Is It Time To Lay The Triple Crank To Rest?
June 19th, 2008 by Guitar TedIf you follow bicycle technology at all, especially road cycling technology, you probably know by now about the intentions of Campagnolo to bring three eleven speed gruppos to market for next year. To add to this, it also has been rumored for awhile now that component maker FSA is in development of a 11 speed road and mountain bike gruppo. What could this mean for mountain bikers and 29″er folks in particular?
Besides the obvious technical difficulties in making an eleven speed drivetrain a possibility, it remains to be seen what gearing choices might be offered which might bring the need for a triple crankset into question. Given that rear cogs exist that are as big as 38 teeth, it is not out of the realm of possibility that an eleven speed mountain cassette could include such a large rear cog and still go down to 12 teeth on the high end. Would we still need a triple crank set?
It is possible that such an arrangement could be pulled off. It might even be a desirable thing to do from the standpoint of chainline, a possible widening of the overlock dimensions for rear wheels, and from an overall drivetrain weight perspective. With nearly the same gear spread it wouldn’t hurt most mountain bikers either. If eleven speed mountain bike cassettes do appear, it doesn’t make any sense to have them and not ditch one of the front chain rings.
From a purely 29″er perspective, it may be a toss up. Several folks in the mountainous West will still want the ‘granny” anyway. Even losing a little bit of the low end will not be acceptable. So, perhaps this idea should be panned.
Of course, none of this even begins to touch upon drive train longevity, chain strength, or keeping those big rear gears from folding over under major pedaling pressures from mountain biking. It doesn’t even touch upon whether we even need such a drive train and if mountain bikers will accept it or not. It is just an observation that I make in case we do see this come to light. Secrectly, (or not so!) I hope it doesn’t happen. In reality I think it will go to ten speed first, again- not that any body is asking for that!
However, even at nine speeds the professionals and a lot of enthusiasts are ditching a ring off the front of their cranksets. Free riders, all mountain riders, and of course, down hillers, have realized this is a great way to go for years already.
Don’t even start with single speeding!
The triple crank set is perhaps a choice that may need to be looked at a little harder and just maybe, it might become the odd choice instead of the norm.
What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
Let’s see: a the gearing provided with a 22:34 is .65. A 32:38 (no granny) is .87, which would be far from low enough for most riders, 29er or otherwise… To get a comparable low with two rings, you’d be looking at a 25t little ring, which would mean either a massive jump to the second (big) ring, which would have to be in the neighborhood of 40t- something that I haven’t seen work reasonably well since the dawn of indexed shifting.
Sure- you can save a handful of grams by ditching a ring (granny or otherwise). The real savings, though, would come when there is only one ring and the front deraileur is ditched altogether (though it may need to be replaced by some sort of chain guide, negating some of the savings). Sure, there are chainline improvements to be had by ditching a ring, but that’s about it. The weight change is negligible (especially as a percentage of total rolling weight).
Some sort of an internally geared crankset or hub would go a long way towards achieving these goals (remember SRAM’s 3×7 system?). Folks have become accustomed to a wide range of gearing, and as rarely as I use my big ring, I certainly wouldn’t ditch it- the advantage of having it (say, in a race, or aborting a mountain ride onto the road during a hail storm) far outweighs the 38g or so it would save. A double (on mountain bikes or even on the road bike) is much a macho thing as anything else.
If you’re going to be beat by the next guy, leaving a chaniring at home won’t change that.
What will eleven cogs really get us besides less clicks between unique gear combinaitons? A standard 27-speed drivetrain (22, 32, 44 and 12-32 or 34) only has about ~ fourteen unique, non-repeated gear ratios anyway. Why do we need so many gears? The wide acceptance and popularity of single-speeding puts the need of multiple chainrings, and even multiple cogs into question. There are plenty of people in the “long and steep” west that swear by the single-speed. I’ve been racing a 1X9 myself this season and have not once felt like more gears was necessary. We didn’t “need” seven, eight, or even nine, we don’t need 10 and we definitely don’t need 11. An eleven speed cassette presents even more problems for a 29-inch wheel. If you elongate the hub body your make the wheel more assymetrical weakening the already “weakened” large wheel. FSA and Campy should spend there research and development dollars on improving existing technology instead of coming up with new marketing gimics that the cycling community doens’t need. If eleven speed becomes the norm I’m moving to single-speed and not looking back. Campy is just grasping at the straws of their diminishing market share.
10 speed off-road turns to crap pretty fast – a little dust on shimano 10 and the shifting is gone; it only works for cyclocross because bike changes are allowed, and as it exists now won’t stand up to 3 hour rides in dusty conditions.
Something to consider with a 2×9 is that the existing front derailleurs hit can’t be adjusted low enough to the big ring (38) or they hit the chainstay…take a look at the multiple photos online, like the superfly on cyclng news that has the bontrager adaptor show above installed.
Two rings up front seems like a fine idea so long as riders have room to choose tooth-counts that work for them. Right now I’m riding 22- and 32-tooth rings on most of my bikes. I’m planning to bump one of those up to 22/34 (or maybe it’ll have to be 22/36), to give myself a bit more room on the high end. Others however, might prefer 34/44, or something like that. I guess my point here is, don’t automatically assume that everyone wants to dump what is now the granny gear. I need that little gear.
As for 11 cogs in the back, I’m skeptical of any benefit from having so many. I try to keep an open mind, but I sometimes wonder if nine isn’t too many.
Bubba, a link would be nice.
I’m currently running a 2×9 on my 29er setup and LOVE it. Since i don’t race, I don’t miss my big ring at all. What I do miss though is bashing my big ring on obstacles I clear. One thing that’s for sure, I’m curious to see if anything changes with 29er gearing. Personally, I’d love to have just one more gear below granny as out west, we get some pretty stiff climbs.
2×9 works for me. I have a custom (made myself) 26×38 up front and love it. I used to avoid my 22 on my triple like the plague for 2 reasons. The chainline got goofy and the gear jump was so big. I also was paranoid of dropping the chain. Now when I drop into my 26 I have usable gears on pretty much all offroad riding without a front shift. And with a 2×9 I can crosschain on both rings with abandon. No shortage for me of gearing on either end of the spectrum. Love it.
Actually why even bother with cogs…..i have a very strong feeling the cassette will go the way of friction shifting in 3-4 years….if not sooner.
I have not seen the point of a triple in a Long time, for almost 3 year I have been running singles or doubles/compacts, and I have even lost favor with the 50/39-type doubles. Too many cross ratios with a triple, to little range with a double,
I have a 22-36 “mountain compact” on my stout and its perfect.
I’m dropping the big ring on my crank set. If you want lower gearing, try a 20t granny and a 36t low cog, you can climb steep stuff all day on that.
Mr. X, where does one get a cassette with a 36-tooth, low cog? I’m just curious.
marc: your example is correct, but I was speaking of going 2 X 11 with a 38T low cog. Actually, 39T lows exist for 9 speed now.
Johnathon Gennick: see this link: http://www.actiontec.us/prices.htm
Scroll down to find the cassettes listing.
Road cassettes make an offroader slow in the long run, been there done that.
I believe that for XC racing, gear gaps of ~25% being best lap times. Shifting takes time, and it’s good for legs to be able to change pace. In cassette you’ll see gaps as small as 5%. Shift to standstill, or skip cogs. A 7-spd 11-40t would be something I believe in. Single front ring of course. Better, a gear hub that offers such big gaps.
Fad.
I have run 42-29 rings on my 29er for 2 years now and love it. With a Paul Thumbie shifter it is quick and simple shifting and is tuneable. No need to make things more complex with a triple set up. I use a new XTR front derailleur and that works perfectly too. As for 10 or 11 rear gears, why bother unless they can make a chain that can take it.
Y’all can sit here on the immernets and jibba jabba all you want about triples. I got rid of mine 3 years ago and haven’t looked back yet. One of the best things I’ve ever done to mah bi-cycle.
Tell you whut
Been running a 2×8 on one bike and 2×9 on the other for about 8 years or so now. Never missed my granny cog. My 2×8 was set up 32/44 and my 2×9 34/46. I have used both set ups on the east coast when I lived there and I use them here in Colorado with no issues. I am of the opinion that the triple crank will eventually go away. I would expect it to go away on XTR or XT first (as an optional crankset) before it trickles down. The low end groupos will probably not change. The wal-mart crowd still needs to feel like they’re getting more for their money.
I dunno… I still kinda like the triple.
Just the other day I crashed and trashed my derailleur hanger. I could get one working rear gear (the 2nd biggest rear cog, a 30t). Turns out that the resulting three speed 22×30, 32×30 and 44×30 I had relatively little trouble keeping up with the group for the remainder of the ride. On the steepest climbs, I got dropped due to my lack of 22×34 (yeah, I’m fat), but mostly I was OK. Basically what I’m saying is that I think we still need the range provided by a triple, at least on the (s)low end. With that said, I’m intrigued by the 2×9 with an 22×36 and 11-34, so I think I’m going to order a 36 ring to try it out on my 29er.
I would like to run a 2 x 9 on a mountain bike with the idea of simplicity and clearance for technical terrain. I have thought about it for my Superfly but have avoided it for two reasons: firstly, potential chain issues. ie: I was decending long fast dirt recently on a return from Gooseberry back to Zion and when I stopped pedaling one short rough section in my large front ring and smaller gear in rear I got chain wrap around the rear cassette and nearly killed the frt & rear derailleurs and mangled chain &crank arm. I was fine but could have been worse and this issue is likely accentuated with a hardtail. I am not certain if you create less chain tension hence, making it worse? Secondly, the large front chainring is a great sprinting gear and gear for roads or fast sections and when riding with others who don’t have one they are really missing and get left behind quickly.
I’ve been running a 2×9 for years on all my MTBs. 22-32-bash. I need the extra ground clearance a lot more than I need the extra few gears…my bashguard has big chunks out of it, and if it were a big ring it would have been destroyed long ago.
Then again, it’s mountainous around here, so I’m either grinding slowly up a hill or coasting down it. If there were a lot of flat, swoopy, buff trails in my area I’d probably think otherwise.
I have not had 3 rings on my mountain bike for 10 years… It all started with my Cannondale F3000SL which was stocked 2 by 9, it came geared with a 29 – 39. I started using a 26 – 36 up front on my first 29er, and have trimmed it down to just using one 32 or a 34 front ring depending on how much up hill their is. The chain never drops and never sucks.
I may consider going back to 2 rings if they came out with an affordable 2 by 9 crank that was light and would allow me to run something in the range of a 30 – 40. But for now, the single ring is lighter, less problematic, and easier to use.
Adam Craig has been rocking a single ring at world cups this year, and many other pros have been running only 2 rings for years.
Indeed they could add a 36 and 38 teeth in the back and ditch one chainring in the front. But I think it would be less painful to stick with 9 speed and offer more chainrings options in the front. Most companies offer only the 22-32-44 for years now although many people (me included) would like to ride other combinations like a 20-30-40 or 22-29-42, or anything else according to their preferences. I can choose the number of teeth I want to build a cassette now I want to choose the number of teeth I want to buid a crankset…
Hmmm.. This is a lot of jibba jabba for something that’s personal preference…….
Cubicle jobs anyone?
This is what I meant:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/tech/probikes/index.php?id=/photos/2008/tech/probikes/sam_schultz_gary_fisher_superfly08/sam_schultz_superfly_crankset
How are you guys keeping the chain on?