5) The durability issue is especially tough with wheels because we are sent a lot of test sets, and we don't believe a wheelset's durability can be commented on in anything less than 6 months of very intense use - this is particularly so for more expensive, carbon wheelsets. There are two ways to deal with this issue:
First, we often release a wheel review, and then a long-term version at some point later.
Second, we've started giving test wheels to acquaintances to put miles on. Their mission is simply to ride those wheels as much as possible and report any problems.
I still think your point is fair but I hope I've addressed it up above. With regards to what you've seen about the industry trying to smooth things over for SRAM, I can't speak for others, but I can comment from NSMB's perspective.
First, SRAM doesn't advertise with us. We have partnered in other ways, though. In past years they supported our freeride team with drivetrains, brakes, and suspension. They were also a great partner with us when we were involved with the NSMBA's TAP program. Despite that, we haven't shied away from telling it like it is. When Eagle was released, Andrew Major compared the unique shaping on the chainrings to "grandpa's drunken whittling". That was not meant to be disparaging - and we left that in the article because we thought it was funny (it still is). SRAM did not agree with us and let it be known, but we sure as hell didn't remove it. There have been other similar incidents, too mundane to name, but the point is, we're not beholden to them, nor do they expect us to be.
Second, in the case of dub, I think it's been covered up above by others, but some/most of the furor has to do with SRAM's past behaviour - or at least perceptions of it - and not with dub specifically. I also believe, like many other mtb journalists, that the pushback is way overblown.
Where I do agree is that SRAM hasn't always done the best job of controlling the message.
Be skeptical about their durability claims for Dub, by all means, but let's not pretend this introduction is causing big problems. People love to complain on the internet. Mountain bikers are worse than most. And when SRAM's involved, it's like a perfect storm of bitching.
We don't see SRAM as a faceless entity trying to steal all your money, because we know some of those faces, and we also know that the people that work there care a hell of a lot more about making great bike products that they want to ride than they do about profit margins. (Except the sales guys - because that's their job.) It's hard for us to transmit that message sometimes without it looking like we're biased - but we're also not claiming to have zero bias, because no one can claim that.
We'll keep asking questions, and being careful what to digest and what to chew more thoroughly. And we'll keep trying to answer your questions, too.
Jan. 24, 2018, 1:58 p.m. - Pete Roggeman
5) The durability issue is especially tough with wheels because we are sent a lot of test sets, and we don't believe a wheelset's durability can be commented on in anything less than 6 months of very intense use - this is particularly so for more expensive, carbon wheelsets. There are two ways to deal with this issue: First, we often release a wheel review, and then a long-term version at some point later. Second, we've started giving test wheels to acquaintances to put miles on. Their mission is simply to ride those wheels as much as possible and report any problems. I still think your point is fair but I hope I've addressed it up above. With regards to what you've seen about the industry trying to smooth things over for SRAM, I can't speak for others, but I can comment from NSMB's perspective. First, SRAM doesn't advertise with us. We have partnered in other ways, though. In past years they supported our freeride team with drivetrains, brakes, and suspension. They were also a great partner with us when we were involved with the NSMBA's TAP program. Despite that, we haven't shied away from telling it like it is. When Eagle was released, Andrew Major compared the unique shaping on the chainrings to "grandpa's drunken whittling". That was not meant to be disparaging - and we left that in the article because we thought it was funny (it still is). SRAM did not agree with us and let it be known, but we sure as hell didn't remove it. There have been other similar incidents, too mundane to name, but the point is, we're not beholden to them, nor do they expect us to be. Second, in the case of dub, I think it's been covered up above by others, but some/most of the furor has to do with SRAM's past behaviour - or at least perceptions of it - and not with dub specifically. I also believe, like many other mtb journalists, that the pushback is way overblown. Where I do agree is that SRAM hasn't always done the best job of controlling the message. Be skeptical about their durability claims for Dub, by all means, but let's not pretend this introduction is causing big problems. People love to complain on the internet. Mountain bikers are worse than most. And when SRAM's involved, it's like a perfect storm of bitching. We don't see SRAM as a faceless entity trying to steal all your money, because we know some of those faces, and we also know that the people that work there care a hell of a lot more about making great bike products that they want to ride than they do about profit margins. (Except the sales guys - because that's their job.) It's hard for us to transmit that message sometimes without it looking like we're biased - but we're also not claiming to have zero bias, because no one can claim that. We'll keep asking questions, and being careful what to digest and what to chew more thoroughly. And we'll keep trying to answer your questions, too.