replica vs open mold discussion

[tssy5]

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.

[tssy5]

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.

[Sakizashi]

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.