven by Shimano. And I don't see any reason to spend more for something that is not an improvement, and is in some ways - particularly chain life - a step backwards.

I've got huge quads and they are generally a hindrance in cycling. The only positive is at triathlons the person writing the numbers on my legs tells me they are the biggest, most muscular legs they have ever seen. Then they ask if they are helpful doing a triathlon. I tell them no and that I would be better served with a pair of chicken legs like everyone else walking around!

You could say the same for the different sizes on bicycle frames these days. Limit the sizes available and fit the people with stems and seatposts. Or interior color options on cars these days. I think they are taking an idea from Henry Ford.

In Henry Ford´s 1923 autobiography "Henry Ford - My life and work" he quotes himself as saying "Any customer can have a car painted any colour he wants so long as it is black.".

So, everyone, besides me, actually wants triples, but Shimano won't let you have them?

You don't stay in any consumer product business by trying to sell people stuff they don't want and discontinuing the stuff they do want.

There are still a number of options in buying bicycle drivetrains; Shimano, Campy, SRAM, Microshift, and just cranks from Sugino, FSA, Stronglight, etc.

And there are still a number of triple options available, just not at the higher level groups. (Campy Athena; Shimano 105 and Tiagra for example.)

The market for triples, particularly at higher price/performance levels is drying up. If Shimano could make more money selling people Ultegra triples than cranks that can use compact chainrings, they certainly would. It's not like they're going to throw away money because they hate triples.

It sounds like the OP is a masher, and might never appreciate the advantages of a triple. I avoided triples for years under the misguided view that they didn't shift as well as doubles. I first put a compact crank on my touring bike and really liked the gearing, particularly since I was using it for commuting and carrying loads most of the time. Then I found a great deal on a Dura-Ace triple and installed that on my sport touring bike. My preconceptions about triples were wrong, and I found that the DA triple shifted as well as the doubles on my other bikes. I now have triples on three bikes, my two touring bikes and my sport tourer. My other bikes have a traditional double and a compact.

I like triples better than compact or traditional cranks. Here is why. First, I'm a spinner and tend to maintain a high cadence (90-100+). I bike commute almost every work day and ride several bike tours a year, so I am often carrying loads. I live in an area with hilly terrain and make good use of my lower gears. Although I don't often use the small ring on my triples, it is nice to have when needed, particularly near the ends of long rides when my legs are tired. Finally, I'm in my early 60s and climbing seems to get tougher every year as I age.

I rode triples almost exclusively for many years. When compact cranksets were introduced, I was skeptical that they would work for my applications (commuting, mixed-terrain riding). To my surprise, I found that compact cranks worked really well for the aforementioned use cases (and I liked shifting the double a lot more than a triple). And while I use a 1x11 setup on my commute/gravel bike, I still prefer a compact double for group road rides (34/50 & 11-32).

Perhaps so. Model T's were available in four different colors in the beginning.

Personally, as a guy currently riding a 9-speed 105/ultegra mix triple, I'm looking forward to the actual appearance of the recently announced Tiagra 4700 triple. With the trickle-down from 5800 but the triple, it seems like it could be the best of both worlds -- without the weird shift-indicator windows and cheesy looks of the older Tiagra stuff.

For a big-ish guy like me who lives in a hilly region and is on a budget, I could potentially stay in the game with such a setup -- from both a price and physical perspective.

You are assuming this is a competitive market. It's not. Shimano is for all intents and purposes a monopoly supplier in the moderately priced segment of consumer bicycle components. They have been driving the market through a cycle of planned obsolescence for a couple of decades now, and the move to 11 speed, and getting rid of road triples is just the latest cycle of that strategy. The fact is, they make more money by reducing their number of parts SKUs, and by getting rid of triples, they get rid of niche product derailleurs and shifters and cranksets - even if their doubles are not quite as useful to the customer segment that they had served with triples, Shimano's profitability goes up even if they lose some of those customers, through better streamlining of their manufacturing and supply chains.

I AGREE that the marketplace for higher cost triples is drying up - because Shimano doesn't supply them. A market needs both supply and demand to exist - and if the demand exists, but is a small niche, it may never attract a supplier who can serve it. Camapgnolo and SRAM can't compete on cost, so they go after niche markets. And I don't believe that Campagnolo is abandoning triples, only Shimano is. I don't believe that Shimano will ever make 11 speed road triples, because the way that they make lower cost products is by cost reducing the prior generation of higher cost products.

The fact is, for someone looking for cost effective wide range gearing, they don't get as much utility out of current 11x2 stuff as they do with older, more economical 9x3 or 10x3 stuff. And that's not going to change. The fact is, just because Shimano can boost their profitability by not serving the high end of the non-racing market with a x3 offering doesn't mean that a x3 offering wouldn't continue to be more useful to the group of customers who want alpine road gearing. So much so that older generation x3 solutions continue to be more useful to someone who wants gears down into the mid 20 gear inch ratios, along with better spacing at the higher gear ratios.

One other point - it's quite possible that Microshift will target this market segment as Shimano abandons it. But it will take years for them to make a dent in it - but they are already a player in 9x3. But Shimano has never been a customer driven company ever since they knocked Sun Tour out of business with successful index shifting. From that point on, their mission has been to drive demand for new stuff by trying to obsolete their old stuff. I believe their push to abandon triples and move the market to 11-speed that's incompatible with 9 and 10 speed is all about pushing the market to stuff Microshift doesn't make.

If you look at the crank and cassette, I think the companies are driving for a goal of one crankset and one cassette that will cover it all. Each time you add a gear in back that's one step closer to a universal cassette/crankset combo. We can come on here and debate what combo we like/dislike but eventually it will be one cassette/crankset for everything. I didn't think CVT would ever get here either. But it will probably take over sometime in the future as well. We have electronic shifting now, so CVT might not be very far behind. When that gets here there will be no need for choice. At least that is what the manufacturers will think.

A 16 speed cassette would get you a 11-26 range with 1 tooth "jumps." A 20 speed cassette would get you a 11-30 range.