So who has a bike that the mags didnt like, I remember some of the Felt full suss bikes got a bit of a panning, how do you rate the bike compared to what "those in the know" said?
I once rode my g/f's Apollo XC20.
It tried to kill me. Harsh frame, zero fork damping, bottom bracket too low, geometry all wrong, heavy as heck and scrappy handling.
It was every bit as awful as you'd imagine. Only worse.
Thankfully, she saw the light and now rides a very tasty Merlin Malt.
Well I ride a bike that, 12 months ago, everyone loved - rave reviews in What MTB, MBUK, the BM mag and a couple of others.
Now I read an MBR review that slates it. Funny thing is I honestly don't know what the guy's been riding. Apparently the head angle is too steep so it's twitchy on descents (it descends almost as well as my 223 in most scenarios and much better than my old bike - I got told to slow down after launching some drops at Kirroughtree!); it bottoms out really harshly - never noticed it myself; the suspension is too active (is this possible when you've got pro-pedal); the chain feedback in granny ring is unbearable (one thing I love about climbing on it is I never feel any chain feedback!!!).
The fickle (and slightly bizarre) world of the MTB press!! 🙄
Whyte E-120 by the way 🙂
I once had an Orange E6 that got a poor review in a mag a few weeks after I bought it, I wrote a letter to Orange and they sorted me out an E8 for and I got to keep and sell the E6.
It was more the rebutal for the review from Orange that made me send a letter than issues I had with ridding it, basically the E6 would be replaced with the E8 and the geomoetry corrected correcting the issues raised in the review.
Still it worked as I went on to buy a number of other Orange bikes over the years as a result of their customer service.
I have an old Orange E6, a race hardtail which was slated by MBR which I think really peeved the guys in Halifax. Its now a fully rigid singlespeed and I still love it for fast singletrack. Its not great on steep stuff but then it wasn't intended to be. Often wondered how it'd feel with 100mm forks, probabbly not great on climbs to be honest.
I must have got mine about the saame time forge197, wish I'd tried that. I remember seeing the review just after I got the bike. Still love it anyway so don't suppose it matters.
The MTB press very, very rarely pan anything though.
Even when you can tell from a review that they hate something, they'll find a way to sit on the fence about it.
MBR gave the Trance a pretty bad review, but the writer was so transparently biased that I didn't for a moment consider not buying mine.
My Rocky Mountain Element typically gets less than glowing reviews which is totally at odds with my view. I'm not even biased by money since I only paid 60quid for it and didn't really expect to like it all that much. Yet I absolutely love it and I've ridden a LOT of bikes to compare it to. Even experienced testers can only give a view on a bike rather than an abdolute conclusion.
I have an old (2005, when the shock got reliable) scott genius mc50 which wmb gushed over with their funny little 'award' logos, and ST mag said was very precarious and not a lot of fun to ride. It is a proper hoot to ride now I have a bit too much sag on the back and pikes on the front. Hardly a marathon race bike anymore though.
I agree that the press rarely seem to slag anything off, you'd think all bikes were equal - although some bike are more equal than others 😉
I agree about the Whyte review, nine months ago it was as if they were the last word in two wheeled transport, all of a sudden they're being being panned. Owning a bike with a very similar setup (Marin Rock Springs), I have to concede that it's p*ss poor in the granny ring, but the suspension is much more efficient than that of my Specialized Enduro. Make of that what you will.
There do seem to be certain manufacturers who are flavour of the month and can't do wrong, sometimes it's Specialized, sometimes Marin, sometimes Giant and right now it's Lapierre.
stevenmenmuir - spooky you recall the very same
I think it stuck because I've read a few articles where the Orange guys complained about a mag slating one of their bikes and it subsequently affecting sales, so I presumed it was the E6. I have always thoought it rode great but as I said, have wondered if it would take 100mm forks. Hard to get 80mm forks now and thats partly why I've put rigid forks on it.
Mine got a good review (Pitch) but strangely got a much better review in 09 than 08, considering it's basically identical. Makes me a bit suspicious of reviews.
Mate of mine rides a Whyte E-120 and loves it.
His blood boils everytime they do a long-term update in MBR. It does appear that the bloke is riding a different bike - I think it rides pretty nicely.
Think MBUK didn't like my Felt Redemption too much, but tbh it rides very well, and i can go faster down than i previously could so for me it's a great bike 🙂
Found a review: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/redemption-2-08-31372
I know the MBR reviewers get into bed with SBC at the earliest convenience (and seem to be flirting with Lapierre at the mo too) and have never got on with the Marin style of doing things. It's just the fact that they raved about the thing 12 months earlier. They did exactly the same with the E-5 before.
To be fair, "What MTB" have done the same - last year: bike of the year contender; this year - average review. At least I can appreciate where some of their criticism comes from, even if I don't agree with it. I genuinely don't know what the MBR guy has been riding. He even slated the bike for an XT hub failure!!
Ho hum.
[i]I think it rides pretty nicely.[/i]
Damned with faint praise, I think they call that. 😉
It really doesn't matter what suits the journos, you have to ride them yourself.
Funnily enough though, I can't think of a single review of a bike I've ridden that I have disagreed with.
Equally my kinesis Xc120 was critisced in one mag because if has a low bb, the same mag praised the cotic soul for having a low bb, the kinesis's bb is a quarter of an inch lower, all if this is naturally affected by fork sag in any case!
I ran my E6 with 120mm forks for a couple of years, that and an aggressive but not overtly smooth style are probably why the headtube flared a bit, still got a set of ridgid forks on now and it's still nice.
when ever i read Dirt there was no such thing as a bad review of a new product, of course the could now slag off last years "the best bike in the whole wide world ever" bike.
an awful lot of bike reviews can be taken with a pinch of salt.
although doremember Mountain bike losing money after slagging RockShox off and them pulling advertising.
chakaping: snap (TranceX). The MBR reviewer just did not like it - fair enough but he gave the impression that it was a crap bike.
Steve Worland's review of Trances was much more positive. I have nothing bad to say about mine.
IMHO, reviews are mostly a massive load of old tosh. How a bike feels to ride is a very subjective thing - one guy's 'harsh' is another guy's 'springy'.
I got a GT i-Drive (the souped up Halfrauds one) after reading loads of glowing reviews all over the net, and it was horrible.
I now have a (Halfrauds, sorry insurance reasons) Boardman Pro and it's probably the best bike I've ever had, or even ridden. Strangely, it also got rave reviews.....
As has already been said, the only real way to judge whether a bike's going to suit you is to sling a leg over it and check the componentry's up to whatever you're going to throw at it. Shame Halfrauds don't offer test rides!
But then, I still enjoy riding my '92(?!) Kona and feel more comfortable hopping over stuff on it than I do on the Boardman, so my opinion is perhaps a little confused...
Think MBUK didn't like my Felt Redemption
strange didn't they do a special edition mbuk one?
I remember the Pace 303 getting rave reviews, I bought a 305 and suddenly it was only any good for 1 or 2 hours in the woods, or so "htey" said. I still ride it all day and love it.
They also once had a whole lot of love for anything Turner. I got a 6-pack in 2005 and a few months laters they tested 4 boutique bikes and the 6-pack didn't fair as well as it once did.
I stopped paying too much attention to the mags when one review rated Pace forks better than the original Marzocchi Bombers! At that point, I knew it was all complete tosh.
To be honest with the exception of Doddy i can't think of any journos that can actually ride that well, so i'd be inclined to take everything that they say with a pinch of salt anyway. 😉
have to echo clubber's comments about the rocky mountain element, I got my frame as a crash replacement for a couple of ETSX's that snapped. Coming down the last descent at the Kielder 100 (which I think we a reasonable test of a bikes useability) I was thinking how the bike had done, came to the conclusion it was extrememly capable and just went where it was pointed with no problems and allowed me to get on with pedalling all day.
Likewise the ETSX tended to get mixed reviews, my experiences (apart from 2 snapped frames) were entirely positive, did the first transwales, a transportugal, La Ruta and a whole lot of other stuff on it and it did everything it was asked to, I always thought it was far more capable than me.
My opinion is that these days there are very few bad bikes out there, designers know roughly where to put things and components are capable. the only bike I've ridden that I didn't like was a long travel Marin about 5 years ago, felt like riding a gate made out of packing foam. I think that was down to personal preferences (I was riding an 80mm kona hardtail at the time) and what I was used to.
Bikes are good - they are there to have fun on so don't get hung up on what the mags write, go and ride what you've got until it breaks then get another one!
matthew
I don't think there's many bad frames out there anymore- stuff like tyres, bars, stems and forks (shocks as well I guess) make all the difference and it must be hard to see beyond those- a bike at one spec level might have the magic setup whereas at another level the fork or shock might not work as well, transforming the ride.
It's hard to know whether the testers should change anything on a delivered bike to test or not- if they don't they might slate an entire range cos the bike the bike they tested had poor forks, or an underperforming shock. Bars, stems and tyres are difficult as well- what suits Calderdale probably isn't going to work as well in Surrey, and that colours things- I imagine most people on here change those bits to suit- should a bike be given a hard time because it comes with a poor set of tyres?
Horses for courses...personal taste and all that...I'm currently riding 09 Marin Mount Vision 5.8 - it's a great bike...didn't get such good reviews as the 08 version (which was What MTB Bike of the Year) - but it's essentially the same steed. I think a large part of this is down to what the competition is doing - last year the Marin was quite possibly the best thing at that price and the ride it gave was the 'best'...but the competition moves on and this year it might not compare as well to the others as last year...the goalposts constantly move as that is how progress works...
I don't read bike reviews much (mainly down to my lack of interest in a new bike as I'm happy with this one) - it does bob a bit in the granny ring when climbing but otherwise it is a very smooth bike that makes up for far too many of my mistakes! I really really like and I'm well pleased I bought it - the fact it was a BOTY the previous year had nothing to do with it as I didn't reaad the review until I'd bought the actual bike.
It is very difficult to find a real lemon of a bike these days, they are all very capable so finding something that makes them stand out is harder...personal preference will play a stronger part in this process when things are so close.
agree with the last few posts but Ventana has to be on there, seem to get poor reviews but seem popular
Much prefer a review that is part of a long term test, I read the reviews sometimes but never pay much attention unless it was a bike or frame I was interested in.
The boys over at Dirt mag seem to review stuff pretty well, no scoring either so it's just a person's opinion on a bike, how it rides, what could be different/better.
On the topic I've never seen a review of my bike which is heavy, bad at climbing yet so much fun when pointed down a hill.
A couple of recent observation from me...
Orange ST4 frame and Commencal Super 4 frame reviewed in same issue of WMB. The Super 4 gets a slightly moany review about being weighty but rides great, gets 4/5. ST4 gets the identical review but gets 3/5, even though the ST4 frame is more than 0.5lb lighter. You'd assume then that if both are a bit weighty but ride great, but one is a bit lighter, it would get at least the same verdict or better?
Orange Five Diva, gets a minor negative for "not being the lightest bike on test", yet when you flick to the table at the end of the review, it's listed as being the lightest?
I've got an SC Bullit for uplift day/Alps shenanigans, of which the ST review said that it has a high BB height for a proper DH bike, and suffers from pedal kickback in the granny ring. Both completely valid criticisms, and ones that I'll bear in mind, should my riding ever improve to the point where I need to replace it. 🙂
Yes, just built a Ventana El Ciclon. MBR gave it a slagging if I remember, I have to disagree, its spot-on. If it had a Spesh badge no doubt a 10/10.
DMR switchback, got progressively canned by the mags, then there was that video of a guy bending his.
Luckily for me I quite fancied a shorter wheelbase 5" bike, so got one cheep 🙂
Bizzarely the kinesis decade is made by the same company, bears more than a passing resemblance, yet seems to be beyond criticism!
Long term reviews are good when they focus on how the bike actually rides. Benji's Alptitude review in ST is a good example which springs to mind.
Unfortunately most in ST and MBUK focus solely on a new £100 stem that the writer has blagged or a ridiculously unsuitable fork that they've decided to stick on it.
I know blagging is one of the fringe benefits of magazine journalism, but it would be nice if it was a little less transparent and a little more relevant.
You;d almost think they hadn't actually ridden a lot of their long-term bikes between updates.