April 28, 2014, 9:28 a.m. -  Fedup

#!markdown I can't stand these over-hyped first impressions articles anymore! Everyone (NSMB, VitalMTB, Pinkbike) says the same things, use the same pictures provided by Santa Cruz, and tell everyone that "the old one had so much to be improved, people didn't like this or that", but the new one is so awesome! What differentiates a website from another one now ? What is honest and what is not when you get flown to Chile and get free food, lodging, bikes, shuttles, etc. in a perfect environment for the chosen bike ? They all say the same about the fork, the shock, the geometry, the drivetrain, wheels, etc (which are all the cream of the crop anyway). There will be "real" reviews afterwards, tested on local grounds in local riding conditions, but I'm betting that I'll read the same super awesome comments about the bike on every website. How the new carbon rims are "stiff but more compliant" (what about stiff alu. rims with evenly tensioned triple butted spokes?), how the new suspension "doesn't wallow as much as the old design in the mid stroke" (why did it?) while having awesome small stutter bump sensitivity, etc. While all of this may be true, what about a 3500$ bike that most working-class people would buy, reviewed without all the hype that we hear all the time ? Is that still possible or has the mtb world got too focused on marketing and advertisement ?