I have a 2001 Trek 5200 bicycle. It was state of the art in 1997, when Lance Armstrong rode the same frame - "120 grams" OCLV carbon fiber - to victory in the Tour de France. While Lance used Shimano Dura-Ace professional components, my bike has the pro-sumer Ultegra family.
And yet my bike is better than his was. Why? Because the Ultegra family included the (5600?) triple front chain-set. That is, it had 3 gears on the front derailleur, like a mountain bike, and so could climb (or descend) hills like its off-road brother, and I love to climb hills.
The "triple" always had a reputation as "cheating", but then again, you can build a drive-train to climb hills using any bike. The only difference is, with mine, I could pedal down those same hills. So the difference was only in convenience.
In the mid-2000s, cog-sets (the gears on the back wheel) with a higher count were introduced. My bike has 9 cogs in back, but now they had as many as 11. As they added more cogs, they could provide a broader gear range with only 2 chain-rings up front. Since more chain-rings is more weight, the triple chain-ring was phased out, relegated to the dustbin of history.
The trouble is, the people searching for this increased range entirely missed the point of the triple chain-ring.
What is the point? What do I like about the triple?
To understand the advantage of the triple, let's look at the opposite extreme: the "one by". The current "fad" in bicycling is to only have a single chain-ring up front - even on mountain bikes! - and have a wide range of gears in back.
The trouble with this arrangement is that, to transition from uphill to downhill, or vice-versa, which occurs often in hilly areas, you have click through a ton of gears. You could entirely lose your momentum while grinding through gears, trying to find the appropriate ratio.
I have a hill that I climb on my weekly training route. I attack the hill standing up, mainly to get some exercise of those muscles, but also as a small challenge or indicator of how I'm feeling that day.
When I transition to sitting, I simply flick the front derailleur from middle ring to small ring - 42 teeth to 30 - and I'm at the perfect ratio. I can then slowly progress up through the back cogs, towards the bigger cogs, as the hill gets steeper.
Whenever I crest a hill, I first flip back to middle ring. I can adjust the back gear too if I like. Then when I tip over the hill, I flip to big ring. Back on level ground? Flip back to middle ring. All these transitions only take a single flick, or even easier, a click.
One may argue that a shifter can actually shift up 2 gears at a time, so it's not that bad. I say "whoopee" (sarcastically). I would also point out that a shifter can only go *down* 1 gear at a time. All this time, you can't pedal.
Two Are Better Than One
The double chain-ring is better than the "one by", because it can at least change the front gear sometimes. Unfortunately, this may not occur at the most opportune times. For instance, you may be on level ground in big ring (because you just descended a hill) and about to climb a hill. You may have to flip to small ring *and* adjust the back gear to compensate. That's a lot of clicking, but you don't want to do that after you start climbing, right?
Conclusion
Sadly, the industry has moved on from road bikes with triple chain-sets. If I still want one, I have to track down one on e-bay or re-purpose a mountain bike drive-train. Thus, I will be hanging onto my old 5200 until it is crushed under a car or is stolen.
Does the market-place always make the best decisions? Does technology always advance? No. No, it does not.
