Used to know the guy who publishes one of the biggest snowmobile magazines. Every year the manufacturers would loan him lots of brand new snowmobiles to test and write about. Any time you went by his place he always had 6-8 brand new snowmobiles sitting there. He even didn't own a snowmobile himself. Didn't have to because he could get any model he wanted to test.

He never said anything bad about any of them although he admitted to me which models he really liked and which he thought were crap. He told me that he didn't dare slam a particular model of snowmobile for fear that he would then lose the advertising dollars of that company.

That's the way the industry works.

Hmmmm....suspected there was a fair bit of that in the bike game.

Whats the point of writing a review then. Why not just write an article about the manufacturers who advertise in the magazine.

A logical question, as that would make better sense.

Ah, but the world tends not to follow logic...

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

Exactly. The problem is the fact that magazine publishing's main revenue comes from advertising. I used to buy a lot of car magazines and always noted how they mostly wrote about cars that were advertised in the magazines. They also only ever slammed cars with poor road reviews that didn't advertise in the magazines. The advertisers products always got good reviews.

You need a non biased medium like Consumer Reports or similiar.

More ad dollars = better review.
That's how car industry reviews work as well.
I believe Car and Driver to be the only car mag with any integrity left and TopGear (BBC's car show) is brutaly honest. That's it though, out of thousands of car publications (TV, print and web).
I imagine the same to be true for anything else that gets reviewed.
Few years ago, with all the Web based review sites I was really hoping we'll see more real product reviews, but after a few lawsuits seems like profesional reviewers are scared to speak they mind.

edit:
Beaten by above... oh well.

---

http://www.optruth.org/

well, it's like the annual gear issues from inside tri and triathlete. it's basically a laundry list of items without a meaningful word about the product itself. god forbid someone should have an opinion other than, "MUST HAVE!" especially when the must have item is usually over $200.

is there really such a thing as a bad bike?

are not some just better than others?

---

Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

I'm willing to say that paired spoked wheels aren't anything special after having two pairs.

Bunnyman thinks integrated headsets are crap.

That's a start.

performance brand bikes suck. jamis mtb frames crack at the welding pt and the warranty sucks....

you mean like that bike editor for a large tri mag whose every review basically states 'stiff enough for short course, comfortable enough for you ironman distance athletes'?

Oh yeah... well put. Those gear reviews give me the shits no end - basically advertising dressed up. Rarely do they have anything more than the advertising blurb from the manufacturer.

For Example - I own numerous sets of running kit, some very good others not so good but every single one I could sugest something to make it better. EG one Asics singlet I have - great fit, great cut but they have a detailing seam that runs right over the nipple line - what runner had an input into that!? - after 10km it is like sand paper on the nipples!

Not to derail this thread, but what grounds for a lawsuit exist because of a bad review? Doesn't the company have to prove malicious intent (really, really hard to prove)?

Hmmm... I'm thinking of your question like this: Is there any road/tri bike out there (be reasonable, I'm not talking about WalMart bikes) that I would tell a friend to absolutely NOT buy even if it it fit him perfectly? The reason to urge him not to buy must have nothing to do with price, color, looks, or brand, just based on quality.

I've got one that comes to mind...thinking...

I would never tell anyone, even a really raw beginner, to but something with Sora. Piecemeal upgrades are impossible and eventually they'll either toss the whole bike or upgrade the whole groupo at once. No one should ever buy a bike with lower than 105.

The answer lies in competing interests...magazines need ads for revenue...if you think mags stay alive on circulation $ you're mistaken. So...if they need ads to stay afloat...they can't risk alienating the biggest advertisers out there by panning their products. Slowman's mag published reviews are probably as close as you're going to find in terms of truthful...but even those are carefully worded (probably with help from the 'friendly' editors) so as not to piss off advertisers. Slowman's reviews on this site are probably the best you're going to find in terms of reputable reviews that cross the lines between producer and user. You can find truthful reviews elsewhere on bike review sites...but its always a gamble whether someone's review is overly reliant on personal bias or silly axe-to-grind. And the one-off reviews are ALWAYS subject to limited exposure to the breadth of products available. Take the many "review" threads of, say, Cervelo you can read on this forum for example...when the person says "yeah...Cervelo P3 is a great bike...stiff...light...etc...etc..." its highly likely that the P3 is one of only a few bikes they've ever owned. Does this make their statement wrong? No...but it certainly means that their opinion is less informed than, say, Slowman's...or Demerly's or other current/former industry types who've owned/sold/built/ridden much larger samplings. Tom D's review of the Litespeed Blade a few years ago is one such review that was truthful, and based on a much greater understanding of the products available than you or I will ever have... Litespeed didn't want to hear that sort of stuff...but you know what...in the end the Blade was changed in ways that directly affected the issues Tom pointed out. Whether Tom's review had anything to do with that or not, I don't know...but Tom did write about those issues and certainly helped many folks like me decide against those particular evolutions of that frame.

At the end of the day, though, no one really wants to read negative stuff about their particular bike... ;-> I certainly have to try hard and keep an open mind when I read negative stuff on the Talon/Talon SL...

"No one should ever buy a bike with lower than 105."

I think that might be a little extreme. I agree that one should stay away from Sora, but given the choice between a Tiagra bike in the buyers price range and no bike at all.... I think bits of Tiagra are just fine. (I won't be riding them though! ;-) )

If Tiagra is compatible with the other 9spd stuff then fine. I just wouldn't want someone to buy a $600 bike only to realize a year later that it needs $500 worth of upgrades. Better to buy a used bike with Ultegra.

On the rare occasion, I will buy something to be the guinea pig. I admit that there was not all that good of a forum up until about 1999 (as I was very sheltered about the internet until then), but I have written a review on occasion and one ended up posted on the Slowtwitch forum.

I gambled $320 on a Renn disc then. I had paid for it myself, and furthermore, had a lot to lose at the time. $320 was cheap, cheap, cheap for a disc wheel. But it was a boatload if it was crap.

Believe me, if it would not have been any good at the time, I would have told Frank, first, and if he would not have redeemed himself, I would have shouted from the mountain tops. This was my attitude AFTER the next story.

I did get a custom-order bike from someone whom I thought I could trust, and got ripped off. He tried charging me $8000 for an $800 order (which was declined, then acted like it was my fault), which should have been my clue. This was after trying to get me to Western Union the money. I thought that if I were quiet and only pestered him, I would finally get satisfaction. But it never happened. I admit that I was a total prick when I unloaded on him, but I kept getting delay after delay during the delivery process (and Fed Ex proved that he lied about his shipment date), lame answer after lame answer, and I lost it when things were missing and/or incorrect spec. I will not say whom it is, as he is out of business and it won't help me or anyone else, anyway. I ended up ridding myself of that bike as it was a noodle.

Anyway, it should be known that when you are the one paying for it, you take a much bigger risk. Magazines do not have the budget to be objective about bikes, as bikes are supplied free for reviews and the advertisers pay their bills. It is simply unaffordable to be truthful in a magazine.

I have written highly critical reviews that I fel were well researched and, although opinionated, at least articulate in the opinions and fairly well supported.

Some have been fairly well received as constructive criticsim, others actually resulted in the bike company calling me and first, begging me to take them down, then, threatening me openly.

The fact of the matter is, the second a publication or site sells advertising they cannot be honest. We don;t sell advertsing on our site at all, and there is some benefit to that.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Cool topic - I wish more people would give specific examples



What was that QR bike, low end model a couple of years ago. Sort of a hybrid road and tri bike, a really hideous green color...

I think slowman gave that a pretty unfavorable review, and I believe it's not being offered any more. (not saying there is cause and effect)

---

_______________________________________________

The only issues I ever heard with that bike are really about the geometry. So say the geometry works for someone. I don't have any reason to believe that the bike didn't ride well or was poorly made.

I think there is another issue at work here and it is pride. If you are the proud owner of POS bike which you paid a lot of money for, say $1500.00 plus. Are you gonna go spouting off to the world what a POS it is and how much of an idiot you were to buy it? Lets face it we all like to defend our posistions and purchases, it is natural to do so. And they can be justified in just about any way to make the purchase seem reasonabale. For example I own two bikes, a P3 and a Schwinn Peleton. IMO I got GREAT deals on both, the P3 was purcahsed used on EBAY for $1200 and the Schiwinn was purcahsed at a LBS new for $1,100. Since most everybody is familair with the P3 they will see that $1200 for a P3 is a pretty sweet deal. The Schwinn is a 853 steel frame, basically a Paramount without lugs, it has Dura Ace on it, but crappy wheels, Mavic CPX 21. Again IMO a great deal @$1,100.00. But here is where it gets dicey- The P3 is a 57cm 650cc bike, I am 6'0 and the frame is to long for me, I would be better off on a 55 700cc. But I still ride the bike, and I still love it and think it is the best bike on the road. So even when good bikers, you know the guys who can see a bad fit (mine isn't really that bad, but it is a bit on the big side)from a mile away come up to me and say "boy that top tube is a bit long for you" I immidiately go into defense mode expalining away why I ride the bike starting always with the whole used purcashed on EBay for $1,200.00-defending my purcahse story. Further more when a cyclist comes up and says that P3 isn't a "real" bike, only (pick your classic road bike manufacturer) is a real bike. The same thing will happen, I will start defending the bike like it is my wife or kids,becasue I don't want to take those lumps.

Now the schiwinn hangs in my garage collecting dust becasue I ride the P3. But when I was riding it from 98-2003 I could NEVER get comfortable on it. I always had lower back pain not matter what i tried, new stems, bars, seats. seat posts. For me the bike was a bad bike, I guess it was fit, but that doesn't make it a shitty bike. And you know what I still feel like I got a sweet deal on it and I still like the bike and think it is a fine ride, it just doesn't work for me. When I was riding it and the back started screaming and I had to drop out of a group ride, or couldn't ride at all, I used to get comments all the time that I should get rid of the POS Schwinn and get a "real" bike. That hurts on two levels first they are attacking Schwinn, and since I had bought it they might as well have been attacking my own last name. Secondly the bikes, make and components are in fact quite high quality (minus the wheels). Off I would go defending away my purcahse and why I ride the bike.

I guess you can sum it up like this- neither of my bikes are POS's by my standards. But they certainly might qualify as bad purcahses by me.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

My cross bike is a mix of sora, Tiagra (shifters, I think) and Deore (casette and rear derailler) and works great so far. Just as well as my 105 stuff on my road bike. I bet the only difference is a little weight. I'm taking it on a lot of gravel and crappy roads this spring, so it will be interesting to see how it holds up. If it's half as durable as the Deore DX/LX on my 12-yr-old MTB, I will be happy.

"He said the problem lay in the front end being way, way too flexible and that Armstrong had his stiffened up with a titanium wrap."

This sounds pretty "iffy." I'm not sure what a titanium "wrap" is, or how it might stiffen a bike. Knowing only a small bit about how trek makes the tt bike, i'm not sure how they could have added this nebulous ti wrap during the manufacturing process. It's certainly not visible in pictures of lances bike. They also would've done this to landis' and hincapie's bikes; if a bike isn't stiff enough for lance, it's gonna noodle all over teh place for them.

In other words, i respectfully offer that your freind is full of shit. If i'm wrong, then, well, i'm a terd.

I believe the QR bike you are referring to was the 0-Gravity.

As I said, I personally know squat... but unless you have won some national championships, held a world record and placed in the top half dozen in the world as well as having manufactured bikes for several years... then this guy knows more than you.

I do agree with your coment on the "ti wrap" sounding iffy and of course all the others in the USPS would have the same. Just wish I'd got some more specifics from him at the time. Those Trek's sure look pretty, just wonder about the substance behind them - they never seem to get a huge amount of publicity here - perhaps due to having a relatively slack seat angle (from memory and too lazy to check Trek's web site).

A few reasons why it doesn't make any sense to deride bad bikes, and there are some bad and quite a few "less good" bikes out there is that it doesn't accomplish anything positive at all. Here's what I mean:

• When a bike reviews overwhelmingly good from a number of sources, then it warrants a look. That means the bikes other than that bike are less good. What a publication doesn't say often means more than what they do.
• I have little or no interest in publishing negative reviews on my site since I wouldn't sell those bikes anyway- so I have no interest in using space that could be used to promote something I am willing to sell. Basically, if it is substandard, I'm not willing to talk about it.
• If you just buy what reviews genuinely well consistently, you'll probably be OK if it fits you correctly and is built well.

There are a few bikes conspicuously missing from our review rotation. WE reviewed them, found them sub-par, and have not published reviews of them on our site. There are more bikes that are wonderful bikes that are a story worth telling.

I think one of the best "good news" stories is the upcoming review we are doing of the Litespeed Blade. That started out a number of years ago as a bike with more than its fair share of problems- and we reviewed it this way. The new version of the Blade is a totally different bike- completely updated and redesigned and much, much, much better. In our review I make an argument- a good one- that it is the finest ti tri specific bike you can buy from any manufacturer right now. But when it started, it was rough. Now it is outstanding. That is the kind of story that benefits everybody to tell.

And please don't ask me when the review will be up. Soon.....

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

"In all the time I have read cycling magazines I am yet to come across a review that really slates a bike."

i don't know. i got fired twice from the same magazine for writing reviews that were sufficiently unfavorable as to get me my walking papers.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Define "bike"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Yeah, but they don't have the nads to actually print it.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

A big part of reading any review is knowing the author and his style well enough to read between the lines. Most reviews in most areas- not just bikes- won't come right out and slam a product, but many of them will damn it with faint praise. The trick is sometimes in knowing when a particular review writer intends his praise to be faint, and when he intends it to be genuine.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

This is actually my primary argument against "custom" geometry:

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Yeah you're right - I recall the specific complaint was about genometry not about workmanship or the like.

My main problem was the hideous color ;)

---

_______________________________________________

"Yeah, but they don't have the nads to actually print it."

yes, they did, and they keep rehiring me. they've got honor. well, they haven't rehired me since this last firing. i'm in between gigs. they get conflicted over this stuff. but there is other magazine with which i'm familiar, i swear, it specifically sets out to rag on your product if you advertise with it. like, you CAN'T get a good review if you advertise there. like they're making a point of how they don't cater to advertisers.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Glad to help.

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Tom,

Not all retailers are, shall we say honest as you. You know that in order to be in the "business" you must make certain compromises to be a vendor for certain name brands. I know in the auto business you are forced to take allotments for all of a name brands lineups. Look at how many Pontiac dealers got stuck with those God aweful Aztecs on their lots becasue they were forces to take them. So if you are a dealer and you carry a certain line of products, most of which a good, but a one or two are dogs are you gonna bad mouth the dogs? I doubt most dealers would. In fact they might even be scared to for fear of loosing the brand.

If you have a good LBs and a good relationship with the LBS you would hope that one on one they would tell you to avoid certain products. But in the case of a printed or on-line review like you have with BikeSport the dynamics change altogether. Then factor in that if a LBS has made an investment by bringing product in to sell you can bet they are gonna try to sell it- crap or not.

So no matter which way you turn- Magazine, Online Site, LBS - All of them have an interest in making every product they review look good. After all it will make them more money.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

[/url]Introduction


We are a gang who like to ride strange vessels called CHOPPERS. They are radically modified bicycles. Modified to suit our needs.



[/url]Philosophy And Creed

Most engineering goes on the axiom that form follows function. This is not the case with the bicycle chopper. We let form prevail, and make the function happen forcefully. If we tried to create efficient, easy to pilot machines the result would be a regular bike. SCUL creates bikes that are difficult to control, damaging to knees, and painful to sit upon. They are structurally unsound and easy to crash. We are test pilots of poorly designed vessels. The single advantage that choppers have over other bikes is that they are better at running over empty Burger King shake cups.

Scul Fighters are made mostly from derelict craft, transformed from civilian to military craft. Any reports of derelict craft in local systems should be reported immediately to the SCUL Department of Derelict Craft Retrieval (SDDCR). It is imperative that this information is relayed quickly, before the craft is retrieved as space junk. Derelict ships have several advantages. First, the cost of retrieving the ship is much lower than buying a used ship. Secondly, it is easier to transform a civilian craft than to build a military one from raw materials. Also it is noble to rescue these beautiful ships and use them again as protectors of peace. Lastly these ships possess special traits that are subtle yet powerful.

The SCUL pilot defends the bicycle and pedestrain population in a leisurly manner.



SCUL believes that cycling should never be discouraged. Therefore a SCUL pilot will strive not to make fun of anyone making an effort in cycling. If a SCUL pilot notices that someone is doing something incorrectly (i.e.: wearing their helmet backwards) that pilot should point it out. Laugh at them later if you must.

SCUL members are encouraged to make fun of everyone else.



-- Great site, randymar!!

Damn, twice from the same boss. How many people can say that?

---

TheBikeRacer.com