News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Sketchy World of Fake Bike Gear. Parent comment

Re:The Sketchy World of Fake Bike Gear by gburt on Sunday October 04, 2015 @06:38PM (#10329090)
"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'?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Sketchy World of Fake Bike Gear by x0x0 on Sunday October 04, 2015 @06:44PM (#10329110)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Sketchy World of Fake Bike Gear by elithrar on Sunday October 04, 2015 @06:57PM (#10329151)
> 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)

[ Parent | on HN ]