[djamgils]

the Dirt issue of august and september contained a review of the Session 88 and the process of designing the 88.

But the article left me with some questions so maybe RM has an answer.

according to dirt measurements the head angle is 63degree opposed to the 65.5 that trek says it should be. how is such a big deviation possible. People buy a different bike because the head angle is 0.5 degree slacker.

Dirt says that "one or two of the big names have well and truly f*ked their bikes up this season" What bike are they refering to?

another quote from the article "We headed back to wales for a more controlled test against other bikes: orange 224, M6 and the sunday. With the two latter bikes unanimously taken out of the equation very early because of poor suspension and geometry"
WTF. I thought the sunday was the benchmark for good suspension and geometry?

Dirt says that for suspension setup you only need to set the sag/preload and rebound. Why the hell dont you have to set up LSC and HSC? Those are also dependant on the weight of the rider so cant be setup in the factory.

And I still dont see how the split pivot isolates braking forces from the suspension. somebody care to explain, or is that marketing talk?

So am I missing something because for me the article seems like a lot of bullsh*t

 

[dropmachine]

its no secret that more then a few riders prefer the M3 to the M6, but whether thats due to the M6 itself, or just comfort on the M3, thats debateable.

 

[sayndesyn]

all I noticed was that the test took place at Highland. I guess that mountain has finally "arrived". They sure have done a lot of work and it's paying off. Now, back to the topic..

 

[CBJ]

I used to read Dirt but not because of the bike reviews.

 

[MarkDH]

Personally, I take what Steve Jones has to say on technical issues with a spade full rather than a pinch of salt. I don't want to seem like I'm bashing him, but after reading Dirt for years, he seems to make massive generalisations without appearing to have that much technical knowledge of what he's talking about. His journalistic style leaves a lot to be desired as well, I'm pretty sure that if I had handed in one of his articles as homework back in school, I'd get it back with 'See me.' in red pen at the bottom.

To paraphrase, 'This is a simple bike though. But complicated too as well.' WTF are you on about Jonesy? I'd prefer if the tech guy Ed H got a bit more involved with the bike tests.

 

[John P.]

another quote from the article "We headed back to wales for a more controlled test against other bikes: orange 224, M6 and the sunday. With the two latter bikes unanimously taken out of the equation very early because of poor suspension and geometry"
WTF. I thought the sunday was the benchmark for good suspension and geometry?

I was perplexed by that, too. I re-read that part a couple times, and the conclusion I came to was that they should have used the word "respectively" at the end of the sentence (i.e., they were referring to the suspension of the M6 and the geometry of the Sunday.

I have no experience on the M6, but I rode a Sunday for a couple years. The only complaint I've ever heard about the Sunday's geometry was that the BB is a bit too low for non-race riding, and it's pretty rare that you even hear that gripe (mostly because Dave designed the Sunday, as I understood it, to be geared almost exclusively toward racing).

all I noticed was that the test took place at Highland. I guess that mountain has finally "arrived". They sure have done a lot of work and it's paying off. Now, back to the topic..

Trek held their official product release/press camp for the new Sessions at Highland a couple weeks before the mtn officially opened for the season, which I think is awesome. From what I heard, everyone loved that little mountain, and that was before all the great progress they've made on the trails this season. Let's hope Highland continues to get the kind of exposure they deserve.

--JP

 

[Orfen]

Personally, I take what Steve Jones has to say on technical issues with a spade full rather than a pinch of salt. I don't want to seem like I'm bashing him, but after reading Dirt for years, he seems to make massive generalisations without appearing to have that much technical knowledge of what he's talking about. His journalistic style leaves a lot to be desired as well, I'm pretty sure that if I had handed in one of his articles as homework back in school, I'd get it back with 'See me.' in red pen at the bottom.

To paraphrase, 'This is a simple bike though. But complicated too as well.' WTF are you on about Jonesy? I'd prefer if the tech guy Ed H got a bit more involved with the bike tests.

eh-Men! it's almost MTBaction like...

fist the Sunday was the best bike of all times - new benchmark according to him.

then one run on the Millyard bike and it's the best thing since slice bread...

in short...their bike reviews aren't really objective..

 

[pelo]

It´s enough tech-talking in other mags. Dirt is doing their thing, and they've been doing it good, I think.

The revival of DH-racing has alot to do with Dirt mag. They focus on activities and stories, not parts/technology, thank god for that.


They bring the mother-juice of DH to feed the readers with.

 

[Fool]

I used to read Dirt but not because of the bike reviews.

I'm the same way with Hustler.

 

[klunky]

I was perplexed by that, too. I re-read that part a couple times, and the conclusion I came to was that they should have used the word "respectively" at the end of the sentence (i.e., they were referring to the suspension of the M6 and the geometry of the Sunday.--JP

Thats pretty much what I thought but....

The dirt review of the sunday a couple of years back said that it was the best DH bike ever ridden and the geom was the best ever blah blah.
http://www.ironhorsebikes.com/downloads/press/dirtmag_sunday_review.pdf

 

[monkeyfcuker]

Glad this topic was brought up as I read the review last night and was a tad confused at some points, has anyone ridden the new Trek themselves who can maybe shed some light on the matter?

 

[Mr Nug]

Hmm I must be a cynic! I saw that review hoping for an educated rider's view on what looks to me like a very promising DH bike - not revolutionary certainly, but definitely a decent stab at a dh bike from a company that has had a poor historical record in this arena (that may be a little harsh but you get where I'm coming from). Instead I saw a tentative article that was less than convincing. And I wasn't overly surprised in all honesty. Flicking 3 pages into the magazine (not just the most recent issue), you'll see a double page spread of said bike and I'm sure that advertising space isn't free. Dirt's obviously not biting the hand that feeds them.

It's sensible of Steve Jones to attempt a comparison with another popular bike, yet he chose one with a different design that doesn't really offer a fair test. I'm sure I wasn't the only one looking for a direct comparison with the Sunday which arguably could be the Trek's older, more experienced sibling. I'm not suggesting that the Trek wouldn't stack up well against the Sunday but avoiding the whole issue altogether, toting either poor suspension and geometry (or a combination of the two) is telling. I suppose in this way the mystique (and therefore marketing appeal) of the bike is still there. The truth will come out though when the general public have some riding time on it though.

Of course I could be miles off base here. On his local track, the M6 might have been overkill and the Sunday may have had a blown shock (I can't see a reason why the Sunday's geo would be poor) and therefore honestly weren't available for direct comparison.

I did find myself asking this though - surely the guy's no stranger to either the M6 or the Sunday so does he need all three bikes present on his home track for a side-by-side test...?

After that rant, don't get me wrong, I love reading Dirt. It may have it's fault (in my eyes at least) but it's a great magazine that introduces new products to readers that they might otherwise not have been aware of and offers a perspective on our sport in locations that many would never get to experience. May it long continue!

 

[Uncle Cliffy]

After that rant, don't get me wrong, I love reading Dirt. It may have it's fault (in my eyes at least) but it's a great magazine that introduces new products to readers that they might otherwise not have been aware of and offers a perspective on our sport in locations that many would never get to experience. May it long continue!

Dirt rules! I actually laughed when someone compared it to MBA. lthumbsdown:

Saying that, I could give a rat's ass about a bike with "Trek" on the downtube, no matter how cool it is. It's still a Trek to me... The article on the Megavalanche was awesome though. They sent the editor from Ride BMX to race in it. His first MTB RIDE ever... His perspective on our sport is truly gut-busting funny. (He had a pack of cigarattes taped to the downtube of his loaned Intense. :biggrin

 

[IH8Rice]

that article also says that the shock is specifically tuned for that bike, so im assuming you dont need lsc and hsc.
some of the top riders are using the fox vanilla rear shock that only offers preload, and rebound.
if a bike is designed right, lsc and hsc arent necessary.

 

[davep]

that article also says that the shock is specifically tuned for that bike, so im assuming you dont need lsc and hsc.
some of the top riders are using the fox vanilla rear shock that only offers preload, and rebound.
if a bike is designed right, lsc and hsc arent necessary.

ummmm what makes you think that a shock that does not have a knob labeled 'HSC' or 'LSC' does not have compression damping?

Any and every (properly) custom tuned shock has both the HSC and LSC (as well as LSR and HSR if applicable) tuned to the rider/bike/track/etc. A vanilla has just as much compression tuning (not turning) ability across the range of shaft speeds as any other Fox shock currently available.

 

[DirtyMike]

I got to ride one, and its actually pretty impressive. If you get a chance, take one for a ride, youll like it

 

[IH8Rice]

ummmm what makes you think that a shock that does not have a knob labeled 'HSC' or 'LSC' does not have compression damping?

Any and every (properly) custom tuned shock has both the HSC and LSC (as well as LSR and HSR if applicable) tuned to the rider/bike/track/etc. A vanilla has just as much compression tuning (not turning) ability across the range of shaft speeds as any other Fox shock currently available.

i dont believe i said that a shock doesnt have a compression dampening even if it doesnt have lsc and hsc.

my custom tuned Curnutt does not have a high or low speed adjustment.
and i said the vanilla is used widely even w/out those adjustments as well.

 

[davep]

i dont believe i said that a shock doesnt have a compression dampening even if it doesnt have lsc and hsc.

It is kind of semantics, but you did. If a shock has no high speed compression damping...and no low speed compression damping....it has no compression damping.

You are confusing the existance of an external knob with the existance of damping of a certain shaft rate. Any decent shock will have both higher (usually shims) and lower speed compression (usually a bleed port). External adjustability has absolutely nothing to do with the existance or lack of properly designed damping circuits.

my custom tuned Curnutt does not have a high or low speed adjustment.
and i said the vanilla is used widely even w/out those adjustments as well.

Actually your Curnutt (and the vanilla) has both High and low speed compression adjustments (they are not seperate, and have no 'knobs'). They are both made simultaneously when you change air pressure.

 

[IH8Rice]

kinda similar to the avy's w/out the high/low speed adjustments? the air or nitrogen change effects one another?

 

[toodles]

Ha... Dirt's reviews are ****e. Their race coverage is the best tho.

Does anyone remember the article where SJ compared Hill's Sunday to his Orange and claimed they were nearly identical? Except for some 'minor' geo differences What a dork.

 

[Steve M]

The problem with Dirt's bike reviews is that Steve Jones can't do anything except compare the bike to "what in my eyes, is the best bike in the world, the Orange 224". He claimed Hill's Sunday geo was "almost the same" as the 224 - despite the fact that the differences are pretty friggin major - and he flat out ignores the fact that suspension performance of the Oranges (all of them) is actually pretty poor compared to most bikes.

As far as poor geometry - the M6 and Sunday are both widely accepted as having some of the best race geometry out there. Low and slack, you can't really go wrong.

Dirt is a fantastic mag, but their bike reviews suck. A lot of crapping on, very little feedback on how the bike rides, constant comparisons to a 224, inconsistent opinions of the bikes and generally willful ignorance IMO. I'll still buy the mag but their bike reviews are a complete joke IMO.

 

[jonesdirt]

A detailed reply to these remarks will be printed in Dirt 81
In the meantime please give me a call on 00441600 891518 or email me jones@dirtmag.co.uk

 

[Udi]

nice.

 

[pelo]

Hi Dirt.
I was about to write the "mother-milk of DH" and post a tittie, but it wasn't very appropiate.

 

[- seb]

A detailed reply to these remarks will be printed in Dirt 81
In the meantime please give me a call on 00441600 891518 or email me jones@dirtmag.co.uk

I DO like it when comments don't get ignored, and a company (or in this case magazine) come on here to acknowledge the public and join the discussion. Credit to you Steve

 

[al-irl]

i'm really not sure why anyone ever relies on a magazine artical for a good review on a bike. This isn't a dig at dirt but bike, car, snowboard etc magazines are all pretty much the same and never really give a honest opinion as there protecting there advertising revenue. Have you ever seen a kona get a bad review in any bike magazine? isn't it funny considering they have full page adds across the back of most bike magazines.

DIrt is still a cool mag although i think it was better when it was bi monthly. The race coverage is second to none and all the random articles are cool. There bike reviews never give an actual strong opinion particularly about pointing out any weaknesses in a bike they just brush over them and fail to mention them.

 

[MarkDH]

A detailed reply to these remarks will be printed in Dirt 81
In the meantime please give me a call on 00441600 891518 or email me jones@dirtmag.co.uk

All credit to you Steve for stepping up to the plate, however if you do respond to this in Dirt, please don't take the tack that because we're using a forum, we don't ride and therefore know hee-haw about what a bike should ride like. We get enough of that in Whistler Diaries.

We'd all love to ride all day every day on lift accessed trails, testing out the top end bikes perfectly set up for our weight and our riding style (not that I'm saying you enjoy that pleasure every day), but we can't, so we rely on magazines like yours to give us informed articles. For you then to dismiss, as an example, the Iron Horse Sunday as a comparison to the Trek for geometry and/or suspension issues (whether it is either, or, or both is not made clear, likewise with the M6) when it is a bike that has been raved about in Dirt since it was first released, with no explanation of these faults, you have to understand that this puts the rest of the article into question in most readers eyes.

Yeah, you could tell us to go and get a shot on whatever bike it is we are interested in and make our own minds up, and if you are going to be putting down some cash for a bike then this is universally seen as a good idea. This only brings the argument full circle however, as we can't all get access to the bike we'd like to try on a good track. That's why, instead, we first put out money down for a magazine written by guys whose job it is to test bikes, and we can then hopefully narrow our search down on the pan while taking a crafty sh*t break at work. In a sense, we are paying money for a service, paying money for a magazine to do the homework for us, so if we don't agree with the quality of the service then I think we have a right to call that into question. Yeah, we could also buy another magazine, but I've just forked out for this one and spilt some juice on it so I don't think they'll give me a refund.

I'll still buy Dirt by the way, the photos are excellent, and there are some great articles (recent Megavalanche one as an example), but for the moment I'll still be taking the bike reviews with a pinch of salt.

 

[Ithnu]

On the note that all magazines are biased, I have to say I've been pretty impressed with Transworld Snowboarding on their Good Wood Tests. Sometimes that $400 off brand is on the list and the $700 Burton CustomX is not. But they test their boards with covered top sheets and bases. And their testers are anyone from mag employees, to friends, to pros, or ex-pros who don't care about sponsors anymore.

I am glad to see people in the media read these forums. I remember reading in MT Action they said something along the lines of "don't trust the people on the internet forums, trust us." Sounds like a perfect reason not to trust them.

That's not directed at Dirt, but just an example of the media lying to us! Of course that would mean I'm believing people on the internet...

 

[banj]

Ha... Dirt's reviews are ****e. Their race coverage is the best tho.

I don't know about that, I've found there race coverage has been a little lacking of late as well. Still good, but not great. The best magazine race coverage I've read this year was Sven's in decline.

 

[NJMX835]

All magazine reviews are somewhat biased or at least cautious, no one wants to alienate potential advertisers, it is a business after all.

I can't really recall ever seeing a magazine review stating 'what a steaming hunk of sh*t, worst bike ever!' :biggrin:

 

[SylentK]

Yes, Jonsey had some confusing comments in the review, but in the conclusion, he is consistent with the rest of the article. He is trying to give a balanced review. Meaning he is pointing out the good and the bad. From what I gathered, yes it is a sweet bike, and def worth a look, but is it perfect? No bike ever is, because what you compare it to, or what you think is the best is so subjective. He probably could've done a better job explaining that. Or perhaps assumed the reader already knew that. But still, overall, he has such high praise for the bike, you know its gotta be good. And that's probably all he can say. The rest is up to the individual rider.

The people who say "take it with some salt" make me laugh. Are you saying you believe everything in magazines, so much that you actually have to declare you are taking it with a scoop of salt when you don't believe it?! Cheese and rice...

FWIW - I'd believe Dirt's reviews over Decline and MTB Fiction. But about the same as MBUK and BIKE. Meaning I don't take any dirt rag's opinion as fact and if I buy something based on their review, "buyer beware" certainly rings more true.

 

[Steve M]

A detailed reply to these remarks will be printed in Dirt 81
In the meantime please give me a call on 00441600 891518 or email me jones@dirtmag.co.uk

Hey Steve, that was me who called you, line dropped out so I emailed you instead. Cheers for acknowledging your critics

 

[Cant Climb]

I loved the layout of the whole piece........the profiles of the players was a nice take. Have always enjoyed the colloquial tone of the writing....every other word isn't stoked, pimp, or gnarly.

As for the reviews......like any other magazine they have to walk a fine line. But if you read DIRT closely and often you can do some "reading between the lines" when it comes to product reviews.

 

[DhDork]

Glad this topic was brought up as I read the review last night and was a tad confused at some points, has anyone ridden the new Trek themselves who can maybe shed some light on the matter?

I have. I didn't like the way it rode. Granted, it was only one run at Whistler. But, I felt it was not a DH bike at all. The geometry was for sure, but the suspension was definitely more suited towards a FR bike.

 

[toodles]

A detailed reply to these remarks will be printed in Dirt 81
In the meantime please give me a call on 00441600 891518 or email me jones@dirtmag.co.uk

No worries, emailed you

All credit to you Steve for stepping up to the plate, however if you do respond to this in Dirt, please don't take the tack that because we're using a forum, we don't ride and therefore know hee-haw about what a bike should ride like. We get enough of that in Whistler Diaries.

Good point. The seriously condescending attitude I've seen from some magazines to forum users is ridiculous. The same people that use RM, Farkin, etc are the same people who buy magazines in the first place. I ride as much as anyone, I just so happen to use forums as well.

 

[Mr Nug]

Yes, Jonsey had some confusing comments in the review, but in the conclusion, he is consistent with the rest of the article. He is trying to give a balanced review. Meaning he is pointing out the good and the bad. From what I gathered, yes it is a sweet bike, and def worth a look, but is it perfect? No bike ever is, because what you compare it to, or what you think is the best is so subjective. He probably could've done a better job explaining that. Or perhaps assumed the reader already knew that. But still, overall, he has such high praise for the bike, you know its gotta be good. And that's probably all he can say. The rest is up to the individual rider.

I agree that on the whole the review was informative and I sympathise with how difficult it must be to review bike no.125 while still keeping the prose interesting and objective. That said I'm looking forward to being proved wrong when Issue 81 comes out. Pity it's a way off...

 

[LMC]

I loved the layout of the whole piece........the profiles of the players was a nice take. Have always enjoyed the colloquial tone of the writing....every other word isn't stoked, pimp, or gnarly.

As for the reviews......like any other magazine they have to walk a fine line. But if you read DIRT closely and often you can do some "reading between the lines" when it comes to product reviews.

exactly, read between the lines. they have to be diplomatic, and i think quite a good job is done in that respect.

Mountain biker international used to be my favorite mag, it folded because they printed a report of a broken LOBO rear end, and another incident with cannondale (i think they intercepted one of the cannondale fulcrum bikes en route to the crusher and ran a test on it!) both parties pulled advertising and the magazine went bust.

 

[Pslide]

Having read quite a few SJ articles / bike reviews, you get used them. You don't expect to understand everything and you hunt and peck for a few hard facts. In one paragraph he can say something is both good and bad at the same time.

The best bike reviews Dirt has done is when Ed H (who is a proper bike geek) does a technical review, and then SJ does a ride report.

I really liked the two part Trek 88 review...loved seeing how much work went into the design. But yeah, the ride review left a bit to be desired...

If you want good kit reviews, look to MBR magazine. Quite scientific and unbiased. Control tires, etc. Too bad they cover big bikes about once a year...

Don't be too hard on Dirt though, or they'll go back to doing no bike reviews at all!

 

[William42]

I have. I didn't like the way it rode. Granted, it was only one run at Whistler. But, I felt it was not a DH bike at all. The geometry was for sure, but the suspension was definitely more suited towards a FR bike.

care to elaborate on that? are you saying it was super progressive and felt like a huck bike?

 

[JCL]

What he's saying is it didn't have the right weight spring on it.