TheKaiser, it's not just trademark, these days it's often patent as well. And talking about where a web transaction takes place is just weaselling, really. Buying a fake is wrong, and you can't make it right on a technicality. To use a rather extreme example, it's why sex tourism for pedophiles is illegal.
Finally, those people may not have bought an S-Works, but they would have bought something. Whether that's an Allez, or a Canyon, or a Deng-Fu it would have been from a company that sells what they designed and made, or paid for the design and construction, and didn't just steal it.
Thoughts on Velonews's article on counterfeit carbon frames?
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Ok, admittedly, my first point was a stretch...I was just trying to balance out the kind of extreme black or white stance of an earlier post.
On the second point, there are undoubtedly many variables in the equasion of the economic effect of someone buying a counterfeit (or to put it in a more kind terminology borrowed from the watch world, a "tribute") frame. I appreciate your acknowledging that these sales are most likely not cannibalizing the genuine s-works market. Some of them may be taking sales that would have otherwise gone to the Allez, Canyon, or Deng-Fu market, but it is also just as possible that these bargain hunting and short sighted buyers are the same people who in the past would have bought something from BikesDirect or other company not known for it's integrity. Even worse (or better), in the past they may have been the people who buy these "too good to be true" deals from shady sellers on craigslist or ebay that are quite likely stolen bikes. In that case, it isn't quite as clear that the rise of fake frame sales is such a bad thing if it has the effect of depressing the stolen bike economy, thereby reducing the rewards for bike thiefs and driving some out of the business.
Similarly, from a marketing perspective, that guy showing off his bootleg framed bike could have the effect of fostering jealousy amongst his friends and could generate sales for legit bike companies including Specialized. Or if it breaks and photos get out without proper attribution to the fake nature of the bike, then it could hurt sales for Specialized. There is really no way to know the true outcome and net effect it will have.
That was really the only point that I was trying to make...that the economic market is a messy thing, from global trade to the local classifieds, and so to act as if one knows the true effect, either good or bad, of another's purchase of a bootleg frame, is hubris.
On the second point, there are undoubtedly many variables in the equasion of the economic effect of someone buying a counterfeit (or to put it in a more kind terminology borrowed from the watch world, a "tribute") frame. I appreciate your acknowledging that these sales are most likely not cannibalizing the genuine s-works market. Some of them may be taking sales that would have otherwise gone to the Allez, Canyon, or Deng-Fu market, but it is also just as possible that these bargain hunting and short sighted buyers are the same people who in the past would have bought something from BikesDirect or other company not known for it's integrity. Even worse (or better), in the past they may have been the people who buy these "too good to be true" deals from shady sellers on craigslist or ebay that are quite likely stolen bikes. In that case, it isn't quite as clear that the rise of fake frame sales is such a bad thing if it has the effect of depressing the stolen bike economy, thereby reducing the rewards for bike thiefs and driving some out of the business.
Similarly, from a marketing perspective, that guy showing off his bootleg framed bike could have the effect of fostering jealousy amongst his friends and could generate sales for legit bike companies including Specialized. Or if it breaks and photos get out without proper attribution to the fake nature of the bike, then it could hurt sales for Specialized. There is really no way to know the true outcome and net effect it will have.
That was really the only point that I was trying to make...that the economic market is a messy thing, from global trade to the local classifieds, and so to act as if one knows the true effect, either good or bad, of another's purchase of a bootleg frame, is hubris.
Kaiser- excellent points-same deal w/ fake watches, no one who wears a fake AP bought it because it was an alternative to their purchase of a 15k watch. And the op's statement about crashing on a replica frame being "karma" was so over the top that Id like to think it was meant as comedy, but I'm sadly afraid it wasn't.
I'm not sure how I feel about this market. To some extent, theft of IP is theft of IP, and design is IP whether you call it trademark, patent or whatever. But no, I don't think any of the ORIGINAL sellers represent the frames as anything but replicas. The problem arises in the secondary market, and it does create problems for sellers of used S5's etc to non local buyers. And I know for a fact that there are crooks showing S5's and Tarmacs on CL as genuine that are fake. This isn't necessarily a problem for the manufacturer, but it is a problem for someone. So is Specialized having to defend a lawsuit when a fake helmet or fork fails. Yes, its an easy prevail (a pun, duh) but it still costs them money to defend, and they likely have a self-insured retention for such costs. It also strikes me as somewhat fundamentally unfair that S or another company puts development dollars into aero testing only to have someone splash the mold of a helmet and sell it cheap. If it was an "inspired" similar product, that's the marketplace. Again, OTOH, I think that the fact that there are $70 Evades out there points to the unreasonableness of the $250 plus retail pricing of S's genuine helmet.
It's a more complicated issue than at first blush. I would, however, like to see some real testing of the fake frames. The Velonews piece told us what we already knew, that the layups were not genuine (duh) but I don't think it sheds any light on whether the frames are "dangerous". I don't think at a gut level they are. Yeah, they break. So do genuine carbon parts. Yeah, they may not ride anywhere nearly as refined as the real deal. But killers? Nah.
I'm not sure how I feel about this market. To some extent, theft of IP is theft of IP, and design is IP whether you call it trademark, patent or whatever. But no, I don't think any of the ORIGINAL sellers represent the frames as anything but replicas. The problem arises in the secondary market, and it does create problems for sellers of used S5's etc to non local buyers. And I know for a fact that there are crooks showing S5's and Tarmacs on CL as genuine that are fake. This isn't necessarily a problem for the manufacturer, but it is a problem for someone. So is Specialized having to defend a lawsuit when a fake helmet or fork fails. Yes, its an easy prevail (a pun, duh) but it still costs them money to defend, and they likely have a self-insured retention for such costs. It also strikes me as somewhat fundamentally unfair that S or another company puts development dollars into aero testing only to have someone splash the mold of a helmet and sell it cheap. If it was an "inspired" similar product, that's the marketplace. Again, OTOH, I think that the fact that there are $70 Evades out there points to the unreasonableness of the $250 plus retail pricing of S's genuine helmet.
It's a more complicated issue than at first blush. I would, however, like to see some real testing of the fake frames. The Velonews piece told us what we already knew, that the layups were not genuine (duh) but I don't think it sheds any light on whether the frames are "dangerous". I don't think at a gut level they are. Yeah, they break. So do genuine carbon parts. Yeah, they may not ride anywhere nearly as refined as the real deal. But killers? Nah.
Cysco Ti custom Campy SR mechanical (6.9);Berk custom (5.6); Serotta Ottrott(6.
; Anvil Custom steel Etap;1996 Colnago Technos Record
; Anvil Custom steel Etap;1996 Colnago Technos RecordBut how do you know? Even if you test a fake frame you have absolutely no idea whether those results have anything to do with another fake frame. It's an industry with zero accountability, and therefore zero vested interest in consistency or quality control. How many frames that come off their production lines do you think they discard because they weren't good enough? My guess is none, they all get sold regardless.
Finally, I can't think of a better way to tell the world you're an image obsessed poser than buying a thing because it says it's something it's not...
Finally, I can't think of a better way to tell the world you're an image obsessed poser than buying a thing because it says it's something it's not...
wingguy wrote:
Finally, I can't think of a better way to tell the world you're an image obsessed poser than buying a thing because it says it's something it's not...
Cysco Ti custom Campy SR mechanical (6.9);Berk custom (5.6); Serotta Ottrott(6. ; Anvil Custom steel Etap;1996 Colnago Technos Record
; Anvil Custom steel Etap;1996 Colnago Technos Record-
kulivontot
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
The article was pretty poorly written and fear-mongering in tone. The quote about "causing a catastrophic crash at a minimum" in particular was a pretty serious reach i'll agree. The one thing that did make me think a little bit was the part about custom layups of name-brand frames. While most manufacturers seem to throw about the term "high modulus carbon" like crazy, I'd like to believe there are some companies that are actually doing the engineering work to improve stiffness in spots where it matters. For a frame, which directly sees the full force of your pedal stroke, I think this may have a bigger effect than say carbon rims. By buying from a generic seller you're accepting that "good enough" carbon structure is acceptable for you. I don't necessarily think it has any indication on durability or quality. I'd wager that even the cheapest generic carbon is still lighter and stiffer than the best alloy frames from a decade ago.
There are a couple important points here irrespective of the quality of writing of the article.
The issue is not just of legality but morality. Even if it is 'legal' in country X to buy a fake frame, consider the following:
Let's say you start a company or invent something, you work hard to make whatever it is and soon establish a namesake--Specialized, Audi, Patagonia, Bic #2 pencils, whatever--and now someone not only copies your product, they also take your name (Smith, Gucci, Cipollini, etc.). That's basically a form of stealing. If they do a reverse-engineered carbon copy, well that's the lesser of two evils, but to take the name too? Come on now.
If you want a Specialized or Pinarello, buy one. If you find them too expensive, either save up or buy a lesser model or second hand. But don't buy a fake.
I for one find that bikes have become ridiculously overpriced and that is due in large part to huge markups. Most high-end models could be sold for much less than their sticker price and still make a profit. It's a sad reality but c'est la vie, and perhaps a topic for another thread... I for one will still be buying a real frame though
The issue is not just of legality but morality. Even if it is 'legal' in country X to buy a fake frame, consider the following:
Let's say you start a company or invent something, you work hard to make whatever it is and soon establish a namesake--Specialized, Audi, Patagonia, Bic #2 pencils, whatever--and now someone not only copies your product, they also take your name (Smith, Gucci, Cipollini, etc.). That's basically a form of stealing. If they do a reverse-engineered carbon copy, well that's the lesser of two evils, but to take the name too? Come on now.
If you want a Specialized or Pinarello, buy one. If you find them too expensive, either save up or buy a lesser model or second hand. But don't buy a fake.
I for one find that bikes have become ridiculously overpriced and that is due in large part to huge markups. Most high-end models could be sold for much less than their sticker price and still make a profit. It's a sad reality but c'est la vie, and perhaps a topic for another thread... I for one will still be buying a real frame though
Bicycle Makers Struggle to Swat Down Counterfeits
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/sport ... feits.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/sport ... feits.html
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."
'The rise of the knockoffs has been fueled by online retailing, the nearly universal adoption of carbon fiber for racing cycles and the general outsourcing of bicycle production to Asia, but the appeal is, quite simply, price.'
Good article, and notice the link below the title that says 'read in Chinese'.
I think part of the problem is that bikes have become, in a way, almost like status symbols. I don't know... When I was younger I never thought of it like that but things change over 10 or 15 years. But I see the whole counterfeit thing as hurting enthusiasts too since companies will now have to spend money fighting the fakes which will take away from research and development or passing the savings on to the consumer.
If I saw everyone in my town on a Pinarello Dogma (a real one) it would not make me think anything less of the bike than if I never saw one. A bike may have evolved to also be a status symbol, but at bottom it's still a bike. I would never spend 5k+ on a Rolex, but that's just me. I would however spend 5k+ on a bike and ride it into the ground with a smile on my face
doesn't matter to me if people have heard of it or not, nor do I care if I have the same bike as a bunch of other people.
Good article, and notice the link below the title that says 'read in Chinese'.
I think part of the problem is that bikes have become, in a way, almost like status symbols. I don't know... When I was younger I never thought of it like that but things change over 10 or 15 years. But I see the whole counterfeit thing as hurting enthusiasts too since companies will now have to spend money fighting the fakes which will take away from research and development or passing the savings on to the consumer.
If I saw everyone in my town on a Pinarello Dogma (a real one) it would not make me think anything less of the bike than if I never saw one. A bike may have evolved to also be a status symbol, but at bottom it's still a bike. I would never spend 5k+ on a Rolex, but that's just me. I would however spend 5k+ on a bike and ride it into the ground with a smile on my face
doesn't matter to me if people have heard of it or not, nor do I care if I have the same bike as a bunch of other people.Dozer makes some good points.
In my view, if we get beyond the ethics of ripping of Specialized, which I do not condone, then the tests prove that the fake is not cutting edge, but they certainly don't prove it's a death trap.
1. Imagine we tested an unbranded frame against the SL4. Then 11% less stiffness when loaded looks more than good enough. If we look at Tour magazine we will see that many very nice bikes exhibit far less stiffness than the latest wonder bike. It would be interesting to see how the fake compares against last season's SL3 or an SL2. And presenting the result as a % probably disguises the fact that 11% is something like 1-2mm in difference. Some more perspective is needed when interpreting this result.
2. The modulus of test sections of frame does not prove that the frame is weaker. Modulus is measured in N/mm2, and by definition the calculation involves normalising for the cross-sectional area of test piece. So it could be that the test sections extend exactly the same amount (same stiffness) but the fake bike uses twice as much carbon to achieve this. Then the fake test piece would have half the modulus of the real bike test piece but be exactly the same stiffness when ridden. And to balance this out, the fake would probably be more robust as the wall thickness is greater. More journalistic and Engineering rigour needed here.
3. The conclusion that the fake does not use HM carbon is not proven based on the evidence presented. The test samples showed different modulus, but the layup of the fibres was also different, and as far as I can tell not controlled for. As everyone here probably knows, if the fibres run along the part then they will be stiffer than if they run across it.
4. We did not hear any objective comments on the quality of the carbon layup and compaction. Looking at the cross-section, the carbon appears to be well compacted with a workmanlike layup and no flaws, rather than the mixture of filler and newspaper that one might expect from reading the article.
So while this test is interesting, and it's clear that the fake is not as good as the real thing, it doesn't prove the thesis of the article.
In my view, if we get beyond the ethics of ripping of Specialized, which I do not condone, then the tests prove that the fake is not cutting edge, but they certainly don't prove it's a death trap.
1. Imagine we tested an unbranded frame against the SL4. Then 11% less stiffness when loaded looks more than good enough. If we look at Tour magazine we will see that many very nice bikes exhibit far less stiffness than the latest wonder bike. It would be interesting to see how the fake compares against last season's SL3 or an SL2. And presenting the result as a % probably disguises the fact that 11% is something like 1-2mm in difference. Some more perspective is needed when interpreting this result.
2. The modulus of test sections of frame does not prove that the frame is weaker. Modulus is measured in N/mm2, and by definition the calculation involves normalising for the cross-sectional area of test piece. So it could be that the test sections extend exactly the same amount (same stiffness) but the fake bike uses twice as much carbon to achieve this. Then the fake test piece would have half the modulus of the real bike test piece but be exactly the same stiffness when ridden. And to balance this out, the fake would probably be more robust as the wall thickness is greater. More journalistic and Engineering rigour needed here.
3. The conclusion that the fake does not use HM carbon is not proven based on the evidence presented. The test samples showed different modulus, but the layup of the fibres was also different, and as far as I can tell not controlled for. As everyone here probably knows, if the fibres run along the part then they will be stiffer than if they run across it.
4. We did not hear any objective comments on the quality of the carbon layup and compaction. Looking at the cross-section, the carbon appears to be well compacted with a workmanlike layup and no flaws, rather than the mixture of filler and newspaper that one might expect from reading the article.
So while this test is interesting, and it's clear that the fake is not as good as the real thing, it doesn't prove the thesis of the article.
-
kulivontot
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
Take away the copycat paint job and do any of the moral misgivings still stand?
-
GorrGrimWolf
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:26 pm
I had a chance to build exactly the same fake frame-set as mentioned in the article. I have got it from my "friend" as a real S-Works Tarmac and I have paid for the frame.
I don't know much about the ride quality because I have never use it on the road. I have spotted some differences compare to the real Tarmac when building it and start digging. It was fake and I couldn't just bite the fact I would be riding a fake frame. I have returned the frame and bought S-Works Allez.
The internal routing was bad - a lot of friction there. Headset was on a loose end and the rear dropout was design poorly as I couldn't remove my rear wheel with the RD installed (Probably because Chorus 2015 is really big). The paint job wasn't striking either, especially on the edges of two colours. The rear brake was nightmare to set-up friction free and there was no plastic insert on the rear exit. TOn the other hand the BB shell was like a real OSBB - 61 width which has surprised me.
I can understand people who buy those frames. For most of us there is a need to have a bike who inspires you to ride it every day. And the BIG S-Works helps... But I personally couldn't justify the price and the fact I am riding a fake frame.
I don't know much about the ride quality because I have never use it on the road. I have spotted some differences compare to the real Tarmac when building it and start digging. It was fake and I couldn't just bite the fact I would be riding a fake frame. I have returned the frame and bought S-Works Allez.
The internal routing was bad - a lot of friction there. Headset was on a loose end and the rear dropout was design poorly as I couldn't remove my rear wheel with the RD installed (Probably because Chorus 2015 is really big). The paint job wasn't striking either, especially on the edges of two colours. The rear brake was nightmare to set-up friction free and there was no plastic insert on the rear exit. TOn the other hand the BB shell was like a real OSBB - 61 width which has surprised me.
I can understand people who buy those frames. For most of us there is a need to have a bike who inspires you to ride it every day. And the BIG S-Works helps... But I personally couldn't justify the price and the fact I am riding a fake frame.
