[Closed] Cheap Chinese carbon bars and titanium skewers. Any good?

I think it's fair to say that statistically it almost certainly does increase your risk. Brands have an inherent interest in QC (that's not to say they all do it well, mind...) which unbranded companies don't. That doesn't mean that they won't do it or do it properly but statistically I think it's reasonable to say that overall they're less likely to.

Put it this way, I'm happy riding my Chinese carbon bike but then I did a fair bit of research beforehand on who to buy from. I wouldn't buy a frame/fork from an unknown ebay shop as I would see that as a risk I wouldn't be willing to take.

I do also think it's taking the classic 'I'm an engineer' stereotype for a nice walk though 🙂

As I think we've both said many times, njee, buy from a direct from China manufacturer with a good rep (that doesn't do fake branded stuff is a good starting point) and I believe that you'll have gone a very long way to mitigating the risk above.

(BTW, I think I count as an engineer though I'm not one by profession but I do have the letters after my name...)

As with anything in retail reputations are built or broken all the time.
Truly shoddy and dangerous products get a reputation very quickly when people aren't happy with their purchase.
I've bought stuff direct from the Far East, bought Far Eastern stuff on eBay and also bought British and other we'll known international brands.
The only product to have been useless was a seat collar from a British company that wouldn't tighten enough to hold the seatpost in place.

The key is a bit of research, read the eBay feedback, go on forums and ask, Google the product or company name etc etc.... You'll very quickly get an idea of who is selling decent gear and who is selling tat.

is increasing your risk considerably

Is it? what are you basing that on, have you done extensive testing and comparison of these products to actually determine if they *are* inferior quality.

I certainly haven't, I've done a few odd checks on a very random sample (the ones I've bought), and even that spotty anecdotal evidence appears to be more evidence than you have.

FWIW, I have some expensive, branded carbon stuff too, that also hasn't broken (recently, see previous note about old Eastons), I'm not being picky either way.

But then I'm an engineer so I understand concepts like design, materials, manufacture, quality control etc.

Whoopy for you, I'm sure we could all start spouting our credentials over the internet in an attempt to win arguments, but it doesn't change the fact that your comments are not based on anything other than here-say and speculation.

You can put whatever crap floats your boat on your own bike and I'll put whatever quality parts I like on mine.

Didn't realise I need your approval to put things on my bike, sorry.

Nobody is forcing, or even asking you to put things on your bike that you don't want to, we are just asking you not to tell other people not to based on nothing but your own prejudices that you can't back up with any meaningful evidence.

I think it's fair to say that statistically it almost certainly does increase your risk. Brands have an inherent interest in QC (that's not to say they all do it well, mind...) which unbranded companies don't. That doesn't mean that they won't do it or do it properly but statistically I think it's reasonable to say that overall they're less likely to.

"almost certainly does increase" is very different to "increases considerably", but it's still speculative, and virtually impossible without vast data sets to actually compare.

Whilst I did buy a frame (basically at random) a few years ago on eBay and it was fine. I'd probably now buy from Flyxii, or Carbonsports or one of the sites with a 'shopfront', rather than an indescriminate eBay seller.

Yes, I agree. And I'm rather surprised by an engineer using terms like "considerably" if he can't actually quantify it (or maybe he can 🙂 ).

One of the first things I recall on my engineering course at uni was being told of the importance of precision when writing statements with any technical bearing.

😆 Just ribbing you, moshimonter

"I'm an engineer" is used far too often as a catch all for 'my opinion is utterly infallable', despite it being of zero relevance here. It's akin to insulting someone, then adding "it's only banter", on the end.

Or perhaps it does qualify someone to assess components they've never seen from thousands of miles away? Quite a skill!

I agree with njee TBH [i]"As an Engineer"[/i] I doubt you apply the same rigour to your bike or bike part purchases as you do in your work... (I know I don't)

When was the last time you requested copies of material certs, Manufacturer's inspection reports, or test house documentation proving compliance with BS EN 14766 (or equivalent) from Santa Cruz/Orange/Giant/Specialized/etc?

You have as much of an idea about the PFD for any of your bike parts (whatever logo they carry) as the rest of us, you've pretty much taken it on faith (as we all do) that the manufacturers designed and substantiated their product to an appropriate level and you've equated your retail spend with improved QA/QC do you have any actual evidence that an Easton bar is designed, produced or tested to higher standards than a Cheapo Chinese one?

Don't confuse [i]Liability[/i] with [i]reliability[/i]...

Found it, it was in Dirt not sure what it proves but it may be of interest to some.
http://dirtmountainbike.com/products/10-best-mountain-bike-carbon-bars.html/11

Good outline for a test method there actually, and they are simulating something more like the bars intended use than a static load test would, except I notice they appear to have fitted a Enidine damper at the bottom of the rig, that must absorb a fair bit of the energy from the drop?

Erm, hang on...

How do you know that buying from an unknown source is increasing your risk? It just increases your perception of risk. Look at the story over there >>>>>>> Orange have recalled forks because the steerer was detatching from the fork. You're basically saying it's lower risk to buy an Orange fork than a Chinese one, in this instance that doesn't appear to hold water.

The Orange recall is actually a good example of the reduced risk in buying from a named and accountable source. Orange have identified a manufacturing problem and done something about it. The overall risk in buying an Orange fork is less, because there is an extra layer of post-manufacture quality control.

I have never seen a recall notice for any non-branded parts. Because after they have your money they don't really give a shit.

I'd be more inclined to trust a manufacturing or quality engineer as having some relevance to this FWIW as I think it's fair to say that there are trends and experiences of relevance here (hence my statistical comment above).

And off course, I'm an engineer so I'm right 🙂
(I don't really consider myself an engineer FWIW)

I'd be more inclined to trust a manufacturing or quality engineer as having some relevance to this FWIW as I think it's fair to say that there are trends and experiences of relevance here

I'd agree, if those experiences were shared with us so we know in what context they have relevance.

The problem is people speculating and regurgitating internet chatter,and NOT backing up their claims with relevant experience or evidence.

Because after they have your money they don't really give a shit.

Again, speculation. The Orange point was tongue in cheek, it would be nicer if they were adequately designed so as not to fail really. If you take a sample of the Orange forks and an equally sized sample of (for example) Carbon Cycles forks, we know of several Orange failures, how many CC ones? I can't find any reports. It's wild extrapolation and assumption, but it doesn't make the Orange forks a less risky prospect.

I know of people who've received excellent after sales and warranty replacements from Chinese sellers. Better than many 'brands'.

1) Get over yourself FFS, call yourself whatever you want, you're still making a lot of entirely baseless comments. Can you answer my question about whether it would be less serious if some Easton bars broke? Let's not pretend that branded parts don't break, that would be stupid.

2) How do you know that buying from an unknown source is increasing your risk? It just increases your perception of risk. Look at the story over there >>>>>>> Orange have recalled forks because the steerer was detatching from the fork. You're basically saying it's lower risk to buy an Orange fork than a Chinese one, in this instance that doesn't appear to hold water.

If you don't want to buy parts direct from the Far East that's fine, but you're talking a lot of scaremongering shit.

1) I'm a chartered mechanical engineer (CEng) so I will call myself an engineer because that's what I am. Of course branded parts do sometimes break for many reasons, which should give you even less confidence in your random Chinese carbon part which you know f. all about.

2) Only an idiot would ask such a question. If the source is totally unknown how could you say it's not a risk? Would you buy a turbine blade from Rolls Royce aero or from a random Chinese factory? Rolls Royce ones have been known to fail, but that doesn't make the Chinese one an equal risk?

They say ignorance is bliss.

You mean these?

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/exotic-carbon-fork-2-broken-terrible-customer-service-555457.html

Although that doesn't really prove anything. I'd be surprised if there was a product that no-one has ever broken and then complained about.

It's easy to spot the guys on this thread that are running Silly expensive carbon bits with a brand name on them

Even easier to spot the guys running unknown Chinese carbon bits from the bay 😉

How very dare you!

My Chinese carbon is from Aliexpress 😉

So, moshi (CEng), you've taken the extreme - eg random buying from an unknown Chinese source from ebay.

How about buying from a known Chinese source (on ebay or aliexpress)?

And to the point on risk, technically there's no reason for the risk between Rolls or your alternative to be different. The issue is around the mitigation of risk really isn't it. It's the unknown factor that's the issue, not the source.

(actually this may be a bad example - turbine blades are much more high precision than carbon frames, etc so having access to the best technology, IP and experience may well make a definite difference though maybe the Chinese company could have stolen that 🙂 )

I'm a chartered mechanical engineer (CEng) so I will call myself an engineer because that's what I am

Call yourself whatever you like, but it's hardly relevant unless you work with composites and have knowledge of the products you're speaking about.

Both njee, me and others have asked you for *any* evidence to support your comments, and not because we necessarily disagree but because we want to base our decisions on actual evidence and verifiable facts rather than speculation and here-say. (at least that's the case for me)

The RR comparison is disingenuous as there are additional complexities and vastly more rigorous QC in those products, than are performed or required on bicycle components, from any manufacturer.

Even easier to spot the guys running unknown Chinese carbon bits from the bay

And what about those of us like Njee and myself who have used, and do use both, and have yet to see any appreciable difference between them in terms of performance in most cases?

By all means put forward a view, but back it up with something, not just maybes, speculation, regurgitated internet rumour and prejudice.

Where are the hundreds of reports of cheap carbon parts failing that counter all the reports of them being just fine?

** again **, not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm being open minded, and trying to base my decisions on actual evidence and facts. The limited testing I can do myself is not sufficient. I think it is the same for the the OP, and many others.

If the parts are good enough then we will use them, if they are not we won't, but I'm not going to just take your word for it because you say so. Maybe that's the scientist in me, but hey, that's how we work.

Nobody is forcing, or even asking you to put things on your bike that you don't want to, we are just asking you not to tell other people not to based on nothing but your own prejudices that you can't back up with any meaningful evidence.

Put whatever you like on your bike, I really don't care. I'm simply expressing my personal opinion with an engineering background. FWIW I won't run ANY carbon bar on my own bike, branded or otherwise. I have a lot of experience of using carbon in motorsport and seen too many unexplained failures to trust it in certain applications - and small diameter bars with large bending moments isn't an application I would be happy to trust with carbon.

As a few of you have mentioned, branded carbon bars do sometimes break and bike part manufacturers are not always great at engineering their products, so I'm certainly not going to trust one from a totally unknown source in China.

How about buying from a known Chinese source (on ebay or aliexpress)?

Obviously a much better idea, but as above no carbon bars for me thanks.

And to the point on risk, technically there's no reason for the risk between Rolls or your alternative to be different. The issue is around the mitigation of risk really isn't it. It's the unknown factor that's the issue, not the source.

Well yes, but I'm not sure how that changes which part you would choose? At least you know that the Rolls part was manufactured out of the correct material, to the correct tolerance and inspected properly. What do you know about the Chinese one? Literally nothing.

Interesting, so you don't trust carbon bars at all?

Have you done any tests or got any data to suggest that they are weaker or more prone to failure than other materials other than the 'unexplained' failures you've witnessed in different components made for a different application?

If it really is unexplained then why suspect the material?
Have you never seen similar unexplained failures of components in other materials?

What about other bike components, is it a blanket carbon ban for you or is it just bars?

All genuine questions by the way, I'm not just arguing for the sake of it.

personal opinion with an engineering background

Please stop it, unless your engineering background includes a lot of experience of working with carbon fibre and in comparison to other materials then I don't see what the relevance is, you're still just waving the 'I'm an Engineer so know better than you' card and hoping it gives your opinion more validity, sadly it's doing the reverse.

Fair point but that's a completely different point isn't it - that's fundamentally about carbon bars, not the source, Chinese or otherwise.

Even easier to spot the guys running unknown Chinese carbon bits from the bay

I don't have anything from eBay. I've got some Light Bicycle rims, but that's it in the way of Chinese carbon. Everything else I own is 'branded', including some expensive kit, but I'm not blinkered or prejudiced and can accept that it's not as simple as 'stick a logo on it and it's a better product' as you're saying. You can be a Chartered Engineer, a Tellytubby or the Queen of England, you can't tell any different, whatever you tell youself.

As a few of you have mentioned, branded carbon bars do sometimes break and bike part manufacturers are not always great at engineering their products, so I'm certainly not going to trust one from a totally unknown source in China.

It's a shame your engineering qualifications don't really enable you to read - what about a known source in China? Most people here are advocating buying from companies in China with websites, bricks and mortar addresses etc.

Call yourself whatever you like, but it's hardly relevant unless you work with composites and have knowledge of the products you're speaking about.

I did work with composite parts in F1 as a chief engineer and regularly had to deal with the aftermath when they failed and they do fail more often than you would think in testing. The cost of going ultra-light to gain performance.

Maybe I'm being over cautious with carbon mtb bars, but my local LBS owner has seen enough failures not to run them himself and that's enough evidence for me.

Put whatever you like on your bike, I really don't care. I'm simply expressing my personal opinion with an engineering background. FWIW I won't run ANY carbon bar on my own bike, branded or otherwise. I have a lot of experience of using carbon in motorsport and seen too many unexplained failures to trust it in certain applications - and small diameter bars with large bending moments isn't an application I would be happy to trust with carbon.

I dunno, I'm an engineer (although in a fairly irelavent discipline) and that's exactly where I'd like soemthing to be a composite. Why would you rather it be made from a homogenous material rather than one that can take both higher tensile and compressive forces?

Maybe I'm being over cautious with carbon mtb bars, but my local LBS owner has seen enough failures not to run them himself and that's enough evidence for me.

Hang on, you're an engineer, with tonnes of experience in composites from F1, you're dismissing products made in an entire continent unless someone's put a sticker on it and yet you choose what goes on your bike based on some bloke at the LBS?

I did work with composite parts in F1 as a chief engineer and regularly had to deal with the aftermath when they failed and they do fail more often than you would think in testing. The cost of going ultra-light to gain performance.

See, now why didn't you share that earlier, so you have worked with composites. Are/were you involved in the design and manufacture of parts or was your involvement just in the 'aftermath' as you put it?

how long go was this too because composite experience and knowledge has come a long way in recent years, even in China 😉

Maybe I'm being over cautious with carbon mtb bars, but my local LBS owner has seen enough failures not to run them himself and that's enough evidence for me.

Maybe you are, maybe you're not, I'd hazard a guess that a lot of the stuff you saw in motorsport really was at the ragged edge of possibilities in terms of weight and not really that similar to the kind of thing that goes on in bicycle parts, not to mention the failures likely involving a fair bit more force.

Strange that your LBS owner won't use carbon, most owners and mechanics I know happily use them and will tell you they see no more failures with carbon than any other material when comparing like for like on use. 10 -15 years ago I' have agreed, now, not so much.

Why would you rather it be made from a homogenous material rather than one that can take both higher tensile and compressive forces?

2 reasons:-

1: Carbon is great for tensile/compressive loads, but not so good in bending, which is the primary load on a bar.

2: Carbon manufacture is very labour intensive and quality control is critical to the strength of the finished product. We struggled with it in F1, so I'm not convinced mtb mass manufactured parts are going to be consistent enough. There are enough broken branded parts around as evidence of this and the lighter you go, the risk increases exponentially.

How do you know that buying from an unknown source is increasing your risk?

njee - I was just answering your stupid question above.

See, now why didn't you share that earlier, so you have worked with composites. Are/were you involved in the design and manufacture of parts or was your involvement just in the 'aftermath' as you put it?

I was involved in both testing and racing composite parts - not directly in their design or manufacture, although obviously in very close contact with those that were. Basically I decided if they were used in anger or not.

how long go was this too because composite experience and knowledge has come a long way in recent years, even in China

less than 5 years ago and yes I agree that composite experience in the mass market has improved massively in the last 10 years.

Strange that your LBS owner won't use carbon, most owners and mechanics I know happily use them and will tell you they see no more failures with carbon than any other material when comparing like for like on use. 10 -15 years ago I' have agreed, now, not so much.

I'm sure they are getting better all the time, but in reality what percentage of overall mtb riders actually have carbon bars? How many more alloy bars are out there? I would be tempted to run a branded DH rated carbon bar for general trail riding, but not an ultra-lightweight XC bar. It's just a risk I don't need to take.

Hang on, you're an engineer, with tonnes of experience in composites from F1, you're dismissing products made in an entire continent unless someone's put a sticker on it and yet you choose what goes on your bike based on some bloke at the LBS?

That's not what I actually said at all, but you're just not listening are you?

I would be tempted to run a branded DH rated carbon bar for general trail riding, but not an ultra-lightweight XC bar. It's just a risk I don't need to take.

Isn't that just picking a product based on intended use, and then giving yourself a bit of a margin?

I wouldn't use a ultra-lightweight Aluminium XC bar for anything other than XC either, that's not material specific, it's bout not using something outside of it's intended use case.

but in reality what percentage of overall mtb riders actually have carbon bars? How many more alloy bars are out there?

In the grand scheme of things probably not many, but then in the grand scheme of things not many break their bars.

If you look at the sample of riders using carbon and riding hard/often enough that you would expect failures, regardless of material I think you'd find that there's bugger all in it.

ie: the kind of rider that break bars, are also the kind of rider that are moving/have moved onto carbon, you would therefore expect a significant increase in failures now carbon is becoming more widespread amongst that group of users. That isn't the case, so suggests the carbon bars are not any more prone to failure.

I get it, [i]you [/i]don't trust them. But you've not yet put forward any reasonable justification for why, other than you've seen other carbon parts, in a different, very specific, and finely tuned, use case fail.

My experience, which is obviously only limited to me, is that since the 90s I've snapped 3 alu bars, cracked and bent one alu bar, and cracked 1 carbon bar (a very expensive Easton jobbie). I have no doubt that at some point in the future I might also break another bar, but I don't think the material it's made from is likely to be any indicator as to which one it will be.

Nobody is asking you to change your opinion, just acknowledge that its not based on any real verifiable facts so should be presented as such, unsupported opinion, nothing more.

On the engineering subject, I'm pretty skeptical just how finely engineered a pushbike bar is- you can't shave the grams to the limit because they've got to deal with being fitted by gorillas and crashed into trees for 10 years. Not really like designing a motorsport or aviation part to be used within very set constraints

njee20 - Member

If you take a sample of the Orange forks and an equally sized sample of (for example) Carbon Cycles forks, we know of several Orange failures, how many CC ones?

I think Carboncycles/Exotic are a great example of carbon silliness tbh- when they first started coming on the scene, I got a set of their forks, the number of people who said "Ooh, you shouldn't buy chinese carbon, you should have got a Nukeproof" or White Bros. Exact same fork, with different and presumably much stronger and more reliable logos. Certainly more[i] expensive[/i] logos and expensive is reassuring

(people do the same with other noncarbon things, apparently HT pedals are more reliable when the have a Superstar logo than when they have a HT one)

My experience, which is obviously only limited to me, is that since the 90s I've snapped 3 alu bars, cracked and bent one alu bar, and cracked 1 carbon bar (a very expensive Easton jobbie). I have no doubt that at some point in the future I might also break another bar, but I don't think the material it's made from is likely to be any indicator as to which one it will be.

Nobody is asking you to change your opinion, just acknowledge that its not based on any real verifiable facts so should be presented as such, unsupported opinion, nothing more.

I have never claimed anything else. Just my personal experience of both the material and mtb bars. I've seen lots of broken carbon and alloy bars at the LBS.

FWIW my risk averse attitude toward bars in particular has resulted in zero broken or cracked bars in a similar timescale to yours. But then I only ever buy bars with a proven track record and ones designed for a higher load rating than I need i.e. DH rated. As you say, it gives more margin (a lot more I would say) for a small gain in weight.

Just for clarity, I don't trust carbon bars from any manufacturer and especially not unknown Chinese non-branded items. But if I had to put one on my bike, it would be a) branded b) a proven history of reliability c) intended for DH usage. I'd be okay with that, except quality alloy ones are cheaper and have never broken on my bike.

Ride safe guys, just do your research and know what you're buying.

So back to the bar the OP was contemplating buying for £14. Does anyone actually know what the f. it is, where it came from, or what it's actually made of? Was it even made in China?

Anyone who thinks that part wouldn't be a risky fit to their bike is an idiot.

FWIW my risk averse attitude toward bars in particular has resulted in zero broken or cracked bars in a similar timescale to yours.

Do you have a rock that also keep tigers away ? 😉

But then I only ever buy bars with a proven track record and ones designed for a higher load rating than I need i.e. DH rated. As you say, it gives more margin (a lot more I would say) for a small gain in weight

The 3 snapped ones were an Azonic DH bar (on a rigid single speed), an Answer Pro-taper (at the time widely regarded as 'the' DH bar to have) on a hardtail, and a Race Face XC bar, ironically on my commuter so saw virtually no hard use at all.

The cracked/bent alu one was an easton EA70, and the cracked carbon bar was an Easton Carbon Monkey Bar DH fitted to an XC bike.

So hardly being used outside their comfort zone, and all from well known manufacturers with a proven track record. Bizarrely never broken a bar when I was riding DH or racing 4X even when using lighter XC/Trail bars, always went on fairly tame rides.

So back to the bar the OP was contemplating buying for £14. Does anyone actually know what the f. it is, where it came from, or what it's actually made of? Was it even made in China?

Anyone who thinks that part wouldn't be a risky fit to their bike is an idiot.

It's a bar, probably made from carbon of some kind, and probably from China, probably from a factory that makes lots of carbon bars, maybe good ones, maybe crap ones. but that's about as much as we know. We don't know if it is crap or not, so its not fair to say it's risky, at this point it's unknown.

I've not bought one of the bars from the seller in the OPs link, but see my early on posts about buying a £15 carbon bar from ebay just to try it out and see what the fuss was about. 2 years of racing later, still in one piece.

Finish and build quality appear visually on par with my much more expensive branded items, obviously I have no idea on the quality of layup inside, nor do I on any bar, but short of actually trying to break it I think that's a fair enough test for me, real world use under normal riding conditions, including some silly crashes an occasional heavy landings.

I'm still gonna be conservative and run heavier built bars on my Enduro (shudder) bike and anything where I think it will get harder use, but I was curious about these so called chinese-exploding-death-bars, so decided to investigate, my investigations have so far revealed that they haven't broken under normal use.
I'm not making any claims about them in general or that they are awesome, just that I bought some of the apparently most risky ones, and they've not broken.

Orange have identified a manufacturing problem and done something about it. The overall risk in buying an Orange fork is less, because there is an extra layer of post-manufacture quality control.

Getting back on to the OP's point I'm not a engineer but I imagine a Carbon bar is relatively easy to produce to a decent standard and when the cost of marketing/Big name branding/Packaging is taken out of the equation the end product is probably quite cheap to make and sell on with only a small mark up for them.
Its similar to the difference in cost to you in buying Tesco Value baked beans or Heinz Baked beans.

All this speculation re.Quality and lack of QC is just that.
Now I'm off some beans on toast (tesco value of course:-)

I'm not a engineer but I imagine a Carbon bar is relatively easy to produce to a decent standard

Unfortunately it isn't as easy as you imagine. Even the big players have taken years to get it right and they still have unexpected failures.

It's a bar, probably made from carbon of some kind, and probably from China, probably from a factory that makes lots of carbon bars, maybe good ones, maybe crap ones. but that's about as much as we know. We don't know if it is crap or not, [b]so its not fair to say it's risky[/b], at this point it's unknown.

If that isn't risky I honestly don't know what is! Are you really saying that if something is a total unknown it is therefore not a risk? You've got to be taking the piss right?

Once again though, you have no idea whether the same is true for the manufacturer in the OP's link.

They're a very similar shape to Bontrager bars of a few years ago - an unusually abrupt rise. They'd be safer if they were the same product with a Bontrager logo on then? Or just less risky?

A member of my family builds Le Mans class cars down here on the South Coast. Id get him to out some bars together but the materials would cost more than CRC knock out Eastons for. Damn clever these Chinese.

They are, but I think Easton's stuff is made in Mexico and Taiwan.

Once again though, you have no idea whether the same is true for the manufacturer in the OP's link.

They're a very similar shape to Bontrager bars of a few years ago - an unusually abrupt rise. They'd be safer if they were the same product with a Bontrager logo on then? Or just less risky?

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to say these are Bontrager bars just because they are vaguely the same shape? I'm starting to doubt your sanity.

Damn [s]clever[/s] low paid these Chinese.

Fixed

[quote=moshimonster ]1: Carbon is great for tensile/compressive loads, but not so good in bending, which is the primary load on a bar.

Whoah. I was to some extent with you right up to that point, where you revealed that you don't really have that good an understanding of structures, or of composites. Then bending load on a bar does not require the carbon composite to take a bending load - the forces on the carbon walls of the bar are a tension on one side and a compression on the other, which results in a torque force in the bar resisting the bending load. This is a fairly fundamental principle of the use of composites - sandwich construction is widely used where parts are required to resist a bending force, as the foam or honecomb core separates the two sheets of composite material and results in a bending stiffness for the structure as a whole due to compressive and tensile stiffness in the composite. Clearly a hollow tube inherently has the same principle of two separated layers of composite.

2: Carbon manufacture is very labour intensive and quality control is critical to the strength of the finished product. We struggled with it in F1, so I'm not convinced mtb mass manufactured parts are going to be consistent enough.

Big, big difference between F1 and mass manufacture with composites. With F1 you're making one-off or at best limited runs of parts. Not only is this an extremely expensive process, given that much of the cost of composites is in the moulds, but you're also presumably on very short deadlines and don't have the opportunity to test and incrementally improve the processes. Now I'm not saying that all composite manufacturers will be doing the best job, but they do have the time (and money, as development cost will be spread out over a large production run) to spend getting it right.

FWIW I'm a degree qualified engineer with a general engineering degree, hence have studied structures and materials (including composites), though I've never worked in that area. I have a hobbyist interest in composites, having owned lots of composite kayaks and done plenty of repairs and have made my own sandwich composite parts. I've owned plenty of carbon bars, all branded (though most by brands you wouldn't have heard of), but currently have alu bars (KCNC, ie Chinese branded) as I use bar ends and they kept breaking the ends of the carbon ones in crashes. As I mentioned above I also have a Chinese branded seatpost on my roadie.

Oh, and I do agree with some of what moshi is saying (and others are coming out with some stupid stuff), but I'm clearly with the majority on here in considering that branded Chinese products (from companies with a track record and good customer service) are no more risky than western branded products.

I'm clearly with the majority on here in considering that branded Chinese products (from companies with a track record and good customer service) are no more risky than western branded products.

On a slightly different note, what about obviously fake products - things like the carbon bars labelled Bontrager or 3T that some times pop up for "it can't be genuine" money on ebay?

More or less risky than unbranded/Chinese branded bars??

(I don't have any, I'm just curious about the hierarchy of risk perception 🙂 )

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to say these are Bontrager bars just because they are vaguely the same shape? I'm starting to doubt your sanity.

Of course not, I'm just saying that they [i]could [/i]be the same product for all you know. You trust the Bontrager ones more because they have a sticker on, but you don't know they're a superior product.

More or less risky than unbranded/Chinese branded bars??

In my increasingly contradictory risk scale I say no. I'd rather have a product that a brand is prepared to put their own logo on, rather than trying to replicate something with a 'known' brand logo on. It's potentially chicken and egg a little though - and that statement is in direct contradiction to my one above! I guess it depends which brands you trust - Superstar are very open about buying catalogue products from the Chinese and sticking their logo on. Easton (one assumes) aren't doing that!

Quite often though the 'fakes' are the same as every other product, just with a Ritchey logo or whatever.

Are you really saying that if something is a total unknown it is therefore not a risk? You've got to be taking the piss right?

No, I'm saying that the risk of failure is unknown, because the quality is unknown on that particular bar, but you moved well on form that and were talking about Carbon in general and specifically Chinese carbon.

Since neither you nor I can know (at this point) conclusively whether that particular bar is any more or less likely to fail than any other branded bar.

What I'm trying to get at, and probably not managing to explain very well, is that you're basing your assessment of risk on the bits you don't know (origin, brand, construction etc.) not on the bits you do.

If it were revealed that that was actually an Easton Carbon DH bar (its not) with the stickers removed, you'd be a lot happier about using it, nothing about the bar would have fundamentally changed though, just your knowledge, but you'd revise your risk assessment.

In the same way if it were actually proven that it had been built by a Chinese worker with years of composite construction experience in a factory that builds composite goods all day long to a very high standard but can sell things at almost cost price due to no dealer, distributor, branding and retail chain, would you feel the same?

I guess my point is that Chinese != crap

And as I keep saying, at the moment, based on peoples reported experiences there is very little evidence to support the idea that cheap chinese carbon is any less reliable.

*if* it is so risky and the products are so poor, where are all the reports of catastrophic failure? where are the studies and tests proving it? <<< [b]this really is a valid question!![/b]*

I'm not saying they are great, I'm saying that in the absence of any thing to the contrary I'll go on what I see and can verify myself.

On a slightly different note, what about obviously fake products - things like the carbon bars labelled Bontrager or 3T that some times pop up for "it can't be genuine" money on ebay?

Who knows! (a running theme?), and repeated question, general consensus is that regardless of whether they come from the same factories as unbranded or OEM bars, they reveal that the seller/manu. has a different ethical viewpoint, you can't know if this also extends into their ethics regarding construction and QC, especially as the Chinese have a very different viewpoint on 'fakes' to use.

On the one hand they could be the same decent bars they sell under their own brand, just with a copied Bontrager logo slapped on so they can charge more.

On the other hand they could be crappy, corner-cutting ruthless counterfeiters willing to do anything to sell soemthing bar shaped.

Having seen some of the fakes, the finish is almost as good as any other, and what limited visual inspection you can do doesn't reveal any obvious difference, but that doesn't tell you much at all.

* for example, with the Chinese lights threads, there's numerous reports of the fakes with dodgy chargers and lower than expected/intermittent output, crap sealing etc.

There's also reports of genuine stuff from China being very good, but there is a clear amount of evidence and first hand accounts building up.

*if* it is so risky and the products are so poor, where are all the reports of catastrophic failure? where are the studies and tests proving it?

It's interesting that someone like Easton, with a huge reputation and involvement in various sporting disciplines (or are Easton Cycling something different now they've been sold off?), hasn't done something to discredit these 'dangerous' products that are out there. One assumes they don't see it as a genuine threat, not sure I've ever seen fake Eastons, so maybe their lawyers are good too!

I really would like to see someone take on the challenge of a proper test (multi-sample, multi-test) and comparison like that, preferably somebody independent rather than a major player but as long as the tests and data were sound and published.

Might put this to bed once and for all...then again, we might find something else to 'discuss' 😉

Industry information or industry scaremongering?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/fake-bike-kit-costing-industry-millions-a-year-37212/

http://road.cc/content/news/113310-buy-fake-risk-death-support-slavery-%E2%80%93-says-bike-industry

dont forget that the main difference here is route to market. Lets for arguments sake say a carbon bar costs £4 to make, they are using the same R&D as Syncross who also happen to pay the same company in China to make their bars (for arguments sake as this is what happens)

Syncross bars
Cost from Mr Carbon Bars with his margin = £7 (for bare product)
Cost from Mr Carbon Bars with his margin = £10 (for paint/graphics added)
Shipping, tax etc = £3
Packaging = £3

So Int Distributor gets the product for around £16, however, they sell it to country specific distributors for £35 (as they need a margin to cover R&D, advertising, staff etc etc

UK Distributor wants their 50% cut so now the price is £53 at trade plus £10.50 in VAT.

Local Shop/Internet distributor buys it for £63.50 and as its P&A wants at least 40% so it sells for £89.99

Alternatively, Mr Carbon Bars knocks out an additional 1000 bars, this puts his costs down to £3 per bar, sells them to a local seller at £6 each who knocks them out on Alibaba at £15 posted seeing a 40% profit for himself, the same as the bike shop here!

That my friends is why stuff costs so much, not because its better.

And before you ask I've imported chinese stuff in the same way as superstar do or any others and helped select clothing for a range from a selection of factories that make troylee, 661 answer etc.

Oh and if you think thats bad, its even better for Sunglasses, every one wants 100% margin at every stage!

No conclusion to take from this but just for the record .. I've seen fake (or more accurately 'style-aping') frames being made in the same Chinese factory that makes some of the most reputed kit and frames out there.

This is the source of so much misunderstanding in this area, it's a difference in culture that means IP and views of what a product 'is' are quite different. There's more to it than fake vs real, branded vs unbranded.

Whoah. I was to some extent with you right up to that point, where you revealed that you don't really have that good an understanding of structures, or of composites. Then bending load on a bar does not require the carbon composite to take a bending load - the forces on the carbon walls of the bar are a tension on one side and a compression on the other, which results in a torque force in the bar resisting the bending load. This is a fairly fundamental principle of the use of composites - sandwich construction is widely used where parts are required to resist a bending force, as the foam or honecomb core separates the two sheets of composite material and results in a bending stiffness for the structure as a whole due to compressive and tensile stiffness in the composite. Clearly a hollow tube inherently has the same principle of two separated layers of composite.

What a patronising statement. I've got a 1st class and masters degree in mech eng. plus 20 years experience working directly with structures, including carbon. So I'd say I know at least as much as you do about them. I certainly don't need a patronising ladybird book lecture from you about how two sheets of carbon separated by a bonded lightweight honeycomb core make the the resultant structure so much stronger. I'm sure you know that such a structure requires a decent section to work efficiently, typically a quarter inch core. These carbon bars are not such a construction and the primary load is a pure bending load.

I've got a 1st class and masters degree in mech eng

BOOM, there it is again! Shame we don't have signatures, you could just add that, everyone would know that you can't ever be wrong then.

but I'm clearly with the majority on here in considering that branded Chinese products (from companies with a track record and good customer service) are no more risky than western branded products.

I have nothing against Chinese manufacture. I was just responding to the original question about a "carbon" bar of totally unknown origin

Then bending load on a bar does not require the carbon composite to take a bending load ..

bland (a few posts up) has the answer.

I'm off to aliexpress with £12.77 in my hand.

So are you basically saying then Moshi that you think the entire bike industry is wrong for using and choosing Carbon to make bars?

If it's so fundamentally wrong as you suggest then that's a big error, one we would also expect to be reflected by the failure rate.

Or perhaps despite your knowledge, there are actually people out there with a better understanding than you, or the alternative being that you're just wrong and your fears are unfounded?

You seems to be swinging around between talking about carbon in general* and your specific thoughts about cheap chinese carbon**.

*which you don't trust
**which you trust even less

If * is unfounded then perhaps ** is too?

No conclusion to take from this but just for the record .. I've seen fake (or more accurately 'style-aping') frames being made in the same Chinese factory that makes some of the most reputed kit and frames out there.

This is the source of so much misunderstanding in this area, it's a difference in culture that means IP and views of what a product 'is' are quite different. There's more to it than fake vs real, branded vs unbranded.

Its very true, small numbers of Chinese invested massively in Carbon technologies when we were still making everything out of billet alloy or welding steel pipes together. They have the technology, however they have so little clue as to what to do with it in terms of design its scary. This is where western designers come in and provide something amazing looking that they produce in their factory to the specific requirements. You see the chinese can do this and do it well, let them go their own way and design something themselves and thats where it all goes wrong!

The catalog may contain tubes of different shape, size, diameter, weave, carbon quality, inserts, clamps, bearing cases, etc etc, this is what they sell. Its then upto the bike company to chose who to give their design to for production. Fake or real, well some will be over runs on teh genuine product, other factories will have now sprung up that will be less reputible and they will copy others designs using their product as a mould.

BOOM, there it is again! Shame we don't have signatures, you could just add that, everyone would know that you can't ever be wrong then.

Does it piss you off that someone might actually know more than you about a certain subject? I tend to only comment on things I know something about. So what are your credentials to put me right? Hairdresser, insurance salesman, cheap carbon bar survivor?

Of course it doesn't, it just amuses me that you're turning it into top trumps when clearly you don't really have any experience of this specific use case, and as amedias said either the industry is wrong (entirely possible, although why haven't all the carbon bars out there broken? Or at least a significant proportion) or your experience perhaps doesn't hold as much relevance as you want it to.

Aracer disputed your point, your defense was to list your credentials (so as to infer that that makes you right and him wrong). It makes you look silly IMO.

As I said previously I've never used cheap carbon bars or any other cheap carbon parts other than a frame and some rims, I've used lots of expensive carbon bars (and other parts) though!

I've got a 1st class and masters degree in mech eng

-1 credibility point each time you say this. Argue with intelligent comments and verifiable facts, not internet bluster and paper waving.

Or shall we all just state our qualifications and the one with the most wins by default?

Does it piss you off that someone might actually know more than you about a certain subject?

Does it cross your mind that you might not know as much as you think you do?
Or that your experience might not be relevant to the situation?
Or that it might be out of date with current techniques and capabilities?

So what are your credentials to put me right? Hairdresser, insurance salesman, cheap carbon bar survivor?

And trying to goad someone into out-qualificationising you as a come-back makes you looke even sillier.

Bland, it's true that much of the actual lay-up design process is with the Chinese factories, not in all cases but more so than many may expect. My comment was more about not judging factories entirely on what they make for who, good and less-good stuff can come out of the same door. What the 'brand' brings is the understanding of what+why and good design and testing comes from that.
Costing stuff up based on route to market can representative but can miss out those other things that a brand brings to the end product (and the cost of it) and that's where brand values can differ.

I really would like to see someone take on the challenge of a proper test...

I can't read the [url= http://singletrackmag.com/reviews/category/handlebars/ ]reviews here[/url] as I'm not a Premier member, but I think it's safe to assume that not a single one of them mentions any specific figures for deflection under load or stress cycles to failure.
It's all vague nonsense about "impeccable performance and engineering" and "Solid, sweepy bars with just enough damping".
Is it really just coincidence that the Chinese manufacturers don't advertise in STW and never get their products reviewed?

So are you basically saying then Moshi that you think the entire bike industry is wrong for using and choosing Carbon to make bars?

No, I can understand why they do it i.e. competitive stiffness/weight ratio. Same basic reason it's used in motorsport. I just don't think it's the safest option for a mass produced bar for your average weekend warrior. That's my personal choice based on my personal experience and none of the drivel I've bothered to read on this thread has changed my opinion.

The OP asked for an opinion on buying a totally unknown carbon bar from a random ebay seller. I suggested it would be a risky experiment, but some of you guys seem to think it's a good idea. Good luck with that!

All I read here between the lines here is reverse-brand-snobbery of the highest order and a gung-ho attitude toward experimenting with cheap unknown critical bike parts. No wonder they nickname this place single****!

As I said previously I've never used cheap carbon bars or any other cheap carbon parts other than a frame and some rims, I've used lots of expensive carbon bars (and other parts) though!

You seem to be condoning it though, or just arguing for the sake of it. Anyway it's getting tedious this thread, time to move on.

Of course I'm condoning it, because I'm not so narrow minded as to think that unless it's got an expensive logo on it there's a risk it'll explode and send carbon shards straight to your heart.

Thousands of these products get sold, if the failure rate was high there would be many many documented instances of it. There aren't.

-1 credibility point each time you say this. Argue with intelligent comments and verifiable facts, not internet bluster and paper waving.

Or shall we all just state our qualifications and the one with the most wins by default?

You're the one who was questioning my experience and had the cheek to try to patronise me with your own basic knowledge of structures. I guess I'm just pissing in the wind.

Is it really just coincidence that the Chinese manufacturers don't advertise in STW and never get their products reviewed?

If you dig out a bike magazine from the mid to late 90's you will find loads of adverts for parts from Chinese manufacturers, they were commonly advertising anodised alloy parts with terrible adverts, no easy way of buying them and pretty crap designs. These are the factories that then went on to produce items for the big brands and hence stopped advertising in such a way as it was fruitless for them. Instead they took their product catalogs to the big Taiwanese bike Expos and sold their skills to brands from the west, or the likes of Superstar/Planet X to make stuff for them direct.

Buying direct is a calculated risk, the bar that the OP linked to in my eyes is the best of a bad bunch as its not trying to be something it isnt so that suggests to me its an over run, however mine is going on an XC rig as oppose to a alps bashing machine

I've never used cheap carbon bars or any other cheap carbon parts other than a frame and some rims

FWIW i tend to agree but it makes no sense logically

Of course I'm condoning it, because I'm not so narrow minded as to think that unless it's got an expensive logo on it there's a risk it'll explode and send carbon shards straight to your heart.

Thousands of these products get sold, if the failure rate was high there would be many many documented instances of it. There aren't.

Okay that's enough of this thread for me. I'm done arguing about it with internet armchair engineers.

The OP asked for an opinion on buying a totally unknown carbon bar from a random ebay seller.

Indeed only trust it on the trivial bits
FWIW i tend to agree but it makes no sense logically

I wouldn't not use it for bars, just haven't thus far. I'm eyeing up a seatpost at the moment as my (expensive) New Ultimate one is a smidge short, and I don't want to pay £160 for a new one!

Okay that's enough of this thread for me. I'm done arguing about it with internet armchair engineers.

Or, you could dispute what I've said with evidence, not your prejudices. I'm not pretending to be an engineer, armchair, chartered or otherwise, I'm just applying some common sense.

No, I can understand why they do it i.e. competitive stiffness/weight ratio. Same basic reason it's used in motorsport. I just don't think it's the safest option for a mass produced bar for your average weekend warrior

Well weekend warriors as you put it would seem to be a great use case, if it's stiffer and stronger than alternative materials then weekend warriors with low to moderate load scenarios would be a great place to lose some weight with no loss of strength or expectation of extreme load.

If you really think it's not the best material due to inherent drawbacks then the place you really should be advocating not using it is in pro and competitive use, where the loads are higher and the risk of a failure greater both in physical harm, and in lost ranking are not enough to counter the small weigh penalty. Yet pro competition us is exactly where carbon is used most heavily, where it provides a genuine advantage.

if it was such a poor choice and a big risk all the pro teams would be falling back on overbuilt aluminium just for safety.

That's my personal choice based on my personal experience and none of the drivel I've bothered to read on this thread has changed my opinion

But your experiences are not of carbon bars, cheap or otherwise, nor have you presented any reasonable justification other than 'I don't trust carbon'

Which is a fine reason, just stop trying to make out that it's because you know they are inferior. You don't.

The OP asked for an opinion on buying a totally unknown carbon bar from a random ebay seller. I suggested it would be a risky experiment, but some of you guys seem to think it's a good idea. Good luck with that!

Did you read my earlier comments about taking that risk purely out of curiosity, as I was being open minded enough to actually have a look, rather than assuming all the unsupported here-say was right. I was totally prepared for them to break on the first ride. But they haven't they remained surprisingly in tact despite some abuse.

All I read here between the lines here is reverse-brand-snobbery of the highest order

That's a load of twaddle, if you looked at Njees bikes, or mine, or plenty of others you'd find plenty of posh branded stuff as well. You can't accuse someone of reverse brand snobbery when they purchase and use some of the expensive branded bits as well!

It's not about brand snobbery, reverse or otherwise, it's about recognising that good products don't have to be expensive or have a particular sticker on them.

You're the one who was questioning my experience and had the cheek to try to patronise me with your own basic knowledge of structures. I guess I'm just pissing in the wind.

er, if you read the thread, I haven't revealed anything about my knowledge of structures, basic or otherwise, and I don't think I made any patronising commens? perhaps you have confused me with another poster?

I was questioning you because you were playing the 'I'm an engineer so I know better' card. I see no reasoned arguments, facts or verifiable data or evidence from your comments, but lots of 'I know better, trust me, I'm an Engineer'.

I also have qualifications, but I'm not using them to try and put down other posters, and I won't rise to you paperwork one-uppery it's arrogant and unpleasant.

Or, you could dispute what I've said with evidence, not your prejudices. I'm not pretending to be an engineer, armchair, chartered or otherwise, I'm just applying some common sense.

I don't see the point. You obviously think you know better and I can clearly see that nothing I say is going to make any difference. As for you applying some common sense, a lot of your posts in this thread imply a total lack of. But I'm certainly not going to argue about that either!

er, if you read the thread, I haven't revealed anything about my knowledge of structures, basic or otherwise, and I don't think I made any patronising commens? perhaps you have confused me with another poster?

My apologies, I did confuse you with another poster.

As for you applying some common sense, a lot of your posts in this thread imply a total lack of.

I'll bite then. How am I exhibiting a "total lack of common sense"?

You obviously think you know better and I can clearly see that nothing I say is going to make any difference.

You're probably right, because you've not got any first hand experience of the products being discussed, and you're dismissing them entirely as dangerous, risky, whatever. As you have absolutely no idea about that I have indeed considered your opinion on this matter as worthless. Until you give any evidence to the contrary why should I, or anyone, give any credence to your opinion? And I don't mean a piece of paper.