Those dinner plate cassettes have massive jumps between the gears. a 3x setup allows you to have a smaller cassette with less dramatic jumps so you can keep cadence steady. I'm not saying one is better than the other but different riders prefer different styles
You can get easy gears on 3x with a smaller little ring. 22:32 is about the same as 34:51. With a 3x of 22/32/42, you get the same easy gear, faster high gears and smaller steps between cogs. The bike can be used for more purposes. This means getting to the trail on a flat road is a lot more pleasant with the smaller steps with a 3x than a 1x. Long, steady grade climbs such as on gravel is much nicer with smaller steps of 3x. The only advantages to 1x are simplified use, less maintenance, lower risk of failure, larger cog steps (if you benefit from that) and a couple hundred grams saved. Optimal for racing for those reasons. They are worse in all other aspects: larger steps between gears, narrower gear range, far more expensive, noisier in extreme cogs, less efficient, faster wear on components, more weight at end of swing arm (worse traction and handling).
@@EricPeelMusic You're right, but I found that three by with small little rings are very hard to find, and if you do find them, they have to fit your bottom bracket as well. I haven't found a single bike yet that comes with a three by with a ring small enough to make the gears complete?
For 9 and 10 speed, the options are still pretty endless. 10 speed triples work well with 11 speed if you avoid a Sram chain and check the chainline so FD can function. For pure 11 speed. The XT and XTR 40/32/22 is perfect, of course with the accompanying 3x FD, and that all works perfectly with Hollowtech II. And if Hollowtech II is a no go, Omni makes very lightweight and reasonably priced square taper BBs. By light, I mean 145g vs the typical 300g+. If you choose a lightweight triple such as from Rene Herse, paired with an Omni, there is no weight penalty for going square taper and the cost, although, not much more than the average (overpriced) modern 1x crankset. And the Omni BB has many differently widths to get the perfect chainline and best FD action. Only gaining 80gs between the lightest HTII BB and the lightest ST BB. ST is is a lot more reliable and longer lasting than HTII.
@@EricPeelMusic Full 12 speed SRAM one by groupset for 200? Or for cheaper option, SRAM GX cranks and deore shifter, cassette, derailleur, all for under 200
I have a budget rig. I just keep it on the first gear. Front derailleurs are difficult to shift without the right circumstance whereas rear derailleurs shift no problem - smoother and faster shifting too!
A chain keeper is not the same as a front deraileur because you cannot push the chain back into the drivetrain with it, it is just an static thing that "prevents" falloff.
@@SummitMTB yeah but deraileur Is better because you can push the little lever and the chain might 99% of the time go back to the driveline without you having to stop. I have friends with 1x and Fancy chainkeepers and they still need to stop when the chainkeeper doesn't do its job and that Is every gnarly feature or bumpy fast descents.
@@SummitMTB p.s. sometimes the chainkeeper thing becomes a burden since the chain likely tangles to It and the point of 1X Is having a minimalistic setup to begin with so a chain line keepimg mechanism Is just less feature but extra steps when you can have an el cheapo FD, setup for less than what a sandwich costs and call It a day, save yourself the burden of having to stop mid race to put your chain back like a chump
@@SummitMTB I've seen some use 2x but mainly they use whatever they get from their sponsors. I don't know but an electronic 3x deraileur would be sweeeeet
60 bucks? Sounds like a steal! Also, I'm not saying that three by is useless, it's just not relevant in the face of one by, and you can see on bikes such as the Kent trouvaille that cheap bikes are leaning towards them as well, just because they're that much better...
While I agree that 1x is better than 3x it must be said some of your "irrelevant" arguments are not completely true. There are some real advantages to x3. Firstly there is big difference dropping gears in the front vs the rear on uphills and i am not talking gear ratio's but rather the load on the drive train itself. many times have 1x chains snapped dropping gears on uphill sections during the climb where dropping gears in front is much easier on the drivetrain. Cheaper mtb's loaded with these are also used more like gravel bikes where again the 3x will be faster. Also any fast XC trails will also probably benefit the 3x vs 1x. (By fast i mean relatively easy XC trails even by XC standards allowing for higher speeds) However the more challenging or technical the trail the more a x1 will be superior not only in performance but function as the 3x have larger gears which in extreme cases might strike an obstacle where a 1x might clear it and there are the additional parts that might fail. as for the thinking part its really not that hard 🤷♂
I commute on my fairly budget MTB and the 3x is pretty good for that balance, because it's way better to ride with a 40 tooth in the front (27.5") on pavement but the other two get used when I go mountainbiking. That being said, that thing isn't very capable or very upgradeable (should've looked into that before buying) so I'm currently building a gravel-y bike as a commuter while looking for my next MTB, this time probably a Trail bike and on that it'll probably be a 1x. And since I won't really be commuting on it it's probably going to be alright
Those dinner plate cassettes have massive jumps between the gears. a 3x setup allows you to have a smaller cassette with less dramatic jumps so you can keep cadence steady. I'm not saying one is better than the other but different riders prefer different styles
Yeah but with big cassette you get a SUPER easy climbing gear, but with a small one you don't. Three by gives you more downhill gears in my opinion.
You can get easy gears on 3x with a smaller little ring. 22:32 is about the same as 34:51. With a 3x of 22/32/42, you get the same easy gear, faster high gears and smaller steps between cogs. The bike can be used for more purposes. This means getting to the trail on a flat road is a lot more pleasant with the smaller steps with a 3x than a 1x. Long, steady grade climbs such as on gravel is much nicer with smaller steps of 3x. The only advantages to 1x are simplified use, less maintenance, lower risk of failure, larger cog steps (if you benefit from that) and a couple hundred grams saved. Optimal for racing for those reasons. They are worse in all other aspects: larger steps between gears, narrower gear range, far more expensive, noisier in extreme cogs, less efficient, faster wear on components, more weight at end of swing arm (worse traction and handling).
@@EricPeelMusic You're right, but I found that three by with small little rings are very hard to find, and if you do find them, they have to fit your bottom bracket as well. I haven't found a single bike yet that comes with a three by with a ring small enough to make the gears complete?
For 9 and 10 speed, the options are still pretty endless. 10 speed triples work well with 11 speed if you avoid a Sram chain and check the chainline so FD can function. For pure 11 speed. The XT and XTR 40/32/22 is perfect, of course with the accompanying 3x FD, and that all works perfectly with Hollowtech II. And if Hollowtech II is a no go, Omni makes very lightweight and reasonably priced square taper BBs. By light, I mean 145g vs the typical 300g+. If you choose a lightweight triple such as from Rene Herse, paired with an Omni, there is no weight penalty for going square taper and the cost, although, not much more than the average (overpriced) modern 1x crankset. And the Omni BB has many differently widths to get the perfect chainline and best FD action. Only gaining 80gs between the lightest HTII BB and the lightest ST BB. ST is is a lot more reliable and longer lasting than HTII.
@@EricPeelMusic Full 12 speed SRAM one by groupset for 200? Or for cheaper option, SRAM GX cranks and deore shifter, cassette, derailleur, all for under 200
Excellent. Very clear.
I have a budget rig. I just keep it on the first gear. Front derailleurs are difficult to shift without the right circumstance whereas rear derailleurs shift no problem - smoother and faster shifting too!
Yep, also front derailleur clogs 10x faster and then shifting is as hard as trying to wrestle a 🐻
A chain keeper is not the same as a front deraileur because you cannot push the chain back into the drivetrain with it, it is just an static thing that "prevents" falloff.
I don't think I said they were the same thing, I believe I said they both help to keep the chain fallin off
@@SummitMTB yeah but deraileur Is better because you can push the little lever and the chain might 99% of the time go back to the driveline without you having to stop. I have friends with 1x and Fancy chainkeepers and they still need to stop when the chainkeeper doesn't do its job and that Is every gnarly feature or bumpy fast descents.
@@SummitMTB p.s. sometimes the chainkeeper thing becomes a burden since the chain likely tangles to It and the point of 1X Is having a minimalistic setup to begin with so a chain line keepimg mechanism Is just less feature but extra steps when you can have an el cheapo FD, setup for less than what a sandwich costs and call It a day, save yourself the burden of having to stop mid race to put your chain back like a chump
@@elsenorvananas but then why do you never see any racers using three by?
@@SummitMTB I've seen some use 2x but mainly they use whatever they get from their sponsors. I don't know but an electronic 3x deraileur would be sweeeeet
Well when you are just riding for fun a used older bike that I paid 60 bucks for and is stout a bit heavy is fine
60 bucks? Sounds like a steal! Also, I'm not saying that three by is useless, it's just not relevant in the face of one by, and you can see on bikes such as the Kent trouvaille that cheap bikes are leaning towards them as well, just because they're that much better...
While I agree that 1x is better than 3x it must be said some of your "irrelevant" arguments are not completely true. There are some real advantages to x3. Firstly there is big difference dropping gears in the front vs the rear on uphills and i am not talking gear ratio's but rather the load on the drive train itself. many times have 1x chains snapped dropping gears on uphill sections during the climb where dropping gears in front is much easier on the drivetrain. Cheaper mtb's loaded with these are also used more like gravel bikes where again the 3x will be faster. Also any fast XC trails will also probably benefit the 3x vs 1x. (By fast i mean relatively easy XC trails even by XC standards allowing for higher speeds) However the more challenging or technical the trail the more a x1 will be superior not only in performance but function as the 3x have larger gears which in extreme cases might strike an obstacle where a 1x might clear it and there are the additional parts that might fail. as for the thinking part its really not that hard 🤷♂
Wow i never thought about this
I commute on my fairly budget MTB and the 3x is pretty good for that balance, because it's way better to ride with a 40 tooth in the front (27.5") on pavement but the other two get used when I go mountainbiking.
That being said, that thing isn't very capable or very upgradeable (should've looked into that before buying) so I'm currently building a gravel-y bike as a commuter while looking for my next MTB, this time probably a Trail bike and on that it'll probably be a 1x.
And since I won't really be commuting on it it's probably going to be alright
Yep, three by is good for some stuff, and good luck with the gravel bike!
pls refrain yourself from educating anyone anymore
@@MarkBonerea been waiting for another comment on here >:)