[KobayashiMaru]

This is a question sort of about my kids, but not really, so I picked the general discussion forum instead of the riding with kids one. My kids, both daughters, at 11 and 12 years old, are already taller than a lot of the adult women they know, and they've both outgrown their Woom bikes. (Those were sweet kid bikes!) They had the 26 inch models and got too big for them. Now I'm looking for typical adult bikes, hopefully older 26 inch mountain bikes with a frame size that would suit their 5'5" and 5'6" current heights that would give them some room to grow into, but I'm not totally ruling out a new bike purchase.

I keep noticing with new bikes in the lower price point models that they all seem to have a triple crank. With the industry going 1x all over the place, and the abundance of haters of front derailleurs on forums like these, why is the industry married to triples on entry level bikes?

There are probably several low price, entry models out there that have single rings up front that I'm just not seeing. If there aren't, there needs to be. For somebody that isn't a dedicated rider set in their ways with their cadence preferences and all that, it's just easier for casual riders easing through the neighborhood on a recreational ride to not mess with shifting front rings, and a 1x drivetrain will give them all the gearing neighborhood riding would demand.

So why do manufacturers spend money on all the extra bits and spec lower price point bikes with triples?

I'm sure the 6 and 7 speed cassettes are made from cheaper materials and cost less, and the chains are probably cheaper too. I would have to think the cranks have a lot more material in them and require more manufacturing, tooling, and assembly than an equally low spec single crank would have, and then you have extra cost with a front derailleur, shifter, and cables for the finished bike, plus the extra steps in installing those things and adjusting them. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to not put those parts on a "cheap" bike?

Why is a triple still hanging around on entry level bikes?

 

[BicyclesOnMain]

Lots of folks remove their 2x and 3x cranks and run 8,9, or 10 speed 1x systems, and they find that to have a wide enough gear range for their needs. However manufacturers seem to thing a wider range is necessary, so we see a lot of 2x 8, 9 and 10 speed drivetrains on new bikes. The reality is that the extra shifter, derailleur and stamped steel rings add little cost to the bike compared to a wide range 1x system. I think bike companies will do more 1x systems on cheap bikes when if they see them selling.

I have this in the window of our shop and not a single person has even test ridden it yet Atroz 2

 

[gat3keeper]

I think the 3x system have somewhat redundant gearing so they reduced it to 2x or majority now 1x.

Not the exact technical facts but for example, if you are in your biggest crank and smallest cog, its almost the same with smallest crank, biggest cog (something like that).

Here in my area, you will know its a cheap bike if it has 2x drivetrain.

Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

 

[749800]

My bikes that came with 3X had 11-32 cassettes. My guess is those tend to be cheaper, or at least more readily available.

 

[J.B. Weld]

Ultimately it must be cheaper and more profitable for the manufacturers. I guess because they already have the tooling and lines to crank out kazillions of tourney 3x drivetrains for a dollar or 2 each. Or maybe there's still warehouses full of them they need to churn through first?

Don't know but it makes no sense for the kids, grown adults who have been riding for years still can't figure out 3x drivetrains.

Better brands are moving away from them on lots of kids bikes.

 

[seat_boy]

It has to be more expensive to make a triple, right? Even with the cheapest parts, adding two rings, a front derailer, and a shifter, and the labor to install all of that, has to cost more than a narrow wide ring and maybe a clutch derailer.

My theory is that the cheap bike market operates under the philosophy of "more = better." 21 speeds is surely better than 9 or 10.

But I agree that all entry level bikes should be 1x. Even 1x7 would be fine for most users. Leave triples to the specialist touring market who know what they want.

 

[J.B. Weld]

It has to be more expensive to make a triple, right?

You would think so but it just can't be, if it were cheaper for them to spec 1x they'd do it. I guarantee there are no parents seeking additional chainrings for their 11 y/o kid.

 

[Le Duke]

A triple with an FD, 7s cassette and clutch-less RD is most certainly cheaper than a 1x with a 11s or 12s cassette + clutch RD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cleared2land]

more gear equal mo faster

 

[r-rocket]

budget bike buyers expect a budget "mountain bike" to have 3x gearing. Bike makers build 3x bikes for budget buyers because that's what budget bike buyers want to buy.

Bonus for bike makers is that 3X7 and 3x8 drivetrains can tolerate a whole lot of slop and manufacturing defects and still shift equally bad as one without defects.

 

[Jayem]

It has to be more expensive to make a triple, right? Even with the cheapest parts, adding two rings, a front derailer, and a shifter, and the labor to install all of that, has to cost more than a narrow wide ring and maybe a clutch derailer.

My theory is that the cheap bike market operates under the philosophy of "more = better." 21 speeds is surely better than 9 or 10.

But I agree that all entry level bikes should be 1x. Even 1x7 would be fine for most users. Leave triples to the specialist touring market who know what they want.

No, I mean, in terms of materials cost, only fractionally more, but having all the tooling paid off, being able to sell vastly more numbers, the economy of scale greatly favors 3x setups.

 

[KobayashiMaru]

A triple with an FD, 7s cassette and clutch-less RD is most certainly cheaper than a 1x with a 11s or 12s cassette + clutch RD.

I suspect, as others have said, that the machinery and tooling has long been paid off for triples and the parts aren't as expensive as we're thinking. If we accept that a 7 speed triple setup is cheaper than an 11 or 12 speed 1x setup, why not spec entry level bikes with a 1x 10 speed setup?

My kids had all kinds of ability on their 28 tooth chainring with an 11-34 8 speed cassette. A 30 tooth chainring on a 10 speed 11-36 would give a taller and lower gear with closer ratios. It wouldn't give the road speed you could get on a triple with a 44 or 46 tooth chainring, but what kid is going to crank out 30 something miles an hour on a mountain bike? If they're doing that, their parents have already gotten them a road bike.

I would think the cheapness of a 10 speed drivetrain, if not nearly as affordable as a 3x 8 speed setup, would be the middle ground between 7 or 8 speed triples and 11 or 12 speed 1x, and crap, just add the cost difference to the bike... but the industry doesn't pay me for my ideas.

The derailleur might be the issue. I was walking around an Academy sports store just to see what cheap bikes have for spec and the best I saw was a Tourney rear derailleur. Everything else had DSOs, or derailleur shaped objects. These things looked like old VHS tapes stuck to the bike. I didn't see any sort of markings on a front derailleur on any bike, so the mechs these entry level bikes are using are rock bottom in cost, I'm sure.

bike buyers expect a budget "mountain bike" to have 3x gearing.

There has to be something here too. I've had conversations with non-bike people where they seem so impressed with bikes having 24 or 27 "speeds". Most just think more is better, but some have enough critical thought to ask how that works because they, at most, had a ten speed years ago. They can get that bikes had 5 gears in back and 2 up front, but as soon as you mention how most modern bikes have 11 or 12 speeds and only have one ring up front, they just glaze over. Even really smart people get lost in the explanation of gear ratios and duplicate combinations.

So mom and dad, buying their kid a bike, think 24 speeds is better than 7-10 speeds, and sadly, non-bike people far exceed the number of bike people, and even though manufacturers are bike people, they have to bow to market pressure.

 

[J.B. Weld]

So mom and dad, buying their kid a bike, think 24 speeds is better than 7-10 speeds, and sadly, non-bike people far exceed the number of bike people, and even though manufacturers are bike people, they have to bow to market pressure.

I don't think mom & dad have any idea how many gears the BSO they're buying for their kid has.

It seems we might be talking more about cheap bike vs expensive bike when referring to 3x vs 1x, I'm not sure about other brands but most all trek kids bikes are 1x now.

 

[gat3keeper]

I bought my kid a folding bike... For some reason, I looked for 1x coz I thought it will be easier for him to learn shifting.

Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

 

[chazpat]

Most moms and dads would think a bike with only one chainring was a cheap bike as their bikes always had three.

No cutting corners on their kid's BSO!

 

[TylerVernon]

Easier to sell to noobs "This Bike IS A 18 Speed!" wooooo

 

[J.B. Weld]

BSO's definitely spec 3x drivetrains because it's cheaper, no other logical reason.

 

[Nat]

Is there even a budget (i.e., department store level) 1x drivetrain? Does Shimano, SRAM, or some other component manufacturer make such a thing?

 

[J.B. Weld]

Is there even a budget (i.e., department store level) 1x drivetrain? Does Shimano, SRAM, or some other component manufacturer make such a thing?

Tourney 8-sp. We are talking about kids bikes, right?

 

[KobayashiMaru]

I don't think mom & dad have any idea how many gears the BSO they're buying for their kid has.

I'm just thinking out loud on reasons why there would be triples on entry level, low price point mountain bikes.

If you live in a neighborhood with hills, I'd think a parent would want a geared bike vs a single speed for their kid, but that's assuming a lot about how much non-bike people understand bicycles.

I'm not specifically talking about kids bikes though. I do happen to be looking for bikes for my girls, who are five and a half feet tall at 11 and 12 years old. The entry level bikes (that are no longer kids bikes) all seem to have triples.

Trek has the 820, which they themselves say is the lowest cost mountain bike they offer. It has a triple.

The Marlin 4 has a 7 speed triple. The Marlin 5 has an 8 speed double. The cheapest 1x bike they have is the Marlin 6 with an 830 retail, 230 dollars more expensive than the entry level Marlin and 340 dollars more than the 820.