Or just ask on the forum – I’m sure there are enough folk on here with kit like that who would be happy to lend it to you for a bit if you asked.

Graham S the forum is an excellent place for advice. But not every mag reader is a forum reader. Editorial reviews are also good for direct comparison across a wide range of products

But I still think that the attitude that we only review what comes in for free is poor

I find ST a great read especially when I’m constipated, and the pics are great to look at when I’m not.

But I still think that the attitude that we only review what comes in for free is poor

Why??

No-one is going to go out and spend thousands of pounds on loads of lights, review them all and then sell them on. Not enough time for one but also the psychological aspect of reviewing something that you technically own. Affects the review, it’s now biased.

There’s also the timeline thing. Mags get kit before it’s available in the shops so that customers can find out about it while its new, not 6 months after it’s come out.

Manufacturers have demo kit for that very reason. Sometimes mags tell distributors what tests they have coming, sometimes they’ll just get sent stuff on spec.

I had no idea what a CX bike was until I read this thread so I’ve learnt something new! Wouldn’t particularly want to read about one in an mtb mag, personally.

Wouldn’t particularly want to read about one in an mtb mag, personally.

One has one’s CX magazine for that…

🙄

It’s all bikes. Something a bit different every once in a while is good. Who knows, you might even like it.

Stick to the same narrow path and you’ll never discover anything new!

Reply to Crazy-legs

Firstly I don’t want to make to big a deal out of this. I do get the normal processes here. I understand that many reviews are about new products that are just being released and they can’t be bought. I’m not saying its all biased and the magazine says nice things about things because they got them for free

However I expressed an opinion and you’ve asked me why

In my opinion at least some of the time (10%) a magazine has to be a bit more pro active. Otherwise the magazines start to become an extensions of the companies. For example we find that we have a Cylcocross bike review not because the editorial team wanted it but was the bike that the manufacturer chose for them to review. That seems wrong to me. I’m not suggesting that all the lights in a review should be bought but surely one £30 light in the review wouldn’t be that hard to run to

The forum presents a very different version of MTB purchasing to the magazine. Yes the forum debates the high end and the new. But it also debates buying direct from China (cheap carbon frames and lights), builds using used parts from ebay, build from a cheap doner bikes. I think the mag should some times reflect these other ways of being an MTB consumer. Not all magazine readers are forum users.

Graham S the forum is an excellent place for advice. But not every mag reader is a forum reader. Editorial reviews are also good for direct comparison across a wide range of products
But I still think that the attitude that we only review what comes in for free is poor

Yeah what I meant was, if Chipps doesn’t want to spend cash on buying things like cheapo Chinese lights and such like to review then maybe he should ask on here if folk will lend him some!

I’m sure there are a few on here with enough gear hanging about to spare some 😀

It needs Ferrentino back.

For example we find that we have a Cylcocross bike review not because the editorial team wanted it but was the bike that the manufacturer chose for them to review

It seems wrong to me too – why not just decline the review? The company looses out (from a marketing perspective), as they won’t get the columns on their new [mountain] bike. I’m surprised companies don’t bend over backwards to source a suitable review bike for a well known UK publication!

Unless the company was a bit more pushy, and insisted their CX bike was reviewed instead. There are many ways they could insist, depending on your level of cynicism…..

It’s all bikes. Something a bit different every once in a while is good. Who knows, you might even like it.
Stick to the same narrow path and you’ll never discover anything new!

Well said

It needs Ferrentino back.

He ran out of ideas & was rehashing old articles, it needs new, fresher writers who are more relevant to 2014 than oldsters like ferrentino & Worland who just reminisce for 3 pages

What I love is the MBUKs value award.

Usually on a £120 bicycle jacket or £80 shorts.

That screams value to me.

hora – Member
What I love is the MBUKs value award.

Usually on a £120 bicycle jacket or £80 shorts.

That screams value to me.

I have lots of pairs of £80 shorts that have lasted 6+ years, screams value to me.

Best 0.1% of my salary I spend.
Spend 30% of spare time on a bike/fettling/planning a ride.
Spend 50% of work time wishing I was out riding with buddies.

What makes this mag great is hat it seems to be written by people who just love bikes.
I’m not that any other bike mag gives that sort of feeling, things are not reflect each month but the staff have my full support. Also they allow many twit on the forum which makes even better.

Keep plugging away and our household will continue to as we have done since day.
Got any stickers?

Prompted by this thread I have just read issue 85 (so as not to pin this to one issue) online, which I very rarely do.

I get the mag delivered but seldom read all the articles as I have been finding it hard to read the print ( I don’t find this with MBR)

Anyway….. issue 85. I laughed, I cried, I emailed a mate to go out riding with him again, considered some new places to visit.

and I really want to go riding NOW…. That’s what I am after in mag.

Its still a great Mag. Who mentioned Worland?

Steve Worland writing for ST is one of the reasons I still subscribe.

I remember an article he wrote years ago about the importance of making a bike really, properly comfortable to ride – a great article on a subject that’s rarely discussed.

Ferrentino was fine. but it’s nice to have a change.

Interesting thread……I’ve had a niggling feeling the last year or so that I just haven’t found ST as engaging as it used to be. That could very well be me and my interests changing, but I do seem to find less and less of the articles to be relevent or speaking to me. It did used to seem less gear focused (again, that could be me) and less downhilly.
Having said that, it’s still head and shoulders above the uk competition, especially with the demise of Privateer and Bunyanvelo being online only.

Anyway….. issue 85. I laughed, I cried, I emailed a mate to go out riding with him again

Did it come with a free bottle of vodka? Damn, missed that )

For the mag- if you want to review the popular cheap lights but can’t get a sample, why not put out a call to readers?

I liked some old Ferrentino articles but by the end it was just drivel… A page article which was entirely about the toilets at interbike, and the fact that he was struggling to write a full page article…

hora – Member

What I love is the MBUKs value award.

Usually on a £120 bicycle jacket or £80 shorts.

That screams value to me.

£120 for a really bike bike jacket can be great value. My old one, just retired, cost about that much and was worth its weight in gold, the number of rides where it turned misery into fun made it one of the better buys I’ve ever made.

I wonder if wider-ranging reviews is something that could go on the website? Becoming the Wirecutter of MTB kit must have some value? If not for here, it must be a niche that is waiting to be filled?

ST are often later than the other sites with new kit and worse just print the press release as a review. I mean they can’t even be arsed updating it from US marketing bullsh*t to English.

Lets clear this one up. You’re confusing ‘news’ with ‘reviews’. We’ve never posted a press release as a review. We post press releases word for word as news items usually with a short intro, marketing bullshit an all. Usually because we haven’t seen the product to form an opinion at that point so why dress it up as something other than a press release?

Reviews are our opinion of a product, and they are published after we’ve had enough time with it to form an opinion.

Try it for yourself…

http://singletrackworld.com/category/news/

http://singletrackworld.com/reviews/

For the mag- if you want to review the popular cheap lights but can’t get a sample, why not put out a call to readers?

Oh that’d work… 🙄
8 sets of lights from 8 different readers. All various ages, all been treated in various different ways. Someone then needs to keep track of who sent what, ensure that the product is returned in a certain timeframe in the same condition…

Whereas what actually happens is that the lights get swapped from bike to bike, bits get lost or broken or the review gets delayed for some reason and they need to keep the lights for another month.

Also, I’d hate to be the reader who’s gone to all that length to supply a set of lights and the review comes back saying they’re shit!

Or, not. If they’d wanted a review of the Solarstorms, they could have borrowed my new one for pretty much as long as they needed it. Since we’re not beautiful and unique snowflakes, I won’t be the only one. And they’ll be no less capable of looking after things than any other person.

I have subs to Cyclist and ST – currently enjoying Cyclist much more – the photos are better and the articles seem a bit fresher and different. As its only about a year old, I’m waiting for the day when the next issue just seems like they’re churning it out to meet the month’s production deadline. The photos in ST seem to have become very ‘green/brown’ background with rider somewhere amongst it.

+1 – I’ve come home waving the Cyclist and telling the other half we need to visit place x or she needs to read article y, with ST i’m increasingly thumbing through it then dumping it in the recycling. The multi page advertorial for crappy real ale was the only article that was memorable recently and that was for all the wrong reasons.

ST & Cyclist are now the only mags I buy, both have that love of being out there and riding, seeing places, having a laugh, and – yes, I admit it – enjoying shiny new toys.

If you don’t like them, don’t buy them, try something different. If you can’t find something you like that fits in with your world cycling view, do something about it

I’m reading the issue in question at the moment. I can see both perspectives. However, why in god’s name would you get someone to review some tyres who clearly doesn’t give a damn about tyres: Mountain King 2 & X-King, they’re decent all-round tyres apparently but you’d expect that for £50 each. And the sidewalls are pretty tough and the tread lasts pretty well. And the one with smaller knobs rolls faster than the one with bigger knobs and they’re both alright in mud. And they’re quite hard to seat tubeless on those Shimano rims.

The thing is, I’ve owned one of these tyres, the X-king. It popped up easily on my rims. I put a few slices through it but I think that may have been bad luck or because of the low tread not protecting the carcass from flints. It had good climbing traction but poor braking grip even in the better braking (front tyre) way around. It was very prone to sliding out sideways when it locked up on steeps. It was very progressive on the limit in corners and you could hear it growl when you were right on the limit too. You couldn’t set an edge and rail if it was at all loose, it was much more a tail-happy drifty tyre. If you don’t corner or brake hard it would ok up front but only suited as a rear if you do. The tread wore surprisingly fast for a black chili tyre, with chunks breaking off – it looked far more worn after a couple of months than a black chili Rubber Queen did after a year (which is stickier compound). The compound is ok on wet rock and roots but not great. The alleged 2.4″ carcass actually measured just over 2.2″ (paired well with a 2.2 RQ on the front which is a true 2.2″ and a bit). It rolled fast, a proper XC tyre, though not a race one in this largest size. The carcass held up well at low pressures so you could run it very soft in the wet to find more grip and make the wet roots less scary.

Give me 30 minutes and I could turn that into a nicely written mag review to fit the word count, with some more references to well known tyres to aid readers’ understanding, because:

1. I can write (and I know STW’s reviewer can write, I’ve read some of her other stuff)
2. I actually give a **** about how a tyre performs, especially when I’ve spent £50 (at RRP anyway) of my own money on it.

I couldn’t write a good review about CX bikes because I neither know much about them, have no experience of them but more importantly don’t care about them!

I’ve not opened the last two issues as most of the previous issues have bored me to the point of just going out riding instead , I can’t write but theyve just got boring.

Tbh my subscription just renewed recently automatically or I would probably just unsubscribed and just bought the odd edition, photography is excellent but the reading I also fnd a bit tedious, there is the odd article about riding around Cairngorms or whatever, but to be fair it not just singletrack, I find other Mtb mags a bit of a pain in the arse as well, constant reviews on 29’ers really rips my knitting 😕

chiefgrooveguru – Member

I’m reading the issue in question at the moment. I can see both perspectives. However, why in god’s name would you get someone to review some tyres who clearly doesn’t give a damn about tyres:

On the other hand, they didn’t use Future’s Width Bullshit.. if it comes up the actual size that’s claimed, it’s “massive”. If it comes up drastically undersized, that’s not worth a mention. If it comes up .00001 bigger than claimed, it’s “more like a 2.5”. And any comments on weight will ignore the actual width, so that for example a Mutanoraptor 2.4 can be “a reasonable weight for the size” even though it’s actually an appalling weight for its real 2.1 width.

Oh and remember, when reviewing a 2.5 dualply, make sure you mention that it’s probably best for riding downwards.

$&*£^*&^.