What bikes would you like us to do long-term tests of?
Comments
-
deadliest wrote:How much is a Carbon zaskar these days ?? I will buy yours for £500 if you're selling
Lol, about 1800 quid, but when I started 14 years ago, I couldn't afford more than 200 and kept that a while. Was a good bike.
I still ride some budget bikes. Sometimes they just work so well it is not worth spending more, like the Ruckus (when in short travel mode).0 -
when i bought my zesty i couldnt find any reviews anywhere. when parting company with my money i was still a little bit unsure. it would have been nice to have a pros opinion just to settle the nerves a bit.
its nice to see all the top bikes in the mags, though wouldnt really care what you tested long term as long as its a good read.
i do think if you tested a £500 bike and a £3000 bike long term i would still read both.
now go and get a zesty 914 and a reebok bike and ride them till they snap!! "My life is like a porno-movie, without the sex".0 -
Jesus_Christ wrote:tell you what deadliest, you stick to feeling all smug because you can afford to spend a few more quid on a bike than others. just be aware that you are a tool though.
meanwhile, MBUK, if you ignore what we are saying here and go ahead with your 1-2k only test think about the message you are sending out.
I aint being smug fella . . . My first bike was an Apollo from halfords then I got what I consider to be my first proper bike a GT Aggressor xc2 I then got myself a Cannondale Rush which I absolutely love riding . . . The perpetual grin aint me being smug its an emotion known as joy .
I was one of these new riders looking for a bike only 2 years ago and as for being a tool I totally agree for who am I to argue with the self righteous whiney son of god.
Lapierre Zesty has to be one of the bikes and Possibly a Cube hardtail for the thrashing0 -
supersonic wrote:deadliest wrote:How much is a Carbon zaskar these days ?? I will buy yours for £500 if you're selling
Lol, about 1800 quid, but when I started 14 years ago, I couldn't afford more than 200 and kept that a while. Was a good bike.
I still ride some budget bikes. Sometimes they just work so well it is not worth spending more, like the Ruckus (when in short travel mode).
What did £200 get you 14 years ago though full xt equivalent nowadays no doubt 0 -
Well, fortunately your fears were put to rest Jesus. In the "Poll - how much does your bike cost" thread, over half the people replied OVER £1000. Using your own logic, why should we have to read monthly updates on a £500 bike which are aimed at the minority? You have to also take into account some of the people with sub £1000 bikes will be looking to upgrade in this coming year.
You seem to lose the plot on occation on posts, no one is saying no to reviews of £500 bikes. People are saying no to month by month updates for an entire year.
P.S. I love how you jump on people, calling them smug, the second they mention they want to see reviews of more expensive bikes as well.0 -
JamesCW wrote:However, for a long-term test there's not a great deal we can say about this type of bike. Our impressions after the first ride or two are unlikely to change after putting in more miles.
I'll give you an example here... The review of the Carrera Kraken on the website says this:
"We were amazed at the weight of the wheelset on the Kraken. The wheels and tyres combined are carrying 2.3lb of extra weight over the sixty quid cheaper Decathlon Rockrider 6.3 (though admittedly that bike has unusually light wheels). That's a lot of extra heft to accelerate up to speed, even with the new lower profile Tioga Extreme XCs fitted"
If the reviewer had lived with the bike for a little longer, they'd have changed the tyres most likely, and discovered that the wheels are actually not especially heavy- they're only about 50 grams per wheel more than the Decathlon mentioned as being unusually light. But the tyres are made of lead, the front tyre actually weighs more than the front wheel. Some things, you don't neccesarily notice until you live with a bike for a little longer or subject it to the closer analysis that you do as a matter of course if it's your own bike- so you report "This has heavy wheels" when it doesn't, and make it sound like the wheels are slow despite the "low profile" tyres when in fact they're slow because of the tyres. Not a criticisim, this, you rightly tested the bike with its OEM spec.
I think you're right that a full long-termer would just run out of interesting things to say. And I didn't think I'd agree with that, but it makes sense.
But, there's a balance maybe. Perhaps the group test winners for the £500 and entry level bikes could be inducted into the fleet as part-timers? "Living with the Malt 1" sort of thing. "Grouptest winners 6 months on". Take it with you on some of the route reviews, etc, do some realistic mods for the price range...
Presumably a lot of readers will go out and get these bikes on your recommendation, so a follow-up like this with further advice for owners, "Watch out for the wheel bearings, the seals are gash", "we fitted a £100 Tora fork and it's a different bike" "Tyres are freakishly heavy, throw them away", that sort of thing. Maybe get reader comment as well? Like the used bike tests that motorbike magazines do.- "Chris from Liverpool bought a Malt 1 after it won our supertest, and he thinks..."
You've convinced me anyway, longtermers don't make much sense. But maybe there's room for something else.Uncompromising extremist0 -
Jesus_Christ wrote:meanwhile, MBUK, if you ignore what we are saying here and go ahead with your 1-2k only test think about the message you are sending out.
Can I just make this clear, this is not a long-term test by MBUK, this is a long-term test by the BikeRadar editorial team. The MBUK guys will continue with their long-term tests, which include the £500 Specialized P1 as well as a number of high-end models.Toasty wrote:Well, fortunately your fears were put to rest Jesus. In the "Poll - how much does your bike cost" thread, over half the people replied OVER £1000.
As I said way back towards the start of this thread, we're aiming for the middle ground. There are plenty of people out there with £500 bikes (myself and Matt C included, although admittedly I have a DH bike too) and plenty with £3k bikes, that's why we're looking for the middle ground - something in the £1-2k bracket.
From reading this thread, you might get the impression that the majority of our users have sub-£1,000 bikes, but that's not what our reader surveys and online polls have found.0 -
if you all stop going to the pub and save the money you to can buy a nice bike.
i did now i have a club roost dh , norco six and a gt aggressor 1.
and by not drinking i'm a lot fitter .
when i strarted riding mountain bikes in 1987 bikes were not as good
but just as much fun .
just ride and have fun , get muddy then poeple can't see through the mud so who cares
what you ride :twisted:0 -
myopic wrote:I'll keep the bike aspect apolitical to avoid offence and draw a parallel using Top Gear. We all like to watch the Astons, Ferraris, Rollers, Lotus etc being put through their paces, but we need to know how the Fiestas, Astras, Golfs etc stack up agianst these (we can leave the Kias to one side
). But can you see Clarkson saying "please let me have the Fiesta for a year?" :?
If we are going to draw comparisons to Top Gear what I would like to see is the team being given £200 to spend on a bike from ebay then given some more money to pimp them up a little and finally being set a number of silly challenges. This would make great reading and you could even make it into a DVD just in time for crimbo. Do or do not there is no try!
Boardman Team 08
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nevinkevil ... 440283935/0 -
nevinkeville wrote:myopic wrote:I'll keep the bike aspect apolitical to avoid offence and draw a parallel using Top Gear. We all like to watch the Astons, Ferraris, Rollers, Lotus etc being put through their paces, but we need to know how the Fiestas, Astras, Golfs etc stack up agianst these (we can leave the Kias to one side ). But can you see Clarkson saying "please let me have the Fiesta for a year?" :?
If we are going to draw comparisons to Top Gear what I would like to see is the team being given £200 to spend on a bike from ebay then given some more money to pimp them up a little and finally being set a number of silly challenges. This would make great reading and you could even make it into a DVD just in time for crimbo.
i actually quite like this idea!
seriously though, £500 isnt as much of an investment as £1500, so the reviews are more important on the more expensive bikes, given that its more important to spend £1500 on the best bike in the bracket than the best bike in the £500 bracket... anyone with me? feel free to say no. :shock:
:oops: 0 -
seriously though, £500 isnt as much of an investment as £1500
only relatively.0 -
Toasty wrote:Well, fortunately your fears were put to rest Jesus. In the "Poll - how much does your bike cost" thread, over half the people replied OVER £1000. Using your own logic, why should we have to read monthly updates on a £500 bike which are aimed at the minority? You have to also take into account some of the people with sub £1000 bikes will be looking to upgrade in this coming year.
You seem to lose the plot on occation on posts, no one is saying no to reviews of £500 bikes. People are saying no to month by month updates for an entire year.
P.S. I love how you jump on people, calling them smug, the second they mention they want to see reviews of more expensive bikes as well.
Stats and damn stats eh?! The most common section with nearly a third of the votes was the 3-500 range ;-).
Deadliest, was a Diamondback Traverse, 21 speed alivio, steel frame and forks, canti brakes.0 -
People who enter the sport usually buy under £500 bike.
Then at some point in the future they will aquire above £1000 bike.
But those who don't want to be that much envolved in that sport just keep their
bikes and replace parts as they wear.
Don't know if someone wrote this. Tooo much text to read.
What's wrong with you people? 0 -
Entertaining thread this! Got to be a mix, need a long term £500 ish bike, someone mentioned picking the best of ones already reviewed by the magazine which seems like a good idea to me. JC, if you look at who are riding, an awful lot of folks were/are working and over 30.... me included (well bar the working bit....!) Some disposable income and do spend £1500-£2500 on a bike, not an uncommon sight on trails anywhere I have been.
Mines £3K, and a matre of mine just dropped £1600 on a frame....Also, if you limit to £500 bikes, those looking to buy and upgrade in the future wont have a great deal of info.
And, if you base it in the car world, imagne how dull top gear would be if it was all abouut the avg, £15K car?- Fiestas, Punto's Minis Pug 206 Diesels..... 0 -
i never said limit the spend to £500.
I just want to se a £500 bike in the test.
there are too many people on this forum and out in the real world who think that unless you spend over £1200 you dont have a 'real' mountain bike.
all this test is going to do is reinforce that idea.0 -
ratty2k wrote:Problem with anything like this tho is choice. £500 bike? which one? £1K bike? which one? £2K bike? Or me being cycnical, why not just give Specialized top marks? Straight away?
because they trade on past achievements? I dont like speshes unless their really expensive0 -
plus theyre fakkin hideous a lot of the time.0
-
cullen_bay wrote:£500 isnt as much of an investment as £1500, so the reviews are more important on the more expensive bikes, given that its more important to spend £1500 on the best bike in the bracket than the best bike in the £500 bracket... anyone with me? feel free to say no. :shock: :oops:
Disagree with this one, because of the degree of variation- at £500 you can still easily buy an absolute sh**ter, from a good brand. It's literally the difference between fit for the purpose of bashing round black routes, vs barely fit for canal paths. But at £1500, while there's still a load of variety, you're not likely to buy a hopeless disaster area. I'm not saying it's not important to get good value, but if you buy the wrong £1500 bike you're very unlikely to regret it as much as you would if you buy a Bobcat and your mate buys a Fury.nevinkeville wrote:If we are going to draw comparisons to Top Gear what I would like to see is the team being given £200 to spend on a bike from ebay then given some more money to pimp them up a little and finally being set a number of silly challenges.
DO THIS! Or, if you like, for an in-print comparison look at the Bike magazine £500 GP or Practical Performance Car £999 challenge for similiar ideas. Sod the rest of the thread, this is a great idea...Toasty wrote:Well, fortunately your fears were put to rest Jesus. In the "Poll - how much does your bike cost" thread, over half the people replied OVER £1000. Using your own logic, why should we have to read monthly updates on a £500 bike which are aimed at the minority?
Minority or not, they're the biggest single price range. And therefore (by your own argument), more important.ratty2k wrote:Problem with anything like this tho is choice. £500 bike? which one? £1K bike? which one?
Easy this, just run with the last test winner for that price range.Uncompromising extremist0 -
0
-
cullen_bay wrote:£500 isnt as much of an investment as £1500, so the reviews are more important on the more expensive bikes, given that its more important to spend £1500 on the best bike in the bracket than the best bike in the £500 bracket... anyone with me? feel free to say no. :shock: :oops:
Disagree with this one, because of the degree of variation- at £500 you can still easily buy an absolute sh**ter, from a good brand. It's literally the difference between fit for the purpose of bashing round black routes, vs barely fit for canal paths. But at £1500, while there's still a load of variety, you're not likely to buy a hopeless disaster area. I'm not saying it's not important to get good value, but if you buy the wrong £1500 bike you're very unlikely to regret it as much as you would if you buy a Bobcat and your mate buys a Fury.nevinkeville wrote:If we are going to draw comparisons to Top Gear what I would like to see is the team being given £200 to spend on a bike from ebay then given some more money to pimp them up a little and finally being set a number of silly challenges.
DO THIS! Or, if you like, for an in-print comparison look at the Bike magazine £500 GP or Practical Performance Car £999 challenge for similiar ideas. Sod the rest of the thread, this is a great idea...Toasty wrote:Well, fortunately your fears were put to rest Jesus. In the "Poll - how much does your bike cost" thread, over half the people replied OVER £1000. Using your own logic, why should we have to read monthly updates on a £500 bike which are aimed at the minority?
Minority or not, they're the biggest single price range. And therefore (by your own argument), more important.ratty2k wrote:Problem with anything like this tho is choice. £500 bike? which one? £1K bike? which one?
Easy this, just run with the last test winner for that price range.Uncompromising extremist0 -
We heard you the first time! Whilst I agree with the winner from each price range, again it comes down to riding as well... An XC bike may not what folks want at £500...
Anyway, if the mags follow the normal trend a Special-ed bike will win. :twisted: 0 -
Ok, ok, I thought maybe my post had been lost amongst the 50 of JC shouting Uncompromising extremist0
-
The thread seems to be turning into a split discussion, though some of it is relevant and interesting. For example
- How good budget bikes really are
- What would be relevant to most people in the test?
- What would make the most interesting reading?
I still think a range encompassing 3 price points would keep most people happy.
So a suggestion for a budget full susser would be this:
http://www.btwincycle.com/EN/rockrider-9-1-25131810/
The Decathlon Rockrider 9.1. RRP 699.99. Seems to have a great value spec, just over 30lbs, and all the comments applied to more expensive full sussers on long term tests could be applied here. Plus I have never seen one tested. Claimed frame weight, with shock for an L is just over 6lbs!0 -
Actually, 'sonic you may of hit the nail on the head there.... Sensible priced full sussers.... Boardman has one out,, the Decathlon you mention. Mongoose? And stick to the original terms- ie swap bits out like tyres, stem and saddles. I'm sure that most poeple these days look to buy a suspension bike and a good indepth profile on the more reasonable priced bikes....0
-
I dont want a FS bike though - what about me me me!
There arent enough HT long termers in mags - the odd short term titanium one, or a dirt jumper, but not an all day XC rig0 -
I looked at the Gooses, but them, along with GT, really have pushed up prices more than anybody else which is a shame.
However Halfords still have the XCRs, and as you say the Boardman.0 -
gcwebbyuk wrote:I dont want a FS bike though - what about me me me!
There arent enough HT long termers in mags - the odd short term titanium one, or a dirt jumper, but not an all day XC rig
Can do that as well!0 -
The more I look at that Rockrider, the more I think it could be a budget diamond! If the frame holds up, and is fairly stiff, then we have a very well specced 6lb framed full susser with linkage driven shock, for just over half the price of a Orange ST4 FRAME alone!0
