In your opinion which cycling mags are the most credible in their assesment of bikes and equipment?
Publication credibility
- Thread starter Damn True
- Start date
Mountain Bike Action 
errr.... Mountain Bike Fiction
But that's a good question... I dunno
errr.... Mountain Bike Fiction
But that's a good question... I dunno
Word. Most all of them suck. Lowest on the list would be MBA and Mountain Biking. Bike and Dirt Rag are higher, I suppose.
i like dirtrag personnally i think that it is by far the least byest.
As long as magazines are struggling to earn ad revenue and they have to rely on sucking up to manufacturers them my guess is there are very few truly non-biased/credible mountain biking publications.
24 and flow seem to be pretty non biased as well
Clict (aussie mag). Only one I've seen where they've actually gone into depth on a bike about how it RIDES rather than what it looks like, and pages of useless background info and other assorted bullshït.
Oh yeah!!!! Clict rules, it'll inspire you to go riding.
Dan
Dan
None of 'em are really credible.
Just take them for what they are - pretty pictures and interesting commentary. They're nothing more than that.
Just take them for what they are - pretty pictures and interesting commentary. They're nothing more than that.
I disagree. Their reviews are always 100% positive, they're afraid to point out any problems with anything. According to them, every DH bike is the best one on the market.preppie said:
I'd say Dirt Rag is probably the best US mag, IMO. I know one of the reviewers personally - Jeff Lockwood. He actually gets the bikes and lives with it for a month or so. I've seen him riding test bikes at the weekly evening race from time to time.
For me, MBA's credibility has always suffered from a lack of verification of specs. They always seem to get the most simple things wrong. Fork travel, frame travel. Little technical items that an experienced mechanic who has worked on a lot of equipment will pick up immediately - they were still getting a lot of disc brake information wrong more than a year after a particular model was introduced. They desparately need a technical editor to check this stuff.
I'll admit, there are times when they do get things right. Their comments regarding the FSR-style M-1 back in 2000 compared to the earlier version of the frame echoed my own opinions exactly having owned both frames.
For me, MBA's credibility has always suffered from a lack of verification of specs. They always seem to get the most simple things wrong. Fork travel, frame travel. Little technical items that an experienced mechanic who has worked on a lot of equipment will pick up immediately - they were still getting a lot of disc brake information wrong more than a year after a particular model was introduced. They desparately need a technical editor to check this stuff.
I'll admit, there are times when they do get things right. Their comments regarding the FSR-style M-1 back in 2000 compared to the earlier version of the frame echoed my own opinions exactly having owned both frames.
I read MBA for their reports on bikes and parts. Just like any other review you have to take it as someone's opinion to be added to your own. Bike is an awesome magazine about the lifestyle, but they don't really review gear hard core. Bicycling, is an interesting read if it's free and I don't have any other mags laying around that I have not read yet.
My experience with MBA is that it's good if you listen to their description of a characteristic (eg low bb) but not whether it's good or bad (because they sometimes have strange ideas there).
litter
Litter is garbage.©2001 said:
Isn't Flow produced by Mountaing Biking?SuperSlow said:
I hate MBA, yet I still end up buying the stupid mags I can't help it.
In my opinion their reviews are related to the amount of advertising spent by the manufacturer. I rate them a
Some of the English mags are pretty good. They don't always review the same products - and things cost a lot more over there but their reviews are pretty much on it.
I like Dirt (UK), but yes they tend not to be critical.
Personally I would not want to review bikes, as one man's opinion could have significant implications for a company's future.
Especially considering the one factor that is repeatedly reinforced on this forum, what suits one person will not necessarily suit another, and that you need to try things for yourself.
Personally I would not want to review bikes, as one man's opinion could have significant implications for a company's future.
Especially considering the one factor that is repeatedly reinforced on this forum, what suits one person will not necessarily suit another, and that you need to try things for yourself.
"Never bite the hand that feeds"
I am working on a scientific and mathmatical equation that will relate the number of ads for any given company in any given magazine and than relate the frequancy of said ads to the quality of the review. In my journies, I hope to also ba able to spell words like "mathmatical" correctly.
So far, I have found that back cover and inside cover ads usually earn the product a 4/5 if it sucks, 4.5/5 if average, and a 5/5 if it is pretty good.
If the ad is small and black & white and is lost among the many mailorder ads, than a .5/5 means it was below average, and anything higher than a 2 means that it kicked ass but the publisher didn't want to give the company any free exposeur because the reviewed company was cheap with their advertising.
I am working on a scientific and mathmatical equation that will relate the number of ads for any given company in any given magazine and than relate the frequancy of said ads to the quality of the review. In my journies, I hope to also ba able to spell words like "mathmatical" correctly.
So far, I have found that back cover and inside cover ads usually earn the product a 4/5 if it sucks, 4.5/5 if average, and a 5/5 if it is pretty good.
If the ad is small and black & white and is lost among the many mailorder ads, than a .5/5 means it was below average, and anything higher than a 2 means that it kicked ass but the publisher didn't want to give the company any free exposeur because the reviewed company was cheap with their advertising.