Tour’s ridiculous tyre test and their questionable findings.

[DocRay]

The real truth is, writing to please your advertisers is a losing proposition. Since most major cycling mags have ads from almost every big bike maker at some point during the year, and these ads are scheduled months in advance to get them into the mag, that would mean they could basically never write a bad/negative review. This would quickly become really obvious to readers.

I do agree that some magazines seem to have a policy of minimizing the attention they pay to a bike's faults, across the board.

[/quote]

Have you ever read a British publication called "Cycling Plus"? They are famous for giving 8 or more out of 10 to nearly every product they review. The odd lousy review helps maintain credibility. The watchword is "don't pi55 off the important clients".[/quote]

Or Bicycling?
or Pez?
or Velonews?

If you run a bike magazine on the truth that it really doesn't make any difference what toys you use to your speed in a race, you won't be in business very long. Another truth is that most bikes are pretty good.

To Cycling Plus' credit, they have many features about training, health and diet that other magazines don't have.

[fdegrove]

Hi,

2. by putting them on a trainer and measuring power etc, is a very good measure of RR on a trainer, but not on a road - this is the same if it is done by a magazine or by yourself.

The usual kind of lab tests on CRR are quite indicative of how a given tyre performs in real life.
IOW a good tyre in the lab equates to a good performer on the road and vice versa. Sorry to burst that buble but that's just how it is.

Ciao,

[JWATTS]

If you run a bike magazine on the truth that it really doesn't make any difference what toys you use to your speed in a race, you won't be in business very long.

Dirt Rag has been around for some time now.

[GrahamB]

If you run a bike magazine on the truth that it really doesn't make any difference what toys you use to your speed in a race, you won't be in business very long. Another truth is that most bikes are pretty good.

To Cycling

A friend works for a sport-bike oriented motorcycle magazine... and the story is the same. Basically they write pieces to work readers up to justifying the purchase of a new bike... to replace the old one that already exceeded their abilities in most regards by far. Yet somehow they fail to ever comment on the fact that many of the manufacturer supplied specs (particularly weight) are pure lies.

However my favourite example was where they screwed up and weighed one bike with an empty fuel tank, while all the others were full... so it came in 10kg lighter. EVERY tester made comments about how the Suzuki felt so much lighter than the others (with mitigating comments: but it might be too light and hence nervous, the others might suit you better...).

In fact the Suzuki was the heaviest of the 4 bikes tested by a couple of kg, as recorded by every other test in which they were actually weighed

[alexedge]

Obviously I'm wasting my time here. Everyone has already decided that it's a proven (by what data, they're not sure, and can't seem to provide) fact that journalists write reviews based on how much ad money they're receiving, not how well a product works.

You guys should consider being a little bit more open-minded instead of clinging to these strong preconceived notions that have little to no factual data backing them up.

As I said, some magazines do do this. So everyone can site one or two egregious examples. Anyone familiar with the scientific method would realize that this does not prove (or even suggest) that all (or even a majority) of media follows this path.

Since obviously no one is open-minded enough to consider the possibility that I'm telling the truth (I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but a discussion beyond "you're wrong, I'm right, I don't have to provide any supporting evidence because I know it's true would be more constructive), this discussion is utterly pointless, so I'm dropping it.

One more comment - someone mentioned Pez. I personally know Charles and it always pisses me off greatly when people mention him as an example of being biased. Pez is so small compared to, say, Bicycling magazine or 'Road' that Charles actually PAYS for a huge majority of test products OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET. Madcow at fairwheelbikes told me that Charles has never even asked for a discount on the many expensive weight-weenie products he's bought from them.

So here's a guy spending huge amounts of his own hard-earned cash simply to share valuable information with the cycling community he loves, and his reward is to constantly be insulted by being called a shill for the manufacturers (the ultimate insult for a journalist).

He doesn't even take a salary I don' think!!!

I'm done.

[sawyer]

Obviously I'm wasting my time here. Everyone has already decided that it's a proven (by what data, they're not sure, and can't seem to provide) fact that journalists write reviews based on how much ad money they're receiving, not how well a product works.

You guys should consider being a little bit more open-minded instead of clinging to these strong preconceived notions that have little to no factual data backing them up.

As I said, some magazines do do this. So everyone can site one or two egregious examples. Anyone familiar with the scientific method would realize that this does not prove (or even suggest) that all (or even a majority) of media follows this path.

Since obviously no one is open-minded enough to consider the possibility that I'm telling the truth (I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but a discussion beyond "you're wrong, I'm right, I don't have to provide any supporting evidence because I know it's true would be more constructive), this discussion is utterly pointless, so I'm dropping it.

One more comment - someone mentioned Pez. I personally know Charles and it always pisses me off greatly when people mention him as an example of being biased. Pez is so small compared to, say, Bicycling magazine or 'Road' that Charles actually PAYS for a huge majority of test products OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET. Madcow at fairwheelbikes told me that Charles has never even asked for a discount on the many expensive weight-weenie products he's bought from them.

So here's a guy spending huge amounts of his own hard-earned cash simply to share valuable information with the cycling community he loves, and his reward is to constantly be insulted by being called a shill for the manufacturers (the ultimate insult for a journalist).

He doesn't even take a salary I don' think!!!

I'm done.

I have no idea about Pez, but as I said earlier, I do know a large number of people who work for various publications (some of which are in companies with stables of 20 or 30 mags), and it's certainly the case, I can assure you, that advertising influences editorial content in many publications (I don't doubt not all).

[CharlesM]

Hey guys I have no problem saying that some of the mud getting slung here is accurate...

Obviously I have a personal problem here and so does Alex, as we're both actively doing testing thing for publications...


The thing that I always ask, when someons spits out the blanket "all journalists and tests are BS/ Paid off / biased, is simply "what did I get wrong. What info / data is bad or what impression did I have about a product that was just dead out of whack".

We've all seen a few people bashing me here based on their assumptions, but not one of them has ever answered that question...



Are there crap journo's who are not much more than paid hacks? Yep.

Are all Journos the same?

I guess I would ask you to think about your own profession and think about the people that do what you do that represent the worst case scenario.

Is it safe to say that you're just as bad as the worst people in your profession? And or is it safe to say that everyone and every company in your line of work is the same? Is it a "fact"?


Aside from Lawyers of course

[Geoff]

Whoa. Without us lawyers, all tires would be crap for sure.

Seriously, though, I think the reason people are 'on' Charles is jealosy over the cool GP-replical bikes, not his percieved bias...

[minemine]

Can anyone name for me an item that is generally regarded on this board as crap but has received good reviews from the publications you think are so biased?

Or should it be that in reviewing a Chorus group one should say it's crap because it's not Record?

Can someone point out any cases where a review should have said something bad yet didn't?

[GrahamB]

I don't defend the blatant bias claim, but I do think there is some soft-pedalling. Try (from cyclingnews test of a Jamis):
"The nearly complete SRAM Red gruppo is punctuated only by FSA's superb K-Force Light crankset "

"Superb" seems slightly stronger praise than most people offer FSA...

[seriousconsult]

All journalist are not the same, obviously. Of course comparing Bicycling or Dirt Rag writers with serious journalism is redicioulous.

These magazines are small businesses trying to not go bankrupt and they will say whatever they need to say to keep advertisers. If the journalist go too far, the editors will redirect them.

When was the last time one just crushed a product? Even Pez or Velonews which I think are better, when was the last time a big-brand product got one star? It seems like the average is 4/5 strars.


I have some background in QA and it at least seem like Tour is trying to do more than the typical "quick turning, but stable" subjective drivvel.

[djconnel]

The usual kind of lab tests on CRR are quite indicative of how a given tyre performs in real life. IOW a good tyre in the lab equates to a good performer on the road and vice versa. Sorry to burst that buble but that's just how it is.

Obviously, applying such a test to a mountain bike tire, or a cyclocross tire, would be laughable. For these tires, real-world conditions are so different from a roller test rig that you'd almost be better off picking the worst performing tire than the best.

Of course, roads are very different from dirt trails or gravel fire roads. But they're not quite like smooth rollers, either. Is it a coincidence that basically all of the top pro teams use tubulars on their time trial bikes? Group-think?

[Redddraggon]

Is it a coincidence that basically all of the top pro teams use tubulars on their time trial bikes?

Ah but the "best wheels" (sponsor provided) are really only Tubulars, e.g. Bora/Ghlibi and the Zipps (clincher versions are far heavier).

[djconnel]

Ah but the "best wheels" (sponsor provided) are really only Tubulars, e.g. Bora/Ghlibi and the Zipps (clincher versions are far heavier).

Obviously there's a much bigger market for clinchers than for tubulars. The real money in cycling is on the non-racers who have the cash to buy but not the time to train.

[John979]

Continental posted the article in English here: http://www.conti-online.com/generator/w ... 00s_en.pdf

Not that it is going to change anyone's mind...