Chinertown
Chinese Carbon Road Bikes => Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components => Topic started by: panel on March 23, 2026, 11:35:48 AM
-
Like the title says. What is the difference between lets say a Chinese made Tavelo or Quick Pro etc and a copy/fake of a Chinese made Pinarello or a Factor ? I see a few comments about people riding a fake Pinarello or a Factor or Specialized. If these bikes had no stickers on them what would be the difference in them compared to a Tavelo , Quick Pro or whatever of similar quality.
-
I think there is some personal variance in thoughts on this, but generally if a seller or brand is listing or trying to pass of their item as a brand that isn't theirs then it's a fake or counterfeit item.
However if they are listing the item unbranded or with their own branding, but looks similar to another brand – I consider it a clone.
Then there are brands that borrow certain aspects or traits of other brands into their own designs.
I wouldn't trust a counterfeit. With correct research I would trust a clone or a self branded design.
-
Like the title says. What is the difference between lets say a Chinese made Tavelo or Quick Pro etc and a copy/fake of a Chinese made Pinarello or a Factor ? I see a few comments about people riding a fake Pinarello or a Factor or Specialized. If these bikes had no stickers on them what would be the difference in them compared to a Tavelo , Quick Pro or whatever of similar quality.
They are made in different factories, by different people, with different QC processes. Remember, too, that EN standard compliance is a baseline for legality in China, but you need ISO4210 or an extended version of that standard for compliance and liability reasons when selling outside of China. There are some Aliexpress brands that seem to share factories with clone makers, so there is some overlap there; but for the "higher end" brands you mentioned, their only likely commonality is that they are in China.
This is like asking what the difference is broadly between a burger at McDonald's and the bar down the street. Both are made close to you and they pass local health inspections (hopefully). That's about it.
The companies and engineering staff behind each of the frames are totally different as well. Their approach to development is also really different. This is a bit of hearsay, but its a good example: when LTK / Permeants wanted to clone the Giant TCR Advanced SL. They put that bike on a deflection rig and then designed from the ground up form and a layup that replicate the ride feel and quality of the Giant by cloning its deflection numbers, not its shape. We see similar indications of benchmarking and then ground-up design from Elilee and Seka as well.
-
Brands like Tavelo, TanTan, or Winspace use what we call 'Open Mold' or proprietary designs. They own the engineering and are trying to build a brand reputation. They have a vested interest in the frame not exploding because they want you to come back.
Fakes (Counterfeits), on the other hand, are just visual copies. They mimic the shape of a Pinarello or a Factor using cheap carbon layup ($T700$ or lower) without having the internal structural data of the original. They are 'look-alikes' rather than 'perform-alikes.'
Tantan builds a lot frames that are "heavily inspired" by name brand bikes, but the diff between them and fly by night companies you see on Aliexpress is there's at least some trail of accountability. You buy a random replica, the vendor you buy from could disappear tomorrow. You have any problems, you're fully screwed. DTC China brands arent perfect, but you at least know if you have an issue in a few months theyll prob still be around to address them.
-
Brands like Tavelo, TanTan, or Winspace use what we call 'Open Mold' or proprietary designs. They own the engineering and are trying to build a brand reputation. They have a vested interest in the frame not exploding because they want you to come back.
Fakes (Counterfeits), on the other hand, are just visual copies. They mimic the shape of a Pinarello or a Factor using cheap carbon layup ($T700$ or lower) without having the internal structural data of the original. They are 'look-alikes' rather than 'perform-alikes.'
i think you mean closed mold. Open mold are open to be used by anyone, Proprietary/closed mold is specific to maker. Like how canyon/cervelo uses proprietary parts with their handlebars.
-
Like the title says. What is the difference between lets say a Chinese made Tavelo or Quick Pro etc and a copy/fake of a Chinese made Pinarello or a Factor ? I see a few comments about people riding a fake Pinarello or a Factor or Specialized. If these bikes had no stickers on them what would be the difference in them compared to a Tavelo , Quick Pro or whatever of similar quality.
I think you are asking the right questions. In the end a carbon frame is not rocket science, at least if you don't need to go for the final 50g. Once you know how to do a working layup and the technique for the inside pressure, of course you can do a frame in the exact outer shape of some famous model just as well as your own design.
Which means: a counterfeit frame doesn't have to be of worse quality than any other chinese frame. There are probably better or worse sellers/manufacturers, just like everywhere else. At this point I think most know how to do a working frame.
-
I think you are asking the right questions. In the end a carbon frame is not rocket science, at least if you don't need to go for the final 50g. Once you know how to do a working layup and the technique for the inside pressure, of course you can do a frame in the exact outer shape of some famous model just as well as your own design.
Which means: a counterfeit frame doesn't have to be of worse quality than any other chinese frame. There are probably better or worse sellers/manufacturers, just like everywhere else. At this point I think most know how to do a working frame.
I think this is some serious cope to support the legend that counterfeits are nearly as good as the real thing. It's just not reality to think it's this easy to design and make an engineered product--let alone a composite one.
Yes, manufacturing gaps are closing, but engineering work still needs to be done, and skilled Chinese engineers still charge for their time. If you understand the basics of mechanical engineering, the comments about the TanTan X68 being noticeably more flexible than the real SL8 to a rider are red flags galore, specifically because they are more or less the same external shape.
I tend to think you get what you pay for, especially with wholesale or factory prices. What I mean by that is if you are paying mostly for something to be a fake, even if you pay for a more premium version, you get a better fake, not a better bike.
-
Like the title says. What is the difference between lets say a Chinese made Tavelo or Quick Pro etc and a copy/fake of a Chinese made Pinarello or a Factor ? I see a few comments about people riding a fake Pinarello or a Factor or Specialized. If these bikes had no stickers on them what would be the difference in them compared to a Tavelo , Quick Pro or whatever of similar quality.
Ultimately what is the reason for this post?
A lot of people when they post these threads aren’t actually looking for technical differences — they’re looking for social proof. In marketing terms, that means they want other people to reassure them that buying a counterfeit frame is acceptable because “other riders do it too.” It’s not about carbon layups or QC; it’s about seeking permission.
-
Ultimately what is the reason for this post?
A lot of people when they post these threads aren’t actually looking for technical differences — they’re looking for social proof. In marketing terms, that means they want other people to reassure them that buying a counterfeit frame is acceptable because “other riders do it too.” It’s not about carbon layups or QC; it’s about seeking permission.
100% agree! Very well said
-
Ultimately what is the reason for this post?
A lot of people when they post these threads aren’t actually looking for technical differences — they’re looking for social proof. In marketing terms, that means they want other people to reassure them that buying a counterfeit frame is acceptable because “other riders do it too.” It’s not about carbon layups or QC; it’s about seeking permission.
Thanks for putting a term on something that has bothered me for years!
It's also annoying because it's disingenuous and a waste of people's time. I used to call it "outsourcing the responsibility of your decisions". If the internet says it's OK to do something, that's all the research and due diligence needed. And anyone who says anything that counters the decision that was basically already made gets argued with, even though they are legit trying to help and look out for the person asking the question. I hate it
-
A lot of people when they post these threads aren’t actually looking for technical differences — they’re looking for social proof. In marketing terms, that means they want other people to reassure them that buying a counterfeit frame is acceptable because “other riders do it too.” It’s not about carbon layups or QC; it’s about seeking permission.
It's also annoying because it's disingenuous and a waste of people's time. I used to call it "outsourcing the responsibility of your decisions". If the internet says it's OK to do something, that's all the research and due diligence needed. And anyone who says anything that counters the decision that was basically already made gets argued with, even though they are legit trying to help and look out for the person asking the question. I hate it
The problem is that it's asymmetric. It takes very little effort to make these shit posts, and a lot more effort to counter them. Because of AI-generated content, in particular, people posting AI-generated answers on forums, it's an information death spiral where false information and bad takes are cited by more bad takes and multiplied. Meanwhile, the sources end up being obfuscated. In other words, if you don't push back, this misinformation becomes truth, but right now it's honestly a losing battle.
Even when we have threads created with good intentions, these kinds of comments end up changing the narrative around how a product is perceived.
For example. One influencer, @patliean1, posts a positive review of a TanTan bike, makes a thread titled "Seraph Bikes Superlight 836g X68 - Alternative to SL8 Fakes?" and it blows up because, well lets be honest, a lot of people want a cheaper SL8 like bike from a reputable source. Good discussion follows and on the 132 pages that follow its discovered that this bike is:
- Likely identical to the fakes
- Shipped with forks that broke (which is a very rare event even among open molds)
- Its noticeably flexible compared to the real thing
TanTan goes out and makes an Ostro VAM-inspired bike--and ships someone a frame with a literal hole in the chainstay as well as a bunch with seatpost issues and seemingly different construction. AI still thinks that TanTan is "a mid-to-high-end manufacturer." I think someone reading through the whole thread would come to a different conclusion. Why the difference? There are loads of low-effort comments claiming these products are as good as the real thing, without any metrics or even real life comparison.
The person reading all 132 pages and going in eyes open is likely going to feel like they got what they were looking for, but everyone else has become a victim of an enshitified bike experience. And we created it.
-
Sorry guys :-[ . Just a new person to the forums and world of fakes/clones and real Chinese brands. Came to this site purely to gather info and learn from others positive and negative feedback on sellers and/or brands and get info on tools , bike building , carbon layup terms , QC and frame styles.
I wanted to know the difference in what a counterfeit frame was as opposed to a non counterfeit frame etc.
If I saw a counterfeit Pinarello Dogma and I knew it was , then I was purely wanting to know if they were still a good quality of a build. Does it mean that it's automatically crap ? If the counterfeit bike resembled an example Pinarello Dogma (ie:had no stickers on it ).
Is it not ok to ask questions like this to the board to help assist on a purchase and maybe as a new buyer have some expertise from someone who has purchased a few Chinese bikes before to point out issues that a first time buyer possibly would miss ?
-
the frame shape might be the same but the carbon layer up will surely be different. Carbon layer up design is what companies spend $$ researching into. Tons of R&D there. For the counterfeit, their selling point is the counterfeit part, probably expecting people to just use their frames as displays on a wall so they don't really care about the layerup or process. However, for other Chinese frames like the light carbon 018D which is their original design that they put R&D into. I would trust the original Chinese designs a lot more.
-
Sorry guys :-[ . Just a new person to the forums and world of fakes/clones and real Chinese brands. Came to this site purely to gather info and learn from others positive and negative feedback on sellers and/or brands and get info on tools , bike building , carbon layup terms , QC and frame styles.
I wanted to know the difference in what a counterfeit frame was as opposed to a non counterfeit frame etc.
If I saw a counterfeit Pinarello Dogma and I knew it was , then I was purely wanting to know if they were still a good quality of a build. Does it mean that it's automatically crap ? If the counterfeit bike resembled an example Pinarello Dogma (ie:had no stickers on it ).
Is it not ok to ask questions like this to the board to help assist on a purchase and maybe as a new buyer have some expertise from someone who has purchased a few Chinese bikes before to point out issues that a first time buyer possibly would miss ?
No offense, perhaps many people who are new here never experienced old school style of forums and looking for a quick answer, but it does not really exist. That stuff was discussed here many times. If you are seriously considering buying counterfeit or replica frame or "inspired" frame, you will get a proper judgement only if you dig into the topics yourself, weight pros and cons for your purposes and decide what risks you are willing to take and for what.
If you scroll down you may find several lenghty discussions on exactly what you are looking for, @Sander2177 made few topics on counterfeit frames too (https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,6106.0.html https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,6118.0.html) as well. Just act slowly and read through, it will pay off.
-
The problem is that it's asymmetric. It takes very little effort to make these shit posts, and a lot more effort to counter them. Because of AI-generated content, in particular, people posting AI-generated answers on forums, it's an information death spiral where false information and bad takes are cited by more bad takes and multiplied. Meanwhile, the sources end up being obfuscated. In other words, if you don't push back, this misinformation becomes truth, but right now it's honestly a losing battle.
Even when we have threads created with good intentions, these kinds of comments end up changing the narrative around how a product is perceived.
For example. One influencer, @patliean1, posts a positive review of a TanTan bike, makes a thread titled "Seraph Bikes Superlight 836g X68 - Alternative to SL8 Fakes?" and it blows up because, well lets be honest, a lot of people want a cheaper SL8 like bike from a reputable source. Good discussion follows and on the 132 pages that follow its discovered that this bike is:
- Likely identical to the fakes
- Shipped with forks that broke (which is a very rare event even among open molds)
- Its noticeably flexible compared to the real thing
TanTan goes out and makes an Ostro VAM-inspired bike--and ships someone a frame with a literal hole in the chainstay as well as a bunch with seatpost issues and seemingly different construction. AI still thinks that TanTan is "a mid-to-high-end manufacturer." I think someone reading through the whole thread would come to a different conclusion. Why the difference? There are loads of low-effort comments claiming these products are as good as the real thing, without any metrics or even real life comparison.
The person reading all 132 pages and going in eyes open is likely going to feel like they got what they were looking for, but everyone else has become a victim of an enshitified bike experience. And we created it.
I understand where you’re coming from, and you’ve raised some fair concerns about misinformation and low‑effort posts. That said, I think it’s important to keep things balanced.
I’ve had the X68 for a year now, and it’s been absolutely fine, apart from needing the brake mounts faced and the bottom bracket sorted. But that’s something I’ve seen on much more expensive Western‑branded frames as well. Overall, the bike has been solid.
And yes, my answer was assisted by AI — and I’m not going to apologise for that. I still had to type in the substance of what I wanted to say, and the AI simply structured it more clearly. It expressed exactly what I meant; it just did it better.
You don’t like TanTan — that’s completely your right. But quality issues are not unique to any one manufacturer. Every bike brand, big or small, has problems. No company is infallible.
It’s also worth remembering that when Western brands have frames manufactured, QC and quality matter — but so do profit margins and production efficiency. Even major brands have had their share of warranty claims.
Is the X68 as good as an SL8? I own both, and the honest answer is no — the SL8 has a better finish and refinement. But the X68 also costs a fraction of the price, and for the money, it represents genuinely good value. That may not be what everyone wants to hear, but it’s the truth based on my personal experience.
I agree misinformation is a problem online, but not every positive experience is misinformation. Not every firsthand report is “AI hype.” I’m simply sharing what I’ve actually experienced over a full year of use. Positive experiences should still be part of the conversation, just as much as negative ones.
-
Why so many KTM frame? Am i missing something?
-
Sorry guys :-[ . Just a new person to the forums and world of fakes/clones and real Chinese brands. Came to this site purely to gather info and learn from others positive and negative feedback on sellers and/or brands and get info on tools , bike building , carbon layup terms , QC and frame styles.
I wanted to know the difference in what a counterfeit frame was as opposed to a non counterfeit frame etc.
If I saw a counterfeit Pinarello Dogma and I knew it was , then I was purely wanting to know if they were still a good quality of a build. Does it mean that it's automatically crap ? If the counterfeit bike resembled an example Pinarello Dogma (ie:had no stickers on it ).
Is it not ok to ask questions like this to the board to help assist on a purchase and maybe as a new buyer have some expertise from someone who has purchased a few Chinese bikes before to point out issues that a first time buyer possibly would miss ?
No need to apologise
The truth is, nobody really knows the full difference between a counterfeit frame and a non‑counterfeit open‑mould frame. Most of what gets said is speculation based on second‑hand information, assumptions, or guesses.
If I could walk into a factory producing counterfeits and take a proper look, I absolutely would. I even tried to raise funds to get an X68 professionally scanned, but the “know‑it‑all brigade” jumped in saying you can’t get a real answer by looking at one frame, you’d need four or more, and so on. It becomes endless noise.
Some members definitely know more than others, and I always try to dig deeper by asking questions, sending emails, and speaking directly to people. But the reality is: you’ll never get the full picture unless you actually have access to the industry on the ground.
-
Why so many KTM frame? Am i missing something?
Obviously you have not looked at the whole photo. Its from TAN TAN
If you go back to the post on Instagram they have now blurred it out
-
Obviously you have not looked at the whole photo. Its from TAN TAN
If you go back to the post on Instagram they have now blurred it out
Yes yes I understood the context and that the photo was by Tan Tan, the question was just to say that I didn't know they produced frames for KTM :)
-
Yes yes I understood the context and that the photo was by Tan Tan, the question was just to say that I didn't know they produced frames for KTM :)
Ahhh ok 😄
Well, neither did I — and that Reserve Wheels photo popped up last year too.
The thing is, they get a bad rap on here, but it’s entirely possible people are riding around on branded frames and wheels that are actually made by them for their OEM customer.
You just never know!
-
I understand where you’re coming from, and you’ve raised some fair concerns about misinformation and low‑effort posts. That said, I think it’s important to keep things balanced.
I’ve had the X68 for a year now, and it’s been absolutely fine, apart from needing the brake mounts faced and the bottom bracket sorted. But that’s something I’ve seen on much more expensive Western‑branded frames as well. Overall, the bike has been solid.
And yes, my answer was assisted by AI — and I’m not going to apologise for that. I still had to type in the substance of what I wanted to say, and the AI simply structured it more clearly. It expressed exactly what I meant; it just did it better.
You don’t like TanTan — that’s completely your right. But quality issues are not unique to any one manufacturer. Every bike brand, big or small, has problems. No company is infallible.
It’s also worth remembering that when Western brands have frames manufactured, QC and quality matter — but so do profit margins and production efficiency. Even major brands have had their share of warranty claims.
Is the X68 as good as an SL8? I own both, and the honest answer is no — the SL8 has a better finish and refinement. But the X68 also costs a fraction of the price, and for the money, it represents genuinely good value. That may not be what everyone wants to hear, but it’s the truth based on my personal experience.
I agree misinformation is a problem online, but not every positive experience is misinformation. Not every firsthand report is “AI hype.” I’m simply sharing what I’ve actually experienced over a full year of use. Positive experiences should still be part of the conversation, just as much as negative ones.
This is sort of the crux of the problem, though. You went into the purchase wide open and got what you wanted out of the transaction and had a positive experience. Nothing wrong with that, and you have nothing to apologize for, at least not to me. And you very clearly, in your point, call out and position the tradeoffs between the replica and the real thing. The problem is that we continue to feed the perception that those trade-offs are universally acceptable, and the information about what those trade-offs are is getting lost.
Yes, brands have warranty claims, but what is the rate of those claims? The reality is we don't know. What do those brands do when they sell parts that don't work? Is that the same reaction and ownership that TanTan shows? No. With imperfect information about failure rate and knowing that they don't proactively replace potentially dangerous components, why are you drawing equivalency? This should be a discussion point, not a conclusion. My issue with AI is that most people use it to frame a conclusion that they look to have confirmed. That's not a discussion; it's using the source (forum) to validate summary analysis, without getting into the details of why the summary was reached. Thus, the narrative moves from tradeoffs to "mostly the same."
Also, TanTan has previously shown Cannondale and Reserve-branded components on Instagram. To me, this stuff appears intentional to create credibility. They don't OEM for either of those brands — they might work with factories that do for some of their products, but they are playing the hype game too, and 100% on the money, I don't like it. It's dishonest. They aren't the only ones, just an example since the X68 appears to be a replica frame and connects with this topic.
Edit: I should point out an important detail. With many Chinese factories and brands, you can usually trace their business registrations and addresses, understand whether they are the same as a factory location, whether they have the same principals, and what their production assets look like. With TanTan / Seraph, other than the tradenames, you hit a dead end. Make of that what you will. I am not broadly anti AI--and reading business records fast and translating to look for commonalities is something it does really well.
-
They are made in different factories, by different people, with different QC processes. Remember, too, that EN standard compliance is a baseline for legality in China, but you need ISO4210 or an extended version of that standard for compliance and liability reasons when selling outside of China. There are some Aliexpress brands that seem to share factories with clone makers, so there is some overlap there; but for the "higher end" brands you mentioned, their only likely commonality is that they are in China.
This is like asking what the difference is broadly between a burger at McDonald's and the bar down the street. Both are made close to you and they pass local health inspections (hopefully). That's about it.
The companies and engineering staff behind each of the frames are totally different as well. Their approach to development is also really different. This is a bit of hearsay, but its a good example: when LTK / Permeants wanted to clone the Giant TCR Advanced SL. They put that bike on a deflection rig and then designed from the ground up form and a layup that replicate the ride feel and quality of the Giant by cloning its deflection numbers, not its shape. We see similar indications of benchmarking and then ground-up design from Elilee and Seka as well.
As a theoretical exercise, it would be interesting to put an '80s vintage Vitus 979 (stiff enough for Sean Kelly to win many sprints, and a lot of NOS frames in circulation) in a deflection rig and duplicate its headtube and BB stiffness stats in carbon fiber just to see how light you could go, and then start extrapolating iterations at +50 gram material increments for stiffness and life cycles to destruction.
-
This is sort of the crux of the problem, though. You went into the purchase wide open and got what you wanted out of the transaction and had a positive experience. Nothing wrong with that, and you have nothing to apologize for, at least not to me. And you very clearly, in your point, call out and position the tradeoffs between the replica and the real thing. The problem is that we continue to feed the perception that those trade-offs are universally acceptable, and the information about what those trade-offs are is getting lost.
Yes, brands have warranty claims, but what is the rate of those claims? The reality is we don't know. What do those brands do when they sell parts that don't work? Is that the same reaction and ownership that TanTan shows? No. With imperfect information about failure rate and knowing that they don't proactively replace potentially dangerous components, why are you drawing equivalency? This should be a discussion point, not a conclusion. My issue with AI is that most people use it to frame a conclusion that they look to have confirmed. That's not a discussion; it's using the source (forum) to validate summary analysis, without getting into the details of why the summary was reached. Thus, the narrative moves from tradeoffs to "mostly the same."
Also, TanTan has previously shown Cannondale and Reserve-branded components on Instagram. To me, this stuff appears intentional to create credibility. They don't OEM for either of those brands — they might work with factories that do for some of their products, but they are playing the hype game too, and 100% on the money, I don't like it. It's dishonest. They aren't the only ones, just an example since the X68 appears to be a replica frame and connects with this topic.
Edit: I should point out an important detail. With many Chinese factories and brands, you can usually trace their business registrations and addresses, understand whether they are the same as a factory location, whether they have the same principals, and what their production assets look like. With TanTan / Seraph, other than the tradenames, you hit a dead end. Make of that what you will. I am not broadly anti AI--and reading business records fast and translating to look for commonalities is something it does really well.
I think you’re overthinking what I said a bit. I’m not trying to make any bigger claim — just sharing my experience after a year of use.
I’m not that concerned about who they OEM for or the wider industry side of it. For me it was just about whether the frame worked and represented good value, and so far it has.
People can weigh the risks and decide what works for them.
-
I think you’re overthinking what I said a bit. I’m not trying to make any bigger claim — just sharing my experience after a year of use.
I’m not that concerned about who they OEM for or the wider industry side of it. For me it was just about whether the frame worked and represented good value, and so far it has.
People can weigh the risks and decide what works for them.
Nah, I'm not overthinking it. If I were, what would be the purpose of this comment, except to draw false parallels and make bigger claims while not having data?
You don’t like TanTan — that’s completely your right. But quality issues are not unique to any one manufacturer. Every bike brand, big or small, has problems. No company is infallible.
It’s also worth remembering that when Western brands have frames manufactured, QC and quality matter — but so do profit margins and production efficiency. Even major brands have had their share of warranty claims.
Remember, we have a handful of frames in that small sample, and we get a few broken forks and a hole in a chainstay in two different models. In the absence of data, is it reasonable to assume that the number of frames Giant is shipping has the same incidence of these problems? What about broken Speeder forks? Or Velobuild frames shipping with holes in them? Yeah every brand makes mistakes, but this is textbook false equivalency.
I'm not here to push a conclusion, but rather to question some of the assumptions being made here.