[Closed] wmb trail bike of the year...

I saw that, I enjoyed the bit about how good 650b is and we should stop moaning.
I have a 650b and rides just like my 26" bike funnily enough

I've had a suspicion that wmb trail bike of the year is a payday for the publishers paid by the highest bidder,I say this because bikes that have won seem to be the "latest thing".wasn't it a 29er last year?might seem a bit harsh but they also hype up the comp as if it's the definitive test of all mtb's,I get the feeling they're actually covert salesmen

I saw the article but didn't read it, maybe it was explained somewhere but how did bikes scoring 4 stars not get in the top 10 when bikes that scored 3 stars did???

I think that was on price. They reviewed some superbikes, but anything above £3000 didn't make the short list.

You have to factor advertising revenue into the equation

Frankly considering that the entire bike industry's thrown all of its efforts and r&d into 650b bikes for the last couple of years, it'd be astonishing if the best bikes in the world weren't 650b, just from sheer weight of numbers. This year's bikes, by and large, are better than last year's bikes. Course, that doesn't mean they're better because they've got marginally bigger wheels, it means they're better because they're better.

The advertising claim doesn't really seem to bear fruit... Because I'm awesome, I spent a little time looking at the mags and it was pretty obvious that advertising wasn't buying high marks in any of the big 3 mags. There's room to be suspicious of other things- some brands get more coverage than they seem to "deserve", the number of planet x products in future mags was massive frinstance and I don't think it's any shock that mbr covered orange favourably, outright cheating some of their own tests...

I bought the same mag, hadn't realised how far WMB had disappeared up their own backsides.

Did you all notice what a slagging Fox got, across all the tests?

Including the winner.

All the mags seem to hate fox these days (I in fact agree on that one, I've always preferred the feel of rockshox, but that is personal).

Northwind - I agree with you about advertising, but the 650b thing and the complete nonsense about bikes' strengths and weaknesses was a bit much. They made out that if a trail bike didn't have 650b wheels, an exact 67 degree ha and a 10mm stem it was crap. And then went on to award a bike with a rubbish spec (they particularly hated the fox 32 on it) as bike of the year, despite banging on the bike of the year having to be killer value.

So this won, got 4 1/2 stars but the spec is inadequate and the fork rubbish!!!!!

[IMG] [/IMG]

Having not read the mag, I can't see the problem with that test up there.
There are so many similar-riding bikes, that something different (as long as it's good) was bound to stick out.

Surely it's right that frame geometry should trump parts-spec?

Then why did they dismiss the frame only options?

They made out that if a trail bike didn't have 650b wheels, an exact 67 degree ha and a 10mm stem it was crap.

If you banned all measuring of frames and tested them on how they rode it might be better.

Surely it's right that frame geometry should trump parts-spec?

If it is a crappy rear mech, stem etc. then sure, but not something as intrinsic to the performance of the bike, not to mention costly to replace, as the forks.

Then why did they dismiss the frame only options?

If it is a crappy rear mech, stem etc. then sure, but not something as intrinsic to the performance of the bike, not to mention costly to replace, as the forks.

Both valid points 🙂

I guess if they were still faster on that bike, then the fork thing seems a bit odd.
I thought the consensus was that Fox 2014 were perfectly acceptable and it was 2013 that was rubbish.

Seems logical - that the 'overall package' is better than the sum of the parts, because it rides and handles really well, even with the crap fork

isn't how a bike actually rides more important than paper spec? I've ridden plenty of bikes that ticked all the bling boxes, but in reality I didn't like that much!

philfive - Member
Then why did they dismiss the frame only options?

Haven't fully read it yet, but the finalist where not to exceed £3K... the F/O options tested (SC 5010 & intense off-hand) cost £2800 & the eventual winner cost £2799. You really wonder why they dismissed the f/o options?

My own personal conspiracy theory with WhatMTB bike of the year, is that they like to spread the wealth around.. as who-ever wins will sell out asap.

Has anyone ridden a foxy with the new geometry , any good ?

I agree with many of the comments above, it was the contradiction of almost everything they said that I found so ridiculous. They banged on about head angles and actually said that 67 was perfect but 68 was rubbish, but then said that their favourite money no object bike was the Santa Cruz 5010 which has, you guessed it, a 68 head angle! Pure drivel. Still it made me laugh.

The fox forks that are regarded as bad are the Evo spec ones as opposed to the better factory ones.

They picked bikes for the top 10 and tested the under £3000 versions, found a spec issue but still said how good they were. Now these bikes all had expensive options available so why not just test these? Maybe have price groups etc?

[i]Haven't fully read it yet, but the finalist where not to exceed £3K... the F/O options tested (SC 5010 & intense off-hand) cost £2800 & the eventual winner cost £2799. You really wonder why they dismissed the f/o options?[/i]

Er, 'cos for £2800 you only get a frame/shock?

I've read two completely patronising articles in WMB, the gist of which that the public was stupid not to be embracing 650B.

After the Plant X/On One/Future fiasco the previous year, I should have realised how flexable the views of our media are when faced with a determined bike industry.

Not bought WMB since, won't be buying it or MBUK again.

Give the that man a gold star 😀 (@ b r)

Not bought WMB since, won't be buying it or MBUK again.

The problem for "review" type mags is that there really aren't any actually crap bikes any more. Just like in the automotive world with modern cars, the objective differences between bikes is now so vanishingly small it becomes a subjective review by large. As such you get all sorts of mumbo jumbo like "makes the impossible, possible" and such, which really means absolutely nothing.

Hence, the reviews only really make sense in two areas:

1) value for money (how much stuff you get for your cash

and

2) subjective, bang-on-trend, (ie "enduro etc) responses not based on any facts. ie, they like the shape of the frame, or it's colour, or those are my fav handlebars etc

mikewsmith - Member

MBUK is just for 12 year olds, WMB seemed to be for blokes called Derek who drive a Zafira and contemplate if Swindon would be better than Dudley.

Dudley is no where near Swindon!

Actually Swindon, ahem, is near to Dudley......closer to Wombourne mind you 😉

I also love the fact that the top 2 cube and mondraker are not avalible from the surplyers.
Cube out on pretty much all versions of there 650b till 2015 models and if you look on silverfish web page there are no mondraker so for th forseeble 😯

What exactly is a 'trail' bike, and how do you define the best out of all of them?.

Pile of shite. We were talking on the way home from Fort William on the train at the weekend about how surprising it was to see the new YT Capra getting 10/10 on test,

Then noticed the full page YT ad inside the back page.

Nobeerinthefridge - Member

We were talking on the way home from Fort William on the train at the weekend about how surprising it was to see the new YT Capra getting 10/10 on test,

Why is that surprising though? Are you saying that no review can be trusted if the company also advertises in the mag? Considering that advertising's what keeps print media alive, that's tricky.

To be fair, if my bike was being reviewed I'd want to ram home the point by buying some advertising space to go with it.

After the Plant X/On One/Future fiasco the previous year

What fiasco was this, I seem to have missed this?

What got me was the same forks on the bike that won were touted as the bit that ruined every other bike with them fitted. That simply doesn't make sense. (I haven't the article to hand but the very first and lowest scoring bike reviewed had this "issue" I think, yet it didn't seem to matter somehow with the winner's geometry.

Oh and one last thing; don't give away the bloody winner in an article before the actual shootout. Really annoyed me that. Rather than letting me read through, wondering who won, working my way down the list to the final winner with a bit of suspense, it stuck in a piece having to defend their ludicrous decision before they told you who had won. Just smacked of people covering their own arses because they couldn't actually justify all the guff they had written IMO.

@teadrinker- Future pulled a review of a PX bike (Dirty Harry?) from a grouptest because another brand that advertised more had a bike they wanted in the same test. People took that as being "advertising buys test wins" but we never knew whether the other brand one, or whether the PX bike was in the running at all. But still pretty dubious.

But, when you took a step back and discovered that PX were one of the most reviewed brands in the mags, it looked a bit less grim- despite the grumping, PX seem to get more attention than you might reasonably expect (more than high advertisers Orange and Boardman, frinstance)

I just realised that 5010 looks like SOLO.

That is all.

Yep Rocky Mountain made a Solo so the name had to change

The way I read the article, the bumpf at the start was them saying "if we had to predict what sort of bike would win the best beforehand, we'd say 67 degree head angle, these bits, these wheels, etc." That a bike that didn't fit that prediction won the test could be seen as a good thing - at least it proves that they gave the bikes a proper test, rather than just checking their spec sheets and giving each a ride round the car park.

In the Mondraker review I like that they acknowledged the bike's shortcomings then stated that they didn't hold the bike back, rather than just glossing over them and leaving the reader scratching their head as to why the Evo fork was mentioned as a problem on other bikes but not that one.

On the other hand the extent of their conversion to 650b is a bit wearing. It is particularly irritating that for the last few years they told us that the geometry for 29ers was totally sorted and problems like poor low speed handling had been completely fixed yet now 650b is here they say it's solved all those problems that 29ers apparently no longer had!

A magazines sole job is to sell stuff.It's not a hard concept to grasp shirley?

I think whotsisname, Jon Whitehouse is it? His article earlier in the mag showed a bit of kool-aid drinking... Meanwhile Matt is GO 29ERZ

Just reading the big test now, it does feel like they worked from the ride backwards, rather than from the spec forwards. Which, I dunno, I can see the reasoning behind but it does make things very subjective. There's still a couple of oddities, like the Kona- "We think another bike in their range is better". TEST THAT ONE THEN.

A magazines sole job is to sell stuff.It's not a hard concept to grasp shirley?

Except that it isn't. You could argue that it's sole purpose is to make money, through sales of magazines and advertising space but then again, if all you wanted to do was make money you wouldn't run a magazine company!

I saw a chap riding one of those forward geometry mondrakers. He was really struggling to tackle any sized jumps on it, looked very awkward.

A magazines sole job is to sell stuff.It's not a hard concept to grasp shirley?

A catalogue is for selling stuff, a magazine is not.

[i]I saw a chap riding one of those forward geometry mondrakers. He was really struggling to tackle any sized jumps on it, looked very awkward. [/i]

He can't have got his head around it, or just not skilled. One of our guys borrowed one a few weeks ago and he reckoned it was really good, plus he was bloody quick on it (although to be fair he's quick on anything) - in the end though he's bought the Canyon that came 3rd.

Another of our group has had the Cube (that came 2nd) for a while now; I rode it at Innerleithen and was very impressed - just jumped on it and it worked.

a magazine exists to sell itself (and iform and all that other stuff but if it doesn't sell it's in trouble)
it can boost it's revenue (less sales required) from advertising but still needs circulation
the fine line comes with keeping advertising and being honest