Forum home› Road cycling forum› Workshop

Chinarello build advice required

steeeevosteeeevo Posts: 27
edited July 2015 in Workshop
Hi Guys,

This is my first post.

I recently bought a Chinarello Dogma frame and while looking at groupsets, realised I don't know if I need braze on or clip/clamp on front derailleur.

There is already some kind of mounting attached where the front derailleur will go but I still don't know the difference and which I will need. I do have photos but unsure how to upload them from my phone.

Can anyone help?

Thanks,
Steve.

Posts

  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 9,203
    My suggestion would be not to ride it above 12 mph, so that when the frame breaks, your helmet will be able to save you.
  • steeeevosteeeevo Posts: 27
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669353#p19669353]First Aspect[/url] wrote:
    My suggestion would be not to ride it above 12 mph, so that when the frame breaks, your helmet will be able to save you.

    Well firstly thank you for the warm welcome to the forum First Aspect.

    I am fully aware there is a risk involved but have chosen to take that risk.

    Risk aside, does anyone have any actual advice?
  • nigelgosnigelgos Posts: 128
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669296#p19669296]steeeevo[/url] wrote:
    Hi Guys,

    This is my first post.

    I recently bought a Chinarello Dogma frame and while looking at groupsets, realised I don't know if I need braze on or clip/clamp on front derailleur.

    There is already some kind of mounting attached where the front derailleur will go but I still don't know the difference and which I will need. I do have photos but unsure how to upload them from my phone.

    Can anyone help?

    Thanks,
    Steve.

    You need a braze on FD to attach to the mounting point. Bolt on types clamp around the tube itself and are for when there is no mounting point.
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 26,817
    It is bad enough that you bought a counterfeit product, but the fact that you even dare asking advice about it defies belief... do you know that knowingly buying a counterfeit product is illegal?

    mods please delete this thread!
  • SLR021SLR021 Posts: 79
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669440#p19669440]ugo.santalucia[/url] wrote:
    It is bad enough that you bought a counterfeit product, but the fact that you even dare asking advice about it defies belief... do you know that knowingly buying a counterfeit product is illegal?

    mods please delete this thread!

    I think maybe one should Google the definition of counterfeit, before crying to teacher.
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 26,817
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669482#p19669482]SLR021[/url] wrote:
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669440#p19669440]ugo.santalucia[/url] wrote:
    It is bad enough that you bought a counterfeit product, but the fact that you even dare asking advice about it defies belief... do you know that knowingly buying a counterfeit product is illegal?

    mods please delete this thread!

    I think maybe one should Google the definition of counterfeit, before crying to teacher.

    If it's a Dogma it's a counterfeit, otherwise it's not a Dogma and it's just a frame made in China, which is fair enough.
  • SLR021SLR021 Posts: 79
    I think you're possibly getting confused by the distinction between Trade mark law and the criminal act of selling counterfeit goods i.e. passing goods off as an original product of another company. Google is a very good resource for clearing this up for you.
  • steeeevosteeeevo Posts: 27
    Thank you Nigelgos for some genuine advice re the question I asked.

    Thanks SLR02 for your positive input.

    Others.........I have some dodgy DVDs indoors! Quick, call the old bill.

    Wind your necks in!
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 26,817
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669525#p19669525]SLR021[/url] wrote:
    I think you're possibly getting confused by the distinction between Trade mark law and the criminal act of selling counterfeit goods i.e. passing goods off as an original product of another company. Google is a very good resource for clearing this up for you.

    There might be a distinction between infringement of a trade mark and trafficking of counterfeit, but ultimately they are both against the law. As a forum we cannot endorse the process... as I said, if the frame doesn't have "dogma" stickers and it's only the OP who thinks it is a Dogma Lookalike becuase it's made from a similar mould, then it is a different ball game, but then it would be stupid of him to go around saying "I bought a fake Dogma", which in essence it's what he is doing
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 26,817
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669536#p19669536]steeeevo[/url] wrote:

    Others.........I have some dodgy DVDs indoors! Quick, call the old bill.

    Wind your necks in!


    ... that said, the OP might be stupid after all... :roll:
  • SLR021SLR021 Posts: 79
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669543#p19669543]ugo.santalucia[/url] wrote:
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669536#p19669536]steeeevo[/url] wrote:

    Others.........I have some dodgy DVDs indoors! Quick, call the old bill.

    Wind your necks in!


    ... that said, the OP might be stupid after all... :roll:


    I'm not sure that an established forum member being rude and combative towards a new forum user is the brightest thing I've ever seen, but each to his own.
  • steeeevosteeeevo Posts: 27
    This really wasn't what I anticipated. I was seeking some genuine advice, albeit aware the matter may be slightly controversial amongst some users.

    I was hoping the people who are not bothered about people buying 'fakes' or 'counterfeit' would provide the advice and the others would choose not to comment.

    However, being new to the forum, I clearly got this wrong and therefore maybe I am a little stupid!

    Sorry if this post offends anyone. I don't really wish to get into an online slanging match so would like to draw a line under this matter now. I have the advice I was after.

    Thanks for ALL your input.
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 26,817
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669568#p19669568]SLR021[/url] wrote:
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669543#p19669543]ugo.santalucia[/url] wrote:
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669536#p19669536]steeeevo[/url] wrote:

    Others.........I have some dodgy DVDs indoors! Quick, call the old bill.

    Wind your necks in!


    ... that said, the OP might be stupid after all... :roll:




    I'm not sure that an established forum member being rude and combative towards a new forum user is the brightest thing I've ever seen, but each to his own.

    The OP's attitude towards the law Vs my use of the word "stupid"... I'll take my chances... :wink:
  • SLR021SLR021 Posts: 79
    Personally I find it's possibly that your understanding of the law, rather than the OP's attitude towards it, that is at fault. Though, on balance, I rather lean towards the view that you stance is motivated more by overzealous patriotism, than any true belief that laws have been broken.
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 26,817
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669607#p19669607]SLR021[/url] wrote:
    Personally I find it's possibly that your understanding of the law, rather than the OP's attitude towards it, that is at fault. Though, on balance, I rather lean towards the view that you stance is motivated more by overzealous patriotism, than any true belief that laws have been broken.

    Neither. What annoys me is a new user that comes here with an attitude and when interrogated about a possible problem, instead of reassuring that he did not buy a fake intentionally but only a lookalike, he doesn't even acknowledge the issue and brings on the table some pirate DVDs he has, as a further reason to all have a laugh...

    In this context, the use of the word "stupid" is the very least I can do...
  • SLR021SLR021 Posts: 79
    edited July 2015
    My money says that a Chinonndale would have brought forth a far less emotional response. But I've been wrong before....1974 I think it was. :)
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 26,817
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669634#p19669634]SLR021[/url] wrote:
    My money says that a Chinonndale would have brought forth a far less emotion response. But I've been wrong before....1974 I think it was. :)

    :lol: .... no, I really have no particular feelings for Italian bikes... they've all gone the mass manufacturing route anyway and the name is meanigless, so 41 years later, you are wrong again! :mrgreen:

    The real problem is that moderators are on holiday... I reported this filth early this morning and it's still here! :?
  • SLR021SLR021 Posts: 79
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669641#p19669641]ugo.santalucia[/url] wrote:
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669634#p19669634]SLR021[/url] wrote:
    My money says that a Chinonndale would have brought forth a far less emotion response. But I've been wrong before....1974 I think it was. :)

    :lol: .... no, I really have no particular feelings for Italian bikes... they've all gone the mass manufacturing route anyway and the name is meanigless, so 41 years later, you are wrong again! :mrgreen:

    The real problem is that moderators are on holiday... I reported this filth early this morning and it's still here! :?

    Filth ??? There's that emotional response again..... :oops:
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Just imagine the incandescent rage that would have appeared if he would have bought fake Archetypes ....
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • steeeevosteeeevo Posts: 27
    I did try to put an end to it earlier.

    I'm embarrassed at what I created!
  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 9,203
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669607#p19669607]SLR021[/url] wrote:
    Personally I find it's possibly that your understanding of the law, rather than the OP's attitude towards it, that is at fault. Though, on balance, I rather lean towards the view that you stance is motivated more by overzealous patriotism, than any true belief that laws have been broken.
    In principle, the tort of passing off, infringement of a registered trade mark and or a criminal offence of dealing in counterfeit goods may have been committed.

    I'd draw the OPs particular attention to item 2 in the following

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-offences/intellectual-property-offences

    There might be a few issues of design rights, both registered and unregistered, to be considered also.

    I can't comment on Chinese laws.

    Of course, it's not clear if any such offences have been committed, by who, or indeed in what country or territory (there being both registered community designs and trademarks available, in addition or as an alternative to to UK rights).

    But what do I know about intellectual property law. . .

    I agree completely with Ugo's assessment of the thread and it really should not continue.
  • SLR021SLR021 Posts: 79
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669895#p19669895]First Aspect[/url] wrote:
    [url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669607#p19669607]SLR021[/url] wrote:
    Personally I find it's possibly that your understanding of the law, rather than the OP's attitude towards it, that is at fault. Though, on balance, I rather lean towards the view that you stance is motivated more by overzealous patriotism, than any true belief that laws have been broken.
    In principle, the tort of passing off, infringement of a registered trade mark and or a criminal offence of dealing in counterfeit goods may have been committed.

    I'd draw the OPs particular attention to item 2 in the following

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-offences/intellectual-property-offences

    There might be a few issues of design rights, both registered and unregistered, to be considered also.

    I can't comment on Chinese laws.

    Of course, it's not clear if any such offences have been committed, by who, or indeed in what country or territory (there being both registered community designs and trademarks available, in addition or as an alternative to to UK rights).

    But what do I know about intellectual property law. . .

    I agree completely with Ugo's assessment of the thread and it really should not continue.

    You appear to be completely oblivious to the time, the author, and the content of the post directly above yours. All your "mights", "maybes", "it's not clears" and "I can't comments" amount to diddly-squat. So in essence by posting, you've continued a thread that was clearly already discontinued, simply to say that it should be discontinued. Brilliant :lol: Gotta love a good pseudo intellectual, even though they do make all bike riders look like anally retentive nerds.
  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 9,203
    Think of it as a public service announcement. Neither you nor the OP (or one or two others) appeared to me to have any real grasp of what you were commenting on. The OP doesn't value his own personal safety above his vanity and I'd also say that being so brazen about potentially fake goods strongly suggests complete ignorance of the legal position. You could just say thanks, because I'm sure you learnt something.
This discussion has been closed.