replica vs open mold discussion

[bioluminescent]

Hi everyone,
I'm a long time lurker, so sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place.

I recently watched patliean1's SL8 video and it seems like there's a pretty major discrepancy in ride feel between open mold frames and high end western brands. My own experience borrowing a legit S-works aethos has led me to believe the same thing.

I've been wondering if people have experience with replica frames and how they stack up to the real thing. I realize reps are a bit contentious around here but I have no desire to pass it off as the real thing. I just wonder if reps might be the best bang for the buck (they're at least close enough in shape to get some of the aero benefits to the real frames). If, for the sake of discussion, a lightcarbon LCR017 is 70% as good as an SL8, is a replica maybe 80-90% as good for about the same price?

I've seen a few replica factors floating around and it seems like most people have a fairly positive experience. I've searched here and haven't really found any supersix or tarmac reps.

Just curious what everyone thinks!

[Sebastian]

I got a VB-R218 in a rim brake variant. I’m pretty sure I’ll never be able to ride a rim brake Dogma F as that bike is as rare as a unicorn. And as expensive. But I’m pretty happy with mine. As for performance: It’s definitely plenty fast and stiff. Personally I don’t care how it compares to the real thing. I think it’s more about whether you like it or not.

If you want comparable performance to brand name frames, I think the premium Chinese frame makers are your best option. With replicas, most of the time you’ll struggle to get frames as light as the premium Chinese brands for instance.  My VB-R218 definitely is a lot heavier than a real Dogma F at around 1200g for the frame (size 57.5). The whole bike is light enough for me. But I’d be a fool thinking that it’s the same thing. I think of replicas more as a nod to a beautiful design at a lower price point and therefore inferior material.

[Sakizashi]

This topic is dangerous to discuss for me, mainly because I oppose replicas / counterfeit bikes. I have seen more than a few of them attempt to be passed off as the real thing, including in secondhand sales. Creators shouldn't have their IP ripped off--and that includes brands. Counterfeiting is not a legitimate form of protest or artistic impression. I also question where the money goes and what level of engineering goes into these frames when the objective is to make a looks-like copy rather than a product that stands up to use. Further, a lot of these sellers tend to come and go. All in all, it's a risk I wouldn't take on a frame.

With that out of the way. Here is the second disclaimer: I am about to engage in some armchair / principles-based engineering, which is never high-quality commentary. Generally speaking, the external shape of the structure will have more influence than the wall thickness and layup used on stiffness and strength. Square-like tubes are also easier to make stiff in a specific direction than round ones. Complex aero shapes present a problem to model, and companies will try to do a lot with the layup, but it's very much trying to optimize a tube shape that, from the outset, doesn't make for a good double triangle-based bike. Round tubes are light for their stiffness, are easy to make predictably because of the lack of corners in the mold, and are a relatively simple / known problem to work with. The SL8 has an aero-ish front triangle and a round tube-based rear triangle. The Aethos is a round tube bike. If you want a bike that is more likely to have a great ride feel, the answer is to go with a bike that uses mostly round tubes or a mix of round tubes in the rear triangle and square ones in the front triangle. The engineers are more likely to get that right than a design like the Canyon Aeroad.

My $0.02 is that if you like the Aethos look for another round tube bike. There are plenty of open molds (there is an ICAN) and Chinese branded frames (like the Bigrock climbing frame) that use primarily round tubes.

[bioluminescent]

This topic is dangerous to discuss for me, mainly because I oppose replicas / counterfeit bikes. I have seen more than a few of them attempt to be passed off as the real thing, including in secondhand sales. Creators shouldn't have their IP ripped off--and that includes brands. Counterfeiting is not a legitimate form of protest or artistic impression. I also question where the money goes and what level of engineering goes into these frames when the objective is to make a looks-like copy rather than a product that stands up to use. Further, a lot of these sellers tend to come and go. All in all, it's a risk I wouldn't take on a frame.

With that out of the way. Here is the second disclaimer: I am about to engage in some armchair / principles-based engineering, which is never high-quality commentary. Generally speaking, the external shape of the structure will have more influence than the wall thickness and layup used on stiffness and strength. Square-like tubes are also easier to make stiff in a specific direction than round ones. Complex aero shapes present a problem to model, and companies will try to do a lot with the layup, but it's very much trying to optimize a tube shape that, from the outset, doesn't make for a good double triangle-based bike. Round tubes are light for their stiffness, are easy to make predictably because of the lack of corners in the mold, and are a relatively simple / known problem to work with. The SL8 has an aero-ish front triangle and a round tube-based rear triangle. The Aethos is a round tube bike. If you want a bike that is more likely to have a great ride feel, the answer is to go with a bike that uses mostly round tubes or a mix of round tubes in the rear triangle and square ones in the front triangle. The engineers are more likely to get that right than a design like the Canyon Aeroad.

My $0.02 is that if you like the Aethos look for another round tube bike. There are plenty of open molds (there is an ICAN) and Chinese branded frames (like the Bigrock climbing frame) that use primarily round tubes.

I agree the ethics of a replica frame are definitely questionable at best. As you pointed out, from an engineering standpoint the shape determines a lot of the frame properties. Assuming the replica got the shapes fairly correct, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to hope the second moment of area would be similar, even if they use worse materials and their layup isn't perfect. I'm a mechanical engineering student so I'm really curious how well the design transfers over to replicas, purely in terms of performance. I'm taking a design for strength and stiffness course this next quarter, so maybe I'll have a better insight in about 3 months LoL.

[Takiyaki]

Yall gotta stop trying to cheat the system man. If you want name brand performance you have to pay for it. No a replica is not gonna match. They dont have the same layups, quality control, processes etc.

[Phaxe]

QC? I don't think so.

If I'm spending north of $15,000 on a bike, I don't want a single defect anywhere at any point on the bike, but it's just not the case. Time and time again, big name brands are producing rubbish and fleecing their customers. I think the argument is more nuanced than fake=bad, real=good.

[patliean1]

I always find these discussions fascinating. Real vs Fake vs Counterfeit.

The motive and intent behind such purchases becomes crucial. Strictly as an experiment or test case I can understand the rationale. Sometimes we subconsciously look to the forums for validation to justify our purchases. The overwhelming number of replies I've seen in here over the years point to fake/counterfeit frames being a bad idea for the variety of aforementioned reasons.

So ultimately it comes down to what purpose a fake frame will serve. Your money your choice end of the day.

For context, I looked into getting a counterfeit Rolex Submariner over 3 years ago. Even back then the VSF Chinese factories practically perfected the Submariner. I can't imagine what tiny nuances they've improved on these days. But in the end I settled on a super high quality homage watch. Almost identical specs as the Rolex, and comes with a warranty. The brand isn't trying to pass their watch off as Submariner which I appreciate.

The irony here is the fake frame and fake Rolex both could pose injury to the owner. If you know what I mean...

[Phaxe]

I always find these discussions fascinating. Real vs Fake vs Counterfeit.

The motive and intent behind such purchases becomes crucial. Strictly as an experiment or test case I can understand the rationale. Sometimes we subconsciously look to the forums for validation to justify our purchases. The overwhelming number of replies I've seen in here over the years point to fake/counterfeit frames being a bad idea for the variety of aforementioned reasons.

So ultimately it comes down to what purpose a fake frame will serve. Your money your choice end of the day.

For context, I looked into getting a counterfeit Rolex Submariner over 3 years ago. Even back then the VSF Chinese factories practically perfected the Submariner. I can't imagine what tiny nuances they've improved on these days. But in the end I settled on a super high quality homage watch. Almost identical specs as the Rolex, and comes with a warranty. The brand isn't trying to pass their watch off as Submariner which I appreciate.

The irony here is the fake frame and fake Rolex both could pose injury to the owner. If you know what I mean...

I think your analogy hits the nail on the head. (btw, the VSF is now indistinguishable )

I built up a knock off aspire 5, but make no bones about telling people it's a rep. It was an exercise in curiosity, and the bike is great. Would I do it again? Probably not, but I'm glad I did, it was interesting!

[Sakizashi]

QC? I don't think so.

If I'm spending north of $15,000 on a bike, I don't want a single defect anywhere at any point on the bike, but it's just not the case. Time and time again, big name brands are producing rubbish and fleecing their customers. I think the argument is more nuanced than fake=bad, real=good.

Ok, but read through the thread on the fake Aspero 5's, and it's littered with issues, particularly with the headset area. Sure, there are QC errors from big brands, but usually, they fix them for you on their dime and help resolve them. And certainly, they are forced to recall products when they can't be used or assembled in a way consistent with safety. Not to mention, the fake also fails to clone the geometry except for 1 or 2 sizes, meaning it can't perform the same in a lot of cases.

I agree that the bike industry needs to do a better job at getting to scale with standard parts to try and keep costs down. It's absurd how expensive bike frames are when there seems to be very little innovation from generation to generation. Handlebars too. Giving customers less choice and bonding the bar and stem together is not worth 2x more. However, the inefficient bike industry isn't a good reason to buy fakes when open molds and even chinese brands are an option.

Saying that "counterfeiting is OK because the brands would otherwise rip me off" is ridiculous. To me, it's more like "fake=bad, real=?"

[Phaxe]

Saying that "counterfeiting is OK because the brands would otherwise rip me off" is ridiculous. To me, it's more like "fake=bad, real=?"

I didn't say that.

I own an s-works sl6 and love it. It's my road bike, and it's a beast to ride.

I believe we're both talking the same language. Where I take umbrage is in the steep barrier to entry when it comes to cycling, and 'the scene'. Value is something that's important to most people, and there isn't value to be found in the upper echelon of cycling.

With that said, I believe you're 100% right. Open moulds and the Chinese brands who are doing their own R&D and manufacturing are the ones that are offering true competition in the world of cycling.

But I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't have the means, to want to build up an expensive replica knowing the potential headaches they'll face when building and riding it.

[Sebastian]

I think the lines are much more blurred than real vs fake. What about that whole grey area of frames that are basically almost a replica except for minor details? How many almost clones of the SL7 are out there? The Trifox X18, the VB-R168 and so on.
The ICAN A22 which is basically a Canyon Aeroad. The TanTan X34 which is made to look like a Madone. The X38 which is basically a Scott Foil except for the headset, bars and seatpost. The list goes on.

Also, many of these - despite having minor differences in appearance to the original - have basically the same geometry as the models they took "inspiration" from. So I'm not sure how much R&D actually went into these designs.

Personally, I think were not even talking remotely about the same customer groups. Somebody who actually has the cash to pay 4-6000USD for a frameset or a five digit number for a bike would never think about getting a 5-800 dollar chiner frame.
Making the fake look like the real one with logos and so on is where I definitely draw the line. Especially when those frames then flood the 2nd hand market. There's so many Pinarello clones with logos and paintjobs like the originals that I'd worry if I could actually tell the difference if I ever bought a 2nd hand frame.

[tssy5]

I own several replicas and real branded bikes, also have borrowed from friends and ridden the real thing that my replica is trying to copy. My experience is pretty recent so I believe I can comment on a few common topics:

1. the million dollar question, is replica safe to ride?

There is no simple answer for this actually, it depends. If your aliexpress replica is only $200 USD including handlebar, you tell me, do you think it is safe to ride?
However I can confidently tell you if you are buying a $600+ USD replica, there won't be any major safety issues, it is not like you ride your replica normally and it snapped in half immediately, unless you are a heavy rider, but I am pretty sure even branded bikes aren't gonna be that safe if you are heavy, because physics, you cannot have something that is light enough yet still be able to withstand a tremendous load.

I got a friend who has a real Time frame and the front fork snapped in half when he was descending down a hill, spent a month or two in the hospital, he was like 90kg I think? So yeah, famous brand doesn't guarantee safety, or maybe just bad luck, who knows, good thing is Time gave him a replacement for free so if you buy legit that's your advantage.


2. Is replica going to be as good as the real thing performance wise?

Absolutely not, but is it close? I would say yes, replica tends to feel less stiff, a bit heavier and a little bit sluggish. If I really need to give a direct comparison, I will say replica has 90% of the performance, in fact, we all sort of know the answer, if you get dropped, problem's on you, not the bike. Honestly if you are not a racer, don't bother, I don't really think a racer would consider buying replica anyway.


3. How's the paint in the replica?
Pretty good, if you don't tell anyone that is a replica I doubt your local club rider is able to tell the difference unless they also have experiecne with replica. However, it is not perfect, you can't really expect a perfect paint with that price if you really know the process & equipment required to get the paint on the frame.



4. You buy replica? SHAME ON YOU
Yes I am a bad person, I own $10k+ USD worth of cameras & lens from Sony yet go cheap on bikes, I have no respect to legit brand, plz don't be like me.




Btw, if you are not a DIY person nor got the time, probably not so wise to buy replica because there are going to be a lot of little things that need your DIY capabilities.

[Serge_K]

Personally, I think were not even talking remotely about the same customer groups. Somebody who actually has the cash to pay 4-6000USD for a frameset or a five digit number for a bike would never think about getting a 5-800 dollar chiner frame.
Making the fake look like the real one with logos and so on is where I definitely draw the line.

I agree with where you draw the line.
i disagree with the customer groups. I could buy 15+k bikes, yet I wouldn't. I care about value, and being a good steward of my money. I take pride in being the guy with the cheap chinese stuff. One reason is to troll. Another is to keep it real. The whole "my ftp is dog shyte & i can't take a turn yet i ride the latest TDF bike and flex my MAAP kit" is, as far as i'm conerned, utter cringe. Just like Nike needs working class people to buy overpriced Jordans, the economy needs bag holders, but it doesn't mean i have to be one.

[Sebastian]

i disagree with the customer groups.

Maybe you're right. It's probably not as clear cut.
And what about looking at it from the other side: A replica might just as well be an entry drug. I like my Dogma clone so much that I've thought about buying a real frame more than once. It would have to be a used one. But who knows. At some point down the line I just might.

And Pat is actually another example. Starting out with Chiner frames, ever upgrading to more and more premium stuff until he actually bought a Giant and an SL8. Not too long ago, most big brands offered entry level carbon frames at the price point where the likes of Winspace, Tavelo etc are today. If that was still an option, I'd be a lot less inclined to go the D2C china route.

I bought a Ridley Helium SL frameset in 2018. Brand New. It was the lower tier T700/T800 version which retailed for around 1700EUR at the time. It was on sale for 699EUR from an actual local bike shop with warranty and service. There's still the occassional offer like that today. But all in all, you're looking at at least 2.500 or more for a half decent frameset from a big brand these days.

[Takiyaki]

I think the lines are much more blurred than real vs fake. What about that whole grey area of frames that are basically almost a replica except for minor details? How many almost clones of the SL7 are out there? The Trifox X18, the VB-R168 and so on.
The ICAN A22 which is basically a Canyon Aeroad. The TanTan X34 which is made to look like a Madone. The X38 which is basically a Scott Foil except for the headset, bars and seatpost. The list goes on.

Also, many of these - despite having minor differences in appearance to the original - have basically the same geometry as the models they took "inspiration" from. So I'm not sure how much R&D actually went into these designs.

Personally, I think were not even talking remotely about the same customer groups. Somebody who actually has the cash to pay 4-6000USD for a frameset or a five digit number for a bike would never think about getting a 5-800 dollar chiner frame.
Making the fake look like the real one with logos and so on is where I definitely draw the line. Especially when those frames then flood the 2nd hand market. There's so many Pinarello clones with logos and paintjobs like the originals that I'd worry if I could actually tell the difference if I ever bought a 2nd hand frame.

I think you made the line pretty clear, and I agree with it.

This reminds me of a story from my childhood. GT Performers were the it bike of my neighborhood. The closest I got was a Dyno VFR. Anyways a buddy of mine got some store brand freestyle bike and put GT Performer stickers on it. One day we went to a bike shop and the shop guy told him.... "this is NOT a GT." My buddy took the stickers off after that.

Now if someone is putting a replica on the used market as real, IMO that gets into fraud/theft. But even if you don't sell, or sell honestly....... the whole thing is strange to me. Passing off a replica as real just screams desperation and insecurity.

The "inspiration" aspect does get blurry; I agree there. However to some degree you can only innovate so much with the typical diamond frame configuration. And a lot of the frames "inspiration" is drawn from are old. I do think Chinese brands, even at the low end, are missing opportunities to innovate and separate more from Western brands. But that's a different thread.

Where I take umbrage is in the steep barrier to entry when it comes to cycling, and 'the scene'.

But I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't have the means, to want to build up an expensive replica knowing the potential headaches they'll face when building and riding it.

People keep talking about these barriers... I dont get it. I ride a no logo Dengfu. I have never been stopped or accosted for not having a name brand bike lol.

If you just want to ride a bike, the only barriers are money and time. You can go to Walmart, buy a $300 bike and be on your way. But if you want affirmation from road bike snobs, yea, you are going to have to pay through the nose to have the "right" equipment. What's the value in that? And if/when they find out you are on a replica, how do you think they will respond? The whole thing makes me ick.