[binary visions]

Bike has posted a bunch of news articles on this, of course, and there is an absolute f**k-ton of YouTube videos they created. Some on the bikes themselves, some just funny:

Did anyone read these/watch these?

What'd you guys think? Interesting/not interesting?

I thought it was a little overwhelming amount of footage to watch, but if there's a few particular bikes you're interested in, I enjoyed hearing the casual discussion about the rides which is often missing from formal reviews. Especially from bikes that are so far out of my price range or the 650b rides that I don't even see (e.g. $9000+ Bronson C):

Anyone else pick through any of these? Good ones?

 

[slyfink]

I hadn't realized they were all available at once. I'd been reading the reviews as they trickle in on the sidebar. The main reason I'd watch them though is to catch glimpses of the riding in Sedona. I went there on holiday a year and a half ago, and it was one of my favourite bike trips ever.

I watched the one of the Trance Advanced SX and I think it would get really annoying to watch too many in a row. I mean come on, how many minutes of watching dirtbags blather on about bikes you haven't ridden, don't really care about and may never ride can you take before wanting to poke your eyes out with a spoon....

 

[4130biker]

I watched the one on the bike I own just to hear them rave about how amazing it is

I think it's pretty cool, actually. It's a cool supplement to the publication, and I watched some of them on the other bikes that I find interesting (kinda like I do when I'm reading the mag).

It is a lot of material (and wouldn't make much sense to watch all of it), but it's cool that there's a good five minutes dedicated to whatever bike(s) you're interested in.

 

[Dogboy]

I've been making my way through the videos and I think they are great. I like the conversational setting and the fact that you are getting several peoples opinions instead of just one. It's interesting when one tester really likes a bike and the other two don't. The only thing that is a little tough to surmise is exactly where a particular bike falls overall in the bikes they tested. Maybe that will come through more in the magazine.

 

[binary visions]

I think it would get really annoying to watch too many in a row. I mean come on, how many minutes of watching dirtbags blather on about bikes you haven't ridden, don't really care about and may never ride can you take before wanting to poke your eyes out with a spoon....

Yeah... There are too many minutes of footage to just watch one after the other, unless you really REALLY like bike reviews. But at least they have them all separated by bike so you can watch the ones you care about, and skip the rest.

Bike has historically been very formal in their content, this is some of the first stuff I've seen from them that seems really conversational, down-to-earth... The formal approach works well in a magazine, but this kind of content seems a lot friendlier to online media - to me anyway.

 

[jackalope]

I will have try again then. I couldn't get through the Bronson one, partly because they didn't say anything of value in the first couple minutes, and partly (mainly) because I kept focusing on the one guy's fvcking straw cowboy hat and dentist's kitchen setting (to be fair, they were talking about a $10K bike). Don the obligatory trucker hat and record the discussion at PNW dive bar over obligatory PBRs...It's all about imagery for me

 

[CBJ]

I have seen most of them except the XC bikes and I got a good feeling about the current bikes and some good input on bike setup, riding styles, tire size etc. Overall it seems they had more problems with equipment choice then frames on most bikes. I actually watched a lot of them in a row and thought that was better as I would give a better understanding of their testing point of view.

The very laidback drink in hand segments were not as good as the segments where they were more focused like the GT Sensor review in the bike shop. It was difficult at times to find out how bikes stacked up against other bikes tested.

For all its worth I just bought one of the bikes tested today

 

[supercow]

CBJ, i think the whole idea was to rate bikes on their own merit, and not rating them against one another.
So its different than say, the Dirt 100. (And hell, the guys of Bikemag are actually literate, and can actually convey their thoughts about bikes....which is more than you can say about Dirt)

I've read and watched the majority of the videos and really enjoyed it.

 

[binary visions]

Overall it seems they had more problems with equipment choice then frames on most bikes.

I agree... but since they were testing "stock" builds from the manufacturers, that's probably a pretty valid critique. Ridemonkey members might be less likely than the general population to buy a stock build, but the builds sure impact a lot of buyers. They loved that Sensor Carbon but if half or more of the people who buy it end up with a noodly, diving fork on the front... they'll probably feel like the bike isn't living up to expectations.

 

[CBJ]

I did not mean that as a criticism of the test but just a reflection of the test and how it looks like most frames these days are pretty damn good.

Btw I understand what they say regarding the Sensor and other bikes but I think a lot of people ride differently than they do and would like the build. I am sure the product managers out there are not all blind to the options and its not everybody who rides Sedona or who need more front end stiffness etc. These are all bikes sold all over the world. That said personally I totally agree with their build suggestion on the Sensor one by and a Pike would be an interesting build for sure.

 

[Da Peach]

I like em. They almost seem "put on" casual. Which is fine. If I had to do it, I'd probably go McLauchlin Group style.

I was surprised to hear how they moaned about the cramped Troy. Not that I was about to buy one or anything, but it seemed to be a pretty big point made in their review.

The one they did on the Evil was interesting too. A fairly realistic conclusion taken.

 

[djjohnr]

I've worked for a bike manufacturer. You'd be fracking amazed at some of the dumb crap product managers will spec to hit a price target.

 

[SuboptimusPrime]

I like the videos, and the mag is good too. Definitely one of the most honest sets of reviews I've seen. Criticisms of products I've used seem spot on as well.

It was funny to me that, while we are likely not as experienced or refined as the testers, you could round up my buddies, stick them in a room with beer, film it and end up with nearly identical chatter. I was hung up on the inappropriate headgear of straw hat dude like Jackalope, but then he said that press fit BBs are "fycking pieces of ****" and totally redeemed himself.

 

[supercow]

I like em. They almost seem "put on" casual. Which is fine. If I had to do it, I'd probably go McLauchlin Group style.

I was surprised to hear how they moaned about the cramped Troy. Not that I was about to buy one or anything, but it seemed to be a pretty big point made in their review.

The one they did on the Evil was interesting too. A fairly realistic conclusion taken.

I think it's due to testing the bike as stock, because with some more stack height, the bike doesn't feel short at all.

 

[slyfink]

ok, so I watched a few more, and they certainly are pretty honest. The only thing is that I heard at least four times "this is the best bike I've ridden so far"... the Sensor, the Trance SX, the Uprising, and the Scott. I can imagine it's hard to reel that pronouncement in during casual banter, but they can (should?) edit that out if needed. Unless the point they are trying to make is there are no bad bikes, and no clear winners, that all bikes need a little "personalization".

In the end, it's interesting to hear their points, and if buying a bike, it would be really useful because there's a lot of "feelings" expressed that don't wind up in print. In fact, I have a buddy who is looking for a new bike, and I will point him in the direction of these videos.

On the issue of the Troy, I can't help but wonder if the whole "cramped" issue, and feeling too far back couldn't have been remedied by a longer stem... They seem so stuck on short stems... almost like it's a religious fervour. I got caught up in the short stem bonanza last year, and it made my bike ride like **** in most situations (a Mojo HD). I'm going to order a longer stem this season, hoping that it will balance me out a bit more... horses for courses I say!

 

[supercow]

Blasphemy!
Stems shouldn't go longer than 50mm.

 

[wydopen]

Yeah... There are too many minutes of footage to just watch one after the other, unless you really REALLY like bike reviews. But at least they have them all separated by bike so you can watch the ones you care about, and skip the rest.

Bike has historically been very formal in their content, this is some of the first stuff I've seen from them that seems really conversational, down-to-earth... The formal approach works well in a magazine, but this kind of content seems a lot friendlier to online media - to me anyway.

HA! I had a few hrs to kill at work and watched them all back to back..

the vids are far from formal..pounding beers and dropping f-bombs was a bit surprising..overall they were pretty interesting though..

 

[blindboxx2334]

i only remember watching one, it was some trail bike with 4 peeps total sitting at a table.. IIRC, two loved it, one thought it was alright, and the fourth hated it and contradicted everything the first two people said. it looked like it was rather uncomfortable for them.. but it was funny on my end.

i think i remember the beer, but no f-bombs.

 

[4130biker]

Blasphemy!
Stems shouldn't go longer than 50mm.

hahahaha!! Gotta agree with slyfink here. I used to think a 50mm was THE stem length to ride aggressively. I rode my stumpjumper evo for way too long with too short of a stem. Threw the stock 70mm stem on for a pedally trip, and it just openened up the bike for more room to move on climbs, weight the front for corners, etc. There are still some bikes that need it, but it's not as black and white as I used to think.

 

[bizutch]

hahahaha!! Gotta agree with slyfink here. I used to think a 50mm was THE stem length to ride aggressively. I rode my stumpjumper evo for way too long with too short of a stem. Threw the stock 70mm stem on for a pedally trip, and it just openened up the bike for more room to move on climbs, weight the front for corners, etc. There are still some bikes that need it, but it's not as black and white as I used to think.

 

[wiscodh]

i only remember watching one, it was some trail bike with 4 peeps total sitting at a table.. IIRC, two loved it, one thought it was alright, and the fourth hated it and contradicted everything the first two people said. it looked like it was rather uncomfortable for them.. but it was funny on my end.

i think i remember the beer, but no f-bombs.

wasnt a trailbike, it was the glory.

 

[Cant Climb]

Who is the guy in the straw hat......is that Seb....?..
Also who the guy with the Tatto's on right arm and wears the trucker hats.....?

just trying to put faces to the bikemag writers...

 

[CBJ]

Who is the guy in the straw hat......is that Seb....?..
Also who the guy with the Tatto's on right arm and wears the trucker hats.....?

just trying to put faces to the bikemag writers...

I am pretty sure its Seb with the Tatoos and trucker hats.

 

[kidwoo]

Those guys aren't detailed enough in their descriptions. The guys I recognize in them should be able to be a lot more elaborate about what they like/don't like.

For example: You can't ride several other dh bikes and then ride a demo 8 and not be able to say WHY you like it so gushingly. "because of shock and geometry" doesn't really cut it. Not one of them mentioned how natural those frames feel to so many people BECAUSE of a long, low, slack front end that lets you feel really centered without having to move fore and aft a bunch. No mention that the short chainstays that let you yank out of turns easily on the back wheel, jump incredibly centered, but also hang up a little more on square edge stuff. There's talk about 'needing' the carbon one with no mention of the slight frame geo differences with the plastic version.

On the Bronson they all kind of acknowledge at the beginning that this is the 'new updated' successor to the Blur TR. Only the ginger (who is that guy, we need to be friends) mentions the nomad like midstroke wallowing that santa cruz is so good at, and is the exact opposite of the kinematics of a blur TR, and in fact that's what makes the blur TR so damn awesome, the fact that it's one of the only SC frames ever made that DOESN'T ride like that.

Young dh guy bends some e.13 wheels and bags on them but forgot to mention if they ever checked the tension on them before hand. Maybe they did but no one knows.

Those guys know this stuff (or at least they should), they should discuss it. Anyway......you asked

I appreciate the effort that went into all those. The side ones not directly review related are pretty fun to watch.

 

[dan-o]

The Bronson was compared to the Blur LT, not TR.
Also, IMO, the SC 'wallow' is more accurately described as a Fox issue as my Nomadc with DBair doesn't suffer from it while my previous SC/Fox bikes certainly did.

I have a hard time taking any media reviews of mainstream cycling products seriously.
They're all on life support and afraid to really rail on products for fear of losing marketing $; something that has always existed to some extent (disclosure: I used to buy media placement, and by default editorial coverage, for cycling companies from all major print outlets in the US and Europe).

Honestly, the only product reviews I trust are random products that cross-over to cycling. Ie the Jaybird bluetooth earbuds I saw on PB, which perform exactly as described and are awesome.

 

[OGRipper]

If at least part of the idea is to put faces with the names of the different guys who write for the mag, why not identify the guys in the videos? That's a weird and obvious omission.

Otherwise, the main thing I take away is confirmation that bikes are generally really good these days and that the right bike for you depends more on fit and riding style/preferences rather than objective quality and performance issues. It's a good time to be a bike rider!

 

[Cant Climb]

As far as the Bronson, the trucker hat guy just starts out and says "Awesome" then pretty much shuts up, which says more than the Straw hat guy who goes on for 4 minutes about how the Bronson kind of wallows in specific situations. Then one of them says he is clearing climbs because of the incredible rear wheel traction...

As for the DH bikes reviews....sounds like they need a more pure downhillers, more time, and more trails...

Overall i think it was well done. Some honest opinions, some good info to consider.

 

[kidwoo]

The Bronson was compared to the Blur LT, not TR.
Also, IMO, the SC 'wallow' is more accurately described as a Fox issue as my Nomadc with DBair doesn't suffer from it while my previous SC/Fox bikes certainly did.

It's not just a shock issue. You can make it better by screwing around with the shock but it's the frame.

'wallow' is the way most people describe it so that's what I used. My preferred nomenclature is 'fuct up leverage curve that rewards lazy riding' It's made horrendously worse by an air shock with a loose middle stroke but it's definitely built into the frame.

My bad on the LT vs TR. That's the one I meant. Too many versions.......all a blur.

 

[blindboxx2334]

wasnt a trailbike, it was the glory.

now that i think about it. you are right

 

[jackalope]

More evidence that I suck as a rider, as I think my Blur LTc rides better than any previous bike I've had in this category (which admittedly includes a couple SC bikes; Butcher and a Mk1 Nomad). And like Dan-o said, with a CCDB air, it's a sh!t hot ride IMO. Then again, I am lazy, so that likely explains everything.

Regarding the stem comments, I think this represents fertile new ground to intiate another dick measuring extravaganza now that the wheel debate is probably tailing off. Start with 50mm vs 70mm, then eventually introduce 60mm (which I don't think exist yet) to bring things full circle.

 

[blindboxx2334]

I think this represents fertile new ground to intiate another dick measuring extravaganza now that the wheel debate is probably tailing off.

so.much.win.

 

[kidwoo]

More evidence that I suck as a rider, as I think my Blur LTc rides better than any previous bike I've had in this category (which admittedly includes a couple SC bikes; Butcher and a Mk1 Nomad). And like Dan-o said, with a CCDB air, it's a sh!t hot ride IMO. Then again, I am lazy, so that likely explains everything.

Gah......that's the exact opposite of what I was saying. That LT is one of the stand outs, not the SC norm with what they normally do with suspension kinematics. Go ride a nomad of any generation with any shock (except for maybe one of those weird super progressive fox coils with the huge shaft) and they don't feel at all like those blurs. You can pump the blurs and the bike accelerates, not just sucks it up. That has nothing to do with sucking at riding.

I always bltch about bikes that do that though. I just brought it up because it seemed like a contrast with the Bronson based on what middle guy was saying.

 

[OGRipper]

I'm biased but the newer gen bikes (bronson and 5010 in particular) have much less of that effect than the nomad, regardless of shock. Both are much closer to the LTc or TR in that sense. And as usual it's closely tied to shock set up - a few pounds too soft and it's noticeably more pronounced. That may explain why one guy noticed it more than the others, particularly in the context of test rides without a lot of time to mess with settings.

 

[kidwoo]

I'm biased but the newer gen bikes (bronson and 5010 in particular) have much less of that effect than the nomad, regardless of shock. Both are much closer to the LTc or TR in that sense. And as usual it's closely tied to shock set up - a few pounds too soft and it's noticeably more pronounced. That may explain why one guy noticed it more than the others, particularly in the context of test rides without a lot of time to mess with settings.

I got to ride a solo (or 5010 or whatever) last week in bootleg. That's a friggin sick bike and definitely addresses the bitching you've heard from me about SC leverage curves. I wouldn't kick that one out of bed at all. I'd stick a 150mm fork and/or an angled headset on it though. I'm looking at that one pretty hard as a future purchase honestly.

I've still heard the opposite from too many people with similar preferences to mine about the Bronson. Two of them I trust as very capable at differentiating shock behaviors and frame setups with a lot of time on SC frames. I haven't ridden one myself though. I definitely want to. Would you say the Bronson feels like those blurs just with longer travel though? Cuz middle guy in the bike videos is echoing a very very common complaint with some of SCs frames, one which you know I share so my ears perked up. What I'm talking about isn't sag/pressure related at all. It's the leverage curve when it's setup right. I believe it's better than the nomad though.....friggin hate those things. I just used that because it's the extreme example. Again, that's preference, I don't think they're making horrible bikes or anything. Just not future 'my' bikes. Only reason I brought it up was a seeming contradiction.

At least sc specs normal length shocks that can be swapped out, unlike the specialized BS.

 

[4130biker]

Start with 50mm vs 70mm, then eventually introduce 60mm (which I don't think exist yet) to bring things full circle.

Chromag makes em 50,60,70,80,90...

Almost went with the goldilocks 60, but had the wagonwheel 70 in the tool box. I had no idea this could get me banned

 

[OGRipper]

I got to ride a solo (or 5010 or whatever) last week in bootleg. That's a friggin sick bike and definitely addresses the bitching you've heard from me about SC leverage curves. I wouldn't kick that one out of bed at all. I'd stick a 150mm fork and/or an angled headset on it though. I'm looking at that one pretty hard as a future purchase honestly.

I've still heard the opposite from too many people with similar preferences to mine about the Bronson. Two of them I trust as very capable at differentiating shock behaviors and frame setups with a lot of time on SC frames. I haven't ridden one myself though. I definitely want to. Would you say the Bronson feels like those blurs just with longer travel though? Cuz middle guy in the bike videos is echoing a very very common complaint with some of SCs frames, one which you know I share so my ears perked up. What I'm talking about isn't sag/pressure related at all. It's the leverage curve when it's setup right. I believe it's better than the nomad though.....friggin hate those things. I just used that because it's the extreme example. Again, that's preference, I don't think they're making horrible bikes or anything. Just not future 'my' bikes. Only reason I brought it up was a seeming contradiction.

At least sc specs normal length shocks that can be swapped out, unlike the specialized BS.

It's no secret those two bikes were developed closely together and share pretty similar next gen VPP performance. So I would say the bronson feels more like a longer-travel 5010 than anything else. For a 150/650B bike it's surprisingly fun to pop around on and pump. If you liked the 5010, try a bronson and let us know what you think.

Since they are talking about pedaling performance it could also be a chainring size thing too. I'm running XX1 with a 32 and it feels great to me. If they were pushing a 24 or whatever it's probably more pronounced.

 

[kidwoo]

If you liked the 5010, try a bronson and let us know what you think.

Lend me yours before it gets stolen in that urban hellscape you live in.

I just did the math off SC's website: A solo with 26" wheels would be about a 12.5" BB. I just made my 'O' face.

 

[jackalope]

Gah......that's the exact opposite of what I was saying. That LT is one of the stand outs, not the SC norm with what they normally do with suspension kinematics. Go ride a nomad of any generation with any shock (except for maybe one of those weird super progressive fox coils with the huge shaft) and they don't feel at all like those blurs. You can pump the blurs and the bike accelerates, not just sucks it up. That has nothing to do with sucking at riding.

I always bltch about bikes that do that though. I just brought it up because it seemed like a contrast with the Bronson based on what middle guy was saying.

Sorry, misread your post and thought it was only the TR your were referring too. But to add some anecdotal credence to your comments, when I installed my DB air, I assumed the leverage curve was the same other VPP models, and I guessed what I thought the settings would be based on this theory before I checked out the suggested base tune on the CC website. Needless to say, I was crestfallen when it was basically the exact opposite of what I would've started out with. Guess this failing precludes me from joining in on any ad hoc group bike reviews...even if I wear a straw cowboy hat.

Something else that BV pointed out earlier in this thread was the discussion on component spec, which turned me off because I will likely never buy a complete bike anyway - but it is an important consideration for a lot of buyers, especially the sub-human trogs who would run a 70mm stem.

 

[Dogboy]

Something else that BV pointed out earlier in this thread was the discussion on component spec, which turned me off because I will likely never buy a complete bike anyway - but it is an important consideration for a lot of buyers, especially the sub-human trogs who would run a 70mm stem.

You and I won't, but the vast majority will buy a complete. Also, I measured a co-worker's BB height on a GT Sensor with biggish tires (WTB Vigilante 2.3) and it was 12.5". For a 130mm bike

 

[OGRipper]

Lend me yours before it gets stolen in that urban hellscape you live in.

I just did the math off SC's website: A solo with 26" wheels would be about a 12.5" BB. I just made my 'O' face.

Some day we will ride again...

But dude, go for 650B front and 26" rear. Not a 69'er. A 67.5'er?