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

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.