Are we seeing the death of the triple chainset?

For me the big advantage of triple over double is that I can setup to allow 90-95% of my riding on the middle ring, and only change up or down for the steepest uphills and downhills. (And 1x would not give me enough range at the small steps I prefer (but OK for round town).)

I don't get why people are having trouble setting up a triple crankset.

heck, I've just built a frame up from the parts bin with

-an 8-speed 48/38/28 crankset,

-a triple RSX front mech from a 3x7 groupset,

-a Tiagra STI 3x9 LH shifter,

-a SRAM 9-speed chain,

-an 8-speed Sora STI RH shifter and cassette,

and it was a doddle to set up and works perfectly....

I am NOT a pro mechanic either!

I've never understood the objection to the big gap between rings on a compact.  With STIs, it's so easy to shift the rear to compensate that switching chainrings just doesn't bother me.  The latest Di2 sychro shift stuff will even do it for you.

Once again, the manufacturers do what is best for them, not for the users. I'm a rather heavy cyclist who takes fun climbing mountains. I'm not the youngest one. This last month, I climbed several cols in the Alps, including the Galibier. I ride with one of the last (if not the last) Trek Domane edition with Shimano 105 triple. On several places, I would have been stuck with a compact. I'm glad I had a 30x32 to carry on turning legs. Anyway, even far from mountains, in my local hills or on the flat, I'm 80% of the time on the 39. Only on the 50 in descents or with a strong wind behind me. A compact wouldn't fit me at all, and I'm scared for the day I'll have to change.

All my road bikes have had double chainsets - in the past, even I've rejected buying a road bike (Felt something or other, years ago) as it had a triple chainset (shop wouldn't swap it). I've done some very hilly rides on a 53/39 chainset by swapping the usual cassette for an 11-32 mountain bike cassette, which worked very well, but does mean you get bigger jumps between the gears.

For that reason alone, I'm not convinced by the 1x arguments for road bikes.

My newest road bike has a compact chainset, which I like, although it lacks that top speed on big, fast downhills.

My mountain bike has a triple and is currently being turned into a touring bike for some big hills, so that's staying.

Although I'm not quite buying into the whole 1x thing off road, either, it does seem to be becoming the standard on my local trails, where I rarely change out of the big ring at the front, as the hills are so short and can be attacked for a short burst.

If we think from the rider's perspective, and not the manufacturer's, the goal is to have a range of gearing that is suitable for the terrain encountered, with jumps between the gears that are evenly spaced and small enough to allow the rider to keep a fairly steady cadence.  The ideal would be an inifinitely variable, automatically shifting transmission with an override that allows the rider to alter its behavior, lightweight enough that there is no weight penalty over the current designs.  Oh, and it should be at least as reliable as current designs, and have no significant increased cost, as well.  Of course, these systems do not exist, yet.

When we had six and seven speed freewheels, with the smallest cogs fixed at 12, 13 or 14 teeth, the variable was the largest cog and the constraint was the amount of difference between adjacent cogs.  Too wide, and it didn't meet the "small change in gearing" goal.  The extra chainring of a triple helped here, as one could get a nice, low gear with, say, a 28 or 30-tooth inner ring and a 26 or 28-tooth cog.  Those loading up their touring bikes, climbing ultra-steep hills, or just with out-of-condition legs could push this much lower with minimal changes.  While some weenies (I was one) calculated the ratio of each combination and selected individual rings and cogs to make the jumps between gears as evenly as possible while getting the desired range (remember "half-step-plus-granny?), and some even taped miniature gear charts to their handlebars, this attention to gearing detail missed the big point of how people actually ride multiple chainring bikes.

One quickly learns that perfect gear combination is an elusive thing, at least in an undulating state like Vermont. Brifters, ramped cogs, and 8 to 11-spd cassettes have spoiled us by leading us into a riding style in which we're shifting every few seconds at times to grab a better gear for the changing terrain.  With a triple, you pick the ring by the current general state of things--if trending upward you'll likely be in the middle ring, shifting around in the back.  If the road levels out or trends downward, it's a shift to the big ring, accompanied by a single shift in the opposite direction in the rear, and you're back to working the right sfifter.  Dramatic changes in road pitch might complicate things a bit, but that's where experience kicks in.  The inner ring of a triple is just there for the steepest climbs, and only used with the largest three or four cogs.

Yes, there's overlap with a triple, but it doesn't matter because that's not the way you ride it. With a 3 x 9 setup, you are probably only using 20 or so of the 27 possible combinations, and some of those 20 are close enough to be duplicates, but this is invisible to the rider, in practice, and although the number of useless combinations is greater, the number you actually use are pretty close to what you'd get out of most 2 x 11 setups.  Weight penalty is not as much as one might think.  The BB spindle is a few mm longer, there's the extra ring and bolts, a few grams in making the crank beefier to mount that ring and a few extra grams in the derailleur cage, but these are partially offset by the ability to run a closer range cassette and slightly shorter chain.  You really need to go 1 x 11 to get any real weight savings while matching the range of a triple, because you lose a ring or two, the entire front derailleur, its cable, and the left brifter reverts to a simple brake lever. This more than offsets the jump in the size of the largest cogs on the cassette.

The problem with compact cranks is the huge jump between the chainrings, which complicates the shifting, as you need to shift at least two cogs in the rear when you shift the front.  I had a bike setup with a 12 - 23 cassette and 34 - 50 compact and found it a total pain, as I was constantly making the decidedly unsnappy chainring shift.  Moving to a 26 in the rear didn't help a lot.  These compact setups work best when the range on the cassette is large enough to reduce front shifts, such as with a 32-tooth cog, but this then requires a lot of cogs, or the jumps between gears become too great.

What's driving the abandonment of the triple is the move to 10 and 11-spd cassettes, and this is primarily driven by industry marketing. For most riders, a 10-spd cassette with 11 and 12-tooth cogs is effetively an 8-speed, even when paired with a 50-tooth chainring.  To gain these unneeded cogs, the rider gives up a bit of durability, reliability, and ease of maintenance, while incurring increased cost.  While most industry folks see 9-speed cassettes as being merely a brief transition between the 8 and 10-speed eras, I would argue that it might just be the ideal number of cogs for 130mm spacing, and thus for modern bike designs.  Remember, it's tough to do much with rear spacing and not impact chainline and thus Q-factor.

The savior for compact gearing will likely be electronic shifting, especially when it handles those transition shifts in its software algorithms.  For those of use sticking with mechanical systems, and who ride the big hills, the 3 x 9 triple might just be the ideal system long after the manufacturers scrap the equipment to make them.

I have a 10 year old Cannondale Synapse 5 with a 50/38/30 triple. Never had a problem with the gears, regarding maintenance. I use the 38 about 90 % of the time, the 30 gear about 10 % , the 50 almost never. We have hills in Southern California, nothing like the hills and mountains in Europe, but hills nonetheless. I need my triple. I'm not a skinny person.

Test rode  a 2018 Specialized Roubaix Sport in the dealer parking lot.  I wasn't able to test climb with the Roubaix, just ride in the parking lot under the watchful eye of the bike shop employee, but I can tell the smallest gear isn't easy enough for the hills I do. If the 2018 Roubaix had a triple, I probably would have bought it. I didn't try the Trek Domane, no dealer near me  has a Domane in stock to look at. 

I bike with a group most Saturdays or Sundays for 3 - 4 hours. Not at all hardcore, which is fine by me. 

Triples arent dead yet, with the versatility of Di2 they live on.  

Too many riders are to vain to ride with a triple, they've not a man unless they're on a double.

Not my observation, I read in another thread. There's some truth to it.

This yearye rode with 33 chainring and 34 top sprocket in the Pyrenees on a compact, but I'm getting older, so I may go back to the triple I started with, when I first went to the Pyrenees in 2009. I certainly wasn't spinning up the climbs like I was in 2009.

I'm no athlete, but I'm not vain enough to worry about riding a triple, I certainly passed other macho riders on their doubles I live in the flat lands, and no matter how much training I put in, the mountains will always be hard.

I've got a 48/32 Praxis chainring to use next time, and if I struggle on that, I've got a triple Ultegra shifter in the parts locker.

After that it's going to be an ebike, I don't want to stop cycling in the mountains, as I started doing this  too late in life

"Within Shimano's current road line up triple chainsets are more common at Tiagra level and below."

Maybe that's because you only offer a triple in Tiagra and below, so that point becomes irrelevant as proof that people don't want it. If you said that there wasn't the call for it when you did still offer it on 105 then fair enough, but you are using your own product availability to justify future availability, which is a ludicrous position to take.

Having recently completed my first LEJOG on an 11 - 32 cassette with a 26 single front chainring setup i dont get what double chainsets are for never mind triples ...

However;

If you want a quality triple set up go to SPA Cycles of Harrogate. 

Last time I had a triple on a road bike was about 35 years ago. I think it was a red Rayleigh. Back then it probably had 5, possibly 6 speed.

I think the point raised in previous posts about modern 9 speed+ and the wider range with reasonable increments being the reason for a triple being effectively obsolete for more riders in more applications is the nub of the matter.

Round my way, N Herts, even the small ring is pretty much vestigial as there are few hills or sustained climbs.

 Dead? Dormant at best but the reason is the manufacturers not making them.

Very first post.  "a compact chain-set is lighter, more efficient, easier to set up and maintain and should get you up most things with an appropriate cassette"

Either wrong or irrelevant.

Weight. Not an issue. For a start most riders could drop a few pounds. Much more effective than woorying about a few grams.  Fat gits who worry about their bike weights are daft or posers.

Efficient.Ho, ho ho. Think about the crappy chain lines and the horrible gappy gears.

Easy to set up? Its a front mech FFS! As easy as a knife and fork. (although modern youth can't do that either)

A front mech needs no maintainece to speak of. A cable is used on a triple so just where is the added difficulty?

Appropriate cassette? Oh a nice big rear sprocket. Well there is much of yoour lost weight back to start with and you still get the whopping great gaps.

Of course a triple is not for everyone but it's the only thing that works well in the right circumstance.  However as always the market is governed by the manufacturer (Fair enough, thats up to them), and the current trend for every newbie and fat knacker to think they are off to ride the Tour.

Anyone who hauls any loads and wants to be able to push along at a reasonable speed unloaded will want a triple. That's a whole bunch of utility/touring bikes there. I wouldn't put a triple on my cyclocross/road/adv**ture (can't quite say it) bike but wouldn't have it any other way on my tourer/utility/commuter/everything-else-except-MTB bike. Sugino rule! 48-38-28 up front 11-30 out back works nicely for me. As age progresses will very likely drop some teeth on the inner ring for the bigger hills loaded up, but will try to avoid adding any at the back.

Having failed to get up Hardnott Pass with 11-32 and a 50/34 compact I wish I had a triple. You don't look "pro" when you're pushing!

If I was touring or injured or a weaker hill climber then I’ll happily get a triple chain set as long as the front mech was smooth. 

Enjoyed 1x but too many large steps but great for CX and adventure gravel bikes.

The double compact on my road bike is great but  so was my 53-39 with 12-28.  

Struggled with 53/39 with 11-23!

For most of us fat middle aged riders a triple is still a good choice, the extra few hundred grams makes no reall difference in the real world compared to 2x.
My current favourite bike, and commuter is my 1972 Falcon with 3 x 9 speed set up. chainset is  50-40-30 stronglight and front mech is controlled by Deore friction shifter - I love it!

A couple of years ago I gave up on the macho nonsense, because I had realised that when I actually needed the granny it would not shift as I had started to grind, and to get on the granny you need to be spinning, so now I try to shift much earlier, before I really need it.  Is the triple dead, not on my bikes.  Rohloffing the new one, or trying to, but I will be keeping the triples going.

Shimano seem particularly mixed up here. They only offer triple on the low-end chainsets favoured by recreational riders, then they tout the benefits of steady cadence - I doubt the typical Tiagra rider cruising around level urban bike paths has any interest in efficient cadence.

Personally I still have a triple on my aging MTB but there’s so much overlap I mostly ride it as a double, riding the outer on the commute to the trails, then going straight from the outer to the inner when I hit the big climbs.

Every year this story gets recycled, and every year the same arguments are trotted out, and no-one looks at it from the perspective of the manufacturer.

Manufacturers hate triples because they have more components than doubles, and doubles have more components than 1x. Telling you the thing with less components that is cheaper to make is high tech and the great new thing is manufacturer nirvana. Getting cyclists to agree with you and argue about why the expensive to make stuff is bad is just the most amazing marketing ever.

I have two triples - my tourer and a Ridley i got cheap in the sales because it was a Sora triple and they're just not cool any more. From the bottom of my heart I thank you all, because that was a bargain of the best kind...

I also have a road bike I use for TTs with a 53/39, and another road bike with a 50/34 that I use for the turbo and larking about. As my bikes get upgraded I suspect I'll be the guy lurking round the LBS looking to see what kit is unfashionable, and therefore cheap, but still perfectly serviceable....