cheap carbon.

[halbritt]

@akasnowmaaan

Carbon frames are like silicon chips - make a ton of 'em, cull the batches with too many flaws, and charge enough to cover the waste. Those dirt-cheap frames are quite often the culled ones. Just like chips, good silicon gets thrown out because of a few bad wafers, good lots of carbon frames get remaindered with the bad. Sometimes, in China they’re a third-shift run by guys at another factory who stole the molds (google Kuota to get some juicy stuff on that) and do their own knock off.

This is patently false. Silicon wafers go through a very specific testing protocol that guarantees that the non-culled product will perform to specifications. To achieve the same level of testing with bike frames, manufacturers would have to x-ray at a minimum or do destruction testing to absolutely guarantee that the frame would have performed according to specifications. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to ride a bike that’s been destruction tested.

I’d be surprised if any bike manufacturer does any testing on individual units other than visual inspection. If they’re doing performance or destruction testing of randomly selected frames, then I’d be surprised.

In any case, I’m quite familiar with the resin transfer molding process, having done a fair amount of VA-RTM myself. If I understand the process for bike frames correctly, they’re using a metal mold, a bladder, vacuum, and an autoclave. All the fiber is pre-preg, so they can’t even fuck up the epoxy. To be honest, there’s really very little that can go wrong.

My point being is that these folks in Taiwan and China have mastered the process of molding bike frames and there’s really no means by which they could compromise quality to make a bike frame more cheaply. The same amount of labor is required. The way to consistently produce a cheaper product is to use cheaper materials. Commonly available standard modulus carbon fiber is available at about a tenth the cost of a high modulus fabric.

[akasnowmaaan]

@halbritt

My point being is that these folks in Taiwan and China have mastered the process of molding bike frames and there’s really no means by which they could compromise quality to make a bike frame more cheaply. The same amount of labor is required. The way to consistently produce a cheaper product is to use cheaper materials. Commonly available standard modulus carbon fiber is available at about a tenth the cost of a high modulus fabric.

Then why do the cheap frames break at such a higher rate than the same mold done for someone like Specialized or Giant? The numbers i heard were ‘literally half as strong’.

Edit: Yeah, I was pulling my analogy out of my ass a bit in an attempt to make a point. I thought it was more accurate, but I stand corrected. The stuff quoted from the other two dudes was verbatim though.

[turpencat]

bike companies send over a rep during production of their frames to oversee qc.
it really cuts out the not giving a crap and meeting quota mentality because if he sees something he doesn’t like he can split with the contract

[amy]

I think the main risk being taken is the inability to warranty.

From what i’ve seen in my limited experience hanging around a bike shop a lot, most carbon failures are not catastrophic- but minor stupid shit, like cracks in the mast,or suspicious hairline shit, enough to make you not wanna ride it.

If you know who made it, you can send that shit back. But when you got it on ebay from taiwan or china or wherever, I don’t think they’re gonna give a shit 6 months later when your frame is making a creaking noise.

[tjayk]

this thread is making me think that i should really just get a trek or specialized through my shop.

especially considering i’ve had to make warranty claims on 3 out of 4 bikes that i have bought new.

paying more for a warranty is almost always going to be worth it.

[Tail_Hook_Lengthener]

[quote=aerobear]I think the main risk being taken is the inability to warranty.

From what i’ve seen in my limited experience hanging around a bike shop a lot, most carbon failures are not catastrophic- but minor stupid shit, like cracks in the mast,or suspicious hairline shit, enough to make you not wanna ride it.

If you know who made it, you can send that shit back. But when you got it on ebay from taiwan or china or wherever, I don’t think they’re gonna give a shit 6 months later when your frame is making a creaking noise.[/quote]

I think that’s simply the gamble that people who buy $500 frames are willing to take, and if you don’t understand that going in, then go to your LBS. It’s the same gamble that dorks who buy Bikes Direct shit take, too. I mean, there’s a little warranty, insofar as there’s a company you can slander, but it’s not as though you can take it down to your local bike shop and have them work out a warranty with Bikes Direct, not unless you’re willing to pay them for their time (and even then, I’d say it’s doubtful).

The cheap carbon frames I’ve encountered are generally very generic and uninspired, heavy and with a very “clunky” feel to them. It’s low-mod shit with a weight that’s often equal to or greater than cheaper high-quality aluminum frames and bikes. As an aside, I don’t sell Cannondales, but practically every time a CAAD comes through the door for a fit or service my boss and I look at each other and say “How on earth could you build a better race bike for this price?”

The cheap carbon seems to exist only to sell a frame to people who feel that they need carbon, but for whatever reason, don’t want to pay for it. When you look at a Bikes Direct carbon POS, or even a customer’s custom-built SRAM Red thingamajig, and stand it next to a Taiwanese Madone 5.2 or Giant TCR, the difference is obvious. I have no dog in this race, so trust me when I tell you that there is simply no comparison.

[Toast]

overly simple question: at a similar price, new no-name taiwan frame or used “branded” frame?

par example this guy consigned locally for 500 (no idea if it’s a decent fit, other than the fact that the TT length is in my ballpark)

[klondikebear]

@akasnowmaaan

Great carbon is ridiculously strong. Hell, at my fattest I’m almost 3 bills and I ride a carbon roadie and the Mojo, one of the first carbon FS mountain bikes. I have no problem with carbon if done right, so no FUD from me.

Carbon bikes are like a cake, mushed together in a mold and ‘baked’ and the nature of the material hides flaws to the naked eye. You could get a first-rate knock off, or you could get one with a mushy left chainstay and a void at the head tube junction. You just can’t know because of the process. With metals, you can often see the significant dings that could lead to really bad stuff later. The way carbon damage propagates, you need a friggin’ X-ray.

This is what I believe. All the crabon bikes today are way over engineered, that’s why you can ride the same frame a 300 lb clydesdale and it holds up fine. I believe the knock off bikes could use similar, maybe even the same molds, use the same quality crabon, same resin, maybe even the same layups, but the quality control just isn’t there, which is why the quality varies quite a bit in those frames.

Basically I repeated what you said

[hanjin]

Here is a neat trick to get a nice brand name frame that I’ve used for the bike I have. But I’m partial to Fuji. I call advanced sports and ask what carbon road frames they currently have in their “warranty” stock. You can ask for a specific frame if you know what you want. They tell me what they have in my size and I call my local dealer and they order the frame. I usually get a year older frame but they go for super cheap. I know some people don’t like Fuji’s stuff and they have a shit-ton of stickers on their bikes but they also warranty their carbon frames for life. I’ve gotten my latest road bike this way an 08 Fuji Team RC with all DA. And my 3 29er mountain bikes as well. It works pretty well if you want just a frame. I’m sure other manufactures do the same but Fuji tends to blow out their stuff much faster. Advanced also owns breezer and Kestrel I believe.

[halbritt]

@klondikebear

This is what I believe. All the crabon bikes today are way over engineered, that’s why you can ride the same frame a 300 lb clydesdale and it holds up fine. I believe the knock off bikes could use similar, maybe even the same molds, use the same quality crabon, same resin, maybe even the same layups, but the quality control just isn’t there, which is why the quality varies quite a bit in those frames.

…and my point is absolutely contrary to this.

QC contributes nothing to final product unless the final product would have otherwise been flawed, i.e. bubbles in the gel coat or voids or whatever. I’m asserting that the “cheap” frames are generally flawless, but that they’re made of cheaper, lower modulus carbon with little regard to the engineering of the layup, thus it’s heavy and not as stiff as a well engineered frame. Sure, there’s probably a higher rate of flaws, but I doubt that it’d naturally be any higher. There’s just not that much to go wrong. Further, most frames are mass-produced from pre-preg, so there’s no resin to get wrong. The resin in the pre-preg is going to be predetermined by the manufacturer of the cloth as most optimal for the given material, one hopes. In the case of cheap cloth, I wonder how good the resin is.

Last I checked, low-mod cloth was ~$50/yard and hi-mod cloth was ~$300/yard. I’m sure the prices aren’t really accurate in terms of what bike manufacturers pay, but that gives an idea of scale. So, Joe-Chinese-Bike-Manufacturer might get an order from a company with a layup schedule that calls for several layers of uni-directional hi-mod cloth oriented at X degrees at certain locations in the mold which would be interleaved with some number of layers of low-mod cloth and then a veil with gel-coat on top.

Following that, Joe-Chinese-Bike-Manufacturer can take the mold they’ve build to satisfy those orders and fill it with generic, locally produced carbon cloth and then toss off a couple thousand frames to sell at half the price as the one they’ve already built, all to the same quality specs as the firm is accustomed to delivering with a margin that’s as good or better as they were getting for the “decent” frames they built with super expensive hi-mod cloth imported from Toray in the US.

I’m speculating here, but what I know about the composites industry allows me to do so with some degree of accuracy.

[quilbert420]

i’ve never owned (or ridden) carbon, but i’ve learned that you pretty much get what you pay for, within a small margin.

see: the v-o stuff, bikes direct stuff, etc, etc

cheap stuff is cheap for a reason- if not on function, maybe on form. maybe on both. or maybe it’s a well built and well priced frame but the geometry is a bit strange (iro).

[quilbert420]

@bonechilling

As an aside, I don’t sell Cannondales, but practically every time a CAAD comes through the door for a fit or service my boss and I look at each other and say “How on earth could you build a better race bike for this price?”

yes, but dealing with cannondale (as an owner/manager, and as a mechanic) is its own special breed of hell.

[halbritt]

@biekridd

you pretty much get what you pay for

I hate this expression as it’s false more often than it’s true. Understanding the true value of a thing is difficult and “you get what you pay for” is a poor excuse for overpaying for things.

[Larry_Winget]

Funny you should mention that, biek.

I was just looking at some cheapie alu cross frames (Dolan, Planet X, Bike Island). Then I looked at the geometry charts and cable routing and just shook my head.

I dunno. I guess my feeling is no matter how well executed it is, crabon is disposable or at least the frame material most subject to the whims of fashion. And it depreciates like a motherfucker. Ride quality aside, the question to ask yourself is not “Will this fail when I’m riding it?”, but “Will I be the owner of this bike when it fails?”.

[quilbert420]

@halbritt

[quote=biekridd]you pretty much get what you pay for

I hate this expression as it’s false more often than it’s true. Understanding the true value of a thing is difficult and “you get what you pay for” is a poor excuse for overpaying for things.[/quote]
there’s a vast difference between overpaying (and for that matter,overbuying for the intended use) and making informed purchases.

while mr. toast probably doesn’t need a 3k (or whatever they, cost, i don’t actually know) look when a giant or fuji would work just fine.

more $$$ =/= more better.

wait, i think we are in agreement here.

[Dickason_Daniel]

two things:
a) I don’t think you guys even know what you’re arguing about now

b) my dad has a pedalforce. they do groupbuys at around $500, I think. http://pedalforce.com/online/product_info.php?products_id=19012 customer service seemed legit. he’s had no warranty issues. I think bf road groupbuyed some.

[dougtruck]

i would put money on toray having a huge QC staff and program. i can almost assure you its some lean mfg or aggravating 5s bullshit but it gets the job done

alibaba or whoever makes their cloth, eh not so much.

[FIXIE_STAR]

[quote=tarckeemoon]Funny you should mention that, biek.

I was just looking at some cheapie alu cross frames (Dolan, Planet X, Bike Island). Then I looked at the geometry charts and cable routing and just shook my head.

I dunno. I guess my feeling is no matter how well executed it is, crabon is disposable or at least the frame material most subject to the whims of fashion. And it depreciates like a motherfucker. Ride quality aside, the question to ask yourself is not “Will this fail when I’m riding it?”, but “Will I be the owner of this bike when it fails?”.[/quote]

In the almost three years I’ve owned my crabon look, I’ve never ever thought that.

[dougtruck]

the question i’d ask myself is

am i anywhere near fast enough to warrant this?

or would that money be better spent on another couple doughnuts?

[stronglight1047]

looks just like the real thing.

buy donuts, ride old bike.