I engage with reader feedback consistently and often challenge - and sometimes rethink - my positions based on what I read. For example, I put aside my years-old contention that 7-9 degree sweep bars are optimum for mountain biking based on a comment in an article I wrote and then threw it out entirely after the ensuing product test.
I think specifically being able/willing to re-visit conclusions - especially long and vehemently held ones - and generally being open to changing ones opinion are good traits.
Am I missing some information re. the Bikemag clip posted above? The reviewers clearly state they decided their conclusions were invalid because they were trying to ride a bike that was too small (I always have to upsize on Trek bikes so I can see how that mistake could happen). They don't say anywhere that Trek was party to that discussion. Why the automatic assumption that they are bowing to pressure?
Aug. 9, 2017, 2:46 p.m. - Andrew Major
I engage with reader feedback consistently and often challenge - and sometimes rethink - my positions based on what I read. For example, I put aside my years-old contention that 7-9 degree sweep bars are optimum for mountain biking based on a comment in an article I wrote and then threw it out entirely after the ensuing product test. I think specifically being able/willing to re-visit conclusions - especially long and vehemently held ones - and generally being open to changing ones opinion are good traits. Am I missing some information re. the Bikemag clip posted above? The reviewers clearly state they decided their conclusions were invalid because they were trying to ride a bike that was too small (I always have to upsize on Trek bikes so I can see how that mistake could happen). They don't say anywhere that Trek was party to that discussion. Why the automatic assumption that they are bowing to pressure?