Top bikes 0f 2016

Anonymous

According to BR this is the top 5 bikes for next year

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/top-5-road-bikes-of-2016-45608/


So, without actually riding many of the other many bikes out there they just grab the 5 most likely popular bikes. This does not make them the best, a slight rehash on a 2015 model with a different paint job in most cases.

Are any of the bikes in this list actually brand spanking new? Trek just updated the Madone last year so I don't think they will have a new model out just yet. As BR says, Some they have ridden,some they can't wait for. So, If you haven't ridden it how the hell can you say it will be best? It could be an absolute dogs dinner. What about the rest of the bikes you haven't ridden yet? Canyons are very succesful in the pro peloton. what about Bianchi or Colnago or Giant do not even get a mention. But hey it doesn't matter we already know they won't be in the top 5 bikes. Thats already been decided.

Lazy journalism.

Grill

All these bikes are new 2016 models, that's the point of the video. At no point does it say that any of these (or all of them) are 'best', just that they're the most anticipated (which is a journalistic choice based on popularity and advertising budgets.

You need to pay more attention and stop being so lazy.

navrig2

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19734365#p19734365]Grill[/url] wrote:

All these bikes are new 2016 models, that's the point of the video. At no point does it say that any of these (or all of them) are 'best', just that they're the most anticipated (which is a journalistic choice based on popularity and advertising budgets.

You need to pay more attention and stop being so lazy.

I agree with your sentiment however the blurb under the video clearly says:

These are the five best road bikes that will grace the tarmac in 2016. Some we've ridden, some we can't wait to ride, all are brand new and packed full of innovation.

Impartial journalism in these circumstances simply does not exist. The ad man calls the shots as to what goes into reviews.

Anonymous

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19734365#p19734365]Grill[/url] wrote:

All these bikes are new 2016 models, that's the point of the video. At no point does it say that any of these (or all of them) are 'best', just that they're the most anticipated (which is a journalistic choice based on popularity and advertising budgets.

You need to pay more attention and stop being so lazy.

If it said 5 top bikes I would agree with you. But it says top 5. That suggests they are the best 5. And as has been pointed out they say so under the video.

I did read the whole thing and didn't just have a lazy peak. I guess yoy just looked to see if Scott was on the list :-)

Grill

I read the title of 'Brand new and full of innovation' and simply watched the video. Caption is just pandering to advertisers which is why my keenly-trained senses glossed over it.

I don't care if Scott is on the list as I don't swing from the nuts of any brand (I'll happily get rid of my Plasma as soon as a quantifiably faster alternative emerges). Of the bikes listed the Evo makes the most sense, the Foil will eventually be cheapest, the R3 disc is pointless, the Madone will be bought by people who want a flash paintjob and the ViAS should be nuked from orbit.

metronome

The new Evo Hi Mod is a bit tasty.

johnsonmoog

I've splurged on a new Madone and think it's a great bike. I am biased - I've owned two Madones previously (including the last aero design) and I bought this one, and I haven't ridden the others. But it's beautifully engineered (imho), with a host of great integrated features. Plush to ride and decently light for an aero bike, it works very well in both flat and climbing conditions. Of course, you are paying for such a design, but the features should trickle down over time.

ben@31

It looks like bikes have now shot up in price. What happened to affordable Trek Madones' ?

Looks like the low end Madones' have gone out of production. The Trek website say they now start at £3350. Whats replaced them in the Trek marketing line-up, an entry level Emonda or the Trek One ?

Edit... It appears £3350 is just for the basic frameset !

dwanes

[/quote]Canyons are very succesful in the pro peloton. what about Bianchi or Colnago or Giant do not even get a mention. But hey it doesn't matter we already know they won't be in the top 5 bikes.

Lazy journalism.[/quote]

They would have to write a list of around 200 bikes if they were to satisfy everyone like you.

There are bike reviews all over the internet, i wouldn't get too hung up on an article, if you dont like it move onto the next one.

Grill

Affordable Madones were always an exercise in marketing (such as the alu Alpha line be rebranded as Madones a couple years ago). As they've now differentiated the Madone as their aero road bike (remember that before only the top end Madones had any aero credentials) Trek have seen it fit to rebrand their entry to mid-level non-aero bikes as Emondas. This actually makes a lot of sense and should cause less confusion for consumers.

Anonymous

They would have to write a list of around 200 bikes if they were to satisfy everyone like you.

Um er. YES. THATS WHAT THEY DO! Thats the whole point isn't it? They are a bike website. They review bikes. Test them then give an idea of what is best. Not just pull 6 easy names out of their asses without even seeing them and announcing they are the best.

Grill

Why are you focusing on the caption instead of the content of the video? Plus who in their right mind is going to A) produce and sit through a video of 200 bikes (especially as less than a tenth are different from the outgoing model)? If it chaps your ass so much do it yourself.

dwanes

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19735555#p19735555]Maglia Rosa[/url] wrote:

They would have to write a list of around 200 bikes if they were to satisfy everyone like you.

Um er. YES. THATS WHAT THEY DO! Thats the whole point isn't it? They are a bike website. They review bikes. Test them then give an idea of what is best. Not just pull 6 easy names out of their asses without even seeing them and announcing they are the best.

I would remove Bikeradar from your browser bookmarks if I were you :roll:

inseine

I thought it was an interesting look at the market for 2016, especially if youre not a semantics pedant.

rolf_f

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19734419#p19734419]Navrig2[/url] wrote:

I agree with your sentiment however the blurb under the video clearly says:

These are the five best road bikes that will grace the tarmac in 2016. Some we've ridden, some we can't wait to ride, all are brand new and packed full of innovation.

Impartial journalism in these circumstances simply does not exist. The ad man calls the shots as to what goes into reviews.

So that blurb implies that they've ridden two or three of them but no more than three. This means that you can draw the following conclusions:

That two or three of them are the best road bikes that the reviewers have ridden this year
That two or three of them might be the best or worst bikes of 2016 but they are guessing that they are among the best.
That if the unridden bikes are genuinely among the best, then somewhere else you can find out about them from people who have actually ridden them and made those decisions based on actual experience.
That they haven't ridden many 2016 bikes (because why would you avoid riding some of the five best ones in favour of ones you somehow know are not very good?)
That the reviewers have no idea what they are talking about!

None of the above of course means that the content of the reviews when they appear won't be useful. It just means that the reviewers don't understand words and sentences!