>>1453842>I just offered my anecdotal evidence against his.With the implication that Canyon is a quality manufacturer (although they don't manufacture much of anything other than a brand image) and that the samples that Hambini has seen are aberrant. You're very clearly defending them in no small part to having a personal attachment.
>shouldn't make it past QCCanyon claims that they do full QC on every frame. If they did, a frame that completely fucked wouldn't make it past, nor would any other frame like that. But of course they don't, because that would be terribly expensive. Makes me wonder what the 1/30 or so frames that they toss are like.
>There's no fucking way the bike brands will give their designs to others so they can make bikes for a race team they're sponsoring.It's exactly what they do with their consumer bikes. They have companies like Quest, Martec, Giant, Tentech or whoever the lowest bidder is make their shit. Most pros, particularly the elite riders, aren't going to be happy with spending dozens of hours a week on stock geo, which can't be changed because they'd have to make a whole new mold, which is way too expensive. So they have terzista companies like Sarto make bikes that look like their marquee bikes, but are in fact customs:
https://cyclingtips.com/2013/10/made-in-italy-a-tour-of-the-sarto-bike-factory/https://www.planetx.co.uk/news/products/q/date/2012/07/04/sarto-has-arrivedI think that they're still doing the same thing with Cyfac, too, although they're mum about how much. Anyway, it's just bike industry shenanigans, smoke and mirrors, same as it ever was.
