Acera v Deore Triple
Acera v Deore Triple
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.
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
-
- Posts: 11010
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
SJS had loads when I was looking at chainrings yesterday.
- elPedro666
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: 9 Oct 2014, 7:38am
- Contact:
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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 hovercraft full of eels.
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 hovercraft full of eels.
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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.
Other than that. I'd be okay with either.
- elPedro666
- Posts: 1554
- Joined: 9 Oct 2014, 7:38am
- Contact:
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
I'd second TA as being lovely solid, long-lasting* rings.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.
*purely from my own unscientific experience [emoji6]
I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my CLT-L09 using hovercraft full of eels.
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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.
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
-
- Posts: 11010
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
They do. There are several on SJS which are specific to a particular chainset. SJS lists compatibility.
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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.
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.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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
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~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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?
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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
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~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- Posts: 746
- Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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
Re: Acera v Deore Triple
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.
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.
Bike fitting D.I.Y. .....http://wheel-easy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bike-set-up-2017a.pdf
Tracks in the Dales etc...http://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/collections/
Tracks in the Dales etc...http://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/collections/