I see that the mid-term conclusion for the Cannondale Rush Hi-Mod 1 at £2,699 is that it doesn’t fit quite right so is not the first choice to ride. Why? Because it is too small for the rider. Surely that is not a bike review or a conclusion on the bike performance? Selecting the wrong frame size in the first place sort of makes the whole “long term” test pointless. It is never going to get a rating on a level playing field. Long stem/short stem swaps aren’t going to solve this problem.
I will never get comfy or feel happy on my daughter’s Specialized Hotrock with 24” wheels and 12” frame. Does that make it a bad bike? I think not.

In an already privileged and very influential position where readers rely on the views of the testers, why did the journo not ask Cannondale for a large size? That way, Cannondale get their fair review and the rider gives an opinion on a bike that fits.

As it stands, the long term test of that bike offers and can not offer a real conclusion.

WGAS

To be fair, ST did this with a Knolly.

I read through MBR last night in morrisons. Decided wasn't worth the cover price and put it back. I've only bought 2 or 3 copies in the last couple of years

That's about the sum of their technical knowledge. To be fair, they had to add something of their own to the press review.

They got an Orange Strange prototype, 90% of the review was about the tester's inability to ride with bars with an extra inch on each end, and the emotional fallout that he was dealing with as a result.

Not as bad as MBUK, they couldn't even cut and paste the correct summary into the resuls table. Leaving the around £500 bike comments up against their do anything trial bikes.

If it don't have Specialized printed on it then it's not going to get a good review in MBR.

I can't comment on MBUK as it is way "out there" now. The fact that it came with the cheapest, most garish free gift sunglasses in the last issue put me off for life. Although I think the free gift in the sealed bag trick is to stop the Morrisons readers! 😉

I've just cancelled my MBR subscription. I've had enough of their reviews based on over inflated egos. In the latest issue they refer to one another, "Muldoon this, Muldoon that" as if they have had input into the sport on a level like Steve Wade or other accomplished designers.

MBR in talking shite shocker.

The fact I can't flick through MBUK is the main reason I haven't bought it in years!

In an already privileged and very influential position where readers rely on the views of the testers

only a cretin would buy a bike (or not) because of a magazine review.

that is a fairly harsh statement…if a mag gives a bike an outstanding review then it is going to be very influencial to a prospective buyer in the market for a new bike. Test rides aren't always available (and a ride around the shop car park doesn't tell you much) in the specific size or model that you are pondering over. Forums have sprung up but how many people are realistically going to dismiss their own bike?
Mags are very influencial..why do manufacturers bother with them if not????

Think this is a big problem for beginners more so than experienced riders. One review that stood out for me recently was in What MTB. They gave the Endura Humvee shorts four out of five and said lots of nice things. I think the shorts are basically the same as last year when they gave them three out five and complained that they were too heavy and the vents were in the wrong place. If a review is based on the opinions of a good selection of people then surely they would be much the same and if its just the opinion of one person then that's not very subjective.

So is this the same type of review, or is it balanced?

http://www.singletrackworld.com/reviews/chumba-racing-vf2/

They love Orange Bikes, they all seem to get a 10.

I think the free gift in the sealed bag trick is to stop the Morrisons readers

I think it's done so people buy it instead of looking through it, seeing it's shit and leaving it on the shelf.

Thing with most reviewers, is that they're going to be fairly average riders, who have their own preferences and foibles. You're never going to get a completely objective review. I remember when MBUK were sponsored by Specialized; good grief! You'd have thought Spesh were the bestest company in the World ever.

If, on the other hand, you had a review of say downhill bikes by a group containing Steve Peat, Cedric Gracia, Nico Vouilloz, Sam Hill etc, maybe you'd consider their opinions more valid. After all, they do influence the design of the things! But a bunch of journos who like to ride bikes* is never really going to be the best type of group to give a fully objective, unbiased or even particularly informed view of things, especially seing as they just bimble around like most of us and don't test the bikes to their real limits. Very few riders can do that.

And they tend to be employed by bike companies helping develop the bikes, or racing at top level.

I've ridden loads of bikes. Does't make me a worthy bike reviewer though really, much beyond knowing what's the right bike for me personally.

*I'm sure one or two said journos are pretty good on a bike. One or two. 😉

Thing with most reviewers, is that they're going to be fairly average riders

Just to play devils advocate so are most people who buy bikes.

Steve Peat, Cedric Gracia, Nico Vouilloz, Sam Hill etc, maybe you'd consider their opinions more valid

Aye but is what they need from a bike the same as what your average rider would want.

Use the reviews, look at several mags, put a leg over a bike, makesure you like the way it looks / colour, splash the cash. Few people will buy a bike based on a single review (and if they do serve them right).

They got an Orange Strange prototype, 90% of the review was about the tester's inability to ride with bars with an extra inch on each end, and the emotional fallout that he was dealing with as a result.

Lol! I remember that, an absolutely ridiculous piece, why the editor didn't slap him with it I'll never know.

Is there also the complication that the mags need access to new models, loaners for testing and so on and hence have to balance their actual views with their future commercial needs?
But I agree – it's also depressing sometimes how often they just quote the PR summary back at the reader. I mean, I get that the majority of the audience may not be hufely knolwedgeable, and hence less interested in detailed tech spec, but the writers aren't even adding anything to the press release!

So basically then, all bike mags are shit.

The last MBUK I ever bought was one with a fork review where some Pace thing scored more highly than the Marzocchi Bomber, the fork that then became the benchmark for all others!

MBR got on my wick trying to change the way everyone measures frames. I really don't care about downtube length.

+1, I really don't get the whole downtube length thing. Why do they insist on fitting "control" tyres, surely if you intend to test one brand against another, test the f***ing thing as the manufacturer intended.

Having said that I do buy MBR now and then, they don't feel the need to be "niche" or ride circus bikes etc.

😯

I lost all faith in testers after riding with one journo out testing a certain fork, which filled full of water and stopped working in the horrendous Yorkshire winter weather. When the review came out – not a mention of sealing problems, not even 'our first model had poor seals but we were sent another pair', but actually along the lines of 'sealing was excellent'.

Plus I know the same guy didn't bother setting up another bike up as the instructions said and then slated the bike for not working properly.

Don't get me started on MBR's 'reviews'…

I think singletracks reviews are utter shit. They never reach a conlcusion and always appease advertisers just enough to encourage more. There isn't an objective mag available.

So, most reviews are not any good, and subject to the whims of the reviewer – so if you don't know their ability/style then it's a biased review.

I'd recommend a read of an edition of Evo for prospective journos, certainly a couple of years back the reviews were excellent. More a story with the detail mixed in for good measure. A very engaging read.

For my sins I bought Spoke* (IIRC) recently, it's over here in Aus, and best to describe as toilet reading as articles are good for a two crimp session and no longer. Besides the articles are littered with profanity – no need for that at all. No f*cking need at all.

*Actually that sounds like a mag for 'special' people, and maybe it is…

gotta sell the coolaid 😆

STW is just as guilty as this, UK bike journalism is very poor IMHO.

mtb magazines do my head in. Too many adverts and not enough content imho. Waiting for privateer to land on the doorstep, to see if that will be any good.

It seems there is some quite strong feeling out there and despite people thinking they are not up to what they should be from a reference point of view, we keep buying them!

What niggles me most, and it seems to be a theme across all mags, are two traits.

1- When they comment on a first look product, say there is an update from a press camp for a manufacturer or a new product, it always seem to be glowing reports. Is this a thank you from the mag for the jolly boys’ outing??? When it comes to “testing” the product in earnest, they are then slated. This doesn’t happen each and every time but I recall a mag, possibly MBR, raving about the new range from Saracen that they had been shown. Comments such as, “it looks like Saracen has sorted their bikes” etc etc when banded about. When it came to the actual test that were slated. If it isn’t a test, don’t pass judgement.

2- The continual reported improvement of products reported year on year. One particular example that grated me (not that I bought one) was the review for the Joplin Seatpost. A product at around £250 that, at the time, was given a fantastic review, saying that the demons of adjustable seatposts had finally been sorted etc etc. Come the review for the new Joplin seatpost then it started to state the faults of the previous years model and, particularly, that after a couple of weeks it developed play. Crikey, if that was found after a couple of weeks, why wasn’t it reported at the time? Either brushed over as militant_biker referred to above or the test was not very thorough. This seems to be a theme on tests on Fox forks. When they come out they are the best thing ever and there is always a little dig at the previous year’s model. However, that perfect fork suddenly develops niggles when the next year model arrives!

I am not oblivious to the fact that mags are a business and most are merely a branch of a large publishing house but it does seem that mags sometimes appear to exist and report merely to support the industry and not the rider. If they reported that the 2011 Fox fork was not really worth upgrading too where would that leave their advertising income from Fox?

A coupleof weeks ago met a nice young lady in a field, who sold me a magazine, read it was quite good, god reading, not to many adverts , great pictures, nice plain writing not printed over the pictures, soi signed up for a subscription,and also got access to all the back issues on the computer.

I believe they also have a bike and chat forum, about anything and everything, written by adults with teenage ideas.

The magazine, Singletrack, available from Smiths and other reding shops.

stopped believing bike reviews years ago. wouldn't trust any of them, too much nonsense to know if there's any truth there at all

I remember the STW "tippy-gate" incident, I can't understand reviewing something thats the wrong size for the reviewer. it makeanosense.

I should point out as an opinionated verbose fool who likes nothing more than to enthuse about things should anyone needs any reviewing done I'll happily grasp the nettle!

I'd say it's probably incorrect to think that reviewers are "average" riders- the MBR boys are mostly very fast and talented riders. As is Doddy in MBUK, regardless of what he may look like in his neon pyjamas…

And surely saying "it looks like Saracen has sorted itself out" is very different to saying "saracen has sorted itself out"- everyone on here was saying "oh, they look good", which is the same thing. Also, test camps are pretty short and usually in the sun. Not enough time for any niggles to show through.

As for the slating previous models thing, that's why things improve. Something that gets a 9 one year may be about as good as it gets at the time. 2 years later due to development it may seem crap.

The sad thing is, they do know more about bikes than the average rider and a lot of the time they are correct. Not always (that Orange Strange review was a wierd one). And don't get me started on "downtube" measurements- what a load of plums.

how on earth can you describe Raceface evolve, or any such cranks as "flaccid" I have the evolve DH and they are as stiff as a priest in a <edited>

…that said how would you review a bike, a sum of its components or frame then components or components then frame or take AA Gills approach, shoot a baboon then just tack on a brief paragraph at the end?

As for the slating previous models thing , that ' s
why things improve . Something that gets a 9
one year may be about as good as it gets at the
time . 2 years later due to development it may
seem crap .

no way. things don't improve that quickly. it's just poor journalism.