MTB's . . .is the triple finished ?

[thornie1543]

Bike companies are just cashing in because they know lots of mountain bikers must have the newest stuff to replace their hardly used old stuff.

[Stevek76]

So it makes me wonder if on MTB's, the triple is coming to an end.

For dedicated mountain biking I think it perhaps already has. My MTB is a 3x10 arrangement (22-33-44 and 11-36) and if I'm honest I've actually never used the big ring for anything other than getting to or from the trails a little faster than I otherwise would have done. When on the trails I also make very little use of the granny ring, 98% of the time I'm in the middle ring. Were the cassette a little wider ranging I could easily lose the granny as well so I can certainly see why things are heading for a single chainring.

Then there's the issue that big rings on triples are large enough that they can beach on larger obstacles which tends to knacker the teeth to the extent that shifting into them is actually a bit of an effort, hence bash guards, a 10 tooth at the back also allows a smaller chain ring further reducing strikes.

The final thing to consider is that ditching the front derailleur makes certain elements of full sus design easier.

At the lower end I don't think triples will go anywhere any time soon since lower end mtbs mostly tend to get bought for things other than dedicated mtbing and the greater range is needed.

[Drake]

Old chesnuts roasting on an open fire......
From this thread:- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=104517

I'm always intrigued as to why a 1x11 drivetrain is considered a step forward however many teeth the cassette has,when 2x11 gives more range and more ratio choice within that range.And a 3x8 has the same range with even more ratio choice.

That and what Bob posted about chains 1x11or12 is a fule's paradise,sorry but I can only word it that way.

The only reason 1x drivetrains are being pushed by the trade,is because there's more profit in 'the next big thing'.It has no,that's NO, N-O,benefit whatsoever. 3x beats 2x or 1x hands down,end of.
And before anyone claims a triple is hard to operate they need lessons in how to,like they'de need lessons in how work a 1x11

Sorry, I didn't realise that this topic had been posted before.
But to be honest I was only referring to mtb's, I'm fully aware of the practicalities of triples and doubles on other forms of cycling.
I use an old mtb with a triple and a 7sp cassette. And I find that a lot of the gear ratios I don't use off road, but then again i'm not a fast rider.

[Drake]

So it makes me wonder if on MTB's, the triple is coming to an end.

For dedicated mountain biking I think it perhaps already has. My MTB is a 3x10 arrangement (22-33-44 and 11-36) and if I'm honest I've actually never used the big ring for anything other than getting to or from the trails a little faster than I otherwise would have done. When on the trails I also make very little use of the granny ring, 98% of the time I'm in the middle ring. Were the cassette a little wider ranging I could easily lose the granny as well so I can certainly see why things are heading for a single chainring.

Then there's the issue that big rings on triples are large enough that they can beach on larger obstacles which tends to knacker the teeth to the extent that shifting into them is actually a bit of an effort, hence bash guards, a 10 tooth at the back also allows a smaller chain ring further reducing strikes.

The final thing to consider is that ditching the front derailleur makes certain elements of full sus design easier.

At the lower end I don't think triples will go anywhere any time soon since lower end mtbs mostly tend to get bought for things other than dedicated mtbing and the greater range is needed.

+1

[Mr Evil]

With SRAM saying they won't be developing any more MTD front dérailleurs, I think the writing is on the wall.

Gossamer fine chains aren't ideal for those who want chains to last more than a couple of months...

From what I've seen up until now, chains have been improving in longevity as they have narrowed. Possibly because they are being made more flexible to cope with the wider cassettes.

[reohn2]

I do appreciate this isn't quite the section of the market that you were on about, but as a Bikeability instructor I'm often confronted with BSOs with... how shall we say, "not very good" front triple derailleurs. And the sooner they are consigned to the dustbin of history the better it will be for the riders and anyone trying to get anything useful out of them, because they just don't work for any length of time and when they stop always manage to jam in the granny ring or halfway between that and the middle.

Though admittedly not on cheap MTB's,I've never had problems with cheap Tourney front mechs with triples when they're adjusted correctly and chains/cables lubed,they work.
That said I see some cheap end bikes being ridden in appalling states of disrepair.
Maintenance is a grand thing

Again from the perspective of a Bikeability trainer, but also a L2 coach in a Go-Ride club, there is no shortage of people who simply do not understand any gearing system on a bike unless it's only got one speed. In which case giving them two sets of controls to work in opposing directions is not an ideal place to start.

Pete.

Anyone who has problems with gears I find understand 1=easy 3=hard,and similarly so on the rear mech irrespective of the way the levers are pushed or twisted.
It's all a matter of taking the time to learn how to ride.

[reohn2]

With SRAM saying they won't be developing any more MTD front dérailleurs, I think the writing is on the wall.

Well it is if you want to ride Sram!

From what I've seen up until now, chains have been improving in longevity as they have narrowed. Possibly because they are being made more flexible to cope with the wider cassettes.

So how come they can't make 7,8 & 9sp chains to the same tolerances and durability?

[Sweep]

Sram have just released a 12 speed cassette.. It's only £350 for a consumable item!
Think I'll stick with my £20 9speed for now!

My fave bike currently has an eight on the back, last time i replaced it it cost around £7 Maybe better buy up some stocks though.

[reohn2]

For dedicated mountain biking I think it perhaps already has. My MTB is a 3x10 arrangement (22-33-44 and 11-36) and if I'm honest I've actually never used the big ring for anything other than getting to or from the trails a little faster than I otherwise would have done.

So you do use it then

When on the trails I also make very little use of the granny ring, 98% of the time I'm in the middle ring. Were the cassette a little wider ranging I could easily lose the granny as well so I can certainly see why things are heading for a single chainring.

You must be a very strong rider then,33x36 is almost 1to1,there are quite a few roadies who find such a gear too high in hilly terrain.I find myself using a the 22 inner ring quite a bit,but then I'm and oldie and not as goodie as I used to be

Then there's the issue that big rings on triples are large enough that they can beach on larger obstacles which tends to knacker the teeth to the extent that shifting into them is actually a bit of an effort, hence bash guards, a 10 tooth at the back also allows a smaller chain ring further reducing strikes.

There I agree,I could rid myself of the big 40t big ring and get along very well with just a 22/30 with a 11-36 10sp cassette.

The final thing to consider is that ditching the front derailleur makes certain elements of full sus design easier.

Though not insurmountable as history testifies

[reohn2]

'Singletrack' is, alas, an Americanism which only made its appearance in English usage in this country when the vocabulary, as well as the machinery of the first mountain bikes was imported from California. It means no more than a narrow country path, for which there were already perfectly good English terms without the need for this ugly neologism

I think it's rather descriptive and a good addition.

+1 as it aptly describes a track that's single
Like singletrack(for cars) roads that sometimes have passing places......

[Brucey]

From what I've seen up until now, chains have been improving in longevity as they have narrowed. Possibly because they are being made more flexible to cope with the wider cassettes.

that is an interesting test but all it did was show that "expensive chain made with latest technology lasted a bit longer than cheaper chain that wasn't ", didn't it?

If the guy that broke his chain hadn't done so the 9s chains would have lasted an average of almost 800 miles and the 10s ones about 1050 miles. That could be within the limits of experimental error (they don't say what weight and power output all the riders were....) and even if is isn't, it isn't worth paying a shedload more money for....?

Also I think their mileage was very poor; I used to get about 2000 miles out of 8s chain on my MTB (and yes that was getting it dirty, but I also cleaned it properly too). 9s stuff has seemed less durable than that to me, but not as bad as they saw.

cheers

[Drake]

But should chain longevity be an issue on MTB's. After all said and done they are being used in conditions that can be pretty harsh.
As far as cleaning is concerned all I do after every ride is wash the bike in plain water and let it dry. I then liberally spray with GT85. I then run the chain through a cloth and respray again . . that's it.
With 7sp chains at less than £6, I don't bother with deep clean methods, can't see the point.

[mercalia]

But should chain longevity be an issue on MTB's. After all said and done they are being used in conditions that can be pretty harsh.
As far as cleaning is concerned all I do after every ride is wash the bike in plain water and let it dry. I then liberally spray with GT85. I then run the chain through a cloth and respray again . . that's it.
With 7sp chains at less than £6, I don't bother with deep clean methods, can't see the point.

I ll quite happily receive any donations of money from the rich here

[Drake]

But should chain longevity be an issue on MTB's. After all said and done they are being used in conditions that can be pretty harsh.
As far as cleaning is concerned all I do after every ride is wash the bike in plain water and let it dry. I then liberally spray with GT85. I then run the chain through a cloth and respray again . . that's it.
With 7sp chains at less than £6, I don't bother with deep clean methods, can't see the point.

I ll quite happily receive any donations of money from the rich here

I wish.
I know very little about chain technology, but from what I've read on this forum isn't the chain manufacturers lubricant pretty good.
But let's say I use mickF's method of cleaning. I've now got this completely clean chain.
What then . . what lubricant and method do you use to re- lubricate this clean chain ?
I can understand mickf going to all this trouble, I suspect he uses Campag chains, which I assume won't be cheap.
But if I can buy chains for less than the cost of a couple of pints, then it's a no brainer for me.

[pete75]

a technical bit of single track.

What on earth is that?

You surprise me:-
Singletrack=narrow one wheel wide paths.een riding on stuff
Technical=tight n twisty,liberally littered with stones,tree roots,and or other osticles that need negotiating with care.

Hmm been riding on stuff like that since I was a kid, Didnt't need either an MTB or a stupid name for it back then.