Garth...List.
In the UK we have, i suppose 2 mags which most keen cyclists take... a weekly comic Cycling Weekly. and a 4 weekly magazine Cycling Plus. both have some reasonable content and I understand that many stateside readers enjoy C plus.. and of course Hilarys page. I read the reviews of the modern kit with relish only to be totally disillusioned by the tripe which these so called journos spew out. Several times cyclist friends have made comments on the reviews and our take is...... change the pics and they all read much the same. Sometimes i wonder if they even climb on board these bicycles or are even competent fitness wise to take out of the machine what a fit skilled cyclist could experience and report more like . they did in the past... I know from my own stable not to haul out my faster handling machines until i feel fit enough to take out whats' bred' into them. Of course..... maybe.... collectively we're becoming Grumpy old CYCLISTS.......men !!!!
Willie Carton Coleraine N. I.reland
Bianca Pratorius <biankita@comcast.net> wrote: I must admit to reading Bicycling Magazine. I have a subscription. I look at all the ads. I take it all in, but I must also admit that when I read the reviews of the racing bikes I don't understand what they're talking about. I used to buy, borrow, read at the library ... the reviews of racing bikes during the classic era of the seventies and eighties, but I can't remember ever having been so confused as I am now. The old reviews, if I remember correctly, used to talk about things I understood such as geometry, lug finish, ride and ease of shifting. Now they talk in bizarre terms such as vertically compliant, laterally stiff, point and shoot and lay up configurations. These modern bikes shift perfectly when set up correctly and all of them have more stopping power than you need. It seems almost as if these bikes are all so similar and well designed for what they are that there is nothing left of any importance to talk about, so they resort to modern cliches that actually don't mean anything.
I was a novice back in the classic era but I instantly knew what they were trying to convey when I read the old reviews. Now I'm an experienced cyclist and I haven't a clue. Does anyone remember anything as stupid as the modern section called "Style Man". I think we were stylin' back in the day but no one would ever admit to it with the bald faced guiltlessness that is currently in vogue. Does anyone remember truly incomprehensible fashion oriented reviews of the old bikes the way they are written of the new models today?
It's a shame because in many ways Bicycling Magazine is better now than it ever was. It has stories of people changing their lives around, losing weight, conquering disease and changing the world. Have there always been two kinds of writers at Bicycling ... those who write with passion and those who write with the bottom line always plainly in view? Maybe I should have more compassion for the modern day reviewers .. After I ride a modern bike and am asked what I thought, I usually just say "Very nice. Here take it back."
Garth Libre in Miami Fl USA
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail.