What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
Is The Triple Crank Dead?
March 23rd, 2009 by Guitar TedEditor’s Note: This piece first ran on The Bike Lab recently. We re-post it here for your consideration.
Recently there has been a flurry of rumors and products that might indicate that the triple ring crank may be in danger of becoming extinct. Not only on road bikes, where the move to compact cranks has been well established, but also for the mountain bike. The signs of the triples demise are hard to miss. Let’s take a closer look.
Innovations like SRAM’s Hammerschmidt are only one of the recent signs of the fall of the triple ring crankset from favor.
The “triple”, as three chain ring equipped crank sets are often referred to, have been around since the dawn of the modern mountain bike in the late seventies. Used to give off road riders a low enough climbing gear without sacrificing down hill speed, the set up has been basically the same since that time with some tweaks along the way to the specific chain ring sizes and bolt patterns for the rings themselves. However; there also have been instances along the way where riders tried to eliminate the multiplicity of front chain rings. Nothing on the scale of today’s developments where we have seen and heard of many things that may change the way we motivate up and down the singletrack.
The first big technological change made popular was SRAM’s Hammerschmidt which is basically an internally geared two speed crankset. It eliminates the front derailluer and two of the front chainrings for a gear spread equal to what roughly was the “granny” ring and middle gear on a traditional mountain crank. This has found popularity with All Mountain, Freeride, and Downhill riders that rarely if ever use a big chainring on their cranks anyway. Obviously, too much weight and a lack of a high speed gear up front would limit the usage of this idea, but we may not have seen the end of the development on internal geared cranks yet.
Now for the high speed, cross country set, the news is all about 10 speed drive trains utilizing two front chainrings. SRAM is set to hit out first with the new and yet to be launched “XX” group. Featuring a purpose built two chain ring crankset, the idea is much like “compact” gearing for road bikes, with a nearly identical gear spread to a triple chain ring set up, but with better chain lines, and lower “Q” factor. Also rumored to be making the leap to 10 speed/dual front chainring mountain groups is Shimano. They are rumored to be readying a 10 speed mountain group with a two chainring crank set in the XTR and XT levels.
Not only that, but the scuttlebutt is that Shimano will stop production of triple crank XTR and XT cranks altogether in the future. Will this signal a “trickle down” through all of the mountain groups in SRAM’s and Shimano’s line ups? One industry insider I spoke with on the condition of anonymity said that the trend would trickle down eventually. However; he also stated that recreational groups and trekking cranksets looked to remain as triples for the short term.
My take on it is that it would be a big mistake for SRAM and Shimano to cease high end production of triple crank sets. While racing pursuits lend themselves to such set ups, the common trail rider is not well served by fewer choices in gearing. I also feel that adding more cogs to the cassette is not what trail riders and all mountain/free ride folks are looking for. Actually, fewer cogs and a dishless rear wheel are much higher on the agenda here.
While details are scarce and solid info is months away yet, it is alarming to see that this may be on the table. The jury is still out, but things don’t look so good for the common triple crank these days.
Ten-speeds or ten cogs?
I hope it’s not ten cogs. I’d willingly go back to eight cogs. Closer cogs means more shifting problems. Yes the derailleurs are probably better, but more is not better. For roadies where the derailleurs don’t take such as beating ten might be tolerable.
Somewhat OT I just tried a Rohloff. Didn’t like the heavier wheel, but straight chainline and lack of derailleurs was a plus. I also prefer rapid fire type shifting over rotating.
At least the SRAM set up puts the added weight in a less critical place.
No more triples? Whose bright idea is that? Does nobody with a high end bike (and crankset) ever ride on the road? Not even to get to the trailhead?
I dropped the big chainring on my MTB since I never use it, and dropped the small one off the bike I use on the road for the same reason. 3 rings just seemed like a waste to me. Thinking my next bike will be a single speed.
Adam Craig races with a single 36toother up front. For mortals, I don’t see how something like a 2×9 set up with a 28 and a 36 up front and a 34 to whatever cassette wouldn’t be more than adequate. I’m not particularly excited about a narrower chain, but I do know that 99% of my riding locally never sees me touching the 22t. That 1% is me just being a wimp.
Didn’t some of Cannondale’s bikes come with their own double chainring crank?
That’s what I want, a 2 x 9 or even better a 2 x 8 for durability, either with a 29 / 42 up front.
I have a heavy Haro with a two-ring setup, and an aluminum bash instead of a big ring. I love the bottom-bracket clearance, and have never desired to have a higher gear, as the bike is pretty heavy in the first place (’04 Escape 8.2)
I’d also gladly go back to 8-speed. A 16 speed would suit me just fine, thank you!
It all really depends on a rider’s fitness vs. terrain and also whether the 2 chainrings are the big/middle, middle/small, or something in between. Controltech has a nice crankset with 42/29 which I would have loved when I was racing back in ‘93. But, at the time I could climb most of Snow Summit with my 34-tooth middle. Nowadays, I trail ride, commute, and dabble in ‘cross on all my bikes so losing the granny or the big ring doesn’t really appeal to me.
I do cross country touring on a recumbent and a road triple is essential. Now that Shimano has stopped producing quality road triples I’ve started using mountain cranks with larger chain rings. I think it’s a mistake for the industry to focus solely on racing.
The industry isn’t focused on racing. They are focused on making money. Whatever sells is what they’ll tend to produce.
Kirby: why won’t a 22-36 work? You give up a bit at high speeds. Unless you’re in a group where you need to keep up, you’re going to get wherever you’re going a few minutes later. High much time do you spend in a gear higher than 36-11 or whatever you’d end up with.
I just put a Shimano STX with that combo on my mountain bike, and in a month of riding haven’t missed the top gears. Not to say on a downhill paved stretch I wouldn’t use it occasionally, but I think that’s the only time I’d “need” it. Granted on a road bike you’d use it more, but how much?
Does any body know of a double chain ring set up of 28/38 or 26/36 for a mountain bike like others i really don’t use my 42 big ring and when i do its within the first 3 or4 in the rear ,
thanks
Another way to ask the question is whether the STX can take a 26 or 28 small ring? Or live with the 22. I realize that if you can live with a larger small chainring there are advantages. Shimano had a 24 small chain ring not too long ago.
Five months later and still not missing the 44 nor the chain ring tattoos.
I think that stopping production of the triple is absolutely crazy! I completely agree with Fred about the 23-26. They are too focused on making money..