In terms of cost of bikes and bits then the mag seems to put itself fairly well in the middle of the spectrum. It’s worth remembering that they don’t actually review an awful lot of bikes (compared to some mags), but there’s no getting away from the fact that bikes are more expensive than they used to be.
A quick look at the MTBs on CRC shows that about a third of their bikes are under a grand, there’s a lot in the £1-2.5k range, and then they get more spread out up to the real exotica at £4k plus. In forks there are 3 pages of sus forks on CRC and ordered by price you’re over 500 quid before the end of the first page. So, to a degree, that’s just what these things cost, I don’t think ST sets out to be the definitive buying guide (other mags do that), and I don’t think the reviews are the most important bit of the mag.
But I’ve inadvertently revealed the other issue at work – I’ve decided that more than £4k is exotica. For other people obviously more than £2k is exotica, but it’s not necessarily to do with income, more to do with priorities.
I don’t earn a lot of money, I certainly couldn’t think of buying a car new, even a little one. But if I was buying a new MTB it’d probably be in the £2-3k range if I was feeling lucky, maybe £1.5-2.5k if I as feeling more realistic. But then those prorities haven’t changed much in the last 20+ years – I happily spent £1500 on a bike back in 1990. So they exist fairly independently of actual ability to spend.
What I’m trying to say is that what you consider a reasonable amount to spend on bikes and bits can have very little correlation to income, demographic, etc. I ride with a a few varied bunches of people and there’s the full range of expediture on display, but you’d be hard pressed to assess people’s incomes based on the value of their bikes – it’s odd but the correlation just isn’t there.