What bikes would you like us to do long-term tests of?

Mr Wu

Toasty wrote:

Mr Wu wrote:

The majority of people will be using that scheme, people starting out in mountain biking etc.

I wish, the company I work for can't be bothered with the paperwork. Bizarrely they also said it didn't sound fair to give perks to cyclists but not people who drive in, I kid you not.

I'm sure a lot of poeple will be in the same boat.

Thats disgusting, the paperwork is minimal, i know cause i sent it up at my old company beofre i left. It really is very simple, sounds like they just cannot be arsed doing it.

Funnily enough the company i left a few years ago sold off five car parking spaces and the money it saved per year they gave towards the people that cycled in, not alot mind but a little thank you for using a bike rather than a car.

toasty

The cycle to work scheme is an odd one, huge discounts for cyclists at certain companys, no discount at others. I wish they'd just slightly lower the tax on bikes across the board, get more adults on bikes, more kids on bikes, it'd lead to better understanding drivers, less traffic etc.

Mr Wu

Toasty wrote:

The cycle to work scheme is an odd one, huge discounts for cyclists at certain companys, no discount at others. I wish they'd just slightly lower the tax on bikes across the board, get more adults on bikes, more kids on bikes, it'd lead to better understanding drivers, less traffic etc.

I think they should make it compulsary for new drivers (car) to ride pushbikes on the road for 6months proir to taking a test, to give them an appreciation on cyclists.

thoughts?

toasty

Although I don't think it'd ever happen, I'd love it if it did. A lot of car drivers need to realise quite how vulnerable cyclists are :?

Mr Wu

I think it helped me with driving (cars) because im always thinking about wheres he off to on that bike, is he going straight on at the roundabout etc...

I think you shoudl approach your company again about the CTW and tell them they have a duty of care for you and other work folk, and that cycling in everyday would make all the staff fitter and more allert etc. that how i put it to my MD before he told me to fuk off and stop wasting his precious time :-)

bellys

supersonic wrote:

I don't think £500 bikes are cheap - £150 maybe, but £500 buys a lot of bike, many that don't need these 'instant upgrades' which we seem to be obsessed with.

im with you on this i ride a £350 full sus iv had for 4mth done most of the centers in uk and it get hammerd today i did about 35miles off road over the snake pass and it never missed a beat i ride twice a week only thing iv changed was the chain (snapped) if you look after them ie a clean and lube after every ride then they last as long as a1k bike.
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/rockrider-6-3-34963775/ my bike i have also changed to Avid hydraulic disc brakes £50 from e-bay.
its not the lightest of bikes but im as fast down hill as the lads on 1k bikes (i dont like going up hill).

The Northern Monkey

why not test the full range or Reebok bikes you had advertised in MBUK a few months back?
Haven't had a proper review on them yet :roll:

supersonic

You never know ;-)

The Northern Monkey

i'd love to see Doddy doing a feature on something like "Improve your shore riding" while riding the Reebok "full suspension "style""

dmjb3

Feel inclined to post here for once.

Don't, whatever you do, review a load of Trek / Specialized etc. Everyone on here can put a quick post and get 1000 comments from actual long-term owners. fsr xc's and fuels sell 1000s. One reviewed already in every magazine you issue and not hard to track down info.

Review something different - interesting bikes - Orange St4, cotic hemlock. Kind of thing everyone interested enough in bikes to buy a magazine or be considering an upgrade would want to hear about,

£500 bikes are much of a muchness, and no real bother if you mess up, not a lot of money wasted, but at £1500 I want to know about reliability, bushing wear, shock life etc. Whats the warranty like etc. Do you think the stock fork is too short, too long. is there something that makes the bike hard to maintain - leaky brakes, pivots or dearilleur cable connections blocked by swingarms etc. Do the main dealers charge a fortune and are there non-standard parts fitted that can't be replaced cheaply online,

supertwisted

I'll bite.

I'm adding my vote to the £500ish bikes for longterm tests.

Everyone has made valid points as to the pros and cons of such a feature, so I won't repeat them.

What I will say, is that the publisher is looking for ways to sell more copy.
As a member of the £500ish bike club, I'd read every month if I could see a professional riding a bike like mine, on trails I want to ride while giving their opinion and reporting their experiences.
A lot of beginners ponder how a bike will suit them as their skills and fitness develop. This is a long-term experience, so a long-term feature that we can follow will be a big draw.
Yes there may be only so much you can say about this component or that feature on a budget hardtail, but interesting journalism isn't about ticking the usual boxes anyway.

Looking at the "how much was your bike" polls, there's a good 29% of people who may also share my opinion.

supersonic

"£500 bikes are much of a muchness"

This is where I really disagree - they aren't. I would say performance wise there is a wider window than more expensive bikes. Maybe not in intended usage, but within groups. Good choice of parts for that budget really make a difference.

Example - forks can range from a totally undamped RST to a fantastic performing Tora 318 with motion control for a typical xc/trail bike. At 1500 quid its Reba, Reba or Fox Float. Quite boring really. If it is variation in parts you are looking at. XT or X9 maybe a bit of XTR. Maybe not. Upto 500 quid you get a range from Altus to even XT in places.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying 500 quid bikes are better - I am saying that they are relevant for a lot of people. Pity they can't do long term reviews of a few from each price range to give a wider picture of what is available at those points.

noodleman

Anything carbon in the £1500-2500 bracket. I would be really interested how carbon stands up to long term abuse. Hopefully it will stop people scaremongering others into staying with more conventional materials.

noodleman

Anything carbon in the £1500-2500 bracket. I would be really interested how carbon stands up to long term abuse. Hopefully it will stop people scaremongering others into staying with more conventional materials. Dont know why that just posted twice :oops:

deadliest

Toasty wrote:

[quote="

Jesus_Christ wrote:

ive seen a thousand riders like you

Indeed, you might even want to use the word "majority". Those of us who want to read articles relevant to our interests, on things we might one day buy.

Its like not watching Top Gear because the cars are beyond our reach ???

My first bike cost £400 the new one cost £1300 I have been riding for 2 years and dribble when I see a Yeti or top end Lapierre its the whole concept of boys and toys, We all aspire to own nice things its not snobbery its a simple case of having dreams and goals that motivates most of us.

toasty

supersonic wrote:

This is where I really disagree - they aren't. I would say performance wise there is a wider window than more expensive bikes. Maybe not in intended usage, but within groups. Good choice of parts for that budget really make a difference.

I don't agree, I personally think there is still more choice at the top end, taking Leisure Lakes bike range for example and listing the first 20 of so sequentially in their £320-£640 bracket:

Suntour XCR
Dart 2
Dart 1
Dart 2
Tora SL
Suntour XCR
Suntour XCR
Dart 3 SL
Dart 2.5
Suntour XCR
Suntour XCM
Spinner Grind OS
Dart 1
Dart 2
Dart 2
Spinner Edge AL1

Damn, that does look like an action packed round up!

At least the top end bikes get a range of Rebas, Recons, Pikes, Lyrics, Revelations, Marzocchi 44/55s etc, Floats, Vanilla, 32 vs 36s, Talas they can try out new Pace or Magura forks over the months to make it interesting (as long term tests have always included swapping kit). If you're limiting it to a £500 bike I cant help but it'd feel like cheating swapping to a £500 fork a few months in.

A £1800 odd bike can have a huge range of forks, even Toras.

Even just comparing Rebas to Floats I find a lot more interesting, Rebas do well on XC type bikes, the motion control damping is fantastic, combined with slightly varying the ratios on the positive and negative springs you can change the action of the shock. Floats on the other hand are fit and forget I admit, after no end of tweaking on my old Revelations and Rebas though I've never had them feeling as plush as the Floats.

grantway

Good point but they are asking for your comments on long term bikes not parts.

Most are Aware of bike parts these are constantly tested in all mags
and on a long term issue too.
Plus you would always see a certain cost/make of bike part on a certain
cost of frame.
And when the mags do a bike test they do give a veiw of how good
the parts are or what the manufacture should put on.

What you need is all frames to have the same parts etc to give a
correct what best bike.
But best bike is the one you put ur leg over.

supersonic

Toasty wrote:

supersonic wrote:

This is where I really disagree - they aren't. I would say performance wise there is a wider window than more expensive bikes. Maybe not in intended usage, but within groups. Good choice of parts for that budget really make a difference.

I don't agree, I personally think there is still more choice at the top end, taking Leisure Lakes bike range for example and listing the first 20 of so sequentially in their £320-£640 bracket:

Suntour XCR
Dart 2
Dart 1
Dart 2
Tora SL
Suntour XCR
Suntour XCR
Dart 3 SL
Dart 2.5
Suntour XCR
Suntour XCM
Spinner Grind OS
Dart 1
Dart 2
Dart 2
Spinner Edge AL1

Damn, that does look like an action packed round up!

At least the top end bikes get a range of Rebas, Recons, Pikes, Lyrics, Revelations, Marzocchi 44/55s etc, Floats, Vanilla, 32 vs 36s, Talas they can try out new Pace or Magura forks over the months to make it interesting (as long term tests have always included swapping kit). If you're limiting it to a £500 bike I cant help but it'd feel like cheating swapping to a £500 fork a few months in.

A £1800 odd bike can have a huge range of forks, even Toras.

Even just comparing Rebas to Floats I find a lot more interesting, Rebas do well on XC type bikes, the motion control damping is fantastic, combined with slightly varying the ratios on the positive and negative springs you can change the action of the shock. Floats on the other hand are fit and forget I admit, after no end of tweaking on my old Revelations and Rebas though I've never had them feeling as plush as the Floats.

I think you missed my point - I am saying there is a larger variation between good and bad forks at this range than higher up.

Why would they put a 500 quid fork on a 500 quid bike?

"We'll be making small changes based on personal preference - stem length, saddle design - but will be leaving the bikes largely as they are to see how they stand up to some use and abuse."

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree lol, persoanlly I find it more interesting to see how budget parts work and perform.

dmjb3

Just to clarify a few comments. When I said £500 hardtails are much of a muchness I meant its hard to mess up a hardtail frame. Especially for big, experienced manufacturers. As to variety of kit, I agree with a few previous comments - not the point of a long term test. Any monkey can work out in what order the rockshock range goes and make value comparisons between bikes at a price point.

Long term tests should cover whats gone wrong, and how easy it was to fix. Do the tyres need an immediate swap? Is the frame a bit too racey for a bike with an all mountain fork. Whats needed upgrading. Can the bike cope with UK winter weather or was it designed for california? Does the mech whack the chainstay when descending and slowly file through the pivots....

toasty

supersonic wrote:

I think you missed my point - I am saying there is a larger variation between good and bad forks at this range than higher up.

Why would they put a 500 quid fork on a 500 quid bike?

"We'll be making small changes based on personal preference - stem length, saddle design - but will be leaving the bikes largely as they are to see how they stand up to some use and abuse.".

Oh, given they said that, yeah, I did a bit, sorry :oops: The current format is getting high priced bikes and swapping all the shiny new kit in to give a proper test with different length forks, wheels, tyres, shocks etc. I don't really relish the idea of reviewing a bike without any changes for 12 months whatever the bike really :?

supersonic

This is what I don't understand when you say that - a bike is the sum of its parts and have an influence on its performance. How can you know what to change without testing it? The frame hold it all together. You are testing the whole package, not just its frame.

As for the RS range, it confuses the hell out of most lol.

EDIT: in reply to above you Toasty, nopt even I can type that fast loL!!!

toasty

Well the current format involves a few months and opinions as stock as I say, in the case of my Meta it even got a full page review in about every magazine. After that it gets a bit stagnant, same old comments about active suspension, slightly flexy rear, could benefit from Maxle front blahblah.

With the current solution this gets spiced up a bit with changes in kit, they could stick a random wheelset on and comment on how it's acceleration has changed, mention how a longer travel fork changes the feel and whether it's overkill for a specific frame, trying out different shock brands and seeing how they react with the linkage designs.

Part of my point about low end bikes was how this format would be fairly irrelevant, there isn't a lot of interesting new kit which appears at that level. I'd still rather hear about top end bikes, as "deadliest" mentioned though, it's a bit of a Top Gear thing I think. I'm quite content with short page long reviews for a bike in it's standard form.

This is what I don't understand when you say that - a bike is the sum of its parts and have an influence on its performance.

This is also part of the problem in my mind, a lot of people on here will know how low end bike gear lasts for a year. A standard £500 bike with Deore gearing and Dart forks isn't going to throw up any exciting articles as the months progress, certainly nothing that couldn't be said in a half page review of groupkits or forks.

Mrs Toast

supersonic wrote:

This is what I don't understand when you say that - a bike is the sum of its parts and have an influence on its performance. How can you know what to change without testing it? The frame hold it all together. You are testing the whole package, not just its frame.

Heh, I think it's because Mr Toast generally buys the frames and components separately and as cheaply as possible, then puts them together himself - he's a true Yorkshireman! The only full bikes he's bought in recent years was his Specialized FSR, his Avalanche, his Meta, and half of my Trek. The FSR got sold, the Avalanche got disassembled and is now a single speed Stumpjumper, and my Trek...well, it has new brakes, and did have a spare set of Rebas until they were reclaimed for the Zaskar. The Meta's managed to remain relatively unscathed, but there is mutterings about new wheels...

You've got to allow for the Frankenstein audience...

Given that the £500 bracket varies so much from brand to brand though, I'd also like to see some long term tests of £500 bikes, just to see how they do last and what components, if any, need replacing. For example, my Trek 4500 has lasted me well, has seen Glentress, Llandegla, and Cannock Chase (too many times to mention), and has even done a 7 foot drop. Sideways. Unintentionally. It's still going strong, and as I mentioned, the only thing that's been replaced are the brakes - for Trek, that was where they cut corners (although I think they made the right decision - I'd rather have a good set of v-brakes than cheap mech discs).

I still want a Lapierre Zesty 514L though...

supersonic

The whole concept certainly needs some careful consideration it seems to blend (often impossible!) needs of an exciting article, practicality and relevance for different riders and groups with their budgets.

As before, personally I find budget equipment more interesting as some really does take cues from their more expensive brothers and trickle down technology. Finding a budget gem and saving a few quid is always welcome!

Mrs Toast, my Zaskar is largely the same, though not as expensively specced: more of my budget tight Yorkshireness! The brake conundrum is a good one, and that most common of questions always does crop up: what should I change first??!

grantway

Who in there cracked up mind is going to put a £ 500 pound fork on a £ 500 quid Bike

Just put what they are asking is a group of bikes to be tested forward for long term
and go from there.

Mrs Toast

supersonic wrote:

The whole concept certainly needs some careful consideration it seems to blend (often impossible!) needs of an exciting article, practicality and relevance for different riders and groups with their budgets.

Currently the format for the long term test bikes does feature quite a lot of switching of major features, including the forks, wheels, etc. Personally, this annoys me a little - if I was spending over a grand on a bike, I'd like to think that a) I'd made sure that the 'default' bike was what I actually wanted, and not needing major changes, and b) that it wouldn't need any major changes in the first 12 months.

As before, personally I find budget equipment more interesting as some really does take cues from their more expensive brothers and trickle down technology. Finding a budget gem and saving a few quid is always welcome!

I think that's one of the reasons why Mr Toast thinks that the £500 category would be a bit dull for a long term test - a lot of the time the stuff on them is pretty tried and tested, whereas the tech on the higher end bikes can be a little newer and potentially unpredictable, therefore more in need of a long term test. However, if (like me) you're fairly new to mountain biking, you won't know the proud and noble history of component x, so hearing how it holds up over a year of riding would still be relevant. Like you said, Super, it's just a matter of balancing it for the different readers that make up the magazine's audience.

Back onto the original topic, I think that the Zesty 514 L should be a long term test bike. Again, I volunteer my journalistic services!

Or a kidney. Whichever gets me the bike.

supersonic

Hope I am not causing a marital lol! Tis a nice looking bike the Spicy, not seen a bad review yet. Short term ;-)

Grantway: probably the same sort of person who puts a Tora on a carbon Zaskar ;-)

deadliest

JamesCW wrote:

To give you an idea of what we're looking for, here's a rundown of our mountain biking team members:

- Communities editor Matt: a wheels-on-the-ground type rider looking for a mid-travel trail centre rig.

- Oli our database guy: wants something he can rag around the BMX track on at lunchtime and shred brutal downhills on at weekends.

- Operations editor James (me): after a 100mm-or-so bike that's light enough for cross-country but handles well and can still take a bit of abuse.

Here is the spec again for those of us who have forgot . . . . I vote Zesty for all 3 Hurrah

Love the blog Mrs Toast

Northwind

dmjb3 wrote:

£500 bikes are much of a muchness, and no real bother if you mess up,

Oh, I totally disagree with that. £500 has become the de facto entry level, or at least £350 to £500. It's the price point you hit when you can't afford more, and where every penny counts. And it's the beginner's choice, which means you have people with less experience and less personal understanding of the bikes, who're more dependant on 3rd party opinion. For a lot of people, it's make or break. And the variation in quality can be huge, as well.

Or maybe it's just that I find the idea of a £500 purchase "no real bother if you mess up" completely INSANE Just because you can spend £5000 on a bike doesn't mean that £500 is suddenly a negligible amount of money. Especially when £500 spent well can get a trail killer like a Carrera Fury, or an XC winner like a Malt... or some total abortion like a Marin Bobcat.

At the end of the day, this is one of the most common pricepoints, but it's also where you win or lose new riders. If someone buys a rotten £500 bike, then there's a good chance that's them walking away from the whole thing.

rhext

I think I'd like to add my voice to the lobby for at least one £500-£1000 bike in the test. You've got a few others to play with for the more expensive offerings. What would be really interesting would be to try to emulate a 'typical' user experience (as suggested by JC)... Buy the bike, and then allocate a set sum (maybe £100-£200 a month) for maintenance and upgrades. What I'd find really interesting would be where the tester chose to spend the upgrade cash....save for a couple of months and get a new fork?....or did the drive-train need an overhaul after 500 miles? This sort of test would perhaps replicate the experience of a large number of people who can't afford to splash out wads on an initial purchase, but enjoy the sport and want to spend their cash wisely to improve their experience. And I know that £100-£200 per month is still a fair bit of upgrade cash....but while a 'real' user might have to spend that amount over a few months, I think it woud be legitimate to allow your tester to spend a bit faster than normal otherwise the update might be "still saving for a new set of tyres".

In fact, you could make the test even more realistic....instead of asking the forum for suggestions, give the tester £500 and say 'go get yourself a bike'. Your first article is then written already as he explains what he chose and why!