Buy a fake, risk death, support slavery – says bike industry

It's more Machiavellian than that. Pinarello, for example, buys all their unfinished frames from China at around 200 bucks a pop, perhaps less with bulk buys. They're brought into Italy where they are painted and finished (admittedly it's nice paint), after which they charge over 2,000 bucks for the finished article.

Because less than 10% of the total value of the end product is made outside of Italy, Pinarello can legally say that each from is made in Italy.

Now, while I've mentioned Pinarello, the truth is that all these brands are at it. Colnago*, De Rosa, Cipollini, Willier, Cervelo, Specialized*, Trek*... Even Zipp has the parts to their rims made in China (perhaps Taiwan) then the components are bonded in the USA. And they charge 1,000 bucks for doing this (admittedly Zipps are very nice rims).

While I don't condone piracy, so wouldn't ride a Chinarello, I have no problem going to the same factories the "manufacturers" do and buying the same product for a fraction of the mark-up they do. And they are the same as the real brand; a local pinarello dealer said they have seen fake Dogmas that handle exactly the same as the genuine article. They say you couldn't tell the difference.

Perhaps Road could write an investigative article about how much money the European and American manufacturers make by marking up Asian products and pretending it's home grown. Oh wait, then you wouldn't get invited to those provate launch parties in exotic locations, would you?

* These guys do make some frames outside of Europe.

Gordy748 wrote:

Now, while I've mentioned Pinarello, the truth is that all these brands are at it. Colnago*, De Rosa, Cipollini, Willier, Cervelo, Specialized*, Trek*... Even Zipp has the parts to their rims made in China

As I recall, it stated quite clearly on the box of my Cervélo that the product was made in China. I have no problem with that.

Gordy748 wrote:

Now, while I've mentioned Pinarello, the truth is that all these brands are at it. Colnago*, De Rosa, Cipollini, Willier, Cervelo, Specialized*, Trek*...

* These guys do make some frames outside of Europe.

Sorry, but we don't bulk buy frames. Yes, we make frames in Asia, but in factories that have Trek employees based there, using Trek manufacturing technology and engineering plans, monitoring the processes used, and testing in local test facilities. We do not buy off the peg frames.

beefy wrote:

I think the higher end bike products are massively over priced when you consider the manufactring and R & D cost.

It's exactly the manufacturing and R&D that makes the bikes more in the first place. The bike industry has to compete with the defense industry for a limited supply of raw material (carbon). It's therefore very expensive to acquire it in the first place. Also, consider that we have 18 carbon engineers developing new ways of using carbon to make bike frames. And each time we introduce a new carbon product, we have to make the tooling to mold the tubes. These molds cost anywhere between $15k-50k for EACH mold. Different sized bikes require different molds. For a bike like the latest Madone, we had 300 prototype versions of that frame, all of which were molded in Wisconsin before going into production there. Then, we had to share that production technology with the factory we use in Asia (at great risk to intellectual property), and continue to pay local Trek employees in order to ensure product quality for lower price point versions of that Madone. It takes years to develop new products, and it's very expensive.

levermonkey wrote:

2. As it was a fraction of the price of an equivalent from Trek, Cannondale, Scott, etc I was able to spend my budget where it really mattered (Seat, wheels, brakes, drive-chain, bearings).

This is incredibly concerning. Can I ask, where did you pick up on the idea that components are more valuable than the frame, just out of curiosity?

The frame is the foundation of the bike. It's what bears your weight. It's what provides the overall ride quality you experience. It's the thing that potentially, you never have to buy again.

Components are the moving parts of the bike. Individually, they are cheap and easy to replace. In all likelihood, you'll have to replace several of those over the years. Chains wear. When you replace chains, you need to replace cassettes and chainrings at the same time. Derailleurs get bent when bikes fall over. Levers get damaged in crashes. These parts have a much shorter lifespan than the frame itself.

Investing in the moving parts is like buying a house based on the quality of the interior design, but ignoring the fact that the foundation is cracking, and the house sits on a sinkhole.

Bikes can be expensive. No one is denying that. But manufacturers, even big brands like Trek, don't make huge amounts of profit on bikes. It's profit that keeps any company in business, and allows technology to advance, so we have to make some of it, at the end of the day.

I have a question. When people were buying Trek bikes when Armstrong was riding them, were those customers unwittingly supporting drug taking, drug smuggling and fraud in pro cycling because some of that money was being directed to Armstrong's team in the form of sponsorship and endorsements? And if so, how do you distinguish between drug smuggling, organised crime and prostitution? Seems to me there line between buying a legit brand bike or fake brand bike isn't so clear cut from a moral standpoint.

That's an entirely apples to oranges comparison, and suggests a level of complicity in Armstrong's actions that didn't exist.

Organised crime is more than likely what's sitting behind the production of counterfeit frames. Designs are being stolen (bought from factory employees willing to share them for a price), and there are more kickback layers than pastry layers in filo dough. It's copycat product that was made using stolen designs, plain and simple.

Organised crime is not sitting behind the production of Trek frames.

People who buy counterfeit products are not intentionally supporting organised crime. Of course not. The purpose of this piece is to try and educate people about where the money goes when they DO buy what they think is just a super cheap version of what they assume is an overpriced bike.

TrekBikesUK wrote:

People who buy counterfeit products are not intentionally supporting organised crime. Of course not. The purpose of this piece is to try and educate people about where the money goes when they DO buy what they think is just a super cheap version of what they assume is an overpriced bike.

Seriously, when it comes to the quality aspect and the moral aspect of ripping off someone elses work I agree with you entirely.

Quote:

If you buy a counterfeit bike on an internet site like Alibaba, you not only run the risk of injury or even death, you could also be supporting organised crime like drug trafficking and prostitution, says the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI).

But as it states in the first paragraph of this article that someone who buys a bike from Alibaba could be supporting drug trafficking. And my question is how is that different from buying a legitimate brand that sponsors someone who is or was involved in drug trafficking? In my mind, and you may disagree, there doesn't seem to be much difference there.

Like I said, I don't support or condone fakes. My beef is really with the spin they're putting on this whole issue. It's an industry body talking to the end customers like they're a bunch of idiots who can be easily manipulated.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

But as it states in the first paragraph of this article that someone who buys a bike from Alibaba could be supporting drug trafficking. And my question is how is that different from buying a legitimate brand that sponsors someone who is or was involved in drug trafficking? In my mind, and you may disagree, there doesn't seem to be much difference there.

That's like saying if you buy a John Terry jersey, you are saying adultery is ok, and that Adidas made that adultery possible. Or if you buy a Kobe Bryant jersey, that you support rape, and Nike and the Lakers made that possible.

The difference is the source. If a bike manufacture was also manufacturing drugs, then your argument would possibly stand. In this case, you are saying that the purchase of a product somehow condones the actions of a person who just happens to be sponsored by that brand. That would make sense if we continued to sponsor Lance after the Reasoned Decision. We didn't.

Since when is an equipment sponsor directly responsible for the choices that a sponsored athlete makes off the field?

Since when is an equipment sponsor directly responsible for the choices that a sponsored athlete makes off the field?[/quote]

Here Trek UK gets it wrong. Trek has a crushing responsibility for the doping scandals that infested the sport. Doping was/is a total system that involves the athlete on and off the field in one seamless continuum (I will spare the details). The signs of doping on a massive scale were blatantly obvious to anyone remotely interested in the sport. Riders who refused to play by the rules were ruthlessly expelled from the Congregation. The UCI and the Sponsors, with Trek leading the Choir, officiated at the same Altar of Darkness.

Trek gambled and lost, its reputation in tatters. The only way it might one day be forgiven is by very ACTIVELY, OPENLY and RELENTLESSLY combat drug abuse in sport and make the UCI accountable for its choices. Until this day, Trek does none of that. Shame on Trek.

As a consumer, I have no choice but embargo Trek products and explain my motives to friends who ask for my opinion. After all, I live in the marketplace.

TrekBikesUK wrote:

That would make sense if we continued to sponsor Lance after the Reasoned Decision. We didn't.

Since when is an equipment sponsor directly responsible for the choices that a sponsored athlete makes off the field?

To be honest I wouldn't be too keen, as Trek, to wave this particular flag. The way Trek got involved in Lance's attack on LeMond to take some measure of revenge for his (totally accurate) finger pointing is one of the deeply depressing parts of the whole debacle. Along with Oakley staff lying under oath, it shows the depths which a brand will go to in order to support their cash cow.

For what it's worth I don't think drug dealing and sponsoring Lance are the same thing (it's a mental comparison).

TrekBikesUK wrote:

LinusLarrabee wrote:

But as it states in the first paragraph of this article that someone who buys a bike from Alibaba could be supporting drug trafficking. And my question is how is that different from buying a legitimate brand that sponsors someone who is or was involved in drug trafficking? In my mind, and you may disagree, there doesn't seem to be much difference there.

That's like saying if you buy a John Terry jersey, you are saying adultery is ok, and that Adidas made that adultery possible. Or if you buy a Kobe Bryant jersey, that you support rape, and Nike and the Lakers made that possible.

The difference is the source. If a bike manufacture was also manufacturing drugs, then your argument would possibly stand. In this case, you are saying that the purchase of a product somehow condones the actions of a person who just happens to be sponsored by that brand. That would make sense if we continued to sponsor Lance after the Reasoned Decision. We didn't.

Since when is an equipment sponsor directly responsible for the choices that a sponsored athlete makes off the field?

I think the nuance in my reasoning is being lost somewhere here. I'm not saying Trek or any other brand condones drug use or is responsible for the actions of the people it sponsors. In a nutshell, the way I see it, you have an industry organisation making some pretty bold accusations about the illegal activities ordinary consumers "could" be supporting if they buy a fake bike. Yet, the very companies this organisation represents have built their brands on the back of, and have financially supported, teams and athletes that have engaged in illegal activities. Something is a little wrong there, is it not? Pot, kettle and black? Added to that, we know for sure that some teams and athletes took part in illegal activities, yet all we have is a bold and unsubstantiated claims from a less than impartial industry body that those dodgy Alibaba sellers are involved in drugs and prostitution. There's a reasoned report and countless rider confessions to prove what the industry was supporting (even if they claim not to have known), where's your evidence that these Alibaba sellers are directly involved in drugs and prostitution? I would also ask where your evidence is that these fake frames are dangerous, but I might be accused of supporting them, which I don't. Besides, everybody knows that official frames have never suffered a random catastrophic failure during a professional race

Trek wrote:

Trek said

levermonkey wrote:

2. As it was a fraction of the price of an equivalent from Trek, Cannondale, Scott, etc I was able to spend my budget where it really mattered (Seat, wheels, brakes, drive-chain, bearings).

end of quote

This is incredibly concerning. Can I ask, where did you pick up on the idea that components are more valuable than the frame, just out of curiosity?

I didn't say that the components were more important than the frame! What I said was that I got an EQUIVALENT frame which allowed me to spend more of my budget on components.

Or do you think that anyone that doesn't buy a Trek is a dribbling imbecile who should be wearing a canvas blazer with wrap around arms? Trek's idea of selling you a bike is to sell you a decent frame and then skimp on the components to keep the price down. [You're not the only ones.]

As I was building the bike from scratch I was able to avoid having to compromise. I could have a good frame and good components. If I had bought a Trek frame I would have had to compromise.

levermonkey wrote:

Trek wrote:

Trek said

levermonkey wrote:

2. As it was a fraction of the price of an equivalent from Trek, Cannondale, Scott, etc I was able to spend my budget where it really mattered (Seat, wheels, brakes, drive-chain, bearings).

end of quote

This is incredibly concerning. Can I ask, where did you pick up on the idea that components are more valuable than the frame, just out of curiosity?

I didn't say that the components were more important than the frame! What I said was that I got an EQUIVALENT frame which allowed me to spend more of my budget on components.

Or do you think that anyone that doesn't buy a Trek is a dribbling imbecile who should be wearing a canvas blazer with wrap around arms? Trek's idea of selling you a bike is to sell you a decent frame and then skimp on the components to keep the price down. [You're not the only ones.]

As I was building the bike from scratch I was able to avoid having to compromise. I could have a good frame and good components. If I had bought a Trek frame I would have had to compromise.

Sorry, I was confused by your use of '...I was able to spend my budget where it really mattered,' followed by a list of components. So that makes it sound like there's more value in the components vs. the frame. A lot of people express this sentiment.

And I don't believe that I suggested anywhere in my reply that people should only buy Trek, and that anyone who doesn't is an 'imbecile'. It's pretty unfair to suggest that based on me asking you a question that wasn't incendiary, or insulting.

You are absolutely right that we are more interested in selling high quality frames, even if it means we down spec the components. We do this because we spend a huge wad of cash, and devote an enormous amount of time guaranteeing the quality we build into the frames. And to us, that is way more important than parts that need to be replaced over time. Making cheap frames so that we can sell Di2 bikes for 2 grand, when the gruppo itself costs that much at retail is the compromise, not the other way around.

TrekBikesUK wrote:

It's exactly the manufacturing and R&D that makes the bikes more in the first place. The bike industry has to compete with the defense industry for a limited supply of raw material (carbon). It's therefore very expensive to acquire it in the first place.

Sorry. It is not. There are more and more carbon fiber manufacturers coming online throughout the world. The supply of commodity small tow carbon fiber, commonly referred to as T700 and T800 whether they are made by Toray or not, is ample. This is what is used for the vast majority of all carbon fiber frames, branded or not.

In addition, aerospace also uses large tow carbon fiber which are not used by sporting goods manufacturers.

Lastly, if you are talking about the "space" part of the aerospace, yes those fibers (pitch based carbon fibers) are hugely expensive, but even then their supply is not limited as the quantities needed by sporting goods manufacturers is tiny.

TrekBikesUK wrote:

Also, consider that we have 18 carbon engineers developing new ways of using carbon to make bike frames. And each time we introduce a new carbon product, we have to make the tooling to mold the tubes. These molds cost anywhere between $15k-50k for EACH mold.

No. The front triangle of the Madone for example would have cost you $7k max. The rear triangle parts are shared (chain stays for example) so the total cost per size is approx $10k.

Your very nice Speed Concept frame indeed costs a lot for tooling, but that frame is very highly differentiated and its value is not in doubt for anyone that knows something about bikes and aerodynamics. There are no generic frames that come close to it in terms of performance.

TrekBikesUK wrote:

Then, we had to share that production technology with the factory we use in Asia (at great risk to intellectual property), and continue to pay local Trek employees in order to ensure product quality for lower price point versions of that Madone. It takes years to develop new products, and it's very expensive.

Again sorry, the factory knows very well how to make your frames. They are the manufacturing experts. All that you can do is communicate the design intent and give suggestions. The factory's engineers are the ones that figure out how to make your frames since after all you are using their equipment and staff so whatever design you make has to be able to be executed using their technology. Giant and their contractors will not go for massive retooling and staff training just to accommodate your models.

Besides, it is disingenuous to imply that your second tier frames are given so much attention by Trek.

The main problem with counterfeits is that they impinge/steal the brand equity from the brand owner. It is not about technology or necessarily safety.

This is why it is wrong and why nobody should ever buy fakes. It is theft, plain and simple.

However the problem with the generic frames displacing the original design frames is the fault of the industry. There is too much nonsense in marketing.

For example, again Madone. You claim and proudly write "Kamm Tail" on the Madone and thus imply aerodynamic performance by borrowing the halo and the "Kamm Tail" application by your Speed Concept frame. The problem is that the Madone "Kamm Tail" is not a Kamm tail and it is not aerodynamic and that you have no data whatsoever to support your aerodynamics claim, implied or direct. You are using it as a marketing device to steer the consumer choice. You are using... unthruth, to generate profit. While this is not as bad as making and selling fakes, it is far from fair or ethical. This is what is driving the generic frame problem. Your customers are feeling confused and misled and are refusing to believe the brand's claims so they (wrongly) start believing that "all frames are the same".

Also I am not singling you out, all brands are guilty of this. Unsubstantiated claims, innuendo, outright lies (for example country of origin, claims of R&D for a rebranded generic frame, etc.), incorrect features are used by all brands to sell their products.

Bicycle media is also complicit (road.cc too) by often just paraphrasing a brand's press release without checking anything. Any claim of stiffness, aerodynamics, comfort, you name it, gets repeated ad-nauseum by all the bike press (mainly English speaking) without a single meaningful independent verification of any of it, except perhaps weight as all you need is a scale.

Neither the bike manufacturers, not the vast majority of bike media are objective. Thus expecting the customers to be any different is naive.

Lastly, bike industry is a consumer goods industry. It is largely unregulated (besides CEN/ASTM/etc. for basic safety). There are no ethical codes of conduct when it comes to advertising, there is no government nor industry based regulation about who says what, nor are there any consequences for lying to the consumer. Thus the brands and press do and say whatever they want, so we consumers do what we are doing.

Blaming us for the industry's problems is galling.

TrekBikesUK wrote:

It's exactly the manufacturing and R&D that makes the bikes more in the first place. The bike industry has to compete with the defense industry for a limited supply of raw material (carbon). It's therefore very expensive to acquire it in the first place. Also, consider that we have 18 carbon engineers developing new ways of using carbon to make bike frames. And each time we introduce a new carbon product, we have to make the tooling to mold the tubes. These molds cost anywhere between $15k-50k for EACH mold. Different sized bikes require different molds. For a bike like the latest Madone, we had 300 prototype versions of that frame, all of which were molded in Wisconsin before going into production there. Then, we had to share that production technology with the factory we use in Asia (at great risk to intellectual property), and continue to pay local Trek employees in order to ensure product quality for lower price point versions of that Madone. It takes years to develop new products, and it's very expensive.

This is the thing I don't understand, why does Trek, an American firm who invests so much in R&D, risk its intellectual property by shipping production off to China or Taiwan? I know employing Chinese/Taiwanese labour is cheaper but is it really worth the risk? If intellectual theft is such a problem why not start manufacturing frames back in the USA? I'm sure having "made in the USA" stamped on your bikes again would make them more attractive to American buyers and perhaps better justify the high prices you ask of them.

Also there is an issue with you training a Chinese/Taiwanese workforce in your advanced production techniques and then that knowledge being turned against you by a homegrown concern like the Japanese motor industry did to the UK and American motor industries after WW2. I know the Austin Motor Company offered a lot of help, training and advice to what would become Honda (I seem to recall) in the 1950s, now Austin no longer exists and Honda is a market leader.

Neil753 wrote:

No-one condones counterfeit products, but if the "industry" wasn't so hell bent on making what we've just bought obsolete, as quickly as possible, so they can flog us yet more stuff, then maybe the whole counterfeit problem would be reduced substantially. The "industry" must play their part.

That's exactly why I have no interest in disc brakes or disc ready frames... I will only look at them 3rd 4th gen down the line when the frame is a disc frame and the brakes that are now top dollar become standard on the bikes. I jumped on the disc brake craze when I raced MTB dot years ago and I have had an horrendous injury from a rotor on single track when two of us crashed his rear rotor straight through my calve, good luck with that in the first week of the TdF in a cpl years.

Fakes are supporting organised crime and it's not a joke, kids chained to radiators putting the stickers on your fakes... So go on, press pay!! Just the same when your mrs buys that fake handbag on holiday..is it worth a few quid in the short term, just save a of couple months longer.