Knockoff is the New Black

[Cyberdactyl]

Watched rcmodelreviews latest early non-flight review of a few "Blackout" type quads.

As has been said in other threads and forums, Bruce has limited and recent experience with multirotors. However, he is making an earnest attempt to get up to speed. With his vast experience in the RC hobby, I'm sure he will be as knowledgeable as most anyone when it comes to multirotors, in general, very soon.

From seeing a side-by-side comparison, it certainly appears the cost saving for a "cheap knockoff" is the way to go, if not a no-brainer, over 'name brand' mini-quads such as the 'Blackout' . . . at least for the frame. The addition of a power distribution, and the subjective quality variation simply can't justify a 5X disparity in cost.

 

[baddox]

I think the quality of the carbon fiber, tooling, and hardware probably varies immensely. If you're truly emphasizing low cost much over quality, go with the $10 composite frames http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/...copter_a_mini_sized_fpv_multi_rotor_kit_.html or wood.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

I think the quality of the carbon fiber, tooling, and hardware probably varies immensely. If you're truly emphasizing low cost much over quality, go with the $10 composite frames http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/...copter_a_mini_sized_fpv_multi_rotor_kit_.html or wood.

That's apples and oranges.

But, absolutely quality of the CF can vary. Improper layout of the fiber pattern can also reduce the survivability of a harsh impact. And remodelreviews plans on "testing" the strength of each model. Not sure if he'll go all the way to destructive testing, hopefully he will.

But I predict the CF will compare within 20% of each other if a comparable cross section and geometry is measured. I personally think 3mm is overkill for the vast number of presumed crashes, so a variation of 20% would be acceptable.

 

[DDSFlyer]

I am also very interested in the results/comparisons of all those frames. The only difference that could be an issue for some. Is that the knockoff's are a little bigger in size (wonder if you could fit 6" props? Maybe not a good thing) but for frame savings vs destructability I think that they are really making a case for themselves. Put the money towards the electronics and motors and it'll all be good.

Just hope his part 2 actually gets filmed and released soon...

 

[MT Alex]

Watched rcmodelreviews latest early non-flight review of a few "Blackout" type quads.

As has been said in other threads and forums, Bruce has limited and recent experience with multirotors. However, he is making an earnest attempt to get up to speed. With his vast experience in the RC hobby, I'm sure he will be as knowledgeable as most anyone when it comes to multirotors, in general, very soon.

From seeing a side-by-side comparison, it certainly appears the cost saving for a "cheap knockoff" is the way to go, if not a no-brainer, over 'name brand' mini-quads such as the 'Blackout' . . . at least for the frame. The addition of a power distribution, and the subjective quality variation simply can't justify a 5X disparity in cost.

Your last paragraph certainly doesn't reflect the conclusions that Bruce came to, and somewhat misleads people that those are his feelings, as well. "Better than nothing" is definitely not a "no brainier" or the "way to go." Those cheap knock offs are messing with anther man's bread stone.

 

[DarkShot]

Agreed, after watching the video that definitely wasn't Bruce's feeling on the matter. That might very well be yours and that's completely fine, just be sure to reiterate that it is, if it is.

I personally wouldn't purchase a cheap clone frame like that. The material might be the same and you're definitely saving a buck, but the fact stands that you're not supporting someone in the hobby scene who helped develop and innovate some of the smaller frames, just like Bruce mentioned. The price of the frame accounts for the amount of time and money that went into R&D. Said R&D has given us some nice frames, like Luminier's QAV250 and Blackout's 220 Mini-H. Both of them have been rock solid, have their own custom developed PDBs, with Blackout's being a little more user friendly I feel, and brilliant support from the both of the developers who continually improve on their frames based on customer feedback. Blackout's done at least 3 noteworthy revisions on his mini-H to solve some issues, and I know Luminier reworked their frame design on the G10 version to strengthen the arms and motor mounts as some people had issues with them breaking as well as developed a few nice addons.

Blackout has even finally gotten some 6" prop capable arms cut and available for purchase for both his mini-H and hex, something he initially said he wouldn't do. He listens, as to other frame designers.

On a somewhat related note, I'm definitely gonna build up a Blackout hex now that I can fit on 6" props

 

[Cyberdactyl]

Sorry guys, but Bruce states clearly that business is business. But he does say, if you can afford it, support the people who have "paved the way". But there. . . once again, Bruce is talking like Blackout were the first with the mini quad. They merely popularized them with their videos. Sure, the configurations look similar, yet any deviations of the Blackout design are what naysayers use to poo-poo the knockoffs. It seems Blackout fans want it both ways. Just as Bruce incorrectly attributed Cinetank as the originators of putting the mass of the battery on the same platform as the camera.

If we were to not purchase items that have technology "borrowed" from something or someone else, we would not have anything to fly. It's extremely rare for someone to have a purely original idea. It seems many react strongly when an idea appears to be clearly stolen, but in most cases that idea was hardly original to begin with, but was a modification from something earlier.

Jeremy Rifkin's economic theory of Collaborative Commons and Zero Marginal Cost is all about taking ideas from most any source and running with them, steering the system to open source. The Chinese are doing that at least in part. Our out-dated western economic system of calling an idea 'ours', then milking it for all it's worth, is quickly ending. Patent trolls are the ugly face of our system gone mad with greed.

 

[cranialrectosis]

I like working with the R&D man myself.

Soma supports the Warpquad. He put in a ton of time and effort to get a beautiful frame to market. There are now several knockoffs but none I have seen have the support of the Warpquad.

I have two Polakium frames. Since I have been building Polakium frames, Adam has made multiple enhancements to the frames and to the manufacturing process. If you have a question, Adam is online supporting his frames daily.

Then there is the Twitchity Hex being built here on our forum. In the past 60 days, we have seen Twitchity build and mod and produce two versions of a hex that will run 6" rotors, is light, small and customized to the way many of us fly.

The knockoff artists are only interested in your money. They will sell a crummy part in a heartbeat because they only want your money. The original R&D guys are interested in your success. They are establishing a reputation and guard that reputation with service and support and most importantly, new innovation.

There is value in supporting the innovators who are moving the hobby forward one relationship at a time. There will always be a market for the cheap knockoff. I, for one, will support the innovators, who are building for the passion of the hobby and the love of seeing someone take their first flight with a new machine.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

I believe companies that sell knockoffs and those that innovate, both want your money. Of course there are individuals that do it because they love doing it. But that is a micro sliver of the pie chart.

The difference is the companies that sell knockoffs, offer mass production and subjectively lower quality to offer an extremely inexpensive product. On the other side there's innovation, higher quality and sometimes good service, offered for a premium. And, as you say, it all depends where you are in the hobby, that determines what you're attracted to.

From what I have seen, the huge majority of us bought cheap Chinese to get us started in multirotors.

 

[jhitesma]

One thing I've always known but which has been reinforced through my experiences with this loaner warp quad the past few weeks.

One way or another it's going to cost.

My cheap quad was cheap to build - but the costs over time add up. Cheap motors don't last, replacing them gets expensive. Cheap frames break, they may be cheap to repair but when you do it over and over it starts to add up. My quad may have $100 worth of parts on it but I've spent closer to $500 counting all the bits I've replaced due to wear and tear or because they just didn't work well.

On the other hand the warp is expensive to build...but once it's built...the costs of maintenance are considerably lower. It's taken crashes without a scratch that would have left my quad a pile of matchsticks.

Of course nothing is completely indestructible and even these well built carbon multis can and do break. When they do will you be able to find replacement parts? If you've got a cheap Chinese frame not only may the carbon be of inferior quality making it more liable to break...but if you bought it from a random ebay seller...what are the chances you'll find a matching replacement bit when something does break? Sure you could always have one cut custom - but there go your cost savings.

I'm cheap. But even so I see the value in a QAV or Blackout or Warp over a Chinese knockoff.

If it's a Chinese knockoff vs. nothing - yeah I'd take the knockoff. But with better options available even this cheapskate would try to find a way to afford a better backed option. (though I'd really prefer to roll my own but I don't have a CNC mill, can't cut things accurately enough by hand, and even then just buying good quality CF sheets costs more than what some of these Chinese frames are going for leading me to suspect they may just be G10 with either a thin layer of CF for looks or worse.)

 

[Cyberdactyl]

If the price point gap was 50% or even 100%, I could see the consideration of going 'name brand'. But from what I can gather, the $34 3mm carbon fiber mini quad with free shipping linked above and versions linked by rcmodelreviews, appear very similar to the $150 Blackout with the exception the Blackout has a distribution plate.

And don't get me wrong, if someone can show a stark, deal-breaking difference in quality of the CF or the manufacturing, I would definitely consider going Mercedes over Kia.

 

[ssteve]

Maintenance costs might possibly be lower on more expensive stuff, but that's not a major factor to me as that won't save me a dime when I lose it, crash it into a lake/pond/river, up a tree I can't recover it from etc etc... I'm pretty cheap, and like to fly like a jackass(a safe jackass), so I usually order spares. Recently I'm pretty addicted to the little fpv250. Frame is $16, so I bought two, dys motors were $9 so I bought 8, wanted to try out different fcb so I bought a flip and naze32. So now I basically have two cheap little craptastic mini quads for less than a blackout. I did so so I could enjoy the experience on my terms, and I don't feel bad about it, the same as I don't feel bad for buying anything off brand, Kleenex, windex, generic prescriptions etc. those companies don't market products towards people like me, because guys like me wouldn't buy their stuff even if a knockoff didn't exists. If the buy in into the hobby was a premium price like a blackout, I wouldn't have ever entered the hobby to start with.

 

[jhitesma]

And don't get me wrong, if someone can show a stark, deal-breaking difference in quality of the CF or the manufacturing, I would definitely consider going Mercedes over Kia.

That's just it with random Chinese ebay sellers. Even from the same seller the same day - heck even in the same order if you order more than one...quality can vary wildly. Look at the 5.8 vTX's Bruce has been talking about lately which he endorsed...then semi-retracted the endorsement when he discovered that while one may work great the next one from the same supplier has lines all over the video.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against them. I think the competition in the market is a very good thing and there is certainly a time and place for a budget option as well as a premium option. But having experienced a warp quad first hand there is something to be said for the real deal that's hard to articulate without experiencing it.

There's the way things "just work" and there's the way there's a community of people working on the same platform which make so many things simpler and less time consuming. But there's more to it. There's a level of confidence that it gives you in the air that cheaper options don't.

Of course that's not for everyone and I fully understand that which is why again I'm great with all options being available.

Honestly, until I got to experience a warp in person I was convinced there was no way it was worth what it costs. It just seemed ridiculous to me that it would cost around $400 to build a 230mm quad like that ($100 frame, $100 of motors, $100 in ESC's and FC, then add in some props and batteries and RX....) but having had the experience of helping to build one and getting to fly it....yeah....my opinion on it's value has changed completely. I still can't afford one for myself right now but I'm definitely looking for a way to change that.

I'm not trying to bash the clones. I'm just trying to point out that there's a lot of value in the name brands that isn't necessarily obvious or easy to explain without experiencing it.

 

[ssteve]

*almost off topic*

Anyone seen any "knockoff" mini spider hex's?

 

[FinalGlideAus]

I'll stay out of this one since especially on this forum there are a lot of people with"budget" as the highest priority but I will say its very interesting how all of those who push the cheap crappy knock off products have never actually flown or used the real deal, yet those who have done so seem to have a different point of view (jhitesma for example). Its food for thought.

I've built and flown the good frames, I've personally played with the the knock offs and I also know about a fair few new items in testing right now that aren't public yet and I know which way I'm going to stay. There is just no comparison and I'm sorry but Bruce can't fly the quads hard enough to compare, doesn't crash hard enough know the knock offs weak points and still can't tune them to get them flying well either so exactly how is he the right guy for the review....

If you're going to buy a knock off then that's what your going to do. Nothing is going to convince you otherwise and talking about it on here is not going to change people's opinions.

 

[ssteve]

I completely agree finalglide... Played with a blackout and thought it's was pretty dang awesome... Vastly superior in every way to my fpv250... But the feelings of grief I would have when I loose it or completely destroy it(not if... When) are a whole lot more overwhelming than when I trash my little hk quad.

The guy I know with the blackout runs a gopro and flies Fpv through it as well. He was present when I hit solid pavement with my fpv250 and the sj4000 on it. Pieces went everywhere. Camera, frame, my pz0420, blew the battery up etc. my reaction was a board line excited "holy ISH! That's was a hell of a crash!" And then I laughed. He reaction was of total shock, and said if he ever did that to his blackout that he might shed a tear. Total it cost me a battery.. Maybe $15, no biggie. Ca glued a plastic gift card to the frame where it broke and I still fly it.

Two different thoughts on the same hobby, neither right or wrong, and IMO as long as your out enjoying what you have, more power to you.

 

[kah00na]

Someone said "6 inch props"?

H250 ZMR250 250mm Carbon Fiber Mini Quadcopter Multicopter Frame Kit

 

[Cyberdactyl]

Someone said "6 inch props"?

H250 ZMR250 250mm Carbon Fiber Mini Quadcopter Multicopter Frame Kit

Yes, that's basically the Blackout copy I've seen at cheap Chinese retailers in the sub $35 range.

As to comparing that one vs the Blackout, I totally agree the electronics is the key, and that could make ALL the difference over cheap and heavy motors, slow ESCs and an outdated FCB.

And I must admit the caveat that I have not flown or even seen in person, any if the frames.

However, I just can't see what could possibly make the Blackout frame twice as nice and cost 5 times more. It's a few plates of cut CF 3mm plate and fastened together with screws and nuts for goodness sakes. The dimensions are the same, or darn close, and structurally virtually identical. I keep reading they are better, but other than Bruce saying a couple of holes were cut with slightly worn bits and one of the silicone bearing holes on one of the frames was a few thou too large, I have yet to hear anyone say exactly how the Blackout is leaps and bounds better. . . specifically. Bruce got all bound up about one having booms 10mm longer. Yet, to me the option to use 6" props, would actually be a better option over the Blackout.

Sure, the finish may be nicer, but does that make it twice as good. . . maybe, three times? a stretch. Five times? very doubtful.

 

[jhitesma]

Having priced CF sheets I have to strongly suspect that it's not actually CF they're using on a lot of the cheap frames. If it is then it's got to be considerably lower quality - thinner, possibly inclusions, poor surface finish, or as I hinted earlier G10 with a thin piece of carbon cloth for looks, heavier, easier to break.

Quality on CF can vary WILDLY. I had a landlord and roommate who were in "airframes" at the local marine base. The taught me more about CF fabrication than I ever though I would want to know. There are a lot of ways to make CF that looks nice and is cheaper...but doesn't have nearly the strength of well engineered and fabricated CF - even just sheets. There's a LOT of very inferior CF coming out of China. Lower quality resin (weaker, heavier, poorer quality finish), seconds quality cloth (looser weave, breaks in the fibers), poor fabrication process (no or weak vacuum, poor temperature control) that can result in poor bonding between layers and voids...there are lots of ways to make CF cheap but none that will maintain all of it's benefits. Don't forget CF sheets are more than what you see on the outer surfaces - use a layer of nice cloth on the outside so it looks good...but then fill the center layers with scraps of second quality cloth where no one will see it. Looks like good CF...but a lot weaker.

A CF mini quad even one fully loaded for FPV and flying fast into concrete shouldn't be sending pieces everywhere. I've had similar crashes with the warp and it barely made a scratch on the arms. I strongly suspect that the same crash on the blackout would have resulted in a few broken props, maybe your FPV gear knocked loose. If you did manage to break something replacement parts are available. With the knockoff frames you're either going to have to try and repair the parts (extra weight, loss of rigidity) or buy a whole new frame...which may or may not match your original even if it came from the same seller.

Cheap CF is cheap for a reason. Just like cheaper motors are cheaper for a reason. A cheap CF frame may look fancy...but if it doesn't hold up in a crash then it's only CF for looks and not well designed/engineered. I'd rather have a cheap and easy to repair wood frame than a cheap CF frame that doesn't hold up to hard crashes.

Every week with the warp I feel like I'm improving my piloting skills as much as I do in a month with my quad. Why? Confidence. I'm confident that if I do crash the warp it's not going to require major repairs - my quad I end up repairing almost every time I push my limits. Less time repairing = more time flying = quicker skill building. But I'm also more confident that the quad is going to be predictable and reliable, higher quality motors and the fully integrated PDB/FC with all soldered connections there's nothing to come loose and no sudden surprises.

I still love my quad and still fly it even if I still have props and packs for the warp. And since I built it I know I can repair anything that happens to it and know that it was built to a level I approve of. But it's still not as confidence inspiring as the warp.

I still have a stack of 24g motors and 10a multistar ESC's....I could pick up a $30 ebay special CF frame, toss them on and have something that flys for <$50. But I'd rather save that money to put towards a quality frame and fully thought out quad than just toss another together to have "something" I can toss in the air.

I've been around CF since the mid 90's. Seen and used it in rockets, seen and used it on motorcycles, seen and used it on off road vehicles...When I lived with the airframes guys I had 5 yards of military issue cloth and 2 pints of resin in my hall closet. We did some tests trying to make sheets ourselves using improvised methods and made plenty that looked great - but were weaker and heavier than other options like fiberglass wood and aluminum.

I'd say 90% of the CF I've run across is only for looks and has zero performance and strength properties over other options. Making something cheap and poorly performing but impressive looking out of CF is easy. Making something that actually uses the material correctly and benefits from being made from it - does not come cheap.


I'm all for cheap frames. But comparing them to a quality name brand frame...there's a lot of differences that aren't obvious but can make a big difference.

 

[jhitesma]

BTW - I'm cheap...but I'm also hard on my toys and appreciate quality. The last RC product I spent over $300 on was a Nitro 4WD truck about 15 years ago. Spent a week building it, a few days just breaking in the motor before installing it, a few more days doing a custom paint job...I put a lot of time and money into making sure it would be just right.

Two weeks later I drove it into a river twice in the same day. I fried the RX the second time but I still just laughed about it because I didn't buy it to baby it (Reminds me...one of these days I really need to put a new clutch in that thing, it's been collecting dust for 7 years now waiting on me to fix it.)

So while I admit I was a little intimidated tossing almost $400 worth of quad into the air and expecting to crash it....I wasn't about to fly it below my abilities just because it was expensive. For me that's a BIG part of why buying quality is worth it. Because you can push it and it will suck it up and come back for more.