I plan on buying a new road bike this spring. Up 'til now I've been riding my mtb on county road with slicks. Given that I plan on investing a couple grand I thought I should invest in the new "Bicycling" 2008 buyer's guide. You know "The world's leading bike magazine". A few things I can't understand. First they only list a fraction of bikes, I guess just the new models. I would think once a year, they would publish something comprehensive for people looking to buy a bike. Secondly, they categorize the bikes into "race", "dream", "plush", "enthusiast", "recreational", and "entry-level". This seems kind of arbitrary. Anything under 2 grand is considered "recreational". Why? As if anyone who doesn't have the $ for an all carbon frame isn't a real cyclist. To me, good "recreational" bikes are about $500. They're heavy, but good quality and perfect for "recreational" riding. Like, when a husband and wife want to start exercising. This guide labels the Trek 2.3 as "recreational". I'm sure there are people who use this bike for competition. Maybe they're not sponsored, maybe they're not competing in the olympic trials, but if you drop $1600 on a bike, I would say you qualify as an "enthusiast". Then when they give you a primer on gruppos, they say 105 and Rival are "recreational" components. Again, I know plenty of people who have 105 who compete. Then, Bicyling say Campy veloce is "a big step down, aimed at the occasional rider". So, in other words it's "sub-recreational"... for getting groceries and the like. But then in the very same issue they show a full carbon Merkx CHM for $2500 (in the "enthusiast" line-up) with mostly Veloce components. ???

I had a free subscription to Bicycling Magazine, and it wasn't worth it--- even at that price.

I plan on buying a new road bike this spring. Up 'til now I've been riding my mtb on county road with slicks. Given that I plan on investing a couple grand I thought I should invest in the new "Bicycling" 2008 buyer's guide. You know "The world's leading bike magazine". A few things I can't understand. First they only list a fraction of bikes, I guess just the new models. I would think once a year, they would publish something comprehensive for people looking to buy a bike. Secondly, they categorize the bikes into "race", "dream", "plush", "enthusiast", "recreational", and "entry-level". This seems kind of arbitrary. Anything under 2 grand is considered "recreational". Why? As if anyone who doesn't have the $ for an all carbon frame isn't a real cyclist. To me, good "recreational" bikes are about $500. They're heavy, but good quality and perfect for "recreational" riding. Like, when a husband and wife want to start exercising. This guide labels the Trek 2.3 as "recreational". I'm sure there are people who use this bike for competition. Maybe they're not sponsored, maybe they're not competing in the olympic trials, but if you drop $1600 on a bike, I would say you qualify as an "enthusiast". Then when they give you a primer on gruppos, they say 105 and Rival are "recreational" components. Again, I know plenty of people who have 105 who compete. Then, Bicyling say Campy veloce is "a big step down, aimed at the occasional rider". So, in other words it's "sub-recreational"... for getting groceries and the like. But then in the very same issue they show a full carbon Merkx CHM for $2500 (in the "enthusiast" line-up) with mostly Veloce components. ???

Bicycling magazine is good to have when
1) You have 20 minutes to spare.
2) You're out in the woods, and you have to go.

+1 on all of the above.

Buycycling magazine is probably the worst magazine to get if you want to know anything about bicycling.

I plan on buying a new road bike this spring. Up 'til now I've been riding my mtb on county road with slicks. Given that I plan on investing a couple grand I thought I should invest in the new "Bicycling" 2008 buyer's guide. You know "The world's leading bike magazine". A few things I can't understand. First they only list a fraction of bikes, I guess just the new models. I would think once a year, they would publish something comprehensive for people looking to buy a bike. Secondly, they categorize the bikes into "race", "dream", "plush", "enthusiast", "recreational", and "entry-level". This seems kind of arbitrary. Anything under 2 grand is considered "recreational". Why? As if anyone who doesn't have the $ for an all carbon frame isn't a real cyclist. To me, good "recreational" bikes are about $500. They're heavy, but good quality and perfect for "recreational" riding. Like, when a husband and wife want to start exercising. This guide labels the Trek 2.3 as "recreational". I'm sure there are people who use this bike for competition. Maybe they're not sponsored, maybe they're not competing in the olympic trials, but if you drop $1600 on a bike, I would say you qualify as an "enthusiast". Then when they give you a primer on gruppos, they say 105 and Rival are "recreational" components. Again, I know plenty of people who have 105 who compete. Then, Bicyling say Campy veloce is "a big step down, aimed at the occasional rider". So, in other words it's "sub-recreational"... for getting groceries and the like. But then in the very same issue they show a full carbon Merkx CHM for $2500 (in the "enthusiast" line-up) with mostly Veloce components. ???
Sounds like you have a better grasp on things than they do.:thumbsup:

yes... i bought a copy last week when i was waiting at the airport. not gonna buy it again... although they do have some pretty pictures.

what's a good magazine for our sport?

In the current cycling universe, you have to careful when using he word "recreational" or you annoy people. Only about 2% of all North American cyclists race, but calling the remaining 98% "recreational cyclists" will get you hate mail. Bicycling magazine has to tip-toe around that word and is just drawing some arbitrary lines as best as they know how.

If you wanted to engage in some idle and fruitless speculation on another level, it would be interesting to think about why there are so many cyclists who ride pro racing bikes, dress like racers and train like racers—but have no intention of ever racing. :D

Well, the majority of the feedback supports my hunch that Bicycling is not the pinnacle of cycling journalism. As far as the magazine catagorizing the bikes "the best they know how", I still say the Trek 2.3 is a race bike or at least an "enthusiast bike". They're classifying bikes, not people. The 2.3 has the same geometry as the Madone, and a respectable group.Obviously the more expensive bikes in a given category are geared for more serious riders. As far as people who spend $ to look like pro racers w/o actually racing, it's the same with anything. Musicians for example. I know people who own multiple 2 and 3 thousand guitars and amps but don't play in a band. And they're not that good. But the expensive stuff is just sexier and "more inspiring". Oddly, the manufacturers, be it bikes or guitars, don't seem to have a problem selling their best stuff to amateurs. It doesn't really bother me unless they have some bogus ego to go along with it. It keeps the prices lower for everyone. Now an obese person riding the flagship Tarmac S-works is a different matter completely.

I got a subscription for free like Filtersweep. I realized after only a few issues that it seems to be the same crap over and over again (lube your chain, inflate your tires, adjust your derailleurs). It's just regurgitated dribble that's good if you ate the big burrito the day before and you'll be in the can for a while.

Bicycling exists for one reason only: eyeballs for their advertisers. They don't give a damn about you. They got rid of their good writers years ago. Now it's "Get Fast Faster" and "Is Cycling Good For Your Sex Life?" and other BS like that, which were probably just rehashed articles from 1985 or something. That's too bad because when I got to be a cycling enthusiast the internet was in it's infancy and I would look forward to when my next issue if Bicycling came in the mail.

However to be fair they do occasionally have an interesting and well-written article. The death of '98 TdF winner Marco Pantani comes to mind.

IF you see a bike in the Bicycling magazine, then rest assured that someone from that company paid big bucks to get it there.

In my neighborhood, recreational riders ride Next bikes from wal mart.

I ride my recreational and light Sram Rival 70 miles at a time.

Get your recreational butt to the local bike shops and stop reading that crap.

Bicycling Magazine is bike porn.

Nothing else. The Ads are porn, the articles are porn, the bike lineup reviews are porn... that's all it's good for.

Sometimes they have good advice, but that's seldom. For example: "Buying good bibs vs buying nice jerseys" or "buying light pedals vs buying nice shoes"

in those case they gave the nod to bibs and shoes, which I agree, but then again I did drop for Keo Ti and it's almost insult... almost. ;)

Bicycling was pretty useful to me when I was just starting serious riding, but that was over 20 years ago.

I also get it free due to a membership.
They actually have had some decent articles in the last year or so. There was one on what real bike commuters in LA ride (mostly cheap MTBs), and another about a number of cases of drivers running over cyclists and how nothing happens to the drivers. (my description doesn't do it justice; it was linked all over the cycling forums, so you've probably seen it already.)

It's pretty much a beginner's magazine as far as the riding, training and maintenance tips go. Hence the repetition, to catch a new set of beginners. That's ok, beginners need a place to find that stuff. They do a better job of that than cycling forums on the internet. They're a little too focused on the purchasing end of cycling, hyping New Stuff a bit much.
But all enthusiast magazines do that- not only do they want to encourage people to buy from their advertisers, but it's also what many people want to read about. Look at any car or motorcycle magazine, they do the same thing, only with much more expensive stuff.

going back to what Dr. Placebo said, what is a good magazine for our sport?

going back to what Dr. Placebo said, what is a good magazine for our sport?

My current crop of favorite magazines:

1. Rivendell Reader www.rivbike.com (http://www.rivbike.com)
Great for regular biking, commuting, touring, and friction shifting. Was touted as a quarterly magazine, but I have been a member for two years and have only received one so far. The next issue wont be delivered till April. They are also thinking of making the Reader online only in a PDF format.

2. Cycle Sport http://www.cyclesportmag.com/
European Racing, you also get catalogs for lots of good videos.

3. Rouler http://rouleur.cc/
The soul and pain of racing, very expensive but lots of nice pics.

4. Velo News www.velonews.com (http://www.velonews.com)
Racing stuff.

5. Bicycle Quarterly http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/vbqindex.html
Kinda like the Rivendell Reader, but you actually get 4 per year. Used to be called "Vintage Bicycle Quarterly".

It's for rich people who want to be hardcore cyclists. Why else would they advertize Rolex

what's a good magazine for our sport?

Cycling Plus is great.

It's an English Mag, so it's expensive, and all the rides they describe are in england, but I really like their take on things. They really REVIEW bikes- they do a gang review of 3-5 bikes each month- the bikes are all about the same price, similarly equipped and the focus on things like handling, quality, etc. Very solid. They don't do reviews where you've got 3 $500 bikes and one Madone 6.9.

They review practical bikes as often as they review racing bikes. Their gear reviews aren't just press releases. Their training advice is well thought out and well described. I've never seen them run an article about buying a new bike to get faster.

They have actual helpful advice about commuting.

Think of Bicycling magazine as a monthly catalog of advertisements and and faux-editorials that are designs to drive sales and new trends.

It's an alarmingly swayed publication which panders to "gotta-have-it" newbs with money to burn.

I saw that same article and my heart dropped! :P

I had spent months riding and researching bikes and just the week before bought a Salsa La raza with campy veloce for under 1500 which I thought was a totally fair price and then I read that it's like tiagra/sora?!
Weird... I'm glad you guys debunked this mag, because I couldn't believe that the bike shop (that I've been going to for the past year) was in on it... phew :)

Bicycling Magazine is bike porn.

Hmm, I've never read Bicycling before, but I do like porn...

I got one of Buycycling's (LOL) training guides and about halfway through it I to myself "did anyone proofread this before it went out?" :rolleyes:

Short answer is: YES....not worth the paper it's printed on

Seems to me big advertisers get the write-up's, I think this is rather acceptable, they pay the bills. I think they should be more explorative and actually write about bikes. I think they lack in clothing suggestions. I found my bike through hard research and on line reviews like this. I would agree to the concept of trend and folks that have money to burn.

I am surprised to be doing this but let me stick up for at least one aspect of the magazine. As far as the reviews and advertising goes the manufacturers provide bikes to be reviewed, and that is about the end of their invlovement. As much as it might look like the editors and advertising people are in collusion, as far as i can see they don't seem to be.

Occasionally you will see a more negitive review in the same issue as a full page ad for that bike.

Honestly having tried out a lot of bikes I don't envy the reviewers at all, most of the bikes I have tried range from good to great, with a few outsandings. Almost none of the bikes I have tried are horriable.

No i dont work for bicycling magazine, although i might have drank the coolaid anyway ;)

I agree with most of the other comments though, I read it from time to time, and sometimes I see something interesting but usually it is drivel

personally I prefer Road Bike Action (same guys at Mountain Bike Action). but only 6 copies a year...

+1 The current issue about Italian cycling is worth picking up. Plus, they have Bob Roll on staff as their Featured Columnist. It's still a little raw in editing and layout, but is improving with every issue. I just wish it was a monthly.

Honestly having tried out a lot of bikes I don't envy the reviewers at all, most of the bikes I have tried range from good to great, with a few outsandings. Almost none of the bikes I have tried are horriable.


I think this is an important point; the vast majority of bikes of a given type are 95% the same. Making distinctions is very difficult, and so things that are really of small overall importance have to be given undue weight to differentiate similar models.

Since Bicycling is a national magazine that has to appeal to a wide range of riders, obviously they have to recycle certain articles (Ab workouts, how to climb fast, whatever) because they look good on the cover and they sell on newsstands. If they try to cater to a certain group, all the other readers will lose interest. Trying to cater to the people on this forum, who are on the cutting edge of cycling technology and extremely interested in racing and technology, is to try to cater to a small, minutiae-obsessed group of grognards who are not known for loyalty. In other words, commercial suicide.

Bicycling magazine circulation: 400,000+

Rouler magazine circulation: 404 Document Not Found. :p

If you want bike porn, get ROAD--at least they use large, high quality paper and tend to advertise nicer bikes.

Since Bicycling is a national magazine that has to appeal to a wide range of riders...

I think that is why the OP is so puzzled by the articles saying you have to spend $2000 to get out of the basic-bike category. I'd say you can get a LOT nicer bike for $1200 than $600. In fact, I bet more than half of the Bicycling audience has a bike that's under $2000 and isn't planning on an upgrade.

Maybe Bicycling is trying to pressure their readers into spending more money with their advertisers, but it doesn't seem like the wide-audience Bicycling of years gone by to be elitists about basic & mid-range bikes.

I think that is why the OP is so puzzled by the articles saying you have to spend $2000 to get out of the basic-bike category. I'd say you can get a LOT nicer bike for $1200 than $600.

You're right; often you can get into a nice bike with Ultegra-level parts for under 2K. But 2K is a simple, definitive price floor for "nice" bikes; over that you don't (in most cases) have to worry about where they cheaped out to get you those few great features.

In fact, I bet more than half of the Bicycling audience has a bike that's under $2000 and isn't planning on an upgrade.

I'm not so sure about that. A recent set of reviews was themed "The Fifth Bike" because according to their reader surveys, the average Bicycling reader has 4 bikes.

If you wanted to engage in some idle and fruitless speculation on another level, it would be interesting to think about why there are so many cyclists who ride pro racing bikes, dress like racers and train like racers—but have no intention of ever racing. :D

Hey, I resemble that remark.:D

I've subscribed to bicycling magazine for 20 years now, mostly because most other bike mags are aimed at racers, which I am not. But yes, they are full of it. The mag gets more lame with each passing month. The annual buyers guide is absolutely worthless. And the articles about riding across the desert in some third world country- Who cares? I ride my bike on country roads in the good ol' USA and don't care to know about that crap. And then Chris Carmichael want to tell me how to train to be the next Lance. Hell, I can tell you a good place for me to start- Keeping my head outa the fridge will go a lot further than riding 5 or 6 intervals up some 10% grade will. Yea that sounds like fun. And the Style Man? Don't get me started.... OK, I'm done...

Veloce = 105 and is well made. There are two levels of Campy, Mirage and Xenon, below Veloce. You should be happy. Go ride.

I had spent months riding and researching bikes and just the week before bought a Salsa La raza with campy veloce for under 1500 which I thought was a totally fair price and then I read that it's like tiagra/sora?!
:)

Cycling Plus is great.

It's an English Mag, so it's expensive, and all the rides they describe are in england, but I really like their take on things. They really REVIEW bikes- they do a gang review of 3-5 bikes each month- the bikes are all about the same price, similarly equipped and the focus on things like handling, quality, etc. Very solid. They don't do reviews where you've got 3 $500 bikes and one Madone 6.9.

They review practical bikes as often as they review racing bikes. Their gear reviews aren't just press releases. Their training advice is well thought out and well described. I've never seen them run an article about buying a new bike to get faster.

They have actual helpful advice about commuting.
I've also been looking at Cycling Plus magazine. It appears to be one of the better cycling magazines around at this time.

Retail price of Cycling Plus is a bit on the expensive side. But if you subscribe to it (13 issues per year), you only pay around 55 ~ 60% of the retail price! That's quite substantial savings! :eek:

I'm seriously considering subscribing.