Specialized Sequoia with a subcompact (46/30 crank)

That's what I like and enjoy.

Yeah but the issue is the step between gears can be kind of steep on the 2x10, I sometimes find myself bouncing between two gears because neither one is quite comfortable. For me the 2x10 with brifters is acceptable but not ideal though it beats the heck out of a 3x10 with bar ends or thumbies... I ponder pushing the rear cassette to a 11-40 but think I'll pass and in hind sight I should have explored a 2x11 setup but I'm too heavily invested in the 10 sp rig to change now.

I'm not sure I get your point of meant to work with road integrated shifters. Below is a picture of my subcompact crank with the original 105 front derailleur.



Point being from the photo is that the derailleur is up too high and far away from small chain rings. If I'd purchased a White Industries VBC Crankset with the same chain rings then I'd have the same problem. So if you are pointing to the mountain bike crank as the problem then I don't understand your point. Now, maybe I could have found a smaller road derailleur and not purchased a mountain bike derailleur and the Jtek Shiftmate adapter? If you know of a compatible derailleur then I'm willing to try. I

Well if we take the case of a stock bike then I'd argue that it would be cheaper (in general 2 chain rings should cost less than 3), lighter, but the biggest benefit is simplicity. I haven't had any real trouble myself with triples but it is more complex. Of course the 2x is only simpler if you don't have to use the Jtek adapter. Hopefully there are or will be road compatible front derailleurs for sub compact cranks.

I'd also flip your question around and ask what the benefit of a triple is. If someone gave me a custom one for free what would I get? With an 11 speed rear and 28-38 in front I think I've got it covered. I don't want a higher gear. Would I really want a 28-33-38? A triple isn't compelling for me.

Final point is that we may not have much choice. Mountain bike and road world are going to wide range rear clusters, compact or single front chain ring. I think touring cyclist are the only market still using triples and unfortunately we don't have much pull in the market.

I've enjoyed the comments by all. Some interesting observations.

I run a CX70 FD and it's officially rated down to 46T with a 16T capacity... I've read of people easily going to 44T with it. Below is my 48T coupled with a CX70. I could easily get it to 46T without issue and maybe to a 44T. Yeah I know my bike is dirty...

Yes but my sub-compact front crank is 28/38. 44T is obviously much larger than 38T. Any road derailleur which can handle such a small "big" front chain ring? (prior post shows a picture of problem when using my 105 FD). It would be great to get rid of the JTEK.

This is a Sugino 9 spd 44/32/22 mountain triple coupled with an 11-34 cassette (102 to 16.5 gear inch range) The FD is a Shamano Tiagra 4503 FD, one the most versatile FDs made for touring setups, especially with STI shifters. No problems with chainstay clearance, and it shifts very well. With a 103 mm bottom bracket it has a 45 mm chainline. The rear derailleurs used are either Shimano LX or XT. I've used this exact setup on 3 other family member's touring bikes, and there have not been any issues. I'm wondering why you are having chainstay clearance problems.

Ahh, I didn't see your chainring size listed, maybe in an earlier post... I always think of a sub-compact as being in the 46/30 or 44/28 range, 38 tooth is a whole nuther story sorry.

Doug64, if I were to do this again I would opt for a setup like yours but with the hills around here would shoot for a 48T or 46T big ring, when on the flats I spend the all of my time on the big ring.

Since you are mounting your FD much lower than a typical triple setup, you don't need one with a cage that reaches so low in the back. (See how the chain doesn't get anywhere near the bottom of the cage even when you're in the small ring?) So a road FD or CX70 would be much better for your needs, even if the cage isn't shaped perfectly for smaller rings.

If you're handy and don't mind a little hacking, you could even cut off the bottom of your FD's cage and put a bolt between the two halves to restore stability.

I still say that the major factor here is bike+load weight. I also use a 44/32/22 on my heavy duty touring bike, and it works wonderfully for what I that bike was set up for.
I guess it always come back to me looking at my average touring speed over the years, and it has been pretty consistent in the 16, 17, 18kph, and for a heavier load and being in steep mountains, a mtb crank works really well.

a much lighter bike+load weight would be a different story, but I have never ridden that light really on a trip, but from commuting with I guess the weight of a light tourer, I'd still like some lower gears--but then as I mentioned from the get go here, I realize that the much larger cassettes probably cover this pretty well.

I'd still want to figure out gear inches and percentage jumps and all that to really get a better idea of what a given setup has compared to what I've ridden in the past.

Diamond, Far be it for me to predict a trend, but just as with the roadies, there seems to be a movement away from triples for use on mountain bikes, a touring bike's main source of drivetrains.

Brad

Cranksets dont seem to be priced based on # of rings. A Deore 3x crank can be had for $75+/- while a 105 crank costs $100+/-.
As for simplicity- there is still nothing simpler than a friction front shifter- be it on 2x or 3x. I have friction shifting FDs on my gravel bike using Gevenalle shifters and on my touring bike using a bar end shifter- they are both fast, consistent, and infinitely trimmable to ensure no chain rub.
I am not suggesting 2x STIs arent simpler than 3x STIs and i am not suggesting 2x STIs arent a good option- just saying friction shifting front is incredibly simple(regardless of ring #) and STIs are inherently more complex.


The benefits of a triple are...
- typically lower cost setup compared to a subcompact 2x system to achieve the same range.
- typically wider range compared to compact 2x setups.
- it also allows for smaller jumps in shifting compared to 1x(and i think your 2x, but not certain...im lazy).
- less wear on rings, chain, and cogs due to less extreme chain angles.
- allows for more versatility- bike can be used unloaded for faster rides without lacking for proper gears.

- im not sure if weight is saved measurable weight compared to a subcompact 2x.
a deore triple(42-32-34) plus BB and 9sp common 11-34 cassette weighs 1290g and costs about $125 total while giving a gear range of 104-19.
a sugino xd triple(46-36-26) plus BB and 9sp common 11-34 cassette weighs 1288g and costs $175 total while giving a gear range of 113-20.
an XT 38-28 double plus BB and XT 11sp 11-40 cassette weighs 1208g and costs $276 total while giving a gear range of 94-19.

Really, besides cost, reduced wear, and smaller jumps there isnt much of a benefit.

mstateglfr, you're probably correct in all accounts but that has never stopped the biking industry (read >>Shimano) from heading a different avenue and planned obsolescence. The trend is to fewer rings up front and will eventually force touring bikes to use even more niche components that won't integrate as well with standard road or MB components.

That is quite similar to my 24/42/46 triple with an eight speed 11/32 cassette. I use this on two different touring bikes, one has 700c and the other 26 inch wheels. The lowest gears are 19.2 gear inches on the 26 inch bike and 20.7 on the 700c.

I used to use a road triple with an aftermarket granny of 24, thus the triple originally was 30/42/52, so it was a 24/42/52 with my smaller granny gear. But after about 10 years I decided to make the big ring small enough for half step gearing. Thus, the 42 is the only stock ring on both of my touring triples.

First photo is the 26 inch bike, the second is the 700c.

That third one is why I am not interested in anything other than my triple. Not much more I dislike about pedaling than being "caught between" two gears. Recently replaced the rings on my triple. Went from a 48/36/26 to a 46/36/24 matching set. 34t large on the rear. At first I was wary about dropping from 48 to 46 because I also commute on the bike on mostly flat terrain. But it has worked out well because I am now using a smaller cog on the rear that previously didn't get as much use.

True regarding Shimano, but the great news is that touring bikes dont need to be on the cutting edge of cycling tech, so many other companies can fill the void that Shimano, SRAM, and Campy dont want to fill.

man after my own heart. when the headwinds hit me this fall i was thrilled to have the halfstep. first time i have ever used such close ratios and while most of the time i didnt need to trim that closely, a few times it was really welcome.

I very much suspect you guys have beefy legs that are more comfortable with lower cadences, as I've always found mid rings of 39, 40, 42 to be too tall for loaded touring, and 36, 34 and 32 rings just seem to work better for my legs for those mid range speeds we are most often going, let's say 15 to 25kph.

I had an Italian racing bike that I rode a lot back in the 70s, it had half step gearing and from that I was familiar with the concept.

I decided to convert one of my touring bikes to half step (plus granny) before I rode the Pacific Coast in 2014. I found minimal benefit from half step on that trip because the grade was constantly changing by enough that when I shifted I wanted to shift more than only a half step. But for riding around home, I really liked half step for those times when the grade or windage changes by just a bit.

This past February I cycled Southern Florida (Big Cyprus, Everglades, Keys) and the only hills were approaches to bridges. The half step was fantastic because (other than bridges) the only times I shifted was when there was a very small change of effort needed due to a windage change. On that trip I do not think I every used my granny gear.

I attached a photo of one of the big hills in Everglades.


I usually run a cadence of about 72 to 78 on a derailleur bike, but at the end of a long day that might be down into the mid 60s when I am low on steam. My Rohloff bike has bigger steps between gears, there my cadence is usually between about 71 and 81. I do not think my cadence ever gets over 85.

Where it is reasonably flat and little wind I am usually about 12 to 13 mph (19 to 21 km/hr) when touring, yesterday when riding for exercise without a load on the bike I was usually about 15.5 mph (about 25 km/hr) on the flat, there was almost no wind yesterday while I was riding.

I have never had a cadence thing, and rarely try to figure out my cadence, so I'm still a bit clueless for what my preference range is in numbers. All I know is that I just find a smaller mid ring to work better for how I ride. I set up an old bike this summer as a commuter and the low to mid quality crankset on it (no bolts, so cant change rings) with all steel rings is a 42/34/24, which combined with 700 wheels, makes a really good combo, and I can easily ride in the mid 34 ring with a 11-28 7 speed cassette, up to a good 35kph at least, maybe 40 (dont have a cyclocomputer on it, so am guessing), but what Im getting at is that I find that choice of rings to work very well, and would make a great touring crank.
On my 26in bike, the 44/32/22 is great for loaded, but it would be nice to have a bit higher in the mid ring for less loaded situations.

but hey, these are all small differences and whatever works eh?

i think 60 is my about my minimum cadence and i would be amazed if i ever got over 90 for more than a short blast up a hill or out of the way of traffic. i will say i rarely use the granny. in fact when i put the granny on i got a steel one to make sure it would last. what a ridiculous thing to do considering how seldom i use it.

pictured is my half step and granny rig. i have since changed out the nuovo record rd for a long cage 105.

yup, Im much more of a spinner, my knees just prefer it. On one of my bikes I sometimes spin out my 50/12 and get to between 65 and 70k, and looking at a gearing calculator once, I saw that that comes out to about 120-125 rpm or something, but its been a while since I looked at the chart, so I forget the exact number. Thats a short sprint though, so obviously dont do that often, more just to say that my legs and knees are more comfortable at higher cadences and regularly spin up on my commute.

Range is only one factor in gearing. Probably the least important one as well. Compare these two gearing patterns. The lower one is the gearing I currently use on my touring bike. Both have the same "range" but it's pretty easy to see that if you went to that extreme, the shifting pattern on the double would be almost impossible to use. The transition from one to the other is too extreme. In essence, the bike is equipped with 2 independent 9 speed systems.

So let's go to a more reasonable double. But which end of the range should be sacrificed? Keeping the low at the same point...I really like having a super low gear... and assuming that some overlap between the two rings would be good, a 32/20 would be a good choice. But, if you look closely, I'd be coasting at a bit over 20 mph. That's way too slow for downhills.

Sacrificing the low end, I could use a 46/32. Frankly, my knees hurt just looking at that one.

Of course I could pick a more middle ground but then I lose the low gears and the high gears. Of course just staying with the triple, I can keep the high, keep the low and have lots of choices in between. I don't see that a sacrificing anything.

why sacrifice for a "trend"?

22-30-40 paired with a 9-spd 11-36 gives a
range of ~17-102 inches with 700c tires.
or ~16-95 inches with 26" tires.

get to keep the top and the bottom,
with a nice selection in the middle.

I use a trekking triple with 48/36/26. If I was loaded heavy I'd make the bottom ring even smaller. Cassette is a 10 speed 12-30.

The middle ring gives me options and close gears. The other two give me climbing and descending. Why would I give up my triple?