May 13, 2016, 9:59 a.m. -  Nat Brown

#!markdown In principle I think you're right, and having a link to a resource like this lets people choose for themselves. People could make choices based on faith in the subjective feel of a reviewer, and/or make quantitative comparisons between models can do that by comparing the graphs. None of the sites you link to really seem compelling to me though, including the bikechecker.com page cited by linkagedesign as the data source. The precision indicated on the bikechecker site seems very low to me as a guy who does data analysis for a living. If comparing bikes when the precision values are 2 out of 5 stars, whatever that means, I don't think there's much to hang your hat on. Anyway, I think if someone was to do this right, it could gain some traction. To do that, I think accurate pivot points are requisite (from companies?), shock tunes, and some data design and communication skill would be needed to make things digestible to people who aren't inspired by data itself, which is most people. Some good educational material on key principles would be good too, and while I couldn't get sound on some of those youtube vids, he didn't seem like he had a good first principles level understanding of some things either. How satisfying do you find these sites? Do you think I'm just being too anal by picking these flaws?