Bike Reviews.

That's right. It's a load of crap and self serving of wined, dined, and track day'd jounrnos pleasing the manufacturers. Much like any magazine reviews. Total pish.

As you point out - when they do a bike review the thing is damn near perfect.

Then the next model comes out and they tell you everything that was bad about the previous incarnation.

Which they neglected to tell us the first time around.

Tossers.

Don't believe a turd.

 

Agree with the Fireblade comments too.

Honda are the world's best at designing bikes that are easier to ride and more predictable than anything else out there. Simply astonishing how they design them so well.

Same goes for the CBR600RR etc too.

Both bikes almost 'thought control' to ride.

Boring as arse though imo. They're 'too good' for what I want.

Sanitised in the same way as modern sports cars with electronic-everything.

It's the involvement factor that makes me buy Ducatis.

 

Anyone noticed how the bike that loses the group 'shoot out' test in MCN then gets a mini feature (usually a rehash of a review where it was made to sound ok) in the MCN local section in the following weeks issue, all the bad points left out that featured in the group test. It was really noticeable with the new suzuki sports tourer thing (Paraphrased):"Last week it was shit compared to everything else but this week on its own, compared to nothing, it's a great bike!"

 

Wow! You're right!

 

I never read the bike press anymore for exactly the reasons @comfysofa says. I've done some reviews on here of the bikes i've had on loan over the last 5 weeks and all i've tried to do is describe the feeling i have when i ride them. Personally that's what counts for me it doesn't matter what tech it's got. But, the feeling i get riding a 1299 or a Scrambler is different to anyone else, so i would find it hard to say go and buy this or buy that.

I've got a new 821 Monster on loan. I'll write a review for if i can muster the enthusiasm, in fact i'll do it now.

What's the point in this bike? You can't fit your feet on it, it has no punch, nothing that puts a serious grin on your face. Every day i've ridden it, I just wonder why the fuck it was built. The Scrambler is way, way more fun, the Streetfighter is way, way more thrilling and the 899 is way, way more impressive.

If i really want a Monster and to look like a badass, the 1200 exists. But again, most human males can't fit their feet on the pegs. Oh and both of them have no bloody gear indicator. Never has a bike left me so confused as to why it even exists.

 

So cynical...but so true.

It's a very brave bike tester that would completely slag off a new bike from a major advertiser\manufacturer.

 

I think it's more to do with 'knowing how to keep their job' etc unfortunately - if they want to ensure they are invited next time.

Would be refreshing if both manufacturers and reviewers where honest with us about it though.

 

One thing I have come to think is that there aren't really any shit bikes released, just different bikes that suit different people and purposes.

 

Nothing is as much fun as a Scrambler!

 

You could say that from probably the late 80's / early 90's onwards, and the ones that are either a handful or otherwise outside of the usual expectations are usually quite well-loved in their own way (thinking TL-S, VMax etc).

 

Outside of very talented riders on track, most large capacity motorcycles can cope with their owners demands these days. Which to buy becomes more a matter of matching the machine with individual preferences on style, riding position, and level of practicality etc. A good review-and they do exist- will help the would be purchaser with those issues.

 

I thought the reviews of the 1200R monster have been pretty luke warm.

 

I've not bought viz in years, going to buy one tomorrow.

 

Something I have learnt over the years: you have to ask yourself this question when listening to people:
What is in it for them to tell the truth? What is in it for them not to tell the truth?
This is why politicians lie. They would sooner you hadn't asked the question, but now that you have, why would they answer it truthfully?

All magazines are consumerist constructs. They exist to stroke your consumerist itch. They wouldn't have much of a readership if they just wrote "Yeah, whatever. You don't need any of this. Just get a cheapish secondhand bike of about 10 years old - it'll probably be enough for what you need".

It's not just bike mags, it's all mags. The new will always be lauded, the old derided (until they write the "classic" article about a bike or thing 20 years old). Mags exist to excite the readership and carry advertising for new stuff. Don't expect them to tell it like it is.

I stopped reading hi-fi rags when I got my hi-fi system. It was good enough.
I stopped reading bike mags years ago once I had my 999. I knew I didn't require more.
I don't read guitar magazines. Only practice will make me a great guitar player, not buying more stuff.
In fact, I don't read any magazines. I do like writing my own reviews, if anyone actually lends me a bike to try out.

 

Yep, I've even seen that written too :Hilarious: :Nailbiting:

 

And never listen to opinion's on a forum

 

Do you mean you haven't been listening to mine??
What??
What am I doing all this typing for?