Chinese Carbon MTB Forums
News:
Happy Holidays!
See likes
See likes given/taken
| Post info | No. of Likes |
|---|---|
|
Re: Thinkrider PP5 power meter
I’ll call it straight: I don’t believe you. You acknowledge the issues but construct a narrative in which the known failures appear irrelevant. My concern is that I’ve seen more effort put into sidestepping this product’s failures than the company has put into resolving their root cause. This post reads like a standard play used by so many companies promoting budget bike tech through guerrilla marketing. The giveaway? The “girlfriend” line. It’s always the girlfriend. Never the wife, never the sister, and almost always a woman. Why? Because, to support the narrative you’re spinning, she’ll put out less power, right? Therefore, the issues acknowledged by the manufacturer supposedly don’t apply. Company employees or associates repeatedly use this tactic to plant comments while posing as ordinary users. It completely erodes trust in the brand and its marketing. It also makes forums like this less useful. I could be completely wrong about this, but I’ve been online and active on enough forums for long enough to recognise the pattern. Either way, it doesn’t change the underlying issue. The day the PP5 meets an acceptable standard, which simply means meeting its own published technical specifications - people won’t need to explain away its failures. And they won’t have to risk a breakup by buying known-crappy gifts for their “girlfriends.” August 03, 2026, 05:37:21 AM |
1 |
|
BXT SL-115 Cracked Frame & Fake Seller Evidence: How I Won a Full Refund
Hey folks, so I wanted to share my recent saga with buying a BXT SL-115 carbon road frame on AliExpress, dealing with a structural crack, and surviving a pretty wild dispute process where the seller tried to pull a fast one with fake evidence. I picked up this frame in size 56 expecting a clean budget carbon build. Everything seemed fine initially during assembly, but after riding it for roughly 3,000 km, my heart sank during a routine inspection when I spotted a clear structural crack in the carbon right around the seatpost clamp wedge recess. I immediately jumped on the chat with the seller, sent over high-res photos and videos of the damaged area, and at first, they seemed cooperative, explicitly acknowledging the defect on chat and promising to ship a brand new replacement frame. But of course, the catch came shortly after when they suddenly backtracked and started demanding that I pay extra shipping fees to get that replacement sent out, which was a hard no for me considering it was a dangerous manufacturing flaw on a frame that developed a crack after thousands of kilometers of riding. Since we hit a complete dead end, I escalated things by opening an official AliExpress dispute on July 27, demanding a full refund of around $550 (2 205,89 PLN). Naturally, the automated system threw a few useless lowball partial refund offers at me over the following days, which I kept rejecting, but then the seller went full creative mode. On August 7, they officially rejected my full refund demand and submitted their own counter-evidence, claiming there was no structural issue at all, just a minor paint flaw, and offered a laughable $50 compensation. To back up their claim, they uploaded a photo of a completely different, flawless frame set up in a workshop with a white aero bike in the background, hoping the arbitrator wouldn't notice it was missing the actual BXT-115 model stamp and had entirely different frame lines. Because the dispute was already in the escalated stage where AliExpress was actively reviewing it, the standard photo upload button was locked for me, but I managed to use the open response appeal window to fire back on the very same day. I put together a direct side-by-side comparison showing their fake workshop photo next to my actual frame with the BXT-115 engraving and the very real carbon crack, attached screenshots of our original chat where they had already admitted to the defect, and wrote a firm statement in English calling out their deliberate attempt to mislead the case arbitrator. It worked like a charm because right after reviewing the evidence on August 8, AliExpress ruled entirely in my favor, issuing a full 2 205,89 PLN refund with zero requirement to return the broken frame, and the money hit my bank account almost instantly. If there is one crucial piece of advice I can leave you with, it is to always hoard and organize every single scrap of evidence from minute one. Take unboxing videos, log your mileage, take high-resolution macro shots of any damage, record the model engravings, and above all, screenshot every conversation you have with the seller before opening a dispute, because once they try to pull tricks or change their story, having rock-solid, irrefutable proof is the only thing that guarantees an arbitrator will side with you. Stay safe on the roads and never back down or accept crumbs when a seller tries to disguise a dangerous structural crack as cosmetic paint damage. August 08, 2026, 02:46:48 PM |
1 |
|
Re: Coospo T10 - Home Trainer
Looks a lot like a ThinkRider/PowerFun trainer (or at least something from the same design). At US$439 (on their website) and with no cassette included it really needs to offer more than the basic ANT+/Bluetooth smart-trainer feature set. At this price, I’d expect Wi-Fi, automatic calibration and sensor bridging, along with either Zwift virtual-shifting support or its own platform-independent virtual-shifting implementation. ThinkRider and Geoid already offer direct virtual shifting on similarly priced (and even cheaper) trainers. The smart-trainer market has shifted considerably in recent years, and it appears to have caught a number of manufacturers and resellers off guard. Fully featured, proven and reliable trainers are now available for around US$399-499. Based on the specifications alone, the COOSPO T10 feels four or five years late to market at this price. Even if it meets every one of its claimed specifications (which remains to be tested) it still appears well behind the current competition. It would need to be positioned at around US$299, or possibly lower, to gain meaningful traction. I’d happily put one through the Lama Lab Test if I can get hold of one. August 09, 2026, 06:33:56 PM |
1 |
|
Re: Tagoola wheel
Hey everyone, just wanted to share a quick pre-review of my new Tagoola Cure 24 wheelset from AliExpress. Order & Delivery: Ordered on August 5th and they arrived at my doorstep on August 13th. The package was undamaged and well-protected. The wheels were packed in basic thin foam bags inside a larger plastic bag. Inside the box, they included two 60mm tubeless valves, a roll of 27mm tubeless tape, and a wheel tension report sheet. Build Quality: First impressions out of the box are very positive. The carbon layup looks perfectly clean with no visible imperfections from the assembly. The wheel build feels solid, and the freehub came pre-greased, emitting a nice, deep 'click..click..click' sound from the ratchet mechanism. Weights & Specs (24mm Internal / 32.6mm External Width): Total weight came out to 1465g with the tubeless tape and valves already installed, so the bare weight should be a bit lower. I am upgrading from stock Giant P-R2 wheels (which weigh a tank-like 2200g with Giant Fondo 32mm tyres). Shaving off roughly 730g should easily get me to Pogacar-level speeds! Tyre Installation: I mounted a set of 32mm Continental GP5000 S TR tyres. As expected, they were notoriously tight. I used a Tyre Glider and a bit of dish soap to guide them on, and they popped right into place. Best of all, they seated perfectly using just a regular floor pump—no compressor needed. At my usual pressure (49 psi front / 51 psi rear), the 32mm tyres stretch out to a nice 33.5mm width on these wide rims. Next Steps: I’m heading out for a 50km test ride this weekend and will report back with a full riding review. For now, initial impressions are great, and I’d definitely recommend these to anyone looking for a budget-friendly carbon wheelset. August 13, 2026, 11:20:51 AM |
1 |
|
Re: Nexga S1
Ok, I've received my Nexga S1 and completed a few tests comparing it to my Tacx Neo 2T. Buckle up, this will be a long post, heavy with data. I'll start with a question: should a zero offset calibration be completed before starting each and every ride, perhaps even after pauses during the ride? (not talking about accuracy tests) I usually don't bother doing so and completed at least 150 rides with my Magene P505 equipped bike, at least 80% of them without spinning the crank backwards 5 times (to calibrate the meter). While this is not scientific, I've never felt like the numbers reported by the meter were off, I feel like I've developed some sense of what power numbers should be (ballpark) for a given effort. Also, there has be no wild variation in my performance over the 150 or so rides, only a very steady (i.e. slow) progression. I also have 2 bikes equipped with Geoid PM500 power meters and haven't noticed anything weird either. I don't remember if I performed a zero offset calibration for the PM500 test I did (https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,6617.msg116827.html#msg116827). This long introduction leads me to what I believe to be a huge issue with the Nexga S1. It seems to require incessant zero offset calibrations to be performed in order to generate accurate data. I will frequently refer to "realtime offset" numbers in this post to illustrate this point. The companion app allows to export a log (great feature!), which includes "realtime offset" amongst other data. Zero calibration brings the offset number back to 0. It is claimed in the manual that the Nexga S1 has an auto calibration feature.  Offset was at 3813 the first time I started the device. Offset was at 2262 when the first calibration was done, 2h30m after first startup. Temperature between the first calibration and the last calibration as reported in the log was between 22.1 and 26.8 Celcius. The bike stayed on the trainer in my living room for the entire time. Firmware was updated to 0.1.5 before installing. Installation and setup was straigtforward. Test 0 (initiation) This test was performed right after installing the power meter on my bike. Instructions were to install, then do a few out of the saddle efforts, then calibrate. This test shows this. Offset was -189 right before this test, which started 3h40m after the last calibration. Calibration is at around the 2m30s mark. Offset before calibration was -227.  There is a 27 watt gap between the Nexga S1 and Neo 2T before calibration. Keep in mind that the power meter was last calibrated only 3h40m before starting the test. Also, Nexga is much quicker to notice when I stop pedaling.  The gap is down to only 7 watts after calibrating, but it is a longer period.  But it doesn't look that good at the last ERG steps with a 12 watt gap.  Sprints look fine tho with a 5 watt gap and no significant residual offset after them. Again, Nexga is much quicker to notice when I stop pedaling.  Goal here was to test cadence tracking. Both Nexga and Tacx managed to keep up to 156/155 rpm, but Tacx thought I kept going when I actually stopped (notice the power curve correctly sloping down for both devices). For some reason, peak power was 96 watts higher with the Nexga   End of test 0. I did calibrate the Nexga after the test, offset was at 21 before calibrating. Test 1 This test was attempted the next day, 21h after the last calibration. It was a bust because I configured a custom workout in Mywhoosh that was too intense for my motivation... but The 79 watt difference is shocking to me. I did not calibrate before the test in order to test how the Nexga would perform if I did not calibrate it like I do not calibrate my Magene / Geoid power meters before most rides. Offset at power on just before the test was -719, which is quite a drift after 21h.  Test 2 This test is with a revised workout and is meant to compare the data a day or so after calibration and the data right after a new calibration. It was performed about 22h after the last calibration. The difference is pretty clear...  84 watt difference before calibration.  4 watt difference after calibration. Offset was -693 at the moment of calibration.  Zoom on ERG segments and the sprint after calibration. That is the kind of results I'm hoping for.  End of test 2. Offset at the end of this test was 22. Test 3 The final test's goal was to test if a 1h pause without calibration would effect the data. This test was started 1h after the end of test 2. It did... Offset was -149 right before the start of this test.  Not calibrating the Nexga for 1h or so resulted in a 17 watt error.  Calibrating the Nexga, again, resulted in data that is aligned with the Neo 2T. Offset was -92 at the moment of calibration, a difference of 57 in only about 5 minutes of pedaling.  Conclusion
I'm obviously disappointed, but I knowingly took a risk... This seems like an unfinished product that wasn't properly tested... or maybe it's teething issues and I'm paying the early adopter price. Maybe it could be fixed by firmware? Auto-calibration fix? Or maybe my unit is faulty? The (shorter) pauses seen in test 3 of Panda Podium's report don't seem to cause problems and the unit holds its calibration over more than 4 hours (https://www.pandapodium.cc/post/nexga-s1-the-most-accurate-chinese-power-meter/). I can't use it as it is. I'll be contacting Panda Podium. Edits: a bunch of typos, small mistakes and some points in the conclusion August 28, 2026, 12:12:48 AM |
1 |
Re: KORE wheelsets
My KORE Cyclone CRACKED after 500km of road riding. Hi everyone, First of all, based on the photos and information provided, we can confirm that the damage on this wheel appears to have been caused by an external impact or a serious collision, rather than a manufacturing defect. We would also like to clarify that we have never refused responsibility or ignored customer concerns. Before every wheelset leaves our factory, it goes through three separate inspection procedures to ensure that it meets our quality standards. We do not ship wheels with known defects or quality issues. Regarding the testing process mentioned in the discussion, we do have comprehensive inspection procedures for our wheelsets, including structural and performance checks before shipping. You can see some examples of our inspection process here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fX9MZCKySlU https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VqsSIgvmI_E https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ak4BGuw09Pc We also want to clarify that we have never used our sales numbers as an excuse or as a way to avoid responsibility. Sales volume does not determine whether a single case should be reviewed — every customer issue is taken seriously. Regarding the communication history, we are happy to provide the complete conversation record if necessary. We believe that showing only one image or a partial conversation can easily lead to misunderstandings about the situation. After reviewing this case, we also offered a solution and arranged support for the customer, including providing a replacement wheelset. However, this follow-up information was not shared in the discussion, which gives an incomplete picture of how the issue was handled. We respect all customer feedback, including negative experiences, because they help us improve. At the same time, we hope that discussions can include the full context so that everyone can have a fair understanding of the situation. Thank you. Leslie KORE Cycling September 04, 2026, 02:02:03 AM |
1 |
Re: new iGS800 Bike GPS Computer
How are ghost watts the problem of the computer and not the Powermeter? Because it depends on how the computer implements the ANT+ spec for powermeters. The ANT+ spec minimum allows for, instances where 0W is sent from the meter, the prior value to be held and recorded for up to 3 seconds. All serious manufacturers (Garmin, Wahoo, etc.) go beyond that to ensure that when the power meter is reporting 0W is actually records 0W. From my previous experience, I wholly agree with Serge_K. The hardware is great. The software is not up to standard and feels poorly tested. September 05, 2026, 02:37:40 AM |
1 |
