\n\t<\/a>[dc]S[\/dc]ince my previous post<\/a> apparently stirred up a bit of controversy, I think it's appropriate to address the following question:\n<\/p>\n \n\t"Why didn't you include triple cranksets in your comparisons?"\n<\/p>\n \n\tWell, the simple explanation is because triples are irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n \n\t"What?"\n<\/p>\n \n\tYes, they're irrelevant. With the rise of compact gearing and wide range cassettes, triple cranksets have been relegated to the dustbin of cycling history (with the notable exceptions of loaded touring and possible commuters.) But the question remains, why is this the case? Let's find out.\n<\/p>\n \n\t\n<\/p>\n \n\tProprietary Parts<\/strong><\/span>\n<\/p>\n \n\tOne of the biggest complaints about a triple drivetrain is the use of proprietary parts. This includes a triple specific left shifter, front derailleur (modified cage to push the chain off the small ring onto the middle) and rear derailleur (long cage to take up additional chain slack when in the small ring.) This doesn't include the obvious triple crankset and chainrings, and in some cases a specific bottom bracket with longer spindle (in the case of cartridge BBs.) You'll also be needing to either get a new chain or add links to your old chain, which further adds to the cost of a triple. To compound the cost issue of these proprietary parts is the fact that almost no manufacturer specs a triple option on any bike over $1500, so there's little way to take advantage of a company's purchasing power. Why? Because double shifters, derailleurs and cranksets are highly compatible, if not universally compatible. This makes if extremely easy for manufacturers to spec bikes and doesn't require an entire separate stock of parts just to fulfill a very small portion of the market share.\n<\/p>\n \n\tThe last hit to the marketability of the triple setup is the fact that there are no high end triple offerings on the market from major manufacturers. SRAM doesn't do triple at all, Shimano only has a triple in the Ultegra and lower lineup and triples are all but gone from Campy's product line. Finding a high end example of a triple requires going to an outside manufacturer or several generations back from the major guys. What does that say about their confidence in what the market will bear?\n<\/p>\n \n\tBut enough about the marketing and technology side of things, let's get down to usability, or lack thereof.\n<\/p>\n \n\tWhy Do People Choose Triples?<\/strong><\/span>\n<\/p>\n \n\tLots of answers appear here, from the proverbial "I can't climb those hills so I need a lower gear" to the "I like tighter ratios because I can spin closer to my preferred cadence" arguments. Is there any truth to those assertions or is it all bunk?\n<\/p>\n \n\t<\/a>30 Gears?<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n \n\tTake a look at the chart to the right, and you'll see a typical triple setup (standard triple of 30-39-52 and a close ratio 11-23t 10 speed cassette.) The chart is courtesy of Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator<\/a>, and is set up for 700\/23mm wheels with 172.5mm crank arms and the results are displayed as gain ratios. \n<\/p>\n \n\tYou'll note the highlighted gears are gear combinations that A) are unadvisable to use due to chain rub\/crosschaining and B) are replicated elsewhere on the drivetrain with a better chain line and no front derailleur rub. Essentially, you have 17 useable gears out of a possible 30. So, there are 13 gears that you'll likely never use (or shouldn't be using anyway.) Why have those 13 gears if you're not going to use them?\n<\/p>\n