Cycling Plus Magazine - Bike of the Year

2»

Comments

  • bus_ter
    bus_ter Posts: 337
    I was in my LBS earlier and they were discussing the 'Bike of the Year' edition of Cycling plus. They believe the whole thing is just one large advertising/PR spread. The 'shortlist' comprises 25 bikes from 25 manufactures. How many bike makes can you name?
    Exactly, virtually every major bike manufacturer is represented, and all of them can now advertise as being a 'Cycling Plus Bike of the Year contender..' All the 'reviews' read like adverts anyway with every bike being very positively reviewed. They even say they would be happy to own any of the bikes tested. It's a case of you rub my back and I'll rub yours between C+ and all the bike brands. Everyone wins.

    Anyway we all know there's no such thing as a best bike. It all depends on how they fit you, what type of riding you do and how much money you have to spend. Once you remove the frame all the other components are common among all bikes anyway..
  • alihisgreat
    alihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    bus_ter wrote:
    I was in my LBS earlier and they were discussing the 'Bike of the Year' edition of Cycling plus. They believe the whole thing is just one large advertising/PR spread. The 'shortlist' comprises 25 bikes from 25 manufactures. How many bike makes can you name?
    Exactly, virtually every major bike manufacturer is represented, and all of them can now advertise as being a 'Cycling Plus Bike of the Year contender..' All the 'reviews' read like adverts anyway with every bike being very positively reviewed. They even say they would be happy to own any of the bikes tested. It's a case of you rub my back and I'll rub yours between C+ and all the bike brands. Everyone wins.

    Anyway we all know there's no such thing as a best bike. It all depends on how they fit you, what type of riding you do and how much money you have to spend. Once you remove the frame all the other components are common among all bikes anyway..


    I did laugh when i saw the Planet X RT-57 in the banner at the top of the PX website.. being advertised as a 'Bike of the year contender'... despite only getting 3.5 stars... and being called an aggressive racy bike -> which wasn't planet x's intention.

    It doesn't mean that the reviews aren't useful for the intelligent consumer though... and had you thought about the possibility that all the bikes are actually good bikes for the price?

    would you prefer it if they rated it only on absolute performance and spec, rather than taking into account the price level?

    then you'd get a load of £10000 superbikes rated 5/5... and a load of sub £1000 bikes rated 1/5... and everything else would sit in the middle.
  • giant_man
    giant_man Posts: 6,878
    Last year's test was much better imo, the choice and selection of bikes was better
  • ShutUpLegs
    ShutUpLegs Posts: 3,522
    bus_ter wrote:
    Once you remove the frame all the other components are common among all bikes anyway..

    So the point of the test is to find the bike with the best mix of quality components, wheels and frame?
  • richard36
    richard36 Posts: 346
    So, are those folk, who believe the guys who tested the bikes were influenced by advertising revenue, saying that they don't agree that the top 5 bikes are 'worthy' to be in the top 5?

    Perhaps I'm being naive but surely having tested all those bikes the testers must be in a better position than most to say what bike represents good value for money, is good to ride etc? Ok, I appreciate that, in part, you would go for the one you like the look of, that was nice to ride but if you liked the look of any of the bikes in the top 5 (or even those that scored 4.5) then surely you would be daft not to take into account the 'measured' opinion of the CP testers. I would have thought their view counted for something?
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    On paper I thought the winner looked good. Also visually quite nice, not too loud and plastered in a million logos. I personally thought geometry was refreshingly racey enough, head tubes not too daftly high for each size. Stem, Bar and Seatpost leave room for a bit of upgrading, and those overlogoed headset spacers. But that's a nice amount of tinkering to do.

    Apart from that, wheels upgraded (which a lot of people would upgrade on any bike in the price bracket) and on paper its a high quality bike. Like they said, if the frame is the same as the expensive Team versions then I'm sure its pretty good.

    God knows what it rides like though, I don't think a review can ever tell you that... or whether its a good fit for each person riding it, some people do want high headtubes etc instead.

    (Whether it should win a bike of the year award, god knows, I don't think they mean a lot even if the advertising revenue arguments are taken in or out of the equation)
  • EarlyGo
    EarlyGo Posts: 281
    I'm surprised that no one has commented that the Focus was reviewed at £1999 and the only advert in C+ for it has it advertised at £2099. Just like last year's Bike of The Year when the Storck Scenaro was reviewed at £1999 and then instantly shot up to £2199. I'm just wondering because the winning margins each year are said to be very close. If so, does adding a few hundred quid to the price of the bike of the year swing it away from being such a good deal and make one of the others a better overall buy?

    EarlyGo
  • rob_spedding
    rob_spedding Posts: 442
    Erm...early go. I have a rather embarrassing confession to make...We reviewed that bike at £2099 and had loads of arguments about whether it should beat bikes that cost less. We all agreed that it should. And you've just brought to my attention the fact that the strap has the wrong price. That's crap on our behalf - I'm going to blame the late nights we were putting in trying to get this issue out of the door. So, the Focus is Bike of the Year at £2099, and at the price we think it offers the best value and performance of all of those in the test. The air in the Cycling Plus office will be blue tomorrow...
    Rob Spedding, Editor, Cycling Plus
  • dirtymonkey1985
    dirtymonkey1985 Posts: 529
    Rob Spedding wrote:
    Erm...early go. I have a rather embarrassing confession to make...We reviewed that bike at £2099 and had loads of arguments about whether it should beat bikes that cost less. We all agreed that it should. And you've just brought to my attention the fact that the strap has the wrong price. That's crap on our behalf - I'm going to blame the late nights we were putting in trying to get this issue out of the door. So, the Focus is Bike of the Year at £2099, and at the price we think it offers the best value and performance of all of those in the test. The air in the Cycling Plus office will be blue tomorrow...
    Refreshing to see someone hold their hands up and admit a mistake was made. Most would just use the deny, deny, deny method
    Scott Foil - viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=12982779
  • giant_man
    giant_man Posts: 6,878
    Rob Spedding wrote:
    Erm...early go. I have a rather embarrassing confession to make...We reviewed that bike at £2099 and had loads of arguments about whether it should beat bikes that cost less. We all agreed that it should. And you've just brought to my attention the fact that the strap has the wrong price. That's crap on our behalf - I'm going to blame the late nights we were putting in trying to get this issue out of the door. So, the Focus is Bike of the Year at £2099, and at the price we think it offers the best value and performance of all of those in the test. The air in the Cycling Plus office will be blue tomorrow...
    I don't think you have anything to be guilty over Rob in all honesty. I look forward to the BOTY every year and every year I am entertained.

    The average reader doesn't have the time or of course the resources to go out and test 26 bikes in a certain value bracket. So what if the value of a certain bike is inside or outside of a certain budget. Choice and opinions are everything. You pay for a magazine for opinions and for that publication to show you what's on offer.

    As far as advertising revenue having a bearing on which bike comes out on top, I don't believe it. And I am in publishing.

    Some people on here seem to want to complain about anything.
  • EarlyGo
    EarlyGo Posts: 281
    Hi Rob,

    Thanks for 'fessing up! It makes a refreshing change for someone to be straight up about this sort of thing. Also helps when making the all important decision to pull the trigger or not on a new bike. Personally, I reckon at under £1500 the VN Mistral should have won ... but that's a whole new thread!

    Cheers, EarlyGo
  • horizon
    horizon Posts: 91
    onlyonearrow wrote:
    How realistic is some of the pricing of the bikes?
    The Van Nicholas Mistral is priced at £1480.99 and is reviewed with Mavic Ksyrium Elite wheels. This price is exactly the same as on LeisureLakeBikes with the standard Easton Aero wheels, yet on the VN website the Mavic wheels are a 400 Euro upgrade.

    The Mistral is a great bike (I have one) and well worth the £1480, but the Bike of Year review seems misleading by the 'unrealistic' wheel package.

    On the VN website, the Mistral is only available as a complete build (or a frame) - there is NO option for the better wheels (or the 11-32 cassette) - I've spoken to both VN and a dealer today about this and they've both confirmed it. How C+ end up with an 'up-spec'd' bike thinking it costs £1480 is open to question. I was thinking of buying a Mistral and the C+ spec really piqued my interest at that price - shame its all smoke and mirrors.

    onlyonearrow I'd be really interested in your views on the bike - anything good or bad? I'm after comfort over speed, I have a VN Amazon, I just want something lighter for local rides/exercise etc.
  • onlyonearrow
    onlyonearrow Posts: 157
    Horizon wrote:
    onlyonearrow wrote:
    How realistic is some of the pricing of the bikes?
    The Van Nicholas Mistral is priced at £1480.99 and is reviewed with Mavic Ksyrium Elite wheels. This price is exactly the same as on LeisureLakeBikes with the standard Easton Aero wheels, yet on the VN website the Mavic wheels are a 400 Euro upgrade.

    The Mistral is a great bike (I have one) and well worth the £1480, but the Bike of Year review seems misleading by the 'unrealistic' wheel package.

    On the VN website, the Mistral is only available as a complete build (or a frame) - there is NO option for the better wheels (or the 11-32 cassette) - I've spoken to both VN and a dealer today about this and they've both confirmed it. How C+ end up with an 'up-spec'd' bike thinking it costs £1480 is open to question. I was thinking of buying a Mistral and the C+ spec really piqued my interest at that price - shame its all smoke and mirrors.

    onlyonearrow I'd be really interested in your views on the bike - anything good or bad? I'm after comfort over speed, I have a VN Amazon, I just want something lighter for local rides/exercise etc.

    I based my 400 Euro upgrade price on the VN Euro model, upgrading from the standard Easton Wheels to the Mavic ones spec'd in the C+ review. But yes it's only available as a complete build or frame only.

    I bought mine in late 2010 and is spec'd with Shimano 105 STI and gears (crankset is a Truvativ Elite) and has VN's own all carbon fork, which was the complete bike spec at that time. Rides very well and copes well with the less than perfect road surfaces I encounter in the Yorkshire Wolds. The only issue I've had was with the standard issue Easton Aero wheels. After a number of months I experienced creaking/cracking noises from the rear wheel when out of the saddle. I thought it was a problem with spoke tension, but when I phoned the LBS I'd bought it from they said it was due to the quick release skewers/hubs not cutting into the hard titanium of the drop-outs allowing the wheel to slip slightly in the drop-out. The wheels were fine on other frames/drop-outs. The wheels were replaced with Fulcrum 7 under warranty - similar value, slightly heavier but fixed the issue. The LBS did say VN had since modified the frame. The Easton wheels were fine otherwise, but my LBS had started to spec the Mistral with Fulcrum 7.

    As I said, I'm very pleased with it. The wheel issue was easy sorted by the LBS. It looks fantastic and it really encourages me to ride further. Did my first ever sportive (100km) last year on it.
  • SFT
    SFT Posts: 156
    It would be good to understand how C+ would have rated the VN Mistral with the standard Easton Wheels; perhaps it would not have recieved a 4.5 out of 5....
    I also fancy this as my next bike and thought the Mavic wheels at £1480 was a bit to good to be true:(

    Fatbirds have a Campag Veloce build with Khamsin wheels which looks good value at £1600; has anyone any view as to how these wheels compare to the Easton Aero’s please?
  • onlyonearrow
    onlyonearrow Posts: 157
    SFT wrote:
    It would be good to understand how C+ would have rated the VN Mistral with the standard Easton Wheels; perhaps it would not have recieved a 4.5 out of 5....
    I also fancy this as my next bike and thought the Mavic wheels at £1480 was a bit to good to be true:(

    Fatbirds have a Campag Veloce build with Khamsin wheels which looks good value at £1600; has anyone any view as to how these wheels compare to the Easton Aero’s please?

    The Khamsin, I believe, are Campagnolo's entry level wheel - so probably not so very different from the Fulcrum 7 I'm now running. The Easton Aero wheel isn't listed on the Easton website and appears to be an OEM 'special' used by a number of other manufacturers (e.g. Cube). They were relatively light, with a deeper section than the Fulcrum 7s and had aero spokes. I had them on my bike for about 10 months and apart from the creaking problem mentioned above, they stayed true and the hubs ran smoothly. That said I think the Fulcrums are better finished and I now feel better quality. If you look on the VN Euro frame bike builder options the Fulcrum and Easton Aero are virtually the same price.

    I think at the end of the day, while the price in C+ review is not realistic for inclusion of the Mavic wheels, it does confirm the Mistral frame is good enough for a future upgrade to more expensive wheels.
  • onlyonearrow
    onlyonearrow Posts: 157
    Horizon wrote:
    How C+ end up with an 'up-spec'd' bike thinking it costs £1480 is open to question
    Maybe C+ would like to comment?
  • rob_spedding
    rob_spedding Posts: 442
    Good grief...we really were having a bad day(s) at the office last month. Looks like there was a bit of a communication breakdown over the desks here (and then over email to Holland...) So, the base price for a Van Nic Mistral is as printed, however, Warren asked for a wheel upgrade on the bike which takes the price to £1749 with the Mavics. So, like the Focus the score relates to the £1749 price - it's still a 4.5 and, to our mind, astonishingly good value for a titanium bike. And just to put you at ease about buying the cheaper version this is waht we said a couple of years ago about one with Fulcrum Racing 7s http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... -10-35377/
    Now, I need to get my b********g gloves on again.
    Rob Spedding, Editor, Cycling Plus
  • onlyonearrow
    onlyonearrow Posts: 157
    Fair dues Rob for your honesty and it's good to understand that the score relates to the £1749 price point.
    Reassuring that should I decide to upgrade the wheels on mine, the frame justifies the expense.
  • SFT
    SFT Posts: 156
    Thanks for the comments on the wheels, and your post Rod saying that the VN Mistral would still have rated a 4.5.
    anyway it will be my next bike, just need to decide on the details!
  • Pseudonym
    Pseudonym Posts: 1,032
    ShutUpLegs wrote:
    Pseudonym wrote:
    Rob Spedding wrote:
    Please do and let me know how many Focus ads you find...

    I don't read the mag Rob, so I couldn't tell you offhand...

    Hoisted by your own petard there Pseudonym

    that's ok - it was more of a generalisation than a legal indictment. Although the credibility of the selection process does seem to be falling apart a bit anyway, by the looks of it....
  • Goodtwist
    Goodtwist Posts: 29
    Generally I appreciate the yearly regular BOTY articles here at C+.

    If nothing else it proves to incite discussions very well.

    And this is the only purpose of any "top 10" and "best of" list :D
  • Gazzaputt
    Gazzaputt Posts: 3,227
    amaferanga wrote:
    Chris James wrote:
    In their round up they say that they would hapily own any of the 25 bikes they reviewed.

    Which does beg the question, if they are all much of a muchness, why bother with the Bike of the Year competition?

    Actually, this edition, with all the pages reviewing near identical bikes, reviews of £120 sunglasses and pages of arm warmer reviews was the final straw for me, and I cancelled my subscription.

    I cancelled mine last year. It's become repetitive drivel for mamils.

    ooh listen to you.

    Fills the time in when on the loo and I don't take their reviews as gospel.

    I just like looking at shiny bikes and parts.
  • SFT
    SFT Posts: 156
    So I've just ordered a VN Mistral from the Edinburgh Bike Coop; who had 15% off at the weekend; so an even better deal for an excellent Ti frame!!
  • Cosmo79
    Cosmo79 Posts: 12
    Rob
    Might I suggest next year you hold a open trail in which you bring the top 10 bikes and allow the a few listed members of this site along to go on a test spin with you guys...this could be covered on the magazine and also give an insite to what you look for in a bike.I use the bikeradar and cycleplus as a good reference as to what to look for in a bike and find it very helpfull.However before I pick a bike I will do my own research as to if the frame suits me.Groupsets /Wheels can be upgraded.As a staff member asked me in my local bike shop when choosing a bike..when you are out cycling and you see a chap in front of you..do you put full effort into catching him or are you happy at your own pace..different strokes for different folks.Good job Rob ..keep it up CP
  • Silly Old Hector
    Silly Old Hector Posts: 573
    Cosmo79 wrote:
    Rob
    Might I suggest next year you hold a open trail in which you bring the top 10 bikes and allow the a few listed members of this site along to go on a test spin with you guys...this could be covered on the magazine and also give an insite to what you look for in a bike.I use the bikeradar and cycleplus as a good reference as to what to look for in a bike and find it very helpfull.However before I pick a bike I will do my own research as to if the frame suits me.Groupsets /Wheels can be upgraded.As a staff member asked me in my local bike shop when choosing a bike..when you are out cycling and you see a chap in front of you..do you put full effort into catching him or are you happy at your own pace..different strokes for different folks.Good job Rob ..keep it up CP


    ditto :D
    All the gear, but no idea...
  • wishitwasallflat
    wishitwasallflat Posts: 2,927
    Silly Old Hector wrote:
    Cosmo79 wrote:
    Rob
    Might I suggest next year you hold a open trail in which you bring the top 10 bikes and allow the a few listed members of this site along to go on a test spin with you guys...this could be covered on the magazine and also give an insite to what you look for in a bike.I use the bikeradar and cycleplus as a good reference as to what to look for in a bike and find it very helpfull.However before I pick a bike I will do my own research as to if the frame suits me.Groupsets /Wheels can be upgraded.As a staff member asked me in my local bike shop when choosing a bike..when you are out cycling and you see a chap in front of you..do you put full effort into catching him or are you happy at your own pace..different strokes for different folks.Good job Rob ..keep it up CP


    ditto :D

    Excellent idea

Categories