You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My spesh stumpjumper (2016) got a right slating in another bike mag this month . They were saying out of date geo and bad suspension etc ...etc..rode again today and thought what a great bike , its slack enough for me and noting a volume spacer wouldn't fix ! For suspension . Anyone else got low score bike but thought **** em ! I get on with it ? MBR by the way
In depth reviews yes they do help me form an opinion, however if you start with "Out of Date" then you are off on the wrong foot, review it like it rides not what the spreadsheet says.
However if you only ever ride the one bike and don't swap very often how much weight should we give your ability to review a bike 😉
Some of those journalists are not great bike riders so it's hard to see how they can draw some of the conclusions that they do .
On the flip side to that I've heard of a few pro riders who are incredible on the bike but really couldn't tell you how, why, what was good or how the bike was doing under them
Some of those journalists are not great bike riders
such as?
I'm lucky enough to own a couple of bikes so can kind of tell but the way they described it was if it was for the bin lol . Glad I'm thinking of keeping it as the old me would sell, bike shop and out comes credit card 🙂
Bike review=Bike advert.
Aka Old bike=RUBBISH......New bike=TOTES AMAZEBALLS
Depends. I take all reviews with a pinch of salt - but especially amateur reviews.
This was the review that convinced me to take a risk with mail order
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/commencal-meta-am-v4-2-race-eagle-650b-review-2016.html
Some good stuff out there
It depends if the reviewer is a shredder or a mincer.
I look for factual information in reviews rather than feelings or personal preferences, then I can make my own mind up if the product is for me or someone else.
I've been into bikes so long that most reviews trigger my bullshit detector at some point.
I find them interesting and sometimes informative but take them seriously? No.
Why was a mag reviewing a 2-3 year old bike this month? Secondhandtrackworld?
Maybe I'm not RAD enough lol . Been in the sport too a very long time and starting to pick up on some bullshite . 🙂
@tomhoward . The review was for 2018 , bike hasn't changed since my 2016 .
No... What works for some will not work for others. Hard to tell these days who is sponsored and who is not. I don't trust anything I read unfortunatly 🙁
Demo demo demo it's the only way to be sure the bike is right for you.
no - you read what reviewers say which is normally the opposite if what the majority of owners think
Regardless of whether you think someone is being paid to push a product by the manufacturer, if it’s a magazine they’re definitely being paid to sell magazines. If the editors know many of their readers lap up whatever is printed and trust them to tell them what they should buy, the situation is going to be taken advantage of at some point. So yep, they’re interesting reads but unlikely to drive a bike purchase for me. Sane grouptests are more useful but it’s still just extra hearsay background information.
My problem with reviews, is that they just look for what is the current trend, especially in mags like MBR. Singletrack is good - they write like people with a real interest in the bikes and how they ride. MBR reviews all contain the same little catchphrases... over time it's been "stem too short", "bars not wide enough", "crank flexy" lately all the geometry is "out of date" if head angle over 65deg and the new obsession with bikes being long. A lot of the time they don't seem to need to ride the thing, just obsess over the geometry tables and write accordingly. Definitely a formula to their reviews. In other words, no, I don't take the blindest bit of notice of them - usually just look to see if the bike is over 30lb (or whatever that is in kg). Still read em though. 😆
yeah try the pinkbike ones as above, much better, less of them but better quality
Yeah some of the reviews are inconsistent and odd to say the least. They seem very quick to deem reach too short on bikes that are longer than renowned short reach bikes (usually big brand) they have reviewed and decided not to criticise. Over exaggerate differences that are pretty minor in real life. I've seen reviews where the reviewer has contradicted what he wrote previously and/or evangelised over minute changes, I doubt made as big difference as suggested. Is funny when they give contradictory reviews of generic products under different brand names, which only differ by paint finish or decals 😀
That's journalism, I suppose and TBF they can only review what they have in front of them, at a given time, in relation to often ridiculous RRP and no doubt sometimes subject to influence.
I have bought bikes/frames (once the price has reached realistic levels) that have been panned by reviewers due to bad spec choices of review bikes (usually fork) and value, where the fanciful RRP has made them look bad compared to the competition. Performance differences have been marginal/negligible at best.
Would be better if they decided on a default set of wheels and tyres for each years bike reviews, per wheel size! Maybe a set of different styles of trail (unlikely to suffer closure) for testing. Unfortunately I don't think there is any practical way to mitigate performance differences between frame, rider size and rider skill! Acknowledgement that particular component/s have marred a bikes feel, but do not write off the entire range of differently specced bikes.
There's been a big push for long bikes that suit taller people, who lets face it have been short changed by the industry for years! Still they don't always suit shorter people, in as much as shorter reach bikes from the past were in hind sight often too small for six foot plus riders!
Only the ones that confirm my present purchases were good ones and my future purchases are wise and sensible.
Nope, they are usually too subjective, repeat marketing hype<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> or basic errors.</span>
Yes OP. Bought an Intense Recluse a couple of months ago. Not very well reviewed but I think it's fantastic.
They (MBR) rave about the latest stumpy and stumpy evo in this month's mag....
I had a '01 and later an '07 stumpy. The '07 model was awful. Only realised it wasn't the rider when I rode a mate's Cube.
Manufacturers rarely make poor products now. Just some are better than others.
Some of those journalists are not great bike riders
Well, neither am I so that should be good !!
so it’s hard to see how they can draw some of the conclusions that they do .
Yeah... if they left it at "I'm a medicare rider and for me" ....
There are some obsessive traits as well.
"Honestly Doddy.. (should you read this).. I'm 5'10"... how long the XL is and how wide the bars are is not my primary concern" but somehow it forms the core review of every bike...
and whilst we are at it... bar length ... tyre choice... in most cases these should be like pedals.
It would make more sense to sell a new bike with a £100 or £150 voucher for tyres... and for a review (especially UK*) each bike should then be reviewed with the same tyres.
*If doing a review for say Vancouver ... or Colorado specific then perhaps but in the UK tyre choice is hugely different depending WHERE you ride, let along summer/winter... most of MY favourite tyre choices are location specific... what works on loam usually works really poorly on clay etc.
and whilst we are at it… bar length … tyre choice… in most cases these should be like pedals.
Yep, though in a review it is good to factor in if you are going to change that on day 1
As for the tyres and conditions the more international reviewer do seem to be able to get past that, it was interesting with the new plus stuff to see some mention of how the run in UK conditions given the lack of choice when it all started.
It probably helps that I've not really read MBR/MBUK/Dirt for a very long time
I've not bought a cycling magazine in at least 8-9 years*. Mainly because they're utter crap, all of them. No journalism, just 4 types of articles (Flowery stories, reviews/tests, interviews and racing/fitness) and nothing with any depth. Then there were mistakes, loads of them, changing/fashsionable opinions and such obvious advertising bias.
So no, I don't take reviews seriously.
* You should go and read a motorcycling magazine like BIKE. Most of them will utterly wipe the floor with any cycling magazine, a great part of that reason being that motorcycling has more depth to it. There's simply more to write about.
just 4 types of articles (Flowery stories, reviews/tests, interviews and racing/fitness) and nothing with any depth.
but how do you know?
I’ve not bought a cycling magazine in at least 8-9 years
Some are a good read, others just propagate old myths that the reviewer has bought into, most of it probably based on a lack of good analysis of a bike.
There's still a fair bit of subjectivity or feedback effect passed of as fact or attribution of characteristics to daft causes. Comfy rear triangles, insisting a stiff BB is faster or shorter stays climb better, that kind of thing.
I’ve not bought a cycling magazine in at least 8-9 years*. Mainly because they’re utter crap, all of them. No journalism, just 4 types of articles (Flowery stories, reviews/tests, interviews and racing/fitness) and nothing with any depth.
^^ this
They're just someone else's opinion
* You should go and read a motorcycling magazine like BIKE
Strange idea... Might as well read a magazine about dressmaking for all the interest that would hold!
You mean they aren't influenced by marketing budget, no way!!!
Yep, though in a review it is good to factor in if you are going to change that on day 1
In the UK its almost defacto ... either that or you end up with mediocre tyres on a £X,000 bike!
My last few rides are Surrey Hills (Loam) to Guisburn Forest (sharp slippery and loose rocks) to 417 (either hardback OR clingy clay on the black) to FOD (mostly back to loam) to Swinley (ability to float a whole bike on Red 2 and transfer the air to the rider as their head goes under would be ideal) ..
There is almost no way to specify a UK wide tyre STYLE let alone ACTUAL tyre... and the exact same bike would feel like a completely different beast... quite literally from super confidence inspiring to feeling like your trying to skate in flat shoes but switch tyres and its suddenly reversed.
If we were in the US then obviously within a say a state there might be a good set of "default tyres" but within a 1 hour drive in the UK you are basically going across extremes in terms of tyres.
Personally I'd rather get one good set of tyres for a set of conditions (if I'm paying for them on the price of a bike) and plan to get a completely different set on day 1 for completely different conditions rather than something mediocre for everything.
I’ve not bought a cycling magazine in at least 8-9 years*. Mainly because they’re utter crap, all of them. No journalism, just 4 types of articles (Flowery stories, reviews/tests, interviews and racing/fitness) and nothing with any depth.
What would 'depth' look like? And why is there 'more to write about' in motorcycling?
You can get to more cafes in a ride.
I do get the feeling they are very much behind what ever is fashionable, lost count of the number of road bike reviews where BB30 and it's ilk where the bees knees, "amazing power transfer" through the BB junction, "lateral stiffness and vertical compliance", now they are behind the re-introduction of proper threaded BB's are they are more reliable etc.
Only magazine i like is Cyclist, lots of great travel articles which have opened my eyes to some great riding spots and some good writing, but still the bike reviews have to have a pinch of salt
Charlie Kelly has all the bike reviews you'll ever need
I’m not sure what the OP is on about - MBR didn’t slate the Stumpy this month. I’ve thrown the mag, but from memory it got a reasonable review. Obviously bearing in mind that this is MBR which contradicts itself in every single review!
The review was for 2018 , bike hasn’t changed since my 2016 .
Yes It has. The new 2018 model has a longer reach. (Probably among other changes). The older one was way too short - the M felt like a S to me, my knees almost hitting the bars. When sat on it it felt tall and short.
I forget which mag I subscribed to last year. They had an offer to get some free lights which were more to buy than the sub.
anyway. The reviews were of no help or interest when I came to buy a new bike.
as has been said, tyres, bars etc etc all play a part so I go my own way and take a chance.
MBR have changed. It used to be pretty much a Specialized catalogue back in the day.
New stumpy gets good reviews . I like my stumpy for a trail bike so gonna keep it . A longer slacker reach wouldn't suit my average height and I only do trail riding at best .
I'll skim a review before a purchase to make sure there isn't some huge issue with the bike (tyre hits seat tube at full compression, paint quality is poor, won't fit a tyre of a certain size, etc) but otherwise I tend to just look at the nice pictures of bikes.
You should go and read a motorcycling magazine like BIKE. Most of them will utterly wipe the floor with any cycling magazine, a great part of that reason being that motorcycling has more depth to it. There’s simply more to write about
I think your review of magazines is more a statement of preference than fact. Last time I read 'Bike' it was dull. That was a good few years ago though, perhaps it's changed.
New stumpy gets good reviews . I like my stumpy for a trail bike so gonna keep it . A longer slacker reach wouldn’t suit my average height and I only do trail riding at best .
Your original post to start this thread says that your bike was slated in this months MBR. (It wasn’t) You later say that the bike hasn’t changed since 2016. (It has.) Now you’re saying that the mag gave the new model a good review? Or do you mean that it gets good reviews other than from MBR?
I’ve got a very fuzzy head because of sinusitis so forgive me my confusion but I haven’t got a clue what this thread is about.
There’s often some good content if you read between the lines, usually paired with a whole load of wrong conclusions caused by inherent biases.
Dirt’s were often good once you’d translate them from Jonespeak. Pinkbike’s are often good. The UK mags are very hit and miss. But it’s just as bad or worse in other market sectors - it seems the smaller the market, the less useful the reviews.
Print is struggling and they’re scared of losing advertisers but forgetting that if you don’t create any useful content and make all your reviews advertorials then no one will read your magazine.
Some years back I ended up writing a monthly column for about two years after ranting at the editor about their reviews and offering my services as a technical editor for free. Nowadays the magazine gives terrible products 8/10 so that’s useful...
The Stumpy was in MBR’s bike of the year test last month and came last - and about two weeks later the new version was released, which I’m sure they had for testing already but weren’t allowed to print anything about.
Also, is it just me or are their geometry measurements off? Everything they measure seems to be down at 330 BB height rather than 340.
Yes It has. The new 2018 model has a longer reach. (Probably among other changes). The older one was way too short – the M felt like a S to me, my knees almost hitting the bars. When sat on it it felt tall and short.
Though that just illustrates the flawed review process. The new one is probably too long for someone else and they feel like they need a shorter reach.
Quite honestly I think the option on length as well as S/M/L is the way to go...
From my height I'm marginal M/L on a Large Whyte... but I have short legs and even my medium I don't get the clearance I'd like ... a 125mm dropper is pretty much slammed on the medium for me and I don't know if I could fit a 150mm even on a small frame. My tackle would appreciate a bit more room vertically... whereas length wise I'd happy...
Of course it would be nice if this was mentioned in reviews... 😀
>#Richieokeefe - Hmm, maybe the sinusitis is getting the better of me. I could have sworn that MBR reviewed the newer, longer model but having been unable to find the mag I’m now thinking that it was the older model they had - same as yours. I may owe you an apology!
Anyway, MBRs reviews are notoriously contradictory and the Trail Bike of the Year test - if that’s the review we’re talking about? - was so flawed it’s difficult to know where to start. (Different price points for different types of bikes. A limit on budget so it wasn’t so much TBOTY but ‘TBOTY if your budget doesn’t exceed £xxx.’ Contradicting themselves about bushing and bearings and giving a pathetic excuse. Having only one tester per category with their inherent bias. And I’m not convinced that separating out 27.5/29/plus bikes makes any sense - a good bike is s good bike.)
Not taken any bike review seriously since...
the one (by a highly regarded journo in the bike industry) that gave both a 2* and the dogs danglies review for the same brakes within a couple of months of each other.
the one that declared one 26er as obsolete in a magazine issue with a date that was before any of the main manufacturers had even announced their first foray in to 650b, and there were zero wheels and tyres actually available in 650b at that point in time. I can only assume they'd pre-written their marketing bandwagon BS, then ran the review several issues earlier than originally planned.
the one where literally in every single review they cut+paste a standard dig about Sram brakes, and the obligatory need to bleed them before riding.
the ones where, when a Specialized appeared in the grouptest, you could predict the review score for every bike in the test, skip to the end, and prove that you predicted correctly.
Kit reviews, eg. bike bags, rucksacks etc. I'll pay attention too. Bike, brake, groupset etc. reviews I have to turn on the BS detector before reading any of the words.
I've been "testing" my new FlareMax myself recently. It's fashionably long and slack so may do OK in mag tests, but I can't help thinking that, if they released the same bike five years ago (when mags were slagging 29ers for being barges) they'd have hated it. It's all fashion really
It’s all fashion really
It doesn’t have to be. I always liked a longer reach because I spent so much time racing xc in the 90s. When bikes started getting shorter I had to size up to get the same stretch from saddle to bars. Now that long reach is the trend I can go back to size M bikes with the stretch I like. 😁
I'll take them semi-seriously until they enter the magic zone of 'vertical compliance' where the tester can detect sub-millimetric levels of frame distortion that seem to 'soak up the bumps'. After that I'm out.
I’ll take them semi-seriously until they enter the magic zone of ‘vertical compliance’ where the tester can detect sub-millimetric levels of frame distortion that seem to ‘soak up the bumps’. After that I’m out.
vertical compliance is sooooo dated. radial compliance is where its at...
I enjoy reading them but dont take them too seriously. I suspicious of the motives in some mags that in group tests say bike a is too short but bike b is great because its so much shorter you can buy the bigger size!!! Talk about clutching at straws to give a bike the 'win'.
I actually prefer the first ride reviews as they tend to be shorter and more factual and then make my own mind up. Group test often seem contradictory and there are always more options than can ever be in a single test article.
I made a decision to just ride more. The balance of thinking/reading about kit vs time using it was wrong.
Anyway, MBRs reviews are notoriously contradictory and the Trail Bike of the Year test – if that’s the review we’re talking about? –
I don't think it's just any one review....
Having only one tester per category with their inherent bias. And I’m not convinced that separating out 27.5/29/plus bikes makes any sense – a good bike is s good bike.)
Not if your 5'2" or 6'4"
I'd go more with
Having only one tester per category
Is just pointless.... I've ridden all sorts of bikes and some of them have probably been fantastic bikes for someone else even though I didn't gal in love (and some I've really not got along with). Even someone who has the same bias as regards to how the bike handles/feels... and their ideal bike might just not fit me the same.
I hit my arse on the tyre often enough on my 27.5... for example... but someone else might not.
I'd call that physical bias.... simply put the bike fit is just not right...
Then add in mental bias.....
Inconsistency is the biggest bugbear coming from the other side of the equation. I remember losing out on a test in a certain magazine as they marked me down for not liking a fork that just few months earlier in that same mag was a 9/10 grouptest winner at over 50% of the price of the complete bike!
About 5 years ago did it for me when MBR spectacularly missed the boat by declaring that they had no 29ers in their test fleet for the year as " none of their testers wanted to ride one ." Guess what chaps your job is to review current trends not to ride the bike that you most fancy , it's a bit like a chef refusing to cook a well done steak because that's not how he thinks steak should be cooked . Anyway I sent in a suitably outraged letter slating their decision which , to their credit they did publish , then was committed to buying the mag for a couple of years to watch them squirming as 29er sales rapidly went through the roof and 26ers were pretty much consigned to the dustbin of history .
From reading many bike mags they just appear to be a reprint of the catalogue the bike firm produces, nothing new,then the ride test, is based on the rider not any other group of riders, we all see and feel something different in every bike we ride. From looking at the pictures its quite obvious that certain bike frames are all made by the same manufacturer.
Also strangely the bikes featured also feature in a large paid for advert. Finally do the testers get offered the stuff they test for free or as a free loan or even at cost price.
But surely the above comment wouldn't induce a better star rating
The problem is that modern bikes are all good. There are differences, but they are so minor to generally be irrelevant.
I suggest therefore the following buying methodology:
1) find one you most like the colour of within your price range
2) Go to a shop that has a demo available to find out which frame size you feel the most comfortable riding
3) Buy that one.
Job, jobbed!
Stevextc wrote,
“Honestly Doddy.. (should you read this).. I’m 5’10″… how long the XL is and how wide the bars are is not my primary concern” but somehow it forms the core review of every bike…
and whilst we are at it… bar length … tyre choice… in most cases these should be like pedals."
Jones was the same about XLs. But... Well, I'm 5'10, so XLs don't affect me. But, it's still interesting to know when a bike company fumbles the larger bike sizes- shows a lack of thinking on their range and a willingness to screw their owners. ChrisL of this parish had a Mojo in size XL that was shorter than my Cotic medium- their sizing got taller but it didn't really get much longer. That's not directly relevant to me but it makes me question them. Santa Cruz know their XLs are too short, most of their pros fit reach headsets but they still keep selling them. Basically the extremes can be interesting
Bar length, stems and tyre choice can be sort of similar- I think they can be a useful symptom. When you see a bike in 2018 with 680mm bars it's a pretty good sign that the bike's either very conservative, or built without an awful lot of thought to spec. You can change it in 5 minutes but it's a kind of declaration of intent. And when Calibre fit sensible, quality tyres to a Bossnut frinstance it's a good sign that they've sweated the details and rather than penny pinching they've built a bike that's going to work well out of the box. You wouldn't really mind, if you had to change a tyre but it's a good sign that you don't.
Ramsayneil wrote,
"About 5 years ago did it for me when MBR spectacularly missed the boat by declaring that they had no 29ers in their test fleet for the year"
It was a wee bit longer ago I think.Though, worth mentioning that not so long after that, they admitted they'd screwed up, more or less along the lines of "genuinely the 29ers we rode weren't competitive, so we judged the breed, and then we rode some 29ers that were awesome so we've had out minds changed". Which is kind of fair enough.
Similar,
Andytherocketeer wrote,
"the one that declared one 26er as obsolete in a magazine issue with a date that was before any of the main manufacturers had even announced their first foray in to 650b"
So they called it correctly before most people did? That doesn't seem bad.
So they called it correctly before most people did? That doesn’t seem bad.
Except that 29" wheels came first and that's what started the demise of 26" . By the time 650 turned up the writing was already on the wall .
The trouble is that most reviews are done by 1 person riding that bike. What is comfortable and fun for someone may be not so good for someone else!
I bought my Trek without reading anything about it. Mainly because I went out to buy a Whyte (based on reviews!) and didn’t get on with them at all.
Popped in to another shop and spent a couple of hours trying the Trek and was sold.
I think bike bike fit is very personal and reviews can obviously give you an idea of the bike is good or a lemon, but nothing will ever beat proper test rides.
Also some brands are going longer and slacker with huge reach figures. I don’t get on with that kind of fit. My trek is an 18.5 and at 5ft 11 according to the ‘size charts’ I should be on a 19.5.
Jones was the same about XLs. But… Well, I’m 5’10, so XLs don’t affect me. But, it’s still interesting to know when a bike company fumbles the larger bike sizes- shows a lack of thinking on their range and a willingness to screw their owners. ChrisL of this parish had a Mojo in size XL that was shorter than my Cotic medium- their sizing got taller but it didn’t really get much longer. That’s not directly relevant to me but it makes me question them. Santa Cruz know their XLs are too short, most of their pros fit reach headsets but they still keep selling them. Basically the extremes can be interesting
I find the XS and S quite amusing... XS with either no crank length or 170/175....
In the same way the adherence to wheel size for a frame regardless seems equally stupid... surely if the XL is 29er the XS should be 26 to even keep close to the same geo and feel?
Bar length, stems and tyre choice can be sort of similar- I think they can be a useful symptom. When you see a bike in 2018 with 680mm bars it’s a pretty good sign that the bike’s either very conservative, or built without an awful lot of thought to spec. You can change it in 5 minutes but it’s a kind of declaration of intent.
Mostly though on a higher end bike its possibly a declaration of expectation they will be changed before riding?
If I was buying a NEW bike (which I haven't for decades) I'd rather get some £15 placeholder bars then go and fit the ones that fit me... but that goes 5x for cranks...
I've never tried a Bird .. but I do like their philosophy... where you can choose both size and length and also groupset. I'm just guessing at this but I guess they also design their FS leverage to take M/M (based on they are currently selling a spare M/M tune monarch in their clearance) ..
I say this as some other manufacturers design a bike then it seems can't be bothered or have sourcing issues getting the RIGHT tune for the bike.
I've yet to see a review that say's "they thoughtfully designed the bike to take a M/M tune so if you do damage your shock you can replace it from stock" not special order full price + import from RS)
and when Calibre fit sensible, quality tyres to a Bossnut frinstance it’s a good sign that they’ve sweated the details and rather than penny pinching they’ve built a bike that’s going to work well out of the box. You wouldn’t really mind, if you had to change a tyre but it’s a good sign that you don’t.
I totally agree: The way Calibre are making an affordable OOTB ready to ride bike should be a model and the "higher end" bikes IMHO should just come tyre less and bar less (or options to specify) ....
This is a large part of the reason I don't buy new.... (finances aside)
IF I WAS buying a new premium bike due to some unexpected windfall .... then I don't expect I need to replace cranks, bars, stem and tyres... or just put up with what they deem I should have. Equally, it seems ridiculous I should have to choose a premium bike based on their choice of crank length... or even more bizarrely tyres...
“Except that 29″ wheels came first and that’s what started the demise of 26″ . By the time 650 turned up the writing was already on the wall ”
Were you living in an alternate reality? If 27.5 hadn’t happened 26 would still be the mainstay and 29 still wouldn’t have happened in DH.
Were you living in an alternate reality? If 27.5 hadn’t happened 26 would still be the mainstay
True this.
Were you living in an alternate reality? If 27.5 hadn’t happened 26 would still be the mainstay and 29 still wouldn’t have happened in DH.
I'm not sure ... for good or bad DHWC has become more commercialised.
29 in DH is IMHO just an expression of this... and changing the courses to make 29ers faster and more uneducated in DH terms spectator/TV friendly.
29ers and drones sorta go together ... at least in terms of the slower but twistiest techy bits through trees don't make good TV the more general public want to watch...
Just an opinion ....
I read the reviews, but not being a serial bike swapper I haven't really taken them to heart - other than the reviews for the Carrera Fury which got me back in to mountain biking after years off - I was looking for a cheap decent hard tail.
I still have it now, but know that I prefer something slacker to older XC geo, great for pootling with the kids.
I built my full suspension (Nukeproof Mega TR) from frame only after reading a couple of reviews knowing that most of the components I was building it from weren't on the test bike - only 'standard' part is the shock.
I'm building up a Nukeproof Scout to replace my HT - again nothing really similar to the 'standard specs'; a few reviews have said about the harsh back end, but I'm using different wheels and tyres and I don't ride everything like it's rampage - so I probably won't notice it.
It's like fork/shock reviews - I don't think I'm good enough of a rider to notice that one fork is better at small bump compliance than another (I'm a prime candidate for ShockWizz!!).
Bike set up is a preference thing too - I notice some reviews test completely stock, others immediately swap stems, tyres, grips and a few other things. On large group tests I get swapping all bike to a control tyre, but if reviewing an individual bike seems a bit moot.
I think so much about bikes is subjective (especially if you're riding for fun rather than racing), and on that basis the only good reviews are those that say "this does this well and that badly", rather than "this is ace/crap because it does my exact type of riding well/badly".
Pinkbike seem pretty good for it.
I think with suspension reviews it must be a lot more of a challenge. I tend to get my stuff set up how I like it and leave it there, going over a number of shocks/forks I couldn't guarantee I was testing the suspension and not my ability to find the right tune for that suspension.
Of course, who doesn't get excited by shiny new things, and who that's keen enough to work as an MTB journalist isn't going to get a bit excited at all the shiny new things they're meant to give an objective opinion on?
I laugh sometimes when I get advice from some expert in the shop whose ill founded opinions based on half fact and trends I could rip to shreds - reminds me of myself when I worked in a shop. So I'm nice to them. But I don't tend to take their opinion too seriously. Apart from mechanics. They see more broken stuff than I do.
Found the latest trends in MBR are now - anything less than 12 speed - not enough spread of gears. 175mm cranks are a no-no and bars on one bike are too narrow at 760mm (750s on another bike don't get mentioned!). And anything less than Pikes are shit forks - are they really??
Pointless twaddle.