Forum menu
ST is my tipple of choice.
pretty pictures and acticles that make me want to be in tibet/yorkshire/some other equally far flung hell hole.
MBUK keep it real though.
not up thier own arses, and they dont seem to care what anyone thinks of them.
happy to talk about cheap stuff as much as top end unaffordable stuff in equal amounts.
nothing to prove, and dont pander to a specific audience.
which can make them appear a kids magazine to 29er SS riding, hip flask swigging, ST tossers 😉
I like STW and Dirt, both together read quite well, review the type of kit I like and tend to have interesting stories. Thought STW missed a trick with the £100 bike article - it could have been so much better, should have tested over more than one ride and on varying disciplines, like taken it down a downhill track (inners for example) and round some trail centres as well as a "normal" xc ride.
Might buy MBUk as I used to and got sick of little content and lots of adverts - still on the whole magazines need more kit reviews - I like them.
I've got a short attention span . . .
so it's MBUK for me!
Dirt on occasion, more for the design and pics than anythin else.
I haven't brought MBR or WMB for years.
Although hats off to WMB their very first issue was laboured over intensively and I purchased my first MTB because of it.
I subscribe to Singletrack, MBR & Dirt. I buy MBUK pretty regularly.
I've had an MBR subscription since, well, they used to have breasts in it (a long time ago) but I'm planning to ditch it in favour of MBUK. MBR has been dumbing down so much over the past couple of years, and the 'Technical' article a few months ago on 'How to Change a Puncture' (I'm not joking) where they only actually told readers how to change a tube, put the tin lid on it. When I read the letters page I simply can't believe there are so many thick mountain bikers out there, AND there's a magazine aimed at them!
I'd say...
Singletrack for those who enjoy the simple pleasure of riding a bike with just the right amount of humour and reviews thrown in.
Dirt for awesome photography, race reports, real-world kit reviews and occasional thought-provoking writing.
MBUK for fun, and articles about the way we either ride, or would like to be able to ride, these days.
I love reading bike mags.
[i]articles that make me want to be in tibet/yorkshire/some other equally far flung hell hole.[/i]
Tibet - Yorkshire comparison. Something to be proud of right? 😉
The £100 bike was part of the One Ton weekend challenge series rather than a "sh*tbike challenge" which Bike are currently doing.
Bike magazines have to appeal to a wide range of readers. So there is bound to be something you don't get/like/find interesting.
i think its all the photographs dave 😉
they manage to make what are possibly the dullest rides look "radd to the maxx" with some nice camera angles and catching the light at the right moment.
either way, they always have a "wish you were here" feel about them.
HOW COME no ones yet mentioned Mint Sauce?!*
(*they may have done, and ive just not read the thread that thoroughly)
You know there are no dull rides in Calderdale (excluding the Mary Towneley) ja?
😉
I subscribe to ST and WMB. However the question was MBUK or MBR. Well personally I found MBR OK as long as you engage an "MBR filter". They have very specific ideas about what they like but once you know what they are then you can adjust for them and there'll generally be something interesting in it somewhere. I do with they'd publish top tube lengths in their bike reviews, though.
I haven't read MBUK in a while but when I last did I found that there were a lot of articles that I just wasn't interested in. So it was effectively a smaller magazine for me than it could be. The bits I liked seemed pretty good, though, and it has Mint Sauce.
You're right though, they all fall into the trap of cuddling up to the brands that give 'em nice shiny stuff to keep (sorry, review)
I'm a journo, not a mountain bike one, but I know a few quite well, and I can tell you that after the first 20 or so free wotnots, the lure of the free wotnot is substantially reduced. How many wotnots do you think any one person needs, be they bikes, Gore-Tex underpants, free cameras or whatever.
Once you have a spare room buried in wotnots, the offer of yet more of them isn't quite the seductive lure it would be to a normal punter.
Sorry to be brutal, but that's how it is. Mountain bike journos aren't short of bikes, they change them like they change their underpants, and getting a free one or some flash component makes no real odds to most of them.
As for the advertising = good reviews thing. How would you feel if I basically accused you of being corrupt without any firm evidence? Amusingly, were I to do that, you could sue me for libel. Hmmm...
MBUK subscriber for 4 years now. I dabbled with MBR and WMB for a while but usually only bought them if there was an article that held particular interest for me. If i'm honest, MBR is just boring. At the time I found STW a bit too 'niche'.
Nowadays I swap my MBUKs for my mates STW and find the balance between the two just right. I do think that STW has had to move with times a little. There appears to be more 'mainstream' articles in there appealing to a wider range of readers.
The articles in this months MBUK (ex. learn how to freeride) will probably be repeated in 12 months time, just different pics and bikes, but I can handle that. Otherwise it is very up to date with everything that is going on.
MBUK, they used to be shoddy and just in the dark ages with cr@p like riders other halves nude.. and other tosh, but now the forward look on new products the test rides and technical are all pretty good, they also test a wide range i.e £500 hardtails, £2k hardtails, xc racing sussers, DH bikes, All Mountain etc there have been a few surprise ones i would not have expected them to do i.e Duster Ti, Intense 5.5, few from Bionicon, etc All in all I quite like it now, and some reports i.e From the meaga were very god as they looked at it from 3 riders experiences. there is nothing missing and every month is a change. Im quite surprised, sadly a lot of people slate it but have not read it since the editor changed a while back!!
PP - I don't think they are biased either (s'what I meant by [i]"I can imagine Spesh bikes are bloody good"[/i] and having biased in quotes)
I've seen a couple of lovely Scott Endorphins actually 🙂
Somfin funny about MBR, not sure what, just don't like it.
MBUK is OK, esp. as it covers the breadth of MTBing styles. It colourful and fun and available.
ST seems to have the best content for the contemporary, reflective cycling gentleman (I subscribe).
MBUK - has become broader recently and has loads to read have just subsribed
Also subscribe to STW - like that STW is different and now has some more reviews of kit.
MBR - not as much content or variety and seems to be aimed at trail centres and beginners haven;t read it for ages
DIRT - used to subscribe - some good articles and excellent photos but I am not a downhiller - still occasional purchase for World cuo coverage.
MBR has an editorial policy which I find is at odds with why I ride. They are snobbish about certain bikes, hardtails to them, for instance are pretty much only good for Winter Hack Bikes, if you only read it I think you'd only be vaguely aware of things like 29ers or Singlespeeds. It's too mainstream, too blinkered. I suspect it's market are people that ride in pads at trail centres on 5" full sussers. Which is fine, it's just not me.
WMB is OK(ish), the errors do annoy me, it seems to have lost it's way. When it started it was determinedly a review mag, now it's just another opinions mag.
MBUK, is just what it is, a general mountain bike magazine, it's the Cornflakes of the bike mag world, it'll do the job for a train journey.
STW I like, I like the humour, I like the real world tests, I like the style, I like the fact my missus will read it, I like that the contributors aren't necessarily bike journos, just inspired to write.
Dirt. Again I like, mostly because it doesn't seem to want to sell me stuff every other page, I like the WC coverage, and it gives me a window into a world (jumpy DH 4X etc) that I'm only vaguely connected with otherwise. I like the style, I like the way it doesn't take it's self too seriously.
MBR tells you what sort of bike to ride.
MBUK tells you what sort of baseball cap to wear.
Singletrack tells you what whisky to drink after a ride.
Joking aside, Singletrack's the only one I subscribe to, because the techy side of mountain biking doesn't appeal to me. That said, MBR's been a lot better since it was revamped last year.
I don't particularly like MBUK, but that's probably an age thing. It is pretty good at hitting its target market, so each to their own.
What do you consider it's 'target market' though? Judging by the amount of people in this thread that do read it I reckon it's pretty much got everyone covered. BTW, i'm 37 but still think I am part of that target market.
Ive dropped both recently.... same time as I cut back on buying bling...
MBR suits my type of riding, long, hard and high. Like the reviews but hate how they all give Specialized bikes so much praise.
And agree with the snobs comments.
MBUK have blown so much smoke up Steve Peats arse I am surprised we cant see him from where we sit. I would be surprised if he doesn't own shares in them. Plus, they are the Max Power of the bike world.
(How many pages have they dedicated to bikeradar live)?
WMB is just another branded copy of MBUK with the same old rubbish with a different splash of colour and writters. I hate the way they swap reviews with MBUK so one month you get the same stuff as th previous month MBUK. They have gone from a review mag that was actually very good to rubbish.
Dirt is not for me.
STW, i ahve read a few copies but it has not grabbed me yet.
And im 28.
It apppears Dirt and MBUK are from the publisher. This month both mags seem to review the same bikes. I'm therefore tempted to ditch buying one of them. Since I subscribe to Dirt but not MBUK, if I do ditch 1 it will be MBUK.
However, aside from the bike reviews this month you couldn't tell they are from the same publisher. I like the content of both. Dirt being the broadsheet and MBUK being the tabloid. So I'll probably continue to buy both.
I sub to STW and Bike, I've bought MBUK since issue one, I like Dirt a lot, their photography is top notch, and they have really interesting features. Their copy-proofing, or lack thereof drives me nuts! I'm seriously thinking of contacting them, as I know Ed from his time at my LBS, and asking them to send me PDF page proofs and I'll copy check for them. It really lets the mag down. MBR is much too biased, their snobbish attitude to 29er's and h/tails fails to reflect what goes on in the real world, eg my LBS selling five 29er's in one week recently.
MBR have some great service guides like servicing reba's. 😀
Rest of it bores me.
WTB is a good read. 😀
MBUK is ok 😐
Cycling weekly has good nutrition guides. 😀
Cycling plus-fave so far. 😀
Single is ok too. 🙂
Bike Radar-pretty good. 😀
Better to go and ride?
I read most of 'em... But MBR is undeniably rotten.
The problem is, mountainbiking isn't like skateboarding or surfing. A skateboard mag can represent a whole culture (music,literature, art,"counter culture fashion",even politics to a degree) associated with a late teens age group. It's a different demographic reading mountainbike mags. Yes there are mountain biking teens interested in a lifestyle publication, but let's be honest, mountainbiking does not have the same readership (look at the forums), and while it is just as much fun, it does not have the same depth or strength of associated culture (IMO).
A surf mag or a skate mag can almost sell itself on the quality of the photography, as anyone who grew up reading R.A.D. or Thrasher can attest to. A new trick or an old trick in a new location in a skate mag will be pored over endlessly by an obsessed teen, but mountainbiking isn't really about tricks, or pictures. The experience doesn't really translate well in photos in a magazine, well not in the same way that skateboarding does.
I suppose I'm trying to suggest that it's pretty difficult to go beyond product reviews and pictures of rural landscapes.
MBUK, Dirt,Stw in that order.
i think dirt gets pretty close to that. they have certainly had some of the most iconic images over the last ten years or so.
I stopped buying mbr when they insisted everyone ride a fs, as everything else was gash. Not bought it for ages though.
Stwisprobably the best xc and enduros and stuff but for a bit of everything talks to me
MBUK talks to me..Sorry had few drinks
One year on, how do people feel now?
MBUK is better than it was, but MBR is the better magazine IMHO.
MBR is full of routes for people who like to ride new areas and the bike tests are in another league to any other publication. BTW the Specialized bias (100% deserved IMO) hasn't been the case for a good few years and Orange have swept the boards in the trail bike and AM bike tests.
I recently bought al load of mags to look at how the mountain bike brands are marketed.
MBR was fairly dull, but the route guides seemed pretty good. Never ridden them, but they almost make the mag worth buying on their own.
Singletrack was in danger of disappearing up its own hoop. The editorial column seemed to be heading almost into advertorial territory. I do like the Evo style "long termer" reviews though.
Dirt was pretty good, but focussed on types of riding I don't really do.
MBUK seemed to be by far the best general riding about mag. I'd previously thought of it as kiddified, and it surprised me. Good bits and pieces on technique
MBA is very light, but the articles on training seemed pretty good.
If I were stuck in the newsagents looking for something bike related to read, it would be MBUK every time. Though I'd be far more likely to pick up Evo or PPC to be honest... There's a real technical side missing from the bike mags in my view - PPC will run articles on things like suspension geometry and tuning, how to tune X engine. The thing is, they're written in such a way that even if you don't own X engine, it's still a pretty interesting read. And for all the bike mags blather on about frame geometry and adjustability on forks, I best most of us have very vague ideas about what it all means.
I bought the latest mbr, the first time since god knows when, and quiet enjoyed it. A nice section focussed on Scotland, good route guides, like tron says, which to me are quiet valuable- I don't really have much time to find quality routes, and largely rely on guidebooks etc.
I did find the Saracen review quite amusing- mbr marking it down quite hard for crap brakes, and short tt (they felt the frames were undersized. On the other hand, Singletrack also called it out on the brakes, but failed to mention the size they tested. They also gave it an 'award' (whatever those rosette things are) - which considering the cost of a replacement set of brakes is a bit of a strange decision.
I think Singletrack has forced all the other mags to up their game a bit, and decide what they are going to focus on, which is a good thing.
One year on, how do people feel now?MBUK is better than it was, but MBR is the better magazine IMHO.
Singletrack is getting worse. Still the same old articles droning on about riding somewhere I've never heard of or care about, which seem to be people writing about their lates expensive/paid for holiday. (And the Premier thing is a bit of a joke too) No technical articles. Too many interviews. The last 2 or three I've hardly bothered to read past the bike and gear tests. I'll be cancelling my sub when it runs out. I might sub to MBUK, or just buy the odd one here and there if it looks interesting. I've looked at one issue of MBR in the last year. They're still wearing the same old blinkers it seems.
If anyone wants to see how a mag can be produced, go and buy a motorbike mag called, err, "Bike". Probably the best mag I've ever read, with a VERY wide range of subjects. There's a guy that writes travel/touring articles for them sporadically called Dan Walsh and he can make it interesting with style. He simply wipes the floor with anyone writing for any MTB mag. 🙂
MBUK seems to have the most content and balance of the current magazines.
MBR is a bit like driving through a short tunnel, nothing to look at and then it's over.
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