Anyone see the the Bike Radar review on the Bird Aeris 120?
Despite everyone who has one raving about them, and loads of other good reviews, it doesnt come across as agreat review I dont think?
It seems at odds with real world reviews, dull is not a word associated with these biles I have seen before.
‘The stretched stability and slightly chunky 13.28kg overall weight can make it feel slightly dull rather than dynamic for a short travel ripper, but if you’re looking for a UK-proof, UK-designed hardcore trail bike nothing will touch it on kit value.’

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/category/bikes/mountain-bikes/full-suspension/product/bird-aeris-120-review-51010/

I havent riden one, but they have a demo day coming up at Hamsterly Forest soon and Im really looking forward to trying both the 120 and 145 if possible.

I demoed one and whilst I definitely wouldn’t describe it as dull, I can sort of identify with the comment regarding the stability/weight. I tried the ML size and it was a good bit longer than anything else I demoed and it did lack a certain liveliness for me. In hindsight I’ve wondered if a M would’ve been better. I imagine an aggressive rider would get the best from it, but in ML size it wasn’t quite right for me. I saw on Bird’s Facebook page that one of their riders was racing DH on one and that doesn’t surprise me.

I weighed a large frame, with RockShox Deluxe, Maxle, Hope seat clamp and headset cups at 3.4kg. Most builds use the same parts as you’d spec on a 160mm travel bike so I’m not surprised by overall weights.

In terms of ride,it feels very stable but not super lively until you start pushing on a bit, which is as you’d expect given the geo numbers.

What was it up against in the test? I’d assume whoever it was pays for more advertising content

If you look at the photo on the review you will see that the rear tyre is a 3C DHR2 Minion. A great tyre in many respects but in my experience a very draggy tyre and guaranteed to produce the result described. It is also worth noting that the reviewer was on the borderline between a M/L and a L.

Despite reading that review in WMB first, I have a 120 in M/L though I am also on the border between that and a L – it is very lively, a brilliant bike. My main comparisons are an Orange 4 and a Santa Cruz 5010 – the Bird is better for me.

In the header they describe it as “super slack”

In the main body

the 67-degree head angle isn’t that slack

Typically crap review driven mainly by who’s paying the most as revenue

My Aeris 120 is fantastic. Very playful and climbs ridiculously well despite the supposed weight

Personally i disregard all bike radar reviews as I think they are so bias to the companies who give them the most advertising revenue.

It seems at odds with real world reviews

Common with Bike Radar. Their review of a Carbon 456 didn’t seem to match anyone else’s opinions who’s actually ridden or owned one.

All magazine reviews, no matter the subject (golf, hifi) are all full of the same rubbish.
Ride it and if you like it, buy it

explosifpete – Member
Personally i disregard all bike radar reviews as I think they are so bias to the companies who give them the most advertising revenue.

This x100

All magazine reviews, no matter the subject (golf, hifi) are all full of the same rubbish

No they are not.

Ride it and if you like it, buy it

This.

One persons dull is another’s stable, one persons lively is another’s nervous, etc, etc…..

Remember, those who have just spent a bucket load on a bike are not always best placed to tell others of any potential short-comings 😉

I find a lot of their reviews zero in on one particular aspect of a product and get stuck on that point.

I read one of the bike mags the other day (mbr maybe?) There was a group test and on one page one of the bikes was criticised for a “steep 67 degrree head angle” then the very next page a bike had “great geometry with a slack 67.5 head angle” 🙄