Chinertown
Chinese Carbon Road Bikes => Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components => Topic started by: bioluminescent on August 21, 2024, 03:08:11 PM
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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 :P)
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!
-
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=?"
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The best replicas are the ones that troll the real thing. This guy at my social ride bought a used Surly Straggler with a scribbly S-Werks logo on the down tube. The guy who bought doesn't realize what/who the bike was trolling. Though it was a custom build and looking at the components, whomever built it put in some quality components on the bike and knew what he was doing.
I'm beginning to see Chinese bike frames and components more as a tuner market for bike builds. Anyone can walk into a boutique bike shop and buy $6-10k + USD bike, but where's the fun in that? Now you have this expensive bike that you have to baby, think about resale and only get serviced for more $$$ at the same bike shop, while gaining zero knowledge in actual bike maintenance. There's something fun about an open mold bike because you built it, know it's strengths/weaknesses and you can ride the bike hard without too much monetary repercussions. There's also the bigger satisfaction of gapping/dropping cyclists on the bling bikes. The money save can be used for more training, better nutrition, date night with the gf/missus, etc.
-
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.
if frames from TanTan, VB, ICAN can be as close to 85% ride quality of the frames they took inspiration on, this is plenty good for a hobbyist racer like me.
im paying probably 25-40% on bike frame from reference of a big brand bike, get ~80% ride quality, and its not like my race performance is handicaped at 80% of my full potential if i would be on thos big brand bike(i guess). the savings of $ can go to more race fees n travel
-
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.
Are there actual local cycling scenes around who condescend individuals that ride non-Western, Chinese bikes? And what I mean is clear and obvious behavior suggesting they don't want you around?
I'm not dismissing the idea just because I haven't experienced this myself. Chicago Cycling has its own charm of a community that even folks in other larger scenes have expressed admiration for. Midwest hospitality. The only real barrier to entry is being flagged as sketchy rider.
We have a local PAS Normal club. On paper you can probably imagine what they're like. Initially I dismissed them as a bunch of snobs with overpriced kits, but quite frankly their attitude has been the exact opposite. In fact I'd argue they are the most inviting club in the city. All it took was getting past my own projections and spending about 2 minutes to introduce myself. And this was well before I started riding anything remotely resembling brand cache, and dressing like a fake-pro bro.
-
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.
Funny enough, the racer snob crowd has a lot of respect for unbranded Chiner frames and budget builds in general. It's a badge of honor signifying that you were able to spec and build up the "right" equipment without paying a bike shop to tell you what to get, and that the bike isn't going to be a garage queen since you aren't worried about ruining $10k worth of bike.
If you're trying to go fast for cheap, just get a Speeder/Carbonda/Lightcarbon/Velobuild, throw on some ICAN/NineVelo/Elitewheels, and run 105 or Ultegra. Job done.
-
Are there actual local cycling scenes around who condescend individuals that ride non-Western, Chinese bikes? And what I mean is clear and obvious behavior suggesting they don't want you around?
I wouldn't say "scenes" but there's definitely groups/individuals, especially old dudes. Like you see it on Reddit and WW (although the tide is turning a bit)--lot's of comments saying "I wouldn't trust a Chinese bike/wheels/handlebar/seatpost, your life depends on it!" 40+ masters racers are pretty crotchety about their gear to begin with, I feel like it's the scene with the highest density of dudes who are convinced your wheels are going to implode and take them (and the local LBS) down with you.
-
Funny enough, the racer snob crowd has a lot of respect for unbranded Chiner frames and budget builds in general. It's a badge of honor signifying that you were able to spec and build up the "right" equipment without paying a bike shop to tell you what to get, and that the bike isn't going to be a garage queen since you aren't worried about ruining $10k worth of bike.
If you're trying to go fast for cheap, just get a Speeder/Carbonda/Lightcarbon/Velobuild, throw on some ICAN/NineVelo/Elitewheels, and run 105 or Ultegra. Job done.
That build up is probably superior to what most TDF riders were riding 15 years ago or maybe even 10 years ago.
-
I'm beginning to see Chinese bike frames and components more as a tuner market for bike builds. Anyone can walk into a boutique bike shop and buy $6-10k + USD bike, but where's the fun in that? Now you have this expensive bike that you have to baby, think about resale and only get serviced for more $$$ at the same bike shop, while gaining zero knowledge in actual bike maintenance. There's something fun about an open mold bike because you built it, know it's strengths/weaknesses and you can ride the bike hard without too much monetary repercussions. There's also the bigger satisfaction of gapping/dropping cyclists on the bling bikes. The money save can be used for more training, better nutrition, date night with the gf/missus, etc.
Well said! I am into trying different bikes and their geometry, testing the ride and stuff, it has been a real fun, there's no way I am going to pay $5k USD for each of them...
-
That build up is probably superior to what most TDF riders were riding 15 years ago or maybe even 10 years ago.
For the frame and the wheels for sure. Advance in aero are not to dismiss.
-
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.
This is not intended to be mean or judgemental, so I hope we can take this response in the sprit of open discussion.
RE #1: Anecdata like this isn't helpful, and to me, the bigger question is whether or not the factory is even testing these frames for safety and failure. If you work with a reputable Chinese factory, they generate a surprising amount of data via testing in rigs to understand fatigue and lower the odds of a frame-breaking. Is the result a guarantee that a product won't break? No. But it does mean that the failure modes are known, and the probability of a frame-breaking meets the ISO standards. Not collecting the data means that it wasn't considered. This is similar to the arguments for and against helmets. Using a helmet provides a data-backed way to mitigate the consequences of an event. Still, there is no direct way to measure the risk faced on an individual ride if you choose not to wear a helmet and you can convince yourself that other factors might make it safer to not wear one.
RE #2: Nearly any race bike frame equipped with similar modern components will be 90% as good as a WT level super bike. Use electronic shifting, use similar wheels and tires, match the contact points and I think its near impossible to find a 10% difference in overall peformance.
I've had the pleasure of riding an Emonda ALR and a Gen 8 Madone now. Even as a smaller rider where the frame matters more as a percentage of aero or weight or whatever, there was no way to look at my ride data and tell the difference between the alloy not aero bike and the WT race bike. You take that from 20-22mph to like 28mph, and yes, there is now a measurable difference, but it's not even 5% and still within the error of my ability to test things on a loop.
How much time and money are you spending trying to make your replica work? How much cheaper does it really end up than something like the Emonda ALR?
Does the extra clout gained from a fake replica do anything for you? I don't think anyone on any group ride will care about this, and if they do, honestly, they are jerks.
If you are saying that a replica bike does no harm because you wouldn't be buying the real thing anyway, what do you do when you move on from the frame? Just throw it away? I suspect that the fakes I have seen being passed off as the real thing often started their life with the first reseller saying, "hey this isnt a real Pinarello" (or other brand), and the second reseller either forgot or isn't enough of a bike person to realize that other people can tell the difference on inspection.
Edit: I want to clarify that I think troll bikes are hilarious—like the LTK bike badged as a "Tractor," for example—but these aren't replicas or counterfeit bikes.
-
Replicas are fine IMO. But counterfeit branding is just stupid, quite apart from the legal implications.
-
Well said! I am into trying different bikes and their geometry, testing the ride and stuff, it has been a real fun, there's no way I am going to pay $5k USD for each of them...
I ride road/gravel in Los Angeles and there's nothing more humbling than getting gapped on the hill climb by some kid on a fixed gear bike while listening to his AirPods. At this point, I highly doubt any of these Chinese frames/components are holding anyone back.
Who's to say you can't equipped quality components on a cheaper frame? I just crashed my gravel bike a few days ago and messed up my 2x RD. I ended up converting the bike back to 1x with a GRX RD, Ultegra hydraulic shifters and a Pass Quest aero chainring I had lying around. Bike runs amazing. A week ago my FD rivets popped out on of one of my road frames, I ordered a cheap rivet gun and nailed that sh*t back in. Good as new! ;D
-
I've had the pleasure of riding an Emonda ALR and a Gen 8 Madone now. Even as a smaller rider where the frame matters more as a percentage of aero or weight or whatever, there was no way to look at my ride data and tell the difference between the alloy not aero bike and the WT race bike. You take that from 20-22mph to like 28mph, and yes, there is now a measurable difference, but it's not even 5% and still within the error of my ability to test things on a loop.
Really great point that the marginal gins are going to be outside our means of testing. I still like to think that you could tell major difference in ride quality between a more budget Alu, and an all out race bike. I own an older AL Domane, it's a great bike, but not something that eggs me on to sprint for the county line with my buddies. The issue is ride dynamics are really subjective and not easily quantifiable. I feel like there could still be improvement in ride quality over our classic lightcarbons and yishuns, which is why I started looking at replicas.
The idea of passing a fake as real just puts a bad taste in my mouth. I agree that second and third owners are probably going to be a lot less honest then the people on this forum...
-
This is not intended to be mean or judgemental, so I hope we can take this response in the sprit of open discussion.
RE #1: Anecdata like this isn't helpful, and to me, the bigger question is whether or not the factory is even testing these frames for safety and failure. If you work with a reputable Chinese factory, they generate a surprising amount of data via testing in rigs to understand fatigue and lower the odds of a frame-breaking. Is the result a guarantee that a product won't break? No. But it does mean that the failure modes are known, and the probability of a frame-breaking meets the ISO standards. Not collecting the data means that it wasn't considered. This is similar to the arguments for and against helmets. Using a helmet provides a data-backed way to mitigate the consequences of an event. Still, there is no direct way to measure the risk faced on an individual ride if you choose not to wear a helmet and you can convince yourself that other factors might make it safer to not wear one.
RE #2: Nearly any race bike frame equipped with similar modern components will be 90% as good as a WT level super bike. Use electronic shifting, use similar wheels and tires, match the contact points and I think its near impossible to find a 10% difference in overall peformance.
I've had the pleasure of riding an Emonda ALR and a Gen 8 Madone now. Even as a smaller rider where the frame matters more as a percentage of aero or weight or whatever, there was no way to look at my ride data and tell the difference between the alloy not aero bike and the WT race bike. You take that from 20-22mph to like 28mph, and yes, there is now a measurable difference, but it's not even 5% and still within the error of my ability to test things on a loop.
How much time and money are you spending trying to make your replica work? How much cheaper does it really end up than something like the Emonda ALR?
Does the extra clout gained from a fake replica do anything for you? I don't think anyone on any group ride will care about this, and if they do, honestly, they are jerks.
If you are saying that a replica bike does no harm because you wouldn't be buying the real thing anyway, what do you do when you move on from the frame? Just throw it away? I suspect that the fakes I have seen being passed off as the real thing often started their life with the first reseller saying, "hey this isnt a real Pinarello" (or other brand), and the second reseller either forgot or isn't enough of a bike person to realize that other people can tell the difference on inspection.
Edit: I want to clarify that I think troll bikes are hilarious—like the LTK bike badged as a "Tractor," for example—but these aren't replicas or counterfeit bikes.
Don't worry about it, any sensible human being would be skeptical towards replicas / Chinese brands given their history of selling cheap low quality junks to the world. I was just like you a few years back.
1. About safety for the replica frame, maybe I can give some "insider" info, a year ago I got a chance to visit a replica factory in Dongguan, they got all sort of equipments for the stress/failure/drop test, the replica frames are going through a series of safety tests before final inspection. The equipment they are using to test don't look like state of the art, but it does it's job. I guess those are second-hand testing equipments from legit brands, not sure, but imo, I have seen the process and equipment for testing the replica, and I believe I can trust them to be at least safe to ride. Funny thing is that factory also help manufacture frames for some "legit Chinese brand", so yeah, it is just that shady, you never know, but I can't talk too much for this part, let's just say a lot of people ride their products now.
2. Well yes, there isn't much difference for an alloy road bike to a carbon road bike, but about the clout, not everyone goes with replica aiming just to pretend rich or something, for what purpose they bought replica for, that's their business, I am just here to share what I know about these Chinese frames. Personally, I like to try different frames and do a little bit research on them, sometimes I ride my TCR, sometimes I ride my replica, sometimes I borrow and ride my friend's high-end bike, that's the fun part for me as a roadie.
About the replica I don't need, I would just sell them online listed as replica from aliexpress, I don't want or need to trick the others, it is not the money I need, I need the space, my home doesn't have the space for too many frames. If anyone sells a replica and lsited as the real thing, that has something to do with that person rather than the replica itself.
-
Don't worry about it, any sensible human being would be skeptical towards replicas / Chinese brands given their history of selling cheap low quality junks to the world. I was just like you a few years back.
1. About safety for the replica frame, maybe I can give some "insider" info, a year ago I got a chance to visit a replica factory in Dongguan, they got all sort of equipments for the stress/failure/drop test, the replica frames are going through a series of safety tests before final inspection. The equipment they are using to test don't look like state of the art, but it does it's job. I guess those are second-hand testing equipments from legit brands, not sure, but imo, I have seen the process and equipment for testing the replica, and I believe I can trust them to be at least safe to ride. Funny thing is that factory also help manufacture frames for some "legit Chinese brand", so yeah, it is just that shady, you never know, but I can't talk too much for this part, let's just say a lot of people ride their products now.
2. Well yes, there isn't much difference for an alloy road bike to a carbon road bike, but about the clout, not everyone goes with replica aiming just to pretend rich or something, for what purpose they bought replica for, that's their business, I am just here to share what I know about these Chinese frames. Personally, I like to try different frames and do a little bit research on them, sometimes I ride my TCR, sometimes I ride my replica, sometimes I borrow and ride my friend's high-end bike, that's the fun part for me as a roadie.
About the replica I don't need, I would just sell them online listed as replica from aliexpress, I don't want or need to trick the others, it is not the money I need, I need the space, my home doesn't have the space for too many frames. If anyone sells a replica and lsited as the real thing, that has something to do with that person rather than the replica itself.
It's fantastic that they are safety testing at the facility you visited. It's surprising to me because a lot of the retailers for these frames change often, though I guess there are a few that have been around a while. Is their testing data verified with an authority like SGS? Can you get their certificates?
If you live where these replicas and counterfeits are illegal, reselling them with a disclaimer is also unlawful. Expecting that not to harm anyone down the line is some "laws don't apply to me" bullshit. These laws exist because disclaimers aren't enough, so it's still your problem and reflects on you. If you said, "I keep these and ride them into the ground," it would be more of a "meh." If people are brazen enough to try and sell counterfeits to a company like Pros Closet, you should be able to see how just contributing to putting fakes out there hurts other cyclists who just want a great deal and aren't getting the bike they thought they were. (https://www.theproscloset.com/blogs/news/how-to-catch-a-counterfeit-cervelo-rca)
-
I thought that everyone selling bike parts has to adhere to the ISO4210 testing protocol anyway as it is obligatory in most countries. Maybe someone with more background knowledge in the world of engineering and standards can explain better.
But what that means is that fatigue testing of sample frames doesn’t really set Chinese frames apart from the big brands. It is the level of QC (or its existence in the first place) that makes the difference. Right? What good is fatigue testing of one sample frame if they then crank out thousands of these frames without ever looking at any of them before they get shipped?
-
It's fantastic that they are safety testing at the facility you visited. It's surprising to me because a lot of the retailers for these frames change often, though I guess there are a few that have been around a while. Is their testing data verified with an authority like SGS? Can you get their certificates?
If you live where these replicas and counterfeits are illegal, reselling them with a disclaimer is also unlawful. Expecting that not to harm anyone down the line is some "laws don't apply to me" bullshit. These laws exist because disclaimers aren't enough, so it's still your problem and reflects on you. If you said, "I keep these and ride them into the ground," it would be more of a "meh." If people are brazen enough to try and sell counterfeits to a company like Pros Closet, you should be able to see how just contributing to putting fakes out there hurts other cyclists who just want a great deal and aren't getting the bike they thought they were. (https://www.theproscloset.com/blogs/news/how-to-catch-a-counterfeit-cervelo-rca)
I don't have their certificates, nor found any lying around when visiting their factory. To be honest, even if they did present me one, it could also be forged right? I looked at their testing equipment and saw some frames getting tested, I think that's enough for me.
About the reselling thing, let's just say there are a lot of luxury items such as watches and handbags being listed, some claimed they are replica, if that's illegal, I dunno, it has been like that for more than a decade, at least I never tricked anyone thinking the replica I sold are real, those who bought my replica are usually DIY person tho.
-
I thought that everyone selling bike parts has to adhere to the ISO4210 testing protocol anyway as it is obligatory in most countries. Maybe someone with more background knowledge in the world of engineering and standards can explain better.
But what that means is that fatigue testing of sample frames doesn’t really set Chinese frames apart from the big brands. It is the level of QC (or its existence in the first place) that makes the difference. Right? What good is fatigue testing of one sample frame if they then crank out thousands of these frames without ever looking at any of them before they get shipped?
Maybe I could share some more on this topic.
For a bike manufacturer, no matter legit or fake, they got all sort of QC failed frames, but those that really are unsafe to ride, usually will be disposed and will not be sold, simply because it could lead to fatal accident, no one wants to risk that, even for a factory that makes replica.
Then, this part people probably would be more familar, the rest of the products would go into different class, Class A, B, C etc.
A could be the best product, such as perfect paint, alignments etc..
B could be less than ideal, some minor issues.
C could be merely acceptable, maybe some alignments are off, but still won't give you too much trouble building that bike and you could still ride safely.
Here's the thing, those you bought from legit brands, most of the time they are Class A (please note "most of the time"), you are paying big money for the best products after all.
Then where did those from Class B & C go? No way in hell they are disposing them because there are a lot of money involved in making them, they might be secertly sold to different retailers, usually to those not so well-known retailers, or they might just sell them themselves, get a promotion going and sell them with a discounted price.
There are a lot of retailers out there, some constantly bought Class B product and sell as cheap frames, some bought Class C and sell even cheaper, that's just how it works. Some evil retailers exist, they might somehow got their hands on those disposed failed frames, and sell them with a dirt cheap price. That's the reason why I would stay away from those $200 USD carbon frames. It is difficult for a factory to get away if the frame eventually breaks, but a lot easier for a retailer.
-
I thought that everyone selling bike parts has to adhere to the ISO4210 testing protocol anyway as it is obligatory in most countries. Maybe someone with more background knowledge in the world of engineering and standards can explain better.
But what that means is that fatigue testing of sample frames doesn’t really set Chinese frames apart from the big brands. It is the level of QC (or its existence in the first place) that makes the difference. Right? What good is fatigue testing of one sample frame if they then crank out thousands of these frames without ever looking at any of them before they get shipped?
ISO is a standard, and customers enforce compliance with those standards through audits or, in some cases, regulators enforce them. Generally, regulatory standards enforced by governments must be based on ISO standards per WTO rules. ISO standards exist for both function of bike parts as well as quality management. You should expect a factory to be compliant on both fronts.
A company looking to export would hire a 3rd party to act as an auditor and verify compliance with the standards. They would put their reputation on the line, and you could get a certificate and verify its authenticity with a 3rd party.
What I don't know is if the Chinese government requires ISO compliance and forces it on their factories. Given that the production of counterfeit goods (i.e., the inclusion of a trademark) isn't legal in China it seems unlikely that factories would still be compliant with standards for goods that they are already getting the government to look the other way.
Maybe I could share some more on this topic.
For a bike manufacturer, no matter legit or fake, they got all sort of QC failed frames, but those that really are unsafe to ride, usually will be disposed and will not be sold, simply because it could lead to fatal accident, no one wants to risk that, even for a factory that makes replica.
Then, this part people probably would be more familar, the rest of the products would go into different class, Class A, B, C etc.
A could be the best product, such as perfect paint, alignments etc..
B could be less than ideal, some minor issues.
C could be merely acceptable, maybe some alignments are off, but still won't give you too much trouble building that bike and you could still ride safely.
Here's the thing, those you bought from legit brands, most of the time they are Class A (please note "most of the time"), you are paying big money for the best products after all.
Then where did those from Class B & C go? No way in hell they are disposing them because there are a lot of money involved in making them, they might be secertly sold to different retailers, usually to those not so well-known retailers, or they might just sell them themselves, get a promotion going and sell them with a discounted price.
There are a lot of retailers out there, some constantly bought Class B product and sell as cheap frames, some bought Class C and sell even cheaper, that's just how it works. Some evil retailers exist, they might somehow got their hands on those disposed failed frames, and sell them with a dirt cheap price. That's the reason why I would stay away from those $200 USD carbon frames. It is difficult for a factory to get away if the frame eventually breaks, but a lot easier for a retailer.
Binning for bike parts at this level of detail is essentially a myth. This is NOT how QC works for these kinds of goods.
Brands may sort products based on weight and visual quality, but the 100% inspection rarely goes deeper than that. This is why Giant's claim that they image every fork raised a lot of eyebrows--and also why they claimed to image and inspect every fork but not every frame. The program you describe requires deep inspection of every frame and fork and taking measurements with precision tools. That's different from how QC processes work for goods like these, as it would be cost-prohibitive to do. QC will ensure the process is followed and that inputs meet the standards. Then, at the end, there is a visual exam. This last step is the same thing retailers and some small brands claim to do, and where second-quality products or blems are generated. A more detailed inspection will examine samples from each run to ensure that the overall production run is statistically acceptable and conforms to spec. This is how bad products slip through QC, even for brands with strict QC regimens.
QC fails aren't sold because they are used to determine why failures are happening, and their value is greater in terms of reducing scrap rate vs. making a single sale—and selling the fails would jeopardize the contracts that keep the lights on. Blems might be offered to employees or even given to small / dev teams. Rarely you see some make it to market at a discount, but these are sold officially and with warranty.