Originally Posted by
PepeM
The conclusion I draw is that the counterfeit frame tested does not have the same physical properties as the frame it is claiming to replicate. That is the only conclusion I draw straight from the article. I also believe that this would be the case for most/all counterfeit frames (based on my experience with other counterfeit items and this admittedly small sample size), but that is my opinion/belief, not something to be concluded directly from the article or something I would try to pass as fact.
+1. However, the article itself insinuates their conclusion based on evidently its analysis of the venge:
"At Velo, we set out to ascertain how similar these counterfeit frames were to the authentic versions. Did they qualify as “replicas” — or deathtraps?"
note use of the plural