I have always found amusing how some people are emotionally attached to a brand. Like for many things, people will remain in denial even when confronted to evidences. Either because the own a product of the brand and can't accept that THEY potentially have been screwed or own a piece of shit. Or because they have had a good experience with the brand and they do not understand the difference between anecdotal evidences and statically based ones.* Or because they have no understanding of QC, QA and manufacturing processes. Let's not forget the Dunning-Kruger effect where incompetent people don't have the competency to acknowledge that they are incompetent. * It's also valid for those who have a bad impression left by a bad experience.
Message received loud and clear. Cheers, Raoul! I love how there’s still people writing, “What about **** what do you think of their frames?” in the comments. 😂
I ride a look 695 sr.. Appreciate your videos and the facts. Carbon bikes are the easiest to market with a name and a paint job.. Paying 5000 dollars or more for the frames we ride is a good indicator of how a fool and their money are parted
Amen! Laid to rest. The other issue besides QA is what are the design attributes that will lead to better alignment of the major component interfaces. QA still plays the biggest role here. As far as carbon bikes layup goes, each and every carbon bike even if same model and batch with be unique. These are all hand made bikes. Each and everyone of them. Look, cannondale, Specialized, Time, chapter2, dongfu, trek, santa cruz etc etc etc
id def love to see some of the nicer china brands cut up. I think people defintely over estimate how much having some big name brand on a frame really means
Only way to minimise the kind of wrinkling and resin wet /dry areas is to build the bikes the way TIME Sport does with resin transfer moulding. Even then you can still get a bum frame.
Thank you very much Mr. Raoul for the work that you do and the info's that you provide. Speaking for myself, I do appreciate your input and the insights you share. Being subscribed to your channel for more than 2 years and having watched more than 95% of your videos, and myself having an engineering background, I believe I have a really good understanding what you are trying to explain this whole time. However, I still haven't clearly discovered your concrete answer or explanation which answers the key question - under these circumstances, having these problems in a carbon industry that does not offer a better solution for the time being, which supplier/manufacturer/brand has currently the lowest probability for failures/manufacturing errors based on your expertise and work? Since this is an engineering field with concrete and specific data, I kindly ask for your honest reply or perhaps a video with concrete answers because with your experience and the number of parts/components that you have scanned and examined, I'm sure that you can statistically provide some data or come to a conclusion and share with us which brand/manufacturer/supplier currently has the lowest probability for failures/manufacturing errors based on your expertise and work. There must be some data which points to manufacturers having lower if not lowest number of failures, manufacturing errors, better QC, good tolerances, fewer recalls or complaints... Please, why is it so difficult to create a summary based on facts? I can fully understand if you are trying to protect someone or something, if personal or other things are at stake, however, the responsibility for reducing the probability/preventing accidents from happening is equally yours if you have the data but choose not to share it. How you may ask? - by withholding information that could be very helpful because at least we, the general public, could make a better informed decision to the best of our extent. Am I the only one who feels that you are holding yourself back, remeasuring your words and perhaps even being afraid of speaking the actual data? Of course you care and I'm confident that you wish to help, otherwise you wouldn't be making these videos. But don't you think that your discoveries and the actual experience from your analysis would help us more than just knowing the lottery chance for a good purchase? At least we would know which company/manufacturer is trying to create a better product. If people are satisfied and the sales increase, that would be a testimony that a better product quality is more valued and will serve as an example to the rest gremlin manufacturers. How will they ever learn their lessons if they are not being exposed and their issues addressed? So you would contribute even more because thankfully to you the truth would be known. Unfortunately we are not all fortunate enough to have your gifts neither your profession, much less the requirements and conditions to be able to create our own bikes, we don't have your knowledge and expertise, nor your experience, your work equipment and conditions so that we can discover the truth ourselves. Furthermore, everybody is responsible for their own actions, however you, @luescherteknik can help us in a great way so that we might be able to make a decision which we would consider be the right one or at least the best for us. I don't think that people will dare come to you and say: well Mr. Raoul, you forced me to buy this bike, frame, part... Besides, nobody will hold you accountable for simply pointing to the facts - even more, you will be even greatly appreciated for speaking the truth in this world of lies and manipulation. What a difference it would be... By no means I mean to offend you but I do respect @Hambini because he does share his insights and data in a very bold and courageous way. How? - he stands for his claims because he proves them with facts and data, backed up with his expertise and experience... Everybody can contribute in a certain way with their God-given gifts, abilities and talents! ...so, simply said, all those variables and dependencies, such as the engineering, concept and design of the product, the complexity of it, the supplier of the carbon/materials, the materials being used, the availability of the composites/materials, the subcontractor/the manufacturer of the carbon parts/components, the technology/manufacturing equipment, manufacturing processes, the tolerances, the QC and QA, the training/expertise of the colleagues that work with the composites/materials, the volume of manufacturing, the supervision and control of the manufacturing, the greed for money, the influence of the marketing dpt., the anticipated limitations and the unforeseeable limitation factors, as well as the intended purpose, field of application, the influence of the geo/physical location where the product is being used which can facilitate such/certain defects or inconsistencies, the fact that there can be bad as well as good samples/batches or individual examples, the human error factor from the layup/molding/labor intensive processes, the storage, transport and handling, etc. and all those "unknowns" lead by the true reason behind the product which create and contribute to the final product a.k.a. the perception/the big picture of the manufacturer/the brand - don't really mean anything if we are not able to tell whether a product is good or not. If we don't have tangible information, I'm afraid it is all smoke and mirrors. So PLEASE Mr. Luescher, can you make them known or at least narrow them down, or conclude a summary, a statistical average perhaps? I'm sorry and with all due respect, sometimes "pretty good" and "really good" and "you build your own bikes" is simply not enough... My apologies for the length of my comment. Kind regards
So I am getting that this was not a fake! Very clear message relating to most Carbon products that come from large factories in China. About time for big name brands to up their game ,regarding quality control then. Especially as the so called ‘fake’ products come from the same manufacturing processes and show how cheap these products are to produce.Therefore in order to justify huge mark up from cost price to retail price, a decent level of quality must be established consistently.
EXACTLY!!! When it comes to carbon it is a lottery when it comes to quality. It is not really about brand. So... the only logical and rational response (unless you can make your own carbon bike) is NOT TO BUY CARBON. Steel, ti and Al offer great options.
@Luescher Teknik, could you kindly do a video on 'EPS' internal rigid mould vs bladder method, as I saw this on Scotts website, and how apparently this expanded polystyrene reduces voids and wrinkles during carbon lay up
I do agree with the above video but surely there are bike manufactures who make consistently good bike frames and the faulty ones are rarer. Surely there are manufactures that you have a greater chance (not 100%) of obtaining a good quality frame, surely there are, and also the other way around. I don’t think that there is a always 50 50 chance let’s say of obtaining a good or a bad frame from any vendor especially from the big names in the industry. But then again I respect this guy’s opinion of not wanting to mention/promote any brand.
Yes, some are better than others, often this is a function of the design not the name on the down tube, complex shapes are more difficult to mold well. I can't say go and buy brand "x" and you will not have a problem, I can only talk about what I know.
Totally respect and agree with what you’re saying.... until these bikes are made entirely by repeatable (read: automated/robotic) processes.... no two frames will be alike even if same make, model, size. And therefore, every cut-up you’ve ever done is devaluated.... 😱🙈
I am the first to say that the cut up sample may not be a representation of all the bikes of that model, however with the scans I can non destructively inspect a much larger sample size and use the cut up as an example of the sorts of flaws that are common in a particular model.
That's a point Hambini has made a few times - the ones the pros get have been scanned to within an inch of their lives, so they know they're getting a great bike. The consumer has to take pot luck, unless you buy an ex-team bike which is a great move.
I have never heard of the pro bikes getting scanned and based on failures that they have am not sure that this is true. I would not buy an ex team bike myself to ride only to display, they get trashed.
Would love to hear your insights and comments on the Bastion "technology", which you have also had a little input in. I am particularly interested in your comments on the bonding (& I hear you suggested the epoxy), and how that works as opposed to let's say a full carbon material frame. Also, how would it compare to the one (the frame) you made and use yourself?
Hi Rauol, i do believe people who haven't worked in "quality" environments have a laymans idea of "quality" they believe it means good! A manufacturer has "quality" so it's product are good. But this is further from the truth than they realise. People have a problem understanding variance in the quality and this is measurable and defined. The variance is what the manufacturer decides to accept for the cost of producing. Then it even gets more complicated and how do you measure the variance properly so you know to control it or want too. Accuracy is a complex field and the average Joe just wants to buy a bike, not do a degree in field of Quality. So this is what you need to explain to them before they get it. I might do a vid explaining it as i worked on aircraft too + worked in accuracy measurements for years holding NATA acceditation. Anyway i just bought a 695 LOOK i like the zed 2 crankset design, so hopefully it is not a friday build lol!
I worked for a while is QC and their was an accepted measure, colour variables, shut gaps etc. Extreme variance that would cause secondary failure was not acceptable and if an outsourced part would a supplier follow up. Re-tooling is expensive so unless there is an absolute need it won't happen. First,second and third generation products are always the test bed in the real world. Space exploration and aviation in genera is one field where QC is at the highest level and even then that has hiccups here and there moreso in aviation. How many carbon parts failed in Aviation before we have the quality we have today....quite a lot.
@@glennoc8585 I have developed training for employees in how to perform their job to an industry standard. This includes; 1)prerequisites, 2)test based competency, 3)and hands on demonstration before a subject matter expert, 4)with annual refresher training. It is set up as a certification. If the training doesn't cover the square, then it doesn't cover the square. In what I developed, there is so little room for deviation that it could lead to catastrophic failure, property damage, personal injury, or death. QA/QC is how it is set up. I'm just putting this out here to add to you comment.
If it is a new 695, the bb65 will be quiet for a while. Then expect the same issues that were described in Hambini's video where he replaces the bb65 with a converter to a 24mm Shimano spindle. The bearings will eventually end up moving inside the shell, both along and accross the shell causing creaking. Yeah, you will love the Zed crankset until it is time to replace the bearings. For which you need a dedicated tool that costs over £100, and the process of replacing them is not straightforward at all.
Pefect, absolutely perfect! The only frame to be perfect is the one you buy cut in half and inspect it in its entirety. If it is perfect you go and buy the exact same model again. Of course you will need to cut that one in half also to make sure it is/was as good as the first! Seems like a vicious circle but eventually you will get the idea!
Or you use Non Destructive Inspection methods at the factory, which is even better because if you cut it half you don't know if you have the good half or the bad half ;)
@@LuescherTeknik Frames with voids and slightly mis aligned BB's don't worry me too much. For me it's the quality of carbon front forks, stems & bars I'm more worried about !!!
@@stevem2939 Speaking of forks and quality control, the story about that lawsuit against Bianchi popped up again recently, where a fork snapped and injured the rider. Bianchi said they're "not contesting liability but is disputing the amount of damages being claimed". www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/cyclist-sues-bianchi-for-1m-after-his-forks-snapped-during-sportive-453906
The problem is that we can't make an informed decision. As you say, one frame can be good and the one you buy can be shite. If you (@Luescher) say that you can't find a pattern with brands, well what can we mere mortals do? Glad you're around though.
The only option in buying a carbon bike seems to be to get it ultrasound scanned before buying. Can you give me an idea of the availability and price of this kind of test. I'm in the UK but I'm sure details [n Oz and elsewhere would be helpful to others.
40 years ago (lol) I saw an Alan, 48cm frame crack a lug. sorry, but I can't remember which lug. Frame was sent back to Italy, from Texas. After about 6 weeks, Alan sent the frame back and said they'd never seen that happen before. It can't be their fault! The owner took the frame to a TIG welder for repair, and gave it to his girlfriend. She rode it about three more years, then she got new bike just because she wanted a new bike.
Always really enjoy you videos, as they are informative yet do not point a finger generally saying such and such is a terrible brand because of this or that. Now the meat of this, I've been searching you channel looking for the review of the chinaello frame and cannot see it. Did you ever do the inspection and review.🤔
When LT pulls out the hair clippers you know he aint pulling punches! This is a great video series! Keep it up! Id never buy a brand name bike again at retail price. I know too much and ride my own brand now.
If we see a significative reduction in sales due to a collapsing economy and uncertainty (need to say why ?), I doubt that we are going to see improvement in terms of QA im the bike industry. It may get even worst.
I doubt it because on average as George Carlin said : "We buy shit we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like." But even those of us who try to not behave in this manner are at a point where we no longer know what to buy. That's why you get asked so much "what bike/brand should I buy ?" In my case, I don't even know which bike to buy with the insurance money after a crash in November. Because the more I get informed, the more I'm afraid that I'll end up with a bike that will only last me a few years or worst it might shorten my life even though there is not much time left. I'm 56, all I want is a bike that will bring me a smile for the remainder of my active cycling life. But it seems that I'm asking for too much and the best I can do is gambling on an educated guess. I think a video in which you educate people on the thought process of "how to select a bike and not get screwed" (not a brand or a manufacturer) would be popular.
@@sylvainmichaud2262 Bill Holland, Crumpton, Appleman all make carbon frames one at a time. Rob English does wild stuff with Steel, Independent Fab got a Stainless Steel option with reyonlds 953, all the Ti builder. Most likely I'd get a Rocklobster since it's very affordable for full custom and tons people race them. I've seen them up close at NABHS. Obliviously if use a carbon folk the issues still linger. My impression from this channel, all the typical media at large for mass produced Giant seem to be good and the TCR SL with the ISP my first choice (why bother with carbon if need an adjustable seat post). I tend to view Time and Look more bouquet even if produced at larger volumes or lugged frames vs non-lugged frame.
@@runningwithshemp Yeah at 56 I really need a TCR SL without an adjustable seat post. I don't make a living out of racing bicycle. Who needs a TCR SL with an ISP to participate in a CAT 4 race in which no one but the racers themselves have interest in. You really didn't get my point. Go back to the beginning of my comment. "We buy shit we don't need ..."
@@sylvainmichaud2262 apologies I must have reply to wrong comment via my gizmo. I swear I saw a comment from you about quality control what frame to pick out from an insurance claim. I agree most people don't need a carbon bike
@@LuescherTeknik I only can quote Hambini in his videos, when he was reviewing the Obea and Canyon frame. He said something like, that the pro riders don't get a frame of the shelf. They will get a CT-scanned frame , which has no voids and all specifications are met. I believe this, it is not a hard thing to do for a professional cycling team. How many more watts you will hypotheatically gain, when the frame has less voids. I guess the frame is more stiff , and therefore less energery is converted into heat .
Regarding comments about aluminium frames being "better" than carbon frames, well it might be true but judging from the pictures on the bike forum I use to hang around, the ratio on cracked framed is 20 to 1 in favour of carbon. They crack around the welds.
It's about the name. Overall people who can pay for perception at any cost usually think they are correct. This clarification just made them pucker up.
@@justsayin3600 I bought a new 695 bike in 2015. I love the bike, but I don't go around thinking I'm correct. That's a mischaracterization. I was always under the impression that LOOK had great build quality and that was one of the reasons I bought the bike. I'm seeing now that they're not necessarily any better than anybody else
Raoul, it seems that bikes you cut up come in with a problem. Could this just be a bike that is bad overall? What if you set up a Patreon and buy random frames to cut up so we can see what some unknown person would get?
Yes, however a crash does not put voids into a frame! I could look (pun intended) at a Patreon format and do as you suggest, it would depend on the support if it is financially viable. I would love to do it though if there is the support.
Ok so to sumup when you are a normal guy, if you buy a carbon frame, you have to assume its lottery and there is nothing about it you can do? In other world, you should better buy alloy/steel/titanium frame?
In my opinion if a company's QC is such that it's getting enough variance that a significant number of "bad" products are finding their way through the chain to the end consumer, they are a bad brand, irrespective of how good their "good" ones may be.
With the variability issue there still needs to be a minimum level of quality where there is plenty of margin so no failure ever occurs in proper use. Some cases may be due to a particular worker at a particular plant taking shortcuts or not following training. There may be a case of a disgruntled employee. The manufacturers can take off the assembly line a completed frame and cut it apart to verify minimum standards, and do so many of these per given say hundred frames. And depending on what is found can increase or decrease the sampling rate. It seems to me, that from a workmanship level these frames seem easy enough to get right once one is taught the right way, I don’t know why unless there is a high turnover employee rate issue at the plant. Craftsmen will get it right every time making one or a thousand frames, and be proud of it. I presume the materials are of consistent quality and not the root cause. Hambini is finding bottom brackets with oval openings and such, just ridiculous. Also seems to me making a round opening is easier than making an oval one.
I should receive my Orbea OMX frame soon, now that Spain has allowed factories to re-open. I won’t do an ultrasound, but before I assemble it, I’ll inspect it and take some macro shots in the BB, HT & ST openings. Hopefully, I’ll win the “good frame” lottery. Fortunately, the external design looks smart. The strength areas are big and the flex areas are thinner, meaning that it’s not too reliant on secret sauce layups. It has some truncated aero shapes, but the radii aren’t excessively sharp. It hides cables, but with a standard, tapered steerer and oversized top bearing. All the right features without anything that would be failure prone if the quality control is less than perfect. I can’t wait to get it, let alone ride it!
glenn oc - I ordered it in November. The frame is from Asia. It made it to Spain where they painted it. The bike was ready to be boxed and shipped, but the virus hit. They’ve started operations again this week. It’s been a long wait!
Statistically, the more popular a product is, the more likely the consumer will experience a defect. Even airplanes have defects, and they are built to the highest standards.
I think LOOK's production process has changed already. This one doesn't look similar to their current frames. I've got 2019 765 gravel bike and inside the head tube and bottom bracket it looks a lot like Trek Emonda SLR from your other video or better. I couldn't see any wrinkles and the surface has the same matt grainy finish. There are also some 3K reinforecements close to bearings. There are no any "sharp" areas between the headtube and the downtube, the transition is unnoticable. I have photos for those interested.
I love Carbon but with Aluminium frames you'd have more consistency. It is Brand responsabilty though because a brand puts it's name to said products, so if the product is very inconsistent it's the legal onus on the brand first then the brand can go back to the manufacture if they're buying from the open mold sellers. I know it's a bit of a gamble but some in house manufactures seem to have less QC issues than others. Brands like Giant and Time hardly get a negative review on the forums, well not that i've come across so far. I think of the airbag fiasco in recent times, the onus of repair and any compensation came direct to the brands not the airbag supplier Takata.
It also goes in batches, some models will be good for a while then have a run of problems and then come good again, maybe the contractor changed or one of the many other variables. The brand has overarching responsibilty for what the sell in the market and needs to take the good and the bad.
It's pretty disconcerting that no brand has good enough quality control to set themselves apart from the rest (especially given how bad typical QA evidently is).
@paleolithictech I think all brands can provide excellent products, but none of them have been able to do it consistently enough for a recommendation. As he said in the video he's seen some excellent frames and some terrible frames of the same make and model.
@paleolithictech I watched those videos too. Regardless, Raoul explicitly stated here that there isn't a company with good enough QC to get his recommendation and that there are both good and bad bikes of the same make/model. You can make conclusions based on as much or as little information as you are comfortable with and evidently Raoul isn't comfortable coming to the same conclusions as you (and he has a LOT more info).
Does ultrasound inspection need to done by a human or can it be automated? I’m guessing it is a skilled task and the rate that frames are produced would require automated inspection to check all frames produced. But if all frames could be inspected then at least the is the opportunity to reject substandard frames.
I have heard that GIANT is gearing up for robotic made carbon frames. True? And if so, perhaps that will reduce the problems with so much variability in carbon bike manufacturing. Having said that, my bet on the future material of choice for high performance bikes is ultralight aluminum.
I have not heard anything about this, robot tape laying is used in aerospace, however the parts are typically large and relatively flat, not sure that these systems would work on a bike frame. Most aluminium alloys have a similar density so I don't know what ultralight aluminium is???
@@LuescherTeknik Hambini referred to "ultralight aluminum" in a recent episode. He said, right now such grades of aluminum are mainly used in the aerospace industry but have not yet migrated to the bike frame sector. He anticipates that this grade of aluminum would be given a good, hard look by the bike industry as they attempt to respond to the inherent difficulty in manufacturing carbon frames economically AND with consistently admirable results...as you imply in this video. Thanks for responding!!!!!!!
Luescher Teknik I'll try posting a comment in his next video asking if he would explain in more detail what he meant by "ultralight aluminium." Personally, I would love to see the next step in bike frame technology be the use of a material that allows for more consistent quality without enormous production costs. Improving quality control of carbon frames is great. But improved quality control for carbon frames would mean more frames get thrown in the trash bin at the factory. In the end, the customer would have to pay for all those tossed frames. Unless there's is a revolution in the way carbon frames are made so that yield rates of quality frames goes up (robotics?), manufacturers really need to push the materials engineering envelope for a better option than carbon. My opinion, of course.
It seems to me that a good option for carbon frames would be that the bike store should allow you to get it scanned, by a competent independent company (like Leather Teknik), and if that Frame has issues it should be formally documented. If it turns out that the frame is a dud it should be the responsibility of the bike shop to refund your purchase and sent the frame back to the manufacturer for their reimbursement or replacement. This should not be a burden to the consumer and hopefully this would result in safer bikes being ridden by happy cyclists.
I don't know, it probably depends on the bikes and sponsorship deal in place, I did hear that many years ago a team sponsored by a titanium frame brand was going through a bike every 3 weeks or so.
But QA is a brand topic. If a brand does not have a good QA process then the brand is per se not recommendable. It is upto every company to invest in better manufacturing QA standards and QC processes of the end product. As a takeway from all this, it is just upto to the luck of the draw if you get a really good bike. Very disconcerting.
@@LuescherTeknik which in this case the "bike brand" will have to work together with the manufacturer to establish higher quality processes. Also the "bike brand" will have to step up their own quality control processes to better identify lacking quality products before going out to the customer. But in this world where "cheaper" and "profit" has to be maximized, I honestly dont see this happening. Thank you making the informed buyer aware of these details.
Hi Raoul. It's seems like people are clamoring to know from you the brands with the lowest average number of major defects, but you are saying that all brands have huge a standard deviation in the number of major defects. But with hundreds of bike brands, it seems to me very unlikely that every one has a large S.D. There must be some small makers with good process control.
I have always been astounded by the skeptics view on certain “counterfeit” products. Knives are one. To successfully counterfeit a high end knife you would HAVE TO MAKE A HIGH END KNIFE. Otherwise the lack of craftsmanship is easy to see in anything less. I did some reading on brand names and materials in the bicycle industry. The majority of the carbon/carbon fiber products are made in Taiwan. Top shelf manufacturers make their bikes in Taiwan under the SUPERVISION of a few key factory personnel from the brands home factory, Italy, Spain, the US etc. only the very top of the line models are made by workers in the home factory. If a rogue factory were to make a high end fake they would have to follow the steps required to make the authorized version. That would make margin very slim and to me not worth all the trouble. As in the knife example a counterfeit frame would be easy to spot by the poor quality of simple things like graphics, spelling, poor fit, things you can see. The frame in question is an example of poor QC by the home factory. Every so many frames should be removed from the production line and cut open as was done for this bike. Then the internal flaws would have been found and the home boys on the line could be counseled. When the manufacturer gets lazy or greedy the results are the frame in question, factory but shit. BUT that is my opinion nothing more.
Just a counter example - had a made in USA Trek carbon that split out the head tube at the upper bearing race, under warranty. The shop owner was in pretty good with Trek so we got more of an explanation - the person who laid the fabric in the mold had found it faster to cut the ply that went round that part of HT in 2 pcs. and thought the epoxy would bind the cut ends back together which it did, for a while. It was a mtnbike & raced hard, if the bike had gone to a poser maybe it would never have failed. I think the moral is country of manufacture or reputation of builder is no guarantee. If you're gonna run carbon pay full price at a top tier shop cuz if things go south that's your only chance of warranty.
Only up to a point can the differences be identified, for example you cannot readily identify the material parameters, in the same way that the fake knife can use low grade steel and/or incorrect heat treatment and still look the same. Most of the frames are made in China now, most of the brands do not supervise the manufacture directly, though they may have personnel on site during their production run.
I think a variable is: those that come in with a problem already have a problem. I wonder if we can do a Patreon so Raoul can buy random frames a cut them up! Ooh! I think I'm going to repost this!
I fucking told you all that Look was shit. I was the brand manager for Look in Australia for a few months and even for that short amount of time I saw some shocking stuff.
Aaaaan that's the whole point of your reviews: the lack of QC and manufacturing processes in every brand. That's what people don't get. It's a fucking lottery for which we pay TOO much. People still don't get it.
If a frame, that costs 3000 or 5000 euro, don´t have a supreme quality control, I don ´t know why this price. I understand a 500 euros carbon frame with some variability in quality in the same frames, but in expensive frames/bikes, it´s a fraud, and consequence of subcontract .
Can I ask, maybe we’re going way to deep into this, searching for perfection that in the end isn’t required for its use? How many frames are made and how little do fail, even taking misuse into consideration, I think what we see here are non-issues, unless you’re fat as an elephant.
That is easy to say when it is someone else that gets injured or killed, if the fork fails and YOU get injured or killed that is a bad day for you and your family. We have the ability to reduce the probability of this happening by spending a little more money on quality inspection and taking a little more care, instead of greed. You don't have to be as fat as an elephant for a critical flaw to lead to a catastrophic failure.
Luescher Teknik Fair enough, but if a product is well within safety specifications, then it is exactly that, safe. Right? I‘m positive that I understand the risks involved, the dangers due to misuse, a crash or forces being applied in a manner that the product isn’t designed for. And we can all be grateful for people like you emphasising these dangers. But I don’t consider any of my carbon bikes to be dangerous at all.
Yes, but how do you know that it is well with safety specifications if you do not test to see if it actually is. I have recently done reports on failures where the rider died, they also didn't consider that there bikes were dangerous, until it killed them.
Is there a market for an internationally recognised, aftermarket, 3rd party quality control franchise that is available at local hubs. Buying a brand new frame then packaging it up and entrusting it to a there and back again courier service that in my experience will probably kick it around a warehouse/depot for a couple of weeks before returning it in a bust up box, is not really a very attractive option to some. I understand this should be part of what we are paying the big bucks to the manufacturers to do. But if they can't be trusted, as the evidence would suggest, could this be a viable business model?
don’t waste yr time explaining things. cyclists love brands (with irrational fervour): rapha, dura ace, sworks, etc. they’re not really concerned about quality, safety, or value for money.
So please explain; why bother scanning frames? Your baseline opinion is that any one may be bad or good, depending on the production run. So why bother with the scans, why not just focus on design of the parts of the frame. Why agitate The Great Unwashed?
@@LuescherTeknik - Not sure I'd give you that. These after the fact breakdowns are great stuff, but as we can't relate them to processes at the plant, nor do you have sample sizes that reflect the total accurately. You aren't taking measurements, and as the makers are always in denial, it does just add up to entertainment. I understand that you take this work to seminars, that is important but on the other hand Giant sold about $2B US, and they may have a couple of analysis on the payroll doing what you do with larger samples and destructive testing in a lab. They probably know and keep secret everything you talk about.
If at the end of the day the bikes improve by me providing information and people don't get hurt because their bike wasn't made well, I will be happy that I played a part in that. What sample size do you need, I scan lots of frames, less than 1% of the frames get a video made on them.
@@LuescherTeknik - It would be interesting to know if any techies at any manufacturer even watch your reviews then dare rock the boat back at work. I would imagine bringing you up at a workplace would probably not be beneficial to a career and it is all about one's career. Corporations have huge egos and demand obedience. As for sample size, I was referring to the sample size that would allow a real statement to be made on quality per manufacturer. As with any survey of data, sample sizes correlates to an accuracy of prediction. It seems to me that you discover voids and errors, that manufacturers are completely aware of this anyway (even if they deny it) because they take frames apart too. Can we get wikileaks in on this?
The vid you did was wishy washy, as per usual a failure to commit or stick your neck out. All your analyses are full of endless use of "pretty good" and like soft adjectives. I respect your vids, I respect your caution, and you are your own man, but the nature of your vids is the nature of your vids.
I am not the person that will tell you what to do, you have to make up your own mind with that, rather I will show you some information, do with that what you please.
@@LuescherTeknik - I am not at all looking for you to tell me what to do, I am simply reflecting on how your work is responded to by the viewership. I don't need bike advice, you are simply interesting tech investigation for me. I support your channel, you support my curiosity. You do the vids, we do the comments. As far as I know you don't have much competition in your field online. More power to you.
That comment seems a bit unfair and oversimplified John. Raoul understands that even with 5k frames studied, he's got a sub-sample. He can't speak in the absolutes we sometimes thirst for, politicians provide plenty of unqualified oversimplifications when I'm in the mood for that. From where I sit, seems that manufacturers of multi-thousand euro/dollar machines where failure implies economic losses (not to say pain and suffering) of >50x of the frame cost ought to do NDE on every frame that comes off the line, and periodic destructive eval to crosscheck. It's not clear that many (any?) of them do - if getting that message out is riling up the "great unwashed", well that is the price of safety perhaps. (BTW, like you, I'm not racing nor riding carbon frame bikes - my are Al recumbents, with their own manifold imperfections - but I really enjoy Raoul's window into bike frame QC.)
@@75supercourse - You reply is what is oversimple. He doesn't have a 5K frame sample ... of any one manufacturer, year, or model. So no he does not have a 5K sample of anything with respect to my meaning, which is to be able to make a statement about a builder that is statistically useful. You may want to review such things, because you are completely off base. I don't "thirst for absolutes" that is nonsense. I understand math & science and place data where it belongs according to it's usefulness. Finally keep politicians to yourself please. I see no value whatsoever in your reply, you start off on the wrong foot and dance away into the dark. You are pandering in defense of something you are imagining.
@Gerald Powell 😂. Are you winding up or just missed the most important message from Raoul in the presentation? There is no consistency by brand or model so it’s impossible to answer the question.
I have always found amusing how some people are emotionally attached to a brand.
Like for many things, people will remain in denial even when confronted to evidences.
Either because the own a product of the brand and can't accept that THEY potentially have been screwed or own a piece of shit.
Or because they have had a good experience with the brand and they do not understand the difference between anecdotal evidences and statically based ones.*
Or because they have no understanding of QC, QA and manufacturing processes.
Let's not forget the Dunning-Kruger effect where incompetent people don't have the competency to acknowledge that they are incompetent.
* It's also valid for those who have a bad impression left by a bad experience.
People also feel better when they pay a high price for something, whether or not that price is justifiable or not.
Gotta love luescher for a honest, balanced, informal and mature argument about engineering and manufacturing. Keep it coming dude
Your objective professionalism is honourable and most welcome.
It is clear that the industry has much to learn from you.
Thanks
Message received loud and clear. Cheers, Raoul! I love how there’s still people writing, “What about **** what do you think of their frames?” in the comments. 😂
I ride a look 695 sr.. Appreciate your videos and the facts. Carbon bikes are the easiest to market with a name and a paint job.. Paying 5000 dollars or more for the frames we ride is a good indicator of how a fool and their money are parted
A lugged carbon frame like C60's would be very interesting to test to compare with moulded ones
I have a C50 in the cut up pile.
Haha I made my own so I can be SURE I've got a bad one.
Amen! Laid to rest. The other issue besides QA is what are the design attributes that will lead to better alignment of the major component interfaces. QA still plays the biggest role here. As far as carbon bikes layup goes, each and every carbon bike even if same model and batch with be unique. These are all hand made bikes. Each and everyone of them. Look, cannondale, Specialized, Time, chapter2, dongfu, trek, santa cruz etc etc etc
have you cut up any yoeleo, dengfu or hongfu bikes?
id def love to see some of the nicer china brands cut up. I think people defintely over estimate how much having some big name brand on a frame really means
Very useful to get an insight into sample size. Puts it in context. Cheers!
So hold on, you’re saying that this was not a fake?!
😂😂😂
I though I was clear on that ;)
Luescher Teknik 🤣 much respect to you my friend. I love your balanced, reasonable, knowledgable approach. Keep the content coming!
Thanks.
Only way to minimise the kind of wrinkling and resin wet /dry areas is to build the bikes the way TIME Sport does with resin transfer moulding. Even then you can still get a bum frame.
Thank you very much Mr. Raoul for the work that you do and the info's that you provide. Speaking for myself, I do appreciate your input and the insights you share. Being subscribed to your channel for more than 2 years and having watched more than 95% of your videos, and myself having an engineering background, I believe I have a really good understanding what you are trying to explain this whole time. However, I still haven't clearly discovered your concrete answer or explanation which answers the key question - under these circumstances, having these problems in a carbon industry that does not offer a better solution for the time being, which supplier/manufacturer/brand has currently the lowest probability for failures/manufacturing errors based on your expertise and work?
Since this is an engineering field with concrete and specific data, I kindly ask for your honest reply or perhaps a video with concrete answers because with your experience and the number of parts/components that you have scanned and examined, I'm sure that you can statistically provide some data or come to a conclusion and share with us which brand/manufacturer/supplier currently has the lowest probability for failures/manufacturing errors based on your expertise and work. There must be some data which points to manufacturers having lower if not lowest number of failures, manufacturing errors, better QC, good tolerances, fewer recalls or complaints... Please, why is it so difficult to create a summary based on facts?
I can fully understand if you are trying to protect someone or something, if personal or other things are at stake, however, the responsibility for reducing the probability/preventing accidents from happening is equally yours if you have the data but choose not to share it. How you may ask? - by withholding information that could be very helpful because at least we, the general public, could make a better informed decision to the best of our extent. Am I the only one who feels that you are holding yourself back, remeasuring your words and perhaps even being afraid of speaking the actual data?
Of course you care and I'm confident that you wish to help, otherwise you wouldn't be making these videos. But don't you think that your discoveries and the actual experience from your analysis would help us more than just knowing the lottery chance for a good purchase? At least we would know which company/manufacturer is trying to create a better product. If people are satisfied and the sales increase, that would be a testimony that a better product quality is more valued and will serve as an example to the rest gremlin manufacturers. How will they ever learn their lessons if they are not being exposed and their issues addressed? So you would contribute even more because thankfully to you the truth would be known.
Unfortunately we are not all fortunate enough to have your gifts neither your profession, much less the requirements and conditions to be able to create our own bikes, we don't have your knowledge and expertise, nor your experience, your work equipment and conditions so that we can discover the truth ourselves. Furthermore, everybody is responsible for their own actions, however you, @luescherteknik can help us in a great way so that we might be able to make a decision which we would consider be the right one or at least the best for us. I don't think that people will dare come to you and say: well Mr. Raoul, you forced me to buy this bike, frame, part... Besides, nobody will hold you accountable for simply pointing to the facts - even more, you will be even greatly appreciated for speaking the truth in this world of lies and manipulation. What a difference it would be...
By no means I mean to offend you but I do respect @Hambini because he does share his insights and data in a very bold and courageous way. How? - he stands for his claims because he proves them with facts and data, backed up with his expertise and experience... Everybody can contribute in a certain way with their God-given gifts, abilities and talents!
...so, simply said, all those variables and dependencies, such as the engineering, concept and design of the product, the complexity of it, the supplier of the carbon/materials, the materials being used, the availability of the composites/materials, the subcontractor/the manufacturer of the carbon parts/components, the technology/manufacturing equipment, manufacturing processes, the tolerances, the QC and QA, the training/expertise of the colleagues that work with the composites/materials, the volume of manufacturing, the supervision and control of the manufacturing, the greed for money, the influence of the marketing dpt., the anticipated limitations and the unforeseeable limitation factors, as well as the intended purpose, field of application, the influence of the geo/physical location where the product is being used which can facilitate such/certain defects or inconsistencies, the fact that there can be bad as well as good samples/batches or individual examples, the human error factor from the layup/molding/labor intensive processes, the storage, transport and handling, etc. and all those "unknowns" lead by the true reason behind the product which create and contribute to the final product a.k.a. the perception/the big picture of the manufacturer/the brand - don't really mean anything if we are not able to tell whether a product is good or not. If we don't have tangible information, I'm afraid it is all smoke and mirrors. So PLEASE Mr. Luescher, can you make them known or at least narrow them down, or conclude a summary, a statistical average perhaps? I'm sorry and with all due respect, sometimes "pretty good" and "really good" and "you build your own bikes" is simply not enough...
My apologies for the length of my comment.
Kind regards
So I am getting that this was not a fake! Very clear message relating to most Carbon products that come from large factories in China. About time for big name brands to up their game ,regarding quality control then. Especially as the so called ‘fake’ products come from the same manufacturing processes and show how cheap these products are to produce.Therefore in order to justify huge mark up from cost price to retail price, a decent level of quality must be established consistently.
To the point: "Until a brand can demonstrate repeatable quality, there is no point talking about brands"!
EXACTLY!!! When it comes to carbon it is a lottery when it comes to quality. It is not really about brand. So... the only logical and rational response (unless you can make your own carbon bike) is NOT TO BUY CARBON. Steel, ti and Al offer great options.
@Luescher Teknik, could you kindly do a video on 'EPS' internal rigid mould vs bladder method, as I saw this on Scotts website, and how apparently this expanded polystyrene reduces voids and wrinkles during carbon lay up
I do agree with the above video but surely there are bike manufactures who make consistently good bike frames and the faulty ones are rarer. Surely there are manufactures that you have a greater chance (not 100%) of obtaining a good quality frame, surely there are, and also the other way around. I don’t think that there is a always 50 50 chance let’s say of obtaining a good or a bad frame from any vendor especially from the big names in the industry. But then again I respect this guy’s opinion of not wanting to mention/promote any brand.
Yes, some are better than others, often this is a function of the design not the name on the down tube, complex shapes are more difficult to mold well. I can't say go and buy brand "x" and you will not have a problem, I can only talk about what I know.
@@LuescherTeknik Yeap. Totally agree.
Totally respect and agree with what you’re saying.... until these bikes are made entirely by repeatable (read: automated/robotic) processes.... no two frames will be alike even if same make, model, size.
And therefore, every cut-up you’ve ever done is devaluated.... 😱🙈
I am the first to say that the cut up sample may not be a representation of all the bikes of that model, however with the scans I can non destructively inspect a much larger sample size and use the cut up as an example of the sorts of flaws that are common in a particular model.
That's a point Hambini has made a few times - the ones the pros get have been scanned to within an inch of their lives, so they know they're getting a great bike. The consumer has to take pot luck, unless you buy an ex-team bike which is a great move.
I have never heard of the pro bikes getting scanned and based on failures that they have am not sure that this is true. I would not buy an ex team bike myself to ride only to display, they get trashed.
You know when LT cracks out the hair clippers that shit is about to get real 😆🤟
Got sick of my Covid hair, even had a shave!
@@LuescherTeknik Ive got some forks Id love to send you. I think they are the worst Ive ever seen.
Send them in and we can have a look.
Would love to hear your insights and comments on the Bastion "technology", which you have also had a little input in. I am particularly interested in your comments on the bonding (& I hear you suggested the epoxy), and how that works as opposed to let's say a full carbon material frame. Also, how would it compare to the one (the frame) you made and use yourself?
Hi Rauol, i do believe people who haven't worked in "quality" environments have a laymans idea of "quality" they believe it means good! A manufacturer has "quality" so it's product are good. But this is further from the truth than they realise. People have a problem understanding variance in the quality and this is measurable and defined. The variance is what the manufacturer decides to accept for the cost of producing. Then it even gets more complicated and how do you measure the variance properly so you know to control it or want too. Accuracy is a complex field and the average Joe just wants to buy a bike, not do a degree in field of Quality. So this is what you need to explain to them before they get it. I might do a vid explaining it as i worked on aircraft too + worked in accuracy measurements for years holding NATA acceditation. Anyway i just bought a 695 LOOK i like the zed 2 crankset design, so hopefully it is not a friday build lol!
I worked for a while is QC and their was an accepted measure, colour variables, shut gaps etc. Extreme variance that would cause secondary failure was not acceptable and if an outsourced part would a supplier follow up. Re-tooling is expensive so unless there is an absolute need it won't happen. First,second and third generation products are always the test bed in the real world. Space exploration and aviation in genera is one field where QC is at the highest level and even then that has hiccups here and there moreso in aviation. How many carbon parts failed in Aviation before we have the quality we have today....quite a lot.
Waynos Fotos - nor a Monday build 😁.
@@robertp7209 yep, fingers crossed! Tunsia had a good day for bikes when it was built!
@@glennoc8585 I have developed training for employees in how to perform their job to an industry standard. This includes; 1)prerequisites, 2)test based competency, 3)and hands on demonstration before a subject matter expert, 4)with annual refresher training. It is set up as a certification.
If the training doesn't cover the square, then it doesn't cover the square. In what I developed, there is so little room for deviation that it could lead to catastrophic failure, property damage, personal injury, or death. QA/QC is how it is set up. I'm just putting this out here to add to you comment.
If it is a new 695, the bb65 will be quiet for a while. Then expect the same issues that were described in Hambini's video where he replaces the bb65 with a converter to a 24mm Shimano spindle. The bearings will eventually end up moving inside the shell, both along and accross the shell causing creaking.
Yeah, you will love the Zed crankset until it is time to replace the bearings. For which you need a dedicated tool that costs over £100, and the process of replacing them is not straightforward at all.
Pefect, absolutely perfect! The only frame to be perfect is the one you buy cut in half and inspect it in its entirety. If it is perfect you go and buy the exact same model again. Of course you will need to cut that one in half also to make sure it is/was as good as the first!
Seems like a vicious circle but eventually you will get the idea!
My half brother totally agrees with you.
He's a good guy !
I know it !
Or you use Non Destructive Inspection methods at the factory, which is even better because if you cut it half you don't know if you have the good half or the bad half ;)
@@LuescherTeknik Frames with voids and slightly mis aligned BB's don't worry me too much. For me it's the quality of carbon front forks, stems & bars I'm more worried about !!!
@@stevem2939 Speaking of forks and quality control, the story about that lawsuit against Bianchi popped up again recently, where a fork snapped and injured the rider. Bianchi said they're "not contesting liability but is disputing the amount of damages being claimed". www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/cyclist-sues-bianchi-for-1m-after-his-forks-snapped-during-sportive-453906
@@StefanCiulu Thanks for this Stefan
The problem is that we can't make an informed decision. As you say, one frame can be good and the one you buy can be shite. If you (@Luescher) say that you can't find a pattern with brands, well what can we mere mortals do? Glad you're around though.
The only option in buying a carbon bike seems to be to get it ultrasound scanned before buying. Can you give me an idea of the availability and price of this kind of test. I'm in the UK but I'm sure details [n Oz and elsewhere would be helpful to others.
40 years ago (lol) I saw an Alan, 48cm frame crack a lug. sorry, but I can't remember which lug. Frame was sent back to Italy, from Texas. After about 6 weeks, Alan sent the frame back and said they'd never seen that happen before. It can't be their fault!
The owner took the frame to a TIG welder for repair, and gave it to his girlfriend. She rode it about three more years, then she got new bike just because she wanted a new bike.
Always really enjoy you videos, as they are informative yet do not point a finger generally saying such and such is a terrible brand because of this or that.
Now the meat of this, I've been searching you channel looking for the review of the chinaello frame and cannot see it. Did you ever do the inspection and review.🤔
When LT pulls out the hair clippers you know he aint pulling punches! This is a great video series! Keep it up!
Id never buy a brand name bike again at retail price. I know too much and ride my own brand now.
If we see a significative reduction in sales due to a collapsing economy and uncertainty (need to say why ?), I doubt that we are going to see improvement in terms of QA im the bike industry. It may get even worst.
Or maybe more people will be more selective on where they spend their money, research things and apply reason instead of just fashion.
I doubt it because on average as George Carlin said :
"We buy shit we don't need,
with money we don't have,
to impress people we don't like."
But even those of us who try to not behave in this manner are at a point where we no longer know what to buy.
That's why you get asked so much "what bike/brand should I buy ?"
In my case, I don't even know which bike to buy with the insurance money after a crash in November. Because the more I get informed, the more I'm afraid that I'll end up with a bike that will only last me a few years or worst it might shorten my life even though there is not much time left. I'm 56, all I want is a bike that will bring me a smile for the remainder of my active cycling life. But it seems that I'm asking for too much and the best I can do is gambling on an educated guess.
I think a video in which you educate people on the thought process of "how to select a bike and not get screwed" (not a brand or a manufacturer) would be popular.
@@sylvainmichaud2262 Bill Holland, Crumpton, Appleman all make carbon frames one at a time. Rob English does wild stuff with Steel, Independent Fab got a Stainless Steel option with reyonlds 953, all the Ti builder. Most likely I'd get a Rocklobster since it's very affordable for full custom and tons people race them. I've seen them up close at NABHS. Obliviously if use a carbon folk the issues still linger. My impression from this channel, all the typical media at large for mass produced Giant seem to be good and the TCR SL with the ISP my first choice (why bother with carbon if need an adjustable seat post). I tend to view Time and Look more bouquet even if produced at larger volumes or lugged frames vs non-lugged frame.
@@runningwithshemp
Yeah at 56 I really need a TCR SL without an adjustable seat post.
I don't make a living out of racing bicycle. Who needs a TCR SL with an ISP to participate in a CAT 4 race in which no one but the racers themselves have interest in. You really didn't get my point. Go back to the beginning of my comment.
"We buy shit we don't need ..."
@@sylvainmichaud2262 apologies I must have reply to wrong comment via my gizmo. I swear I saw a comment from you about quality control what frame to pick out from an insurance claim. I agree most people don't need a carbon bike
That what Hambini says indirectly ,too. All TDF bikes/pro bikes , the bikes go through extensive scanning procedures.
I have never heard of this happening, they do scan them for electric motors though!
@@LuescherTeknik Apparently the teams them self to make sure to get the best frame they possibly can.
Can you provide any information on this?
@@LuescherTeknik I only can quote Hambini in his videos, when he was reviewing the Obea and Canyon frame. He said something like, that the pro riders don't get a frame of the shelf. They will get a CT-scanned frame , which has no voids and all specifications are met. I believe this, it is not a hard thing to do for a professional cycling team. How many more watts you will hypotheatically gain, when the frame has less voids. I guess the frame is more stiff , and therefore less energery is converted into heat .
mrGTD170 and its bad marketing if a frame just breakes while live on tv. so any brand would do good to check well.
Regarding comments about aluminium frames being "better" than carbon frames, well it might be true but judging from the pictures on the bike forum I use to hang around, the ratio on cracked framed is 20 to 1 in favour of carbon. They crack around the welds.
Thank you for this video.
That's quackers! Just kidding, thanks you as always for your insight and knowledge.
I do not think they would put that crazy huge bottom bracket on a fake.
I have seen a fake look with a crazy huge bb and it didn't last too long
Aaron Twigg that’s interesting
@@aarontwigg1042 Not a LOOK specific surely more like a PF30
It was a 795 knock off some frame changes but it had the look bb size
@@aarontwigg1042 That does surprise me because you'd have to buy the dedicated look crankset afaik. The fake looks i've seen were BSA or PF30
So how the hell do we pick which bike to buy? Like most people, I don’t have access to an x-ray machine, CT scanner etc.
A metal one
A Ti bike made a decade ago starting to look more attractive
Don't buy carbon.
@@allyw7405 Check those welds for cracks as Titanium welds are not always done well and they can and do let go in time.
I wish there was a 3rd party certification process
Amazing how one frame generated so much controversy
It's about the name. Overall people who can pay for perception at any cost usually think they are correct. This clarification just made them pucker up.
Clearly you’re new to the Internet 🤪
@@justsayin3600 I bought a new 695 bike in 2015. I love the bike, but I don't go around thinking I'm correct. That's a mischaracterization. I was always under the impression that LOOK had great build quality and that was one of the reasons I bought the bike. I'm seeing now that they're not necessarily any better than anybody else
Raoul, it seems that bikes you cut up come in with a problem. Could this just be a bike that is bad overall? What if you set up a Patreon and buy random frames to cut up so we can see what some unknown person would get?
Yes, however a crash does not put voids into a frame! I could look (pun intended) at a Patreon format and do as you suggest, it would depend on the support if it is financially viable. I would love to do it though if there is the support.
Ok so to sumup when you are a normal guy, if you buy a carbon frame, you have to assume its lottery and there is nothing about it you can do?
In other world, you should better buy alloy/steel/titanium frame?
In my opinion if a company's QC is such that it's getting enough variance that a significant number of "bad" products are finding their way through the chain to the end consumer, they are a bad brand, irrespective of how good their "good" ones may be.
The friday afternoon build is still a thing in 2020. People assume these are stamped out 100% by robots. They're not.
There is very little automation in carbon bike frame production.
With the variability issue there still needs to be a minimum level of quality where there is plenty of margin so no failure ever occurs in proper use. Some cases may be due to a particular worker at a particular plant taking shortcuts or not following training. There may be a case of a disgruntled employee. The manufacturers can take off the assembly line a completed frame and cut it apart to verify minimum standards, and do so many of these per given say hundred frames. And depending on what is found can increase or decrease the sampling rate. It seems to me, that from a workmanship level these frames seem easy enough to get right once one is taught the right way, I don’t know why unless there is a high turnover employee rate issue at the plant. Craftsmen will get it right every time making one or a thousand frames, and be proud of it. I presume the materials are of consistent quality and not the root cause. Hambini is finding bottom brackets with oval openings and such, just ridiculous. Also seems to me making a round opening is easier than making an oval one.
So true QC is the big problem.
Ever done any testing or verification on Bianchi Bikes? XR4 or specialisma
I did a review of a Bianchi 928, check out the video in the back catalogue.
I should receive my Orbea OMX frame soon, now that Spain has allowed factories to re-open. I won’t do an ultrasound, but before I assemble it, I’ll inspect it and take some macro shots in the BB, HT & ST openings. Hopefully, I’ll win the “good frame” lottery.
Fortunately, the external design looks smart. The strength areas are big and the flex areas are thinner, meaning that it’s not too reliant on secret sauce layups. It has some truncated aero shapes, but the radii aren’t excessively sharp. It hides cables, but with a standard, tapered steerer and oversized top bearing. All the right features without anything that would be failure prone if the quality control is less than perfect.
I can’t wait to get it, let alone ride it!
Hmmm... but i the frame made in Spain as the general view is Orbea frames are finished in Spain but made in China or Portugal.
glenn oc - I ordered it in November. The frame is from Asia. It made it to Spain where they painted it. The bike was ready to be boxed and shipped, but the virus hit. They’ve started operations again this week. It’s been a long wait!
I hope you've seen Hambini's Orbea video. I believe that Orbea has banned his video in Spain and the UK.
@@mattheweaton1420 Orbea can't ban it they just pressured UA-cam into pulling it from the Euro zone.
😂
Statistically, the more popular a product is, the more likely the consumer will experience a defect. Even airplanes have defects, and they are built to the highest standards.
I think LOOK's production process has changed already. This one doesn't look similar to their current frames. I've got 2019 765 gravel bike and inside the head tube and bottom bracket it looks a lot like Trek Emonda SLR from your other video or better. I couldn't see any wrinkles and the surface has the same matt grainy finish. There are also some 3K reinforecements close to bearings. There are no any "sharp" areas between the headtube and the downtube, the transition is unnoticable. I have photos for those interested.
Merida Reacto 5000, please!
I love Carbon but with Aluminium frames you'd have more consistency. It is Brand responsabilty though because a brand puts it's name to said products, so if the product is very inconsistent it's the legal onus on the brand first then the brand can go back to the manufacture if they're buying from the open mold sellers. I know it's a bit of a gamble but some in house manufactures seem to have less QC issues than others. Brands like Giant and Time hardly get a negative review on the forums, well not that i've come across so far. I think of the airbag fiasco in recent times, the onus of repair and any compensation came direct to the brands not the airbag supplier Takata.
It also goes in batches, some models will be good for a while then have a run of problems and then come good again, maybe the contractor changed or one of the many other variables. The brand has overarching responsibilty for what the sell in the market and needs to take the good and the bad.
@@LuescherTeknik Absolute truth there Raoul. To be fair to the bike industry they do pretty well lined up to the white goods industry.
things can always be worse....................
It's pretty disconcerting that no brand has good enough quality control to set themselves apart from the rest (especially given how bad typical QA evidently is).
Your local frame maker does. If you've got a local frame maker. In France we've got some.
@paleolithictech I think all brands can provide excellent products, but none of them have been able to do it consistently enough for a recommendation. As he said in the video he's seen some excellent frames and some terrible frames of the same make and model.
@@nicojar That's not fair!
@@nicojar Victoire?
@paleolithictech I watched those videos too. Regardless, Raoul explicitly stated here that there isn't a company with good enough QC to get his recommendation and that there are both good and bad bikes of the same make/model. You can make conclusions based on as much or as little information as you are comfortable with and evidently Raoul isn't comfortable coming to the same conclusions as you (and he has a LOT more info).
Does ultrasound inspection need to done by a human or can it be automated? I’m guessing it is a skilled task and the rate that frames are produced would require automated inspection to check all frames produced. But if all frames could be inspected then at least the is the opportunity to reject substandard frames.
There is scope for automation, the setup of which can get complex depending on geometry.
I have heard that GIANT is gearing up for robotic made carbon frames. True? And if so, perhaps that will reduce the problems with so much variability in carbon bike manufacturing. Having said that, my bet on the future material of choice for high performance bikes is ultralight aluminum.
I have not heard anything about this, robot tape laying is used in aerospace, however the parts are typically large and relatively flat, not sure that these systems would work on a bike frame.
Most aluminium alloys have a similar density so I don't know what ultralight aluminium is???
@@LuescherTeknik Hambini referred to "ultralight aluminum" in a recent episode. He said, right now such grades of aluminum are mainly used in the aerospace industry but have not yet migrated to the bike frame sector. He anticipates that this grade of aluminum would be given a good, hard look by the bike industry as they attempt to respond to the inherent difficulty in manufacturing carbon frames economically AND with consistently admirable results...as you imply in this video. Thanks for responding!!!!!!!
Maybe he was referring to the Lithium alloys which are a bit lighter.
Luescher Teknik I'll try posting a comment in his next video asking if he would explain in more detail what he meant by "ultralight aluminium." Personally, I would love to see the next step in bike frame technology be the use of a material that allows for more consistent quality without enormous production costs. Improving quality control of carbon frames is great. But improved quality control for carbon frames would mean more frames get thrown in the trash bin at the factory. In the end, the customer would have to pay for all those tossed frames. Unless there's is a revolution in the way carbon frames are made so that yield rates of quality frames goes up (robotics?), manufacturers really need to push the materials engineering envelope for a better option than carbon. My opinion, of course.
It seems to me that a good option for carbon frames would be that the bike store should allow you to get it scanned, by a competent independent company (like Leather Teknik), and if that Frame has issues it should be formally documented. If it turns out that the frame is a dud it should be the responsibility of the bike shop to refund your purchase and sent the frame back to the manufacturer for their reimbursement or replacement. This should not be a burden to the consumer and hopefully this would result in safer bikes being ridden by happy cyclists.
They don't need to allow you to scan it. You can do it and come back with some proof.
How many frames does a pro team go through in a season (per rider). I would wager at least 10.
I don't know, it probably depends on the bikes and sponsorship deal in place, I did hear that many years ago a team sponsored by a titanium frame brand was going through a bike every 3 weeks or so.
Folks you asked for it. You got it.
But QA is a brand topic.
If a brand does not have a good QA process then the brand is per se not recommendable. It is upto every company to invest in better manufacturing QA standards and QC processes of the end product.
As a takeway from all this, it is just upto to the luck of the draw if you get a really good bike.
Very disconcerting.
In many cases the brand is not the manufacturer which makes this more complex.
@@LuescherTeknik which in this case the "bike brand" will have to work together with the manufacturer to establish higher quality processes. Also the "bike brand" will have to step up their own quality control processes to better identify lacking quality products before going out to the customer.
But in this world where "cheaper" and "profit" has to be maximized, I honestly dont see this happening.
Thank you making the informed buyer aware of these details.
So what your take on trek bicycles. I just bought a frame from the warehouse here in USA.
Hi Raoul. It's seems like people are clamoring to know from you the brands with the lowest average number of major defects, but you are saying that all brands have huge a standard deviation in the number of major defects. But with hundreds of bike brands, it seems to me very unlikely that every one has a large S.D. There must be some small makers with good process control.
I have always been astounded by the skeptics view on certain “counterfeit” products. Knives are one. To successfully counterfeit a high end knife you would HAVE TO MAKE A HIGH END KNIFE. Otherwise the lack of craftsmanship is easy to see in anything less.
I did some reading on brand names and materials in the bicycle industry.
The majority of the carbon/carbon fiber products are made in Taiwan. Top shelf manufacturers make their bikes in Taiwan under the SUPERVISION of a few key factory personnel from the brands home factory, Italy, Spain, the US etc. only the very top of the line models are made by workers in the home factory.
If a rogue factory were to make a high end fake they would have to follow the steps required to make the authorized version. That would make margin very slim and to me not worth all the trouble.
As in the knife example a counterfeit frame would be easy to spot by the poor quality of simple things like graphics, spelling, poor fit, things you can see.
The frame in question is an example of poor QC by the home factory. Every so many frames should be removed from the production line and cut open as was done for this bike. Then the internal flaws would have been found and the home boys on the line could be counseled. When the manufacturer gets lazy or greedy the results are the frame in question, factory but shit. BUT that is my opinion nothing more.
Just a counter example - had a made in USA Trek carbon that split out the head tube at the upper bearing race, under warranty. The shop owner was in pretty good with Trek so we got more of an explanation - the person who laid the fabric in the mold had found it faster to cut the ply that went round that part of HT in 2 pcs. and thought the epoxy would bind the cut ends back together which it did, for a while. It was a mtnbike & raced hard, if the bike had gone to a poser maybe it would never have failed. I think the moral is country of manufacture or reputation of builder is no guarantee. If you're gonna run carbon pay full price at a top tier shop cuz if things go south that's your only chance of warranty.
Only up to a point can the differences be identified, for example you cannot readily identify the material parameters, in the same way that the fake knife can use low grade steel and/or incorrect heat treatment and still look the same.
Most of the frames are made in China now, most of the brands do not supervise the manufacture directly, though they may have personnel on site during their production run.
Luescher Teknik ok. Thanks for the comment. I thought at least one brand supervised the production side in Taiwan.
I would like to give you more than just a thumb up unfortunately youtube only provides a click. 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍😜
Feel like you should open the grand church of composites. Amennnnnn brother.
The Grand Church of Whoop A$$!
The Dark Install say'd nothing good about Look. One of his firsts stream was about Look poor quality.
oh well, i thought it was a fake.
What made you think it was fake?
so when are we going to see another Look bike cut apart for another sample of Look's quality? (J)
I have another LOOK frame here to cut up.
I think a variable is: those that come in with a problem already have a problem. I wonder if we can do a Patreon so Raoul can buy random frames a cut them up! Ooh! I think I'm going to repost this!
I fucking told you all that Look was shit. I was the brand manager for Look in Australia for a few months and even for that short amount of time I saw some shocking stuff.
Aaaaan that's the whole point of your reviews: the lack of QC and manufacturing processes in every brand. That's what people don't get. It's a fucking lottery for which we pay TOO much.
People still don't get it.
Can confirm it was not a fake. If it was fake, it would have been better quality. 😂 😂 😂
If a frame, that costs 3000 or 5000 euro, don´t have a supreme quality control, I don ´t know why this price. I understand a 500 euros carbon frame with some variability in quality in the same frames, but in expensive frames/bikes, it´s a fraud, and consequence of subcontract .
Some brands have better QC and manufacturing processes than others. End of story.
We talk about QC but Quality Assurance (QA) is/should be part of it.
So what your saying is get a duck instead of a bike?
🔥💯
Can I ask, maybe we’re going way to deep into this, searching for perfection that in the end isn’t required for its use? How many frames are made and how little do fail, even taking misuse into consideration, I think what we see here are non-issues, unless you’re fat as an elephant.
That is easy to say when it is someone else that gets injured or killed, if the fork fails and YOU get injured or killed that is a bad day for you and your family. We have the ability to reduce the probability of this happening by spending a little more money on quality inspection and taking a little more care, instead of greed. You don't have to be as fat as an elephant for a critical flaw to lead to a catastrophic failure.
Luescher Teknik Fair enough, but if a product is well within safety specifications, then it is exactly that, safe. Right? I‘m positive that I understand the risks involved, the dangers due to misuse, a crash or forces being applied in a manner that the product isn’t designed for. And we can all be grateful for people like you emphasising these dangers. But I don’t consider any of my carbon bikes to be dangerous at all.
Yes, but how do you know that it is well with safety specifications if you do not test to see if it actually is. I have recently done reports on failures where the rider died, they also didn't consider that there bikes were dangerous, until it killed them.
Is there a market for an internationally recognised, aftermarket, 3rd party quality control franchise that is available at local hubs. Buying a brand new frame then packaging it up and entrusting it to a there and back again courier service that in my experience will probably kick it around a warehouse/depot for a couple of weeks before returning it in a bust up box, is not really a very attractive option to some. I understand this should be part of what we are paying the big bucks to the manufacturers to do. But if they can't be trusted, as the evidence would suggest, could this be a viable business model?
don’t waste yr time explaining things. cyclists love brands (with irrational fervour): rapha, dura ace, sworks, etc. they’re not really concerned about quality, safety, or value for money.
Sooo... We are supposed to send all bikes for Raoul to check? Do I smell a conflict of interest? :D
You can if you like....................., but I am trying to give you information to help you decide what to do and change things for the better.
@@LuescherTeknik That's why I subscribed :P
The 695 isnt that the endurance one for fat out people???
is LOOK made in FRANCE ??? or Made in TAIWAN /CHINA ( Assembled in France ) then Labeled MADE in FRANCE ??????
So please explain; why bother scanning frames? Your baseline opinion is that any one may be bad or good, depending on the production run. So why bother with the scans, why not just focus on design of the parts of the frame. Why agitate The Great Unwashed?
The scans help to understand the shortcomings of the designs and validate process control, it is a tool to improve.
@@LuescherTeknik - Not sure I'd give you that. These after the fact breakdowns are great stuff, but as we can't relate them to processes at the plant, nor do you have sample sizes that reflect the total accurately. You aren't taking measurements, and as the makers are always in denial, it does just add up to entertainment.
I understand that you take this work to seminars, that is important but on the other hand Giant sold about $2B US, and they may have a couple of analysis on the payroll doing what you do with larger samples and destructive testing in a lab. They probably know and keep secret everything you talk about.
If at the end of the day the bikes improve by me providing information and people don't get hurt because their bike wasn't made well, I will be happy that I played a part in that.
What sample size do you need, I scan lots of frames, less than 1% of the frames get a video made on them.
@@LuescherTeknik - It would be interesting to know if any techies at any manufacturer even watch your reviews then dare rock the boat back at work. I would imagine bringing you up at a workplace would probably not be beneficial to a career and it is all about one's career. Corporations have huge egos and demand obedience.
As for sample size, I was referring to the sample size that would allow a real statement to be made on quality per manufacturer. As with any survey of data, sample sizes correlates to an accuracy of prediction.
It seems to me that you discover voids and errors, that manufacturers are completely aware of this anyway (even if they deny it) because they take frames apart too. Can we get wikileaks in on this?
The vid you did was wishy washy, as per usual a failure to commit or stick your neck out. All your analyses are full of endless use of "pretty good" and like soft adjectives. I respect your vids, I respect your caution, and you are your own man, but the nature of your vids is the nature of your vids.
I am not the person that will tell you what to do, you have to make up your own mind with that, rather I will show you some information, do with that what you please.
@@LuescherTeknik - I am not at all looking for you to tell me what to do, I am simply reflecting on how your work is responded to by the viewership. I don't need bike advice, you are simply interesting tech investigation for me. I support your channel, you support my curiosity. You do the vids, we do the comments. As far as I know you don't have much competition in your field online. More power to you.
I didn't think they were interesting for you based on your comments. ;)
That comment seems a bit unfair and oversimplified John. Raoul understands that even with 5k frames studied, he's got a sub-sample. He can't speak in the absolutes we sometimes thirst for, politicians provide plenty of unqualified oversimplifications when I'm in the mood for that.
From where I sit, seems that manufacturers of multi-thousand euro/dollar machines where failure implies economic losses (not to say pain and suffering) of >50x of the frame cost ought to do NDE on every frame that comes off the line, and periodic destructive eval to crosscheck. It's not clear that many (any?) of them do - if getting that message out is riling up the "great unwashed", well that is the price of safety perhaps. (BTW, like you, I'm not racing nor riding carbon frame bikes - my are Al recumbents, with their own manifold imperfections - but I really enjoy Raoul's window into bike frame QC.)
@@75supercourse - You reply is what is oversimple. He doesn't have a 5K frame sample ... of any one manufacturer, year, or model. So no he does not have a 5K sample of anything with respect to my meaning, which is to be able to make a statement about a builder that is statistically useful. You may want to review such things, because you are completely off base. I don't "thirst for absolutes" that is nonsense. I understand math & science and place data where it belongs according to it's usefulness. Finally keep politicians to yourself please.
I see no value whatsoever in your reply, you start off on the wrong foot and dance away into the dark. You are pandering in defense of something you are imagining.
So what your take on trek bicycles. I just bought a frame from the warehouse here in USA.
In my experience not bad, I've had a look inside a Superfly/Procalibre and they were quiet clean, I think most of them are made by Quest composites
@Gerald Powell 😂. Are you winding up or just missed the most important message from Raoul in the presentation?
There is no consistency by brand or model so it’s impossible to answer the question.