Cycling magazines
Discussion
For a reason unknown my mother visited yesterday and gave me a copy of the latest 'Cycling Active' - I knew it would be bad, but I wasn't prepared for just how bad -
24, yes 24 pages devoted to just 2 sportives - this took up the bulk of the issue, something in midlands and then the Box Hill Classic, or similar - it had a page talking about the 'key climbs' - the longest climb is sub 10 minutes, how can you spin an entire page out about this?
Bike reviews for bikes between £2100 and £2500 which took up 10 pages, then another review session for bikes with another £400 price span - odd, anyway I had a little read and the usual crap was present "not stiff enough" this written by a 3rd cat who has not scored a single point all season
- so when I said on here that bike reviewers are often no better than people on this forum, I should have said they actually sometimes a lot worse too! One thing that erked me was marking down one of the bikes for not having a 105 crankset, this was a major thing for this review, it had a Praxis chainset, which anyone with half a brain would know is going to be at least on par with the low end shimano stuff.
Then there was wheels, £1-2k wheels, this probably wound me up the most "at 1600g they won't be your companion on hilly rides" - its just soundbites like this that confuse people and lead them to have alls orts of stupid opinions and place so much importance on the weight of things. The same chap then went on to say he could feel flex in a pair of 60mm zipps, the same guy who got can't finish a race, let alone sprint to contest the finish. Then the powertap pedals review, "these only weigh more than the top end shimano DA pedals, when you're riding you barely notice the 36g" of course you don't you f
king square, nobody on earth would notice 36g on anything.
Its fair to say it drove me mad and is the culprit for so much of the stuff posted on this forum in what xxx threads, I now know why. She also dropped off a couple of cycling weekly mags, no surprises, half the content was just recycled from the other mag. I get that they're not appealing to me, but what winds me up is that they're just pushing absolute crap, dud info - this just goes further to prove what I always think, pick a price point, if you want the best VFM buy a Canyon, if you don't then just pick the nicest colour scheme from trek,spec, giant etc.
24, yes 24 pages devoted to just 2 sportives - this took up the bulk of the issue, something in midlands and then the Box Hill Classic, or similar - it had a page talking about the 'key climbs' - the longest climb is sub 10 minutes, how can you spin an entire page out about this?
Bike reviews for bikes between £2100 and £2500 which took up 10 pages, then another review session for bikes with another £400 price span - odd, anyway I had a little read and the usual crap was present "not stiff enough" this written by a 3rd cat who has not scored a single point all season
- so when I said on here that bike reviewers are often no better than people on this forum, I should have said they actually sometimes a lot worse too! One thing that erked me was marking down one of the bikes for not having a 105 crankset, this was a major thing for this review, it had a Praxis chainset, which anyone with half a brain would know is going to be at least on par with the low end shimano stuff. Then there was wheels, £1-2k wheels, this probably wound me up the most "at 1600g they won't be your companion on hilly rides" - its just soundbites like this that confuse people and lead them to have alls orts of stupid opinions and place so much importance on the weight of things. The same chap then went on to say he could feel flex in a pair of 60mm zipps, the same guy who got can't finish a race, let alone sprint to contest the finish. Then the powertap pedals review, "these only weigh more than the top end shimano DA pedals, when you're riding you barely notice the 36g" of course you don't you f
king square, nobody on earth would notice 36g on anything.Its fair to say it drove me mad and is the culprit for so much of the stuff posted on this forum in what xxx threads, I now know why. She also dropped off a couple of cycling weekly mags, no surprises, half the content was just recycled from the other mag. I get that they're not appealing to me, but what winds me up is that they're just pushing absolute crap, dud info - this just goes further to prove what I always think, pick a price point, if you want the best VFM buy a Canyon, if you don't then just pick the nicest colour scheme from trek,spec, giant etc.
That seems like a pretty accurate review of most cycling magazines.
I was reading a copy of Cycling Plus at work on Saturday that one of the guys had left at work. It was full of similar rubbish including an article on 'upgrading on a budget' which was suggesting things like lightweight headset spacers and new wheel skewers to save a gram here and there!
I was reading a copy of Cycling Plus at work on Saturday that one of the guys had left at work. It was full of similar rubbish including an article on 'upgrading on a budget' which was suggesting things like lightweight headset spacers and new wheel skewers to save a gram here and there!
Cycling magazines, running magazines, lifestyle magazines, all of them exist for one reason only - to sell stuff to punters. It's all garbage and marketing. Similar amounts of dross written in running magazines about how to spend more money to get faster or minutae of opinion about practically identical products or training tips on how to get fitter when you don't actually want to try hard because, you know, training hard hurts.
Waste of money.
Waste of money.
I read Cycling Plus on a regular basis. It's way better than Cycling Active, but terrible too, in so many ways. I still read it though, but now I borrow it from the local library, and allow Hampshire County Council the pleasure of parting with £4.99 per month for a magazine that'll stack their group tests with a "who's who" list of the usual suspects, and products at a price which the average punter a) cannot hope to afford, and b) probably doesn't need.
A few years ago, I started buying the mags to research buying a 'modern' road bike. Back then, one of them published a fairly exhaustive list of most of the new bikes available to buy, along with geometry and build spec. Much like the similar lists for new cars in the motoring press. I found those lists useful, if only to highlight obscure brands, and get me casting my net wider. None of the current crop of mags does this anymore.
The magazines can be useful in bringing new products and bikes to your attention, although you can get the same guff off the internet these days. But yes, I've been guilty in the past of allowing these self-appointed experts to spoon-feed me their opinions as Gospel, but nowadays I just read them and take the ratings with a massive pinch of salt.
What worries me about it is, as okgo has said, that those who the magazines are aimed at are not experienced enough to spot the flannel, and also that there are people in the trade, working in bike shops, that seem to be swallowing the nonsense too, and regurgitating it, almost verbatim, to unsuspecting punters looking to buy a bike.
As for Cycling Weekly? As long as I've known of it's existence, it has been referred to, by far more accomplished cyclists than I, always as "The Comic". Such is the high regard in which it is held.
Having said all that, while I was staying away for the weekend just gone, I bought a twin-pack of 'What Mountain Bike' and 'Mountain Bike Rider' magazine, in the vain hope that they'll help me to choose my next MTB. Fat chance? Well, if nothing else, they'll introduce a couple of new bikes to me. Stuff that local shops don't stock. Then I can make a shortlist, find the bikes to look and touch, and try to test-ride a few. And occasionally, there'll be a decent route or two toward the back, that I can ride 'straight off' or tweak to suit me. For the most part, though, they're just chock-full of adverts for stuff I'll never ever want to buy. That, and 'features' that are repeated annually on a strict cycle, stuff like skills, training plans, dietary advice, routes, events, etc. It seems to be the same stuff over and over again.
I'm glad they exist, but really it's only for the pretty pictures of shiny things.
A few years ago, I started buying the mags to research buying a 'modern' road bike. Back then, one of them published a fairly exhaustive list of most of the new bikes available to buy, along with geometry and build spec. Much like the similar lists for new cars in the motoring press. I found those lists useful, if only to highlight obscure brands, and get me casting my net wider. None of the current crop of mags does this anymore.
The magazines can be useful in bringing new products and bikes to your attention, although you can get the same guff off the internet these days. But yes, I've been guilty in the past of allowing these self-appointed experts to spoon-feed me their opinions as Gospel, but nowadays I just read them and take the ratings with a massive pinch of salt.
What worries me about it is, as okgo has said, that those who the magazines are aimed at are not experienced enough to spot the flannel, and also that there are people in the trade, working in bike shops, that seem to be swallowing the nonsense too, and regurgitating it, almost verbatim, to unsuspecting punters looking to buy a bike.
As for Cycling Weekly? As long as I've known of it's existence, it has been referred to, by far more accomplished cyclists than I, always as "The Comic". Such is the high regard in which it is held.
Having said all that, while I was staying away for the weekend just gone, I bought a twin-pack of 'What Mountain Bike' and 'Mountain Bike Rider' magazine, in the vain hope that they'll help me to choose my next MTB. Fat chance? Well, if nothing else, they'll introduce a couple of new bikes to me. Stuff that local shops don't stock. Then I can make a shortlist, find the bikes to look and touch, and try to test-ride a few. And occasionally, there'll be a decent route or two toward the back, that I can ride 'straight off' or tweak to suit me. For the most part, though, they're just chock-full of adverts for stuff I'll never ever want to buy. That, and 'features' that are repeated annually on a strict cycle, stuff like skills, training plans, dietary advice, routes, events, etc. It seems to be the same stuff over and over again.
I'm glad they exist, but really it's only for the pretty pictures of shiny things.
I get Cyclist more for the general fitness, training information (that there is), and the UK regional and then international ride. They also do the 4 bike test every month, which like Evo are normally out of most peoples price range.
It has great photos and is a quality publication compared to C Fitness etc.
I get Cycling Weekly via the electronic library, this is 1 week in arrears but free.
BikeEtc also have a sub (birthday or Christmas) its ok, better then C Plus and a good spread of information.
Okgo, maybe you should try to get your blog into a mag!
It has great photos and is a quality publication compared to C Fitness etc.
I get Cycling Weekly via the electronic library, this is 1 week in arrears but free.
BikeEtc also have a sub (birthday or Christmas) its ok, better then C Plus and a good spread of information.
Okgo, maybe you should try to get your blog into a mag!
In my experience the same things are true of nearly every magazine in any field you'd care to choose. Journos very rarely seem to be genuine experts in the field their writing in. I prefer things like GCN's YouTube videos and recommendations from friends and PHers, with all opinions weighted appropriately and tossed around with 3tbsp of common sense.
I love magazines. I used to buy Car/Evo/Performance Car (back in the day) and read them from cover to cover, and then re-read them a few months later. I also used to try Autocar and even Whatcar once in a while. I loved the pics, the drive stories, I didn't mind too much that there was/is very little chance I'll ever own or drive a 360 or a 911, but it was nice knowing the little differences.
I liked reading Cyclist for a while too. Quality product, nice pics, some of the ride stories round the world were epic. Then I noticed the 4 reviewed bikes were rarely under £2k and more often way over £4k. Somehow that annoyed me even more than the flash cars in the car mags, even though owning either would for me involve a lottery win.
I liked reading Cyclist for a while too. Quality product, nice pics, some of the ride stories round the world were epic. Then I noticed the 4 reviewed bikes were rarely under £2k and more often way over £4k. Somehow that annoyed me even more than the flash cars in the car mags, even though owning either would for me involve a lottery win.
I tend to find the MTB mags are somewhat better than the road bike ones, maybe just because there's more variety to talk about in terms of kit and riding types?
Having said that, there's only so much new under the sun. When I first got into photography, I avidly consumed photography magazines, until I realised I was reading the same thing regurgitated after 6 months or so.
Since discovering the massive spread of free online magazines available on Zinio through Surrey Libraries, I have signed up to a whole bunch of magazines (on the cycling front they have Cycling Active, Cycling Plus, Cycling Weekly, Cyclist, MBR and MBUK), but the only ones I actually read are the mountain bike ones, plus I actually pay for a Singletrack digital subscription.
Having said that, there's only so much new under the sun. When I first got into photography, I avidly consumed photography magazines, until I realised I was reading the same thing regurgitated after 6 months or so.
Since discovering the massive spread of free online magazines available on Zinio through Surrey Libraries, I have signed up to a whole bunch of magazines (on the cycling front they have Cycling Active, Cycling Plus, Cycling Weekly, Cyclist, MBR and MBUK), but the only ones I actually read are the mountain bike ones, plus I actually pay for a Singletrack digital subscription.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff