http://www.hongfu-bikes.com/html_info/Out-Test-7.html

Not sure what they’re doing but I’m sure it’s not right…

Why?

loads of folk on here (and all the other forums) have them, and are really happy with them.

Can you post a video of how the tests are supposed to be carried out?

I have a set of their forks on a road bike and I am still alive but only time will tell.

Haven’t you heard about these frames cracking/snapping!? It’s all over the Internet..

Proper tests like this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs

Forces that actually happen on the bike..

Not seen that Santa Cruz vid before. Pretty impressive and changed my carbon fearing mindset.

Care to share some links ?

who do you think make all the ‘main bike companies’ bikes and who do you think does the production batch testing? Absolutely nothing wrong with those checks and if they were dodgy do you think that they would show all the testing and reporting they do? Or they could buy some ‘proper’ test machines and double the price of their frames.

I think it was on one who say their factory test carbon frames every day to make sure there are no production problems slipping through the net.

Good job the big brands don’t brake then.

This happened on a club ride…

Also Trek are currently worming their way out of a warranty claim with one of our members who has a cracked seat stay on a £2k frame.

i aint riding with you or your mates…..

did those forks go at speed? ouchy!

I don’t think they’d put it on their own website if it wasn’t right?

I think people are highly mistaken if they think the big brands use some fancy high tech method for fatigue / load testing frames. You don’t see such videos on Trek / Specialized / AN Other bike company websites because it might ruin the shroud of mystery around their similarly agricultural load test methods.

Either that or this thread is just a good troll 😉

400 miles in on my Hongfu carbon bars and currently still my teeth and ability to breath. Pretty nicely made from what I can see and have been a marked improvement in comfort. Personally , the testing you see is more than some companies may even do and more macarbe.

Boy, I’m glad I buy from the main bike companies…

You wouldn’t buy a pre-production one off untested sample then? http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/orange-five-buildsweights-show-and-tell

Either that or this thread is just a good troll

bingo 😉 😆

http://road.cc/content/forum/52254-them-cheap-carbon-frames-ebay

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bikes-frames-forks/chinese-carbon-frame-ebay-direct-thread-4-0-a-234445-52.html

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=77534&start=75

Just a few.

My orange is a prototype which they used in building the five. They obviously tested them…

No, the ones that are actually tested are tested to destruction. They don’t do that to prototypes as they’ll not be expected to / be needing to have a long life.

Edit: Actually, I’d be worried that one of those was about to snap in half at any time.

we need a ‘singletrack experts’ forum.

we need a ‘singletrack experts’ forum.

Singletrack IS an experts forum.

I’m yet to hear of a brand with a 100% record of perfect frames.

I’m yet to hear of a brand with a 100% record of perfect frames.

and i wouldnt believe it for a minute

For me statments like ‘I have put 400 miles in on them’ is reassuring, but that sort of milage is not enough for me to say a part is really reliable or not (unless we are talking about jump bikes or downhill bikes).

For road parts, then I would say 5000 miles is a good figure for frames, bars etc and 1000-2000 miles for normal mtb use.

When I get my butt in gear and maybe after another few weeks of ownership, I’ll have a 1000 miles on them :roll:. I did research before I bought and havent seen any particular failures of their products before I bought.

For road parts, then I would say 5000 miles is a good figure for frames, bars etc and 1000-2000 miles for normal mtb use.

do you mean until they wear our to until they break?

do people actually ride their bikes? I do a min of 3000miles a year on my Brompton just commuting and for work – current one is 2.5 years old..

1000miles a year for an MTB is nothing only 4o mile ride every two weeks.

5000 miles is a good figure for frames

I’d hope that for a frame 5000 miles was wearing in, not out. One year’s riding from a 2K carbon frame, I hope not.

I haven’t watched the videos in detail, but they look a lot like the tests detailed in the ISO standards. Their kit might not be posh, but they’re testing to the appropriate standards.

and the main bike companies are glad they buy from Hong Fu. Honestly, do you think there is one frame factory in China?

There are own label bike sales companies in the UK who have sold carbon frames without ever seeing the factories they come from. Mind the same applies to steel and aluminium frames. Just order a container full, make sure the paperwork says they conform to the latest standard and you are away.

Just a few.

major & minor brands

They dont make **** products in China OP. What concerns me is the price. For 400quid+ landed your not far off planetx/dolan/ribble for full build 1k bike value IMO.

See brants comments on page 2 re: what he sees being made in the same places OnOne and PlanetX kit is made…

Well, I’m an engineer (and an ex cycle mechanic) and I guess if you can’t see that the testing in the first video is very basic, then I don’t know.

You get what you pay for.

did those forks go at speed? ouchy!

Yes around 30 at a guess. I had just overtaken him on a downhill stretch of road. Bloody lucky I wasn’t sucking his wheel.

I guess if you can’t see that the testing in the first video is very basic, then I don’t know.

It can be as basic as you like as long as it’s appropriate for the test.

I guess, what’d make it better is more weight on the test bikes. I think I counted 65kg and not many people are intact that light. I am around 90kg and I wouldn’t buy one of these, especially because I’ve been all around China and can tell you now, everything is cheap and breaks in alot shorter time.

The video shows a typical Engineering test set up, I see nothing wrong with what they appear to be doing.

For context: I’m a professional Engineer with 25 years experience 8)

What’s kind of interesting here is that over a few years folk have moved on from questioning carbon’s suitability for bike components and frames at all – remember then? – to selectively questioning ‘cheap’ carbon fibre. The implicit assumption is that the ‘big brands’ know what they’re doing with the stuff now.

There was a time, a few years back, when I’d never have considered a carbon mountain bike frame because the idea of it being hit by rocks appalled me. Now all that’s stopping me is that I can’t afford to buy the one I’d like… 😉

As bencooper mentioned – those look like the standard CEN tests like those detailed over here (PDF) http://rousebicycles.com/pdfs/1003-4%20Rouse%20Bicycles.pdf
It might not involve lasers and holograms, or even make much sense, but you can’t blame Hong Fu for that…

I guess if you can’t see that the testing in the first video is very basic, then I don’t know.

Does it test in the manner specified in the standards? If it does then who cares?

If a company has fancy test equipment, it just means they’ve bought the kit – it doesn’t mean they have devised the tests properly, implemented them properly, and know how to interpret the results.

I’ve got a pile of explosives testing info I got from Nobels – it used to be classified, probably isn’t any more. Anyhow, the Americans had a lot of trouble calibrating their drop-test machines – the slider had friction, the height it released at would vary, the rebound height was hard to measure, stuff like that.

Nobels – at the time the largest explosives manufacturer in the World – had a big bloke with a hammer and an anvil. But he had been doing it for years, he knew exactly what he was doing, and he consistently got better and faster results than Los Alamos.

My point? It’s the results that matter. If the frame passes the tests as specified in EN 14766 then it doesn’t matter how those results are obtained.

As shown in Figure 28, mount the frame-fork assembly at its rear axle attachment points so that it is free to rotate about the rear axle in a vertical plane. Support the front fork on a flat steel anvil so that the frame is in its normal position of use. Securely fix masses of 10 kg, 30 kg, and 50 kg to the top of the steering head, the seat-post, and the bottom bracket respectively, as shown in Figure 28.
Measure the wheel-base with the three masses in place. Rotate the assembly about the rear axle until the distance between the low-mass roller and the anvil is 300 mm then allow the assembly to fall freely to impact on the anvil.
Repeat the test and then measure the wheel-base again with the three masses in place and the roller resting on the anvil.

That’s the “falling mass” test from EN14766 (MTB).

This test always impresses me. http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTM5MTgyNTQ0.html

Seem to be doing things well. I especially like their Stiffness Test rig which isn’t an EN test, but is a QC measure we use too.

Some pics of the santa cruz test lab for comparison….
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/santa-cruz-bicycles-test-lab.html

especially because I’ve been all around China and can tell you now, everything is cheap and breaks in alot shorter time.

must be fact then!