[Closed] Chinese "Replica" Frames

The biggest tourist attraction for Chinese visitors to the UK is Bicester Shopping Village, an upmarket retail park which has outlets for Burberry, Prada and all that sort of stuff.

Dagenham Market doesn't feature on so many itineries, for some reason.

@Chief - no worries. 🙂

Shibboleth.....the FM066....well, sadly I've probably spent more time using it indoors on the rollers than in the real world, but I'm pleased with it so far. Couldn't tell you if it was necessarily any better or worse than the alu Genesis frame I was riding before that or how it would stack up against a top brand carbon frame. But it is a sub 1kg frame and weighs a fraction over 16lb built up. I'm racing it this weekend for the first time....

Rather than the good or bad quality of the Chinese manufacture, I'm more worried by my hamfisted assembly getting the crown race on the fork steerer!? Touch wood..... 😉

Rather than the good or bad quality of the Chinese manufacture, I'm more worried by my hamfisted assembly getting the crown race on the fork steerer!? Touch wood.

If you'd seen how I cack-handed mine onto my PX fork, you'd be less worried. Mallet. Plank. Off we go.

Mr Shibolth

Your style of debating reminds me of listening to my 6-year-old nephew and his friends.

Now now, there is no need to get your knickers in a twist. I was merely pointing out to the novice here that there is no way [b]you[/b] can tell if a counterfeit bike is the same as an original. You seem to think that because its the same shape and has the same stickers it must be the same. Or, if it is the same shape minus the stickers, it still must be the same as an original, but only without the stickers.

I am trying to tell you, before you go and waste your money (which undoubtedly you will, the way you have been wan*ing on about the merits of fake bike frames) on a "fake" bike that you have no way of telling if the bicycle is fit for purpose. In other words I am trying to save you the money and, later down the line, the shame of owning such a bike.

I'm pretty sure that its people like you that are selling on counterfeit bikes as original to poor unsuspecting individuals. Probably you will buy it, all faked up, stickers and all and then be hugely disappointed that its misaligned, things don't fit etc. etc and all the other things that people have already mentioned... then you will feel the shame of wasting your money in such a foolish way. More so as you have been told, but refuse to listen. You will then proceed to try and recoup your costs by passing it off as an original to some unsuspecting member of the public.

I have to commend you on your persistence. I also think you could probably make a really successful bible sales man.

Top Gear on BBC3 right now... driving Chinese copies of Euro cars.

Thus could get interesting now. 😉

@quartz

big difference with fake I-Pad and fake bicycle frame?

..you don't ride an I-Pad, if the I-Pad bricks itself it won't put you in a wheelchair or require a trip to the dentist for expensive treatment 😉

personally, I would be concerned to take an unknown bicycle frame down a steep road hill at 40mph, results could be 'interesting' to say the least?

Might get away with it, might not....welcome to the live experiment?

If you work every day on high end road frames, its actually not hard to know what to look for when examining genuine frames versus fake frames.

Finding paper / newspaper (!), bladder debris, bits of ??? inside the tubeset is not confidence inspiring, especially where the head tube is glued to the downtube. Finding fibreglass or plastic mesh inside the tube set is not confidence inspiring.

Checking frames with fore / aft alignnment 40mm out, is not inspiring.

something I would say from my experience is that some of the "unbranded" frames, that are identical to "branded" frames are often units leaked by OEM suppliers with excess capacity (just like OE groupsets, wheel and finishing kits that regularly wash up on the shore of the on-line re-sellers)

rather than a crude attempt by a counter-fitting gang punting dodgy branded frames through Alibaba Express or Ebay, to screw you out of your money with no regard for your safety on the road

.

you don't ride an I-Pad, if the I-Pad bricks itself it won't put you in a wheelchair or require a trip to the dentist for expensive treatment

Fair point.

I bought a Specialized bike a while ago which had a misaligned rear triangle. Further inspection of the offered replacement revealed that was also on the piss. None of the bikes were any good. Maybe the R+D dept was on the piss as well when that frame was designed.

@quarz

it can happen, have seen it with all the big brands from time to time:- Specialized, Trek, Giant; all taken care of quickly with no fuss / cost

but seen more commonly with smaller brands like Norco, Mythic, Fuji, Kona, etc. lots of time and costs involved, sometimes months to get a resolution.

most importantly with any genuine warranty issue?

How quickly YOUR problem gets dealt with - how quickly YOU get a new frame / bike and back out riding, that is all that matters in these instances (and you don't get palmed off with another of the same problem...but a revised version, or one with proper QC, which you admit SBC failed you in that instance!)

regarding the bigger brands, part of the high "cost" you pay when you buy their frames / bikes is generated by them having a dedicated, domestic distributor with people manning telephones, a warehouse full of replacement parts ready to ship, and procedures in place to deal with these problems when they arise from time to time

Thanks for the genuinely interesting thread. Actual adult debate for the most part. Kept me interested while on hols. Also, not one joke about fake wheel sizes! Highly intrigued about how you patent a shape as the parameters must be so exact that it would almost be impossible to infringe anyway. Unless using exact same moulds materials and techniques in same factory using same engineers! Keep it up best thread for ages

Highly intrigued about how you patent a shape as the parameters must be so exact that it would almost be impossible to infringe anyway

It would be very difficult you’re right. You can register “design rights” (if you’re in the EU you ‘get’ design rights automatically, or you can register the design to get improved protection; I think Cervelo are in Canada where there are no automatic rights) but to be able to make any claims against those rights the design has to be identifiably different to other preceding designs. For example; You can’t take the design of a Venge, move the top tube a few mm and claim that it’s a your new design and register it.

Ultimately though you can have your designs and ideas locked down tighter than a gnats chuff but unless you’re prepared to sue a Chinese company that can disappear overnight in a cloud of falsified paperwork then you are on a hiding to nothing.

Disclaimer for Grum: I am not a patent lawyer, but I know a man who is 😉

Highly intrigued about how you patent a shape as the parameters must be so exact that it would almost be impossible to infringe anyway.

You'd think it would be very difficult Creedy, but Canyon successfully sued Cervelo for copying something so simple as a tapered seat tube - uniform in diametre at the top and flaring out towards the base.

Personally, I'd have said that was a pretty generic and practical solution to increasing stiffness in the BB area. But Canyon successfully argued that they invented it and Cervelo ripped it off.

Cervelo's R5 uses tube profiles that change from their "Squoval" profile at their widest point, down to round at the narrowest point. According to their website, there's a great deal of thought and engineering know-how gone into developing these tube profiles, and to my mind, they're far more unique than a tapered seat tube!

I think what's become abundantly clear from this thread is that the majority of people seem to have been brain-washed to respect corporate branding far more than engineering innovation and intellectual properties.

far more than engineering innovation and intellectual properties.

says the king of knock-offs

Really? I was happy to buy a genuine Cervelo R5 based on the fact that I felt it was the most technically advanced frameset available.

I'm happy to buy cheap Fakely jawbones for mountain biking in because a) They're a cheap disposable item; b) I don't really think there's a great deal of innovation in a pair of plastic-framed sunglasses; and c) I have a genuine pair of Jawbones and several other pairs of Oakleys.

So where does my Pedalforce frame come into this? It's not pretending to be something it's not and it comes from a company with a US presence who do provide some backup, but it's cheap and made in China.

Let's see a pic Aracer, just out of interest... Is it [i]"un homage"[/i] to a frame from a top end manufacturer?

So where does my Pedalforce frame come into this? It's not pretending to be something it's not and it comes from a company with a US presence who do provide some backup, but it's cheap and made in China.

I don't think your pedalforce really comes to this at all. It's not fake, you have the backing of a legitimate company.

I would say you got a great value frame from reputable manufacturer. Still wouldn't call £4-500 cheap but def value.
I can understand the infringements on a design. So the whole top tube as one piece of squovial design for use in bike manufacture. As I've used the squovial shape in steel frame buildings. An immensely strong design which allows load force from all angles needed. Any way eating my 2nd kebab and having 3rd beer 🙂

I'm happy to buy cheap Fakely jawbones for mountain biking in because a) They're a cheap disposable item; b) I don't really think there's a great deal of innovation in a pair of plastic-framed sunglasses; and c) I have a genuine pair of Jawbones and several other pairs of Oakleys.

Also, why not mention your fake Chinese chair? Not a lot of respect for intellectual property there. What's your excuse for that?

@zilog6128

I've been wearing Oakley for many years because I believe in my experience of using and selling many brands, they have the best lens quality and impact protection of any sports sunglasses on the market?

probably the biggest issue I would have with cheap / fake sunglasses is simple; whether its going to provide proper UV protection for your eyes?

and if you take a smash, whether its actually going to protect your eyes or cause damage?

I am typing this, with a 1" scar on my left eyebrow from a "branded" but cheaper pair of clear glasses (used for night riding) that failed in an impact, with the frame actually cutting me open, requiring hospital treatment

probably the biggest issue I would have with cheap / fake sunglasses is simple; whether its going to provide proper UV protection for your eyes?

The DX ones do - someone tested them.

I am typing this, with a 1" scar on my left eyebrow from a "branded" but cheaper pair of clear glasses (used for night riding) that failed in an impact, with the frame actually cutting me open, requiring hospital treatment

I'm amazed the magic power of branding didn't save you. 🙂

Of course you could have spent hundreds on some Oakleys and had the same thing happen.

The DX ones do - someone tested them.

Come on Grum, what the hell is this? surly you know better mate.

Someone tested them. who? Someones brothers friends uncle mates mate? I have read about some of these so called tests and even watched a few, however I have not seen one which has been carried out by a professional with proper equipment.

Also, the same applies here, if one fake pair were to pass a test, given the number of manufacturers out there, there is no way oe could assume that all fakes were safe.

Someones brothers friends uncle mates mate?

It was someone on here. I remember the thread.

as above, it was a proper uv test done in a lab.

didn't the DX ones actually do better in one of the tests, too?

When i'm going downhill on a rough bit of road at possibly 40mph plus i wouldn't want doubt in my mind about my frame and forks.It bothers me about my carbon fork as it seems so light and hollow sounding even though its a top end Easton.

Interesting thread. We see a few copies through the shop, most people are open about what they are, some are oblivious, either way it's no skin off my nose and I think people are allowed to make their own choices. However every dollar that goes into a knock-off is a dollar that isn't going to innovating the next product to be knocked off. If all we ever did was buy cheap copies, we'd all be riding around on basic lugged and plugged carbon frames (if that). it's the margin in the real product that pays for us to be riding such amazing kit, fake, genuine or otherwise.

When i'm going downhill on a rough bit of road at possibly 40mph plus i wouldn't want doubt in my mind about my frame and forks.It bothers me about my carbon fork as it seems so light and hollow sounding even though its a top end Easton.

My mates Ribble fork did come apart going downhill. Bonding came apart at the steerer interface. He took it to Ribble and they told him it wouldn't have happened if he'd have had it serviced! So it can happen to branded parts too.

Here you go testing for Fake Jawbone Lenses.

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/dx-sunglasses-uv400-testing-results ]Clickety Click[/url]

as above, it was a proper uv test done in a lab.

By someone done on here? Right then well that's fine then.

But what kind of science is this? somebody on here tested one set of glasses: Conclusion = all fake oakles must be ok and safe.

Just because one pair has passed a test by "someone on here" (so it must be ok) it does not mean that all fake glasses will pass the same test. Do you think there is only one manufacturer of fake glasses in China?

Does this really your mind at rest? are you happy to take this risk based on this information? If you are well that is great and if you can justify risking your eyes, or those of a child (like some one was doing on here previously) than that is you choice.

Personally I would not take this kind of risk.

Personally I would not take this kind of risk.

It depends why you wear them though.

Most of us as recreational cyclists could ride halfords bikes in Aldi kit and have just as much fun doing so. But mainly we don't. We buy what we like and can afford. I've just bought a mod target wiggo vest from Rapha. Nobody will see it, not even my wife because I look horrific in it. But I'll wear it under my jersey and feel quite happy to do so.

Oakley being any better than a lot of other eyewear manufacturers is just marketing. Good luck to them.

chief 9000: [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/dx-sunglasses-uv400-testing-results ]http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/dx-sunglasses-uv400-testing-results[/url]

no one is suggesting there is only one company manufacturing these. They were referring specifically to the DX versions.

The point being made is that just because somethign is a copy doesn't mean it is functionally inferior.

My car has numerous 'pattern' parts fitted to it. They aren't made or approved by Renault but I trust my life to them 2 or 3 times a week.

Does your car only have parts bought from an authorised main dealer on it?

I do like the 'it might be a childs eyes' line though 🙂

The handwringing from Chief9000 is a bit sad. What business is it of yours, and if you look at the thread with the testing, it's perfectly legitimate on those glasses. Dunno why you're so cynical that someone on here could have a professional qualification.

no one is suggesting there is only one company manufacturing these. They were referring specifically to the DX versions.

To be fair, my understanding of the DX business model is that it is unlikely that all the Jokeleys on there are from one source either. Not sure where this gets us to be honest - knock offs might be made to a decent standard, or they might not. I think we established that about 7 pages ago.

I think you'll find the Jawbones in particular are extremely innovative in that they can hold a large, curved, removable lens very securely with absolutely zero distortion. I can probably appreciate that more than you because I have prescription lenses in mine and when I'm wearing them the field of vision is so good is like I'm not wearing glasses at all.

This is nonsense. A jawbone lens is no more curved, or held any more securely than in thousands of other designs of eyewear! 🙄

chief9000: specifically wrt fakelys/sunglasses and UV, you're missing a fairly fundamental point in that it is actually quite difficult to make polycarbonate that is transparent to UV at any kind of harmful level. You'd have to go out of your way and spend money to make polycarbonate lenses that did not offer decent UV protection.

By all means worry yourself to sleep over lens distortion, optical quality etc but the UV argument is pretty much void, even £3.99 safety specs will offer UV protection.

stupid double post

paulosoxo - Member
It depends why you wear them though.

agreed! it does depend why you wear them. But I think in this case the question was related to UV protection.

wwaswas - Does your car only have parts bought from an authorised main dealer on it?

I have no idea, I take it to the audi garage and they do all the work. 😕

njee20 - Member

The handwringing from Chief9000 is a bit sad. What business is it of yours,

Absolutely no business of mine if you want to wear fake oakleys or not. I was merely taking part in a discussion and offering my point of view. That's what a discussion is, I thought that was clear.

njee20 - Member
and if you look at the thread with the testing, it's perfectly legitimate on those glasses.

I am not sure what you classify as legitimate. Again, its all down to perception and what one is prepared to accept. I personally don't believe everything that I read on an internet forum. In this case some guy who I don't know has made a test and posted the results on an internet forum. Like I said, I don't know this guy and just because he has mentioned a test standard does not make it anymore legitimate for me. I wonder what legitimate means for you?

Dunno why you're so cynical that someone on here could have a professional qualification.

Now this comment is just plain silly. I neither said this or implied it. I myself for instance have professional qualifications. My job is science, I work at the highest levels. Perhaps this is another reason why I will not believe any old crap on the internet.

amedias - Member you're missing a fairly fundamental point in that it is actually quite difficult to make polycarbonate that is transparent to UV at any kind of harmful level. You'd have to go out of your way and spend money to make polycarbonate lenses that did not offer decent UV protection.

I am well award of the UV properties of polycarbonate. The assumption that you are making here, and perhaps missing a fundamental point, is that not all transparent lenses are made from polycarbonate.

[i]I have no idea[/i]

You'd think a man of science would want to know the answers to exactly those sorts of qeustions before trusting his life to any vehicle.

My job is science, I work at the highest levels.

😆

Are people still trying to justify counterfeit goods?

Are people still trying to justify counterfeit goods?

Nah, we've moved on to a pissing contest about who is most "science guy"

I am well award of the UV properties of polycarbonate. The assumption that you are making here, and perhaps missing a fundamental point, is that not all transparent lenses are made from polycarbonate.

Except that in all the examples we've seen, they are, and in the examples tested they are, and that nobody has yet given an example of cheap/fake/knockoff glasses that have offered anything less than acceptable UV protection, not to mention a lot of the cheap glasses sold under reputable brands 😉 will have originated from the same factories, like I said, worry yourself over other things as much as you want, but not UV as that's pretty much been debunked.

Or do you think there are Chinese factories pushing out thousands upon thousands of mass produced dangerous lenses not made form polycarbonate and hoping to find a market for them?

It simply would not be in their interests as they wouldn't be able to sell them domestically let alone OEM to overseas and would be the end of their business pretty quickly to the competition that were making polycarb lenses.

We can all make up our own minds on things given the evidence available to us and the legitimacy we give that evidence based on context and source and our ability to review and corroborate it.

You do seem to be very quick to dismiss 'any old crap on the internet' yet want us very much to agree with you.

You raise questions about the quality of a product, others offer information and example of a 1st hand test by a member fo this very community, yet still you dismiss it and pull the 'I'm a scientist' and 'think of the children' cards.

My job is science, I work at the highest levels.

whoopee for you, does that mean you work at altitude? or that you're just very specialised in your field? is your field and experience relevant?

For all we know you are the foremost in the field of anti-fungal toothbrush treatments and in optimising bristle geometry!

FWIW I have a masters degree in Physics, I could bore you to tears all day about the magnetic properties of nano-scale patterned-media, but doesn't mean sh1t all on this though as its entirely irrelevant to the discussion as this has very little to do with science, its about economics more than anything!

I guess you perform your own UV tests on every pair of glasses before making a purchase then? or do you trust in the manufacturers honesty and published specs (hehe , see what I did there)?

The over-riding theme from most of your posts is that you [b]simply do not trust Chinese goods [/b]and that no amount of evidence or shared experiences will sway you.

which is fine, you are entitled to that opinion, but many on here would seem to disagree.

China != bad
Copy != bad

Some things will be poor quality, but not because they are copies, and not because they come from China, they will be poor because they are poor.

Anyway, since when has UV been such a problem? Before Raymond Ban invented the tinted monocle, did our ancestors die of horrific eyeball sunburn? I've looked at lots of paintings of old dead people, and I've never seen one with unsightly tan lines or pealing skin on their eyeballs...

Surely, wearing sunnies that don't offer UV protection would be no worse than wearing no sunglasses at all? And I only wear sunglasses to keep bugs and crap out of my eyes and to look cool... 8)

So I couldn't care less how much UV protection they offer, that's not why I wear them...

Surely, wearing sunnies that don't offer UV protection would be no worse than wearing no sunglasses at all?

er... not really no, wearing tinted sunnies with no UV protection would be bad as the tint would cause your pupil to allow more light in, more harmful UV light.

your pupil contracts in bright visible light to protect your eye, duping it with a tint into opening wider to allow more light in is a bad thing.

Clear glasses is another matter, obviously we mainly wear them for protection from debris and often in low light conditions, but they're not tinted to the point where they trick your pupils into dilating.

Surely, wearing sunnies that don't offer UV protection would be no worse than wearing no sunglasses at all?

This is nonsense. A jawbone lens is no more curved, or held any more securely than in thousands of other designs of eyewear!

Surely, wearing sunnies that don't offer UV protection would be no worse than wearing no sunglasses at all?

I was rooting for you, Rocky-style, all the way, through all 9 pages, until this.... so close.... 😉

Sorry guys, every day's a school day. Thank you for putting me straight on that. Thank God I got the genuine DX fake Oakley Dokleys! 8)

That's your opinion.

It's not. I've actually been in a proper sunglasses shop, and I've seen with my own eyes - albeit UV damaged eyes - row upon row of glasses, all with curved lenses!!

Where are 'real' Oakleys made?

They're hand assembled by retired astronauts and Vietnam veterans in the United States of America...

It's not. I've actually been in a proper sunglasses shop, and I've seen with my own eyes - albeit UV damaged eyes - row upon row of glasses, all with curved lenses!!

er... not really no, wearing tinted sunnies with no UV protection would be bad as the tint would cause your pupil to allow more light in, more harmful UV light.

your pupil contracts in bright visible light to protect your eye, duping it with a tint into opening wider to allow more light in is a bad thing.

I've heard people say this - is there actually any evidence?

what, evidence that if you put something tinted that blocks the visible spectrum in front of your eye it will cause your pupil to dilate to compensate?

do you need any more evidence than looking in the mirror for that?

or did you mean specifically about the damage UV can cause to the eye with prolonged or high intensity exposure?

I'd like some evidence that wearing tinted glasses that aren't UV protective causes damage - do you have some?

It says it here but without evidence, and it's a website selling glasses

http://www.glasses4less.net/acatalog/Sunglasses_and_Tints.html#.UZ9rNpWHqCg

Doesn't mention it here - http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/uv-protection/AN00832 - it just says having UV protection is important.

Not really an issue for me as my DX Fakelys offer excellent UV protection. 🙂

And you know for a fact that they all have interchangeable lenses, all with no/minimal distortion, held as securely as the Oakleys?

I once got banned for telling someone that I thought they were a bit of an implement. So I'll keep my thoughts to myself... 🙄

What, pray tell, are theses vital points you're so desperate for me to clarify?

Don't worry fella, it's clearly too much for you 🙄

Buying fake kit is theft. No different to buying a stolen bike off some scroat.

Oh god not that old chestnut. 🙄

And what does it say about you that you wear fake Oakleys? You care more about what people think you can afford to buy than you do about the actual quality? Peasantry of the highest order.

Don't worry fella, it's clearly too much for you

Well, you clearly think you've somehow managed to win some self-perceived victory over my opinions with your rigorous cross examination, but I'm not really sure what you've been asking!

I'd be happy to clarify, if you'll tell me what...

And what does it say about you that you wear fake Oakleys? You care more about what people think you can afford to buy than you do about the actual quality? Peasantry of the highest order.

😆

I bought them because everyone on here said they were pretty good sunglasses for not very much money - they were right. I really don't care what people think - I only wear them for biking when I look far from cool anyway. TBH the glasses make me look like a total bellend but they work pretty well - certainly very good quality for the money.

It's not a lost sale for Oakley as I would never dream of spending that much cash on sunglasses. If that's 'peasantry' then so be it. It's nothing like the same as buying a stolen bike though, however many times people say it.

I got my real Oakleys for nothing during the 'have some free sunglasses 'cos we've completely ballsed up our online ordering system and can't sort it out' fiasco a couple of years back.

So anyone who actually bought their DX's is actually costing Oakley less than I did.

The last thing I worry about when riding is UV exposure to my eyes- do you worry about it while walking to the shops? It's more of an issue boating, or climbing/snowsports, with the constant exposure and reflections etc but I can't remember the last time I did a bike ride with a decent amount of UV exposure!

Oh- FWIW, I don't own any fake oakleys because I'd never be seen in anything that looks like Oakleys, they're horrendous. But I'd be happy to wear a less fugly pair of sunglasses made by the same people to the same standard. It's just the Oakleyness that's bringing them down.

Is that what he's harping on about??? Jeebus. I've repeated this so many times that I'm getting really bored - he really should read the thread.

For a final time:

I have a real pair of Oakley Jawbones - I like the shape and they complement my handsome poker face making me look like a very stylish pro. ( 😉 ) However, I would only wear them for road biking, because I'm such a peasant and I don't want them to get scratched on grit and tree branches, or left on the roof of my car after cold, wet night rides as I have done with countless pairs of Bolle safety glasses.

It's similar to the bike, about which I was speaking when I started this thread. I'm such a peasant that, having spent six-and-a-half-thousand-pounds on a Cervelo R5 with the latest Dura Ace groupset, I'd rather not use it in the crash-frenzies that are Criterium Racing.

So I scratched around and found an old Ultegra groupset and wheels and built up a cheap and nasty - some might say peasant-like - Giant TCR carbon frame... But it's a bit too small, so, being a peasant, I just thought I'd drop a measly 400 quid on a new frame. 🙄

Right, I'm off to eat some gruel.

It's nothing like the same as buying a stolen bike though, however many times people say it.

Actually there's a little thing called The Law which says it is.

Do you wear a fake Rolex and drive an old BMW with fake M3 badge? Classy that is.

[img] [/img]

What on earth is the relevance of that photo???

Actually there's a little thing called The Law which says it is.

Funny that, I'm pretty sure that the act of buying fakes isn't against the law. CAB is a bit wooly about "committing a crime if you buy fake goods abroad", but I think that refers to the local law not UK. Selling fakes is illegal, but buying a frame from China for your own use isn't AFAIK. Whereas steeling definately is.

Do you wear a fake Rolex and drive an old BMW with fake M3 badge? Classy that is.

The seats in my C-max 1.6 say 'RS' on the stiching. Not sure if this will harm any children or baby robins though.

Actually there's a little thing called The Law which says it is.

The law says that buying 'Okley' sunglasses is [i]exactly[/i] the same as buying a stolen bike? Can you point me to the specific law that says that please?

Do you wear a fake Rolex and drive an old BMW with fake M3 badge?

Nope. The Fakelys are the only copy item I own. So again, am I a valued customer of all the dozens (hundreds?) of genuine products I own, or am I a scummy, immoral, thieving toe rag for buying a cheap replica of some ludicrously expensive sunglasses that I would never dream of buying, that make me look like a tit? 🙂

amedias - Member
The over-riding theme from most of your posts is that you simply do not trust Chinese goods and that no amount of evidence or shared experiences will sway you.

Ooooh dear another one who cant read. 😯 Not at all is this the theme of my posts. if you too the time to read, and more importantly understand the words, you would see that the distrust is of counterfeit goods. If I would distrust all Chinese goods, i would have a pretty hard time buying anything eh? Einstein?

let me guess errmmmm london metropolitan university?

I'd like some evidence that wearing tinted glasses that aren't UV protective causes damage - do you have some?

not easily to hand no.

If I have time later I might go digging to see if I can find some, I've read about some studies, cannot for the life of me remember where or when, and the logic of UV being cumulatively bad for skin and eyes (well documented and established) and the fact that when using tints pupils dilate to compensate suggests it is a legit concern but you've sown the seed of doubt now so I should do the proper thing and go investigate!

I'm enjoying this thread, I do love a good scrap/debate and there's some quite strong opinions from both sides on a multitude of intertwined topics, good fun 🙂

If I have time later I might go digging to see if I can find some, I've read about some studies, cannot for the life of me remember where or when, and the logic of UV being cumulatively bad for skin and eyes (well documented and established) and the fact that when using tints pupils dilate to compensate suggests it is a legit concern but you've sown the seed of doubt now so I should do the proper thing and go investigate!

I'm not saying it's not true, it makes logical sense I suppose - it's just that I've only ever seen it written either on sites trying to sell you (expensive) sunglasses, or from what sounds like people repeating what they've heard on those sites. I've never seen a link to an actual study.

The cynic in me thinks that it's probably not as much of a big deal as it's often made out to be.

Ooooh dear another one who cant read. Not at all is this the theme of my posts. if you too the time to read, and more importantly understand the words, you would see that the distrust is of counterfeit goods. If I would distrust all Chinese goods, i would have a pretty hard time buying anything eh? Einstein?

Sorry If I misunderstood, you know how it is on t'internet, but that was the impression I was getting, now whether that's a result of poor comprehension on my part or poor explanation on your part is open for debate 😉

I think I should also stress that I think there is a difference between 'counterfeit' and 'copy', maybe not legally, but one implies intent to deceive, where as the other merely to replicate.

Counterfeit to me suggests that the intention is to pass the object off as something it is not, to deceive, for financial gain at the expense of the purchaser and carries with it all the other concerns of questionable practices that somebody doing that would be involved in.

Copy suggests an attempt to replicate another design due to the positive aspects of the original design, and does not imply that the copy will necessarily be of inferior quality, or that the intention is to deceive.

let me guess errmmmm london metropolitan university?

not even close, and why bother trying to speculate like that, it was you that started the 'My science stick is bigger...' tangent, nobody else cares and it's not relevant and detracts for the topic.

You could well be right grum, I've seen it mentioned on a BBC news snippet, and a couple of other sites not affiliated with the industry, but that doesn't make it any more true!

Have the frames considered by the OP been tested and certified?

Here's an article that says bike manufacturers pay $500 for a frame when buying in bulk.... So a frame retailing at £400 sounds too good to be true.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/light-composite-bikes-made-in-china-slammed-by-uci-execs/011462

Have these frames been EU tested?
Is it legal to sell these frames in to Europe?
What if they fail whilst racing and you lose your teeth?

"He said Specialized had put the fake frames through its quality control protocols and they failed the fatigue and impact tests. In a couple of cases the aluminium head tube cups had debonded from the frame, which could have led to catastrophic steering failure while riding.

“It’s a matter of time before someone gets killed on one of these things,” he said. “You could count on the fingers of one hand the failures we had on carbon Tarmacs and recalled 12,000 bikes and gave people huge credits. The counterfeiters have no allegiance beyond getting past the sale moment, and that’s where it stops.”"

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

You are also getting fake components turn up at the legit brands warranty office. Which suggests that people believe they are buying a legit brand product.

3 out of 5 failures in test?

I have a bit of an issue with fake anythings. My trade (electrical) is awash with fakes, whilst I can't recall a death there certainly has been load of fires.
It amazes me the length the forgers go to to produce a looky likey and it's packaging.
But the big problem is fakes getting into the main market. All's well with a fake while it's just sitting there, but come the day when you're limbs/life depends on it, would you trust it?
Here's a sample from my trade, inside of a circuit breaker.
[img] [/img]
This little baby just sits there keeping you safe, it looks passive but it isn't.
Here's a fake.
[img] [/img]
The modern equivalent of a 6" nail between the terminals, when things go pear shaped your house is going to get very hot, but on the bright side you would have saved a few bob.
Don't be part of this whole thing

wow...nine pages, might as well get my tuppence in.

There is no way on earth I would consider a 'copy' frame. As someone pointed out way back on page one if someone is happy to infinge the law then lets face it, they're probably not to be trusted when it comes to rigourous testing of their product. Yes it might be safe, but do I want that lingering shred of doubt in the back of my mind at 40 miles an hour? I care far to much about my pretty face...

Don't care in the slightest about the 'morality' of it if I'm honest. Yes I'm sure counterfeiting funds crime, harms genuine companies etc etc. But if I was to take a moral stance on everything I bought then I wouldn't be able to buy much, least not from Apple, Amazon, Nike, Nestle, shell, Bp, RBS etc etc etc. Crooks the lot of them.

Back to sunnies, I bought some old stock oakleys, they were fake, wrong markings on the inside of the arm, and had failed a UV test at the local opticians.

The eBay tosser selling them insisted they were real and threatened me with legal action for pointing it out to him. So I would conclude people who deal in fakes are tossers, be it frames or sunnies.

An old girlfriend of mine went to Thailand for a while, and brought me back the best hat I've ever owned..

A cotton bucket hat, hand stitched, kinda beige and blue, but very natural, earthy tones..
Reversible, with the Nike logo on one side and Adidas the other..

I hope this goes some way to clearing up some of the issues raised in this thread..

I hope this goes some way to clearing up some of the issues raised in this thread..

How's about "Cervelo" on one side and "Pinarello" on the other?

Back to those points made by Specialized. It's nothing but PR drivel. Yes, they recalled thousands of Tarmacs, but what the hell were they doing letting so much dodgy product leave the factory?

I'd put my house on the fact that there was a "Ford Pinto-esque" meeting between company accountants, engineers and number crunchers before any recall was made!

And all these horror stories that their PR mill keeps churning out, where are all these people with broken teeth? Are Ribble, Planet X, Onix and all the other UK brands that sell generic "open mould" Chinese frames getting queues of gravel-rashed, toothless and irate customers bringing back frames with catastrophic failures?

No. And that one frame that consistently and regularly appears on forums due to catastrophic failures, is the Specialized Roubaix! I wouldn't have one given!

Yunki... Do you mean a girlfriend who is old, or a previous girlfriend? Also how long was she there? Nice description of the hat though.