so, whats the deal with chinese carbon frames? i am not speaking about labeled ripoffs, i am speaking about nonpainted frames from famous producers like deng fu. google shows up mixed opinions and alot of people seem to be really butthurt about them without having further experience
are they any pros? what are the cons besides not knowing the quality?
People are really butthurt over literally every brand on earth. Specialized is shit because they sued someone once. Trek is shit because they make hybrids. Bianchi is shit because transvestites ride them. Surly is shit because it's not expensive enough. Dengfu is shit because nikolasv doesn't like asians. Habanero is shit because it has a spic name. Moots is shit because he sold us to the japanese. Waterford is shit because nikolasv has a used one.
Nothing is ever good enough, so if you're looking for validation you're in the wrong place, bucko. Just buy your garbon and make up your own mind. It's probably going to turn out fine.
>>932747
Bombing down a steep descent at >30mph on a frame that you can't be confident isn't going to shatter on you if you hit a bump and get you killed isn't enough of a 'con' for you? Or are you Bruce Willis in 'Unbreakable' and you can slam into the pavement at those speeds and magically not get injured?
They're SHIT. The 'companies' that produce them don't give a fuck if you get killed, they only care about getting your money. You may as well be playing Russian Roulette.
>>932751
You're assuming that the cunts of /n/ who complain about these things are really posting to complain about these things. They're not. They complain because they like complaining. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't even own or ride bikes, they just want to whine and whinge and make piss-and-vinegar posts because in some fucked-up way it amuses them or makes them feel relevant or whatever it is that gets them off from doing it. Or they're just so far into the fringes of humanity that nothing even remotely resembling 'normal' suits them. Or they're NEETs that can't and never will be able to afford anything other than a $20 rusted-out thrift-store bike and the only way they can not feel like slitting their wrists every day is to pretend that anything better really isn't worth having. There are many reasons why you see shitty posts like that, but I'll put down cash money that the reasons have nothing to do with what they're posting about.
>>932754
when i ride an original bianchi, does bianchi care if i get killed?
>>932770
Most frames are guaranteed for life by reputable manufacturers. Bianchi is a quality brand. If your Bianchi frame fails due to a manufacturing defect then damned right they'll be concerned about it, their reputation depends on them taking responsibility for their products' quality.
>>932772
it rook Specialized 3 months to replace my broken Frame and before that, i had to discuss a long time with them
its not bianchi, but it was an original frame and i really felt like they were trying to piss me off
>>932772
The same is true of large chink brands like Hong Fu. It doesn't apply to pirates that have no name to protect in the first place, but saying frame builder does not QA Or enigineer just because Chinese is stupid.
>>932773
Why did it break?
>>932774
I was specifically talking about manufacturers of no-name products not branded products even if it's not a top-tier product.
>>932775
probably because i hit a plothole and then it cracked some miles afterwards
>>932777
And op specifically started the thread about the opposite.
>>932774
>saying frame builder does not QA Or enigineer just because Chinese is stupid.
No it's not.
Why should ANYONE take a risk they know they shouldn't just because faggots like yourself don't like stereotyping?
Stereotyping happens for a reason, and no amount of "b-b-but DongHungLo brand is reputable you racist!" is going to make someone go against common sense.
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bikes-frames-forks/chinese-carbon-thread-ebay-direct-version-6-0-a-272806-218.html
Go through the whole thread. It's 50/50 garbon shills saying how their Spesh/Trek/Giant/Scott etc broke just as easily as a chinarello, or garbon owners saying how awesomely comfy and great handling their KungFu frame and fork is. They say exactly the same thing every time.
This is not to mention the rampant IP theft and absolute zero development of their frames. They are literally carbon copies with some edges filed and curves adjusted. The Freds saying how great they handle are exactly that, Freds, who have literally no idea what a quality frame feels like.
>>932751
>People are really butthurt over literally every brand on earth
This is so fucking true. Meanwhile they're all made by the same chinese kikes.
>>932772
this is funny because bianchi notriously ignores a lot of warranty claims
most famously on the pistas
>>933133
It's weird that people shill for Bianchi when they haven't been relevant for decades.
>>933138
Thatandbianchi frames carry a 3 year warranty and not lifetime
Trek used to do a lifetime but carbon frames came out so it's like a year
itt snobs butthurt because they overpaid and can't justify feeling special anymore
I've had 2 chinese crabon frames, a Deng Fu and a Xmiplay cross frame
I put over 4k on the dengfu and the Xmi has over 4k on it right now
They have both been ok. Nothing great, haven't exploded. I wouldn't recommend them just because you don't know much about them in terms of quality control, although reports of failures are not really common. If these frames were really horrendous you would hear tons of horror stories about them.
The way these frames are made is the factories that produce all the shit for all the other big brands come up with "unique" frames and then market these frames to brands trying to sell them, the left over designs that aren't picked up for big production are sold by these smaller companies that snatch up the design for cheaper. They're made in the same factories by the same people as the guys who make stuff from brands like Bianchi, Pinarello, Trek, Scott, etc.
You go to bike bike trade shows and these factories will have their generic frames up in booths to market to small brands/upstarts like Rose, Ritte, PlanetX, etc.
itt chinarello snobs butthurt because they underpaid and can't justify the contempt shown
>>933126
you're spouting nonsense and have no clue on how the industry works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZg1vrvGbdE
hurrr lets post a pic of a broken steerer
hurrr that only habben on chinee crabon
>>933151
Two things you failed to mention, and not surprising since you ride china crabbon:
1) The quality of the fiber
2) The layup method
These are the two defining features of an expensive brand name frame and fork. Trek, Scott, Cervelo etc they all put a lot of effort into it and it shows the moment you start riding.
Also the small design features like proper internally routed cables that don't rattle, flexible seat stays that improve ride comfort but don't sacrifice driveline stiffness etc.
If a chinese knock off company were to produce a 'real' frame and fork it'd cost a lot more and the savings would not be worth the ostracism and general disdain from other roadies.
It's no wonder the image crabbon has stays the same no matter how few reports of breakages there are.
>>933153
>no clue how the industry works
>let me show you how that's related to a broken chinarello
>shows vid of WorldTour pro falling off a broken Trek after 100km of cobbles in the Paris Roubaix
That broken chinarello broke because reasons.
>>932747
I got a carbon riser bar from Aliexpress and it did not have a consistent diameter. My MTB levers could not properly attach to it
After that incident, I don't put any generic carbon on my bikes except for the seatpost - least dangerous place to have a failure
>>933138
They still make decent stuff, and a few years ago every hipster and their mum had a fucking Pista.
unbranded/china carbon vs. big brand carbon
this battle will never end.
just buy a fucking bike and ride.
>>933155
>the savings would not be worth the disdain from roadies
says the cross dresser who pays $300 for a 2016 rapha hat so ze won't get hazed by zer fellow roadis
bigbike fud, you have to protect your margins
If you want to make yourself feel better you can always get an unbranded carbon frame from somebody like Nashbar. I just bought a used nashbar carbon CX bike which is just an unbranded Fuji.
>>933263
This. Options are limited but Nashbar has their return policy plus you can sue them
>>933146
Most brands still have lifetime warranty on aluminum/steel. My 2016 Raleigh does at least.
>>933267
Just want to say not all lifetime warranties are created equal.
Some are really sticklers for you having to prove it was a manufacturing defect and not wear and tear or a crash. Some pretty much just approve it as long as it wasn't crashed, and you don't admit to racing, since racing technically voids most warranties. Never mention racing.
>and the savings would not be worth the ostracism and general disdain from other roadies.
Wow, are you seriously using this as part of your argument? I'm not for or against Chinese carbon but this comment makes you sound like an autistic faggot
>>933271
I kind of agree with him. It's awkward to show up at club with a china bike, and it must be especially awkward for the guy that causes a pile up when his garbon shatters. I basically don't ride my China garbon with others
>>933155
Tell me about the carbon layup differences between a generic carbon frame and a brand frame if you know so much about all this
>>933155
>Also the small design features like proper internally routed cables that don't rattle
now I know you are just spouting bullshit
>>933272
riling up all the snobby roadies sounds like a bonus to me. I'm looking forward to it with my nashbar carbon bike. Only person I've road with since buying it has a generic steel nashbar CX bike so he can't give me any shit.
>>933312
It's spelled out on all those company's websites.
Scott's HMX carbon: https://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/products/241412022/SCOTT-Foil-Team-Issue-Bike
Trek's 600 Series OCLV: http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/road-bikes/performance-race-bikes/madone/madone-9-5/p/1472000-2016
Look for the rest yourself.
>>933315
You think that's bullshit? Go read the internet dumbass.
>>933155
1. Its carbon, do you really want to argue about quality? Burn down a fucking pizza and you get the highest quality of carbon possible
2. i've seen vids on how Zipp produces their wheelsets and there was literally no difference. People just glue layer over layer, form it by their hands, and then they bake it. thats how the chinese do it too.. There isn't even any special process involved, anyone who worked with carbon knows that
>>932755
All
>>932774
These
>>933132
People
>>933150
Too
>>933153
Poor
>>933195
To Buy
>>933315
Real
>>933492
Carbon
It's not that you are too poor though. You can't help that for one reason or another.
It's that you think people who have the money to buy properly tested and developed bikes are asshats for doing so.
>stays awake at night wanting to get back at carbon snobs
>carbon snobs sleeping like babies dreaming of the next ride
>>933495
Go read those Scott and Trek links. Come back and tell me how using different fibers in different places on the frames, layed in different directions and leaving off the cosmetic layer in places is all bullshit "that whud da Chinese do too lololol".
Protip: the chinese don't do shit except lay the fiber in the cheapest, quickest way possible
>>933151
Deng Fu is probably fine. I had two frames dropshipped from the Dashine factory (US seller, used pictures of the real thing, not the fakes), both had flaws, one had major flaws. When I posted on them on a forum, I got shitposted from both sides. The LBS shills said I deserved it for not buying from the LBS, if you aren't paying full retail it's too good to be true, etc. The China buyers claimed I was a LBS shill trying to misrepresent Chinese carbon and their China carbon was fine and I was lying to make it look bad. The shitposting got bad enough that I decided fuck it and deleted all my posts, and if people want to buy Chinese crap and not be warned, whatever.
There's absolutely no reason to make a fool of yourself, admit you made a mistake, and have everyone shit on you because of it.
>>933312
The layup is a pretty big difference, especially for counterfeit reverse engineered frames.
They don't use the same layup, usually they just use T800, instead of the original layup or mixed materials, so they have to come up with a new layup and really don't care as long as it doesn't fall apart instantly. Keep in mind the major companies make multiple versions of the same frame with different layups. The Chinese making generic frames are going to come up with a layup that's the cheapest to produce that is rideable for at least a while. The name brand companies are also going to reject bad ones, the generic ones are not so picky, and may even try to sell off the QA rejects from the big companies. This is not a unique thing to bikes, you can look up gray market stuff, and it's similar. QA rejects often get sold on the gray market, and overruns are not the same quality as the normal runs.
>>933497
>this guy thinks chinese spend their time to come up with a different process which he strawmans is inferior anyway, when they already have the official one in place
so, do they copy existing processes, or do they have their own? You can't even deciding what you want to criticize them for, using cheap techniques for cheap bikes, or not putting in the hurrdurr muh bike frame R&D and IP theft
>>933557
>what is reverse engineering
>what is reverse engineering in the cheapest way possible
>what is reverse engineering in the cheapest way possible in the factory across the street from where actual Pinarellos are made
See, it's people like yourself that throw up poorly thought out scenarios that cover only the parts of the process that you yourself can see them doing.
Do you honestly believe pulling apart a Pina Dogma F8 only to find it's made with three types of high grade carbon, laid in multiple directions in some places but not others, and overly reinforced around the BB is something these china knock off companies can even fathom trying to replicate?
It's all bullshit they just make a mold, slap the fiber down and call it a day (and call their customers chumps).
>>933557
>using cheap techniques for cheap bikes, or not putting in the hurrdurr muh bike frame R&D and IP theft
Those two things are essentially the same.
You're not very good at this are you.
Is there anybody naïve enough to believe that big brands have their super special, separated facilities?
Bike components, like a lot of products (car engines, clothing, electronics to name a few) aren't made in a lot of different, separate facilities, but in big compounds that do the manufacturing for several brands at once. Believing that Bianchi, Zipp or Ritchey have their own separate manufacturing facilities is beyond ignorance. Just as a note, since 2006/2007 Giant manufactures carbon frames for both Bianchi and Pinarello, among other brands.
Literally all carbon comes from the same place. Zipp, Easton, FFW, Shimano and Mavic use the same manufacturing facilities and the exact same carbon.
I've built plenty of wheels with chinese hubs and rims, as well as several chinese carbon frames.
>b-but muh chinese crabbon! it will esplode!! and what if my buddies see me with a FAKE?
Rtarded and insecure.
>but muh WARRANTEE
Buy from a reliable supplier.
>I like dat BIG BRAND, I wanna buy BIG BRAND!
Okay. Big brand will be happy to swallow your money, and the chinamen who manufactures your frame will have to put a PINARELLO decal before coating the frame and putting it in the oven with the other ones. Mind you, that seems to cost 1500€.
>>933560
>Do you honestly believe pulling apart a Pina Dogma F8 only to find it's made with three types of high grade carbon, laid in multiple directions in some places but not others, and overly reinforced around the BB is something these china knock off companies can even fathom trying to replicate?
Well, Pinarello bikes are made in China. So yes, chinese manufacturers seem to do what you described with no issue.
>>933563
you either stole a technology and use it, or you developed your own separately. It seems you are the one who is not into logic.
>>933568
No the same people who manufacture the frames build separate factories with inferior tech, just to please people who want low grade carbon. It is not that they just work overtime and get a batch for themselves. I mean, that would suggest industrial scale corruption.
Heck, there are people who believe Apple have different Intel processors in their hardware, which somehow uses APPLE GRADE silicon in the IC and of course they charge more for that superior atomic composition.
>>933560
it is not called reverse engineering if you build the originals and have access to the process.
On the off chance there are some rouge vendors who can compete, yes, copying a bike frame is not rocket surgery.
Wait, hold up! I need some serious sources for these dubious claims.
>>933624
>believing the pirate frames are being made by the same people who make the real deal because china is like a small, western town, right?
Top fucking autism.
I wouldn't touch pirate shit with a ten foot pole.
I have no problem with branded China stuff. Doesn't have to be a western logo on the stuff to be good. Just any logo, as long as it's their own and they are good at what they do.
>>933494
nice response faggot
you don't know anything about how carbon frames are built
there are plenty of reasons to stay away from chinese generic frames, you haven't mentioned any because you are a know nothing faggot
>>933500
another bullshiter that has no idea what he's talking about
googled 'carbon layup' didn't ya you silly little faggot
>>933568
Pinarello frames aren't made by Giant. Yes, they're made in Asia and painted in Italy. No it's not Giant.
It really doesn't matter if Giant did produce 90% of carbon frames. You're alibaba special comes from the other shitty factory making counterfeits.
Hypothetically, say there's 5 carbon factories, 1-4 produce good work. 5 is next door to a shop that makes fake Rolex. Guess where your China carbon special came from.
>>933177
You probably like sharp things in your asshole.
>>933560
>Do you honestly believe pulling apart a Pina Dogma F8 only to find it's made with three types of high grade carbon, laid in multiple directions in some places but not others, and overly reinforced around the BB is something these china knock off companies can even fathom trying to replicate?
>It's all bullshit they just make a mold, slap the fiber down and call it a day (and call their customers chumps).
You are a chump. If you knew anything about China frames, you'd know there were 2 versions of fakes of the old Dogma, with different geometries, different cable ports and had other details that were different from each other and the original. There were at least 2 different factories making fake Dogmas, and neither one produced an accurate copy. One of them skimped on details like the cable ports to use the generic china cable ports. The factories also explicitly say they're made from straight T800.
You also have counterfeits of lugged carbon, like the C59, C60 and Impec, which the Chinese replicate with fake lugs molded in. There's no way they reverse engineered those frames because the construction is completely different. They do what they normally do, they make a mold that looks good enough, and may not even be an accurate copy (Impec has wrong headset size, and round seatpost) and come up with the cheapest layup schedule that won't fall apart.
Then you have the frame that Specialized cut up proving the layup was different. Chinaese frames tend to have pretty even wall thickness and not really reinforced anywhere.
And yes they think you're a chump and will always play pretend claiming it came from original OEM factory, even when it's a copy of a LOOK made in Africa, or a BMC made in Switzerland, because idiots like you want to think a fake Rolex is the same thing as a real one.
Why don't you guys go to a real cycling forum and read a Chinese carbon thread? Instead of pulling facts from 1990's cycling magazines. Maybe then you'd see the thousands of people with positive reviews.
I bet all the shitty old 10 speeds here are rusted to fuck on the inside and are more likely to break than a Chinese carbon frame.
Do some research guys.
>>933675
I've bought Chinese frames before, by accident, and when I showed how shitty they were on a "real" forum, both the LBS shills and China shills shitposted. Your China shills claimed I was a LBS shill trying to make China carbon look bad. The LBS shills said I deserved it because I didn't buy from a LBS. Even if you read the carbon frames threads on WW or RBR, they restrict themselves to a couple suppliers, mostly Hong Fu and Deng Fu. Ask them about GreatKeen for example, and even most of the time they'll agree it's shit.
>>933678
What do you mean by "shitty"? Just because it has a paint scuff doesn't mean it's not structurally solid. If you want build quality add a zero onto the end buy a "brand name frame" If you want a high performance to cost ratio get a Chinese frame. You get what you pay for in the end.
>>933680
There was frayed carbon and a hole in the seat tube where at the seat cluster. Headset bearing seats were not smooth or parallel. Other one had aluminum race seats, but one was not round and dented before they put it in the mold. Fork had a seam on the steerer because the mold was not aligned. There was a wrinkle on the inside of the head tube that actually scraped against the steerer of the the fork. The fork dropouts were about 5mm too wide. That's what I remember off the top of my head. Remember, that's over a couple of frames, and not by Hong Fu/Deng Fu. They were counterfeits.
>You get what you pay for in the end.
I paid way more than cost of a China frame because the seller was a US seller with 100% feedback and used photos of the real thing, then dropshipped me fakes from China. Unlike most China buyers, I wasn't willing to overlook problems, and honestly the problems were not insignificant. I'm sure they would at least held together if I rode them a few miles, but that's not the point.
>>933684
And don't try to pretend that's not a problem. You could feel and hear the crunch of the stay carbon strands when you tried to put the seatpost in.
>>933684
Also one of them had a semi-loose rivnut. The kind that you can't tell it is loose until you try to attach a bottle cage, and can't tighten it, but it also spins when you try to loosen it. There were probably some other flaws I'm forgetting.
>>933627
>strawman
>ad hominem
m9, that is what they get for outsourcing. Are you suggesting the chinese build their own factory and come up with their own knock off design? Why would anyone try that, when X brand ordered 10ks last month and you could just make 11k? You can't compete with these 'pirates'. Why do 'counterfeits' come from the same countries as the originals? You can be only so gullible.
>>933688
>Are you suggesting the chinese build their own factory and come up with their own knock off design?
Yes. Yes, that's exactly what's happening. Because, you know, not everything in China was built on some dead prarie landscape by western corporations. Because not all chinese who'd like to make money already own/operate a factory with a western contract that they can just rip off.
Are you dense enough to think counterfeit clothes, money or drugs come from the official factory too?
>>933627
>I have no problem with branded China stuff. Doesn't have to be a western logo on the stuff to be good. Just any logo, as long as it's their own and they are good at what they do.
Nope. The same companies that make shitty fakes, also make shitty fakes with alternative paint jobs for people that can't quite swallow owning a counterfeit. As an obvious example, there used to be lots of Chinarellos with China brand names on them instead of Pinarello. Same frame underneath the paint. Happens for a few other frames too. Not a big deal to the counterfeit factories because most of them offer custom paint jobs anyways.
>>933691
Yes, well I was specifically not talking about counterfeit copies here, but hones to goodness bike frames that just happen to be designed and built by a chinese company. There is a legitimate industry in China, you know.
>>933691
Example, Great Keen, aforementioned shit counterfeiter, paints some of the frames with their own brand Thrust. It's because people want to believe the frames come from the same company, but don't want to get in trouble for IP laws or own a fake, but they want to convince themselves everything is the same except the logo. If/when they realize it isn't, they're not going to tell the world how retarded they were.
>>933695
There is, which is why most people on "real" forums but only from Hong Fu and Deng Fu, because they seem to have connections to one of the smaller companies that makes real OEM frames, and they probably order them with OEM export quality. They also charge a premium for it.
Still, people have run into problems with Hong Fu and Deng Fu before, as you can read on your forums. Warranty replacement happens, but it's not always easy. And of course on the off chance a frame by a reputable company does shatter into a million pieces and kills you, your family can't sure the manufacturer for lost wages and funeral costs, and you'll be buried in a shallow grave, dug up by hungry wolves within 3 days, and your family will be bankrupt and destitute.
>>933627
>I wouldn't touch pirate shit with a ten foot pole.
You are literally retarded.
>>933653
>there are plenty of reasons to stay away from chinese generic frames
Please, do name them.
>>933669
>Pinarello frames aren't made by Giant.
This is called denial.
>Yes, they're made in Asia and painted in Italy. No it's not Giant.
It's okay, you can still enjoy your Giant Pinarello.
>You're alibaba special comes from the other shitty factory making counterfeits.
You're now in denial and in severe rectal discomfort. When you name a single reason not to buy a chinese frame we can talk like adults. But "muh fee-fees" isn't a valid point.
>>933674
>And yes they think you're a chump and will always play pretend claiming it came from original OEM factory
Did a Chinarello touch you in your no-no place? Or do you always go full mongol whenever carbon frames appear? Grow up.
I have a chinese frame. A lot of friends have chinese frames. None of them have had any issues, as with must regular carbon frames. If you enjoy sucking on big brand's fat cock and adding anoher 0 to what you pay, it's your choice.
>>933690
no, because you have to compete with the people who has access to the official manufacturing
there is a difference in designer clothes, you pay exactly for the exclusivity, and it is desirable. When buying a frame, you mostly pay for functionality, and only snobs complain itt.
>drugs
why would they? It is a different market. But you can manufacture sofusbuvir and help hepatitis patients or buy sovaldi and pay for bigpharma marketing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/
>>933699
>This is called denial.
There is absolutely no proof that Giant makes Pinarello frames besides some Giant shills who claim Giant makes everyone's frames claiming so. There are in fact, other companies than Giant that are OEM suppliers of frames.
You're the one that's obviously in denial. You should accept Chinese frames for what they are. They're cheap. If you get them from a good company, they're functional. What they are not is they're not the same as big brand's flagship frames which cost 10 times as much.
Also, you don't even save that much money buying Deng Fu or Hong Fu compared to buying the Nashbar frame on sale.
>>933701
>thinking pirates compete with the real manufacturer
They don't. The douches who buy $50 LV bags would never buy a real $5000 one. And people who order "medicine" that are suger pills _if_youre_lucky_ are not the same people who have a presciption from a doctor and financial aid from a state or insurance company. You don't have to google much to see examples of big siezures of what is god knows what industrial waste in blister packs. Take the recent scandal of counterfeit baby formula, that turned out to be white paint laced with an industrial chemical that both happened to fool a common third party/state QA test, and be incredibly poisonous.
Just like the idiots who buy fake bike frames would never pay up for the real thing. You are not competing about the same customers, or even on the same market.
You are competing on the grey market, where all bets are off, there is no open competition because products have to be laundered, where you as a buyer have no way of knowing if _your_ grey bike frame is from the 'over production' in the official shop, or from any of a number of desperate/criminal people creating a similar-looking mould in a warehouse somewhere.
>>933706
>muh QA fud
>>933709
>ignores pic of shitty qa
>>933703
>There is absolutely no proof that Giant makes Pinarello frames
You are deeply autistic. Are you gonna say that Trek and Bontrager aren't made in Taiwan either?
>You should accept Chinese frames for what they are. They're cheap.
Well buddy, Pinarello frames certaintly aren't cheap, and they're as ching-chong chinese as they get.
>>933706
>a number of desperate/criminal people creating a similar-looking mould in a warehouse somewhere.
You literally have no idea how a carbon frame is made, let alone how the bike industry works. Please stop embarassing yourself.
>>933711
>You are deeply autistic. Are you gonna say that Trek and Bontrager aren't made in Taiwan either?
Trek uses Giant as one of their suppliers. This is supported by multiple sources. This is a poor attempt as deflecting.
>Well buddy, Pinarello frames certaintly aren't cheap, and they're as ching-chong chinese as they get.
Fine, generic no-name brand China frames. Are you happy now?
> You literally have no idea how a carbon frame is made, let alone how the bike industry works. Please stop embarassing yourself.
It's like you're clueless how much China flaunts IP law and lacks consumer safety regulations. In China if you have the capital, you can set up a factory to make fakes using child labor using lead paint and no one will stop you or blink twice. There's no FBI to come knocking on your door for stuff like that, as long as you don't defy the party and bring in foreign dollars.
>>933711
>other people have no idea about the nasa lazers and shit needed to carbon fiber
Please, anon, enlighten us.
Ever time.
I'm sticking to aluminum frame, steel fork.
Call me when this whole thing gets sorted out guys
>>933715
Protip your aluminum frame and steel fork were made in Chinaland
If you go with unbranded chinese carbon, get only an open mold frame from a reputable source. Don't get a brand name knock off. Inspect the frame yourself thoroughly.
And also learn the basics of how to care for carbon in the first place.
>>933151
I wouldn't risk the unusual one off frame designs.
The case you want to avoid is when your frame is a rejected for good reason frame, or a bad operator doing a shoddy job.
You should also not expect knockoffs to perform exactly like the brand names, but the difference isn't enough to make a difference for a casual rider.
>>933146
>Trek used to do a lifetime but then Richard Burke died and his shithead kids took over. Now the factories have been moved to China and all of the company policies are fucking horrible.
ftfy
>>933568
>Believing that Bianchi, Zipp or Ritchey have their own separate manufacturing facilities is beyond ignorance.
Nobody said this ever in this thread.
Nice tl;dr tho.
>>933569
Another dumbass.
>Pinarello bikes are made in China
>therefore chinese knock off companies make them EXACTLY THE SAME as the genuine items right down to the fiber type and lay method
Unsurprisingly you missed the whole point of Chinese reverse non-engineering and shoddy workmanship for a quick buck.
>>933624
Another dumbass
>you either stole a technology and use it, or you developed your own separately. It seems you are the one who is not into logic.
They steal the DESIGNS. They don't steal the PRODUCTION METHODS because they are lazy and just want your misguided "it'll be okay" dumbass money.
>>933653
Well c'mon then name what they are.
>claims someone doesn't know what they're talking about even though they cited references
>conveniently doesn't counter claim
>>933674
What the fuck. You didn't even understand my post then proceed to type out this wall of text which just CONFIRMS what I said.
Go back, and read it again.
Why is every single person here defending China knock-offs a certified, card carrying dumbass?
Honestly I'm not against cheap copies of anything, carbon bike frames included.
There's obviously a market there for people who want carbon bikes like the 'pros' but for whatever reason aren't willing to pay what the established brands ask for them. The (vastly) cheaper price must mean corners are cut somewhere, but exactly where is what people can't find out, and where the arguments arise.
Just so long as the buyer knows the chinese copy will not perform or last as long as the original, nor have the same street cred, then where's the problem? Any injury or dented egos are their fault.
>>933560
As someone who works in a technical department, I agree. My company is reverse engineering a competitor's product right now and it is a brutally disciplined feat, with multiple Phd's involved and literally months of analysis.
>>933887
t. soviet
>>933869
Problem is if they are riding/racing in a group and cause injury to others
That being said, i dont think anyone who is retarded enough to buy chinacarbon races, least i hope not
>>933869
>The (vastly) cheaper price must mean corners are cut somewhere, but exactly where is what people can't find out, and where the arguments arise.
yes, people can hide behind the speculation argument because no one will post an evidence, but between black and white riddle me this, why knock offs come from the same country where the originals are manufactured? Anyone could produce counterfeits, they don't even need to reverse engineer Pinarello's secret sauce as people itt suggest.
>>934001
>why knock offs come from the same country where the originals are manufactured?
They don't. Some of the real ones come from China. Pretty much all the fake ones come from China. BMC Impec is made in Switzerland, Colnago C59/C60s are at least assembled in Italy, even if the tubes and lugs are imported. Neither Chinese copy uses real lugs. LOOK frames are made in Africa. Keep in mind, there's a whole slew of bikes made in Taiwan, which is not the same as the PRC.
>Anyone could produce counterfeits, they don't even need to reverse engineer Pinarello's secret sauce as people itt suggest.
Because China has long been a place that makes counterfeits of lots of shit. They have industry and supply chains. Labor is cheap. The Chinese government doesn't give a shit about IP violations. China also has a relatively big carbon fiber industry.
Also, specifically about the pinarello, the Chinarellos didn't even reverse engineer a real dogma. They just made a "replica" with obvious differences if you knew where to look. One of the new popular frames to copy is the De Rosa Super King 888, which again has two versions and some obvious differences. One of them does not have the RD cable leaving the chainstay the way it does on the real one.
All of this has already been covered in this thread, you're just in denial.
>>932747
Carbon weave and modulus in certain areas of the frame are claimed to make a huge difference in the frame's over all rigidness and compliance (handling). I dunno how much of that is bullshit since the people that have done this type of testing have some stake with big name some companies.
All I know is that unless you ride with your rubbers inflated to 120psi, you can't really tell a difference in comfort and handling. Most of that is predicated on tire set-up.
I've owned a pair of chinese carbon clinchers for the past 2 years. I've logged in well over 10k miles on em without a problem. Granted, I don't do much, if any high speed downhills. Or maybe I just lucked out and got a good set.
>>933494
It's bullshit, son because I own a cannondale synapse 'hi-mod' with internal cabling and the damn fucking cables rattle (not often) regardless of how well I adjust tension or tire pressure.
>>934009
Here's the thing. Even if 1-in-2 China frames is shit, that still leaves 50% of the people never having problems. Consider that many people riding fakes are just poseur freds who barely ride and just want a status symbol without paying for it, they might ride a defective frame but never ride enough or hard enough that it becomes a problem by the time they get rid of it.
The layup thing is one of those diminishing returns things. Just like a butted steel frame vs a straight gauge one. There's a difference, but that doesn't mean that the straight gauge one is unridable. The thing is China carbon fags basically like to say their UO-8 is the same as a PX-10 because it comes from the same factory when it obviously isn't true. They can't accept they bought a cheaper frame. They have to convince themselves they did good and bought a frame just as good as the real thing for a 1/10th the price.
>>934011
You might be right, but there have been instances of daily riders putting some of these chinese carbon frames through some serious riding. Although, there arent that many. But to imply that serious riders only ride name brand gear is preposterous. Not everyone makes bank to buy nice things.
>>934014
Name brand bikes aren't that expensive if you buy a Fuji instead of a Colmago
>>933495
There's a real science to how you orient the fibers though, but I'm sure a decent carbon factory could do that almost as good as the big brand factories.
>>934155
But they won't. Because a China frame is designed to be cheap. A high end frame is designed to be expensive. The R&D and extra labor are used to justify the high price for the high profit margins even though there's diminishing returns. There's no incentive for a China generic to do the same thing, as the point is to produce a cheap frame, not pursue small expensive marginal gains.
>>934159
Fyi "branded" production usually inflates price heavily.
With the Chinese nobrand stuff you can get an identical frame, or you can get one that didn't pass QC but no one really checked. That's where those things fail: no quality control.
But even then, the frame might live a happy life in your hands because the QC is aimed at extreme stress levels.
Not suggesting to buy chinese nobrand, just that it's not inherently bad. For example today you can still buy shady brand Korean 27" screens that are built on the same panel Apple uses for half the price, but some of those didn't pass QC so you might get a dead pixel. Same thing.
>>934180
>Fyi "branded" production usually inflates price heavily.
No it doesn't. Stop looking at Treks made in America for $10,000, look at low end Fuji, Ridley (which have both been used in the tour) or house bikes from Nashbar, Scattante, BD carbon. The prices are not that much higher than buying a Chinese frame. You guys always draw up these false comparisons because you want the status symbol of a Dogma at a fraction of the cost, when you can buy something just as functional as your fake China bike for only a little more buy getting lower end carbon, which is what you get from a fake anyways, and a second tier brand, which is still a better brand than no brand. A DengFu costs around $550 shipped. A Nashbar frame costs $480 with one of their regular 20% off sales, plus tax (~$50) and oversize fee ($15), so they actually cost pretty much the same.
>With the Chinese nobrand stuff you can get an identical frame
No you don't. Don't even try this. They cut corners to lower costs. It's not identical, and you can pretend they are, but it's provably false, unless your idea of a name brand is Ritte.
>But even then, the frame might live a happy life in your hands because the QC is aimed at extreme stress levels.
See >933684
No you just get shitty QC, especially if it's from random Aliexpress seller 723
>>934183
>but it's provably false
ok I'm waiting
>>934187
It's been mentioned several times in the thread how the fakes are materially different.
Fake frames are almost always made out of T800, it's cheap and readily available in China, even if the real thing uses different fibers. Almost every fake frame will be advertised as T800, they don't even hide this fact.
There are fake frames of bikes made in other countries, there's no way the counterfeit factory in China is smuggling LOOK tooling from Africa.
There are fake frames using different construction methods than the originals, like BMC and Colnago which use lugged construction, but the Chinese copies just mold in fake lugs.
There are actual differences in the frames from the originals. One version of Chinarellos uses different cable ports and a different shape seatpost. The other one uses different geometry from the original. Hangers are often different. The fake Bianchis use a carbon dropout instead of a forged aluminum one because the Chinese don't have access to the original parts. The fake Impec has the wrong headset size, is not lugged, and has a round instead of an aero seatpost. The fake De Rosa has the chainstays shaped differently from the real thing where the cable leaves it.
Every one of these fakes is a fake, and not a good copy either. They simply make the cheapest frame that is sort of usable that resembles the real thing. They aren't identical at all.
The only time they're identical is when you get non-brands like Ritte, pretend like they're a real name brand, and all they do is import generic Chinese frames with fancy paint jobs.
This doesn't apply to actual name brands. Actual name brands will usually make sure their molds are exclusive, if, and that's a big if, they're using one of these factories. More likely, they're using a factor that doesn't sell on Aliexpress or eBay, and does OEM only. There's no way a big company like say Giant or Merida, is going to risk a production contract by selling a few on the side.
>>933680
>If you want a high performance to cost ratio get a Chinese frame
Not much money
Not much performance
When I pick up a frame that is lighter than my dick I really don't want it to be a Chinese piece of shit using the cheapest materials available. I at least want to to be a Chinese piece of shit that will last a while instead of cracking in half and impaling my anus on a rough descent.
How do you guys feel about having your anus impaled? Do you ever have nightmares about it? Does it give you anxiety while you ride?
Interesting thread. Some good explanations about the chinese corner cutting. I never would've considered a chinese frame just on the cost factor alone (how can something a quarter of the price be almost as good? Just doesn't make sense). And their culture of badly copying stuff doesn't inspire confidence at all, espcially something that you can easily go 40mph on.
>>934310
This as well. Even if 1000 people all swore that their chinese frame was good quality and they never had problems I still couldn't ignore my conscience. You just never know with the cheap copies and to me anyway it's not worth ignoring my own better judgement. I mean, who does that?
>>934310
>>934314
>b-but mommeh I'm afraid 2 go fast!!
>le esploding crabbon me-me xDDD
You're simply going full-blown autismo. The "chinese crabbon exploding on group rides and killing everyone" is an urban legend, it's not meant to be taken literally.
As I see, all your arguments against using chinese unbranded carbon frames are that you're afraid. Please, present some valid arguments so we can discuss like adults. Your feelings aren't a valid argument, you're now 12 anymore.
>>934318
>As I see, all your arguments against using chinese unbranded carbon frames are that you're afraid
You can't be serious. You calling me "autismo" when you're the one who can't even understand what you're reading? Here, let me point it out for you:
I said
>their culture of badly copying stuff doesn't inspire confidence at all
> I still couldn't ignore my conscience. You just never know with the cheap copies
You said
>you're afraid
It's called being cautious. What are you anyway? The china copy buying taskforce?
To everyone in here who realizes that it really doesn't matter, you honestly can't expect all these wealthy cyclists who think 1 grand is nothing to ever change their minds. I mean seriously, these are the people who call a 3 thousand dollar bike cheap. Lol.
Basically, don't bother trying to convince them, they want to feel special for having all this money they can throw around on extremely expensive bikes etc lel, so obviously, they'll never admit it doesn't matter.
>>934325
No, we normal people buy brand name frames on sale, or from last years models. You can buy a genuine 2015 Cannondale CAAD10 Disc for £370 (about $410).
Why the flaming fuck would you buy pirate meme-of-the-year-frame copies, when geniune brand name high end frames cost about as much?
>>934192
thanks for summing up this thread, but provably means evidence, with actual references or data, otherwise it still just propaganda
>>934314
If I were tasked to defend bike corps on a cartoon board I would probably write something like this. Start with something neutral, then subtly going anti chinese and finally finish with pls somebody think of the children.
*I'm not implying anything, and sure you are a concerned customer voicing their opinion.
i was watching a documentary about gerolsteiner team. as soon as they figure out the perfect riding position for a rider, a single guy in switzerland who makes the TT bike frames for the team gets assigned to build it.
i am not a professional but from my pov carbon frames are not rocket science and since the chinese build the frames for almost every brand, i dont understand how you can question the quality. ofc there is a chance to get shit quality but if you buy from a reputable manufacturer, there should be no problem.
oh, and here is the documentary. its german, the guy building the frames starts getting to work at around 11 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsKN84J6fyM
>>934330
I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in Carbon Frame Science, there is a separate element called Giant Carbon, its symbol is capital C-G, with a little dick, hanging off the C, that bends around and fucks the G in the ass. It has the same allotropes as carbon, but vastly superior properties, look it up.
>>934330
>I one saw a single guy with a beard and funny shoes chisel a life-like head out of a block of marble. So how hard can it be, right?
my china carbon is holding up well and i love it. This is a hong fu which i think is the same as a deng fu, anyway this frame had p.good reviews. they changed the d-hanger on the new ones prob cause of some asshat on mtbr forums. My mechanic seemed to like the frame and the only issue i've had is cable slap on the bars and fitting it in a bike rack (platform rack on its way today- hope it clamps the top tube well enough). I saved about $1000 over the cost of a scott spark- very similar geometry but slightly less read travel.
>>934328
You are a retard in complete denial.
You can literally look up any fake frame on aliexpress, and it will say made with T800 or T1000, when a real dogma Torayca 65HM1K.
search "2016 carbon road bike frame carbon bicycle full fiber carbon dogm 65.1 chinese hot frames" on dhgate
http://www.pinarello.com/en/bike2014/road/dogma-65.1
That covers the materials for pretty much any frame that claims some proprietary materials, layup or mix of materials. Chinese frames are made from straight T800, or straight T1000 as an upgraded version.
They're not even from the same molds. You can tell the cable ports are different. Especially the think2 Di2/brake port on the top tube.
>>934457
> T800
> T1000
are they making terminators?
>>934470
Yes.
>>934327
>CAAD10 Disc
>Disc
Found the guy who doesn't race. Only reason a road frame from the big wigs will be that cheap is because you can't fucking race on it so no one is buying it. lol.
>>934473
>normal people race professionally
I assume this is a parody of ridiculous /n/ bike autism and not a genuine belief
>>934457
that is still just your opinion, so into the trash it goes.
I guarantee you if I were to present you with 2 bikes, one chinese and one 'original', you would not notice the difference, because they are the same most of the time.
Yes, there are counterfeits that you can tell apart easily by looks, so what? You just sounds like a carbon snob, that you would otherwise notice any difference riding them champ.
>>934485
>theyre identical
>but theyre not really identical
>a fake rolex can be passed off as a real rolex to most plebs so its just your opinion man
Do you even know what the word identical mean?
>>934498
>rolex: valuable because it's valuable, hangs onto ridiculous anachronisms like variable inertia balance wheels that literally everyone else abandoned 100 years ago and can only be adjusted by trained swiss virgins with a proprietary tool made by rolex itself, oh it needs service? better take it to the RSC so it doesn't "lose value", now watch while they swap out half the parts including the dial and crown, and give you whatever they had lying around that will physically fit in/on the case, fuck you if you thought your rolex was valuable because it was "all original parts" we're the RSC and we do whatever we want, also here is a bill for $1700 for work that would have cost $300 at a normal watchmaker, because we're the RSC so fuck you and your mother
>fauxlex: comes with top-grade ETA movement which can be serviced by literally anyone and keeps just as good time as a rolex
as a rolex owner, the other guy is in the right here.
you should be more careful with your money in the future.
>>934503
Buy a Seiko, and stop pretending a Lolex is identical to a Rolex.
You're a fucking moron.
>>934505
How he can't pretend he owns a Rolex if it says Seiko on it.
>>934505
it's ok to admit you're going through post-purchase rationalization
at least I can admit I bought my rolex because it's a rolex
you can't admit you bought your snob carbon so your fred friends wouldn't make fun of you and here you are on the internet stamping your feet and crying like a baby
>>934507
No, it's because you don't know what the word identical fucking means.
You said identical. They're not identical. Then you claim you never meant identical, even though you said identical, and started projecting to justify your stupidity.
I own a Nashbar carbon bike, and as I said before, I've been in possession of a couple of poor quality fakes, and I paid only a little more than a Alibaba carbon bike would have cost me.
>it's ok to admit you're going through post-purchase rationalization
Oh my fucking god, Nashbar ripped me off a whole $20 over buying a frame China direct, whatever shall I do. I need to rationalize it, well there's the faster shipping, no dealing with importing shit, the lifetime guarantee, the assurance that they're not trying to dump a factory reject on me, it it spontaneously explodes I can sue them, and I had a gift card to use. Muh post-purchase rationalization.
>you can't admit you bought your snob carbon so your fred friends wouldn't make fun of you
Go ahead and pretend your fake rolex is real though, because your little ego demands stroking and you're too good to wear a seiko but you can't afford a real rolex except on an anonymous image board. Oh wait, that's you. You bought a fake rolex because muh status symbol and even though a rolex is shit I need something that says rolex on it, and I'm going to buy a chinarello because if my bike has a brand like Fuji on it all my fred friends will make fun of me.
>>934507
>the post-purchase rationalization of someone that bought a chinarello
>guys i have a real rolex i really do even though my pinraello is fake
You seem really obsessed with worthless status symbols
>>934513
>tl;dr
no but seriously I didn't even read that. I'm not your e-adversary, just trying to help you understand that the value of status symbols is real, but not in the way you'll admit
>>934515
You seem to be under the impression I own a "real" status symbol. My most expensive watch is a Poljot because I liked the styling and wanted a mechanical chronograph, not because I expect anyone to recognize a Poljot. I don't care about owning a status symbol bike. I don't own one either.
My point is you can get something that's very good, like a Seiko relative to a Rolex, for much less than a Rolex. The dichotomy between having to buy either a Rolex or a Lolex is a false one unless you want to look like you own a Rolex. And that's why you try to make post-purchase rationalization about how your fake Rolex is identical to the real thing when you could have just bought a Seiko.
Clearly your rolex is fake, and your bike is fake, and you buy status symbols to affect wealth. You probably have a fake Armani tag sewn onto the sleeve of your suit.
You're a poser.
>>934515
>you can't admit you bought your snob carbon so your fred friends wouldn't make fun of you and here you are on the internet stamping your feet and crying like a baby
>just trying to help you understand that the value of status symbols is real, but not in the way you'll admit
>he bought his fake china carbon because he needed a status symbol but hes too poor to buy real status symbols
>>934318
No it's not. Well not completely. There was a guy who raced on Chinese carbon wheels, and wheels tend to fail more than frames. Anyways, he caused a huge crash and caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage, and as you can imagine he wasn't every popular after that because he tried to save a few bucks.
>>934517
>he bought a Soviet novelty watch
disgusting, even a timex would be better
and no all I have right now is steelisreal, I sold my last carbon bike in 2005. the fascination ended long ago
>>934524
>buying memesteel as a status symbol
>>934536
no, I bought it because I don't have to take it to the local hospital for an MRI every time the bike falls over, something bangs on it, or whatever.
a watch, you can baby. a bike, not so much. bikes get used outdoors, see. you'd understand if you rode every now and then.
>>934540
>buys china crap fake status symbol
>constantly worried bike will explode
>buy guys its just as good
>youre just paying for status symbol
Toppest of keks
>>934540
>Concludes fancy lawyer meaning
>Hey Jimmy did you just get that, Submariner, right?
>Y-yeah...
>Lets grab a coffee so we can go over some of the details for that case
>steps outside
>Hey Jimmy why you taking off your Rolex?
>Uh I need to baby it it doesn't like sunlight...
>Huh? Never heard that one before, let me see that
>it says lolex
>yfw
Gif related is what's up with Chinese frames.
>>934560
>Helmet flies off
AWWW SHEIT
>>934575
Helmet must have been made in China too. Funny thing is he didn't even get hurt.
>his body must not have been made in China
>>934544
at the time I bought my carbon bike, bikes like that were made in USA
it's very unlikely your "status carbon" wasn't made in china, so your keks must be directed at your own bad judgment
either way, I'm done with having a heart attack any time my bike gets touched by someone or something that isn't the delicate fleshy tips of my fingers, you can have fun with your honeymoon though, until you get a shard through your eye socket, or you decide to go with something that actually makes sense for normal people who don't get a free frame from their sponsor after a minor crash
>>934656
m80 you're the only one buying fake rolexes and fake chinese carbon as status symbols
theres lots of affordable name brand carbon around
>>934657
I'm not your m80, but you bought a cdale chinese carbon because of the words stenciled on the frame when you could have got a dengfu or whatever. I bought a USA made carbon OCLV frame because I wanted a carbon bike and that's where carbon frames came from back in the days before ali baba.
you're a fool, and you were parted from your money because you were afraid freds would laugh at you. sorry about that :(
>>934659
>you bought a cdale chinese carbon because of the words stenciled on the frame
>all that projecting
>but muh rolex
>>934660
It's pretty obvious the guy has never owned a rolex or a carbon bike and is just an OTS shitposter with plans to buy a Deng Fu trying to justify his shitty purchase.
>>934344
stupid analogy is stupid.
>>934675
>there is no level of craftsmanship going into bespoke carbon frames
Yes, terrible analogy. Just terrible.
>>934664
Ok Mr.Rolex
>>934676
>carbon frame made in a matter of hours, a craftmanship that can be learned within a week
>marblestatue made in a matter of months, if not years. let alone learning to properly utilize your tools.
>same level of craftmanship
keep pretending your brandnamed frames are built in a secret lab by scientists working with secret magical materials and metods.
>>934685
Keep prentending your copy is made by trained, skilled people on a high standard production line.
>>934687
keep pretending that strawmanning obvious counterfeits will somehow makes a difference to all the other frames that are made in the same factory just taken home by savvy Chinese guys
>>934961
This is reality:
- Brand names like Scott make their middle and high end (road) frames in Taiwan. It's a contracted OEM who faces legal action if they are found to have aided counterfeiting of the products they produce. The carbon construction process is not out of the ordinary except for the unique design elements by Scott. There's no magic involved apart from any specific methods used in the layup process required by the frame design.
- Chinese counterfeit frames are roughly based on frame like those above with design elements that are only outwardly similar. Any specific methods used in the carbon layup aren't copied. They are tested only as far as basic structural strength, any additional tests that would be required because of the specific layup methods aren't even considered. The resins used are the cheapest and just enough to pass the basic structural strength test.
The counterfeit frames are not made by contracted OEMs. They are 'cowboys' who have nothing to lose by making cheap copies and have no reason to persist with extra quality, design features or more rigorous testing than what the absolute MINIMUM required to get it past regulations.
Those regulations are what anyone who buys cheap chinese copies should be worried about. If you're a Fred who doesn't stress his bike at all then you probably don't have much to worry about.
I can see those ITT that are against chinese copies are probably more concerned with how quickly THEY can break a counterfeit frame, rather than the individual frame's ability to withstand usual commuting or junk miles weekend rides. A lot of people out there would rather trust a large well established company than some random faceless chinese factory.
>>935040
Taiwan is a region of China whole (Google one China policy) any legal restrictions America places on Taiwan a nullified by the PRC
Which is why you can't sue anyone in China or sue Kim Jung UN or putin
>>935050
You can't really sue companies in the USA either, you can basically only sue individuals because anything you buy or subscribe to is bound by an arbitration agreement.
The only thing companies fear is bad press, and then again, not really, only a little.
But the point is, buying something made in "the west" because you can sue the manufacturer is pure delusion. It isn't 1974 anymore, shit just doesn't work that way.
>>935058
You can sue brands all the time class action lawsuit suits happen daily
>>934520
>There was a guy
Who? Lying on the internet is free.
>>934560
that's just carbon frames in general
carbon fiber has a piss poor rockwell and impact strength and the material is only "space age" when utilized in manner that requires a high tensile strength
everything else is just marketing
>>933157
a brand new bike from a world renowned brand breaking after 100km is rubbish. Idk if all roadies have low standards but you guys seem to just accept that your zipps and 5 grand frames will just break after 2 years of standard road riding and thats normal. fuck that, the industry knows you'll be back to buy their stuff again so why improve?
>>936895
Hincapie's crash happened because of a broken aluminum steerer. He crashed earlier in the day, which caused a microscopic crack to occur in the steerer, and the cobbles caused the crack to widen and ultimately the steerer failed.
