Forum menu
The Stumpy was in MBR’s bike of the year test last month and came last - and about two weeks later the new version was released, which I’m sure they had for testing already but weren’t allowed to print anything about.
Also, is it just me or are their geometry measurements off? Everything they measure seems to be down at 330 BB height rather than 340.
Yes It has. The new 2018 model has a longer reach. (Probably among other changes). The older one was way too short – the M felt like a S to me, my knees almost hitting the bars. When sat on it it felt tall and short.
Though that just illustrates the flawed review process. The new one is probably too long for someone else and they feel like they need a shorter reach.
Quite honestly I think the option on length as well as S/M/L is the way to go...
From my height I'm marginal M/L on a Large Whyte... but I have short legs and even my medium I don't get the clearance I'd like ... a 125mm dropper is pretty much slammed on the medium for me and I don't know if I could fit a 150mm even on a small frame. My tackle would appreciate a bit more room vertically... whereas length wise I'd happy...
Of course it would be nice if this was mentioned in reviews... 😀
>#Richieokeefe - Hmm, maybe the sinusitis is getting the better of me. I could have sworn that MBR reviewed the newer, longer model but having been unable to find the mag I’m now thinking that it was the older model they had - same as yours. I may owe you an apology!
Anyway, MBRs reviews are notoriously contradictory and the Trail Bike of the Year test - if that’s the review we’re talking about? - was so flawed it’s difficult to know where to start. (Different price points for different types of bikes. A limit on budget so it wasn’t so much TBOTY but ‘TBOTY if your budget doesn’t exceed £xxx.’ Contradicting themselves about bushing and bearings and giving a pathetic excuse. Having only one tester per category with their inherent bias. And I’m not convinced that separating out 27.5/29/plus bikes makes any sense - a good bike is s good bike.)
Not taken any bike review seriously since...
the one (by a highly regarded journo in the bike industry) that gave both a 2* and the dogs danglies review for the same brakes within a couple of months of each other.
the one that declared one 26er as obsolete in a magazine issue with a date that was before any of the main manufacturers had even announced their first foray in to 650b, and there were zero wheels and tyres actually available in 650b at that point in time. I can only assume they'd pre-written their marketing bandwagon BS, then ran the review several issues earlier than originally planned.
the one where literally in every single review they cut+paste a standard dig about Sram brakes, and the obligatory need to bleed them before riding.
the ones where, when a Specialized appeared in the grouptest, you could predict the review score for every bike in the test, skip to the end, and prove that you predicted correctly.
Kit reviews, eg. bike bags, rucksacks etc. I'll pay attention too. Bike, brake, groupset etc. reviews I have to turn on the BS detector before reading any of the words.
I've been "testing" my new FlareMax myself recently. It's fashionably long and slack so may do OK in mag tests, but I can't help thinking that, if they released the same bike five years ago (when mags were slagging 29ers for being barges) they'd have hated it. It's all fashion really
It’s all fashion really
It doesn’t have to be. I always liked a longer reach because I spent so much time racing xc in the 90s. When bikes started getting shorter I had to size up to get the same stretch from saddle to bars. Now that long reach is the trend I can go back to size M bikes with the stretch I like. 😁
I'll take them semi-seriously until they enter the magic zone of 'vertical compliance' where the tester can detect sub-millimetric levels of frame distortion that seem to 'soak up the bumps'. After that I'm out.
I’ll take them semi-seriously until they enter the magic zone of ‘vertical compliance’ where the tester can detect sub-millimetric levels of frame distortion that seem to ‘soak up the bumps’. After that I’m out.
vertical compliance is sooooo dated. radial compliance is where its at...
I enjoy reading them but dont take them too seriously. I suspicious of the motives in some mags that in group tests say bike a is too short but bike b is great because its so much shorter you can buy the bigger size!!! Talk about clutching at straws to give a bike the 'win'.
I actually prefer the first ride reviews as they tend to be shorter and more factual and then make my own mind up. Group test often seem contradictory and there are always more options than can ever be in a single test article.
I made a decision to just ride more. The balance of thinking/reading about kit vs time using it was wrong.
Anyway, MBRs reviews are notoriously contradictory and the Trail Bike of the Year test – if that’s the review we’re talking about? –
I don't think it's just any one review....
Having only one tester per category with their inherent bias. And I’m not convinced that separating out 27.5/29/plus bikes makes any sense – a good bike is s good bike.)
Not if your 5'2" or 6'4"
I'd go more with
Having only one tester per category
Is just pointless.... I've ridden all sorts of bikes and some of them have probably been fantastic bikes for someone else even though I didn't gal in love (and some I've really not got along with). Even someone who has the same bias as regards to how the bike handles/feels... and their ideal bike might just not fit me the same.
I hit my arse on the tyre often enough on my 27.5... for example... but someone else might not.
I'd call that physical bias.... simply put the bike fit is just not right...
Then add in mental bias.....
Inconsistency is the biggest bugbear coming from the other side of the equation. I remember losing out on a test in a certain magazine as they marked me down for not liking a fork that just few months earlier in that same mag was a 9/10 grouptest winner at over 50% of the price of the complete bike!
About 5 years ago did it for me when MBR spectacularly missed the boat by declaring that they had no 29ers in their test fleet for the year as " none of their testers wanted to ride one ." Guess what chaps your job is to review current trends not to ride the bike that you most fancy , it's a bit like a chef refusing to cook a well done steak because that's not how he thinks steak should be cooked . Anyway I sent in a suitably outraged letter slating their decision which , to their credit they did publish , then was committed to buying the mag for a couple of years to watch them squirming as 29er sales rapidly went through the roof and 26ers were pretty much consigned to the dustbin of history .
From reading many bike mags they just appear to be a reprint of the catalogue the bike firm produces, nothing new,then the ride test, is based on the rider not any other group of riders, we all see and feel something different in every bike we ride. From looking at the pictures its quite obvious that certain bike frames are all made by the same manufacturer.
Also strangely the bikes featured also feature in a large paid for advert. Finally do the testers get offered the stuff they test for free or as a free loan or even at cost price.
But surely the above comment wouldn't induce a better star rating
The problem is that modern bikes are all good. There are differences, but they are so minor to generally be irrelevant.
I suggest therefore the following buying methodology:
1) find one you most like the colour of within your price range
2) Go to a shop that has a demo available to find out which frame size you feel the most comfortable riding
3) Buy that one.
Job, jobbed!
Stevextc wrote,
“Honestly Doddy.. (should you read this).. I’m 5’10″… how long the XL is and how wide the bars are is not my primary concern” but somehow it forms the core review of every bike…
and whilst we are at it… bar length … tyre choice… in most cases these should be like pedals."
Jones was the same about XLs. But... Well, I'm 5'10, so XLs don't affect me. But, it's still interesting to know when a bike company fumbles the larger bike sizes- shows a lack of thinking on their range and a willingness to screw their owners. ChrisL of this parish had a Mojo in size XL that was shorter than my Cotic medium- their sizing got taller but it didn't really get much longer. That's not directly relevant to me but it makes me question them. Santa Cruz know their XLs are too short, most of their pros fit reach headsets but they still keep selling them. Basically the extremes can be interesting
Bar length, stems and tyre choice can be sort of similar- I think they can be a useful symptom. When you see a bike in 2018 with 680mm bars it's a pretty good sign that the bike's either very conservative, or built without an awful lot of thought to spec. You can change it in 5 minutes but it's a kind of declaration of intent. And when Calibre fit sensible, quality tyres to a Bossnut frinstance it's a good sign that they've sweated the details and rather than penny pinching they've built a bike that's going to work well out of the box. You wouldn't really mind, if you had to change a tyre but it's a good sign that you don't.
Ramsayneil wrote,
"About 5 years ago did it for me when MBR spectacularly missed the boat by declaring that they had no 29ers in their test fleet for the year"
It was a wee bit longer ago I think.Though, worth mentioning that not so long after that, they admitted they'd screwed up, more or less along the lines of "genuinely the 29ers we rode weren't competitive, so we judged the breed, and then we rode some 29ers that were awesome so we've had out minds changed". Which is kind of fair enough.
Similar,
Andytherocketeer wrote,
"the one that declared one 26er as obsolete in a magazine issue with a date that was before any of the main manufacturers had even announced their first foray in to 650b"
So they called it correctly before most people did? That doesn't seem bad.
So they called it correctly before most people did? That doesn’t seem bad.
Except that 29" wheels came first and that's what started the demise of 26" . By the time 650 turned up the writing was already on the wall .
The trouble is that most reviews are done by 1 person riding that bike. What is comfortable and fun for someone may be not so good for someone else!
I bought my Trek without reading anything about it. Mainly because I went out to buy a Whyte (based on reviews!) and didn’t get on with them at all.
Popped in to another shop and spent a couple of hours trying the Trek and was sold.
I think bike bike fit is very personal and reviews can obviously give you an idea of the bike is good or a lemon, but nothing will ever beat proper test rides.
Also some brands are going longer and slacker with huge reach figures. I don’t get on with that kind of fit. My trek is an 18.5 and at 5ft 11 according to the ‘size charts’ I should be on a 19.5.
Jones was the same about XLs. But… Well, I’m 5’10, so XLs don’t affect me. But, it’s still interesting to know when a bike company fumbles the larger bike sizes- shows a lack of thinking on their range and a willingness to screw their owners. ChrisL of this parish had a Mojo in size XL that was shorter than my Cotic medium- their sizing got taller but it didn’t really get much longer. That’s not directly relevant to me but it makes me question them. Santa Cruz know their XLs are too short, most of their pros fit reach headsets but they still keep selling them. Basically the extremes can be interesting
I find the XS and S quite amusing... XS with either no crank length or 170/175....
In the same way the adherence to wheel size for a frame regardless seems equally stupid... surely if the XL is 29er the XS should be 26 to even keep close to the same geo and feel?
Bar length, stems and tyre choice can be sort of similar- I think they can be a useful symptom. When you see a bike in 2018 with 680mm bars it’s a pretty good sign that the bike’s either very conservative, or built without an awful lot of thought to spec. You can change it in 5 minutes but it’s a kind of declaration of intent.
Mostly though on a higher end bike its possibly a declaration of expectation they will be changed before riding?
If I was buying a NEW bike (which I haven't for decades) I'd rather get some £15 placeholder bars then go and fit the ones that fit me... but that goes 5x for cranks...
I've never tried a Bird .. but I do like their philosophy... where you can choose both size and length and also groupset. I'm just guessing at this but I guess they also design their FS leverage to take M/M (based on they are currently selling a spare M/M tune monarch in their clearance) ..
I say this as some other manufacturers design a bike then it seems can't be bothered or have sourcing issues getting the RIGHT tune for the bike.
I've yet to see a review that say's "they thoughtfully designed the bike to take a M/M tune so if you do damage your shock you can replace it from stock" not special order full price + import from RS)
and when Calibre fit sensible, quality tyres to a Bossnut frinstance it’s a good sign that they’ve sweated the details and rather than penny pinching they’ve built a bike that’s going to work well out of the box. You wouldn’t really mind, if you had to change a tyre but it’s a good sign that you don’t.
I totally agree: The way Calibre are making an affordable OOTB ready to ride bike should be a model and the "higher end" bikes IMHO should just come tyre less and bar less (or options to specify) ....
This is a large part of the reason I don't buy new.... (finances aside)
IF I WAS buying a new premium bike due to some unexpected windfall .... then I don't expect I need to replace cranks, bars, stem and tyres... or just put up with what they deem I should have. Equally, it seems ridiculous I should have to choose a premium bike based on their choice of crank length... or even more bizarrely tyres...
“Except that 29″ wheels came first and that’s what started the demise of 26″ . By the time 650 turned up the writing was already on the wall ”
Were you living in an alternate reality? If 27.5 hadn’t happened 26 would still be the mainstay and 29 still wouldn’t have happened in DH.
Were you living in an alternate reality? If 27.5 hadn’t happened 26 would still be the mainstay
True this.
Were you living in an alternate reality? If 27.5 hadn’t happened 26 would still be the mainstay and 29 still wouldn’t have happened in DH.
I'm not sure ... for good or bad DHWC has become more commercialised.
29 in DH is IMHO just an expression of this... and changing the courses to make 29ers faster and more uneducated in DH terms spectator/TV friendly.
29ers and drones sorta go together ... at least in terms of the slower but twistiest techy bits through trees don't make good TV the more general public want to watch...
Just an opinion ....
I read the reviews, but not being a serial bike swapper I haven't really taken them to heart - other than the reviews for the Carrera Fury which got me back in to mountain biking after years off - I was looking for a cheap decent hard tail.
I still have it now, but know that I prefer something slacker to older XC geo, great for pootling with the kids.
I built my full suspension (Nukeproof Mega TR) from frame only after reading a couple of reviews knowing that most of the components I was building it from weren't on the test bike - only 'standard' part is the shock.
I'm building up a Nukeproof Scout to replace my HT - again nothing really similar to the 'standard specs'; a few reviews have said about the harsh back end, but I'm using different wheels and tyres and I don't ride everything like it's rampage - so I probably won't notice it.
It's like fork/shock reviews - I don't think I'm good enough of a rider to notice that one fork is better at small bump compliance than another (I'm a prime candidate for ShockWizz!!).
Bike set up is a preference thing too - I notice some reviews test completely stock, others immediately swap stems, tyres, grips and a few other things. On large group tests I get swapping all bike to a control tyre, but if reviewing an individual bike seems a bit moot.
I think so much about bikes is subjective (especially if you're riding for fun rather than racing), and on that basis the only good reviews are those that say "this does this well and that badly", rather than "this is ace/crap because it does my exact type of riding well/badly".
Pinkbike seem pretty good for it.
I think with suspension reviews it must be a lot more of a challenge. I tend to get my stuff set up how I like it and leave it there, going over a number of shocks/forks I couldn't guarantee I was testing the suspension and not my ability to find the right tune for that suspension.
Of course, who doesn't get excited by shiny new things, and who that's keen enough to work as an MTB journalist isn't going to get a bit excited at all the shiny new things they're meant to give an objective opinion on?
I laugh sometimes when I get advice from some expert in the shop whose ill founded opinions based on half fact and trends I could rip to shreds - reminds me of myself when I worked in a shop. So I'm nice to them. But I don't tend to take their opinion too seriously. Apart from mechanics. They see more broken stuff than I do.
Found the latest trends in MBR are now - anything less than 12 speed - not enough spread of gears. 175mm cranks are a no-no and bars on one bike are too narrow at 760mm (750s on another bike don't get mentioned!). And anything less than Pikes are shit forks - are they really??
Pointless twaddle.