Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

Dangerous Bikes

8K views 68 replies 39 participants last post by  DrD 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Chinese and other have been counterfiting name brands for years, this is nothing new it is all about dollar & cents.

Recently the Secret Service busted a very cleaver gentleman out west who reverse engineered all the safety feature in current currency. He passed his fakes for years before anyone ever releazed what was going on.

There is a site on the net going by Oakley Vault, site look real like they are an Oakley Outlet Store, and selling over run at big discounts. Nephew told me about it, on his facebook page saying look at the deals.

Everything is just knockoffs, or counterfilt depending upon what you wist to call items that are fake.
 
#9 ·
I'm pretty sure that Oakley Vault is legit. They're selling overstock and discontinued Oakleys, not counterfeits. The fakes are sold on Chinese sites for ridiculously low prices. $20-$25. I ordered a pair once just to see what they were like. The frame snapped in less than a month. :lol:
 
#3 ·
I've been hit with strong wind before and had the front end shimmy.

I guess on the counterfeits you get front end shimmy all the time no matter what. That's a lot of shimmy. What would even be the point of riding a bike?

I go above 40mph on every ride, often times above 50mph. The contact patch on my tires look to be around 5 or 6mm wide. I have no safety protection at all outside of a rigid helmet.

Not really the place to be taking chances.
 
#4 ·
Unless I can see believable numbers comparing counterfeit frames failing at speed with high-quality frames doing the same thing, I'm going to look at this with a grain of salt. I don't doubt for a minute that counterfeits are low-quality. But to infer that counterfeits cause injury or death and the genuine stuff doesn't is a bit of a stretch in my view.
 
#7 ·
Crazy to cut up a new bike just to test it against a fake bike. All for science though. What I took from it is that in the counterfeit there is nothing but cheap carbon fiber and it's basically evenly distributed throughout the frame. So no fancy layup, no fancy carbon fiber, nothing fancy, just filling the mold evenly with cheap material. No big surprise there. They had issue with a glued in alloy cupped headset setup. I'm guessing that's the root of the never ending shimmy on the bike. I'm also guessing that is where their death trap and dangerous comments come from.

I've ridden an open mold frame before and was quite impressed with it's performance in the limited time I rode it. I'm going to guess again and say those might actually have a thought out layup or maybe even moderate quality carbon fiber. It had a fully molded carbon headtube unlike the counterfeit they tested. That alone could make a big difference? It does seem to me that maybe they got a particularly bad or dangerous example, as they describe it it really can't be ridden safely at all.
 
#35 ·
Difference between a Counterfeit frame and a "no-name" brand.

Counterfeits are breaking laws (e.g. Patent, Trademark, Copyright), so I would not trust their processes.

No-name are using open (source?) molds, and are not breaking any obvious laws.

Now, the open source molds are not as advanced as the high-end brand name CF bikes, but their probably equivalent to the low end brand name CF bikes.

If you want a top-end CF bike, buy from a brand name.

If you want a low-end CF bike, then a "no name" brand may be just as good.

GH
 
#14 ·
It is clear from this test that the counterfit isn't as strong or as a well finished product. The question is whether those differences are so far up the scale in terms of forces applied during normal use that functionally it does not make a difference or whether they indeed do. Anyone has any insight as to what type of pressures are SOP on under standard riding conditions?
 
#19 ·
counterfeits are not the same as open mold. There are a lot of fine open mold frames available - they typically have no branding or have an obscure name. Counterfeit frames are different. They are made to look like a branded high end bike, including graphics and branding logos. Their makers try to mimic tube shapes, weights, etc. They don't care about the integrity of the construction. They do the same with handlebars that have been investigated and found to have extremely thin walled construction to weigh the same as the originals. Obviously, if you're using the cheapest materials you can, then matching weights is going to mean a structurally inferior products.

There was a forum in Spain about a group buy of fake Pinarello bikes that started to fail at an alarming rate very soon after they arrived.

Some people buy counterfeit frames unknowingly (people who don't believe that if a deal is too good to be true, then it is). Others buy them thinking they are stolen out of the real factory or made from stolen molds.
 
#20 ·
Bicycling is risky enough as it is. Sure, it's sometimes cool to take a walk on the wild side, especially if it isn't lightening your wallet all that much. But if I didn't have the bucks to get that Pinarello or S-Works, I'd be thinking of my precious noggin and just buying that happy, unassuming alu Trek with Shimano Sora. Then again, whenever I buy new tires for my car I never fail to purchase the cheapest retreads.
 
#23 ·
The article clearly demonstrates that the frames are not equal, but it doesn't demonstrate that the frames are dangerous. Yes the fake frames fail at a lower value, it doesn't mean the frame is dangerous. BTW I don't condone counterfeiting.
 
#62 ·
I'm repeating some previous comments that I think bear repeating:



First of all, I don't support the fakes. In fact, I don't even like most things made in China. Having said that, the velonews article is a piece that is best described as:

- pseudo science
- anecdotal
- sensationalilsm
- a plug piece for Specialized (I would not be surprised if Specialized donated their frame)

The article mentions all these metrics of the carbon of the Sworks, all these fancy psi numbers. The fact is if they were to take an Evo, Foil, Dogma, C60, or any other carbon bikes out there, including the lowest of the low carbon bikes, they would have numbers that are different from the S-works. And since the Lab did not stipulate the range of numbers that would be considered "safe" (they couldn't because they don't know what constitute safety in a statistical sense), all the numbers really means nothing. The only significant (pseudo conclusion) the lab could make of the numbers is that "lower numbers" must be unsafe. Real science there with rigor data backing up the bold claim of the intended piece, eh. Yeah right!

Kiddies bikes from Wally's world made in China are basically crap, yet do we hear of kids dying from riding a cheap Chinese aluminum bikes much? No we don't.

It's a shame that Velonews is more into sensationalism than science, when this topic of frame safety can really use real science. Velonews must think that their readers have low critical thinking or what? It's cute that Velonews mentioned Mr. Parson, who is a triathlete and a motocross racer; it's as if to highlight the deviousness of the Chinese that they can even tempt a triathlete and motocrosser into buying a fake.

Well I actually know a guy whose Tarmac steerer column snapped (his Tarmac was one of those recalled due to the steerer tube issue, but for whatever reason he did not get the memo), and he ended up with a mangled and severly bruised face, broken teeth, fracture jaw, and a few days in the hospital. He has quit riding since his accident, and was in the process of fielding his legal options last I heard from him.

It seems that most people here have overlooked what I believe to be the crux of the "unsafe counterfeit bikes" argument. A couple of you early on mentioned the high speed wobbles, which surely are the result of an important factor mentioned in the article: that none of the tube lengths on the counterfeit frame matched those of the original. The big companies do the research to make sure that their bikes handle as well as possible. When a bike is made to a bad design, it is unstable and thus unsafe.

I'll stay away from them, thank you.
No way can you draw this conclusion. Could be rider skills, wheels, tires, cross winds, any number of things that have nothing to do with the frame.

Well, we're back to the belief that big-name bikes don't and counterfeit bikes do fly apart at the seams of their own accord. With nothing to substantiate that belief, I can't share it.
My friend's Trek Madone, bought locally wobbles regularly. Nobody should buy a Trek Madone, and nobody should ever use a Trek shop - they are dangerous. All of them.
 
#24 ·
I know this cautionary tale has been told on here multiple times, but it's interesting to see a full story written about it.

Not all frames are created equal. A look deep inside the carbon in counterfeit bikes - VeloNews.com
Well a few thoughts here.
First, A company like Specialized or Pinarello has a financial interest in pointing out flaws in the look-a-like frames. Secondly why are the copies bad, but not the frames made in China and sold under bikes direct, aliexpress or under the label of a more familiar brand? A friend who races and formerly owned a Bikes Direct Titanium in a larger size complained often about bike wobble on descents until he finally replaced it with a Parlee z5.
 
#26 ·
Ever tried to warranty a counterfeit? A company like Specialized who has their frames produced in China sells them with a warranty. They have an interest in making sure that the frames are constructed according to high standards. Counterfeiters only care about building them to the point where they look good, and work (not necessarily "work well" though).
 
#29 ·
I recently sat down and had a chat with a person who works for a company that sells counterfeit frames. Basically, they exist because people don't want, or cannot, pay for a genuine frame. Of course, but they assume that EVERYONE knows the risks of buying counterfeit and have absolutely no sympathy when things go wrong. They are also betting that their average customer will not have the physical ability to reach the limits of their frames, and that they will be okay with buying a new frame after 4-5 years because they 'only' spent a few hundred dollars. They are not in the business to build a reputation; it's all for the money. They have contingency plans in place in the event that they are shut down, and will sprout back up like weeds in a different location and with a different name.

We may see them as unscrupulous, but in their eyes, they are filling a need and providing a useful service. No one is forcing you to buy from them, but if you do, caveat emptor. So at the end of the day, while this company produces some really nice looking frames, I will never buy one. Not when I know how they view us as a consumer--nothing more than fat wallets with small brains.
 
#33 ·
Not when I know how they view us as a consumer--nothing more than fat wallets with small brains.
Hate to break it to you...everyone you pay a bill every month to views you exactly the same way.

Your ISP, your mortgage holder, your insurance companies, your credit card company, your bank....Yes, even Specialized or Trek or whomever bought your bike from....only difference in the later is they are big enough to care about the reputation of their brand to warranty their product.


Why else do you think Trek/Specialized/everyone has $10,000 cookie-cutter off the rack sized plastic frames? The fat-wallet and small brain segment, who will pay anything for the "best".
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Loving
#30 ·
It is possible to save a lot of money on a legitimate
used carbon frame with good pictures on Ebay. I
realize this in and of itself is sort of cheating. I paid
$600 for a one year old major manufacturers top leve
frame and there is not a mark on it. Frankly this option,
while involving some risk, is personally preferable
to buying a counterfeit unknown materials and assembly
frame to bomb a downhill at 45mph. Frankly, you guys
are nuts.
 
#31 ·
I was wondering when someone would bring the fact that it illegal to import and sell counterfeit frames. Replica frames are something different. an example of a replica frame would be a specialized frame designed and painted to look like one of their tour frames.

The issue is not where the frames are made. It's about trying to trade on another companies reputation. This is the basis of trademark law.

Someone mentioned buying a used frame as cheating, and to be honest, I don't see the correlation. Buying a used frame is completely legal. My apologies if I misunderstood the comment
 
#32 ·
This gets to the root of the matter.

A replica is produced by the company to replicate something that their pro team or sponsored athletes use (see things like Pearl Izumi's old school Garmin Irish National Championship kit or Specialized's replica yellow bike for Contador's tour wins.) Counterfeit is produced by some other company that copies the legitimate product with a (generally inferior) facsimile.

I don't care about replica stuff, in fact some of it is really attractive. Counterfeiters can sit and spin, and so can those who buy their junk.
 
#37 ·
First of all, I don't support the fakes. In fact, I don't even like most things made in China. Having said that, the velonews article is a piece that is best described as:

- pseudo science
- anecdotal
- sensationalilsm
- a plug piece for Specialized (I would not be surprised if Specialized donated their frame)

The article mentions all these metrics of the carbon of the Sworks, all these fancy psi numbers. The fact is if they were to take an Evo, Foil, Dogma, C60, or any other carbon bikes out there, including the lowest of the low carbon bikes, they would have numbers that are different from the S-works. And since the Lab did not stipulate the range of numbers that would be considered "safe" (they couldn't because they don't know what constitute safety in a statistical sense), all the numbers really means nothing. The only significant (pseudo conclusion) the lab could make of the numbers is that "lower numbers" must be unsafe. Real science there with rigor data backing up the bold claim of the intended piece, eh. Yeah right!

Kiddies bikes from Wally's world made in China are basically crap, yet do we hear of kids dying from riding a cheap Chinese aluminum bikes much? No we don't.

It's a shame that Velonews is more into sensationalism than science, when this topic of frame safety can really use real science. Velonews must think that their readers have low critical thinking or what? It's cute that Velonews mentioned Mr. Parson, who is a triathlete and a motocross racer; it's as if to highlight the deviousness of the Chinese that they can even tempt a triathlete and motocrosser into buying a fake.

Well I actually know a guy whose Tarmac steerer column snapped (his Tarmac was one of those recalled due to the steerer tube issue, but for whatever reason he did not get the memo), and he ended up with a mangled and severly bruised face, broken teeth, fracture jaw, and a few days in the hospital. He has quit riding since his accident, and was in the process of fielding his legal options last I heard from him.
 
#63 ·
The fact is if they were to take an Evo, Foil, Dogma, C60, or any other carbon bikes out there, including the lowest of the low carbon bikes, they would have numbers that are different from the S-works....
.
Those other bikes wouldn't post the same numbers but they would, each and every one, post numbers much closer to the Specialized in the tests that measure critical strength. They will because they all sell complete bikes in the US and Europe so they must meet minimum strength standards set by CPSC and CEN to be legally sold as bicycles.

Counterfeit companies selling consumer direct have no such burden. You also cannot touch them legally if something terrible happens to you at the fault of their product.

The counterfeit bike posted numbers between one half and one quarter the strength of the Specialized. Would you feel comfortable racing a bike you expected was only 25% as strong as another?
 
#40 ·
There definitely is. Some are truly trying to become mainstream brands and are starting to develop products behind just the open mold stuff. Bufalo Bike from Taiwan and Yoeleo (mostly known for their carbon wheels) are decent examples. Bufalo's Slipstream actually isn't all that bad looking:

BUFALO BIKE - HOME
 
#47 ·
It seems that most people here have overlooked what I believe to be the crux of the "unsafe counterfeit bikes" argument. A couple of you early on mentioned the high speed wobbles, which surely are the result of an important factor mentioned in the article: that none of the tube lengths on the counterfeit frame matched those of the original. The big companies do the research to make sure that their bikes handle as well as possible. When a bike is made to a bad design, it is unstable and thus unsafe.

I'll stay away from them, thank you.
 
#48 ·
The big companies do the research to make sure that their bikes handle as well as possible. When a bike is made to a bad design, it is unstable and thus unsafe.

I'll stay away from them, thank you.

Me too, not to mention the lack of Liability insurance underwriting. You can bet your sweet bippy the big companies have it and a lot to loose if they put dangerous products out there.

I'll take the 90s OCLV first...
 
#51 ·
We know that the bikes made by the big companies are reviewed by the press - the magazines and websites - who are quick to point out bad handling in any machine they review. We also know that minute changes to the geometry can result in bad handling - as well as the other factors involved. Thus I feel relatively safe in assuming that I'm not going to get a dangerous riding bike from one of the major companies but am far less sanguine about the handling of a bike from a fly by night manufacturer.
 
#53 ·
FWIW my '08 Bianchi HoC SL has a aluminum cups in the headset. They did come loose (both top and bottom) and had to be re-glued by Bianchi, but it wasn't the end of the world.

As many people have pointed out, this article is far from revealing. It's not surprising that the counterfeit bike is not as strong, but is it weak to the point of where it's dangerous? The article doesn't answer this question.

I'd like to see a lot of real independent tests and some by these more well known Chinese brands like DengFu, etc.

Also, let's not pretend stuff never fails from Specialized and other name brands.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top