To give some more constructive feedback – I think a little more recognition of the absolutely ridiculous pricing on these machines would do the writers credit. I’m pretty confident they couldn’t afford them either, so don’t keep skirting around the issue.

The only time the pricing would be ridiculous would be if nobody is buying them, and people are very obviously buying them. The company I work for can’t get hold of enough Orbea Rises. They are literally being bought up as soon as they are booked in.

And I’m not sure when it became acceptable to tell others what they can and cannot afford? Just because you can’t afford a £12000 bike, it doesn’t mean that others can’t. My wife, for instance (who earns something like 4 times what I do) can certainly afford it and if I can find the spare cash to ride a bike that retailed at over £5k on my meagre earnings then I’m sure that she and a massive portion of the rest of the population could fund anything at £10k+. Just look at the amount people throw away (imo!) on expensive cars..

I read those reviews and it didn’t even register TBH. Mountain out of a molehill IMO.

Bollocks. Just cos it doesn’t jar with you doesn’t mean it doesn’t or shouldn’t jar with other people.

I think I can forgive people who write about bikes trying out different phrases or words to get to the point where there’s an acceptable word to differentiate between e-bikes and bikes

This sentence proves there’s no need to call them anything other than what they already are.

Whoah! That’s some level of vitriol over the use of the word ‘acoustic’.

I did bring this up in a podcast a few years ago. We need a word to distinguish the two types of bike because they are both ‘bikes’. I said that ‘acoustic’ is kind of funny but only to people who get the musical reference.  And it’s not the eMTB that needs a new name it’s the non-ebike that needs a new name other than just ‘bike’… because they are both bikes.

But the point is @swavis that they are both bikes. Whether we like it or not people who are buying them (and ebikes are already outselling non-ebikes in the mid to high end of the market) are just going to call them bikes. One has a motor and the other doesn’t. So if they are both bikes how do you distinguish the one that doesn’t have a motor? It’s not the ebike that needs a new name.. ebike or eMTB is just fine. It’s when they are both being discussed in the same conversation that it becomes linguistically necessary for there to be a better way of distinguishing between the two.

An eMTB is a type of MTB

So a non-eMTB is also a type of MTB.

But the word ‘non-eMTB’ is a bit rubbish. So what type of MTB is an MTB with no motor?

As others have said, really enjoyed the Jamie Hibbard article. Apart from that there was nothing of sufficient note to hold my interest so the mag was done an dusted in under 15 minutes.

if people don’t like (musical ref) acoustic, how about unplugged?

Apart from that there was nothing of sufficient note to hold my interest

Naturally what interests one may not interest another, and not to leap to the defence of STW and all the writers and contributors, but I struggle to see how a piece like the Silk Road article from Markus in 139 for example WOULDN’T hold the interest of anyone with even a passing interest in cycling and travel…

I find his stuff particularly inspiring, the Atlas Mountain race article a few issues ago was fantastic too.

“There’s no getting away from the price tag of this thing. It’s immense and you aren’t really getting a deal on the full bike when you add up the cost of all the components”

13k specialized ebike!!

Started a thread on this subject when it was launched…..

An eMTB is a type of MTB

So a non-eMTB is also a type of MTB.

But the word ‘non-eMTB’ is a bit rubbish. So what type of MTB is an MTB with no motor?

not really needed though is it? if we look at drinks for example we have coke and diet coke. Both are “coke” but the differentiator is allocated to the newer item to show the difference.

so Bike or eBike, is all that is needed

Its a standard convention most things, so the allocation of additional language to the base or original item is unnecessary

@Mark I disagree, but then I don’t constantly have to read new marketing blurb having to sell the latest thing all the time so maybe am not in the best place to judge.

I think bike and e-bike are just fine. Maybe “normal” bike if I were pushed 😉

In this part of the world bikes you have pedal with out assistance are now “vélos musculaires”.

But there are so many types of mountain bike. Enduro, xc, bikepacking, trail, hardtail, fat & e-bike.

How do you split e-bikes out from the rest in quick concise written text, by calling them non-electric? That seems clunky. Acoustic is a term that brand mangers and marketing depts have jumped on as its quick easy and understandable.

I don’t like the term, but I’m sure we all had this discussion about ‘enduro’ when that became a thing.

I think bike and e-bike are just fine. Maybe “normal” bike if I were pushed

We toyed with the ‘normal’ too, but since ebikes are outselling non-ebikes what is normal is not exactly fixed. Ergo this debate. For the record.. I may have coined ‘acoustic’ but I don’t think it’s a good long term suggestion. It’s a joke ultimately and I agree it should be replaced. But there IS a need for a new term. There’s a magazine called ‘Bike’ published in the UK. It’s about motorbikes. Riders of motorbikes refer to them as ‘bikes’. If you were writing a piece about motorbikes AND bicycles you would need a word better than ‘bike’ to differentiate them as they are both bikes..

This is why in my review in this issue I needed a term to refer to the non-eMTB type. The best word I have at the moment is ‘acoustic’. I would like a better one. But I guess the first step is accepting there is a need for one to start with.

100% agree Mark.

Taking further inspiration from the guitar world, when Gibson overhauled the Les Paul a few years ago they offered the ‘Traditional’ (not tricked out with electronics) and the ‘Modern’ (tricked out with the latest electronic gubbins). Perhaps that’s the way to go? So eBikes would be eBikes because that’s an accepted phrase now, but we call non-eBikes ‘Traditional’ bikes?

Clunky, yes, but struggling to think of anything better…

The only time the pricing would be ridiculous would be if nobody is buying them, and people are very obviously buying them. The company I work for can’t get hold of enough Orbea Rises. They are literally being bought up as soon as they are booked in.

+1

My local Rutland cycles only sells ebikes!

Top end ‘acoustic’ road bikes are around £12k as well and they’re selling like hot cakes.

“There’s no getting away from the price tag of this thing. It’s immense and you aren’t really getting a deal on the full bike when you add up the cost of all the components”

Fair enough, skimmed over that. I find Specialized’s brass neck on the pricing particularly astonishing.

We have always run bike tests on a theme and actually rarely make direct comparisons between them to produce the traditional ‘winner’ as it were. Each bike is ridden and reviewed on it’s own merits. As for the not riding them hard comment, do you fancy meeting up and going for a ride with either myself or Andi and seeing how you stack up?

My feedback was that I don’t find that review methodology particularly useful, as a punter. Also, it can be a bit pot luck whether the bike I’m interested in gets reviewed by somebody with a relevant level of a) riding experience and b) writing skill.

In the bit of my comment that you didn’t quote, I said I know you have some very capable riders on the team (subject to staff changes), however I’ve repeatedly observed a lack of attention-to-detail and critical analysis in STW bike reviews.

I know there’s perhaps not a lot that could be done to rectify this in the short term, but I thought the feedback may still be useful. Do let us know if you only want positive comments though.

but since ebikes are outselling non-ebikes w

Is this really true – anecdotal or backed up by numbers?

I did bring this up in a podcast a few years ago. We need a word to distinguish the two types of bike because they are both ‘bikes’. And it’s not the eMTB that needs a new name it’s the non-ebike that needs a new name other than just ‘bike’… because they are both bikes.

Utter nonsense. Let me get this right in generic terms….This thing exists. Something else comes along that’s similar, but not the same. In order to differentiate them you want to use the original name for the new product and make up an entirely new name for the original product 🤔🙄

I said that ‘acoustic’ is kind of funny but only to people who get the musical reference.

Erm. The reference isn’t that subtle. I think you’ll find that everyone gets it.

But the point is @swavis that they are both bikes. Whether we like it or not people who are buying them (and ebikes are already outselling non-ebikes in the mid to high end of the market) are just going to call them bikes.

They’re really not. Have you ever chatted with an ebiker who hasn’t gone to great lengths to tell you that it’s an ebike they’re on 😉

One has a motor and the other doesn’t. So if they are both bikes how do you distinguish the one that doesn’t have a motor? It’s not the ebike that needs a new name.. ebike or eMTB is just fine.

Make up your mind. You said it doesn’t need a new name, and then said its new name is fine.

It’s when they are both being discussed in the same conversation that it becomes linguistically necessary for there to be a better way of distinguishing between the two.

An eMTB is a type of MTB

So a non-eMTB is also a type of MTB.

But the word ‘non-eMTB’ is a bit rubbish. So what type of MTB is an MTB with no motor?

It’s a blummin’ MTB, just like it has been for the last 35 years. 😃

This is why in my review in this issue I needed a term to refer to the non-eMTB type. The best word I have at the moment is ‘acoustic’. I would like a better one. But I guess the first step is accepting there is a need for one to start with.

Here’s an idea! Leave the **** electric things out of the mountain bike magazine. Then we’d know which you were referring to every time!! 😀

No comment on why the photos look so poor?

So many knickers getting in a twist over a jokey term for a bike.

A mate has just spent nearly 9k on the spesh levo expert, it’s very good. Too much money for me though.

Ebikes are here to stay, and given that some of them are a variant of mountain bike, it’s fair that a mtb mag covers them. I liked the stw group ride article and the fact that the group ride had people on ebikes and bikes, but the ebikes were immaterial to the gist of the article. Thats the way ebikes should be covered, just another bike with plusses, minuses and compromises like any bike. They (ebikes) are just another variant of bike.

Nice cover photo.

I don’t read the bike packing articles, but I appreciate that they exist.

Geez is ebike denial still a thing? I’m not into enduro gnarrpoons but don’t think they should be removed from any publication I read. A quick survey of the STW forum would show you that plenty of people here ride them (ebikes or gnarrpoons or bikepacking bikes), so that’s reason enough to stick them in the mag. Though tbh I’d throw a strop if they reviewed a bunch of road bikes, even though I ride one of them too.

As for what to call them – well, I wonder what guitarists thought back when people had to differentiate these new fangled electric guitars from plain old guitars that they’d always known. Back then the only meaning of acoustic was ‘related to sound’ so it wasn’t exactly distinguishing one from the other, but it stuck. I think it’s a rubbish term for bikes though as they don’t relate to sound at all – whatever term is used should relate to the experience of biking as much as ‘acoustic’ did to the world of guitars. So ‘Kinetic’ bikes rather than ‘Acoustic’?

(No, didn’t think so…)

Copy delivered. It turns out the use of the word acoustic is actually annoying in print. There’s no need for it. Bike is just fine.

The images are very dark. Some of them are 90% black. Was this intentional? Odd.

I think acoustic magazines have had their day

Page 42: “…meat powered bikes…” Hilarious!

Email, acoustic mail

E-sports, acoustic sports

I like Ed’s  “vélos musculaires”.

I like Ed’s  “vélos musculaires”.

Yep,but we have to keep it in French. I have friends who occasionally call them ‘muscle bikes’ and that sounds completely wrong

We’re looking at the ink/print issue and trying to figure out what happening there – it looks like it’s a consistency issue across the print run.

All the debate over the ebike test is interesting. Personally I find it’s often necessary to find a way to talk about ebikes and not ebikes, I don’t like ‘acoustic’ much, but it doesn’t offend me as much as calling a bike a ‘steed’ does! Someone mentioned mail and email… snail bikes?! FWIW I do think it’s important to use terms that don’t ‘other’ the pedal assist bikes that are doing so much to broaden the appeal of bikes – not just off-road but everywhere. Something which adds the pedal assist bikes to the family tree rather than treating them like an evil step-parent.

As for featuring ebikes… why wouldn’t we? They’re bikes, there are different approaches and innovations and interpretations of brief and use to be learnt about, and to me that’s as interesting as reading about any other bike I might not have any intention of buying. I’m highly unlikely to ever buy a carbon fibre full suspension bike – but to me it’s still interesting to read about them and understand the choices that are out there. I also don’t begrudge anyone that wants a carbon fibre full suspension bike, or who can afford one, if that’s how they find their joy. Same goes for ebikes. I will however argue with you to the death if you try to say that someone doesn’t deserve to experience and share in the joy of riding a mountain bike, so all the ‘ebikes are cheating’ crew better watch out!

Anyway, it’s Saturday morning and I’m at risk of writing a column here… I’ll deal with price another time…!

Anyway, it’s Saturday morning and I’m at risk of writing a column here… I’ll deal with price another time…!

That’s fine, no issues here about ebikes. The world has changed, it would be remiss of you not to acknowledge that.

But price……
…..please consider this seriously.

A token ‘cheap’ bike review once every year does nothing to address the issue.

Mark mentioned ‘Bike’ magazine further up there.
They manage to review reasonably priced motorcycles along side the fantasy fodder, with the same level of scrutiny.

We’re not all 11 year old boys furiously **** over Lambourghini posters.
Do us a favour, tell us about the sub £2000 bikes that most of us buy.

Tests of £12000 bikes strikes me as obscene, tbh, given that most of us are struggling to pay the bills.

I think acoustic magazines have had their day

Did I hear a mic drop there RB!

BTW – how about “bikes” and “motor bikes”?

Natural bikes. Because that (and cost and reputational reliability) is why my recently arrived new bike has no motor. Because I like to ride ‘natural’ – me alone against the terrain. Something to feel proud of when there are options not to.

I ride natural. I think it sounds kinda cool.

I ride natural. I think it sounds kinda cool.

Sounds more like you eschew safe sex 🍆😀

Says the man with the user name ‘rubber buccaneer’ 🙂

It did cross my mind I may come across as having a vested interest 😀

Tests of £12000 bikes strikes me as obscene, tbh, given that most of us are struggling to pay the bills.

You’re not alone

The ‘darkness’ of the print is a bit ‘shoddy’.
With regard the ebike test: If I didn’t subscribe, I’d have very likely left this one on the shelf.
There’s no ebike ‘denial’ here. I’ve ridden them. They’re fun. Just not riding bicycles as I recognise it. Just simply not interested.

is why my recently arrived new bike has no motor. Because I like to ride ‘natural’ – me alone against the terrain. Something to feel proud of when there are options not to.

Rigid singlespeed? Really, you should just run, barefoot, for the sake of purity. 😁