RJM

You have legal recourse.

Who are you going to sue if your counterfeit frame assplodes underneath you?

RJM

They actually cut apart two frames and tested them in this article.....it's worth a read and their conclusions seem sound enough based on the evidence provided.

Marcus_Ti

Thing is, based on forum posts...most of the Chinese carbon outfits don't even ask for the old good to be shipped back. They'll just send another one, if issues arise. I've read about it happening lots with Chinese CF wheels where issues arose with rims.

berner

I used to work with composites for a defense industry manufacturer. The materials used are available to anyone who knows how to choose the right material for the intended job. An important aspect of manufacturing, especially manufacturing with composite materials is process control and testing. I'm not confident that a small manufacturer, not subject to any industry standards, will turn out products of consistent high quality. In fact, going by news reports, it seems as if some high end manufacturers, such as Toyota, GM, or the people who make the majority of airbags, whose name I don't remember, are shaving safety standards which sometimes results in death.

rms13

I had problems with wheels from china (aluminum not cf) and they would not do anything unless I paid to return them. Maybe other sellers are different but I doubt many people will just ship multiple frames or wheelsets without returning them.

Kopsis

Their data is sound (and somewhat interesting) but most of their conclusions (that counterfeit frames are fundamentally unsafe) are not supported by the test data.

zvez

that's an excellent article. Carbon has too many variables to trust counterfeit, density of the weave, direction of the weave curing process. I'm mystified that some people in this thread didn't read. The testing center took portions of the bike and tested them comparing the spesh to the fake. But I guess the tinfoil hat crowd will be convinced the testers would fake the data to support the bike makers. (where's the roll eyes emoticon?)

Surely the guy that paid $600 for the frame did not really it would be comparable to the s-works frame?

RJM

But is supported by the experience of the rider in the article who purchased a counterfeit frame.

Either way...$3500 frames (hell, Trek's high end framesets are going for over $4k now) make my Rivendell look inexpensive by comparison.

I have to question the logic of buying a counterfeit "high end" frame when you can get a mid range frame from a reputable maker for about the same price especially given the apparent fact that you aren't getting a "high end" build or carbon with that frame.

zvez

and an equal or more number who don't.

Stucky

So it starts off by making a statement about "comparing brand-name to no-name" frames.....and then dissects ONE brand-name frame and ONE no-name frame, and the inference is that these results are to be extrapolated to all brand-name vs. no-name comparisons; with the reader being led to the conclusion that all brand-name rames=quality and safety; and that all no-name frames=crap and instant death. Do I have the gist of it?

PepeM

That is what I really don't get.

Marcus_Ti

I'm not sure where you got that it applies to all no-name frames.

It seemed pretty clear the thrust of the article was about look-a-like counterfeit framesets, that are less than soundly engineered and executed.

Most mid-range bikes are sold as bikes...I have trouble thinking of any that are sold as frame set only. The Big Bike Labels only sell framesets for the top shelf AFAIK.

bt

spot on.

again, lame article/test.

TrojanHorse

Of course they do!

Have you ever heard of a fork recall from a counterfeit or open mold manufacturer?

Have you heard of such a thing from Specialized? Why would they recall forks if they had no liability?

RJM

Trek and Specialized sell their aluminium models as framesets and trek sells the Emonda sl as a frameset. I do wish the Domane 5 series was sold as a frameset though.

PepeM

Except that the article never said any of that. I guess people just read whatever they want to read regardless of what has actually been written.

Bob Ross

This reminds me (stop me if I've told this one before...pretty sure I have, actually) of the guy I met several years ago on a European cycling tour who rode a gorgeous -- but anonymous -- carbon road bike. I asked him who made his unlabeled frame, and he told me "I got it from BikesDirect. $600!"

I asked if he had any hesitation about riding an inexpensive no-name carbon frame, and his reply was "I figure for $600 I can break this frame, replace it, break that frame, replace that one, replace it again...and I still won't have paid as much as my son did for his Cannondale."

But the ultimate irony was: Three days later on the ride, he broke his frame!

bt

you have trouble understanding subliminal messaging?

Marcus_Ti

LOL. Freak things do happen, you know.

This year on Tour de Nebraska, one rider had a Bike Friday (I believe, it was a folding bike with bizzarro sized fork not replaceable in the field) fork shear clean off just below the fork crown. Clean. Looked like it got cut by a bandsaw.

Another poor sod, during a long day with rough roads (bad joint repairs in the shoulder)...had the spring in his old sprund saddle snap.

PepeM

I'm just not paranoid and think everyone is out there to get me. I can read and article, grab the relevant data and form my own conclusions regardless of the author's intention.

redfooj

i have no dog in the fight. my last 3 bikes are overweight for the price but purchased because they elicited faux-romantic images of a lombardy maestro hunched over a welding torch.

that said, i question your judgement for not recognizing the thick stench of that article

WalksOn2Wheels

Redfooj, there is a distinct difference between critical thinking and reasoning vs. thinking critically of everything and finding reasons to support your predetermined opinion. Your exact attitude is what attributes to the scientific illiteracy of the modern age. You have this ingrained notion that ALL (sorry, 99%) of journalists are out to make some money under the table to support their advertisers. This prevents you from interpreting the article for what it is: a service article. It's a service to the public for them to take these two frames, run some tests on equipment not generally available to the average cyclists, and present their findings as food for thought. Other than the singular results they presented base on this very small sample, NO direct wide-sweeping claims were made against any "no-name" manufacturers (heck, they didn't even state the eBay seller the original bike was bought from). Where they see clear issues with this singular counterfeit frame, they make it known. The idea that the article is saying "anything not made by our advertisers is dangerous junk" is something everyone else here is pulling out of their ass.

svtmike

I think it's pretty clear from the article that the counterfeit S-Works frame tested is inferior to the real product in pretty much every possible way. We've seen a few attempts at comparisons of knock-offs to the real things (some more rigorous than others of course), and I haven't seen any that show the knockoffs to be even close to the equals of the real products.

As always, caveat emptor.

zvez

unfortunately you have an agonizingly simplistic approach to this, the guy below said it best. I fear you didn't bother to read this article.

The testing was done by Microbac, now a websearch shows this to be a huge testing organization for a myriad of things. So for this article to have the stench of favoritism you espouse Microbac would have to be in on that.

Microbac Laboratories, Inc.

The article was pretty impartial and even if as you say the writer is biased (I don't think he is) the rigidity tests etc done by Microbac speak for themselves.

I know you've no dog in the fight, but a websearch will show a wealth of resources at just how complex carbon fibre fabrication design and manufacturing truly are.

link0

+1


Horribly written article though. Ridiculous conclusions.