Reply to comment

May 12, 2016, 9:34 a.m. -  Cam McRae

#!markdown That wasn't really the question Vik - nor the point of the article. The question was whether Andrew should have built the bike up the way he normally does, which would have prevented this mishap, or whether he should have left it as it is normally built for the consumer. Of course it would be mentioned. In fact it's already been mentioned. It's the larger question at issue here that Andrew felt was worth discussing. Even when there is an anomalous failure on a bike we add it to the review - and make it clear that it seems to be an outlier. That's the way we've always done it and we'll continue to do so. Drew's point about mentioning it is that it would be unfair to draw broad conclusions about the bike or component spec because of this event.

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.