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 - MemberI'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.
$&*£^*&^.
