Advantages of triple drivetrains (VO post)

[Patrick Moore]

VO makes a good case for triples:

https://mailchi.mp/velo-orange.com/triplesaregreatchangemymind?e=9c5efe5ba1

Simplicity and Effectiveness While 1x systems boast simplicity, the emphasis on constant shifting may be overstated. Many riders find themselves primarily using the middle ring, operating as a 1x system with added flexibility to adapt to different terrain.

The point that triples are usually used as 1Xs with low and high ranges available is the key, I think. I know that, even with 10 or 11 in back, I'd not want a 1X, and even a 1X + granny (ie, very wide range subcompact 2X) would leave me wanting easy-shifting gears for steep rolling offroad terrain (which I don't ride anymore), as I found when I swapped out a 3X7 for a 2X9 on my erstwhile Fargo. For road use including heavy loads and steep hills the 2X9 was easier to use and provided sufficient range with close cruising steps, but I did miss the middle-ring range between about 65" and 35" which comes with the middle ring on a 46/36/24 triple.

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[Kyle Cotchett]

I just did my first longer ride on a triple and really enjoyed it. It was fifty miles of mixed terrain. I use downtube shifters and like to not fuss with both levers when you are not sure what's around the bend on trails so I left my front crank in the middle gear like a 1x during those sections. The 24 tooth ring really came in handy on the final steep climb when my legs were really feelin it!

[Steven Sweedler]

For several years all my bikes have had triples, usually 46-32-20 on XT 737 cranks. For this current trip I took off the big ring because I rarely use it when touring with Cindy, or any of my solo riding, just when riding with the guys chasing them down hills. It does look a little ridiculous, with the front der way up in the air but so far its working out just fine.

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgsXL-XZ%2BiZzsBoQQ7Ne5ejQzbUJu97Pj3rJ8Cno4M-YVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Mc]

I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked back.  

Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  

[Patrick Moore]

Man, that cage-to-tooth gap is far bigger than even those I've had on my triple to double conversions! I changed the 46/36/24 (7 sp)  triple on the Fargo to a 38/24 (9 sp) double and just left the LX fd in the same place, reasoning that if the fd could shift the 36/24 well, it would shift the 38/24 just about as well. It worked fine.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALimyfLGhrHMJR7S8JoADBKFzqo8wDOEaJHYhcMfS6AcB4bfnA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Eric Norris]

I have a triple on just one bike (Soma Saga). My main problem is that when I’m in the smallest chainring I am moving so slowly that it’s hard to stay upright. On the very steep inclines that necessitate the small cog, I find it easier to just get off and walk the bike up the hill (something we used to call a “24-inch gear”).

--Eric Norris
campyo...@me.com
Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 

On Jan 9, 2024, at 9:20 AM, Ron Mc <bulld...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've been on half-step triples for over a decade, and never looked back.  

Many 30-mi rides never see a rear shift.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8a0db1ed-36ab-49f7-acbb-86b050cd5e85n%40googlegroups.com.
<Capture.JPG>

[Johnny Alien]

For years Grant/Rivendell argued against lots of gears in the rear because people didn't need to shift that much. The message was to push through if its too hard or even get off and push the bike up the hill. Now its shifting to a new argument...why not have those extra gears available. Honestly its all marketing to me. I like the simplicity of a 1x because I get the bulk of the gears I need with less maintenance. For me (personally mind you) the front derailer has always been the sketchiest part of the setup. Dropping chains, chain rub....its all a balancing act. I am happy to have that all go away with a sacrifice of the granny gear. I see what VO is saying and I think its probably a practical opinion but for me?? 1x just works.

[Conway Bennett]

I dissent.  Front derailers are unnecessarily complicated to setup, and so are triple chainrings, especially on XD2s.  I have 1X 10 one two bikes, and love it, and I just specced a 1X 11 with a Deore 5100 derailer and 11-51 cassette for my BMC Monstercross.  The whole drivetrain cost less than a nice triple crankset, it's all lighter too.  Check out Analog Cycles for inspiration.

[Ben Adrian]

I've been kind of triple-curious again. I live in a hilly part of L.A. My commuter/city bike has an 11-34 11s with a 46/30 front. I've been finding the 46 to 30 jump to feel pretty large. It feels much more dramatic than 50-34. For instance, if I switch big to small in the from, I'll sift down at least 3 cogs on the back to totally avoid spinning out immediately. I sometimes find myself mildly cross chaining in either direction to find the right gear.

So I've been thinking of either going 1x, or 3x. My other bike is 1x, and it's a carbon all-road/gravel thing. I like the setup for rougher terrain. Also, I just don't like the idea of having duplicate bikes. I also romanticize the bike I had about 20 years go, which had an 11-27 9 speed with 24/36/46. At the time, it felt luxurious, natural, and easy. But I didn't know then what I know now, and many times when I've set up a modern bike like this one from my past, I get quickly disillusioned and undo that change.

I kinda feel like the headline should be "triples: still fun and useful for hands on bike nerds who like to tinker."

Ben

[Jim Whorton]

I read that same VO post and decided it made a fine case for 1x.  If you are spending most of your time in the middle ring of a triple, why ride a triple?  I get it for racing, or keeping up with a fast group, but I don't do those things.

My most recently acquired (old) bike has a triple, though, and I have resisted modifying it.  Still waiting to have my mind changed.

Jim in Rochester

[Joe Bernard]

I might agree that a triple is unnecessary unless you really like pedaling downhill, but I'm off the 1x bandwagon. My Riv Custom (parts currently transferred to a Clem) was set up with a 34 x 11-50 11-speed, SRAM Rival 1 rear mech. It's fine for most of the roads around here but there's a couple VERY steep sections that are on loops I ride all the time and I'd rather stay on the bike and spin vs. walking. Plus the range is simply too high for the also-steep trails I've been exploring lately. So now I've added a 26t granny ring and fiddled with the B-screw enough to make the derailleur work with it (it's not supposed to). I'm #TeamDouble!

[Bill Lindsay]

Ben

You run a 46/30 with an 11-34 11sp cassette.  If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple.  46x11 is pretty darn high for a commuter/city bike.  Anything higher than a 4:1 in my book is for the sole purpose of pedaling at >>40mph.  That is a real use-case in hilly areas, but not for me, and especially not for a commuter/city bike.  That's just a suggestion.  The jump from 42 to 30 is much less dramatic.  

BL in EC

[John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ]

Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple"

Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???????

PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ]

I find a 46-36-26 triple with a 9 speed 12-36 cassette on 650Bx38 wheels gives me a 100 to 19 gi range and nice steps in my cruising range (50 to 75 gi) with a relatively straight chain line.   The middle and inner ring chain lines are relatively straight if shifting to the middle after cog 5 and the inner after cog 7.  

I think, the main drawback to triple is the inherently higher Q.   I have a Sugino AT (46-36-26) with a 150-152mm Q, but also a 1975 Shimano Dura Ace 52-39 (1st generation) with a 138mm Q.   I wish the triple could have the lower Q.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Chris Halasz]

I'm planning on going from 3x to 1x on my all-around Tosco'd LHT. Maybe even do that today, and replace the big ring with the Rivendell chainring guard. 

I haven't used the 48 in a long, long time. As for the 26 inner: there was a t-shirt from the 80s from a bike shop in Ketchum that read, "if you ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'". If it gets that low, I appreciate the change in blood circulation by just walking those few minutes. 

- Chris

[Steven Sweedler]

One point that I think is being missed, is for loaded touring bikes triples make more sense. Though I am not camping I still am carrying around 40 lbs on a 32 lb bike, low gears are especially useful on long and/or steep hills. When home in central  New Hampshire many of my favorite roads are diificult if not impossible for me to ride without a 15-18” gear.

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c1526c99-432d-4ca0-8ab6-5d747ae4b905n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ben Adrian]

I had that same thought, Bill. The big ring on my triples are always the least used.

"Unfortunately," my brank is a 110bcd with the Bikingreen 46/30 chainring set... machined from one piece of aluminum.
But if a WI VBC crank pops up used, I'll make a dash for it!

--Ben

[Bill Lindsay]

John emphatically asked (with seven question marks):

"Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???????"

That depends on the front derailleur and the chain stay.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8 John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ wrote:

[J J]

Steven, thanks for the point about how useful triples are for riding with big loads, whether for touring, day tripping, shopping, whatever. I frequently haul loads up hills on my already-heavy Rivs, so a wide gear range with 24-34-44  or a 26-36-46 triple and a 34- or 36-tooth large rear sprocket works great for me. I'm a tinkerer but I don't mess with my front ders. They're set it and forget it. I also love the way shiny triple cranks look. I've never felt compelled to try a 1x from a functional or aesthetic standpoint. 

I agree with Johnny that much newfangled bike stuff and trends are driven by product differentiation and marketing. Sometimes what was once virtue becomes vice, sometimes what is old becomes new again. 

[DavidP]

I have a couple of bikes with 46/30 front rings and 11-34 cassettes; I end up mainly using them like a double 1x (no, I don't use the 46x11) and for these bikes I like it fine.

In line with Bill's point, pairing a smaller front step with a wider range cassette (but not too crazy) can work well. I recently ended up with a 2x9, 42/34 x 11-40t setup on a bike and it's pretty nice for general use. The smaller front step allows getting over rolling hills using front shifts only, it's got great range (.85:1 - 3.8:1) and still doesn't end up with a bunch of simultaneous front/rear shifting. And the 34t small ring lets you use a standard 110 double crank.

-Dave

[Conway Bennett]

Seems like a lot of grief.

Fair winds,

Captain Conway Bennett
239.877.4119

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/JYZtIGX3rMQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ef84207b-87e1-421c-a3bc-9940a347de81n%40googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Turner]

I love a triple paired with an 8 speed or less corncob cassette matched to downtube shifters. That's an amazing roadie configuration right there. Not to mention bomb proof. But I think what rides equally as nice is 11 speed 2x setups with a wide range cassette in the rear. The choice for me comes down to looks and vanity. Ron Mc's teaser drivetrain pic is really scratching an itch for me though! 

[Garth]

If I had a track bike and a track to ride I'd ring a fixed gear or singlespeed if I wanted to be blasphemous about it. Otherwise 2x and 3x. I always liked to joke that those who choose a 1x always believe they're "right" , all-the-time ! Ahahahahaha. C'mon, you gotta laugh at the hilarity of all this, as if 1x, 2x or 3x are in competition against each other. I was recently called a luddite(I had to look that one up as to the specific reference) for favoring steel frames,  rim brakes, friction shifting and multiple chainrings. As if going to a carbon frame, discs, and a battery operated shifting 1x system was somehow "progress" and that what I rode was so archaic that it was for children and primates. Pass the bananas then, eh ?  It was unfathomable that anyone could possibly discern what was proper for themselves regardless of whatever the latest fad in cycling is. Have you noticed how the trends come and go like the wind, always changing ? While the basic stuff we ride just endures. It doesn't need changing or upgrading and it's not broken or flawed, and that's the point. I feel the same way about gasoline autos, but that's another story, albeit the theme is the same.

My double is a 46/36 and a 13-32 7sp FW. I love that I can ride six cogs in the rear with the 46t ring.  I've said it a million times but I love riding the larger rings, albeit now it's 46t rather than 50t or 52t. I'd rather have the usable gears in my power range than having a few very large gears used once in great while. I can spin out of the 46t quickly downhill, so I tuck and enjoy the flight rather than concerning myself with pedaling. I have plenty of other opportunities to blow my lungs up up on the uphills :)

My Bomba has a 44/36/24 Andel triple using only the seven 14-32 cogs of a 9sp 12-36. Even with a less than great Surly stainless 44t big ring with no beveling, I have no issues with shifting the FD. IDK why some have problems with them, likely for the same reasons some don't. (((:shrugs:))) 

With a double or triple it's so easy to criss cross your gear choices quickly as you use both hands. With fewer cogs, I like seven, it's heaven !

[Piaw Na]

A 24/34 is the same as a 36/51 in gear inches. So there's no advantage to a triple if you're looking for a low gear.

I moved to a 1x for all my bikes because it turned out that dropped shifts into the granny were causing me to stand up on many climbs when I should have shifted. Since there's no front shifting involved on a 1x I ended up faster up all the hills because I was more willing to shift. It's not marketing. It's human factors.

[Will Boericke]

I don't believe anyone has mentioned the significant downside to a triple drivetrain: setting up a triple front derailleur.  Oh wait, I forgot I'm in crusty friction shifting land.  Setting it up for indexed shifting is an absolute nightmare.  Doubles are bad enough.

Will

[Matti]

For anyone interested, SOMA has a New Albion XDT(Sugino clone) triple crankset (silver, 170 or 175mm) on 65% off sale through midnight tonight, January 9.  Only $49.00 using code newyear6524 .

[Kim H.]

@Steven -

As a suggestion to elevate your ridiculous appearance of your crank set by purchasing a chain guard. This might help you:

https://www.rivbike.com/products/silver-chainring-guard?_pos=1&_sid=2b21174cc&_ss=r

Kim Hetzel.

[Steven Sweedler]

Kim, I may put a chainguard on, but Riv’s are for 110 bcd, and this crank has a 94 bcd. I didn’t have time before I left to order one and the chainrings I had on hand were not the right size. 

Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshire

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a89a72cf-f67b-4b43-8e92-51eb649a8feen%40googlegroups.com.

[Kim H.]

@Steven -

Understood.

Kim Hetzel.

[Nick Payne]

On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 7:30:47 am UTC+11 John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ wrote:

Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple"

Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???????

Not in my experience. I have a couple of bikes with 38t big ring (2x setups, not 3x), and the FD clears the chainstay. See photo below of my Appaloosa with 38t chainring. But I'm using 2x FDs (mostly Deore XT M786), which have slightly shorter cages than an FD intended for 3x. 

PS  I agree with your comment on the 46-11 being a very high gear.

When I started road racing as a young bloke in the 1970s, standard top gear on a road bike was 52-13: riders won the Tour de France with that. 44-11 gives exactly the same top gear - the chainring being four times the size of the smallest cog. Even when I was racing Masters at national level 20 years ago, I only had a 48-11 top gear, and didn't find any situations where that was too low a big gear.

In the days when rear freewheels were 5-speed or less, it made sense to use triple chainrings. I used to use a 14-32 freewheel with half step plus granny. But these days, with 10 or 11 or 12 cogs on the cassette, the only bikes in our garage that still have three chainrings are the tandems, where you can actually use both a 54-11 on slight downhills, and need a 24-34 of 24-40 for climbing steep hills. Most of my own bikes have something like 38/27 or 38/26 chainrings and 11-34 or 11-40 11-speed cassette.

Nick Payne

[Bill Schairer]

Echoing Nick:

"On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 7:30:47 am UTC+11 John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ wrote:

Bill L stated:   " If it were me, I'd experiment with a 42-tooth big ring before going to a triple

Question to Bill:   Will a 42T large ring result in the FD hitting the chain stay in the inner ring of a triple (say 24T or 26T) ???????""

 

John, here is my 42/34/19 triple.  Ideally, I suppose I would drop the fd a hair more but this works flawlessly.  I do have a chain catcher on there.  This was set up for a fully loaded trip to Alaska with an 11 or 12-36 9 speed cassette and I just haven't got around to going back to something more normal.  I did not like the drop from the 34 to 19 but sure am glad I had it.  The 34 was good for maybe up to short 5-6% grades but for anything extended over 5% (of which there were many) not low enough for me.  Yes, I used 19x36 often without falling over.  As I recall, 19x36 is a sub 15" gear. For me, pushing a heavily loaded bike up a steep grade is not at all a pleasant or easy experience.

Bill S

San Diego

 

[Drew Saunders]

Although I'm not Bill (middle name is William, though), I'm using a 26-42 (triple with chainguard) and an older "road double" front derailleur, and the FD doesn't hit the chainstay. I have the FD a wee higher than might be absolutely perfect in order to clear the chainstay, but it shifts just fine.

I'm enjoying the "one by with bailout" a lot since moving from a triple (24-36-46, 11-23 9sp) to the 26-42, 11-28 11-speed. 

Most of my rides don't go up the steeper hills of the Santa Cruz mountains, so I can go many rides without touching the FD at all. I managed to get the FD lined up just perfectly such that the chain doesn't rub in either the 11 or 28, which surprised me, I was expecting to have to trim the FD often. When I do go up the steeper roads, I'll probably use the FD just twice on that ride: one downshift and one upshift. Only very rarely do I need four shifts. Yes, a 1x might work better, but I like the smaller jumps of my cassette.

It's to the point where I'm going to go from two Silver barends to having a downtube shifter for the front. My hips are such that my left knee gets perilously close to hitting the left barend shifter if I'm out of the saddle (right knee tracks more "straight"), so a downtube shifter would be better. Reading this discussion got me to searching eBay, and I found a Mavic 821 left only DT retrofriction shifter. This was a special product they sold with the failed Zap system. I could have gotten a pair of older Shimano shifters for less, but this will give me a Silver shifter, Mavic shifter, New Albion cranks, Campy FD, Shimano RD and cassette, SRAM chain drivetrain, just to be contrary to the all-one manufacturer that modern setups seem to require. When the Shimano cassette wears out, I may get a Sunrace, just to get one more manufacturer in the drivetrain.

Drew

[Patrick Moore]

I did that for years with 48/38/28 triples and close ratio (13-21 commuting, 12-19 gofast) 7 speed drivetrains. It worked well, with most riding in the middle ring. ?This ws

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/64e420b6-ab3c-415f-8bdc-336ca257973dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Will M]

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks!  

I swapped out an Ultegra 52x42x30 for a RBW/Silver 42x28 and never looked back.  (Yes, that little Microshift "skeleton key" front derailer is brilliant).  And my Yuba cargo bike got the RBW/Silver 38x24 because the 44x34x24 offered no advantages for a bike that is 100% about transporting "cargo" (kids) in a city.  I get the appeal of 1X's, but some of the analog Yuba long-wheelbase cargo bikes that were spec'ed as 1X got a reputation for throwing chains under load.  Never understood why. 

@ Ron Mc: Love the half-step setup.  Love! Have you seen John Schubert's article "Half Step: The Gearing Choice for the Retrogrouch"? (Adventure Cyclist magazine, March 2002)  My bucket list includes a 1983 Specialized Sequoia with this drivetrain. :-)  

Cheers,

Will 

NYC

[Bill Lindsay]

Ultegra 52x42x30 makes a nice compact double.  Just remove the 52 (free) and put a guard in its place ($15).  Now you've got a 42x30 with the ability to put a smaller ring on the 74 bcd if need be.  The skeleton key is indeed a useful FD.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Tim Bantham]

Can those Ultegra triples be found in a square taper or are they all Octalink?

[Will Boericke]

The one I know of is 9s Octalink.  I don't think there was a hollowtech version but happy to be corrected.  You can get an earlier era 7s. RSX triple that's square taper.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/JYZtIGX3rMQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/de2e94bf-2242-434f-855e-e927451fe48dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Joe Bernard]

"Can those Ultegra triples be found in a square taper or are they all Octalink?"

All Octalink. The previous gen 7/8-spd era Ultegra square taper (600 tri-color) were all doubles, if you search long and hard you can find 105 triples from that period but I don't think many were produced. 

Joe Bernard 

[Steve]

So far I 've not noted anyone else posting my particular combination of integers; 44-34-24 on a Velocity Orange triple. 

It started out with a 48t big ring, but my late 90s XT rear derailleur couldn't quite deal with the 48x36 cross chained combination. I'm smart just enough to know that I'm dumb enough to have eventually shifted into that combo.  You could say I had more love for the XT RD than I did for the 48t ring. I replaced the ring with an inexpensive Origin 8  thinking .  I wouldn't use it much anyway.

Turns out I really like the 10t increments on the front end.   Shifting between the 3 rings with the chain running in the middle cogs yields steps of ~ 10 gear inches. Over the right terrain I've been able to amuse myself by using only the front derailleur. 

Steve  

[Jason Fuller]

Admittedly I skimmed (at best) this rather lengthy thread, but wanted to chime in and agree with these points which have undoubtedly been made: 

1. A typical triple's benefit is that it usually means a lot less front shifting compared to a double, even though that's a bit counter-intuitive. A triple's middle ring is good for 90% of riding, whereas with a 'standard' double you're often crossing the small/big ring threshold. 

2. A non-standard double, where the outer ring is sized smaller so that it is not too much bigger than the triple's middle, paired with a sufficiently large big cog out back, is the best of both worlds for everyone except those who want to be able to low-cadence pedal down hills.  

I am generally totally happy with 38/24 to 11-34. For a more road-focused bike I can push it to 42-26 or 42-28 and still stay in the big ring for all but longer hills.  The key to this, IMO, is square taper cranks where you can take advantage of the added chainstay clearance that small rings affords, and run a shorter spindle. This brings the rings inboard so that the big ring's chainline is about the same as a triple's middle ring would be 

[Jason Fuller]

Footnote:  I do love the 10t jump compared to the 14-16t also, but with the aforementioned gears I don't front shift often enough that it's a big deal.  For 9s I would run what I already mentioned, but if going to 11s I would bump up to a 11-42 cassette, now that the jumps are reasonable, and switch to a closer ratio front.  42-30 probably. This would mean not being able to run as short of a spindle though, so big-big combo might become a bit more cross-chainy 

[John Bokman]

Agreed. Speaking only for myself, the reason for using a triple,  is for loaded hauling. I have plenty low enough low on my compact double for other riding (44/30 with a 12-36 9-speed cassette). Obviously, this depends on terrain, one's riding habits, and vigor. However, what I fail to understand is, as nice as the new VO crank looks to be, the ratio has a big ring of 48 teeth. Why? I can't imagine needing larger than a 44 tooth big ring for such a setup. If they offered a 44-34-24, I'd be very interested. Otherwise, I'd buy the crank and immediately swap out the big ring. I guess, to answer my own question, they are trying to please all of the people all of the time.

[Ron Mc]

I've always thought the guys counting teeth on cassettes could use a lesson in riding bikes.  

They want the perfect cone - looks like the sides on a pyramid - instead, they should be shooting for a parabolic shape, with no skipped teeth counts in the small cogs.  

Here's my only compact double, which functions like two 1x's - one for the road, the other for off-road, load, and extreme grade.