Utter bool ox STW article

[gump]

Sorry, just got reet peed off with Singtrack mag. First article starts off with utter arse about biking in the 90s being crap. And bikes being crap. blah blah.

Grrrr!! I have new and old bikes. They are all fun. Why can't they just face facts??

 

[mattbrown]

because if they say old and new are as good and all depends on what you want out of riding, less new bikes will sell

 

[daj]

I quite agree ... Dont remember which mag but a couple of years ago they compared a retro Kona V modern at a trail centre !?!? WTF for :roll:

saying that I also get annoyed by retro only riders who insist that anything modern is rubbish too!!

 

[gump]

I quite agree ... Dont remember which mag but a couple of years ago they compared a retro Kona V modern at a trail centre !?!? WTF for :roll:

saying that I also get annoyed by retro only riders who insist that anything modern is rubbish too!!

me too!

All in the balance..

 

[REKIBorter]

At Mountain Mayhem I chatted to the beardy guy on the ST stand. He was admiring my bike and saying how modern some of the features were for being a 20 year old bike. I think we have some lazy journalism going on.

 

[legrandefromage]

I have found that leaving the yoof of today to their own devices works best, I'll just carry on riding by as they ponder their shagged bearings and bushes in the latest multi-link wonder cycle.

I have a shop full of high end modern to play with. So far very little has taken my fancy (except road bikes) because it may ride like god's own mtb but one smack in the wrong place makes today's wonder carbon tomorrow's wall hanger.

 

[mechagouki]

The biggest problem with reviewing (currently or retrospectively) bikes of every ilk is that what one person may love another may loathe. There is no one perfect bike for all riders.

I tend to spend time reading the MTBR reviews of a bike I'm considering buying, they are a little North America-centric, and some of the reviews are written by illiterate monkeys, but you do get an idea of how a bike has performed in the real world under real people.

I'm always a little skeptical of bike magazine reviews anyway in light of the copious amounts of loot the staff get from companies whose products they are supposed to provide unbiased opinions of. They also don't have to make the serious financial decisions that surround purchasing high end cycling equipment.

 

[MikeD]

They also don't have to make the serious financial decisions that surround purchasing high end cycling equipment.

The flipside of not making those financial decisions is that bike reviewers don't have to make post-hoc rationalisations having spent five grand on a bike. If you paid for it, you're likely to say it's good even if it's not. If you've just borrowed it for a bit, why would you?

 

[red_riviera]

Meh. Magazines are so 90s.

1890s.

 

[Anthony]

Sorry, just got reet peed off with Singtrack mag. First article starts off with utter arse about biking in the 90s being crap. And bikes being crap. blah blah.
Grrrr!! I have new and old bikes. They are all fun. Why can't they just face facts??

What do you expect Andy? These people live in a sad twilight zone where £100 stems are 'good value' - or at least they're willing to say so as long as the manufacturers keep sending them freebies.

Anyway it's good that they talk such cr*p. If more people knew what pathetic value new stuff is compared to old, old stuff would become more expensive.