Flyguy
Well-known member
I have noticed an irritating trend on MC reviews and “comparo’s”. The first is that contrary to good test procedure and radom selection, all bikes are given to a publication “gratis” which carries with it a certain, if slight, indebtedness. Someone hands you a $15,000 state of the art machine, complete with insurance, and says “have it back next week”, you’re going to feel a bit grateful. Then they add “we sure hope you like it as we are planning a sizeable ad budget to get it off the ground, and would like to include your publication.” Gee, who do you think would get the edge when things get tight, company A) on new bike promotion wave or company B) with their 3 year old model. All ties go to the new guy. Period. Besides it promotes generating new models which is what generates new covers and excitement and what the mag is all about anyway. This is good for sales but not in the interest of objectivity OR FULL DISCLOSURE.
The second part of this that hacks me off is that now that the real differences in certain genre’s of bikes have gotten so miniscule, setup becomes the most important thing being measured. This has become so important that companies (some much more than others) spend days setting up their mules to excel at a certain track or riding area. As “Go-go” Gulbransen (reference rider for the new Motor Cyclist shootout) said, “I learned it is not simply a motorcycle that gets tested, but the manufacturers effort. “ You think a Duc 1098 might go a little better after Jeff Nash breathes on it for a few days?
While you will always have competitive positioning, it seems to me the MC industry takes this to a new level, at the expense of their readers. Testers could purchase their own bikes randomly, then sell them when they are done to their readers at a good price. A benefit for readers – what a novel idea! They might be surprised at how much their readers might pay for a “official” test bike, especially if it was strictly a road test. Even if this was not doable for them, they should at least take a unit from dealers stock. This would prevent the most gross examples of “matching”. My first 1979 Saab Turbo was “matched” when new by a fellow who had a small dealership in the Kansas City area and who just happened to hold the SCCA Showroom Stock “A” title for a couple years. For those of you who didn’t grow up under the hood of an automobile, “matching” refers to using parts such as fuel distributors, ignition modules, bushings, shocks and such that ended up producing an optimized example of the car. Believe me, that 900T was so different to others, people were amazed. Perfectly legal too. Then SCCA came up with a claiming rule that allowed anyone to purchase the winning car at full list. This seemed to stop the largest efforts.
The point is, we should demand better review methods and more factual data from the magazines as they are all too powerful a focus of many naive buyers. It is difficult, at best, to test bikes anyway. Test ride you say? A truly knowledgeable rider would probably spend the first hours of the test on “setup” so he wouldn’t mislead himself. Did you? Neither did I.
I think that many areas are ommited or left to subjective reporting as opposed to factual data. Many reviews are STRICTLY subjective with data supplied by the mfgs. When was the last time you saw braking distances included? What was the last car review you saw them omitted? What about a low speed slolom? G's to touchdown or predetermined lean angle, left then right.
The only area they seem interested to present factual data on is acceleration. Even that you only get the almighty 1/4 mile, which is good info but woefully incomplete for street riders. 50 - 70 and especially 70-100 roll-ons are becoming extinct. Max HP & torque are quoted as all-important even thought they mean little to the all over curve.
C'mon, let's make these guy's actually work for their money and provide us with real data, not personal, biased, self serving prose.
The second part of this that hacks me off is that now that the real differences in certain genre’s of bikes have gotten so miniscule, setup becomes the most important thing being measured. This has become so important that companies (some much more than others) spend days setting up their mules to excel at a certain track or riding area. As “Go-go” Gulbransen (reference rider for the new Motor Cyclist shootout) said, “I learned it is not simply a motorcycle that gets tested, but the manufacturers effort. “ You think a Duc 1098 might go a little better after Jeff Nash breathes on it for a few days?
While you will always have competitive positioning, it seems to me the MC industry takes this to a new level, at the expense of their readers. Testers could purchase their own bikes randomly, then sell them when they are done to their readers at a good price. A benefit for readers – what a novel idea! They might be surprised at how much their readers might pay for a “official” test bike, especially if it was strictly a road test. Even if this was not doable for them, they should at least take a unit from dealers stock. This would prevent the most gross examples of “matching”. My first 1979 Saab Turbo was “matched” when new by a fellow who had a small dealership in the Kansas City area and who just happened to hold the SCCA Showroom Stock “A” title for a couple years. For those of you who didn’t grow up under the hood of an automobile, “matching” refers to using parts such as fuel distributors, ignition modules, bushings, shocks and such that ended up producing an optimized example of the car. Believe me, that 900T was so different to others, people were amazed. Perfectly legal too. Then SCCA came up with a claiming rule that allowed anyone to purchase the winning car at full list. This seemed to stop the largest efforts.
The point is, we should demand better review methods and more factual data from the magazines as they are all too powerful a focus of many naive buyers. It is difficult, at best, to test bikes anyway. Test ride you say? A truly knowledgeable rider would probably spend the first hours of the test on “setup” so he wouldn’t mislead himself. Did you? Neither did I.
I think that many areas are ommited or left to subjective reporting as opposed to factual data. Many reviews are STRICTLY subjective with data supplied by the mfgs. When was the last time you saw braking distances included? What was the last car review you saw them omitted? What about a low speed slolom? G's to touchdown or predetermined lean angle, left then right.
The only area they seem interested to present factual data on is acceleration. Even that you only get the almighty 1/4 mile, which is good info but woefully incomplete for street riders. 50 - 70 and especially 70-100 roll-ons are becoming extinct. Max HP & torque are quoted as all-important even thought they mean little to the all over curve.
C'mon, let's make these guy's actually work for their money and provide us with real data, not personal, biased, self serving prose.
