[Closed] Singletrack latest issue WTF

Its down to a question of value. by that note you would say that a £40 sandwich is pocket change!

For a years worth of sandwiches, I'd think its a bargin, even if i got a egg mayo one every week so. Egg Mayo doesn't interest me so I'd just skip to the next ham and cheese.

I would be pretty annoyed if i got a baguette though as i only like white bread sarnies.

I don't want to see 'best X under £Y'.

No, me neither. Isn't that what WMB's for, anyway?

If the mag was trips, places, people, product, pics all from a non-test POV, etc; the web for reviews, forum, product features, I think ST would have a more sellable / sub-albe mag that has longer shelf-life as well as a site where more people would be prepared to pay for reviews and test content, the faster-moving consumer stuff content that may be a few months interest at a time for many, as buying decisions loom. Ideal balance between long and short term content presentation imo.

Product test and ad content dates paper copies and means the longer-term interesting content is lower. A pile of old ST mags doesn't have enough leaf-through-a-few-years-later content to make them all worth keeping that long as much of it dates. More 'timeless' stuff makes the mag subscription more appealing perhaps. Worth 'collecting'. Maybe mags these days need to be more book-like in value to the reader?

I don't want to see 'best X under £Y'.

No, me neither. Isn't that what WMB's for, anyway?

Only had a quick scan over 5(!) pages of this thread, so apologies if these sentiments have already been said...

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.

It almost seems as though the people writing the mag have lost a little interest in producing the mag too? Its hard to find new slants on the same thing.

Maybe I'm just losing interest in mtbing.

the web for reviews

They'd need to significantly up their game if that was the case. 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.

For a years worth of sandwiches, I'd think its a bargin, even if i got a egg mayo one every week so. Egg Mayo doesn't interest me so I'd just skip to the next ham and cheese.

I would be pretty annoyed if i got a baguette though as i only like white bread sarnies

What if all you get is egg mayo and you don't like it? everyone on here is bitching and moaning because i won't pay for ST but why should i pay for something i wont read. No one would expect to pay for a gym they never go to.

Oh should have said another fan of Cyclist here, really nice mag.

What if all you get is egg mayo and you don't like it? everyone on here is bitching and moaning because i won't pay for ST but why should i pay for something i wont read. No one would expect to pay for a gym they never go to.

Yep, i don't get it. (why people are moaning at you)I like the mag. Read and enjoy about two thirds each month. Don't care if other people don't like, if you don't, don't buy it.

As for the website, its free for a reason - Traffic. If they don't get loads of traffic they don't get ad's. Dont want to see ad's?? The pay premier.

But some Americans got IP on the name 'Mountain Bikes' in the 70s and here we are.

You mean when 'some Americans' started riding their bikes down mountains? I agree, it was a totally bloody stupid name to call it. They should definitely have called it something other than mountain biking.

GrahamS - imagine (if possible) a customer walks into a bike shop. He/she is approached by a salesperson and asked how they can be of service. The customer says he/she would like to purchase a mountain bike. Does the salesperson take that customer to have a look at a cyclocross bike, walking straight past the bikes with suspension, disc brakes, big bars, 2.4" tyres? No. Do they ****.

Road bike = a bike best suited to riding on the road.
Mountain bike = a bike best suited to riding up and down mountains, other great big hills, rocks and stuff.
Cyclocross bike = a bike best suited to riding cyclocross (ie, a muddy field in the depths of winter)

Of course, you could ride a cx bike up and down a mountain just the same as you could ride one on a road. Hybrids are well suited to that crossover rubbish.

For me though, a mountain bike magazine should cater for mountain bikes. In that respect, MBR have got it bang on as I've never seen anything road or cross related in there (admittedly I've not bought it for years).

Sorry, but a cyclocross bike is not a mountain bike in exactly the same way that a mountain bike is not a cyclocross bike.

I agree with the post above - the articles seem to be aimed at people with huge amounts of disposable cash. Why not review more stuff that is within the average rider's range of affordability?

Because that would be dull, and is already covered by CRC and Wiggle's websites (amongst others). Or you can just ask here - loads of people have real experience of 40€ tyres, but how many have had a chance to compare 4000€ bikes?

Cyclocross has no place in a mtb mag IMO, and that's coming as someone who rides one and has occasionally raced them over the last 15 years. Cyclocross is essentially a roadie winter activity, based on riding around fields.

To me mtbing is about riding forests, hills and mountains.

But CX has evolved to be a niche all of it's own. It's no longer something done for 4 months of the year on flat grassy fields. I mean, 10 years ago you'd have to look pretty hard to find off the peg CX bikes - most riders got their frames from Alan or Dolan and bodged a load of old roadie gear onto it.
Now Shimano sell specific CX groupsets, most major manufacturers have at least one CX bike in their range and it's grown to become a "range" in very much the same way as road bikes have evolved into road race range and the "Sportive" range.

I'm glad you added the "to me..." in your last sentence. MTBing to you might well be that but to other people it might mean something else entirely.

And for what it's worth, I ride my CX bike in forests, hills and mountains.
It's less about the bike you're riding and more about the actual riding. IMHO.

Because that would be dull, and is already covered by CRC and Wiggle's websites (amongst others). Or you can just ask here - loads of people have real experience of 40€ tyres, but how many have had a chance to compare 4000€ bikes?

+1

MBR's Bike of the year was a cheap hardtail. They said it was an amzing ride for the money, The next months letters section was how that was a load of crap and that no one cares about cheap bikes.

The occassional cover photo shot in the UK would be good....though not as exciting for the journos obviously. Not seen many mud based cyclocross cover shots.

GrahamS - imagine (if possible) a customer walks into a bike shop. He/she is approached by a salesperson and asked how they can be of service. The customer says he/she would like to purchase a mountain bike

Alright.. same scenario but the customer says he'd like a bike to have some fun doing some nice cross-country rides, nothing too extreme, just sheep tracks and the like to some hilltops, nice views and maybe some cake. Like what you see in those magazines that say "not jumpy, not grumpy" on them.

What's better suited to him then: an Orange 5 or a CX bike?

I have been buying and reading ST for about 10 years now but I think we have come to the end of the road. This will be my last subscription year. In the past I wouldn't commit to a subscription for mags because I couldn't be sure there would be something I was interested in every issue. ST changed that for awhile but I am now back to the same position. ST no longer has something I want to read every issue. I don't wear the print off like I used to.It's not about too much/too little CX, it's about an interesting read. I am unlikely to do any mega trips across wherever but I don't mind reading about it if well written and illustrated.
I can accept that it could well be about me. I have been riding MTBs for nearly 30 years and am getting a bit jaded with mags [NOT riding]so in future I will probably stick to web based journalism which at least if you don't like it , you haven't committed!

DBW, I agree, I'm just saying it's a name that was settled on for whatever reason, it's just a tag, nothing literal right? Mountain Bikes was a great brand name that stuck and became the term for off-roading that's all.

The customer says he/she would like to purchase a mountain bike. Does the salesperson take that customer to have a look at a cyclocross bike, walking straight past the bikes with suspension, disc brakes, big bars, 2.4" tyres? No. Do they ****.

Sorry, but a cyclocross bike is not a mountain bike in exactly the same way that a mountain bike is not a cyclocross bike.

I can kind of understand people not wanting £5k+ bikes and £2500 wheelsets all the time in a mag. but the idea is that these technologies trickle down to a level that hopefully we'll be able to afford in a few years.

If you look at the bike forum on here and threads that people actually start, it is nearly always expensive bikes, or bikes that look good or new/ top end components or things of interest. People don't tend to start threads on here about "look at my Deore or SLX cranks" here is "my lovely Alex Rims wheels", even though a good percentage of use gear like this because it works, it just isn't much fun to read about.

All those who say, oh this mag or that mag are so great, why don't you bugger off to [i]their[/i] forums then eh?
Hmph, yeah thought so.

DaveyBoyWonder - Member
GrahamS - imagine (if possible) a customer walks into a bike shop. He/she is approached by a salesperson and asked how they can be of service. The customer says he/she would like to purchase a mountain bike. Does the salesperson take that customer to have a look at a cyclocross bike, walking straight past the bikes with suspension, disc brakes, big bars, 2.4" tyres? No. Do they ****.

To be honest ST doesn't get me too excited. When it comes through the letter box each month there's an initial excitement (of sorts). Give the mag a quick flick though and that's as far as it goes. Nothing seems to pull me in further. It looks and feels nice, there are a few nice pics. But I don't feel like I'm being seduced.

Take the other mags I subscribe to Dirt, The Albion and Privateer (until recently) All of them are sexy in a way. They pull me in and I'll usually end reading the whole thing cover to cover in one sitting. Where as the ST experience lasts 15 mins (tops) and it's put to one side and never picked up again.

I'm not a massive fan of Factory media, but they do sexy very well. Look what they did with Boards. Under the guidance of Bill Dawes / Yatchs & Yatchting Boards magazine was extremely bland. Factory took over and they've managed to make windsurfing look (slightly) cool.

In short ST isn't sexy enough. It's like a quick shag under the covers with the lights off, then roll over and go to sleep.

.best chinese light from ebay under 30 quid. I'm not gonna buy one of these 200 quid jobbies, I bought 2 cree lights from ebay and they're great. Or how about 'the best way to cable tie a cheapo light to your helmet' I can see why they include reviews of the expensive kit though, it's so they can encourage the makers to take out the advert on the opposite/next page. Fair enough the mag is a business and has to make profit but high end kit just doesn't interest me.

.Best pedals under 60 quid
.Best helmet under £100
.Best mech under £100

Haven't you just described MBR? That's where I would pigeon hole their mag.

Their 'demographic' is newbies to the world of MTB, who lap up marketing guff on how the new Enduro grips bring the trail alive.

To them, £60 is a lot to spend on pedals!

(To me, it's still quite a bit to spend on pedals, which is why 99% of my kit is second hand).

I like ST mag, or at least the idea of it, but in reality I rarely read it cover to cover, or get excited by it.

I like the occasional bikepacking/bivvy/adventure story, but on the whole dislike (along with the content of all other bike mags) all of the articles and features on bikes and kit that are way overpriced, and over spec. for what 90% of people want/need/use.

I get that it (thank god) doesn't want to be MBUK, but can come across as a bit poncey and contain a fair bit of bike snobbery.

[quote=core]I get that it (thank god) doesn't want to be MBUK, but can come across as a bit poncey and contain a fair bit of bike snobbery

Which goes hand in hand with their readers' reputation for Orange and Audi. [i]Somebody[/i] has to fill that niche.

MBUK = The Daily Star
ST = The Guardian/Times/Telegraph

best chinese light from ebay under 30 quid. I'm not gonna buy one of these 200 quid jobbies, I bought 2 cree lights from ebay and they're great. Or how about 'the best way to cable tie a cheapo light to your helmet'

bought 2 cree lights from ebay and they're great. Or how about 'the best way to cable tie a cheapo light to your helmet'

Or "best way to put out a small electrical fire" 😉

I've subscribed from before day one, on the "5 issues for a tenner" offer*; occasionally the magazine goes through a patch where it's more relevant to my interests and sometimes it's less so, but it's still interesting and still well worth the money.

(I've ridden my MTB in a cx race round a muddy field and I've ridden my cx bike at a trail centre. I have a beard, but not an Audi. I like coffee, but don't own a grinder.)

*subscriber number 113 🙂

Thinking about it further the thing that appealed to me 10 odd years ago about ST was that it felt different from the competition at the time e.g. MBUK, MBR, Cycling Plus. But now Rouleur, Privateer*, Cyclist etc. have taken the model (i.e. nice pics, paper, proper articles, less dominant ads) and improved upon it. So whereas ST was once the market leader, to me it is now an also ran.

* I'm fully aware Privateer has now gone, which IMO should give ST an opportunity to take.

Wow, magazine can't please all of the people all of the time shock. If I didn't know better I'd tell you all to get out on your bikes.

I've just flown over to London and started reading my first STW delivered to my door just before Xmas......I am a mountain biker only and therefore have a prejudice obviously but is the clue not in the title.....sorry if I've repeated somebody else's views but I've only got 5 min of wifi and can't read full post.....if I had had MBR and WBM with me I would have probably finished em both on the 1 hour flight....as it was I read about 1/4 of STW and loved it......if it becomes "general biking world" I'll unsubscribe..... If anyone from STW is reading this ... Keep up the good work!!!!!....rant over

So something like and article on the Three Peaks would be out of place in STW? I think that would be ace. Its all riding bikes in circles in the mud (i think there was a great STW art on this theme once) but sadly STW seems to have become filler of late - the art on middle aged execs in their Audi trying to ride as many Welsh Trail Centre Red Routes in a weekend kinda nailed it - that is obviously STWs new demographic.

I'm still bereft at the loss of Privateer and there is nothing outtheir to replace it, perhaps ST could give Tym M a job?

And for what it's worth, I ride my CX bike in forests, hills and mountains.

Some of the kit tests do seem to be a bit pricey, I don't mind that, aspirational stuff etc, but the notion of budget/entry level seem to be getting skewed.

GrahamS - Member

What's better suited to him then: an Orange 5 or a CX bike?

Both equally ill-suited. If only there were some other types of bike! 😉

Nipper99 - Member

So something like and article on the Three Peaks would be out of place in STW?

Depends on how it's written really. "Mountainbikers- here's something that's a bit like what we do, which is quite interesting"- most folks won't have a problem with that I think. "Cyclocrossers- here's an inward-looking cx-lover's report of the race", not so much.

Basically, consider the audience. I suppose what matters to me isn't that the article is about mountain biking, as long as it's for mountain bikers.

..Basically, consider the audience. I suppose what matters to me isn't that the article is about mountain biking, as long as it's for mountain bikers.

what matters to me isn't that the article is about mountain biking, as long as it's for mountain bikers.

^ Now you're talking sense Northwind 😀

I read mags to inspire me to ride my bike. Cyclist does this tremendously well for my road bike. Singletrack does it reasonably well, but not as well as it used to. I actually find MBR much improved recently and more inspiring, since it addresses the type of riding I aspire to do.

Northwind has a habit of talking a lot of sense recently and his comment about considering the audience is bang on. Maybe I'm not quite the Singletrack demographic I once was.

Normal service will resume shortly.

Thanks for all the comments, folks. We do read them all and take them to heart. I'll see what we can do as we go through 2014 to keep the magazine fresh and exciting for you. Obviously we won't please all of the people all of the time, but I'm confident we can keep things interesting and current as we go through the year.

As always, our email addresses are in the magazine and in the site's contact details so hopefully you'll get in touch via email or on the forum if you've got any complaints or suggestions. As for the 'cross bike review - Upgrade came to see us with three bikes - [url= http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/pivot-shows-us-the-mach6-les-27-5-and-vault-cx-bikes/ ]http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/pivot-shows-us-the-mach6-les-27-5-and-vault-cx-bikes/ [/url] and could only spare the 'cross bike to review, so I rode it at the Three Peaks and reviewed it. Had they left the Mach6, we'd have reviewed that instead. Interestingly, four of the five comments on that story were about how great the 'cross bike looked...

Anyway, I'm of the 'all bikes are great' school of thought and occasionally a 'cross bike has snuck in over the years - the same as the odd pure downhill bike has. Our main focus, though, will always be on everyday trail bikes; some cheaper, some less so - written for mountain bikers of all ages/styles/budgets/beardiness.

As for £30 Chinese lights, nobody has actually ever sent us any to test, whereas we regularly get more expensive lights on loan for review, so that's what appears in the magazine.

Hope that helps.
Chipps

I actually find MBR much improved recently

Since the last change in editor imo, went through a bad patch under the previous fella, much, much better of late.

Incidently, they did just do a test on sub-£50 lighting set-ups (solarstorms and the like).

OrangeOrganic - Member
..........the articles seem to be aimed at people with huge amounts of disposable cash. Why not review more stuff that is within the average rider's range of affordability?

This.

It excludes and disenfranchises a huge number of people, a move which appears to directly contradict the ethos of the magazine.

Chipps I'm a big supporter of the magazine. But find this line disappointing

As for £30 Chinese lights, nobody has actually ever sent us any to test, whereas we regularly get more expensive lights on loan for review, so that's what appears in the magazine.

It seems obvious to me that you will lent, for free, items from manufacturers and suppliers with good marketing.

But i think the attitude that you only review whats free isn't ideal and the lights thing hits the nail on the head. one of the reason £30 Chinese lights aren't marketed is that you'll never get the lowest price if you have a marketing department. So i would like you to buy and some review some cheap lights. like many people I'm not a regular night rider so knowing whats possible for under £30 is of interest to me an i would imagine other readers as well. You can always sell the lights afterwards. If its the case that reviewing cheap options like this will hurt advertising revenue please say so and i'll understand.

If you really can't buy things to review could you borrow them, like Photozone.de

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 [i]insisted[/i] 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!

It needs Ferrentino back.

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

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 [url= http://thewirecutter.com/ ]Wirecutter[/url] of MTB kit must have some value? If not for here, it must be a niche that is waiting to be filled?

[i] 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.[/i]

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 [i][b]after[/b] [/i]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.

$&*£^*&^.