MBR, why the hate?

pdid

I realise this is a competitor so remove if you wish but......

As the title suggests, I read through many threads on here and on various other MTB forums and there is a lot of hatred toward this magazine, why?

I read MBUK, WMTB an MBR regularly and all have their quirks, but MBR is the one that is continually berated.

The Northern Monkey

I avoid MBR simply because the majority of their content is copied by MBUK a month or 2 later.

I think this months MBR has "how to service a Hope Pro 2 Hub"...and guess whats in MBUK's grimetime clinic in the next MBUK?!

I prefere the writing style and read of MBUK which is why I read it, but it does seem to copy alot of its stuff.

stumpyjon

I'm the opposite to bigbenj, I like MBR and can't stand MBUK (subscribe to WMB though).

Horses for courses, this is a Future Publishing forum after all so I guess more people have come to it from MBUK / WMB rather than MBR / SIngletrack (other MTB mags are available).

supersonic

Not a fan of MBR. Don't seem to cater well for beginenrs or budget riders (classing a £1500 full susser as a budget bike for instance), are biased towards full sussers which was shown in that ridiculous test they did and seem to rate most bikes based on the head angle and stem length. Just too narrow in their outlook.

stumpyjon

Aye but they along with MBUK are the ones you're most likely to see on the shelves. What's wrong with catering to people who like full sussers, who spend more than they can afford :oops:

The great thing about the mags is they do cover a fairly broad spectrum of tastes.

MBUK for the under 12's :twisted:

WMB for the more hardware orientated.

MBR for the full suss brigade.

Singletrack for the more mature rider.

Dirt for, actually haven't a clue, never read it.

They all overlap with route features, gear reviews etc. but do it in a different style. More diversity I say, as long as it's in the form of XC, mid range bikes in a mature and stately manner. :roll:

supersonic

Nothing wrong in that sense, and as you say a mixture is a good thing. But I think their view of budget (have to spend at least 500 on a MTB) and beginners is flawed and will put people off the sport.

BlackSpur

supersonic wrote:

Not a fan of MBR. Don't seem to cater well for beginenrs or budget riders (classing a £1500 full susser as a budget bike for instance), are biased towards full sussers which was shown in that ridiculous test they did and seem to rate most bikes based on the head angle and stem length. Just too narrow in their outlook.

I completely agree. Having been an MBR subscriber (only to get the sub gift!) I found that most of the bike reviews would talk about why the head abgle of every bike on test should be slacked, stem shorter and bars wider. After reading an MBR article I find myself knowing very little of how the bike actually rides, how the suspension works etc.

GT Destroyer

I have just finished a sub with MBUK and will probably re-sub depensing on what free goodies they can tempt me with.

I do enjoy a read of MBR though - It seems more mature to me for some reason?

I love the maps pull-out things they do as well - There is nothing in MBUK to even rival that.

pdid

So is it fair to assume people don`t like MBR because its a little bit high brow with regards to beginners and the cheaper end of the spectrum?

I did notice that they tend to relate to head angles and stem legnth in every test also.

nonnac85

when i got into MTB i bought MBUK, MBR and i think another one (Dirt?) to see what each was like. I have stayed with MBUK because of the mix of articles and as a beginner I found a lot of the technical terms and info about headangles etc in MBR a bit over my head (although I agree that the maps are very useful).

DoctorBobrick

I read both magazines, MBUK seems to be more gravity oriented whereas MBR seems to be more XC oriented, I like MBR for the big mountain rides and the great scenery pics they have though

The Big Cheese

I personally like 40+ magazine... mwah hahahahahahahaahhahaa.......

.blitz

Singletrack FTW! *

*I'll get me coat

.blitz

stumpyjon wrote:

Dirt for, actually haven't a clue, never read it.

Winner of the 'Smallest Font' award, Dirt is pretty good in a 'right on' kind of way although sometimes I think they try a bit too hard to 'keep it real'. Word. Or something like that.

hucking_fell

MBR's pull out routes are mostly in England and Wales. I live way up in Scotland so they are of little interest to me.

I want reviews of kit and not someone else's local ride explained in every detail over 6 pages.

I subscribe to Dirt and MBUK but am thinking of changing MBUK for WMTB. Must be getting old.

Also, anyone else notice that over winter some bike magazines have a 'photo issue'. I'm thinking Dirt and Singletrack here. Is this just because there's not a lot going on this time of year and it's an easy way to get the magazine out? If I wanted to read about camera settings and kit then I would have bought a different magazine.

.blitz

Hucking Fell wrote:

Also, anyone else notice that over winter some bike magazines have a 'photo issue'.

I was faintly gobsmacked with the Dirt Photo Issue - I thought it was a 'special' or something and the real magazine would be along later. I find grainy pictures of lairy racers 'going big' as boring as bat sh*t and I'm glad I don't subscribe.

Dan67

MBR also seems very biased towards specialized bikes as if they are sponsored by them. There has never been a average or bad review for them even though there appears to be better bikes on test

John Moore

Both MBR & MBUK hate SS bikes so I hate them, I'm also 41 so it's Singletrack all the way for me :oops:

Slo rider

I started on mbr, and found it ok, but soon became tired of the constant obsession with weight, stems, head angle, anti HT, and somewhat hooray-henry-ish attitude.
I do still buy it from time to time if there is something in it I want to read, but once I had got my head round the slightly 'rad dude' mindset of mbuk, I was converted.
MBUK and WMTB I find are much more 'real world' with their attitude and reviews, i find them very personable, people who I don't want to smack for being an arse, rather would actually want to talk to and ride with.
MBR is good for technical content in reviews, sometimes mbuk and wmtb can be a bit lacking in this respect with a tendancy to say a bike or compenent is good without any sufficient technical basis.
Horses for courses, but mbuk and wmtb get my pennies every month, because bikes aren't about shaving 5g off the weight and 0.625 degree off the head angle and being of the opinion that a 70 compound 2" xc tyre is all you need for anything and that if you use a bigger and stickier tyre you are both a crap rider and are going to die as soon as you reach a moderate incline...

Slo rider

D'oh!

supersonic

Slo rider wrote:

I started on mbr, and found it ok, but soon became tired of the constant obsession with weight, stems, head angle, anti HT, and somewhat hooray-henry-ish attitude.
I do still buy it from time to time if there is something in it I want to read, but once I had got my head round the slightly 'rad dude' mindset of mbuk, I was converted.
MBUK and WMTB I find are much more 'real world' with their attitude and reviews, i find them very personable, people who I don't want to smack for being an ars*, rather would actually want to talk to and ride with.
MBR is good for technical content in reviews, sometimes mbuk and wmtb can be a bit lacking in this respect with a tendancy to say a bike or compenent is good without any sufficient technical basis.
Horses for courses, but mbuk and wmtb get my pennies every month, because bikes aren't about shaving 5g off the weight and 0.625 degree off the head angle and being of the opinion that a 70 compound 2" xc tyre is all you need for anything and that if you use a bigger and stickier tyre you are both a crap rider and are going to die as soon as you reach a moderate incline...

Well said!

Sometimes it can be difficult to put in words why a component is good - bars sometimes just feel right, tyres may give you confidence, but a lot is personal opinion. It is finding that right blend in a review of opinion and objectiveness.

stumpyjon

Not that Sonic's got a vested interest

Slo rider

Just bought mbr this week, first time since they 'revamped' it, jeez, talk about copying mbuk!...

toasty

I read all (except Dirt), I do enjoy MBR to be honest, being told bars "just feel right" may be handy for the person who wrote the article but from the perspective of someone buying bars it's fairly useless, there are far too many factors.

The geometry numbers normally come from comparing to previous models, new model being slacker/steeper etc. I personally find this quite handy, I've been through quite a few bikes and, for example, if I went out and bought a new Commencal Meta 09 tomorrow, the fact that the forks have got slacker this year would be useful advice. The fact that the suspension feels 'nice', would not.

As for the Specialized allegiance, I haven't agreed by that for ages. They do well in reviews in all magazines, they're very good value bikes though, as a company they also make some of the strongest, lightest wheels about, a good range of light tubeless ready tyres, decent lockon grips. This technology is normally a good jump ahead of the oem crap you get on most other bikes.

I'm honestly impartial here, I test rode an Enduro Expert today actually, I'd love a set of those Eskars on Rovals on my Commencal to be honest. I'd rather not plaster my bike in the Specialized brand though :P

supersonic

With the geometry and stem length, I find with MBR they want the same with all bikes. Sure, it may have changed from one year to the next on a model, but the seem to want the same numbers on every bike. Bit more to it than that, as the wheel base, toptube length combined with seat angle has weight dist factors which also effect handling.

There seems to be an aversion for any head angle above 69 degrees, why? For some bikes, and riders, it provides snappier handling, combined with the other measurements.

Slo rider

Yeah, after reading the mags and riding my enduro pre modification I considered 69 degree to be too steep, however, after pimping up my olde '03 enduro with pikes, +5mm headset, and a Dt rear shock, it was transformed downhill, but on tight twisty stuff, although ok, is a tiny bit 'reluctant' for me. My inbred with 115mm rebas however feels really snappy, and is surprisingly stable downhill.
The other week I measured the head angles, turns out the enduro now has a 68 degree angle from the original 70, and the inbred has 69 degree, so where the enduro was a little twitchy before on descents, but fine on twisty stuff, to how it is now being the other way round, and the way the inbred feels, it is actually 69 degrees that I require.
If I read MBR though, a bike with a 69 angle will throw me off over the bars and I must have 67.5 or less or the bike will be pants...
Funny how in wmtb the new blur gets a stonking review, with, shock horror, a 69 degree angle...
Bit long winded, but you get my point!

supersonic

Many racy XC bikes are often 71, unsagged. But these bikes don't exist in MBR, as do neithjer 29ers, who have often 73 degree angles (different fork rake though).

My old Ruckus had a 67 degree head angle with a 130mm tora. Slack seat angle too, weight was far back over the BB. The handling in the twisty stuff was horrible, so slow, then suddenly wanting to flop over.

toasty

Is there any article in particular that this 69 degrees rule applies to? The only reviews I see which look for slacker head angles are those on longer travel bikes, which suffer more from diving front ends and benefit more from the confidence inspiring laid back feeling. I've certainly never seen a review of race bikes which was commenting on 70+ head angles.

I don't think it's too bad anyway, look at the way bikes are going, 10 years ago almost everything was a 71 or 72 degree head angle, they've gradually slackened out to the point where even racing bikes can be sub 70 degrees now.

Your Ruckus was primarily a jump/messaround bike, what do you expect? The way these measurements are done varies between manufacturers anyway, hence the difference in recorded and quoted numbers. A modern 6" travel, 67 degree trail bike isn't neccesarily as bad as riding a jump bike through tight singletrack, after taking sag into account you could be down to 68 degrees anyway.

Bit more to it than that, as the wheel base, toptube length combined with seat angle has weight dist factors which also effect handling.

Indeed, it normally mentions all of these though :?

Slo rider

Mbr did themselves proud this issue!
In a review on the meta 6.2 they said, in reference to the head angle which is adjustable, 'anyone using the 68.5 degree setting should be riding a meta 55' (I'll quote the exact words tomorrow)
Err, excuse me, but as supersonic said aswell, people can set their bike up how they want it to ride, it is not for the likes of mbr to dictate their opinion, thankyou very much!
I don't hate the mbr guys btw, just that they get a bit up themselves at times and think their take on things is gospel.

supersonic

Toasty wrote:

Is there any article in particular that this 69 degrees rule applies to? The only reviews I see which look for slacker head angles are those on longer travel bikes, which suffer more from diving front ends and benefit more from the confidence inspiring laid back feeling. I've certainly never seen a review of race bikes which was commenting on 70+ head angles.

I don't think it's too bad anyway, look at the way bikes are going, 10 years ago almost everything was a 71 or 72 degree head angle, they've gradually slackened out to the point where even racing bikes can be sub 70 degrees now.

Your Ruckus was primarily a jump/messaround bike, what do you expect? The way these measurements are done varies between manufacturers anyway, hence the difference in recorded and quoted numbers. A modern 6" travel, 67 degree trail bike isn't neccesarily as bad as riding a jump bike through tight singletrack, after taking sag into account you could be down to 68 degrees anyway.

Bit more to it than that, as the wheel base, toptube length combined with seat angle has weight dist factors which also effect handling.

Indeed, it normally mentions all of these though :?

My Ruckus was the Trail version, it was too slack! Bombproof, but worked better at much shorter travel.

We have seen a gradual shift to slightly slacker head angles, but lots of XC stuff is 70 and more. It does make more sense for slacker geo on some longer travel bikes, but I'd question it for every single bike.

But it seems almost every review I read is based primarily on the head angle and stem length. They don't even quote top tube length anymopre. Some do like a steeper set up!

BlackSpur

supersonic wrote:

But it seems almost every review I read is based primarily on the head angle and stem length. They don't even quote top tube length anymopre. Some do like a steeper set up!

They now instead quote down tube length, saying thry feel it gives a better indication to the size of a bike. I don't know about you guys but a down tube length means absolutely beggar all to me! Top tube lengths I can understand.

MBR articles often seem a bit hollow to me, commenting mostly on the face value details of the bike, details I can find from just looking at a spec sheet or geometry chart. I want to know what the manufacturer can't tell me - what the package as a whole is like, how the bike handles, what the ride is like etc.