I agree. BQ tests are worlds better than the big mag's tests, which are generally preposterous (I have been a loyal Cyclingnews.com reader since its inception, but its testing is useless--"super stiff" this and "massively-oversized" that).
RGZ: I don't find the test designs in BQ lacking, actually. The wind tunnel test was excellent and I know some people I respect are dubious about the tire test, but it makes a lot more sense to me than a steel drum. Where I have quibbles is more in interpretation of the data. But that's relatively minor. BQ is an enormously useful resource, even if I find myself disagreeing with its conclusions. On Feb 18, 3:26 pm, Dustin Sharp <[email protected]> wrote: > To be fair to Jan, while the tests are not perfect in the scientific sense, > they beat the pants off any of the so-called "tests" and "shoot-outs" > happing in the mainstream cycling rags, and those guys should actually have > more money to fund things like that. I wish more of those publications would > try to take a stand and call things like they see them, rather than trying > to keep all of their advertisers happy. > > Dustin > > > From: z-man <[email protected]> > > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:05:03 -0800 (PST) > > To: RBW Owners Bunch <[email protected]> > > Subject: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet Brake Question > > > I'm with you there. It's a great publication but the "real world > > tests" are petty hokey-kind of like some high-school science fair > > project. The fork deflection test was the best of all with the things > > that looked like soda syrup cans used as weights. The roll test down > > the little ramp was dumb too. These tests should all be called > > "relative(ly close) real world x test" Also it's too race oriented > > most of the time, with everything somehow being related to P-B-P one > > way or another. It's not a race in the official sense, but believe me > > they are racing out there for the most part. > > That being said, it's an excellent pub and I mostly enjoy every issue. > > > RGZ > > > On Feb 18, 3:09 pm, MichaelH <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I really like BQ and look forward to every issue, but I too have > >> doubts about the tests. I own two products Jan has tested - the Ebisu > >> All Purpose frame and Paul's neo retros. I agree with everything Jan > >> wrote about the frame - it's great. But on the other hand I have > >> found the Paul's brakes to be the best I have ever used -super > >> powerful, excellent modulation, and simple setup. They have never > >> squeaked on either my Soma or Ebisu frames. I've always suspected > >> Jan's Franco Filia sometimes biases his opinions about contemporary, > >> American products. We all have biases and Jan's reviews are, on > >> average, probably more reliabe than most other publications. > > >> Michael > > >> On Feb 18, 12:19 am, David Estes <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Hmmmm... last I received is the Autumn '08 LED light issue, thanks! I'll > >>> contact Jan. > > >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Seth Vidal <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Estes <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> BTW, when did the "brake issue" of BQ come out? I should be all paid > >>>>> up, > >>>>> but haven't received it yet... > > >>>> I got it before christmas. > > >>>> -sv > > >>> -- > >>> Cheers, > >>> David > >>> Redlands, CA --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
