The Sketchy World of Fake Bike Gear(bicycling.com)
bicycling.com
The Sketchy World of Fake Bike Gear
http://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/components/catch-counterfeiter-sketchy-world-fake-bike-gear
13 comments
Yeah, I think this is a good example of consumer versus hacker mindset. Much of the attraction of Chinese frames is that, at least in Europe, frames can cost as much as an assembled bike. So these cheap frames enable people to build bikes from parts without it being horribly expensive. As far as I know some frames are copied, but generally doesn't have copyright protection anyway (somewhat depending on country).
"When it says 'email for color/graphics', it likely means the seller has omitted those details to evade brand security"
Or, like you point out, it actually means you get a choice.
What's the link to your site?
"When it says 'email for color/graphics', it likely means the seller has omitted those details to evade brand security"
Or, like you point out, it actually means you get a choice.
What's the link to your site?
[deleted]
You bring up good points, and obviously the article is on Specialized's side.
But I absolutely would not trust a fake/knockoff carbon fiber frame or any knockoff helmet. My safety's just too important, and it's too difficult to detect impending failures in carbon fiber products, nor the lack of engineering in a safety product like a helmet. I ride bicycles and motorcycles and race cars. There's definitely a price/quality curve, but when safety is in question, I'd like to have a throat to choke. It's not about actually suing, it's about knowing someone reputable, with a legal presence in this country, stands behind the product.
I probably wouldn't have similar qualms about buying an off-brand or knockoff metal frameset, or a watch or something. I wouldn't have commented, but it pains me to see this (and followups asking where to buy) as the top-ranked comment.
But I absolutely would not trust a fake/knockoff carbon fiber frame or any knockoff helmet. My safety's just too important, and it's too difficult to detect impending failures in carbon fiber products, nor the lack of engineering in a safety product like a helmet. I ride bicycles and motorcycles and race cars. There's definitely a price/quality curve, but when safety is in question, I'd like to have a throat to choke. It's not about actually suing, it's about knowing someone reputable, with a legal presence in this country, stands behind the product.
I probably wouldn't have similar qualms about buying an off-brand or knockoff metal frameset, or a watch or something. I wouldn't have commented, but it pains me to see this (and followups asking where to buy) as the top-ranked comment.
I have no problem with an honestly branded cheap frame. A counterfeit is completely different.
Where is the best Chinese retailer to buy bikes from?
Ebay so you get some buyer protection. Direct if you are comfortable.
I don't follow the scene much anymore. For specific recommendations, spend some time reading the (many) forum threads in http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bikes-frames-forks/
I don't follow the scene much anymore. For specific recommendations, spend some time reading the (many) forum threads in http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bikes-frames-forks/
There are certainly novel designs and fancy welding, but bike frames are essentially tubes of carbon fiber / steel formed or welded together with the manufacturers brand sticker slapped on top. Seems like this could be ideal for a Warby Parker like entrant.
You misunderstand carbon fiber. Steel and aluminum are a bit different. But yes, there are many "off brand" names that are well-respected and trustworthy -- Motobecane, for example.
Except for the tremendous forces racing bicycles exerts on the tubes and welds of carbon fiber / steel, that could cause catastrophic failure in the most unexpected moment.
There are plenty of Warby Parker equivalents, and they get a brief mention in the article. Lots of western companies sell "open mold" parts, where an OEM sells generic components for resellers to apply their own branding to.
Some of these resellers have excellent reputations - here in the UK, Planet X are extremely popular amongst serious racers. There is a crucial difference between these products and an unbranded product from Aliexpress. Western sellers are obliged to perform product testing, they have a brand name to defend, and they can be sued.
Some of these resellers have excellent reputations - here in the UK, Planet X are extremely popular amongst serious racers. There is a crucial difference between these products and an unbranded product from Aliexpress. Western sellers are obliged to perform product testing, they have a brand name to defend, and they can be sued.
This article is too mild, not exaggerated or a commercial advocacy piece as some commenters assert.
I know lot about carbon fiber. I own and run a business designing and hands-on fabricating carbon fiber components and products for aerospace/defense, top motorsports teams, UAV/Drones, sporting goods and more. (started this 12yrs ago after one of the software companies I co-founded sold).
I was a competitive cyclist and still Mtn Bike a lot and race occasionally. Obviously, I think carbon components are fantastic. I could make my own, but I do not.
Here's why:
ENGINEERED MATERIALS: Carbon Fiber composites are an engineered material. This is great because the strength is very specific, and we can put the strength exactly where we need it, and omit the strength -and the weight- where it is not needed.
This also means that the materials MUST be properly engineered to yield acceptable performance. This is NOT just fancy plastic or "black aluminum".
Get the engineering right, and you have amazing parts that are both stronger and lighter than steel or aluminum. It is not unusual for us to outperform an aluminum product with a 40-50% weight savings and higher strength numbers.
BUT, get the engineering wrong, and a carbon part that looks massively overbuilt, thicker and heavier than the equivalent steel part, will fail catastrophically.
Moreover, there are THOUSANDS of combinations of grades of carbon fibers and epoxies, all appropriate for different applications, and these must also be properly selected.
So, even if you obtain the exact molds used by Specalized to make their frame, without knowing the exact materials and design, it would be very difficult to make a frame that performed properly.
FABRICATION PROCESS: The fabrication process is critical. - Everything must be cleaned properly. - Every single one of the hundreds of pieces of carbon fiber must be cut properly, then placed properly in the mold, in the correct sequence, and the correct orientation. - The mold components and compression tools must be placed properly and achieve and maintain the designed pressures. - The heat and cooling cycle must be applied properly. - The demolding must occur properly. - Any post-cure cycling must occur properly. - Any secondary bonding must be prepared and executed properly.
Any failure in these hundreds of steps, and the frame will have a flaw that can hurt of kill someone. (not that it necessarily will, but it easily could -- simply consider hitting bumps in a fast descent -- that will be the exact point of maximum load, most likely to cause failure, and now the cyclist is Wyle E. Coyote... not fun).
The fabrication process is analogous to having to ship software where we cannot make an error-corrected perfect digital copy, but each new copy must be hand-transcribed before shipping, and of course cannot be destructively tested. How well would you trust bootleg software running your heart pacemaker if it had to be copied the way monks copied bibles in the middle ages?
TESTING PROCESS: Both the engineering design and the fabrication process must be subjected to rigorous testing.
On the engineering side, even the most sophisticated modeling software needs real-world test validation of even basic parts models, as the number of variables is huge, and an initial design often does not yield the expected results.
On the production side, every step of the process must be carefully designed, and verified to accurately and repeatedly produce parts that perform as engineered.
BOTTOM LINE: This is obviously just skimming the surface, but the bottom line is that there are hundreds of opportunities for failures to creep in even when trying to do it right, and ridiculous opportunities for counterfeiters to cut corners. And most of them will NOT be readily visible to casual inspection of the product.
I could, with my knowledge and access to my own shop, make a pair of carbon fiber handlebars to ride tomorrow. But I wouldn't ride them further than around the parking lot. We'd need to make a big investment in designing then fabricating and testing scores of units before having the confidence to take one for a real ride.
But, standing in the shoes of a desperate counterfeiter in China, where ripping-off IP is the ethical norm, and who will be selling parts to unseen and probably despised customers on the other side of the globe, and who probably doesn't understand enough about the engineering pitfalls anyway ... ... sure, just copy some molds, buy any old carbon, and start slapping it in and cooking it, just make sure it looks good.
I've seen even legit parts come in from Asia with crazy shortcuts, never mind the counterfeit stuff. I've also personally witnessed those parts causing disasters.
As a rider, just seeing this crap coming into the US is truly frightening. Even the legit parts are cause for worry -- are the US guys actually riding herd on the Chinese QC well enough? Probably.
The counterfeit or low-market stuff? Forget it -- you literally couldn't pay me enough to ride it anywhere further than across the parking lot. Anyone who considers doing so is really ignorant of the real risks.
It's just physics, and physics does not care about you.
I know lot about carbon fiber. I own and run a business designing and hands-on fabricating carbon fiber components and products for aerospace/defense, top motorsports teams, UAV/Drones, sporting goods and more. (started this 12yrs ago after one of the software companies I co-founded sold).
I was a competitive cyclist and still Mtn Bike a lot and race occasionally. Obviously, I think carbon components are fantastic. I could make my own, but I do not.
Here's why:
ENGINEERED MATERIALS: Carbon Fiber composites are an engineered material. This is great because the strength is very specific, and we can put the strength exactly where we need it, and omit the strength -and the weight- where it is not needed.
This also means that the materials MUST be properly engineered to yield acceptable performance. This is NOT just fancy plastic or "black aluminum".
Get the engineering right, and you have amazing parts that are both stronger and lighter than steel or aluminum. It is not unusual for us to outperform an aluminum product with a 40-50% weight savings and higher strength numbers.
BUT, get the engineering wrong, and a carbon part that looks massively overbuilt, thicker and heavier than the equivalent steel part, will fail catastrophically.
Moreover, there are THOUSANDS of combinations of grades of carbon fibers and epoxies, all appropriate for different applications, and these must also be properly selected.
So, even if you obtain the exact molds used by Specalized to make their frame, without knowing the exact materials and design, it would be very difficult to make a frame that performed properly.
FABRICATION PROCESS: The fabrication process is critical. - Everything must be cleaned properly. - Every single one of the hundreds of pieces of carbon fiber must be cut properly, then placed properly in the mold, in the correct sequence, and the correct orientation. - The mold components and compression tools must be placed properly and achieve and maintain the designed pressures. - The heat and cooling cycle must be applied properly. - The demolding must occur properly. - Any post-cure cycling must occur properly. - Any secondary bonding must be prepared and executed properly.
Any failure in these hundreds of steps, and the frame will have a flaw that can hurt of kill someone. (not that it necessarily will, but it easily could -- simply consider hitting bumps in a fast descent -- that will be the exact point of maximum load, most likely to cause failure, and now the cyclist is Wyle E. Coyote... not fun).
The fabrication process is analogous to having to ship software where we cannot make an error-corrected perfect digital copy, but each new copy must be hand-transcribed before shipping, and of course cannot be destructively tested. How well would you trust bootleg software running your heart pacemaker if it had to be copied the way monks copied bibles in the middle ages?
TESTING PROCESS: Both the engineering design and the fabrication process must be subjected to rigorous testing.
On the engineering side, even the most sophisticated modeling software needs real-world test validation of even basic parts models, as the number of variables is huge, and an initial design often does not yield the expected results.
On the production side, every step of the process must be carefully designed, and verified to accurately and repeatedly produce parts that perform as engineered.
BOTTOM LINE: This is obviously just skimming the surface, but the bottom line is that there are hundreds of opportunities for failures to creep in even when trying to do it right, and ridiculous opportunities for counterfeiters to cut corners. And most of them will NOT be readily visible to casual inspection of the product.
I could, with my knowledge and access to my own shop, make a pair of carbon fiber handlebars to ride tomorrow. But I wouldn't ride them further than around the parking lot. We'd need to make a big investment in designing then fabricating and testing scores of units before having the confidence to take one for a real ride.
But, standing in the shoes of a desperate counterfeiter in China, where ripping-off IP is the ethical norm, and who will be selling parts to unseen and probably despised customers on the other side of the globe, and who probably doesn't understand enough about the engineering pitfalls anyway ... ... sure, just copy some molds, buy any old carbon, and start slapping it in and cooking it, just make sure it looks good.
I've seen even legit parts come in from Asia with crazy shortcuts, never mind the counterfeit stuff. I've also personally witnessed those parts causing disasters.
As a rider, just seeing this crap coming into the US is truly frightening. Even the legit parts are cause for worry -- are the US guys actually riding herd on the Chinese QC well enough? Probably.
The counterfeit or low-market stuff? Forget it -- you literally couldn't pay me enough to ride it anywhere further than across the parking lot. Anyone who considers doing so is really ignorant of the real risks.
It's just physics, and physics does not care about you.
Great read. I wish it was higher up, below the posts about how to buy said knockoff frames. Thanks.
YW; I just saw the post late, but was really annoyed at the deep ignorance of some of the comments here -- it really demonstrated the problems of very smart and knowledgeable people making judgements outside their area of expertise with insufficient information. Even if it was not read much, I needed to at least add some basic facts to the discussion. Thx for letting me know that it was worth it!
Interesting. But I cannot stop thinking of http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
What an excellent, yet dated article. It comes from a time when blogging was a craft. Now there's not a blog I read without wondering "Is it neutral, or was the author influenced, or is it a PR piece, or does the full blog belong to a bigger agenda"...
There are some pretty obvious PR motivations for Specialized here:
1) Try to dissuade people from buying cheap Chinese frames (not just the counterfeit frames in the article, but the higher quality ones that have been gaining popularity on various internet forums).
2) Justify Specialized's extreme litigiousness with respect to trademarks (which has gotten it a lot of negative press) by spreading the idea that it's motivated by the goal of protecting its customers from unsafe products.
On the other hand, I'm sure counterfeits are really a problem. It's probably tempting for Chinese companies that are making a pittance selling bike parts to other companies to make copies to get prices that are many times higher.
1) Try to dissuade people from buying cheap Chinese frames (not just the counterfeit frames in the article, but the higher quality ones that have been gaining popularity on various internet forums).
2) Justify Specialized's extreme litigiousness with respect to trademarks (which has gotten it a lot of negative press) by spreading the idea that it's motivated by the goal of protecting its customers from unsafe products.
On the other hand, I'm sure counterfeits are really a problem. It's probably tempting for Chinese companies that are making a pittance selling bike parts to other companies to make copies to get prices that are many times higher.
"Surprisingly, Tombragel’s fake fork passed impact testing—but barely. If this had been a real Specialized, it would be re-engineered to pass by a higher margin."
This line is when I decided this was probably a PR placement. I guess that maybe took me a bit longer than most, but it just feels so stilted.
"We passed our test, but we'd want to pass more." - then why did it 'pass'?
This line is when I decided this was probably a PR placement. I guess that maybe took me a bit longer than most, but it just feels so stilted.
"We passed our test, but we'd want to pass more." - then why did it 'pass'?
That struck me as well, though as a consumer, you'd like to hope that gear has been engineered to exceed tests, not to the minimum. Though perhaps the minimum should be increased.
The article also contained examples of catastrophic failures in use of handlebars and catastrophic failures in testing of helmets.
The article also contained examples of catastrophic failures in use of handlebars and catastrophic failures in testing of helmets.
> Though perhaps the minimum should be increased.
It may have been—which is what makes the angle in this PR piece so questionable. The minimum might be a value that is equivalent to a 200kg rider jumping off a 15ft cliff and not breaking the forks.
(or it may not be, but I'm sure you get my point: Specialized just wants to seed doubt regardless of quality)
It may have been—which is what makes the angle in this PR piece so questionable. The minimum might be a value that is equivalent to a 200kg rider jumping off a 15ft cliff and not breaking the forks.
(or it may not be, but I'm sure you get my point: Specialized just wants to seed doubt regardless of quality)
I agree- I've seen some amazing Chinese products across all hobbies recently, which are oftentimes almost as good, if not better with a little modification. That being said, counterfeit products are almost universally worse than their real counterparts.
I would not be surprised to see Chinese products that are identical in quality to their genuine counterparts within the next couple years, especially for high-end products.
I would not be surprised to see Chinese products that are identical in quality to their genuine counterparts within the next couple years, especially for high-end products.
I'm sure there will be some great brands coming but when they are ready they will spend money and really develop brands. While they are selling literally no-name or no-history brand names that are churned rapidly there is almost no cost in getting a bad reputation, just start a new brand.
This doesn't mean that brands never fail or do wrong (cough VW) but the fact that they have something to lose is a good thing. Also you are more likely to hear if there are huge problems with a product.
This doesn't mean that brands never fail or do wrong (cough VW) but the fact that they have something to lose is a good thing. Also you are more likely to hear if there are huge problems with a product.
This article is an incoherent mess. No hard numbers. No characterization of the problem: Is it factory seconds being stolen and sold? Is it contract manufacturers selling US OEM products they are contractually disallowed from selling?
It seems unlikely that a frame sold in extremely limited quantities would be reverse engineered and copied. It is more likely that OEMs have lost control of their suppliers while chasing cheaper costs. Boo fricken hoo.
It seems unlikely that a frame sold in extremely limited quantities would be reverse engineered and copied. It is more likely that OEMs have lost control of their suppliers while chasing cheaper costs. Boo fricken hoo.
> It seems unlikely that a frame sold in extremely limited quantities would be reverse engineered and copied.
The more limited and sought-after a product is, the higher is the incentive for a faker.
The more limited and sought-after a product is, the higher is the incentive for a faker.
I ordered a highly rated head light and tail light the other day off amazon. When it came everything was super cheap thin plastic and the head light wouldn't turn on at all even with fresh batteries. The tail light turned on once, then my finger pushed the button through the body. Apparently there's a common amazon hack by sellers where they sell the real thing for a while to get good ratings, then switch to selling cheap knock offs...
It's not just that. Many items have multiple sellers. When you choose a seller, you don't know what the ratings for that seller/item combo. So, the seller may have good ratings from unrelated products, but be selling poor quality versions of this particular product. The product itself may have 'good' versions currently on sale by other sellers on Amazon.
Meh. If your not a pro competing in the tour de france then there will be almost no performance difference between the $18,000 bike described and a c $600 bike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF4MIEkIBZs
When cycling your power/weight ratio is determined by you. Its obvious the purpose of these $1000+ bikes is to be status symbols for rich idiots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF4MIEkIBZs
When cycling your power/weight ratio is determined by you. Its obvious the purpose of these $1000+ bikes is to be status symbols for rich idiots.
I'm sorry, this really isn't true. The diminishing returns on a complete bike are real but that really starts at 2500+ where the drop offs are extreme.
A dedicated TT bike for your triathlon is a status symbol if you're not a pro. A quality steel frame and fork, 105 groupo and well built wheels with good hubs is not and can easily run you 2000 and I would say there is a huge huge huge difference in that and a 750 dollar entry level bike with crap hubs.
A dedicated TT bike for your triathlon is a status symbol if you're not a pro. A quality steel frame and fork, 105 groupo and well built wheels with good hubs is not and can easily run you 2000 and I would say there is a huge huge huge difference in that and a 750 dollar entry level bike with crap hubs.
Electronic shifters are the main thing you get past $2500 that's relevant to a non-racer, but even then they're purely a luxury feature that doesn't do much beyond making riding a little more pleasant.
Yep.
If you use a bike for exercise, then you want it to be hard work.
If you use it for moving around, then add a motor and battery.
Lightweight frames are only for artificial competitions. Then what are you competing at? Who can afford the most expensive equipment?
If you use a bike for exercise, then you want it to be hard work.
If you use it for moving around, then add a motor and battery.
Lightweight frames are only for artificial competitions. Then what are you competing at? Who can afford the most expensive equipment?
Granted, I don't ride a crabon super-bike, as my tastes and budget are a bit more proletarian. And if you want to see today's tech on one of my bikes, you might have to wait a decade or three. Still, an issue is that for many cyclists, there's no clear dividing line between exercise, recreation, and utility. I want all three, at once! All other things being equal, a lighter bike is more fun to ride.
If ridden purely for exercise, lighter equipment lets you cover more ground in the same amount of time. You don't work any less, you just go faster.
There another reason many people ride bikes: purely for fun. High performance equipment tends to be more satisfying for many.
There another reason many people ride bikes: purely for fun. High performance equipment tends to be more satisfying for many.
Yeah there's a bit more to it than that. Lighter stuff allows you to go further with less energy. Lighter wheels and tires make a really big difference as does tire rolling resistance. In something like a century (100 mike ride) a lighter bike may make the difference between finishing and not finishing.
Also wind resistance goes up as the square of velocity so it's harder to go faster than it is to simply ride around a clunky heavy bike.
There is a saying in cycling: strong,light, cheap. Pick two.
Also wind resistance goes up as the square of velocity so it's harder to go faster than it is to simply ride around a clunky heavy bike.
There is a saying in cycling: strong,light, cheap. Pick two.
All those factors can be addressed with a small hub motor and battery which together is much cheaper than the high-efficiency parts. If you set the power level right, you could even tune it to give the same reduction in effort for the rider.
Batteries and motors are more energy efficient than humans, so it's good from a more pure energy point of view too.
Batteries and motors are more energy efficient than humans, so it's good from a more pure energy point of view too.
To me, that seems to add a lot of weight, cost, complexity, maintenance (battery charging and replacement), and failure modes (running out of juice) when you could just spend a couple more bucks for a lighter bike that's also more fun to ride.
> If you use a bike for exercise, then you want it to be hard work.
Garbage equipment isn't inspiring or enjoyable. Nice frames and wheels are nice to use, and that gets a person out on the bike.
Garbage equipment isn't inspiring or enjoyable. Nice frames and wheels are nice to use, and that gets a person out on the bike.
> Sure enough, you have a frame that looks dead-on like it’s a Venge,” he recalls. “You could tell it was Chinese-direct. But I’d bought things from overseas on eBay, so I was comfortable with it.”
This guy straight up says he was "comfortable" buying a counterfeit frame (anything coming direct from China with a non-China trademark), so what exactly is the point of this article? He played around and lost.
China, being an entire country, has some great stuff and some absolute shite. If bike parts are anything like electronics, I'd recommend buying unbranded or Chinese-branded stuff. Inspect the quality thoroughly on receipt. And if you want the ability to return poor quality, pay a little overhead and buy from a US middleman who is incentivized to do the QA legwork for you.
This guy straight up says he was "comfortable" buying a counterfeit frame (anything coming direct from China with a non-China trademark), so what exactly is the point of this article? He played around and lost.
China, being an entire country, has some great stuff and some absolute shite. If bike parts are anything like electronics, I'd recommend buying unbranded or Chinese-branded stuff. Inspect the quality thoroughly on receipt. And if you want the ability to return poor quality, pay a little overhead and buy from a US middleman who is incentivized to do the QA legwork for you.
China actually has export controls to protect the rest of the world from its bad products. Like you say, it must have a Chinese brand otherwise it's either a fake or illegally obtained (out the back door of the factory).
Ah, this is actually formalized? My intuition says that Chinese brands would know how to police through the appropriate channels, but it's not surprising it's an actually an official thing.
What I can't really figure out is how to reliably get the "better" unbranded parts (small quantities, using ebay/aliexpress). The only indicator seems to be how consumer-targeted the particular item is. Electronic components / assemblies have been fine, while 4 out of 4 phone chargers I tested were pure garbage.
Obviously creating a relationship with a manufacturer is the way to go for larger batches, which is another reason buying from a US importer makes sense. Then again I've got to wonder when I see the same-looking unbranded items in US retail stores, if those ones actually meet their ratings or if the type of people buying them will never verify.
What I can't really figure out is how to reliably get the "better" unbranded parts (small quantities, using ebay/aliexpress). The only indicator seems to be how consumer-targeted the particular item is. Electronic components / assemblies have been fine, while 4 out of 4 phone chargers I tested were pure garbage.
Obviously creating a relationship with a manufacturer is the way to go for larger batches, which is another reason buying from a US importer makes sense. Then again I've got to wonder when I see the same-looking unbranded items in US retail stores, if those ones actually meet their ratings or if the type of people buying them will never verify.
H+Son is a well-respected Chinese brand of bike rims. I've had American bike shops recommend them to me in the past.
I ended up choosing American-made Velocity rims for my bike, but there are definitely competitive Chinese bike brands.
I ended up choosing American-made Velocity rims for my bike, but there are definitely competitive Chinese bike brands.
This whole article is a shill piece for specialized, and for the LBS racket as a whole. How is this contributing anything?
This problem has a straightforward technical solution: manufacturers should put a unique serial number on every product, and encourage customers to validate the number after purchasing. A counterfeit will either have a bogus number that's not in the database, or a cloned number that shows up in two or more places.
I noticed that Spigen uses this approach, after buying a $9 case for my phone.
I noticed that Spigen uses this approach, after buying a $9 case for my phone.
Yes. For such a high priced item, this should be easily economical. Some medicines already do this. It seems kind of obvious.
They almost certainly do. My Trek carbon fiber bike (~$3000 fully built brand new in 2008) was the lowest-end full-carbon bike they had that was still made in the US. It has a registration # (on the bottom bracket I believe). In fact, every bike I'm aware of does, for registering with the police in case of theft.
Campagnolo attaches such a code to their wheels: http://www.campagnolo.com/WW/en/Support/certilogo
Many consumer electronic products have a manufacturer's warranty which requires registration, and the serial number is one of the mandatory pieces of information.
Specialised doesn't do this exactly. Their bike registration form doesn't provide any incentive except that they'll inform you of any important news about your bike: http://www.specialized.com/us/en/support/bike-registration
Specialised doesn't do this exactly. Their bike registration form doesn't provide any incentive except that they'll inform you of any important news about your bike: http://www.specialized.com/us/en/support/bike-registration
When I ride I like to have some idea that my bike isn't going to fall apart. I safety check before my commute. Bikes & helmets are something you kinda don't want to fail when in traffic.
Bikes are commodities now, except on the high end. Thus the cheap stuff can be sold as expensive.
These are complex machines. TREK had a recall for an issue that caused a bunch of injuries.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/qr-disk-brake.html
"Ideally, we would want bicycles which are properly assembled, adjusted and maintained to be free of problems which lead to sudden, catastrophic, unexpected failure. Any mechanical system will deteriorate sooner or later, and so an incipient failure should preferably give warning in advance, or be preceded by another, more benign failure which puts the part out of service, or be so very unlikely that it is not of serious concern, or a second system should be able to take over from one which failed. A properly-adjusted enclosed-cam quick release assembly on a bicycle with no front disk brake meets this test, by being very unlikely to fail."
Bikes are commodities now, except on the high end. Thus the cheap stuff can be sold as expensive.
These are complex machines. TREK had a recall for an issue that caused a bunch of injuries.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/qr-disk-brake.html
"Ideally, we would want bicycles which are properly assembled, adjusted and maintained to be free of problems which lead to sudden, catastrophic, unexpected failure. Any mechanical system will deteriorate sooner or later, and so an incipient failure should preferably give warning in advance, or be preceded by another, more benign failure which puts the part out of service, or be so very unlikely that it is not of serious concern, or a second system should be able to take over from one which failed. A properly-adjusted enclosed-cam quick release assembly on a bicycle with no front disk brake meets this test, by being very unlikely to fail."
It would have been nice for them to explain what they meant by "open mold" counterfeiting. That this article is the 2nd result on Google if you search for those terms tells me it isn't well-defined elsewhere.
This article rides that line between expressing genuine problems and trying to scare people.
Yes, there are plenty of fake frames around. Yes, I'm sure some EBay carbon handlebars are unsafe.
But at the same time there are lots (more?) Chinese frames around that aren't "fake", but are just less costly. For example, there is the Hong-Fu FM-066/069, which is kind of a cross between a Cervelo R5 and a Cannondale SuperSix, except around ~$500. It's light (around ~800 grams) and has a good reputation for quality.
Interestingly, one of the big selling points is that they are quicker to market with features than the major brands. Until last year if you wanted a Cervelo R3/R5 with Di2 cable routing you had to drill holes in the frame yourself. The FM-66 could be ordered like that, or with conventional cables, and with your choice of bottom bracket (instead of the annoying BBRight thing Cervelo uses). Same with disc brakes: the FM-069 is a road disc bike, out two years before Cervelo or Cannondale managed it.