[Closed] MBUK or MBR?

Performance Bikes (PB) is a brilliant mag and if a similar MTB mag existed it'd be the one I would buy. I too think STW is dropping in interest levels for me - more technical features have been requested plenty of times on here. The Premier thing also seems to be dying off, very little 'Premier' stuff available. Some of the mag is very good just need to multiply it by three - PB had a relaunch about three years ago and it's been superb since. I am sure if STW towers did a survey of what the subers wanted it might help (as long as the suggestions are acted upon!)

tron - Member
There's a real technical side missing from the bike mags in my view

I agree there is very little in-depth info on bike setup. Nothing venturing beyond "it has a steeper head angle so is more twitchy at speed" type comments which frankly are quite basic.

I bought Dirt regularly earlier this year just for the Luis Arraiz (K9 industries) articles on suspension. And learnt more from a few articles than you can from years with other mags. I do wonder if this is because most bike mag journos don't actually know or understand enough "deep tech" to write about it.

I do wonder if this is because most bike mag journos don't actually know or understand enough "deep tech" to write about it.

I totally agree. I've learned most if not all I sknow about suspension set up from motorcycle mags. Becasue they [i]understand[/i] it and are good at writing about it. What I have seen in MTB mags is a lot of misguided and frankly very poor information pedalled as gospel.

Blmey. I wish I could go back a year and delete that post I made above. All I was trying to say is that I've met a few mountain bike journos over the years and I don't believe any of them are corrupt in the sense that they have a bias towards any of the brands. Mostly they're just articulate, passionate people who love bikes and riding them.

On a tangent, I think it's all too easy to get hung up on technical stuff, but ultimately what matters is how a bike rides and feels and I'd always rather read a test that conveyed that feeling vividly than page after page of the physics behind a particular suspension system... Because, to be honest, no-one goes to, say, the Lakes and rides the Borrowdale Bash and comes back raving about how great their steering head angles were or the physics behind the Maestro linkage.

For me anyway, it's about the riding not about the technology of the kit. All I ask is that it works well. I guess that means I'm not really that bothered about reading bike tests unless I'm actively looking to buy a new bike, but I think the economic mechanics behind most consumer mags mean that there's a pressue on mags to carry a lot of reviews because that's what generates ad revenue and without revenue, there is no magazine. But that's not just bike mags, it's specialist mags across the board.

But anyway.

Nobody raves about the physics and engineering that much, but people do rave about the results. Without a decent understanding of the technical side of things, you are very much in the writer & marketing department's hands, particularly with things like suspension, where various technologies (often fairly well known in motorised circles) are given daft acronyms.

I totally agree. I've learned most if not all I sknow about suspension set up from motorcycle mags. Becasue they understand it and are good at writing about it. What I have seen in MTB mags is a lot of misguided and frankly very poor information pedalled as gospel.

I agree and what has been written is written very poorly. More often than not there will be a 3 page spread on how to clean your bike or mend a puncture!

Maybe they are aiming at different audience. But at least explaining what the dials on the forks do would be easy. But I have NEVER seen a good article.

The physics behind a particular suspension system are the reason a bike rides and feels how it does. I don't think a bike test is the place to go into it, a dedicated article would be more useful.

It would help people to see the compromises made in different suspension designs and then understand how this affects the ride and subsequently which is most suited to them.

I am sure if STW towers did a survey of what the subers wanted it might help (as long as the suggestions are acted upon!)

We had a survey in the mag just a couple of months ago.. Would you be upset to learn that the general consensus was to NOT include more tech features?

The Premier comments interest me. There's 44 copies of the mag available to premier digital users (including the next year's worth). Plus access to other content and the ability to reduce the ads on the page from 9 to 3 and the discount scheme. Now I know that each of those features my not be of interest to everyone but if they are then surely for less than 5p/day that's not bad?

deep tech is impossible to convey through the pages of a bike mag..

People go to college to learn engineering principals.. you can't pick it up through a three page article.. and attempting to convey anything in that space is pointless and can only ever be confusing and frustrating at best.. the only people likely to reap even a modicum of benefit will be folk with an engineering background AND an interest in the minutae of technology and that's a pretty exclusive club..

Even a regular feature will only give a tiny glimpse at the science before having to rush on to the next topic leaving unanswered questions and misunderstood concepts..

A general MTB magazine is not the time or place IMO..

+1

deep tech is impossible to convey through the pages of a bike mag..

Poppycock. It's only impossible if the writer is crap. That's just an excuse for not trying.

Again, go read 'Bike' motorbike mag. They'll go into stuff like the physics of cornering, how tyres react in racing, strip a well used engine and go through it with a fine tooth comb. There's parallels in the cycling world too, but nobody ever has the balls to write about them, they just churn out the same old ride/review/interview dross every month.

MBR ran a few "deep tech" articles a little while ago, pages and pages of arty/sciency drawings of bikes with angles and lengths and things marked out, in depth talk about their favourite topic of head angles and you know what - it was unspeakably dull. And I'm interested in that sort of thing; science background, engineering etc.

Partly it was as PeterPoddy says, badly written. But mostly it was down to what yunki says above, the pages of a magazine aren't the place to try to explain things like that to a wide audience.

deep tech is impossible to convey through the pages of a bike mag..

Take a look at the Science series run in Dirt mag. It's highly informative and easy to understand.

I agree this is not what most of the Singletrack readership want to read about.

the pages of a magazine aren't the place to try to explain things like that to a wide audience.

Yes they are. If that had been an interesting well written article, you'd be here raving about it and backing me 100%.

You don't have to use big words and confuse people, the skill is in making something that is alien to most people into an informative article that informs them: Brain food, not brain fade.

Latest MBR gives the Pitch Pro a 10/10 review which will amuse the conspiracy theorists!

Then again, it's widely regarded as a 10/10 bike so no harm done.

They'll go into stuff like the physics of cornering, how tyres react in racing,

Good grief! How dull!

I have a physics degree BTW.. Think I could write up a knowledgeable article on this.. hang on! Oh I already have.. Ironically published in MBUK over 10 years ago when I was a freelancer doing a grouptest on tyres 🙂

So Peter.. Are you ever going to accept our offer to have you up here for a day or two at the office to see how we do things? All on us. All expenses paid.. Local nice B&B.. food beer the lot?

Then maybe when you next launch your regular attack on what we do here you may be able to do so from an actual POV of knowing something about what we do, what we know and who we are.

It's a genuine offer.. Made to several people in the past and never once taken up.

How about it Peter? Will you be our guest?

I agree with PP about Bike mag.
After beginning to lose interest in stw in general Mark was one of the key reasons I cancelled my sub.

😳 I like MBUK more than MBR ( get a sub as gift a christmas from my wifes parents and thats very kind so I wot look a gift horse in the mouth,) But I do think that MBUK is on the up again now.

However, I never understand the specialized is crap sh!t that comes up on here so often they are really really good bikes, the demo, enduro and pitch are great bikes.

I really enjoy the travel bits in the mag the yak attack article was amazing, I look for the blame the dog bit to read first really enjoy it, I really like the single page articles apart form the musical one wasnt for me.

Either way, there is a limited amount of stuff you can review write about in the mags, come sept / oct we will be reading about lights and mud tyyres around christmas it will be sunny get aways the summer will be dry weather tyres and next years bikes!

I do really enjoy dirt stw but i accept that some months they will not be as good as others thats just how it is eh!?!

I think is good that you can talk to the writer and staff on the mag on the fourm however.

Mark, If I give you a good slagging, can I get a pass for the office and meet you guys, ride a few bikes and get free beer please!?!?!?!?!?!?!I'll even spot you guys a beer or two!??

Mark, don't take it personally. Maybe Peter used some harsh words but the fundamental message was constructive.

I still think that Singletrack's audience would appreciate a more detailed/technical review from time to time. Like your review of tyres you mentioned.

The physics behind a particular suspension system are the reason a bike rides and feels how it does. I don't think a bike test is the place to go into it, a dedicated article would be more useful.

It would help people to see the compromises made in different suspension designs and then understand how this affects the ride and subsequently which is most suited to them.

Sorry, all this deep tech stuff is bobbins. You don't need to know how a car's engine works to drive it. You don't have to understand the workings of a router to connect to the internet and you don't have to understand how your bike's suspension works to enjoy riding it. Most of that stuff is unspeakably dull and you don't even have to know it to choose between different bikes, you just need to know how they feel like to ride and whether they're likely to suit your riding style.

Some people find all that technical guff interesting and yes, it's good to know how to, say, set up suspension, but that's a different thing altogether.

I find Dirt can sometimes be a little too glossy and short of constructive reviews, but the long running tech series explaining pivot placement was excellent. More of this please.

As for the others, MBR takes itself quite seriously and seems to like brands with an "S" or "G" in their name while MBUK overdoes the marketing to a silly degree.

Mint Sauce rocks though.

MBR has improved I think. I've bought a couple of issues and they've had a redesign I think, plus the features have been interesting and the reviews not quite so self-absorbed.

MBUK is still pretty good IMO, lots to read about all aspects of MTBing. Main negative comment is too much about the journos, or the "wrecking crew" as they probably like to spray on underpasses around Bath (if Bath has underpasses).

Not sure what to say about ST as I know the team read these threads and (rightly) take them personally. It just seems like it might be having a bit of an identity crisis to me.

Perhaps there's a little too much reflection of the writers' lifestyles and not enough of the readers' lifestyles? I know there are often negative comments on here about the seemingly repetitive articles on bivvying/losing the flow and getting it back/how wonderful Calderdale is.

But saying that, it does appear that efforts have been made to sharpen up the content and source contributions from more writers.

Still well worth the asking price anyway, IMO.

We had a survey in the mag just a couple of months ago.. Would you be upset to learn that the general consensus was to NOT include more tech features?

You survey your readers, and you find out what your readers think they want. People can be very bad at knowing what they want, and you don't find out anything about the people who aren't currently reading the mag.

There are plenty of case studies of businesses who had loads of info on what their customers wanted, and were suddenly blown away by someone providing a product the customers didn't know they wanted until they saw it.

As for not needing to know how your car works to drive it, as a rule, they arrive ready to drive. Bikes tend to have a lot of adjustments to make, and the owner often changes large components.

I like the fact that ST don't seem to be bothered about sucking up to the corporate spin machine most of the time. It's refreshing and make it very easy to forgive articles that aren't usually of interest.

If only Jo Burt were to defect...

How about it Peter? Will you be our guest?

Bluff calling eh? 😉

I'd love to. 🙂
I'd be embarrased if you paid for anything though because my brother lives in Huddersfield which isn't far away from you is it? I could stay with him.
One problem though - I have no spare holiday until next year now.

Good grief! How dull!

It's not though. Not when it's well written. It's down to the skill of the writer to make a potentially dull subject interesting: Think Prof Brian Cox!
I've actually tried writing an article myself, but I'm blooming USELESS at it. Why? because I'm not knowledgeable enough.....
Tell you what I could bung some old issues of 'Bike' in the post to you so you can see what I mean.
It just seems to me that MTB mags (All of them) seem to be stuck in a rut, when there's so much more to write about.

I'd stop buying ST if it suddenly became full of technical bobbins. and I love the "not written by a bike juorno" stuff because it's mountain bikers talking about what they love, and that's always much more interesting than say an exploded view of the insides of a telescopic suspension fork...

Dirt did do some technical stuff a few months ago, carefully explaining suspension placement and what not and whilst it wasn't terminally dull (i.e. I could actually finish reading it) it's done nothing to forward my enjoyment of mountain biking, and I can't remember any of it really now, but I can still recall any number of pieces from ST that have caught my imagination.

Bloody hell... If someone offered me a day at STW Towers (and I'm going to be in Todmorden for a few days next month) then I'd take their hand off and make the bloody tea while I was there.

As for not needing to know how your car works to drive it, as a rule, they arrive ready to drive. Bikes tend to have a lot of adjustments to make, and the owner often changes large components.

Why are you people so determined to make riding bikes seem so ridiculously complicated? You can just buy a bike and ride it. You can adjust tyre pressures without understanding about tyre construction. You can adjust a fork to suit your riding without knowing anything about the internal workings of dampers. And you can pedal without understanding the pros and cons of various bottom bracket types. Bikes are beautiful and simple and basic, why try to turn them into such a complete headf***? I don't get it.

Wot he said.

Whilst bike geeks may get some satisfaction discussing endlessly BB sizes or the merits of various suss forks, for most of us it's largely irrelevant.

I like the level of tech info in STW, good example being the Trek review by Matt which is linked here:

http://www.singletrackworld.com/2010/07/trek-2011-part-one-fuel-ex/

DRCV Rear Shock /Trek Custom Fork

Both the Fuel and the Remedy use the Trek-only DRCV shock. The best way to think of this is as two shocks but in one elongated canister – The inital part of the shock is basically the same as a standard RP23 shock so all of your small bumps and ripples are coped with here. As the shock moves into 50% of its travel, the second part of the shock opens (the part above the linkage and Pro-Pedal lever) and allows what is effectivley a larger volume air spring to take control of the bigger hits. As you return back into the inital part of the travel the second chamber closes and you’re back with a “normal” shock. This is all instantaneous in use and you can’t feel it transition between the smaller and larger volume whilst riding at all.

It gives you enough info to know what it does without bogging down with the details of how it works internally.

Peter.. That's great! It's a genuine offer and we should sort something out as soon as you are able to plan a day or two. Get in touch with me when you can and I'll sort the rest out 🙂

"You don't need to know how a car's engine works to drive it."

True. But driving is rather more interesting when have an inkling why your car behaves as it does. [but don't ask me, I'm no expert]

Machines of all kinds are extremely interesting. A car has hundreds of moving parts that collectively produce its performance. They way they work together embodies the vision and spirit of the designer. But you are only interested in the steering wheel?

MBUK (strange vibe detected in MBR).

Bicycles aren't cars

When I happened upon Singletrack a few years back I LOVED the fact it wasn't weighed down by reviews - techy or not - and I LOVED the travel articles. I'd "done" the other mags, reading endless reviews to eventually settle on my "dream bike" and all I wanted was to read about riding and not how my dream bike was now "old hat".

Roll on a couple of years and it is still my fave but for me a combination of MBUK and ST would suit me best. What MBUK does well is cover the scene and the personalities which I find more interesting than the latest suspension technology. Whilst I will never in a million years compete in the downhill World Cup or Slopestyle, I like to read that actually our GB boys and girls are pretty bloomin' good. MBUK is the mag I read to get me hyped up for Fort William each year for example.

On the downside MBUK is as guilty as any of rehashing old articles. If I can offer some constructive criticism to anyone listening from STW towers, ST is getting a little bit like that. For example Mike Ferrentino seems to be saying the same thing every few issues, but using different words. The travel articles are also either too short when contributed or too heavily edited. What I really appreciated about ST is that the travel articles spanned a few pages and had a bit more depth than most other mags. They've got much shallower and shorter.

So, not sure if my opinion will make any difference, but thought I'd say my piece. I hope - if read - this is taken as constructive criticism, but if you do take offence I'd love to come up and see what you do/have a ride/have a drink 😉

I have a physics degree BTW.. Think I could write up a knowledgeable article on this.. hang on! Oh I already have.. Ironically published in MBUK over 10 years ago when I was a freelancer doing a grouptest on tyres

shame it didn't come in useful with the infamous "Blue Groove/ Nevegal" tyre review a few years back .... 😉

I bought the odd mag, subscribed, stopped, bought the odd mag and now lift of the shelf at WHSmiths flip through for 10secs and put down, if I thought that anything inside would be worth the money I'd buy it, but sadly no

but they are not going bust so there must be others replacing me, buying the mag

I think there is plenty to cover that isn't, plenty of niches to exploit that aren't and eventually someone will start a small mag, trawl it around all the events they can and slowly build a brand and readership doing just that....

deep tech is impossible to convey through the pages of a bike mag..

I'd have to disagree. Even the most complex linkages are still extremely simple engineering as are forks shocks and gearing. Given 'modern' (Which have been around for decades but are somehow the latest thing when it comes to bikes) materials I reckon the ancient greeks or at the very least the victorians could have cooked up some great bikes. There's a lot of hyperbolic nonsense as I'm sure we're all aware to try and make refinements of simple technology look futuristic and revolutionary.
I can't see how the simple explanation of how a component or frame is slightly better than its preceeding design can be beyond our understanding. We understand cars, aeroplanes, rockets and computers to some extent so a humble full suss surely can't be that much of a dark art?

 

"You don't need to know how a car's engine works to drive it."

True. But driving is rather more interesting when have an inkling why your car behaves as it does. [but don't ask me, I'm no expert]

Machines of all kinds are extremely interesting. A car has hundreds of moving parts that collectively produce its performance. They way they work together embodies the vision and spirit of the designer. But you are only interested in the steering wheel?

Why are you people so determined to make riding bikes seem so ridiculously complicated? You can just buy a bike and ride it. You can adjust tyre pressures without understanding about tyre construction. You can adjust a fork to suit your riding without knowing anything about the internal workings of dampers. And you can pedal without understanding the pros and cons of various bottom bracket types. Bikes are beautiful and simple and basic, why try to turn them into such a complete headf***? I don't get it.

:-/

Why are you people so determined to make riding bikes seem so ridiculously complicated?

For me, understanding how stuff works is about two things. The first is getting the most out of the cash I spend on bike bits. The second is not having to rely on marketing bull and reviewer's opinions too heavily.

You see threads on here where people don't know basics like the difference between progressive & linear springing, how oil heights & weights affect a fork etc. Any adjustments then become trial and error, whereas a bit of knowledge means you can make educated guesses and get to a good result much more quickly and easily. Nobody ever (publicly) seems to look at things like wheel rate on bikes, whilst it's pretty key to how the suspension works.

And, as others have said, the kit that's being sold to us as super duper high tech, just invented at our secret hollowed out mountain lair, is very often motorbike or car technology from 30 years ago with a fancy name. It's generally not complex. It just becomes complex when the only info that's commonly available is third hand and mixed up with marketing gibberish.

I understand perfectly well that people are interested in the workings of machinery, but as I said before, bikes are essentially simple things and you don't need to know all that stuff either to ride them or even to set them up to work well for you. Simple. Why not just leave it at that.

I don't have to understand how a damper works to set the rebound on my fork to work well any more than I have to understand how a television works to watch a film on it. All I need to know is that turning the knob one way slows it down and the other speeds it up.

But there you go. And this forum is all about spending money on bits and **** all to do with riding.

Machines of all kinds are extremely interesting

personally.. I spat coffee all over the screen when I read this comment..

I would put many things higher on the list.. life.. folk.. nature.. girls.. art.. music.. riding.. fun..

HOWEVER.. the arguments being presented are slowly starting to sway me.. I am particularly militant when it comes to being disintrested and distrustful of technology.. but maybe it's simply because I don't understand it well enough..

Bring on the greasy oil stained mechanical journal.. lovingly crafted and shoehorned in between the pages of my favourite mag with a large dollop of copperslip..
I shall don my much maligned Fred Dibnah persona and do my best to learn about wheel rate..

In view of all of the grumbling and moaning why don't STW have a blind poll (no leading questions or directionality to remove bias)?

There would be 2 questions over 3 areas:

What would you like to see more of in the mag/website/premier.

What would you like to see less of in the mag/website/premier.

Each person can put up to 3 things for each category. The results could be collated and published on line for all to see. STW can act on it if they desire and we can see what has been said and would help to put opinions in the minority/majority views when threads like this occur.

FWIW I like most of the mags (STW, MBUK, Dirt, etc) at some time or another over the year (MBR excepted). Some issues I find dull, others the pics are great, others the articles are great.

The only constant is that there are never enough tyre reviews......

I don't care about tech. As far as I'm concerned, the 'tech' gets in the way of riding. I used to be well into it, changing tyres left right and centre, fiddling with suspension and worrying about geometry. It ruined riding for me. I don't want to descend thinking about how the bike works. I just want to ride.

I read singletrack because it has 'features', not just endless repetitions of the same articles like the all the other acronym-titled mags. (Dirt definitely excluded here!)

You've articles from loads of people about things all over the world. Iditarod, trails across Australia, Yak attack. You've got stuff on rights of way, 'fish out of water' stuff, speedway. The £100 challenge.

Personally, that's why I read it - because it makes me want to ride, not cream myself over what my bike's made of.

Favourite mags? Dirt/ST/The Ride. I like the photography, race reports and wide spread of articles in dirt - I may not read them all, but there's always something I like.

MBUK's alright, but I've already read what they're going to say 50 times.

MBR's generally less good, although I'm gradually reaching the conclusion that Danny Milner is one of the best mtb 'writers' in the UK at the moment.

The problem with writing tech articles though is that most people will not be interested (or not bother because they think they won't understand) and the people who are interested will probably know it already and then pick holes in it!
Same with things like the physics of cornering (as mentioned above). I don't go into a corner thinking about angles, inertia, rate of rebound etc in the same way as when I fly I don't worry about the airflow over the wings. It just happens.

On the other hand an article like "how to corner faster" featuring Nigel Page is far more likely to be relevant to the majority of readers

So Peter.. Are you ever going to accept our offer to have you up here for a day or two at the office to see how we do things? All on us. All expenses paid.. Local nice B&B.. food beer the lot?
Then maybe when you next launch your regular attack on what we do here you may be able to do so from an actual POV of knowing something about what we do, what we know and who we are.
It's a genuine offer.. Made to several people in the past and never once taken up.

That's a very generous offer, but you can't do that for every current or potential reader. If you have to understand "how we do things" to enjoy the magazine through a guided tour then I think you're missing the point! 99.999% read the magazine and don't go to your offices, and also probably don't come on here.

I don't think PP is "attacking" you. He's just giving an honest opinion based on evidence that what he thinks might work for you does work at another magazine.

Bikes are beautiful and simple and basic, why try to turn them into such a complete headf***? I don't get it.

beautiful, yes. Basic? Most of the time but that's less so every year!!

I personally don't like Rapha stuff and the like, but I just read the Rouleur TDF mag (small book?) and was gobsmacked at how good it was. Photos, writing the best I have ever seen in 20+ years of buying cycling mags. AND Jo Burt stuff!! What's not to like?

We had a survey in the mag just a couple of months ago.. Would you be upset to learn that the general consensus was to NOT include more tech features?

It doesn't upset me but just makes me think I need to look elswhere for what I would like to read. If you can do a pretty large article on rock climbing surely its not to much to ask that you cover something a bit more techy and actually bike related!

Personally, that's why I read it - because it makes me want to ride, not cream myself over what my bike's made of.

+1

beautiful, yes. Basic? Most of the time but that's less so every year!!

All right, the [b]experience[/b] of riding bikes is basic and primal, which is why it's ace and that has little to do with the technology involved. It was just as ace when bikes were rigid and heavy - it's about the ride, not the bike.

I guess what I'm trying to say - drags things back to mag articles - is that I want to read inspirational articles with stunning photography about riding, and riding in beautiful places, and the quirky things that make cycling what it is, and the extraordinary things and people and feats that inspire and bring colour into a monochrome world. And for me anyway, all those things are way more important than technology and that's it.

But I guess if bikes, for you, are about wheel rates and damper construction - wow, did you feel the way my dual chamber, rising rate, rear suspension dealt with that high speed undulation - then that's fair enough too. But the only article I want to read about it, is one that somehow links the two convincingly, but actually, most people who pore over technical details are so far into it, that they can't quite step far back enough to do that. In my experience anyway. Maybe it needs a view from the outside...

I think that's the issue really, the quality of the writing for a tech article needs to be very high, to link the tech with the riding experience in an informative AND interesting way. Perhaps the reason why so many people are turned off by the tech stuff is because no one has done it well, and often, enough to make it work on a regular basis.

I don't think the techy side and the "soul" side of MTB should be mutually exclusive. Surely there's always a degree of preparation for every ride, cleaning and adjusting and fettling. This doesn't mean you are thinking about it on the trail. If your technical knowledge is improved then the ride enjoyment is more likely to be increased as you can (can't believe I'm saying this) make yourself more "at one" with the bike - man an machine working together in harmony as you've tailored the bike to your riding (I think I need to get the sick bucket out but doesn't mean I don't mean it!).
So there surely must be space for a techy article in each mag ALONGSIDE the riding stuff and all the other articles? Not to contrast but to complement each other.

EDIT. I've been to STW towers myself. Great coffee but their mums would ground them if they saw how untidy it was...... 😉

But I guess if bikes, for you, are about wheel rates and damper construction

Bikes are for riding. No question about it. I view fettling as a necessary evil, much the same as I do working on the car. That's one of the reasons I like to have some technical knowledge.

As an example, I've got bought some pretty basic second hand forks. I took them out for their first ride, and they bottomed out pretty heavily at one point. Now, even with a very basic fork, I have rebound speed to adjust, oil weight, oil height and air pressure. I could mess about with all four in a trial and error way until I had the work working reasonably well, or a bit of technical knowledge would provide me with a massive shortcut to getting the fork working properly.

Or on the other hand, if you're looking for new forks, wouldn't it be better to know what technology each company is using, rather than their "brand" names for the technology? That way you could have some hope of an objective comparison rather than working from reviews and a test ride if you're lucky. Even the non-technical car mags manage some of this - BMW's Z-axle is a multilink, V-tec is a variable cam setup etc.

Almost every industry has this - an attempt to brand stuff as unique and proprietary, but most don't swallow the marketing department's guff whole.

As was pointed out somewhere far above, there is a disconnect between what people SAY they want to read and what they actually do read.

In my line of work I'm always hearing that people don't want to read about Katie Price - "why don't you do more stories about somethign worthwhile like the Middle East problem?" - but believe you me, they'd MUCH rather look at a picture of Jordan's norks.

I suspect the same is true of "deep tech" articles, a vocal minority want them. Others agree because it sounds like the sort of thing they'd like to think they were interested in - but some nice reviews or a well-written travel/adventure feature would actually be far more popular.

I think DrDoolitle had a point several pages ago, MTBing is a sport, not a lifestyle.

Like motorcycling, MTBings core protagonists seem to be middle aged, middle class men who have the time and the disposable income to spend on a hobby which involves buying expensive things then dragging them through the mud and rocks until they break. Very little links them other than (from what this forum would seem to imply) having kids or a car.

Any attempt to be a skate, surf or BMX mag’ immediately makes your market much more niche, so whilst it fosters an heir of brotherhood it does ironically exclude a much greater proportion of a potential readership. STW tries to prevent this by (from what I can gather) letting a number of its readers write for it by publishing a great number of one of pieces that appear to be one offs on a specific subject (although I'm not sure how many times I can read about how falling off / dirt jumping/4X is more scary for middle aged men than teenagers). But does in turn shoot itself in the foot by therefore excluding that niche which are looking for bright colours and fast moving images.

MBR, I got fed up with the repetition – “Oh it’s the dirty dozen again!”, now here’s three months worth of articles all aimed at new riders.
That and the time time I sent in my idea for the “Top tips” style bit of the tech pages only to find my idea appear months later with the phrase “well this is the first time someone’s sent this in” but not naming me just someone with the same initials and first name. Grmp grmp grmp (Please don't sue me for slander though MBR).

All in all though, I can’t afford to buy any mags these days so I don’t really care.

If you can do a pretty large article on rock climbing

I thought that article was a bit short! As a bit of a climber I was looking forward to reading it but it didn't really go anywhere. I want longer articles in ST. That's what [s]makes [/s] made it different from the others I read

MBUK
Short ,sweet and no 3 page rant

Roleur TDF mag/book has set a new benchmark, writing, photo's, layout, it's all stunning. STW should take note, as it makes me think it is what STW was trying to do when it was launched. I think STW is still good but has lost it's way a bit since it's become more successful.

I know most forum readers have an aversion to trendy London fixies, but has anyone picked up Fixed magazine? It's a free [paid for by advertising mag]. Thought it was really good, a bit in the spirit of Vice mag.

Publishing is changing and Vice blows the balls off any other 'lifestyle' type mag out there, Although it's free and paid for by ad's, It's probably more objective than most mag's we buy that are full of ad's anyway.

Don't want to come down too heavy on the UK bike mags, they're all o.k. really. Have you ever seen the U.S. French, German, Italian stuff? we're spoilt in comparison. Just think that it's time to move things on a bit.

I agree, and I always thought that a french version of ST will work pretty well.

I read mags for inspiration firstly so enjoy non tech articles that make me want to get out and ride and secondly for product reviews as biking kit is pretty expensive and it's good to know what it can and cannot do.

I'd like to see more tech stuff, but not in ST which is more about the experience/aesthetics of riding

MBR had some good articles a few years ago with timed laps of HT vs FS, trying adding weight to different components to see effects on speeds, proper analysis of shock behaviour etc. All seems to have gone again and we are back to the whole dirty dozen -> mud tyres -> lights grouptest -> new years kit -> dirty dozen cycle that we know so well. But I get with tesco vouchers so who cares.

I'd buy MBUK more but am too old and have enough free pairs of socks.

1.MBUK
2.MBR
3.WMB
4.Dirt
5.Action MB
after reading last singletrack,i wont be buying again. 😳

Why, what was wrong with it?

QUOTE:
#
IvanDobski - Member

Why, what was wrong with it?
Posted 6 minutes ago # Report-Post
UNQUOTE

Did you see the cover?

The tyre logos weren't aligned with the valve caps.

for me the bible would have been a better read,just gone downhill over last year,Dirt now fills the gap for me,even thou i dont own a downhill bike!