Discussion: what are the 'cheap' carbon frames?

maddog 2

Chatting with a mate today about the distinction between 'cheap' carbon frames - painted up to look nice but basic stuff underneath, and decent frames which have some genuine quality. The basic idea being that it's difficult to tell these days which are the good frames and which aren't.

Not meant to be the last word on the subject but this is what we thought:

Cheap:
Planet X
Boardman
Cube
Focus
Canyon
Rose
Mekk

Decent:
Giant
Trek
Specialized
Look
and the handbuilts... (Parlee, et al)

What do you think?

bus_ter

I don't think you lump everything into two categories. What makes a Cube or Focus cheap and Giant or Trek decent?

Apparently 95% of all carbon bike frames come out of a small handful of factories in China. (I have nothing to back that up apart from what I've read on here and other places). What do you think of Ribble, Dedacciai and De Rosa frames?

maddog 2

bus_ter wrote:

what makes a Cube or Focus cheap and Giant or Trek decent?

That's the question I'm asking Like I said, it's a discussion. If you think they're all decent, then put them all in the 'Decent' category'. I just want your opinion, that's all.

bus_ter wrote:

What do you think of Ribble, Dedacciai and De Rosa frames?

Yeah, I'd probably put those in the cheap too. Maybe not De Rosa - I don't know enough about them.

suzyb

Anyone read the article on BR http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ory-33576/

Makes me wonder whether why bikes made in the west have to be better quality simply because they are made in the west. If you pay for quality you'll get it no matter where the factory is (in theory anyway).

bus_ter

maddog 2 wrote:

bus_ter wrote:

What do you think of Ribble, Dedacciai and De Rosa frames?

Yeah, I'd probably put those in the cheap too. Maybe not De Rosa - I don't know enough about them.

I was trying to trick you with that one. Ribble, Dedacciai and De Rosa use some of the exact same chinese frames, but Ribble is regarded as budget and Dedacciai and De Rosa as more premium brands.

bus_ter

suzyb wrote:

Anyone read the article on BR http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ory-33576/

Makes me wonder whether why bikes made in the west have to be better quality simply because they are made in the west. If you pay for quality you'll get it no matter where the factory is (in theory anyway).

I hadn't seen that before. Backs up what I've heard about nearly everything coming from a few chinese factories. You have to be careful with 'made in..' labels. If an Itallian bike company buys a carbon frame from China (as they do) and then paint it up and install some components in Italy then it's a 'Made in Italy' Bike..

RDB66

Canyon frames are cheaper because they cut out the middle man ! thats why you buy direct from them.

I would'nt compare them to any of the others you've got in your 'Cheap' list.

The PlanetX is made of Rubber compared to the Canyon !!

Bozman

That's it throw the Izalco in the bin and buy a Trek or Specialized, pile of cock!
They're probably all made in roughly the same place, bar the top end stuff. You've got to ask why the likes of Trek and Specialized sell mediocure frames/bikes for the price that they do, then you get the up and coming brands selling them a hell of a lot cheaper with higher spec components, i'm going to guess that the Izalco isn't that rubbish if they're used by pro teams.

alihisgreat

The problem is that no Brands will disclose where their bikes are constructed as it ruins the illusion of the brand being significant.

bus_ter wrote:

maddog 2 wrote:

bus_ter wrote:

What do you think of Ribble, Dedacciai and De Rosa frames?

Yeah, I'd probably put those in the cheap too. Maybe not De Rosa - I don't know enough about them.

I was trying to trick you with that one. Ribble, Dedacciai and De Rosa use some of the exact same chinese frames, but Ribble is regarded as budget and Dedacciai and De Rosa as more premium brands.

So therefore anyone who makes accusations like this... is just wrong. No one knows exactly where the frames are made apart from industry insiders. Yeah we can whine about how they are chinese.. but maybe they are constructed by top engineers in a high tech facility?

We can speculate that the frames are from the same mould.. but apart from that anything else is just guesswork. (eg. these open moulds are used in many different factories, using different grades of carbon, production techniques, carbon layups etc.)

heathrow86

You could alway read the article on the front page of Bikeradar, they have done a piece on Swift carbon, based in Taiwan. Very interesting.

symo

RDB66 wrote:

Canyon frames are cheaper because they cut out the middle man ! thats why you buy direct from them.

I would'nt compare them to any of the others you've got in your 'Cheap' list.

The PlanetX is made of Rubber compared to the Canyon !!

Err cite your source on that last comment. Planet X carbon fibre is more than likely the same quality as Giant's; Trek's or Specialized.
As for the original list only Look and the hand-builts should remain on there, Trek, Specialized are at best average and you are paying for a shedload of marketing with both those brands. Look can at least claim they can vary their carbon mix for everything.

alihisgreat

symo wrote:

RDB66 wrote:

Canyon frames are cheaper because they cut out the middle man ! thats why you buy direct from them.

I would'nt compare them to any of the others you've got in your 'Cheap' list.

The PlanetX is made of Rubber compared to the Canyon !!

Err cite your source on that last comment. Planet X carbon fibre is more than likely the same quality as Giant's; Trek's or Specialized.
As for the original list only Look and the hand-builts should remain on there, Trek, Specialized are at best average and you are paying for a shedload of marketing with both those brands. Look can at least claim they can vary their carbon mix for everything.

You do realise that all carbon bikes are handbuilt; its not an automated process.

You also should up your expectations of Giant -> they are one of the better companies... making bikes for a lot of other brands. Giant own their far east factories -> as opposed to specialized and trek who don't

rolf_f

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

We can speculate that the frames are from the same mould.. but apart from that anything else is just guesswork. (eg. these open moulds are used in many different factories, using different grades of carbon, production techniques, carbon layups etc.)

I'm pretty sure in this case it is known - at least the factory model numbers match between De Rosa and some of the unbranded frames - possibly the Ribbles too. Of course there might be differences in how the mould is actually used but what would be the point? If De Rosa specifies a different layup to the layup that Ribble use, all they will probably do is incur costs for no gain; it's not as though they would get any value out of the advertising line - "it looks like a Ribble but the layup is different"!.

maddog 2

This is good. We clearly have some opinions, ranging from "they're all basically the same" to "some are definitely better than others (although I don't have any actual evidence to back this up)" right through to "some are better as they are built differently and/or built out of different stuff".

What interests me is that the objective quality of a frame is rarely (in UK mags at least) actually tested. We get general comments from the Cycling Plus writers such as (and I quote from this month's mag):

"It's responsive enough to race or push the tempo during training, but relaxed enough to take outfor a long, leisurely cruise..."

or my favourite:

"a firmly surefooted ride that will deliver you to the finish"

[whatever the hell that means - who pays these people...]

The publishing world needs to step up, frankly. The world is already full of carbon frames and no one seems to care if they are all the same or otherwise. Instead we get bland, meaningless comments from lightweight journos.

doubledenim

In my opinion the testers should be evaluating frames with exactly the same components on (even down to the pedals) to be able to make a judgement on a frames performance...

I agree with you Maddog

Just because something is made in China, why should have have a bearing on quality. Geographism!

desweller

A riding test is surely too subjective? There must be a torsional test or vertical deflection test out there that we can use? Surely? And if not, WHY NOT?!

B3rnieMac

What about Scott frames? I've had a few of them and am quite a fan. Though I see some of the Chinese guys are doing a Foil type frame, that might be too hard for me to pass up. Is there really any difference between the two frames, or is it a case of Scott getting the Chinese frames, decaling them up and selling them at a premium?

maddog 2

or is it a case of Scott getting the Chinese frames, decaling them up and selling them at a premium?

exactamundo.

alihisgreat

Rolf F wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

We can speculate that the frames are from the same mould.. but apart from that anything else is just guesswork. (eg. these open moulds are used in many different factories, using different grades of carbon, production techniques, carbon layups etc.)

I'm pretty sure in this case it is known - at least the factory model numbers match between De Rosa and some of the unbranded frames - possibly the Ribbles too. Of course there might be differences in how the mould is actually used but what would be the point? If De Rosa specifies a different layup to the layup that Ribble use, all they will probably do is incur costs for no gain; it's not as though they would get any value out of the advertising line - "it looks like a Ribble but the layup is different"!.

There is definitely a point to specifying the layup and quality of the carbon used... how are you going to make a frame light, stiff and flexible if you're just boshing a load of carbon into the frame and hoping for the best?


I see your point on the Ribble/De Rosa issue though, and i personally agree that there are probably exactly the same (or very similiar -> made in different factories, by different people.. but using the same generic mould to a similar standard)... but we don't know. Its just a load of speculation.


I would however like to think that Mr/Mrs American Trek worker is taking more care, and using a higher quality carbon etc. to produce their high end frames... than the Chinese Factory that makes generic copies out of open moulds to sell for £300.

But I do think its in the interest of these Chinese/far east OEM/ODM manufactures to produce quality products.. as then they are more likely to win a contract from a big bike company. So the chances are your Chinarello, Ribble Stealth copy, Scott foil look-a-like etc. is a pretty nice bike!

B3rnieMac

I would however like to think that Mr/Mrs American Trek worker is taking more care, and using a higher quality carbon etc. to produce their high end frames... than the Chinese Factory that makes generic copies out of open moulds to sell for £300.

Apart from the possibly racist connotations here, have you any reason to think that more care is taken with western built frames than those built in the east? I mean, US cars are stereotypically unreliable (not that I have any experience with that)

alihisgreat

B3rnieMac wrote:

I would however like to think that Mr/Mrs American Trek worker is taking more care, and using a higher quality carbon etc. to produce their high end frames... than the Chinese Factory that makes generic copies out of open moulds to sell for £300.

Apart from the possibly racist connotations here, have you any reason to think that more care is taken with western built frames than those built in the east? I mean, US cars are stereotypically unreliable (not that I have any experience with that)

Don't really see how that can be interpreted as racist?

I was more thinking a long the lines of more care is taken to make the high end framesets that cost £1000s than the cheap £300 framesets.

B3rnieMac

Well some people, and I know people who would depressingly have this outlook, but see that anything made in china is obviously a cheap knockoff, whereas something made in the White western world is obviously of a superior quality. Since most big companies move their productions to the east as a cost cutting measure, why would something made in Asia be inferior? Since we have no side by side comparisons of how a western and asian frame is made, there's no reason to assume the western one is made to a higher quality. Maybe it costs more because companies can't afford to pay western workers pittance.

BillyMansell

maddog 2 wrote:

Chatting with a mate today about the distinction between 'cheap' carbon frames - painted up to look nice but basic stuff underneath, and decent frames which have some genuine quality. The basic idea being that it's difficult to tell these days which are the good frames and which aren't.

Not meant to be the last word on the subject but this is what we thought:

Cheap:
Planet X
Boardman
Cube
Focus
Canyon
Rose
Mekk

Decent:
Giant
Trek
Specialized
Look
and the handbuilts... (Parlee, et al)

What do you think?

I think you and your mate require female company or at least drink less alcohol (apologies but it does sound like one of those meaningless pub conversations).

On a more serious note, your discussion risks going the way of every other ill informed, blind-leading-the-blind or xenophobic thread because, as has already been alluded to, your original question isn't very well qualified and allows high subjectivity.

You would need to consider people's understanding and reasoning of the words cheap and decent in this context. In real terms no carbon frame is cheap compared to the cost of a BSO that most people would consider rideable so what becomes interesting, and the basis for further research, is what are people's motives for defining some frames cheap and some frames decent? We can assume that most people on this forum do not even have the ability to exceed the performance offered by many of the cheap frames in your list so what are their motives for labelling them cheap? knowledge of the specific manufacturing processes (highly unlikely), brand loyalty, pretty shapes and colours or perceived and mythical issues borne of national boundaries? The perceived cheapness of frame may also be relative to other personal factors unrelated to the frame itself such as an individual's income, their need for social standing or simply how it makes them look or feel.

If you're going to label frames as either cheap or decent then you need to be clear as what is meant by this continuum of cheap or decent beyond what a frame looks like, otherwise the discussion is set to fail as people rant on about what they like by such subjective measures as make, nationality or just their pretty colours. For example, are you wanting to measure cheapness against raw material cost and lay up, purely retail cost, the margins within the supply chain that lead to the retail cost (all of which no one here truly knows) or is it simply what do people find pretty?

It's easy to criticise the journos for their flowery language and subjective opinions of frames but at least they will have ridden most of the carbon frames that are out there and certainly the ones they discuss. Their testing provides a baseline against which consumers can not only measure their experience of the same frames but also learn to evaluate the relative merits of different frames whereas much forum discussion is nothing more than a game of Chinese whispers often by people who've never sat on the bikes they deride (the opinions of PX frames being a common one).

Apologies of my post comes across as being over-critical but discussions that begin as poorly qualified and subjective opinions are ten-a-penny on message boards and rarely progress but rather regress. That is not say they don't have their place.

whojanicanackerov

I once saw online a German magazine test on frames.The test put the frames through lots of tests in some sort of lab.
It was interesting.
I`m sure it was on weight weenies website.

maddog 2

I'm not trying to lead anyone blindly Billy. I'm simply asking the question by making an initial statement, and thus starting a discussion.

As for what defines cheap and what defines decent, again, I want people to put forward their ideas for what this is.

As I said, either all frames are the same, or they aren't.

If they aren't then what determines if they are high or low quality?
Can you look at the frame and tell?
Can you look at the brand and tell?
Can you look at the price and tell?
Can you look at what the pros ride and base it on that?
Or can you measure something, or construct an engineering argument?

These are the questions that I'm interested in. Or rather - to be more precise, as requested - how do you decide what is high quality? And these are the questions the mags should be covering but are generally not doing with any real rigour.

rolf_f

B3rnieMac wrote:

Well some people, and I know people who would depressingly have this outlook, but see that anything made in china is obviously a cheap knockoff, whereas something made in the White western world is obviously of a superior quality.

It's how the bike industry works. Irrespective of what the quality of the Far Eastern frames is, they do cover the full range from cheap to high end. Of the manufacturers that still manufacter a significant number of frames in the West, I'd say probably all of them only make their higher end frames here. Ultimately, this is because the profit margins per frame are higher on the expensive frames and can therefore effectively pay for the higher Western wages.

So, on average, the quality of frames made in the West will be higher than in the far East - not because of any skills issue but simply because the lower end frames aren't being made here.

Ringo 68

B3rnieMac wrote:

Well some people, and I know people who would depressingly have this outlook, but see that anything made in china is obviously a cheap knockoff, whereas something made in the White western world is obviously of a superior quality. Since most big companies move their productions to the east as a cost cutting measure, why would something made in Asia be inferior? Since we have no side by side comparisons of how a western and asian frame is made, there's no reason to assume the western one is made to a higher quality. Maybe it costs more because companies can't afford to pay western workers pittance.

You obviously haven't spent Xmas with your young kids crying their eyes out because their Taiwan made toys haven't lasted longer than an hour.

If I had the choice of something made in the west or East I would pick west every time.

Is that racist?

I do not think so.

desweller

Ringo 68 wrote:

B3rnieMac wrote:

Well some people, and I know people who would depressingly have this outlook, but see that anything made in china is obviously a cheap knockoff, whereas something made in the White western world is obviously of a superior quality. Since most big companies move their productions to the east as a cost cutting measure, why would something made in Asia be inferior? Since we have no side by side comparisons of how a western and asian frame is made, there's no reason to assume the western one is made to a higher quality. Maybe it costs more because companies can't afford to pay western workers pittance.

You obviously haven't spent Xmas with your young kids crying their eyes out because their Taiwan made toys haven't lasted longer than an hour.

If I had the choice of something made in the west or East I would pick west every time.

Is that racist?

I do not think so.

That sounds to me as though you've just gone out and bought the cheapest items you could find for your kids, far-east-manufactured or not.

inseine

I think we'd all like definitive answers to questions and to know simply whether the things we buy are 'good or 'bad', but it's rarely that simple.
My response to a few of the statements here.
American cars are not poor quality as someone stated. Cars are an interesting analogy since the likes of Porsche, BMW and Mercedes build in the USA.
The German Tour magazine tests rigidity of the forks, BB, headtube etc, but who's to say one result really means a bike is better than another. This has lead to make the stiffest frame on the planet. Stiff sense to have become the new light.
I've visited Chinese frame builders and one of their chief engineers was of the opinion that pretty much any frame shape could work and it it was 'all' about the lay up. Maybe the difference between the Ribble and De Rosa, I have no idea. Plenty of big names are made side by side and the lay up is straight forward and the same for all of them, so they perhaps all ride the same. Not saying they aren't good frames.

Monty Dog

The Ribble vs DeRosa argument kinda unwinds when both sell the same frame made by XPace Industrial.

The main reason that many opt for western brands is warranty, which is purely a marketing tool and bears no relation to quality either.

As for the American car argument, having driven numerous American cars and been stupid enough to buy one once (a Chrysler) I can vouch for poor quality and agricultural engineering as I have the bills to prove it. I've also driven numerous US rental cars and in comparison to most European / Japanese brands, they are generally awful.

inseine

As for the American car argument, having driven numerous American cars and been stupid enough to buy one once (a Chrysler) I can vouch for poor quality and agricultural engineering as I have the bills to prove it. I've also driven numerous US rental cars and in comparison to most European / Japanese brands, they are generally awful.

Yeah, but they are designed down to a cost (have you seen how much American cars cost?) It's the design that is at fault, not the factories where they are built, hence the fact that the big German brands build in the US, to the same quality to the German factories. Using the same reasoning there is no reason why China can't build equally as well as the west if the design is good.