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 experience 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 makes 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!