Do Bikeradar.com ever do a BAD review?
Discussion
Did a bit of research before buying my bike, checked reviews etc. It seems no matter which bike I type in, there is an easy to find bike radar review near the top of the list of results. But after reading a good few, from women's bikes, to MTBs, tri and road, it appears they either cant tell a good one from a bad one, dont want to say or all bikes are good.
Im inclined to think that the line between a crapper and a good one is a lot skinnier these days. Its not easy to find something truly s
t anymore. But even still, their relentless heaping of praise is making me start to lose faith in the reviews.
ETA: I looked up my old MTB on there (since stolen) and they loved it. I thought it was dull as dishwater and the tyres were ste.
Im inclined to think that the line between a crapper and a good one is a lot skinnier these days. Its not easy to find something truly s
t anymore. But even still, their relentless heaping of praise is making me start to lose faith in the reviews.ETA: I looked up my old MTB on there (since stolen) and they loved it. I thought it was dull as dishwater and the tyres were s
te. i think the line between a crap bike and good bike is just as wide if not wider these days, the line between useful journalism and pandering to manufacturers/suppliers is a lot thinner however...
you have to take their reviews with a pinch of salt, they will heap praise on some bike in the review, find nothing of note to fault it, then give it 3/5 and you are left wondering why....
you have to take their reviews with a pinch of salt, they will heap praise on some bike in the review, find nothing of note to fault it, then give it 3/5 and you are left wondering why....
This is not restricted to the cycling industry but rife across all "reviews" no matter what the product
Examples - Evo & Renault, WhatHiFi & Cyrus (lol http://www.cyrusaudio.com/awards?page=1 !!)
Examples - Evo & Renault, WhatHiFi & Cyrus (lol http://www.cyrusaudio.com/awards?page=1 !!)
Their scoring system changed a little while back and leads to a hell of a lot of 3-4 star reviews. To get a 1 it basically needs to be dangerous, 2 completely rubbish whereby every other product in market is both better and or a lot lot cheaper 3 is OK, 4 is exceptional and 5 is pretty much perfect, better than anything available AND well priced.
Which is all fine and dandy, but like the car market there are very very few really bad products on the market these days, and pricing is so competitive on the middle range stuff it pretty much rules out any 1, 2 or 5 star reviews.
You've got to really read the write ups to see if it will suit you and what you want to do with it to get a decent idea.
At least they test bikes in their 'out of the box state' not like bloody M. B. "and the winner is, the Orange 5" R. who cock about with 'test tyres' and such. Last time I bought a copy they were testing 4 'trail bikes' two little fast 4"-5" type bikes, and two bigger 6" more AM style bikes, which came with 2.35 size tyres - they stuck the lot on 2.1 tyres and then complained the bigger bikes didn't have the grip to go with the travel!!
Which is all fine and dandy, but like the car market there are very very few really bad products on the market these days, and pricing is so competitive on the middle range stuff it pretty much rules out any 1, 2 or 5 star reviews.
You've got to really read the write ups to see if it will suit you and what you want to do with it to get a decent idea.
At least they test bikes in their 'out of the box state' not like bloody M. B. "and the winner is, the Orange 5" R. who cock about with 'test tyres' and such. Last time I bought a copy they were testing 4 'trail bikes' two little fast 4"-5" type bikes, and two bigger 6" more AM style bikes, which came with 2.35 size tyres - they stuck the lot on 2.1 tyres and then complained the bigger bikes didn't have the grip to go with the travel!!
Edited by P-Jay on Tuesday 10th January 16:37
There was a slightly hilarious incident on Bike Radar a few weeks ago when they put up some reviews of mid range bikes. They had done a group test in the magazine then split it up into individual reviews for the site database. The Boardman review was critical of the geometry so this prompted Mr Boardman himself to post a comment under the review saying it was good enough for lots of successful professional racers so what did the journos know? The journos responded (in fairness to them) and pointed out they felt a rival was better than it in the group test so they would amend the individual review to take out the group comparison.
2fast748 said:
There was a slightly hilarious incident on Bike Radar a few weeks ago when they put up some reviews of mid range bikes. They had done a group test in the magazine then split it up into individual reviews for the site database. The Boardman review was critical of the geometry so this prompted Mr Boardman himself to post a comment under the review saying it was good enough for lots of successful professional racers so what did the journos know? The journos responded (in fairness to them) and pointed out they felt a rival was better than it in the group test so they would amend the individual review to take out the group comparison.
In which case, was "We werent keen on the Boardman's geometry for this price bracket" or the like, just an arbitrary comment to fill some space up, or were they actually not keen on it?Group test or no, they either liked it or they didnt. And if its not being compared with its nearest competition in the market, what is the point in evening reviewing it?
Ridiculous. Fair play to CB for calling them out.
You can have the reverse of the Bike Radar problem. There was a thread in the Food and Drink section talking about a restaurant critic. He gave marks out of 10 (with what they meant very well described on the first page) but readers seemed to totally ignore that, and give him real grief for his marks.
He would give 7 out of 10 to places like Fat Duck, 4 seasons etc. But 7/10 to him was something like "amazing meal, better than 99% of restaurants in the country". 10/10 he was reserving for the best meal he will ever have in his life. 3/10 was one of the best 10% of restaurants in the country. I forget the exacts, but you take my point.
Just to view it from the other side
He would give 7 out of 10 to places like Fat Duck, 4 seasons etc. But 7/10 to him was something like "amazing meal, better than 99% of restaurants in the country". 10/10 he was reserving for the best meal he will ever have in his life. 3/10 was one of the best 10% of restaurants in the country. I forget the exacts, but you take my point.
Just to view it from the other side
TonyHetherington said:
You can have the reverse of the Bike Radar problem. There was a thread in the Food and Drink section talking about a restaurant critic. He gave marks out of 10 (with what they meant very well described on the first page) but readers seemed to totally ignore that, and give him real grief for his marks.
He would give 7 out of 10 to places like Fat Duck, 4 seasons etc. But 7/10 to him was something like "amazing meal, better than 99% of restaurants in the country". 10/10 he was reserving for the best meal he will ever have in his life. 3/10 was one of the best 10% of restaurants in the country. I forget the exacts, but you take my point.
Just to view it from the other side
www.andyhayler.com ?He would give 7 out of 10 to places like Fat Duck, 4 seasons etc. But 7/10 to him was something like "amazing meal, better than 99% of restaurants in the country". 10/10 he was reserving for the best meal he will ever have in his life. 3/10 was one of the best 10% of restaurants in the country. I forget the exacts, but you take my point.
Just to view it from the other side
That said I do enjoy his reviews, and attention to detail.
P-Jay said:
Their scoring system changed a little while back and leads to a hell of a lot of 3-4 star reviews. To get a 1 it basically needs to be dangerous, 2 completely rubbish whereby every other product in market is both better and or a lot lot cheaper 3 is OK, 4 is exceptional and 5 is pretty much perfect, better than anything available AND well priced.
Which is all fine and dandy, but like the car market there are very very few really bad products on the market these days, and pricing is so competitive on the middle range stuff it pretty much rules out any 1, 2 or 5 star reviews.
You've got to really read the write ups to see if it will suit you and what you want to do with it to get a decent idea.
At least they test bikes in their 'out of the box state' not like bloody M. B. "and the winner is, the Orange 5" R. who cock about with 'test tyres' and such. Last time I bought a copy they were testing 4 'trail bikes' two little fast 4"-5" type bikes, and two bigger 6" more AM style bikes, which came with 2.35 size tyres - they stuck the lot on 2.1 tyres and then complained the bigger bikes didn't have the grip to go with the travel!!
Yeah, because trying to create a level playing field, by changing something that only costs £40 - 50 but dramatically changes performance, would be idiotic. Which is all fine and dandy, but like the car market there are very very few really bad products on the market these days, and pricing is so competitive on the middle range stuff it pretty much rules out any 1, 2 or 5 star reviews.
You've got to really read the write ups to see if it will suit you and what you want to do with it to get a decent idea.
At least they test bikes in their 'out of the box state' not like bloody M. B. "and the winner is, the Orange 5" R. who cock about with 'test tyres' and such. Last time I bought a copy they were testing 4 'trail bikes' two little fast 4"-5" type bikes, and two bigger 6" more AM style bikes, which came with 2.35 size tyres - they stuck the lot on 2.1 tyres and then complained the bigger bikes didn't have the grip to go with the travel!!
Edited by P-Jay on Tuesday 10th January 16:37
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/components/...
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/components/...
...same stem, same factory, different logo.
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/components/...
...same stem, same factory, different logo.
Beyond Rational said:
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/components/...
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/components/...
...same stem, same factory, different logo.
...... and different publications / sites , end of second linked review - http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/components/...
...same stem, same factory, different logo.
This article was originally published in Mountain Biking UK magazine.
but thats bike radar / PH for you
edited for o sortsa stuff
Edited by offendi on Thursday 12th January 21:34
In some respects, IMHO the Orange 5 is the pinnacle of this, especially in MBR.
Before I get totally flamed (because I realise this is conroversial to say the least) I must point out I;ve tried three different 5's; one demo when I first got back into mtbing (which at the time I was only going on gut feeling because I was effectively a novice), a second demo when I looked again at swapping and a third time when a mate and I swapped bikes.
I always preferred the feel of the suspension on my '09 Stmupjumper FS (until I Roally fked the bushings on repeated 3ft drops that is) which was somehow more 'alive' and fun. Perhaps on rockier stuff than I ride, the fun might have turned twitchy and the relative 'deadness' of a 5 might have manifested itself in a more relaxing 'day on the hills' sort of bike, but I never warmed to it.
What I can say is, FWIW, my current FS bike - a Nicolai Helius AM - is every bit as good as the rave reviews it gets and which, owing to the firms diminutive size (only 20 odd employees) I doubt they 'bought'.
Before I get totally flamed (because I realise this is conroversial to say the least) I must point out I;ve tried three different 5's; one demo when I first got back into mtbing (which at the time I was only going on gut feeling because I was effectively a novice), a second demo when I looked again at swapping and a third time when a mate and I swapped bikes.
I always preferred the feel of the suspension on my '09 Stmupjumper FS (until I Roally f
ked the bushings on repeated 3ft drops that is) which was somehow more 'alive' and fun. Perhaps on rockier stuff than I ride, the fun might have turned twitchy and the relative 'deadness' of a 5 might have manifested itself in a more relaxing 'day on the hills' sort of bike, but I never warmed to it.What I can say is, FWIW, my current FS bike - a Nicolai Helius AM - is every bit as good as the rave reviews it gets and which, owing to the firms diminutive size (only 20 odd employees) I doubt they 'bought'.
dzm said:
Yeah, because trying to create a level playing field, by changing something that only costs £40 - 50 but dramatically changes performance, would be idiotic.
A level playing field would be testing the bikes how they came, not dramatically altering the handling of half the field.Or if you really feel the need to add a 'control tyre' at least use the size the manufacturer designed the bike for.
Or to be frank, setting aside their dislike of longer travel bikes.
Lighter shorter travel bikes pedal and roll very well, but are limited on maximum grip over obstacles and fast corners, Longer travel bikes don't roll nearly as well but can fly over bigger obstacles and around corners - that's obvious to anyone’s who's ridden a couple of different bikes. Stick fast-rolling narrow rubber on a longer travel bike and you'll nullify it's advantages.
It would be like TopGear doing a group test of track focused cars – a 360CS, a 911 GT3 RS, a M3 CSL and an Ariel Atom and fitting the lot with the 195/50R15 V tyres from the Atom – to level the playing field.
P-Jay said:
Lighter shorter travel bikes pedal and roll very well, but are limited on maximum grip over obstacles and fast corners, Longer travel bikes don't roll nearly as well but can fly over bigger obstacles and around corners - that's obvious to anyone’s who's ridden a couple of different bikes. Stick fast-rolling narrow rubber on a longer travel bike and you'll nullify it's advantages.
Agreed.To be fair, you can take two different riders on the same bikes and the same trail and they'll make a totally different job of things. Some riders, relatively, will pootle along; some beast downhill sections, rag turns, send it off jumps; whilst others will relish each hillclimb and pedally bit, minimising each jump - avoiding some even - in pursuit of outright speed.
Digga said:
P-Jay said:
Lighter shorter travel bikes pedal and roll very well, but are limited on maximum grip over obstacles and fast corners, Longer travel bikes don't roll nearly as well but can fly over bigger obstacles and around corners - that's obvious to anyone’s who's ridden a couple of different bikes. Stick fast-rolling narrow rubber on a longer travel bike and you'll nullify it's advantages.
Agreed.To be fair, you can take two different riders on the same bikes and the same trail and they'll make a totally different job of things. Some riders, relatively, will pootle along; some beast downhill sections, rag turns, send it off jumps; whilst others will relish each hillclimb and pedally bit, minimising each jump - avoiding some even - in pursuit of outright speed.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff