Re: Vittoria Launch this month
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:31 pm
Many people also want to believe that what is new (or more expensive) is better!
The Marketing “just” help them.....LOL
The Marketing “just” help them.....LOL
Forum
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=155559
Not sure if Matt works for you or another publication, but he didn't report what he saw, he simply repeated unverified and outlandish claims without stating they were unverified claims. Can't really tell if this is the same approach that you have taken but your post suggest so. That's not journalism.ichobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:18 pmOne of my staff writer was at the same event as Matt (who wrote that piece)...
When you see the chart you can choose to believe it or you don’t have to (which is how it should be). The best thing we can do is report what we saw, work with what we have and let the reader decide for themselves, then test the tires once we have our hands on the product.
is pathetic. Aren't you supposed to contribute something as a journalist - what is your value added? With an attitude like that you are not needed - I can on my own more easily see what Vittoria has to say on their website.
I definitely understand the frustration here, and I fully agree that Vittoria’s graphs are worse than useless. That said, I think you guys are going after the wrong party here. Matt Wikstrom, the CyclingTips author, is fully on your side here (at least, I strongly suspect he is). I don’t know him personally, but the guy knows why unlabeled axes are a problem. In the comments below his article, he mentions this:Mr.Gib wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:57 pmichobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:18 pmNot sure if Matt works for [Ichobi’s magazine] or another publication, but he didn't report what he saw, he simply repeated unverified and outlandish claim without stating they were unverified claims. Can't really tell if this is the same approach that you have taken but your post suggest so. That's not journalism.
This statement:is pathetic. Aren't you supposed to contribute something as a journalist - what is your value added? With an attitude like that you are not needed - I can see what Vittoria has to say on their website.
I looked Wikstrom up on LinkedIn; he has a Ph.D. in immunology. Of course, a Ph.D. in an unrelated field doesn’t mean much on its own, but Wikstrom has spent substantial time in a flow cytometry lab. It’s reasonable to assume that the guy knows the difference between useful data and marketing.Matt Wikstrom wrote:As a scientist, it’s easy to spot a good lab, and that’s what I’ve seen here in Thailand. [...] My request to see the raw numbers was turned down [...]
I think you are misreading me, and in substance am in the same boat as you, just being a bit more diplomatic. On the presentation though: yes, it deserves no credit because there is no Y axis. BUT, they are very, very clearly trying to make some big claims with that presentation (i.e., yes, it could be that the data shows a 0.01% improvement, but they seem to WANT us to think that there is very sizeable improvement, with mileage pretty much doubling). Similarly major claims are made in the article. I find these claims incredible, in a very literal sense of that word. 40% decrease in RR would, after all, imply RR somewhere in low 7w for Corsa G+ and below 5w for Corsa Speed - obliterating any other exisiting tyre, while at the same time improving grip! What I am saying, I guess, is that I cannot wait for an actual test to see how the tyres actually perform so that Vittoria can be properly taken to task for this crap - or else a bunch of us skeptics here need to eat some crow.Mr.Gib wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:58 pm
Aeroisnteverything (and others), not withstanding your "wait and see" caveat, this type of presentation deserves no credit whatsoever. The point is the chart doesn't show anything. Consider that the chart shown is only the top 1/1000,000,000 of the whole chart. Now how big a deal are those "improvements"? That is what your fellow WW's meant by the problem with the Y axis.
The statement is pathetic. Don't know you at all so yeah, no idea about you.ichobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:24 pmHe doesn’t work for me and we have not published the article because we find the information provided to be insufficient. Must have felt great calling people you barely know pathetic online right? You don’t even know how we work. Don’t lump all journalist together.
Cyclingtips article is thin for certain in fact it doesn’t tell anything you cant already find on Vittoria website but don’t just assume all outlet will do the same.
This lame platitude and the sentiments that underly it is what leaves the average consumer badly informed. Thin? The article doesn't even qualify as an adequate report of a product release. Maybe it's just laziness - not on your part, but that of the author.
I noticed that as well. I can only imagine that what Vittoria's engineers meant is that (at best) the part of rolling resistance that is generated from the tread has been reduced by 40% - whereas total RR comes from the tread, the casing, the tube and (probably) interactions between all three.aeroisnteverything wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:33 amSimilarly major claims are made in the article. I find these claims incredible, in a very literal sense of that word. 40% decrease in RR would, after all, imply RR somewhere in low 7w for Corsa G+ and below 5w for Corsa Speed - obliterating any other exisiting tyre, while at the same time improving grip! What I am saying, I guess, is that I cannot wait for an actual test to see how the tyres actually perform so that Vittoria can be properly taken to task for this crap - or else a bunch of us skeptics here need to eat some crow.
Because internet rage is fun.bm0p700f wrote:Why not wait and see then try. Why get worked up over marketing. I have had all the size on back order since December. I could have told what was coming out.