RoderWrench

Counterfeiting hurts the entire bike industry and all cycling consumers. It doesn't matter if counterfeiters target only elite brands. The innovations high-end brands develop very often become mainstream, even at the entry level. Everybody wins. Counterfeiting takes away the incentive to innovate and makes it difficult for innovative, low volume, high-end companies to exist. I want those companies to flourish. I benefit from their innovation. Counterfeiters are thieves plain and simple. And if you knowingly buy counterfeit goods, you are supporting thieves. You can get defensive. You can call people names that call you out. That just proves that deep down, you know what you did was wrong.

Fly2High

Maybe they feel that there is no more risk than buying from a big name brand especially when there are several postings that the big brands are not always making all the frames they sell. Big name brand frames fail too. Being from a big brand name DOESN'T guarantee prevention of frame failure. It might only offer you a chance at litigation. Then again, they spend plenty on lawyers so there is a chance you will not get as much as you think.

If it became the law to disclose the ACTUAL assembler/manufacturer of each component and you found out that what you call a knock off was made by the same guy as the expensive brand named frame, would you feel different?

If these guys are really doing something illegal and the big brands have so much money, why aren't they going out to shut them all down? Maybe they still need them to supply parts to them could be one reason. I do not see them making loads of money of the frames they sell.

How do we know that all the bad mouthers of Chinese frames are nothing more than reps and employees of big brands or sponsored by them to discount these smaller outfits for the sole possibility to limit their sales. I have heard of professional reviewers and such that companies pay to write good reviews on their products and bad ones for the competition.

Too many 'What -ifs'

In the end, the OP assembled a bike and is enjoying riding it. If we support them, maybe they WILL spend more the next time on a big brand name and will continue to plug money into cycling. In the end, isn't that better?

69chevy

Unless you believe the contrary.

The design of the modern road bike hasn't seen any major innovation in a century.

The innovation is in the marketing.

People pay car prices for a bike because the company selling it pays the buyers money to a TDF team to fuel the illuson that their "innovations" created the victory.

The trickle down is when a guy riding group rides spends beyond his means because his elitist buddies heckled his old bike convincing him carbon was faster.

rms13

I own a Chinese frame so that is the side I'm on. But to answer your questions. The only major brand that has it's own factory that I know of is Giant. Every other company outsources the manufacturing to other companies in China and Taiwan...such as Giant. Some people argue that you pay for R&D and quality control with bigger brands...take that with a grain of salt. Major brands aren't shutting down counterfeiters in China because U.S. law has no domain in China...that goes for bikes, purses, clothing etc

aubiecat

So when you're out riding your fake Pinarello do you tell people that it's fake or do you tell them you purchased it at your LBS?

PiLigand

This has always been my thought too. Still, it does look like a mighty fine paint job.

RoderWrench

Funny you say that, racing is the other major factor in innovation. I won't even pretend to think that you really believe you can compare a 1916 bicycle with a 2016. You're just silly.

Fly2High

OK, but couldn't they stop them at the border?

I am with you. I see no reason to doubt a proven supplier of inexpensive frames regardless of where it is from. If the money was there, I too would have a Workswell frame. For me, I just cannot afford a carbon from from the big brands. Outside my budget.

Fly2High

Hopefully everyone has gotten it out of their system that the OP built a Chinese framed bike. Let's get back to the topic of the bike and not where the frame is from and the moral and legal implications of that. Shall we?


So how does it ride?

How did you determine the size and whether that bike would be a good match for you? This is my biggest fear: selecting frame and either having it not fit or just not liking the characteristics when done. I just do not know enough to determine what to change to make it better.

Fly2High

I too tried the Fisik Arione and the Avante and did not like either. Ended up getting a Selle Italia Carbonio SE something or other from Nashbar that was cheaper and felt much nicer. So far, it have served me well these last 8 months and thousands of miles. Have done metrics with it but that's it so far. Do have plans to ride a century this year on that saddle.

rms13

He clearly stated in his original post that he tells people exactly what it is

aubiecat

I read the original post and there was nothing about it there. I did read on down a bit and found it in his third post.

Fly2High

I must say that I finally saw the link to the photos and all I can say is that looks like a really nice bike.

Best of luck with it.

Stucky

A lot of what one pays for with the big brands, is advertising and race sponsorship. Personally, those are not things I care to pay for- I'm just interested in the bike.

garysol1 

For what its worth I ride a Trek that is made by Trek in Trek's own factory. Specialized carbon bikes are manufactured by Merida who owns 49% of Specialized stock so it is hard to say that they are "outsourcing". The time and money that the big name companies put into testing, R&D and design is staggering. If not for the big players doing all the R&D and taking the risks there would be no copycat bikes trying to ride the coattails....

sced

I won't even pretend to think that you really believe that what 69chevy said isn't a lot more true than false.

Safety and durability improvements for sure, but all the focus on low weight and aero is just marketing gobbledygook. Take a 50-year old racing bike and put a simple fairing on it and voila - you have a superbike. Take a 50-year old racing bike and put a really strong rider on it and voila - you have a winner.

69chevy

So name a major innovation.

Don’t say carbon fiber…

Since it became popular when doping was at an all-time high, manufacturers used it as the “reason” all the cyclists were suddenly faster.

Marketing at its absolute finest (except the drug part). Now they charge $10g for a bike and people pay it.
Who cares that race speeds have dropped back down to “pre-carbon” levels now that doping isn’t as big of an epidemic?

It reminds me of when “MJ’s” basketball shoes could make you fly (his sneakers still sell for $200 and up).

Steel bikes can easily be built under UCI weight limits, not to mention if the UCI made the weight restriction 20lbs, none of this would matter (isn’t it strange they picked a number so low).

Multi speeds… Those go back 80 years, so on that one, I’ll agree.

How do bike builders continue to draw in money despite the fact that the bicycle hasn’t changed drastically in a century?

Keep us believing the next little tweak is worth a second or two here or there. Keep us believing a second or two matters to people who don’t race for a living. Let us extrapolate that winning a Strava segment is worth $5k. That the “comfort” of an endurance frame will keep us riding.

People are so hell bent on being better than each other that when there is gear involved every gear maker will “innovate” as much as they need to keep moving products.

Meanwhile any rider capable of winning a race could do so on a steel frame with mechanical shifting. You will never see it, because the ones “innovating” are the ones sponsoring the riders.

A bicycle was 99% efficient 100 years ago, and that last 1% can’t be closed no matter how much R&D the industry leaders wave in front of us.

Marcus_Ti

Hasn't changed much in a century?

-Indexed shifting?
-aforementioned transmission
-Clipless pedals?
-How about brakes that actually work?
-How about the apparel science, and wool cycling shorts no longer being a thing?

There's a reason the UCI has a 6.8KG weight limit on bikes...sure you can make a steel bike 6.7KGs-but it is a structurally unsafe noodle.

Not to say $10K for a bike isn't insane...or that the gains in the last decade haven't been incredibly marginal for what they cost. But bicycles and riding have improved quite a bit-about all you can say about a 1900 and a 2016 racing bike is that they're both double-triangle frames

redfooj

If this discussion was about mountain bikes - with wild variances in architecture, geometry, and suspension to cope with varying surfaces - you might have a point.

Or motor racing where the vehicle is at least half the equation.

The road bike's role in road biking is like that of basketball shoes in basketball.

Stucky

Ah, man! The truth is BEAUTIFUL. Once one accepts that truth, it frees them (and their wallet). Modern features may have added a little convenience and comfort (And the comfort is debatable, as our bodies adapt quite easily to anything that isn't totally contortionist- my old BSO 25 years ago being just as comfortable as my recent $5K CF bike...).

And I STILL say that downtube shifters can't be beat!

Significant numbers of people must be accepting the truths stated in that quote; why else would 40 year-old bikes today be selling for several times what they cost when they were new? Most people who buy 'em aren't just hanging 'em on a wall or just looking at them and thinking nostalgic thoughts...they are riding them.

69chevy

I could build a Lemond Washoe frame that wouldn't be a noodle and come in under 6.8KG.

My point was that in 1992, Indurian won the TDF on a 22.7lb steel bike at 39.5 km/hr

In 2007, after CF frames, "Treks millions in R&D", etc... Contador rode a 15lb Madone to victory at 39.2 km/hr.

kc0bbq

Except that most of what he said is demonstrably not true. You just want it to be true because confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

For example, the Tour de France cruises along at the same average speeds it did when everyone had a lot more red blood cells through medical magic.

69chevy

Which part is not true?

Why is the modern 100m dash record 12% faster than a century ago?

New tech? Drugs?

Stucky

I couldn't care less about the TDF- I'm interested in the real world- but even so, many records and new feats are achieved in many sports- even sports which are nit dependent upon equipment. If the TDF riders are indeed faster, is it because of the bikes? Because of what has been learned about riding techniques? Because a lot of athletes today are bigger and stronger due to diversification of genetics from various nationalities intermingling more today? Not to even mention the drugs, which I believe are still very prevalent, despite what "they" say.

In the real world, for the average rider, the modern bike refinements matter even less. You may like those refinements, as do I with some of them- but a bike is still just a bike, and really doesn't make all that much difference.

rpenmanparker 

You are wrong about the light steel bike. You can get under the UCI floor with a steel frame/build and still have a very high performing bike. It isn't even hard to do. Thin, oversized tubing.