Why do we as punters put up with so much bull, speculative information, inaccurate claims and subjective review?

Aside from the gulf between claimed weights of components and the weight when you put them on your scales…. 230g charge spoon my arse.

Why do we put up with so much crud for product review as well? Lighter stiffer, stronger… at least the magazines sometimes take their own weights…

Why is there no standard test to measure the sideways deflection and stiffness of a wheel? Why do no magazines do destruction testing of a wheel to see what vertical force it can take?

Now that there is regulation CEN testing of some frames, are we as punters to be given that information so that we can see how stiff a frame is or what load it failed at?

NB – not a 'Written for STW rant', some responses other than commenting on the quality of my punctuation and use of capitalisation would be nice 🙂

There needs to be an international standard for measurement but there isn't and therefore weight can vary depending on how, who and what was used to measure.

I look at reviews from other users before I buy and try at LBS.

Weight weenie? don't waste your cash unless you're a sponsered rider!

Most people wouldn't understand most of what you want. Not many people will buy a magazine that's just full of figures of pressures, stiffness measurements, and so on.

I know a guy who used to work for a bike manufacturer, and one of his jobs was to write the bike info thing (this is our new carbon super fast racey thing with a big bb shell and super aerodynamic radness etc. etc.).

Apparently it got copied quite a lot almost word by word into bike reviews. Some bike journalists just can't be bothered. And its understandable, when biking becomes a job, and its raining and you've got a bit of a cold, do you really want to go out there just to test something?

Plus, who's going to have a massive rant at the bike journalists for getting the weight of a saddle or something slightly wrong?

Oh wait.. 😀

Read any review of any product in the world (except in Germany) – they are all subjective and full of bull. It is the wy of the world. Why should bikes be any different?

I'm right with you on this one. I got so fed up with it I no longer buy any magazines.

Nowadays I just get out and ride, but I'm only doing that because I read it somewhere . . . . 😀

Why not just ignore product reviews from journos and such and talk to riding partners or whatever from people with an unbiased opinion.

Claimed weights are always off, but it's well publicised who can't weigh things properly! If you want a lightweight saddle, chances are it's not going to cost £15!

I agree reviews are often poor. Most of the review is stuff that 5 mins next to the bike catologue in hand would tell you

But I don't think semi scientific testing would help. Does the the static vertical load need to collapse a wheel tell us anything about the real world forces needed to break it or fatigue strength

Same here, don't buy magazines because they're full of toss. I've never really been bothered how much a bike weighs, and tend to ignore anything that looks remotely gimmicky. There are more important things in life. There's so little difference between most mass produced stuff these days that you may as well choose it because you like the look/feel of it. Goes for most sports equipment/consumer goods in general, in my experience.

"Why is there no standard test to measure the sideways deflection and stiffness of a wheel?"

Probably because it depends on how evenly tnesioned (and to what tension) the spokes are? Given that a new wheel will have to sort of 'bed in' a little and as such go out of true from new, the results would be all over the place. Take into account no two hand trued wheels would be the same, and its unlikely two factory built wheels would be exactly the same you couldn't surely come any reliable enough results to make any sort of comparison? (or something along the lines of what I've typed)

Is there such a thing as an unbiased opinion? It seems to me that most people think their bike is the best but they can't all be can they? No one is going to slate the machine they spnt their hard earned cash on.

No, there's no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Everyone will recommend to their mates what they ride. Journos will recommend what they get paid to, that will sell mags and adverts and get them more free test kit.

I'm not much of a weight weenie – I just do bike fettling in the kitchen and the curiosity of what something actually weighs gets me sometimes when the scales are so handy. Case in point was a particular saddle that was almost 50% heavier than the packet claimed. WTF? Either they are lying about the claimed weight or they are wasting loads of materials.

james – I know what you mean – statistics and large number of test subjects are needed to a proper scientific conclusion. But that still won't stop someone claiming that "these forks are sooo much stiffer" or "these wheels accelerate faster…". A simple comparison between the test subjects would be nice.

I know I'm talking in generalisations but never mind eh

No one is going to slate the machine they spnt their hard earned cash on.

Meh, if it's crap, I'll shout about it, I'll still offload it to someone who disagrees for what I paid 🙂

german bike mags are supposedly a bit like this – i wouldn't know i've never read a german mag – and seeing as i can't read german i'm not about to start.

I'm in a line of work (mechanical testing) where we could do these tests but the cost of developing (and to a lesser extent running) tests to do this would be prohibitive. I'd imagine set up costs to do a fork stiffness test would be in the region of a staff writers annual salary.

I tend to read bike reviews as a source of entertainment rather than wisdom so quite enjoy the various reviewers styles, but it always makes me rile when I see the phrase 'rides just like a bike'……….

I'd imagine set up costs to do a fork stiffness test would be in the region of a staff writers annual salary.

I used to do quite basic ones to measure torsional stiffness when I was tech ed of MBUK. But that was when forks were quite torsionally flexible. This is less so now, and it's hard to know how much emphasis to put on the fact that fork A measures B on the bendometer, whilst fork X measures, er, Z or something.

I seem to recall though, Singletrack had Paul Smiff do some flex tests on cranks last year? I think?

Its still not easy to simulate the exact forces that a product will face in the real world though. Many of the frames/ products that score well in Tour haven't translated into impressing my tartan arse.
Designing equipment to do this probably involves more knowledge and experience than making the product.
.
Actually, Paul Smith is one of the guiltiest reviewers (IME)
He might have a degree in chassis dynamics, but he's got a bad habit of rewriting manufacturers descriptions, especially if he's enthusiastic about the design concept behind it. Pretty much everything I've bought on the strength of one of his C+ reviews has been s***.
He doesn't even have Paul Vincent's amusing habit of making David Coleman-style blatant mistakes!

Why do no magazines do destruction testing of a wheel to see what vertical force it can take?

Why would they?? Its ok saying wheel x can take a vertical force of whatever but how do you know what forces you're subjecting it to out on the trail??

Objectivity is a subjective concept I reckon.

🙂

The road bike mags do deflection testing on the wheels, so it can't be that complicated. But (TT specialist apart) road riding is considerably more homogeneous than MTB – there's nothing like the difference in usage you get between XC and FR – which makes me wonder how much use that kind of data would really be.

"when biking becomes a job, and its raining and you've got a bit of a cold, do you really want to go out there just to test something?"

Well, it's their job/profession. I mean, some days it's a struggle to get on with my work (a bit dull, pointless etc). But you must do it.

Reviewing things like headsets and stems must be daunting.

Not sure about the bike reviews but the smaller articles and the part reviews are really really rubbish.

The biggest fault a mag found about Shimano Six Bolt newer style rotors? They do not come in Six Bolt versions! ! ! Are they writing them drunk?

Let alone that I doubt anyone will bother to tryout 20 saddles or grips or whathaveyou methodically enough to give conclusive opinions let alone find enough to say about things that in all are too similar.

I seem to recall though, Singletrack had Paul Smiff do some flex tests on cranks last year? I think?

I think that MBUK did also do some actual stiffness measurements on sus forks last year or the year before provoking a response from Whyte on the low stiffness of the upside-down trail forks.

At least the lack of routine testing means that manufacturer's aren't designing products to beat the tests.

Why would they?? Its ok saying wheel x can take a vertical force of whatever but how do you know what forces you're subjecting it to out on the trail??

Would it be a bad thing to spend £30 extra for a wheel that can more likely to survive a bad landing? Would the information to help you make that decision be a bad thing? All we know is that "this claims to be lighter than that but costs less than that one… so which is stronger?"

/edit – I also don't really know what I'm after, given my point about not designing for the tests, but testing isn't really as expensive as you think, if you can be creative with your use of weights, worktop clamps, rulers, digital cameras and the like 😀

zaskar – Member
There needs to be an international standard for measurement but there isn't and therefore weight can vary depending on how, who and what was used to measure.

Eh? is gravity stronger in some parts of the world? Surely a saddle would weigh the same wherever it's measured!!

Would it be a bad thing to spend £30 extra for a wheel that can more likely to survive a bad landing? Would the information to help you make that decision be a bad thing? All we know is that "this claims to be lighter than that but costs less than that one… so which is stronger?"

It would of corse be brilliant to know which would best survive a bad landing. But designing the test for that isn't easy. Do wheels fail under vertical load or a combination of lateral load and vertical load. Do wheels fail on the first heavy landing or does it take several. Do some wheels say fail at high load when new but once they've been used a bit do they end up weaker than a wheel that wasn't as strong to start with but keeps its strength.

I just think numbers tend people into believing they know something when they don't

I'm quite keen on bike reviews I just wish they'd talk more about riding the bike less on say what shape the tubes are….

I agree, with ampthill
Things like finding the issues with the product while riding,
Mentioning potential problems like bad cable runs, bottle cage boss placement that fouls the F mech, rattly shifters, assembly issues.
But we usually get the ' laterally stiff but compliant' or 'corners like its on rails' cliche's cos its easy copy.

Why do no magazines do destruction testing of a wheel to see what vertical force it can take?

Because quite often a manufacturer will send out one set of [the product] which then do a round robin of the mags. In the case of wheelsets it's easy to spend £800 on a set of wheels so understandably they don't really want the first mag smashing them into tiny pieces.
Besides, there's WAY too many variables in MTBing to equate a force of X units of load into saying "oh this is the same as an 13stone rider carrying 8kg of kit doing a 4ft drop off at 21mph on a 4" travel bike". Impossible.

No, there's no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Everyone will recommend to their mates what they ride. Journos will recommend what they get paid to, that will sell mags and adverts and get them more free test kit.

That old chestnut again.
Products don't arrive on the editor's desk with large brown envelopes full of cash in there, it just doesn't happen!

I've used the envelope expression myself, and yeah, it is probably crap. but journalists do get freebies, do get invited to launches, do get to be mates with importers and PR people.
It must be hard to be unbiased about products that you've been sent by companies you know are basically good guys.
F'rinstance, most of the magazines that review brants stuff are his old mates… 😉

Individual opinion is fairly worthless, as few of us get to try out many components and bikes.

On the other hand, the bike journos do get to try out a lot of stuff, but probably not for long term durability, and magazines often make more out of ads than the cover price. You can see how that could skew opinions and result in PR copy going straight into the mag. And all humans have preferences, which will make their way into reviews here or there.

Even when you get to quite large and well resourced consumer surveys, you still have problems. The big car surveys for example – is the typical Honda owner more likely to treat his car well than a Vauxhall that'll typically go to a fleet driver? Is one guy going to have different expectations to another – Merc drivers often seem to be willing to accept nearly any bill, as it is a Merc…

I just ask the bloke at the bike shop. I know him, he's a good chap and he doesn't sell you anything you don't need, and he sees a lot of bikes, so he knows which bits are rubbish. Which is ace.

F'rinstance, most of the magazines that review brants stuff are his old mates…

Are they the ones at Future who I pissed off because I left to set up MBR?

Or the ones at IPC I pissed off because I left to set up Front Magazine?

A mate of mine gave me some great advice about buying stuff for my bike. He used to race all over the country. Buy the best frame you can with great geometry to suit your riding style, don't worry to much about the kit. He would only buy deore stuff and change it when it was goosed. Meaning he always had spare gear to put on the bike and it didn't cost the earth. He also would ride like the bike wasn't his, because bits were cheap if you know what I mean. I think you get more out of your bike if your fitter than if it has a 200g carbon crankset at 400 notes.

Sorry brant, didnt know the details of the internal politics, but either way, I was making the point that the UK MTB product/ importer/ magazine scene is pretty small and a bit incestuatious (is that a word?) 🙂 and this must at least influence reviews