Following from the badly reviewed bikes thread, I wondered who people think does GOOD bike reviews?

Personally I've been impressed by the tests on NSMB lately: Kona Coilair, Titus El Guapo.

Pinkbike seem very thorough too, in the one or two reviews I've read on there.

Obviously websites have more space to devote to each bike than mags, but I also get the feeling that they've spent more time riding each bike – possibly because they cover less in total.

NSMB are usualy quite readable,

For printed magazines dirt is hard to beat, although their constant "set the sag to 50% to turn your trail bike into a lightweight DH bike" fettish is begining to get on my tits. Especialy when they admit that the bikes were looking a little worse for wear afterwards, I'd like my bikes to last 2+ years not 2 minutes thankyou very much!

I know some of the mags fake review test rides, or at least put a riders name against the review even though the rider never even rode the bike.

IMO you can't beat a test ride and valued opinions of owners.

MBUK.

Dirt reviews are the only ones which make bikes exciting enough to want one. Like the recent Orange St4 review. I want one now!
However they do get bogged down in geometry speak, which gets very tedious.
And the grammar and phrasing used is a bit weird sometimes!

I've only read a few Dirt reviews, and the illiteracy is part of the charm, but they seem to like every short-travel bike they test and say pretty much the same thing about it (it's fun in relation to a DH bike).

Agree MBUK is pretty good, if a bit short. They don't have as much "drag-and-drop handling" nonsense as WMB either, despite a few of the same writers.

On a related note, anyone else enjoying the geektastic tech articles in dirt at the moment?

On a related note, anyone else enjoying the geektastic tech articles in dirt at the moment?

Yes! That fellow makes things very understandable. Clever chap.