Acera v Deore Triple

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5660
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Sweep » 7 Jul 2019, 5:58pm

Am looking for a triple 9 speed crankset to put on a build.

Anyone got any views on how this Acera

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Shimano-Acer ... b4HlS#rwid


Would compare to the now discontinued Deore 510?


Also, if views positive, how easy is it to get spare compatible geniune Shimano chainrings?

edited for typos.

And to clarify that the reason I ended up considering this is that I am looking for square taper with 44/32/22 rings.

The deore is fine (i have one) but discontinued of course.
Last edited by Sweep on 8 Jul 2019, 8:49am, edited 2 times in total.
Sweep

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6777
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Bonefishblues » 7 Jul 2019, 6:15pm

SJS had loads when I was looking at chainrings yesterday.

elPedro666
Posts: 1235
Joined: 9 Oct 2014, 7:38am
Contact:

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby elPedro666 » 8 Jul 2019, 5:15am

This is a bit of guesswork, but it looks like those might be heavy pressed steel rings, whereas the Deore outer at least is much lighter aluminium. There's probably not much difference in the arms themselves.

Have to get myself to work so don't have time to check that, so please take it more as a suggestion of something to Google/confirm, rather than a statement of fact!

Standard 64/104mm 4-bolt rings should be plentiful for a good few years yet.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk

pwa
Posts: 10283
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby pwa » 8 Jul 2019, 5:59am

Do replacement chain rings need to be genuine Shimano? I never buy Shimano chain rings. I prefer TA. My own preference is for silver arms purely because my heels tend to scuff them occasionally and the marks show up less on silver.

Other than that. I'd be okay with either.

elPedro666
Posts: 1235
Joined: 9 Oct 2014, 7:38am
Contact:

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby elPedro666 » 8 Jul 2019, 7:30am

pwa wrote:Do replacement chain rings need to be genuine Shimano? I never buy Shimano chain rings. I prefer TA. My own preference is for silver arms purely because my heels tend to scuff them occasionally and the marks show up less on silver.

Other than that. I'd be okay with either.
I'd second TA as being lovely solid, long-lasting* rings.

*purely from my own unscientific experience

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5660
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Sweep » 8 Jul 2019, 9:20am

Thanks for feedback so far.

No, spare rings don't necessarily have to be shimano but I had the idea that BCD wasn't necessarily the be all and end all for smooth easy fitting of spares. Had the idea, for instance, that at one time shimano subtly changed the design/mounting interface of some of their chainsets so that some chainrings with same BCD needed serious fettling to get them to fit.

More opinions on comparison between the acera and deore welcomed. May potentially save me from waiting for a secindhand deore to turn up.
Sweep

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6777
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Bonefishblues » 8 Jul 2019, 9:21am

They do. There are several on SJS which are specific to a particular chainset. SJS lists compatibility.

peetee
Posts: 1368
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby peetee » 8 Jul 2019, 9:43am

The Acera crankset has standard Shimano bolt spacing so should be compatible with the other, divisible Shimano triple MTB cranksets but interchangeability cannot be assumed. I have had situations where the inner edge of a Shimano chainring has fouled the step on the end of the Shimano crankset arms - only by less than a mm so one wonders why the standards couldn't be exact across the range - but then, that's Shimano for you!
That Acera does indeed have stamped steel rings and they should last a while but the trade off is that's it's very heavy.
Current status report:
Latter side of fifty and feeling less than nifty.
Too many bikes on pegs and too few miles in the legs.

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5660
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Sweep » 8 Jul 2019, 10:04am

peetee wrote:The Acera crankset has standard Shimano bolt spacing so should be compatible with the other, divisible Shimano triple MTB cranksets but interchangeability cannot be assumed. I have had situations where the inner edge of a Shimano chainring has fouled the step on the end of the Shimano crankset arms - only by less than a mm so one wonders why the standards couldn't be exact across the range - but then, that's Shimano for you!
That Acera does indeed have stamped steel rings and they should last a while but the trade off is that's it's very heavy.

Have long been confused about steel rings, for tho most rings sold seem to be ally, non techie me always has the idea that steel will be tougher/last longer. Is the "stamping" process an issue? How are quality ally rings made? How much heavier are we talking for such a relatively small bit? The chainrings will be used on a tourer, a nice one, tho often pretty well loaded.
At the risk of a thread divert, have also often wondered whether TA chainring are worth the premium, since shimano ones can be had at good prices from german suppliers.
Am starting to get the idea that there is no great difference between that acera and the deore chainset (tho more opinions welcome) and I can of course change the chainrings in time as they wear out.
Sweep

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5660
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Sweep » 8 Jul 2019, 10:07am

peetee wrote:The Acera crankset has standard Shimano bolt spacing so should be compatible with the other, divisible Shimano triple MTB cranksets but interchangeability cannot be assumed. I have had situations where the inner edge of a Shimano chainring has fouled the step on the end of the Shimano crankset arms - only by less than a mm so one wonders why the standards couldn't be exact across the range - but then, that's Shimano for you!
.

Yes that rings a bell when i have lined some up in the past. If only a mill or so i assume you just got a dremel or file out and carried on with no problems?
Sweep

Brucey
Posts: 35595
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Brucey » 8 Jul 2019, 10:27am

IME steel chainrings vary; some are little harder than average quality aluminium chainrings. Most are pressed (stamped) these days. Cheap aluminium chainrings are made by stamping and most usually are made from a soft alloy (eg 5083). Their sole benefits are that they are at least corrosion resistant and relatively inexpensive. If you bend such a chainring you have a fair chance of straightening it too. Better quality aluminium chainrings are machined to size and run smoother from the start because they have perfectly shaped teeth. These chainrings are often made from a 7xxx alloy. This alloy is very strong but it isn't very corrosion resistant and if you bend a chainring made in this kind of material, it is as likely to crack as bend back straight again. Dura-ace chainrings and better quality campag ones are made from 7xxx material.

There are many variations of course. BTW 7xxx chainrings that hail from France are often said to be made of 'zicral'. Similarly French-made 5083 chainrings are often (wrongly) referred to as being made of 'Dural'. Dural is a trade name for a series of precipitation hardening alloys in which the principal alloying element is Copper. 5083 is not such an alloy.

If you are running a triple then you really ought to have all the shifting aids on the middle chainring as per the OEM chainring. They don't hurt any on the big ring either. I'd place this requirement ahead of wear resistance, given a choice.

In order of wear resistance I'd suggest that it goes

1) cheap aluminium chainrings
2) cheap steel chainrings
3) 5083 (or similar) chainrings
4) better quality steel chainrings
5) Hard alloy chainrings (eg Zicral)
6) harder steel (eg some stainless steel)

If you want a chainring not to wear badly, it is most important that you don't run a worn chain on it. Of course larger chainrings wear most slowly, in any given material.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2824
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Bmblbzzz » 8 Jul 2019, 11:21am

Brucey wrote:Dural is a trade name for a series of precipitation hardening alloys in which the principal alloying element is Copper. 5083 is not such an alloy.

I didn't know they were alloyed with copper, but wasn't dural invented for or had one of its first commercial uses in Landrover bodies? Not exactly relevant here, just reminded me!

If you are running a triple then you really ought to have all the shifting aids on the middle chainring as per the OEM chainring. They don't hurt any on the big ring either. I'd place this requirement ahead of wear resistance, given a choice.

Makes sense.

In order of wear resistance I'd suggest that it goes

1) cheap aluminium chainrings
2) cheap steel chainrings
3) 5083 (or similar) chainrings
4) better quality steel chainrings
5) Hard alloy chainrings (eg Zicral)
6) harder steel (eg some stainless steel)

Haven't you got that back to front? That is, your number 1 is not the most resistant but the least resistant?

Brucey
Posts: 35595
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby Brucey » 8 Jul 2019, 12:00pm

I meant to say in order of increasing wear resistance....


FWIW land rover bodies were made using 'Birmabright' alloys. These were most similar to various 5xxx grades, being Mg alloyed, non-precipitation hardening. Again most definitely not Dural.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DaveReading
Posts: 59
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby DaveReading » 8 Jul 2019, 1:35pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:I didn't know they were alloyed with copper, but wasn't dural invented for or had one of its first commercial uses in Landrover bodies? Not exactly relevant here, just reminded me!

At one time, Dural was extensively used in the aerospace industry.

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive ... 00931.html

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12490
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Acera v Deore Triple

Postby 531colin » 8 Jul 2019, 2:45pm

These are "MTB" chainsets.
If you are using "MTB" changers, F. mech. and chainline, everything should work straight "out of the box".
However, if you want to use road STIs (with an indexed front shift) then you will need a road F. mech. and probably a shorter BB axle in order to get (close to) road chainline.