Cheap chinese carbon frames - Explain it to me
Moderator: robbosmans
-
kulivontot
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
It seems the discussion should be limited to people who have either had good experiences or bad experiences with cheap carbon frames that they have actually purchased. Especially in relation to the frame models the op specifically mentioned. Anything else is just pure speculation.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
It seems the discussion should be limited to people who have either had good experiences or bad experiences with cheap carbon frames that they have actually purchased. Especially in relation to the frame models the op specifically mentioned. Anything else is just pure speculation.
My last frame was a LOOK.
I recently bought a PedalForce and I am completely happy.
Admittedly, I would never have dared to by an almost unknown name if hadn't seen it in person before. I know three other people with PedalForce frames.
There are definitely risks, and the tradeoff is just a huge cost savings.
I think that By studying the pictures of the frames carefully you can get a feel for which ones were designed by cyclists and which ones were designed by "creative designers".
One area where differences in quality are seen is at the chainstay-to-BB area. Some or massive, monolithic construction, and some look like a fork was adhered to the BB shell.
I know people with Treks and Merlins that had frames break during normal operations.....no unusual loads or damage... So no manufacturer is flawless.
If there were complaints about the "cheap Chinese frames", then you KNOW that in the internet age we would be hearing about them relentlessly.
rruff wrote:Not as cheap, but it's a US company, and considering the specs (if accurate) it looks pretty good. ISP, 54cm, 890g, $1000, 5 year warranty.
http://www.pricepoint.com/detail/20969- ... et-ISM.htm
I believe the price, the warranty, and the color.
A Pinarello with the same claimed weight is heavier than a CAAD-10.
The internet is filled with bad stories about ebay purchases of even top quality brands going bad...
I remember the guy ranting about his broken Zipp bars, only to admit they were and ebay purchase and were fakes.
The simple fact of the matter is that very few Factories in China have produce frames just to have them sitting around and go on Ebay.
The more likely scenario (and the reason several look exactly like a name brand) is that the frames you see were refused / rejected by reputable companies...
Like the post above this thread has people with good and bad experiences and that's typical of all products, but not bad to the degree of the no-name/ "bargain" Ebay purchases or China direct purchases...
Some of the things we're doing with wheels here scares me just as bad. we're paying bottom dollar for garbage, but it's novelty because we're "going direct".
To each his own and I hope for the best, but the sympathy factor for people buying things at junk rate prices off ebay or "china direct" is zero... I've purchased a few things just to see what people could expect and I destroyed what I bought without using it (frame, bars, bottle cages and a set of rims).
Nobody should complain about a thing when they pay half, or less of retail, and I mean that even in the case it shows up unusable... You wouldnt buy drugs or underwear or prophylactics from no name china, but you'll roll head first down the street at 40-50-60 mph on it?
Sorry for the rant, but after seeing what I've seen, I cant understand the attraction to risking garbage just because it's direct or cheap...
I remember the guy ranting about his broken Zipp bars, only to admit they were and ebay purchase and were fakes.
The simple fact of the matter is that very few Factories in China have produce frames just to have them sitting around and go on Ebay.
The more likely scenario (and the reason several look exactly like a name brand) is that the frames you see were refused / rejected by reputable companies...
Like the post above this thread has people with good and bad experiences and that's typical of all products, but not bad to the degree of the no-name/ "bargain" Ebay purchases or China direct purchases...
Some of the things we're doing with wheels here scares me just as bad. we're paying bottom dollar for garbage, but it's novelty because we're "going direct".
To each his own and I hope for the best, but the sympathy factor for people buying things at junk rate prices off ebay or "china direct" is zero... I've purchased a few things just to see what people could expect and I destroyed what I bought without using it (frame, bars, bottle cages and a set of rims).
Nobody should complain about a thing when they pay half, or less of retail, and I mean that even in the case it shows up unusable... You wouldnt buy drugs or underwear or prophylactics from no name china, but you'll roll head first down the street at 40-50-60 mph on it?
Sorry for the rant, but after seeing what I've seen, I cant understand the attraction to risking garbage just because it's direct or cheap...
Pez
I totally respect your opinion, so please read the below in a spirit of discussion, not argument.
I've got a set of rims that are gigantex. I got them from Planet X. They're 101mm. At the time, no major brand (Vision, zipp, easton) was using them, except for maybe Blackwell research. So, given your logic of these parts being rejects, how did my rims come into existence? Again, not looking to argue, but discuss.
Second, I see a couple of ways that manufacturing happens. One is that a brand (Trek, 'Nag, Pina) design a frame, secure a manufacturer, and then contract the creation of the frame. In this case, I agree, there will be rejects. But I'm sure there will also be overruns. And perhaps there are clauses in the manufacturing contract that state the factory can produce some frames of the same design for its own sale. Or use the same design but a different quality of raw material. I don't have any experience with the bike manufacturing industry, but when I worked for an oil services company, we routinely stocked "blanks"; parts that were standard and could be customized to a specific need. Maybe something similar happens here.
An alternative way for manufacturing is what it seems Velocite and Neo have done. Found a manufacturer that makes a good product, buy it, and market it. In that case, there had to be an unbranded product first, not a brand name, right? So if that's the case, why couldn't Neo's supplier (or Neuvation's, or anyone else's) sell that frame under a different name? Someone is making Motobocanes and Scattante's, but I seriously doubt there is any "in house" design there. I could be completely wrong on this, though.
Again, just looking to discuss. Personally, I ride a Douglas Ti frame from Colorado Cyclist. It's about 5 years old. I did my research and found it was made by Ti Sports Technologies in Washington state. I've had no problems with it in the ~20000 miles I've put it through. It replaced a steel Tommasini that was was still under warranty, but was too expensive for me to get fixed (figure that out!). I ride open pro wheels, and have broken more than I can count. But my Planet X wheels still look good.
Given that I think you do have more insight in the industry than me, what do you think?
TB
I totally respect your opinion, so please read the below in a spirit of discussion, not argument.
I've got a set of rims that are gigantex. I got them from Planet X. They're 101mm. At the time, no major brand (Vision, zipp, easton) was using them, except for maybe Blackwell research. So, given your logic of these parts being rejects, how did my rims come into existence? Again, not looking to argue, but discuss.
Second, I see a couple of ways that manufacturing happens. One is that a brand (Trek, 'Nag, Pina) design a frame, secure a manufacturer, and then contract the creation of the frame. In this case, I agree, there will be rejects. But I'm sure there will also be overruns. And perhaps there are clauses in the manufacturing contract that state the factory can produce some frames of the same design for its own sale. Or use the same design but a different quality of raw material. I don't have any experience with the bike manufacturing industry, but when I worked for an oil services company, we routinely stocked "blanks"; parts that were standard and could be customized to a specific need. Maybe something similar happens here.
An alternative way for manufacturing is what it seems Velocite and Neo have done. Found a manufacturer that makes a good product, buy it, and market it. In that case, there had to be an unbranded product first, not a brand name, right? So if that's the case, why couldn't Neo's supplier (or Neuvation's, or anyone else's) sell that frame under a different name? Someone is making Motobocanes and Scattante's, but I seriously doubt there is any "in house" design there. I could be completely wrong on this, though.
Again, just looking to discuss. Personally, I ride a Douglas Ti frame from Colorado Cyclist. It's about 5 years old. I did my research and found it was made by Ti Sports Technologies in Washington state. I've had no problems with it in the ~20000 miles I've put it through. It replaced a steel Tommasini that was was still under warranty, but was too expensive for me to get fixed (figure that out!). I ride open pro wheels, and have broken more than I can count. But my Planet X wheels still look good.
Given that I think you do have more insight in the industry than me, what do you think?
TB
With the ease of bringing product to market through channels such as eBay or Alibaba or a company's own website it makes complete sense for a company to offer product without relying on the middleman. A factory that is not producing product is not selling product and as such not making money.
@PezTech - Please qualify these statements:
"The simple fact of the matter is that very few Factories in China have produce frames just to have them sitting around and go on Ebay."
"Some of the things we're doing with wheels here scares me just as bad. we're paying bottom dollar for garbage, but it's novelty because we're "going direct". "
@PezTech - Please qualify these statements:
"The simple fact of the matter is that very few Factories in China have produce frames just to have them sitting around and go on Ebay."
"Some of the things we're doing with wheels here scares me just as bad. we're paying bottom dollar for garbage, but it's novelty because we're "going direct". "
-
Illuminate
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 4:18 am
- Location: Australia
Mr Tug, out of interest, in relation to your comment about breaking open pro wheels, are you a heavy-set rider?
That's good to hear that the PX 101s have been treating you well. I've been thinking about a set just for training (as well as considering a few other options) and was wondering how durable they would be. One would expect the rim's depth would give considerable strength to the whole wheel structure. I'm just a little bit chicken to risk 24 spokes given I'm not a WW by any stretch of the imagination.
Cheers,
I
That's good to hear that the PX 101s have been treating you well. I've been thinking about a set just for training (as well as considering a few other options) and was wondering how durable they would be. One would expect the rim's depth would give considerable strength to the whole wheel structure. I'm just a little bit chicken to risk 24 spokes given I'm not a WW by any stretch of the imagination.
Cheers,
I
Showdown "A factory that is not producing product is not selling product and as such not making money" is off base as it relates to cycling production related to this thread. Manufacturing for Cycling frames (and a few other arbon parts) are typically build to spec.
They hire people and buy material for a run of product after it's designed and sold and fire when they dont need the people to produce and they dont run product related to this thread unless they know exactly what they're making and who's buying it.
Tug I dont think you're 100% wrong and I dont think I'm 100% right.
I think a house spec from Planet X are a little different than buying something unbadged off ebay. In the case of MANY brands (not just the little one's) a model of bike (or other) will be purchased after seeing a show model, but that is VERY different than thinking there is a stock of that product sitting around. Reputable manufacturers can ramp up a run of something so fast now that making product ahead of selling it is now simply gambling and just not done with high ticket things like frames and tooling for wheels.
Your thought about how it would works for some large companies also applies to many small companies... But while there are mistakes in production leaving material, there are little if any over runs and most companies, large and small, own any production of what they spec'd.
The far east is a spec producer for the most part in cycling. Factories dont make a production run of bike parts and then look for a buyer. The standard (even for very small brands) is to look at the tube shapes available and build up a bike from available material and shapes in a factories available patterns or they design and spec their own and make an order with that factory. Substantial over runs of bike frames are not common. Carbon costs too much and so do people (of course people pay is relative) and factories simply dont make big quantity errors. Despite our love of calling carbon cheap cookie cutter, virtually everything including monocoque bikes take time and hand work to set up.
When a company has a small over run, the bikes for any major brand will go to that brand... unless there's a problem with the product. At that point virtually all companies requesting a spec build will go and see that the product from their design and spec that fails to meet standards is destroyed. Sometimes some of this product makes it out... And that is why you VERY frequently see product that looks familiar.
It's not always the case. But it is frequently enough...
They hire people and buy material for a run of product after it's designed and sold and fire when they dont need the people to produce and they dont run product related to this thread unless they know exactly what they're making and who's buying it.
Tug Boat wrote:Pez
TB
Tug I dont think you're 100% wrong and I dont think I'm 100% right.
I think a house spec from Planet X are a little different than buying something unbadged off ebay. In the case of MANY brands (not just the little one's) a model of bike (or other) will be purchased after seeing a show model, but that is VERY different than thinking there is a stock of that product sitting around. Reputable manufacturers can ramp up a run of something so fast now that making product ahead of selling it is now simply gambling and just not done with high ticket things like frames and tooling for wheels.
Your thought about how it would works for some large companies also applies to many small companies... But while there are mistakes in production leaving material, there are little if any over runs and most companies, large and small, own any production of what they spec'd.
The far east is a spec producer for the most part in cycling. Factories dont make a production run of bike parts and then look for a buyer. The standard (even for very small brands) is to look at the tube shapes available and build up a bike from available material and shapes in a factories available patterns or they design and spec their own and make an order with that factory. Substantial over runs of bike frames are not common. Carbon costs too much and so do people (of course people pay is relative) and factories simply dont make big quantity errors. Despite our love of calling carbon cheap cookie cutter, virtually everything including monocoque bikes take time and hand work to set up.
When a company has a small over run, the bikes for any major brand will go to that brand... unless there's a problem with the product. At that point virtually all companies requesting a spec build will go and see that the product from their design and spec that fails to meet standards is destroyed. Sometimes some of this product makes it out... And that is why you VERY frequently see product that looks familiar.
It's not always the case. But it is frequently enough...
-
Megaclocker
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:39 pm
I bought a Pedalforce CG1 still going strong after lot's of miles.
A friend bought a cheap ebay MTB frame (280$) still going strong.
A pretty beefy (200lbs+/-) custumer that is often at our shop got two ebay road frames and they are still in perfect shape with 2years of usage.
Just compare this : http://cgi.ebay.com/Full-Carbon-Road-Bi ... 45f5a983a1
With a Kuota Kredo.
A friend bought a cheap ebay MTB frame (280$) still going strong.
A pretty beefy (200lbs+/-) custumer that is often at our shop got two ebay road frames and they are still in perfect shape with 2years of usage.
Just compare this : http://cgi.ebay.com/Full-Carbon-Road-Bi ... 45f5a983a1
With a Kuota Kredo.
@PezTech...
While I think your assessment of the production process of CF bikes and components is fairly accurate, perhaps it reflects a norm that once was true.
It's a definite possibility that what we're seeing with all these companies is their first foray into the world of retail- after all just a year ago it was impossible to buy one frame from a producer in Asia via paypal... So while maybe it used to be that producers only ramped up their factories to meet contracted requests, it seems now that they're branching off on their own and testing the waters so-to-speak...
Certainly there doesn't appear to be a glut of available frames and rims etc... In my inquiries into rims I was informed that many of the depths I wanted were out of stock and that they could be produced for me witha lead time of about 30 days... That would indicate to me that this isn't necessarily reject stock or overrun but part of a small quantity of product they're producing on their own specifically to sell on the market...
I'm also not necessarily convinced that these companies would sell rejects... I'm not sure any company would risk selling a rejected product... perhaps I'll be called naive but until I see some empirical evidence of this practice methinks it best to not toss around allegations...
On a side note- my team was sponsored by Trek a few years ago when they introduced the Madone. We ultimately had to send back all of the frames due to failing carbon BB's and resin cracks that when shown to a former aerospace engineer who formerly worked for Trek and now works for another major cycling company declared with certainty that the issues we were seeing were a result of poor production and should not have met quality control. It was his belief the in an effort to meet the overwhelming demand for the hot hot hot Madone, Trek rushed the production process and lowered the bar for quality control... This all coming from a person who worked on the Madone design team. So there's that...
FWIW, this seems like the type of information that would garner a few hundred thousand hits to a certain cycling website provided the author was able to secure some interviews and photos with said manufacturers...
While I think your assessment of the production process of CF bikes and components is fairly accurate, perhaps it reflects a norm that once was true.
It's a definite possibility that what we're seeing with all these companies is their first foray into the world of retail- after all just a year ago it was impossible to buy one frame from a producer in Asia via paypal... So while maybe it used to be that producers only ramped up their factories to meet contracted requests, it seems now that they're branching off on their own and testing the waters so-to-speak...
Certainly there doesn't appear to be a glut of available frames and rims etc... In my inquiries into rims I was informed that many of the depths I wanted were out of stock and that they could be produced for me witha lead time of about 30 days... That would indicate to me that this isn't necessarily reject stock or overrun but part of a small quantity of product they're producing on their own specifically to sell on the market...
I'm also not necessarily convinced that these companies would sell rejects... I'm not sure any company would risk selling a rejected product... perhaps I'll be called naive but until I see some empirical evidence of this practice methinks it best to not toss around allegations...
On a side note- my team was sponsored by Trek a few years ago when they introduced the Madone. We ultimately had to send back all of the frames due to failing carbon BB's and resin cracks that when shown to a former aerospace engineer who formerly worked for Trek and now works for another major cycling company declared with certainty that the issues we were seeing were a result of poor production and should not have met quality control. It was his belief the in an effort to meet the overwhelming demand for the hot hot hot Madone, Trek rushed the production process and lowered the bar for quality control... This all coming from a person who worked on the Madone design team. So there's that...
FWIW, this seems like the type of information that would garner a few hundred thousand hits to a certain cycling website provided the author was able to secure some interviews and photos with said manufacturers...
Recently bought this frameset...USD450,- and one of those famous USD50,- paintjobs http://www.gotobike.com.cn/gs_detail.as ... vid=500027
Hopefully I wont break my neck riding it..
(good thing we don't have hills in Holland)
I'll post some pics when it arrives, in a week or 7.
regards, Roger
Hopefully I wont break my neck riding it..
(good thing we don't have hills in Holland)I'll post some pics when it arrives, in a week or 7.
regards, Roger
Illuminate wrote:Mr Tug, out of interest, in relation to your comment about breaking open pro wheels, are you a heavy-set rider?
Currently coming in at 185 lbs. I'm 6-2 and consider myself to be a TT rider, though lately I've not been able to bring it. In destroying OP's, I've really just pulled spokes through or torn the ID of the rim. No idea how that happens, but it's happened a couple of times. Mainly to rear wheels.
As for the 101's, I've got some 32 spoke front and rear (they were on sale). Anything over 1000 watts and the rear rubs. Don't know why, as they're huge rims, 32spoke, 3X, and very well built. But since I'm not much of a sprinter, so that hasn't really ever effected me. I'm considering a set of 50mm types like are being discussed elsewhere on the forum. We'll see.
TB
djconnel wrote:A Pinarello with the same claimed weight is heavier than a CAAD-10.
Well, that's Pinarello... my 54cm Dengfu FM028 weighed 1048g, which was within their advertised range. The uncut weight of the fork was 20g high at 410g, but was 370g after cutting.
But... I'm skeptical of the weights on super light stuff too. The Sette frame is even painted.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
I thought that places like PedalForce are just buying from the same agents that post on eBay. Then, they put on their own housebrand label. How is that different from any Fred buying from the same eBay agents and then riding without a sticker on their downtube?
