Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - what to look for in a crankset

Hi so just a quick question ,

So my trek (4300 mtb) has a Shimano Acera M391, 44/32/22 for the front crank set, and while it is working fine and i have no issue with the range . I wanted to ask what do people look for when looking to replace/upgrade this part .

I looked at some of the ones in the local stores and it all starts to go way over my head very fast, and online my one cost like 60 dollars and they just seem to go up from there with out providing much more details as to why you are paying 200 more for it.

so what should i be looking at in regards to

-- compatibility?

-- weight ?

--sizing/range ? ( happy with the current , or am i just ignorant ?:o )

-- quality ?

Thanks for any information posted oh and i did Google this and all i found was places selling and flame wars between riders who weigh less than a packet of crisp.

o/

What are your reasons for upgrading? If its working, I would keep it until it needs replacing. There are likely other parts to upgrade before crankset (derailleurs, shifters, brakes/pads, etc). Unless your abusing it or pushing it to its limits, I would keep the crank.

3 critical things to consider:

Bottom bracket compatibility (e.g. English threaded, Italian threaded, BB30 etc)
Crank length (170mm to 175mm are common)
Double or triple
Bonus - chain compatibility. Most are either Shimano compatible or Campy but you don't want to mix them.

Upgrading cranks is usually a matter of increasing stiffness or decreasing weight and both are expensive to do.

I'm a bit different, but because of my bad knee, I look for a crank with short arms (165MM).

Your crank has replaceable rings, so if you wear one out, you can simply replace a ring and save some money.
That's what i would do if I had no complaints with the current crank.

What are your reasons for upgrading? If its working, I would keep it until it needs replacing. There are likely other parts to upgrade before crankset (derailleurs, shifters, brakes/pads, etc). Unless your abusing it or pushing it to its limits, I would keep the crank.

hi mate,
primary reason is i like to know what to look for when i look at things :)
secondary is i know with my weight and the entry level parts on my bike will be taking a thrashing

3 critical things to consider:

Bottom bracket compatibility (e.g. English threaded, Italian threaded, BB30 etc)
Crank length (170mm to 175mm are common)
Double or triple
Bonus - chain compatibility. Most are either Shimano compatible or Campy but you don't want to mix them.

Upgrading cranks is usually a matter of increasing stiffness or decreasing weight and both are expensive to do.

Thanks mate, with my serious lack of knowledge I might buy a cheap one or a second hand bike and pull one apart to look at it =) that is how I learn the fastest

I'm a bit different, but because of my bad knee, I look for a crank with short arms (165MM).

Your crank has replaceable rings, so if you wear one out, you can simply replace a ring and save some money.
That's what i would do if I had no complaints with the current crank.



good to know , i think mine has a 175 on there

Tergal, from what I gather (with limited knowledge of this subject) is that as you get into the most expensive components you start to pay for the extreme lightness, among other things. Which is great, unless you're a heavy rider in which case you're perhaps more likely to wear and break stuff. And from the fact you're posting in the Clydes area and referring to your weight is potentially going to be an issue.

In many ways think of it as the difference between a Ferrari and a Ford. You can buy your Ford for a fraction of the price, and the Ferrari is hugely quicker. But I don't know that I'd want to run a Ferrari for a couple of years without an oil change or use retreaded tyres on it, or any of the cost-cutting measures you might take if you drive a Ford. If you buy a Ferrari you've got the initial investment in it and then you need to keep on top of it to make sure it stays tuned up.

If you're replacing something because it's broken or worn out look at what you had in the first place in terms of crank length, chainring tooth counts and bottom bracket size. If you've worn out a single chainring some groups will let you replace just one chainring. If you've worn out the bottom bracket you can replace just that part (I wore out my MTB bottom bracket after about 8 months and 800 miles and had it replaced under warranty)

If you're wanting to upgrade to something better the obvious question is what you mean by "better". As a Clyde myself I'm not interested in paying lots of money to save a few ounces on my bike when I've got more than a few surplus pounds still sitting around my middle. If I want to save 100g I could either spend a fortune upgrading this part or that part, or just eat a smaller piece of pie for lunch.

If you're wanting to change from a double to a triple (or vice versa) you'll have some work to do to also change your shifters. If you want to change your gearing (I looked at putting slightly larger chainrings on my MTB some months back) you'll need to consider whether your front derailleur can work with whatever you're wanting to put on.

If you're wanting to mix-and-match components check things like the bolt spacing on the chainrings, the bottom bracket dimensions, chainring toothcounts (your FD will have a maximum difference between largest and smallest chainring) etc.

[QUOTE= If I want to save 100g I could either spend a fortune upgrading this part or that part, or just eat a smaller piece of pie for lunch..[/QUOTE]


hah i was saying that to a friend today , durability is my primary concern, if i want speed and weight it can come from me first then the bike:)

If it's working fine, I'm thinking the only thing your would want to replace is the chainrings which would be easy. And you would only need to do that to accommodate personal taste by giving yourself a different gear range. Your crank is going to last a loooong time if it's like mine (I ride a 2005 model 4300 I call The Rig (http://bicycle.markstone.org/Rig/Index.html) so replacement probably won't be necessary for a while. The chainrings are generic 4-bolters that you can pick up anywhere and can be swapped out in just a few minutes (unless you're changing the granny)

in my opinion (so take this with a grain of salt) ... cranks are cranks mostly. As long as you don't get bottom end, press punched cheap metal ones, you're good. Higher end Shimano, Campy, SRAM, Suntour, Stronglight are all good. They aren't a complex part and tend to last a long time. I care more about the moving parts falling apart like derailleurs and bottom bracket before I worry about cranks.

I will admit though I am a bit picky about how crank sets look. I like the look of Campy and Rene Herse, Stronglight and high end Suntour. Shimano looks horrible to me, even though I have a Shimano biopace triple on my touring bike. I'm also a vintage nut...So YMMV.

I'm not sure why 165 mm cranks would be better if you have bad knees - you're putting more pressure on your knee for an equivalent pedal stroke with shorter cranks. I have no cartilage left in my right knee to speak of and I prefer longer cranks, so YMMV.

As for buying them to take one apart - no point. There's very little going on there. I have no clue how old my cranks are but I'm guessing wicked old - the bike is a vintage 1988 Ti frame with some bizarre small BB size, so the square taper cranks I have in there now are going to be with me till I get rid of the bike. No modern parts will fit, and I periodically have the bearings in the BB rebuilt.

As for chain rings - if you wear them out they're easily swapped but they are not all compatible! Compact doubles have a different bolt diameter so don't be thinking you can stick a 34 tooth chain-ring on your standard crank, or vice versa.

What are your reasons for upgrading? If its working, I would keep it until it needs replacing. There are likely other parts to upgrade before crankset (derailleurs, shifters, brakes/pads, etc). Unless your abusing it or pushing it to its limits, I would keep the crank.

I found this hard to believe when I first heard it, but a change to your crankset (or just the chain rings) is likely to have more effect on your front shifting, than a change to your derailleur. The FD basically just pushes the chain around, but the teeth in the chain ring are what's in contact with the chain as it shifts. Their exact shape can either trip the chain up, or make it a smooth transition.

If I want to save 100g I could either spend a fortune upgrading this part or that part, or just eat a smaller piece of pie for lunch.

I guess that's fine for a ride around the block, but nutrition is an important part of cycling, and skimping on meals really isn't a good idea. As you start to push yourself and go on longer rides, you'll have to abandon this line of thinking.

I guess that's fine for a ride around the block, but nutrition is an important part of cycling, and skimping on meals really isn't a good idea. As you start to push yourself and go on longer rides, you'll have to abandon this line of thinking.


I'm guessing that comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure he's not advocating anorexia.

Hi so just a quick question ,

So my trek (4300 mtb) has a Shimano Acera M391, 44/32/22 for the front crank set, and while it is working fine and i have no issue with the range . I wanted to ask what do people look for when looking to replace/upgrade this part .


Ring tooth counts which match your power/weight/climb length and grade/pedaling style and limit shifting are a good idea. Machined rings look nicer than stamped but I couldn't say whether the ramps on otherwise identical (same brand) rings work better.

Pinned and ramped chain rings made by Shimano and Campagnolo tend to shift better than those made by by other companies.

The small bearings used in ISIS (and Octalink) bottom brackets don't last too long.

Otherwise it's cosmetic.

Since society frowns on men wearing jewelry and accessorizing their daily wear like women lots of guys get into it when engaged in sport, accenting stylish bicycle frames with pretty bits of carbon or silver alloy for the more traditional crowd (nothing is more classy than Campagnolo parts from around the end of the C-Record era and dawn of Ergo).



-- compatibility?
Identical bottom bracket dimensions (ex English 68mm on most road bikes), same speed count (you can have chain rub on the big ring when you pair a wider chain with the narrower chain ring setup like a 9 speed chain with 10 speed rings), chain line, and bottom bracket type (ex square taper) + spindle length if you're not swapping it too (I wore out my big ring and bottom bracket about the same time).



-- weight ?
Speed gains up-hill are proportional to the total weight reduction. A barely Clyde on a moderate weight road bike totaling 220 pounds or 100kg will be 0.1% faster (saving 3.6 seconds an hour) up the steepest grades for each 100g he saves.

In practical terms it doesn't matter unless you're an otherwise competitive racer, have the body morphology conducive to climbing (about 2 pounds per inch or 140 pounds for a 5'10" rider), and are racing in the mountains off the front to an up-hill finish where 4 seconds might keep the peleton from eating you.



--sizing/range ? ( happy with the current , or am i just ignorant ?:o )
It's too personal and dependent on the cogs you're running to make a call.



-- quality ?
Shimano (although an FSA carbon crank shifts well enough if you want to compromise to get more contemporary looks) unless you want to spend a lot (Stronglight has some nice looking cranks in the $300-$500 range which I'd hope to have better shaped rings than FSA)

I'm guessing that comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure he's not advocating anorexia.

Oh, he's not actually suggesting anorexia, and my reply was mostly tongue in cheek, too.

I think "I don't care about 100 grams - that isn't even 1/4 pound" makes sense, but "I'll eat less or go without water to make up for 100 grams" is silly.

I'm a bit different, but because of my bad knee, I look for a crank with short arms (165MM).
Me too. I ride with 170mm cranks due to my bad knee. 175 or even 172.5 cranks would be an issue and those are what I'm finding on new bikes my size.
Some days it takes a while to loosen up where I can bend the knee enough to get over the top of the pedal stroke. A few rides I never got loosened up and had to quit, usually when a weather front was coming in/barometric pressure changes.
Even loosened up, standing on the pedals the 170mm seems too tall. I blow up very quickly climbing out of the saddle.
The knee is actually better range of motion than it used to be. A few slips/falls injuries broke some of the scar tissue/adhesions/whatever leftover from a injury/surgery 20 years ago.

Back to cranksets and such - I believe that the high-end gearing should be quite sturdy as well as being light. Pros can generate a lot of watts and put a lot of torque on the drivetrain.
I do think that they routinely replace some of the components (cranks) before cracks develop, did I read around 7,000 miles?

Oh, he's not actually suggesting anorexia, and my reply was mostly tongue in cheek, too.

I think "I don't care about 100 grams - that isn't even 1/4 pound" makes sense, but "I'll eat less or go without water to make up for 100 grams" is silly.

Ha i was more talking about how i could just lose the 100grams, instead of paying a silly price to save 100grams on part note so much skipping food as in the long run that won't help. (saying this while eating a nice bowl of hot porridge and apple bits)

Thanks Drew Eckhardt , now need to take all this in to account when reading and looking:lol:

wonder how much trouble i would get in for pulling my partners bike apart to understand how it works more :rolleyes:

tergal, I'm guessing that chain rings etc for cranks like yours and the even lower spec one one in my FX7.1 are stamped out by the millions rather than being light weight precision machined engineering masterpieces. Even so, I don't think the crank is likely to break in a hurry, and on the off chance that it did the $60 price tag would make it a cheap repair. My only concern with mine is that I think I'd like something like your 22 tooth small ring rather than the 28 tooth that I've got now, but that's only because I'd like to drag a loaded trailer behind it for short weekend trips at some stage.

I guess that's fine for a ride around the block, but nutrition is an important part of cycling, and skimping on meals really isn't a good idea. As you start to push yourself and go on longer rides, you'll have to abandon this line of thinking.

Not at all... my point was that for as long as I've got a good 40lb of surplus weight on my body it's pointless spending a fortune to shave a few ounces off my bike.

When I'm on a long ride I carry food and water, which also weighs much more than the few ounces here and there a lot of lightweight components might save.

Oh, he's not actually suggesting anorexia, and my reply was mostly tongue in cheek, too.

I think "I don't care about 100 grams - that isn't even 1/4 pound" makes sense, but "I'll eat less or go without water to make up for 100 grams" is silly.

My point was just that most of us in here are in here for a reason, and I suspect most of us could afford to eat 100g less at lunchtime and it not make a big difference to anything. I know I could still lose 4oz from a good number of my meals and not feel deprived as a result.

I'm not sure why 165 mm cranks would be better if you have bad knees - you're putting more pressure on your knee for an equivalent pedal stroke with shorter cranks. I have no cartilage left in my right knee to speak of and I prefer longer cranks, so YMMV.


There are many reasons for going to shorter cranks, two of them being 5'2" or shorter, and having knee and/or hip issues. If you have a bike already, there is really only two ways left to change maximum angles, one is seat position, and the other is changing the crank length. The basic idea is with shorter cranks you pedal is smaller circles, therefore your knees (and hips) do not close to as great of an angle.

This is very noticeable in recumbents, but also applies to DF bikes as well. Here are a few links to check out if you wish to learn more:

http://bikesmithdesign.com/Short_Cranks/short_cranks_faqs.html

http://www.myra-simon.com/bike/cranks.html

Of course, the downside to shorter cranks is a loss of torque. But if a person can ride longer, and more comfortably, then it may be a good change.

tergal, I'm guessing that chain rings etc for cranks like yours and the even lower spec one one in my FX7.1 are stamped out by the millions rather than being light weight precision machined engineering masterpieces. Even so, I don't think the crank is likely to break in a hurry, and on the off chance that it did the $60 price tag would make it a cheap repair. My only concern with mine is that I think I'd like something like your 22 tooth small ring rather than the 28 tooth that I've got now, but that's only because I'd like to drag a loaded trailer behind it for short weekend trips at some stage.

trade you my 22 for your mud guards after this mornings ride to work :lol:

You might have to do some significant research.

For the road, for me, it's easy. I race track and road and stiffer is better and materials used usually can make things stronger while also being lighter.

MTB is a bit of a different ball game. You can really punish a drivetrain with big hits while fully loading the pedals. Stiff may not necessarily be better in this case when you weigh 100+kg. Stiffer means less give and can possibly lead to more breakages. I'm sure there's some info floating about for big guys riding and breaking MTB cranks, and therefore a short list of what to stay away from. You just might have to dig a LOT.

trade you my 22 for your mud guards after this mornings ride to work :lol:

:lol: Useful aren't they ! I reckon the bike path would be awash this morning after yesterdays torrential rain.

Actually I reckon with that 22T small ring and the 34T rear cog your 4300 would be pretty good on hills. Then again it is a MTB and not a "fitness bike".

:lol: Useful aren't they ! I reckon the bike path would be awash this morning after yesterdays torrential rain.

Actually I reckon with that 22T small ring and the 34T rear cog your 4300 would be pretty good on hills. Then again it is a MTB and not a "fitness bike".

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/798541-quick-snaps-with-the-phone-on-the-way-to-work

is all i have to say to that

Me too. I ride with 170mm cranks due to my bad knee. 175 or even 172.5 cranks would be an issue and those are what I'm finding on new bikes my size.
Some days it takes a while to loosen up where I can bend the knee enough to get over the top of the pedal stroke. A few rides I never got loosened up and had to quit, usually when a weather front was coming in/barometric pressure changes.
Even loosened up, standing on the pedals the 170mm seems too tall. I blow up very quickly climbing out of the saddle.
The knee is actually better range of motion than it used to be. A few slips/falls injuries broke some of the scar tissue/adhesions/whatever leftover from a injury/surgery 20 years ago. ...?

Length - Cadence-
175 - 60 My foot starts getting thrown off the pedal about 62-63
170 - 80 On the "edge" of chronic knee pain
165 - 85 No knee pain and I'm riding a LOT more miles. 600 last July when my previous highly month was 120!
160 - 80 I guess there's a point of going too short.

Interesting link Peter and thanks for your observations Bill - how tall are you out of curiosity?

I do have trouble out of the saddle in certain weather conditions, maybe I'm looking at this bass ackwards. :) Now I'll have to find something that explains the difference in knee angle for given crank lengths.

I've shrunk to 5-11. Probably a slightly short inseam for my height.

I don't think it's knee angle. IF you're like me, it's simply not having the full range of motion in my bad knee. (thanks 750 Triumph)

Remember that shortening the crank actually gives double the effect in length.
5MM shorter means you raise the seat 5MM.
When the crank is at 12 O' clock, it's also 5MM closer to the ground.
Thus your knee has 10MM less height to travel.
When you are on the "ragged edge" of flexibility, that can be VERY significant.

My point was just that most of us in here are in here for a reason, and I suspect most of us could afford to eat 100g less at lunchtime and it not make a big difference to anything. I know I could still lose 4oz from a good number of my meals and not feel deprived as a result.

Well and good, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with which components you have on your bike. ;)

Has anyone in here used oval chain rings?

Well and good, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with which components you have on your bike. ;)

I know, I'm just pointing out that if you're carrying lots of surplus weight it seems a bit pointless to fuss over a few ounces here and there. Unless you believe your wallet is too stuffed with cash, in which case I can suggest other ways of solving the problem :)

I know, I'm just pointing out that if you're carrying lots of surplus weight it seems a bit pointless to fuss over a few ounces here and there. Unless you believe your wallet is too stuffed with cash, in which case I can suggest other ways of solving the problem :)

Nobody is suggesting that you should be a weight weenie but just because you're heavier than the average grand tour rider doesn't mean you won't benefit from improved equipment. In many cases, the higher end gear is both lighter and more functional. It kind of reminds me of my father in law... his rear tire rubs the brake pad because the wheel is out of true and he just says "It's ok, I need the workout." :notamused:

Nobody is suggesting that you should be a weight weenie but just because you're heavier than the average grand tour rider doesn't mean you won't benefit from improved equipment. In many cases, the higher end gear is both lighter and more functional. It kind of reminds me of my father in law... his rear tire rubs the brake pad because the wheel is out of true and he just says "It's ok, I need the workout." :notamused:

I wouldn't mind spending on something that's more functional. I just chuckle when people like me who carry lots of extra weight around the middle spend £42.99 for a carbon fibre bottle cage (20g) rather than spending £4.99 on a metal cage (45g). To me spending £38 (about $60) to save 25g when you've got plenty to spare around the middle is one step up from lunacy.

Hence, if you're going to get something that's better and that also happens to be lighter, go for it. If you're spending a little bit of money to save a lot of weight, go for it. If you're spending a lot of money to save a little bit of weight, then unless your name is Gates or Buffett or something I'd say you're probably being foolish. I'm specifically ruling out the uber-lean riders who truly don't have 25g of surplus fat on them from that last scenario given this is the Clydes area.

It's silly to think that the only benefit more expensive bike gear brings is less weight. But ... people like to, and then come up with weird rules like "I'll just not bring water with me to make up for the weight difference."

If better cranks shift better, are stiffer, and perhaps even induce less fatigue (that's why they make oval ones), the weight difference is the icing on the cake.

People spend fortunes on Weight Watchers, diet books, special food, and the like. For most, the result is to lose some weight for a while, and then gain it all back. This is probably even more unhealthy than staying at or near a constant weight. But it proves that weight loss isn't easy, and, also, it's not free for a lot of people who (try to) take part in it.

If you wind up saving 100 grams on a better crank set, you don't ever have to worry about your bike binging on French fries and gaining the weight back.

Even morbidly obese people benefit from lighter bikes when they have to carry them up stairs. For many people, that happens at the beginning and end of every ride.

...you don't ever have to worry about your bike binging on French fries and gaining the weight back.

If I ever catch my bike binging on fries, why, I'll...... I'll....... that'll be it! We're through!

First, picture riding seated only - perhaps why it's so common in the recumbent world? If you have your seat stem as high as possible (without locking the knee open), then consider how 'much' does your other knee bend? Different bikes, can make this vary, as does seat height. But, once you're on a given bike (or trike), a shorter crank will create less bend (or angle), than a longer crank.

In my case, on a recumbent trike (a TT Rover) going from stock 170mm cranks to 152mm cranks reduced my knee and hip angles to just under 90 degrees, which made both me and my Ortho happy - was roughly 102-104 degrees prior - I have no idea what will work for another person, just providing info.

If I ever catch my bike binging on fries, why, I'll...... I'll....... that'll be it! We're through!

i would be asking where it got the money o.O

Nobody is suggesting that you should be a weight weenie but just because you're heavier than the average grand tour rider doesn't mean you won't benefit from improved equipment. In many cases, the higher end gear is both lighter and more functional. It kind of reminds me of my father in law... his rear tire rubs the brake pad because the wheel is out of true and he just says "It's ok, I need the workout." :notamused:

I guess I see both some benefit and also some vanity in the argument for higher end components. I'm one for -value-. I look at a part and see if it's functional. In fact, many of the mass produced parts in the low-medium end are actually MORE DURABLE than those at the high end because at those thin margins, manufacturers can't afford a high rate of return/warranty claims.

I don't think many riders actually benefit from a more expensive part that saves a few grams. I just haven't seen it. Sure, there is a huge jump from a sub $100 department store bike to a $400 bike. But beyond that, most folks who pay much more are buying not really for performance, but more for vanity. That's -most- folks. Some actually race. But I live/work down here in Silicon Valley. Lots of folks with money. I know folks who have bikes with 4-digit price tags with full Ultegra or Dura Ace or XTR on their bikes. In fact, I rode with a parent this weekend who had more money than sense. Ultralight StumpJumper with XTR. Going up a hill, he forgets to shift, then decides, mid-stroke, with all his weight pushing a tall gear, to force the rear derailleur into a smaller cog. He shifted, but then had a super loud "click" start to sound every 2.4 revolutions. It was hard to bare. We stopped and he shredded a link and bent it so badly there was no way to salvage it on the road.

As for the father-in-law who says he needs a workout... well, I pay some of the bills for my in-laws - my way of showing respect for the parents of the woman they raised that I was privileged enough to marry and have kids with. So I buy Grandpa a car. And if he actually ever learned to ride a bike, I'd buy him a bike too, and he would never have a wheel that rubbed brakes on a bike I would provide for him! :-)

I have one bike with full ultegra and one bike with SRAM Force/Red but I don't live in Silicon valley. I guess I'm missing out. I guess I also missed the MASSIVE performance improvements when I upgraded my old bike from RX100 with downtube shifters to ultegra STI. You know, the part where I used to go from catching up to the pack 5 min. after they stopped to actually keeping up. I'm not making that up. Sometimes the nicer stuff really does just work better.

I'd love to see your data on the low-medium end products being more durable. ;) I'll give you the vanity argument though.

I have lots of data from working in a shop and servicing bikes as a volunteer for my boy scout troop. Low-medium stuff works great. Lots of people own it. It needs some adjustment once in a while, and once adjusted, lasts a LONG time. Just that most shops DON'T BOTHER. Case in point is the old late 80's and early 90's shimano Exage gruppos. Stuff just works and lasts so long that Shimano had to stop making the stuff. It was too good for the price. You still see tonnes of bikes from that era with those gruppos. Even the first gen HG chains were awesome. Try to get a newer Shimano narrow 9-spd or thinner chain to last 20 years. Nada. Zip. Doesn't exist. For clydes like us, those chains wear much more. In fact, I ride 8 spd and 7 spd with older Sedis chains, the oldest which is more than 20 years old.

Upgrading to STI is a different shifting technology. For a lot of folks, it's a much more natural user interface to their gears. I like them too. But you could buy ST2200 shifters versus Ultegra and pay $60 a set on closeout versus, what, $300 a set. What's the difference? 8 spd versus 10spd? I doubt most riders see any real difference in performance for paying 5X the price of the lower set, and from the analysis of the brifter mechanism, it looks like both units have the same materials in the internals and are thus equally durable. Why is Shimano end-of-lifing ST2200? Why move up the chain and force upgrades to 10 spd/11 spd? If not for vanity?

And sure, nicer stuff may work better. But C'mon. You improved as a rider, and then you dumped more money into more expensive bikes. That always happens. I even did that for many years, until I realized I am not genetically born to race. I ride a bike well because I depend on it for transportation. And in that case, the less expensive bike serves me more than adequately.

Upgrading to STI is a different shifting technology. For a lot of folks, it's a much more natural user interface to their gears. I like them too. But you could buy ST2200 shifters versus Ultegra and pay $60 a set on closeout versus, what, $300 a set. What's the difference? 8 spd versus 10spd? I doubt most riders see any real difference in performance for paying 5X the price of the lower set [... snip ...] Why is Shimano end-of-lifing ST2200? Why move up the chain and force upgrades to 10 spd/11 spd? If not for vanity

Um ... seriously?

The ST2200 use a different shifting mechanism, one that, at best, is just barely useable from the drops. "A much more natural user interface" as you put it. Not to mention that they're mostly plastic.