Carbon - real v fake

[Citius]

Interesting look at some of the issues here: http://velonews.competitor.com/not-...k-deep-inside-the-carbon-in-counterfeit-bikes

I'm sure the article isn't perfect, but still makes interesting reading...

 

[Milkfloat]

I wonder if the cheap carbon bikes that are not badged up as a well known brand, but do have very similar geometry are also the same quality from the same mold? I am thinking Ribble, Planet X etc. But then again, I wonder who financed this study?

 

[Citius]

I wonder if the cheap carbon bikes that are not badged up as a well known brand, but do have very similar geometry are also the same quality from the same mold? I am thinking Ribble, Planet X etc. But then again, I wonder who financed this study?

No - don't confuse 'open mould' frames (from Ribble, PX, etc) with replicas. Definitely, not the same thing. In some ways, it doesn't matter who financed the study - it's what the findings are that make it interesting.

 

[winjim]

What I find interesting, aside from the obvious and quite terrifying safety concerns, is the performance aspect. In a world of marginal gains, why go for a cheap copy that won't perform as well as the real thing? Much better to go for a lower spec, but genuine and properly engineered product. Can't afford an S-Works? Get the regular Specialized, I bet it performs better than the S-Works fake.

Assuming you're a good enough rider to be able to tell the difference

 

[jonny jeez]

Safety and performance are not important to the buyer...it'll be on gumtree in 24 hours.

Its the second hand buyer who is losing out...all round

Those that are not flogged on will be used for posing, not riding.

 

[jarlrmai]

Just don't buy cheap carbon clinchers.

 

[Drago]

In the world of marginal performance gains why even a cheap brand name frame when an ally one the same price is liable to be a more advanced and capable product. The price of carbon reflects the cost of the manufacturing process, not how good it is.

 

[Citius]

The price of any mass produced item generally reflects the quantities it is manufactured in, combined with an estimation of what the brand thinks the marketplace can afford/sustain. So price is not really a reflection.

 

[jowwy]

I would actually change the thread name, cause its not fake carbon, its actual carbon making a counterfit of a certain brand bike.......

So i would re-name the thread

Real frame v's counterfit frame....

 

[nickyboy]

Seems that the copies are inferiorly engineered compared to the genuine products. I wonder what the "appropriate" level of modulus of elasticity actually is bearing in mind the end use? Of course more is better. But more comes at a cost.

So what are the implications on safety in riding a frame with, say, 10 million pounds modulus of elasticity compared to 40 million?

Maybe it's crucial and you need the high number and the high price. Or maybe it isn't. Perhaps whoever wrote the article should have made a bit more of an effort to determine whether the genuine product is expensively overengineered or not

 

[400bhp]

I found the article pretty rubbish, almost Daily Mail esque. It insinuates that, from one person's experience of a speed wobble with a counterfeit frame that there is something inherently dangerous in it.

Furthermore the atricle is written with a great deal of snobbery. What exactly does 11% stiffer really mean in the real world? It moves about 0.01mm further when 100w for a 80kg rider are pulled through the cranks???.

If I didn't know better I would say that a certain manufacturer may have written that.

 

[gbb]

No surprises really. The authors background seems to be neutral, can't speak for who, if anyone, sponsored the article.
Cheap carbon frames, no problem with that in itself, you can buy cheap anything and it won't be as good as the same 'better' more expensive item. I'd be interested to see how these frames held up against other cheap frames that are not pretending to be something else. It may be these frames hold up well against those other cheap versions.
If nothing else, the article has value if only because it warns buyers of the counterfiet frames, could save someone a nasty surprise. Nothing wrong with the fact they're cheap and not as good...its the fact they're not what they claim to be.

 

[Citius]

You'd have to assume that if anyone sponsored the article, then Specialized did - given that it looks as though they donated an SL4 frame to be chopped up. The speed wobble thing is largely irrelevant - pretty much any bike will do that under the right circumstances. The main issue I took from it is just how little engineering work goes into the copy frames.

 

[gbb]

I did read the article but can't remember now....although the frame is quite obviously inferior....does that mean it's dangerous, i mean actually dangerous. Take any cheaply manufactured carbon frame, are any of them outright dangerous, i suspect probably not. Cheap isnt always bad, just not as good. Thats accepted by almost anyone, the main problem here is its pretending to be something its not.
The article is comparing cheap with some of the best, I'm not sticking up for the cheap option, although there's likely to be nothing wrong with it under normal circumstances, its more the fact buyers could be ripped off thinking its something its not.
My Ribble carbon probably can't hold a candle to the best frrames, but its still more more than good enough for most leisure/fitness riders and a few serious guys as well i should think. The same may be true for the counterfeit frame. Equally, it might be a lot worse than my Ribble....its just not quantifyable from the article.
In other words, are we reading the article from the wrong viewpoint....thinking the frame is inferior, dangerous, substandard. It IS inferior compared to what its being compared against, but is it compared to most other standard, cheap carbon frames. ?

 

[Citius]

I did read the article but can't remember now....although the frame is quite obviously inferior....does that mean it's dangerous, i mean actually dangerous. Take any cheaply manufactured carbon frame, are any of them outright dangerous, i suspect probably not. Cheap isnt always bad, just not as good. Thats accepted by almost anyone, the main problem here is its pretending to be something its not.

The frames are not being compared for a price comparison - they are being compared because one is a fake/copy/replica of the other.

The article is comparing cheap with some of the best, I'm not sticking up for the cheap option, although there's likely to be nothing wrong with it under normal circumstances, its more the fact buyers could be ripped off thinking its something its not.

The objectives are different though. The only objective in making a fake frame is to make something that appears to be the same/similar to the original, with no regard to the frame's structural integrity. The makers are not interested in making a 'good' frame - they are interested in making a look-alike frame.

My Ribble carbon probably can't hold a candle to the best frrames, but its still more more than good enough for most leisure/fitness riders and a few serious guys as well i should think. The same may be true for the counterfeit frame. Equally, it might be a lot worse than my Ribble....its just not quantifyable from the article.
In other words, are we reading the article from the wrong viewpoint....thinking the frame is inferior, dangerous, substandard. It IS inferior compared to what its being compared against, but is it compared to most other standard, cheap carbon frames. ?

As mentioned earlier, don't confuse open-mould frames from the likes of PX, Ribble, etc, with 'replicas'. The two are very different. I wouldn't have any worries about riding a frame from Ribble, PX or others.