Forum menu
There also does not seems to be much decent. I cannot be the only one that thinks some trends are retrograde. For example gear inflation. If I can climb with a 1x9 setup then I am pretty sure a lot of other people would benefit from not having a dinner plate on their back wheel for example. More complexity, lighter weight and technology might be better for the few months or year when it is new but most people and the planet would benefit from something that is simpler, more longer lasting and repairable. But I suppose that is not how profits are made and something people get excited about.
DCRainmaker is a perfect example.
is it really though? I mean yes the reviews are insanely in-depth, but often times I just find myself running out of steam (boredom) after a couple of paragraphs. They’re comprehensive foshure but I wouldn’t say they’re critical or interesting necessarily.
the reviews are insanely in-depth, but often times I just find myself running out of steam (boredom) after a couple of paragraphs. They’re comprehensive foshure but I wouldn’t say they’re critical or interesting necessarily.
Not interesting I'll give you: there are some reviews I skip over, mainly as it's clear I'm either not the target market, or it's something I've already got and not planning on replacing. But I'd argue they are always critical, where necessary. If something seems to be a bit beta or bug-ridden he doesn't hold back on mentioning it. DC Rainmaker is a bit of a special case, though - he doesn't have that much competition, and he's the acknowledged expert in consumer sports electronics.
Sadly, it isn't just bike journalism that has this problem. All journalism does, if a publication isn't repeating the words of a press release as if its own, it is doing so with the Reuters or AP feed. Doing actual journalism is time-consuming and expensive, so mostly journalists are story-mongers sat in an office.
If something seems to be a bit beta or bug-ridden he doesn’t hold back on mentioning it.
Yes, good point. I'd argue that STW does allow it's reviewers that freedom also.
DC Rainmaker is a bit of a special case, though – he doesn’t have that much competition, and he’s the acknowledged expert in consumer sports electronics
Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that. I would say say it's not "journalism" in the strict sense of that word either though, DCR is "just" a review site
DCR is “just” a review site
And he knocks out one review every few days, by the looks of it. This kind of content is relatively straightforward to package - you have the item to be reviewed, you can take internet-quality pictures of it at your home, you upload onto a fixed web template. He's good at what he does, but it's a very specific type of journalism.
STW produces a physical print magazine to deadlines, and it's obvious this requires a lot more travel, photography and production. It's also obvious that day-to-day web articles are not going to all be that resource-heavy unless the consumer is prepared to pay for it.
Can't see what the OP is complaining about
https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/scott-launches-the-all-new-patron-eride/
"Cough"
Free for all to access
#1. Reviews are only one part (the dullest part IMO) of bike media.
#2. You know and have identified that the journalists have this constraints so the easy fix is take the review with a pinch of salt and look at reviews on people blogs etc who have bought the product.
Can’t see what the OP is complaining about [Links to news item on new Scott bike]
But that's not a review - it's a news item explicitly quoting a press release. It's tagged 'News' not 'Review'. Are you seriously suggesting you thought that was STW's opinion of the bike; or that anyone else might think that?
One of the things I read these sites for is to be updated on the latest stuff, without having to search out press releases by all the individual manufacturers and brands. I think the difference between something being declared as existing, and STW's opinion on it, is perfectly clear.
Why would anyone want to be a journalist?
https://cyclingdigest.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/6-tips-for-cycling-journalism-success/
I wonder if something similar to The Athletic is going to come along to cycling soon - subscriber only access and thus ad free. The Athletic is football/US Sports & MMA centred so no reviews of product just news, interviews and opinions etc but I find the format works as its revenue is paid subscribers - they also went round and basically stole the best journo's in their respective field before the launch.
ignore.
Bike related journalism is an absolute saint compared to the sheer amount of utter bullshit and spurious foo-foo claims regurgitated by the upmarket Hi-Fi press/publications.
the reviews are insanely in-depth, but often times I just find myself running out of steam (boredom) after a couple of paragraphs. They’re comprehensive foshure but I wouldn’t say they’re critical or interesting necessarily.
does anyone read them all, just for something to read?
or will they zero in on articles about the specific gadget (or a few competing options) that they are considering purchasing?
conversely, I find a full bike review from any of the main free sites to perfectly fit a daily bowel movement, so I have probably read them all.
I think the difference between something being declared as existing, and STW’s opinion on it, is perfectly clear.
Here’s a look at the new Patron eRIDE.
To be fair it's fairly obvious it's a rehash of a press release when you read it
So arguably I'm highlighting advertorial news rather than reviews
Steve Worland was a bike journo that was held in high regard and his reviews were well worth reading.
Back in the day he reckoned the SC Superlight was the best all round xc bike and I bought mine on the strength of his wisdom. Still got it 15 years on.
Cant think of any current journo with that sort of trustworthy reputation.
Trouble is today, theres too many journos because its so easy to put out content for any Tom, Dick or Harry. Back in the day when there was just print media there were less opportunities. And you had to be decent otherwise people wouldnt buy your magazine.
a lot of it is related to how un-shit everything is these days.
It's rare that a mainstream product is actually shit.
all cars for sale currently are reliable and have modern conveniences for example.
Most bikes are serviceable and have good qualities.
Fashion is the only issue now.
a lot of it is related to how un-shit everything is these days.
It’s rare that a mainstream product is actually shit.
This crops up a lot on here and I'm staggered by how many people seem to believe it.
I can’t see why a review can’t be sponsored by a company but not a review of the sponsors product. Happens all the time on YouTube, especially the PC channels and a lot of them are quite strict. They might be sponsored by manufacturers to do things that might not be a review as such but are good content. Eg I know one you tuber who did a video about how custom loops for cooling are done and was sponsored by a company who sells them but it wasn’t a review, it was a “how to” and he spoke about other manufacturers at the same time.
Problem with having a strict no sponsors or paid for editorial is that the only money you get for doing it is if the article words on their own sells.
It does seem that a lot of reviews of bike stuff are just too positive. I don’t know if that’s because they are used for long enough to find issues or whatever but I’ve gotten bored of them in any magazine as, mentioned above, no one ever gets their ass handed to them for a poor product, and I know I’ve bought a few recently!!
“ This crops up a lot on here and I’m staggered by how many people seem to believe it.”
+1
There’s a lot of niche stuff I’ve been looking at recently for bike packing where I can’t find bad reviews at all but the text might say “this might suit a person different to me” rather than just saying “it’s crap” as it’s a small outfit making it. Lots of overpriced tat being sold on the strength of it being made in small numbers by artisans!!
I like The reviews that Hardtail party does because he actively compares what he’s reviewing to previous bikes he’s reviewed.
This crops up a lot on here and I’m staggered by how many people seem to believe it
What, genuinely, shit products are you about? I don’t mean a tiny percentage failure rate either.
I think Pinkbike are generally pretty good (& STW, obvs)
their problems with enve wheels were funny
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/review-enve-m735e-wheelset.html
tho in this one they got flack for removing the pics of the destroyed rim after theyd ridden it to destruction, even tho youd be mad to ride a crack carbon rim like that
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Enve-Composites-DH-Wheels-Tested-2013.html
Id also agree there arent many really crap bikes/products around
all reviews struggle with long term reliability tho, I keep a bike for several years, which reviewers cant
I did a thread on this a few months back.
I only buy mountain bike mags now if I'm drunk on the way back home on the train.
Unfortunately, like with a lot of media, you have to be able to read between the lines a bit with reviews. I like Pinkbike's approach of having a good qualities, bad qualities element.
Often in the field tests Mike Levy will say "for riding ABC it's just not that bike, but for XYZ it is" which helps you to understand if you are getting the right tool for the right job.
A rating system isn't really helpful, for a big purchase. If I'm buying a car, you can't compare a 4/5 for a BMW M5 with a 4/5 for a BMW X5 - because even though they might be luxury, desirable cars and pricey, they are for different audiences.
I also liked this off road cc review;
https://off.road.cc/content/review/marin-rift-zone-2-2020-5275
Basically they decided that they liked the bones of the bike, but that it was pretty heavy in that spec [tyres I imagine, those are real carvers!]. This is helpful because it lets the potential rider think about their priorities:
I'm well heavy, so actually a few pounds isn't much to the system weight. For me, anti-squat values are more important for climbing, because out of the saddle I'm more of masher. If I was same height, but 20-30kg less, my priorities might be reversed.
Is it getting worse, probably. Some publications have really gone downhill - MBR I used to rate, not its just buy-Ebikes. MBUK I think has always been pretty rubbish - trying to sell the average rider a 45lb freeride bike back in the day, whatever the equivalent nowadays.
Singletrack is an odd one. My mate said there were never any negative reviews. My sense is that they only put things in the mag that they would recommend. Its not really a reviews focussed magazine, though, is it.
At least with the Scott it says it is a press release. It's the advertorial that tends to upset people, as you start reading it in good faith and then feel like you are being conned part way through.
Who on the STW staff rides bikes day in day out above all else? I’m not convinced they have the staff to write objective reviews as they are all getting old/married/safe. It feels to me like the whole industry needs a massive yoof injection
At least with the Scott it says it is a press release. It’s the advertorial that tends to upset people, as you start reading it in good faith and then feel like you are being conned part way through.
It quotes the press release but that is in a different font. In the rest of the article it talks about Scott in the third person and claims to be written by Lauren who is a staff member at stw. How is not an advertorial?
It quotes the press release but that is in a different font. In the rest of the article it talks about Scott in the third person and claims to be written by Lauren who is a staff member at stw. How is not an advertorial?
It's a bit confusing. My initial response was to consider only the bits in italics as direct quotes, but other than the sentence "Scott has announced the launch of their* all-new Patron eRide." all of the rest of it seems to have come direct from the Scott literature.
* my bold
"no bad products are released at the moment"
Find me a <5/10 review for the new canyon aeroad, despite the fact that it shits its own Seatpost apart through bad design? Frankly find me one that has been updated to not recommend the bike until they fix the bars?
How about a reverb review that warns you you'll need half the price again to rebuild it after it starts sagging through shit design?
What about a Shimano brake review that warns you they bleed oil onto your calipers just at the end of warranty - in my case putting my girlfriend in hospital?
Politely **** off.
Aw, I wanted to bring up Reverbs!
Sorry to hear about your girlfriend, hope it was a speedy recovery.
It quotes the press release but that is in a different font. In the rest of the article it talks about Scott in the third person and claims to be written by Lauren who is a staff member at stw. How is not an advertorial?
It appears to be the STW house style for the product release "news" articles
As they are open access, you are the product being sold
As for advertorials
Its pretty obvious what they are, no one is going to mistake it for a review
As for shimano brakes reverbs etc, I think it's those longer term problems that reviews will always struggle with
As for shimano brakes reverbs etc, I think it’s those longer term problems that reviews will always struggle with
That, and you don’t hear about the 10s of thousands that work fine.
Frankly find me one that has been updated
Cycling Weekly article talking about the issues with Aeroroad seat posts
Well, I can only speak for myself, but an review of a bike I did for STW I said the front tyre needs swapping with something better and it was left in word for word as I wrote it. AFAIK, no-one at the bike company concerned ever said anything to STW about it, and continues to send them bikes to test, and no one at STW indicated to me that I was to write a particular review (ie good or glowing)
I think the bit of this puzzle that lots of folk miss is that the people that work in companies like Shimano and Trek, and so on are bike enthusiasts themselves who really do try to make decent products that are well made and last. They're clearly not going to get it right all the time, but there's no great omerta between bike journo and the companies they write about, there just isn't. Personally I think most reviewers try to do a good job, If you think they're garbage, do a better job yourself, or don't read them. No one is forcing you to be on the site, and your (and my) contributions are pretty worthless If after all, forum posts were worth anything, presumably Mark would be cycling in to STW towers on a solid gold Brompton by now.
I think both Pinkbike and STW try their best to do critical investigative journalism, when its needed or worthwhile Hannah on here has written critical articles about riders, bike companies, and faulty product. I don't think STW are afraid to put stuff out there, but unless you want to pay the salaries of people to do that job, it simply won't happen in the way you want, and given just my own limited exposure to the business side of leisure cycling, you'd get bored pretty soon.
It quotes the press release but that is in a different font. In the rest of the article it talks about Scott in the third person and claims to be written by Lauren who is a staff member at stw. How is not an advertorial?
Well, for one.. we don't get paid to publish it.
I'll give you the first point - and more importantly than the article they have headlined both of their reviews with a link to the article on the seatpost. Unfortunately, as expected, the article again is sort of just a canyon press release saying "you greased it wrong and you're too heavy, barely anyone has this issue, not a big problem".
However, I'm not so convinced by either of your other arguments - "If you don't like it, pay some money or go and do it yourself". Firstly, I do pay for it - I am spanked by advertising every time I visit these websites. That is where the money comes from. If I put up an adblocker, Pinkbike wouldn't get paid. Similarly, I don't agree that being unwilling to replace the individual doing a shoddy job prevents you from being able to criticise them - have you ever, perhaps, maybe disagreed with something a politician does? Do you think your right to criticism is gone because you aren't joining your local party and putting up billboards?
You don't see the thousands of successes, but that doesn't mean the product is deserving of unabashed praise. There are also thousands of Brand-X droppers out there; without a thread on Singletrackworld every two days asking how to fix a design fault without paying £150.
If it's almost public knowledge that Shimano have a fault at the caliper on their brake design that causes a seal to fail and leak mineral oil onto the brake pads; and this has been the case since the first generation of the new horizontal master cylinder design (XT M785) about ten years ago, and they are still doing it, presumably you would expect to see this in SOME review media about new shimano brakes? Go on, would you be able to show me where in the review of the new XT M8000 brakes on singletrackworld mentioning it and warning buyers it could seriously injure them?
My real mistake here is asking the question when we all know the answer. I just thought it would be a better way to incite a bit of conversation!
My real mistake here is asking the question when we all know the answer. I just thought it would be a better way to incite a bit of conversation!
There's a Peak Torque/Hambini video where they discuss this. Their view is that the industry press is a cottage industry and so being critical/honest damages essential relationships
perhaps they think that by writing truth in the full body of an article they are maintaining a degree of journalistic integrity while still pandering the bill-payers by gushing in the TL;DR section.
I don't think that's fully true about the TL DR section, the cons are often captured fairly in there on PB.
But you do pick up very important nuances about ride character and whether a bike will suit you in the review copy. And in fairness, sometimes those observations are not something that could be reduced to a "pro" or "con".
The OP is still behaving like an ignorant prick I see. I'd be embarrassed to spout off like that with such a lack of knowledge of someone else's job.
There are many problems with bike journalism, including with this site, but all of it being covert advertorial is not really one of them.
As they are open access, you are the product being sold
Well yeah, that's how it works if you want to access something like this without forking over actual money, it's hardly a secret these days. I don't think it's unreasonable that you contribute to the running of the site you are "enjoying" (so to speak) one way or another.
This is from PB's Capra review this week, and fairly captures the overall review IMO...
Pros
+ Middle of the road geometry
+ Fast in the right hands
+ The best value bike on test
+ Provides a supportive and poppy feelCons
- Middle of the road geometry
- Long(ish) seat-tube combined with short dropper
- Its suspension is not as supple as others
This is from PB’s Capra review this week, and fairly captures the overall review IMO…
Just watched the video over breakfast. I thought the review came across pretty well balanced. Some positive, some negative, and some on who the bike would suit and not suit.
i think you have to take bike journalism with a pinch of salt.
i dont buy magazines anymore, as its mostly adverts and the actual articles are about 3 paragraphs long once you remove the pics. Nothing you can immerse yourself in. I haven't really read any of the more niche stuff like Singletrack or Cranked, maybe they go far deeper with stories, lifestyle and reviews.
I enjoy videos from pinkbike, Beta, Singletracks etc and i think they give a much more interesting and deeper look at bikes. You get a feel for the emotion or excitement (or disappointment). Pinkbike certainly helped me end up with a Norco Optic after it won their bike of the year a while bike.
Once a media outlet becomes a certain size i would hope they wouldn't worry about upsetting manufacturers, as ultimately, if their bikes aren't getting free advertising from the reviews, then that probably does more harm than a little critisism.
Plus most of us will probably buy the bike we want, regardless if a 'pro' says its good, great or average.
And let us not forget, these guys ride bikes for a living, so they can be much more critical. You or I dont have 5 enduro bikes to ride back to back, we ride one, in isolation and therefore cant nit-pick, or dont have the skills or abilities to notice a .5 degree head angle change on steep whistler gnar.
How about a reverb review that warns you you’ll need half the price again to rebuild it after it starts sagging through shit design?
What about a Shimano brake review that warns you they bleed oil onto your calipers just at the end of warranty
The Reverb thing might or might not have been an issue five years or so ago. Unless you have failure rate numbers I would be lothed to take a handful of people online saying there is an issue as evidence of a wholesale design fault. Most of the relevant threads on here tended to end up with a majority of quiet users having never had issues.
The Shimano issue simply isn't true. You have clearly had a problem but I have never heard anyone complain of that before. I've personally been using Shimano brakes on three different bikes for the last 10+ years (including covering 8,000 miles & 1.5 million ft of elevation over the last 4.5 years) with no inkling of a caliper issue, as have a lot of other people I ride with. There are plenty of brake options out there. If there was a major fault as claimed people wouldn't constantly be recommending and buying them.
I have no interest in road bikes so couldn't comment on that one
The Shimano issue simply isn’t true.
Erm...