Following from the badly reviewed bikes thread, I wondered who people think does GOOD bike reviews?
Personally I've been impressed by the tests on NSMB lately: [url= http://www.nsmb.com/3248-review-kona-coilair-supreme ]Kona Coilair[/url], [url= http://www.nsmb.com/3275-review-titus-el-guapo ]Titus El Guapo[/url].
Pinkbike seem very thorough too, in the one or two reviews I've read on there.
Obviously websites have more space to devote to each bike than mags, but I also get the feeling that they've spent more time riding each bike - possibly because they cover less in total.
NSMB are usualy quite readable,
For printed magazines dirt is hard to beat, although their constant "set the sag to 50% to turn your trail bike into a lightweight DH bike" fettish is begining to get on my tits. Especialy when they admit that the bikes were looking a little worse for wear afterwards, I'd like my bikes to last 2+ years not 2 minutes thankyou very much!
I know some of the mags fake review test rides, or at least put a riders name against the review even though the rider never even rode the bike.
IMO you can't beat a test ride and valued opinions of owners.
MBUK.
Dirt reviews are the only ones which make bikes exciting enough to want one. Like the recent Orange St4 review. I want one now!
However they do get bogged down in geometry speak, which gets very tedious.
And the grammar and phrasing used is a bit weird sometimes!
I've only read a few Dirt reviews, and the illiteracy is part of the charm, but they seem to like every short-travel bike they test and say pretty much the same thing about it (it's fun in relation to a DH bike).
Agree MBUK is pretty good, if a bit short. They don't have as much "drag-and-drop handling" nonsense as WMB either, despite a few of the same writers.
On a related note, anyone else enjoying the geektastic tech articles in dirt at the moment?
[i]On a related note, anyone else enjoying the geektastic tech articles in dirt at the moment? [/i]
Yes! That fellow makes things very understandable. Clever chap.