Which bike brands are owned by corporations that love money more than bikes?

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 12457
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

robertbb wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:41 am

If you ask me they don't make enough of a deal of the fact that they do this, they should be flogging their investments in quality/safety because they are real. A full time quality control manager again sent from the manufacturers home country to spend 8 hours a day in a foreign factory overseeing construction and quality control is a stand-out company policy too.

If you watch the PinkBike video on starting a bike brand, having a full-time overseer is common practice.

https://youtu.be/vfgTXFx4Ins?t=440

Karvalo
Posts: 3444
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:40 pm

by Karvalo

robertbb wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:29 am
It would appear you're more invested in this one than I am. You seem intent to blame the frame manufacturer with zero evidence by saying you thought they'd probably analysed it and kept it hush-hush.
I just said the handlebars fell off for no reason. Beyond that the tone of your responses show you're so overly invested in the idea that your Canyon must be fautless that I'm just finding it funny to poke the bear.
Tell me - do you wear a tin foil hat under your helmet?
You think someone must be a tinfoil-hat wearer to be open to the possibility that a Canyon bike might not be flawless? I remember the days when I was that credulous - happy times!

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



robertbb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am

by robertbb

It's a good feature of forums that what has actually been said by both parties is there for posterity :thumbup:

You remind me of those dudes at religious camp: "you can't prove that the creator doesn't exist.... therefore he must"

backdoor
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 9:54 pm
Location: Cascade Mountains WA

by backdoor

IvanZg wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:51 pm
Lewn777 wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:31 pm
What are you taliking about?
Companies should scan and QC their bikes to check that they are safe and useable. Anything else is ridiculous! Why should Johnny's fork fail and he potentially be killed? Because it's too inconvenient or expensive to actually scan for voids? Why should Pete's BB shell be ovalized and he need to throw away his frame at 15,000kms and 14 months on the first install of a new BB? To make it easier for big companies to save money? Or so we can have slightly cheaper bikes? Canyon (apparantly) scan all their bikes and measurement tools can be bought for a reasonable amount, at least for mass bicycle manufactuers. There simply is no excuse, the amount of time to QC a bike frameset probably is less than 10% of the time it takes to make it. The reason isn't the time or the expense or checking, it's that they don't want to know the result, they'd rather sell substandard bikes to us than recycle the frame in the factory. :roll: Reduce costs=greed.

Essentially you're saying that a few 10's or 100's of deaths from, mostly fork failures is just the cost of doing business and a way of insuring everyone else gets reasonably priced carbon framesets. If that''s the case STOP THE WORLD I WANNA GET OFF. As someone that has had a fork upzip (roadrash at 50km/h luckily but if I fell the right way, death was possible had I fell wrong) it's terrifying to even think that people are that cavilier or sociopathic with other people's lives and safety. For heaven's sake, manufacurers should at least scan the fork and headtube, the rest we can probaby live with. :roll:
Canyon might be x-raying some of their parts but they did not publish what is criteria to reject parts based on the result they get. So having "advanced" QC method does not mean much when we do not know what is the standard they use.
The masses all want to drag manufacturers to the stake when carbon parts fail. Truth of the matter is that if you have carbon parts, even if they are scanned from the factory, they can still fail and break. We don't know how many times these pro bikes have been over torqued, under torqued, dropped, crashed, how many miles are on them. It just happened to Simon Pellaud this week on a Bianchi -

And think of what the loss of sales would do in an industry where the margins are already slim as it is with the amount of competition out there.

And when it does happen no cyclist would throw their sponsor under the bus. Look at this handlebar fail on Marianne Vos's bike @ 3:50

Obviously a handlebar fail but Marianne was quick to say it was a bump in the road and even cycling tips podcast reviewed it and mentioned the same thing. No mention at all of a handlebar fail.

I think if you ride carbon, be cautious and at least do a visible inspection regularly of the carbon steerer and handlebars. If something doesn't feel right don't push it. Get it checked out. Both of my bikes (one from Competitive Cyclist and one from the Bikes Manufacturer) had issues with handlebar/stem assembly when I got them.
Through the Valleys and over the Mountains...
2013 Ridley Helium - 6.9Kg
2017 Blue ProSecco - 9.0Kg
2018 Ridley Noah SL - 7.85Kg

User avatar
tarmackev
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:59 pm

by tarmackev

Just watched the YouTube video by Hambini. Very cool. Eye opening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

backdoor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:16 pm
IvanZg wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:51 pm
Lewn777 wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:31 pm
What are you taliking about?
Companies should scan and QC their bikes to check that they are safe and useable. Anything else is ridiculous! Why should Johnny's fork fail and he potentially be killed? Because it's too inconvenient or expensive to actually scan for voids? Why should Pete's BB shell be ovalized and he need to throw away his frame at 15,000kms and 14 months on the first install of a new BB? To make it easier for big companies to save money? Or so we can have slightly cheaper bikes? Canyon (apparantly) scan all their bikes and measurement tools can be bought for a reasonable amount, at least for mass bicycle manufactuers. There simply is no excuse, the amount of time to QC a bike frameset probably is less than 10% of the time it takes to make it. The reason isn't the time or the expense or checking, it's that they don't want to know the result, they'd rather sell substandard bikes to us than recycle the frame in the factory. :roll: Reduce costs=greed.

Essentially you're saying that a few 10's or 100's of deaths from, mostly fork failures is just the cost of doing business and a way of insuring everyone else gets reasonably priced carbon framesets. If that''s the case STOP THE WORLD I WANNA GET OFF. As someone that has had a fork upzip (roadrash at 50km/h luckily but if I fell the right way, death was possible had I fell wrong) it's terrifying to even think that people are that cavilier or sociopathic with other people's lives and safety. For heaven's sake, manufacurers should at least scan the fork and headtube, the rest we can probaby live with. :roll:
Canyon might be x-raying some of their parts but they did not publish what is criteria to reject parts based on the result they get. So having "advanced" QC method does not mean much when we do not know what is the standard they use.
The masses all want to drag manufacturers to the stake when carbon parts fail. Truth of the matter is that if you have carbon parts, even if they are scanned from the factory, they can still fail and break. We don't know how many times these pro bikes have been over torqued, under torqued, dropped, crashed, how many miles are on them. It just happened to Simon Pellaud this week on a Bianchi -

And think of what the loss of sales would do in an industry where the margins are already slim as it is with the amount of competition out there.

And when it does happen no cyclist would throw their sponsor under the bus. Look at this handlebar fail on Marianne Vos's bike @ 3:50

Obviously a handlebar fail but Marianne was quick to say it was a bump in the road and even cycling tips podcast reviewed it and mentioned the same thing. No mention at all of a handlebar fail.

I think if you ride carbon, be cautious and at least do a visible inspection regularly of the carbon steerer and handlebars. If something doesn't feel right don't push it. Get it checked out. Both of my bikes (one from Competitive Cyclist and one from the Bikes Manufacturer) had issues with handlebar/stem assembly when I got them.
In my view you're being far too kind to these companies. Why do pros have bike failures? Because they're made in the same factories in China, like Pardus in Dezhou, Shandong, China etc. Yes, a company like Giant, Trek, Specialized or Canyon can manufacture in China exceptionally well, with Taiwanse management or scanning equipment and a foreign R&D checker but that's exceptional.

Many of these brands are simply famous brands with something evocing something passionate and historic, but actally owned by an investment holding company with a bunch of brands. Then they're made in a domestic Chinese company, whose R&D manager if they even have one is the cousin of the factory owner. Some of the nearest these Italian brands have been to Italy was on truck on the way to Tianjin docks that passed an ice-cream truck in the other direction. Honestly I doubt even an Italian engineer designed the bike in many circumstances.

These carbon parts fail simply becuase they don't want to know that they are substandard, because finding out means they'll have to throw some away, and that will cost money.

Many companies are simply playing Rusian roulette with people's lives and safety, even that of the pros they sponsor. Carbon fiber is a difficult, labour intensive material to work with, and clearly some companies shouldn't even be doing it. It's not some cash cow material that you can have a poorly trained worker do and then not even check the work.

mattr
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Lewn777 wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:31 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:21 pm
Yes, companies could spend more on QC, but that would increase the retail cost of the frame/bicycle for everyone. They”d rather save themselves the money and save you the money by not hitting diminishing returns in QC. Instead, it’s easier (better for everyone) for them to offer warranty replacements for the small number of affected customers.
What are you taliking about?
Companies should scan and QC their bikes to check that they are safe and useable. Anything else is ridiculous! Why should Johnny's fork fail and he potentially be killed? Because it's too inconvenient or expensive to actually scan for voids? Why should Pete's BB shell be ovalized and he need to throw away his frame at 15,000kms and 14 months on the first install of a new BB? To make it easier for big companies to save money? Or so we can have slightly cheaper bikes? Canyon (apparantly) scan all their bikes and measurement tools can be bought for a reasonable amount, at least for mass bicycle manufactuers. There simply is no excuse, the amount of time to QC a bike frameset probably is less than 10% of the time it takes to make it. The reason isn't the time or the expense or checking, it's that they don't want to know the result, they'd rather sell substandard bikes to us than recycle the frame in the factory. :roll: Reduce costs=greed.

Essentially you're saying that a few 10's or 100's of deaths from, mostly fork failures is just the cost of doing business and a way of insuring everyone else gets reasonably priced carbon framesets. If that''s the case STOP THE WORLD I WANNA GET OFF. As someone that has had a fork upzip (roadrash at 50km/h luckily but if I fell the right way, death was possible had I fell wrong) it's terrifying to even think that people are that cavilier or sociopathic with other people's lives and safety. For heaven's sake, manufacurers should at least scan the fork and headtube, the rest we can probaby live with. :roll:
I really really (really) hope you don't work in any engineering, materials, manufacturing, quality or statistics based field..........

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

mattr wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:46 am
Lewn777 wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:31 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:21 pm
Yes, companies could spend more on QC, but that would increase the retail cost of the frame/bicycle for everyone. They”d rather save themselves the money and save you the money by not hitting diminishing returns in QC. Instead, it’s easier (better for everyone) for them to offer warranty replacements for the small number of affected customers.
What are you taliking about?
Companies should scan and QC their bikes to check that they are safe and useable. Anything else is ridiculous! Why should Johnny's fork fail and he potentially be killed? Because it's too inconvenient or expensive to actually scan for voids? Why should Pete's BB shell be ovalized and he need to throw away his frame at 15,000kms and 14 months on the first install of a new BB? To make it easier for big companies to save money? Or so we can have slightly cheaper bikes? Canyon (apparantly) scan all their bikes and measurement tools can be bought for a reasonable amount, at least for mass bicycle manufactuers. There simply is no excuse, the amount of time to QC a bike frameset probably is less than 10% of the time it takes to make it. The reason isn't the time or the expense or checking, it's that they don't want to know the result, they'd rather sell substandard bikes to us than recycle the frame in the factory. :roll: Reduce costs=greed.

Essentially you're saying that a few 10's or 100's of deaths from, mostly fork failures is just the cost of doing business and a way of insuring everyone else gets reasonably priced carbon framesets. If that''s the case STOP THE WORLD I WANNA GET OFF. As someone that has had a fork upzip (roadrash at 50km/h luckily but if I fell the right way, death was possible had I fell wrong) it's terrifying to even think that people are that cavilier or sociopathic with other people's lives and safety. For heaven's sake, manufacurers should at least scan the fork and headtube, the rest we can probaby live with. :roll:
I really really (really) hope you don't work in any engineering, materials, manufacturing, quality or statistics based field..........
In case I start demanding people start making safe bikes...the horror.
You seem to pretend constantly that you have the answers for every subject cycle-related under the sun. But weirdly very short on actual knowledge, information or data of any kind other than search engine stuff. The cycling version of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. So come on buddy, share, but try not to Google it. Tell me how I'm wrong, but also you can give me the inside scoop on the entire Chinese cf bicycle manufacturing industry, the corporate structure of the holding companies that own many cycling brands, a cost vs profit analysis of the cycle industry and then could you tell us a thing or two Leuchner and Hambini don't know. waiting........

RTW
in the industry
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:32 pm

by RTW

Lewn777 what extra steps do you take to mitigate against the types of horrors you describe?

mattr
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Actually, i really don't have the time or patience.

Yes, 100% inspection is the way forwards, every manufacturer is out to kill you.

Lewn777 discovered this conspiracy all on his own.

Well done you.

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

RTW wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:55 am
Lewn777 what extra steps do you take to mitigate against the types of horrors you describe?
The problem is like the internet, the carbon fiber industry is new. Carbon fiber can and does fail all the time, the more hours, the more abuse, the heavier the rider and the worse the construction, the more likely it is to fail. That might not matter in some applications, but for handlebars or forks - that can kill you. If carbon fiber were an older material at some time in the past some governments would have probably demanded that every handlebar and fork were tested on import or at some point before sale. However we live in days where industries are self-policing.

Now self policing might work if you are Giant or Quest where you have your own factory in China and German and Taiwanese managers where things are probably done right and the bike can be traced back to point of manufacture and it might be more easy for them to be sued. The failure rates are going to be low, enough that extra time in QC might be a waste of time, but a quick scan and some occassional destructive testing might be worth putting your customer's mind at ease.

The problem comes with holding comapnies that are trying to make excessive profits and hold multiple brands manufactured in cheap factories or just poor quality generally, scamming the consumer twice, once by price, once by quality.

I'm not an expert but I would have thought some ways to mitigate for this could be:
-To have national or regional standards like CE on carbon fiber bicycles, forks and some other parts like handlebars (obviously not bottle cages etc) with random destructive testing.
-To have some kind of guidance for consumers as regards to the total lifespan of a carbon fiber frame and fork and to have some kind of replacement system for forks when their lifespan is over.
Last edited by Lewn777 on Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:04 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

mattr wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:36 am
Actually, i really don't have the time or patience.

Yes, 100% inspection is the way forwards, every manufacturer is out to kill you.

Lewn777 discovered this conspiracy all on his own.

Well done you.
Manages the ad-hom attack, but not any actual information, data or ideas. :roll: A recurring theme.

RTW
in the industry
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:32 pm

by RTW

Lewn777 all good, but that is what steps could be taken. I am asking what additional steps you take as an individual.

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

RTW wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:03 am
Lewn777 all good, but that is what steps could be taken. I am asking what additional steps you take as an individual.
Ahh OK.
Replace frame every 100,000kms, replace fork and bars every 40,000kms or scan instead if possible. Do visual checks every 10,000kms. Buy bikes from bigger more reputable companies like Canyon, Trek and Giant, or those made by smaller companies based in or near their country of origin. Research brands and avoid those that have questionable ownership and are made in questionable Chinese factories. Use an alloy/titanium/steel bike for winter/turbo etc training and keep a fully carbon fiber frame for racing or summer duties.

RTW
in the industry
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:32 pm

by RTW

So really, that isn't 'anything' out of the ordinary, right?

I have no frame that has reached 100,000km - unlikely to happen. I would be so bored of the bike by then.
40,000 km fork / bars - also unlikely to happen on anything carbon because..... it is rare I keep a frame and forks beyond 10,000km (see above) - the bars might be older, but they will have been stripped and inspected when the build was done.

Winter bike for wet weather, and Wattbike for the indoor.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply