As for the slating previous models thing, that's why things improve. Something that gets a 9 one year may be about as good as it gets at the time. 2 years later due to development it may seem crap.

joplin review inconsistency was not down to development of the product. If it was a thorough/honest test the wear problem would have been reported at the time.

To be fair Cannondale's sizing is weird for those of us lurking just below the 6' mark. I fall between the medium + large and would definitely had a rush as my next bike, but the medium is too small + the large is a gate.

Haven ridden with Ben, Matt Jon W and Ed, they are all really good riders and know their stuff technically, Tim K did a respectable time in the Keilder last year + has podiumed twice at Mayhem. Maybe not poster boys, but very competent real world riders, who ride in real world conditions.
Singletrack have given bikes/components bad / honest reviews, to an extent I've not seen in other mags.

BUT reviews are always going to be subjective to some extent. See reviews of music/books/films. No review is ever going to be the absolute truth and may not relate to you or the riding you or I do, IMHO.

Mal-ec – Member
To be fair Cannondale's sizing is weird for those of us lurking just below the 6' mark. I fall between the medium + large and would definitely had a rush as my next bike, but the medium is too small + the large is a gate.

Mine is a Medium and it fits me well – I'm 5ft10" and a bit!

My brother's L Prophet was just a bit too long though…..

Rockhopper, that isn't confined to bikes. I remember reading about the Ferrari 348 after it was out of production, and how scary and unpredictable the handling was at the limits. Nothing about that at all in all the tests when it was produced. I think that access to future products is a big driver in reviews, as who wants to be the one stating their opinion and not getting to ride/drive the latest models?

I'm trying not to emabark on a slag the entire mag off post but I have just read the update on the Orange Strange prototype and they have commented that frame stiffness was always the 5's achilles heel. Is this the same 5 that won trail bike of the rear for a few years running with presumably no mention of frame problems. ( I would look back on old issues kept for the loo library but clear these out every year).
Surely they aren't saying that such a previously raved about bike had "issues"

They love Orange Bikes, they all seem to get a 10.

as above example

"They love Orange Bikes, they all seem to get a 10."

Their last review of the Five was ridiculous… "The rims are too thin and weak for a bike like this and the brakes don't work, 10/10!" Though not as bad as "We set the Inbred up with a 140mm fork even though it's only designed for 100-130mm, and found it didn't handle very well, so the P7 wins!"

Yeah I wonder if it's because they selected a bike specced for the riders height, but found it incorrect because the manuf suggested the wrong size. This would be a flaw in the bike/sizing, not the selection process, though of course more careful riders would test-ride the correct size first.

There seems to be a theme emerging here and the moral of the story is……..?