LOL, just noticed this repy! :) Seems backwards. On desktop where I'm reading this the very tiny "editorial" text above the large headline is somewhat buried over that massive Titan picture and the huge headline. (My first impression looking for it was that it did NOT say editorial, then I found it.) And it still has "slash review" after that. On the phone it's actually a little more obvious "beneath" the titan picture. But still small font and says, "slash review". (however maybe the layout has changed in the last couple of months? :) )
I will grant you my perspective was probably skewed because I came from your part 1 Titan review looking for part 2. And for sure the start of this article reads 100% as a relevant and arbitrary opinion on seat tube angles in response to your colleague. The thing is it's "dressed" as a Titan review, HUGE Titan pick at top. Only the Titan's geo chart, more than a dozen titan pictures, etc. And then in the end you do continue the Titan review specifically focusing on the seat angle.
Compare that to your colleagues article that does show his Geometron at top and his wife's Evil as examples along with finishing with a Norco. But in no way gives the impression that he's reviewing any of those bikes. (also no " |review " on that one either)
So, for my .02 this still comes off as too much of an unwarranted criticism of a particular bike that is doing a more than decent job offering what a very large percentage of customers are looking for. Maybe your right and those customers are just following silly trends? But maybe your colleagues right and those customers are just finally reaping the benefits of geometry that is not in any way restricted by roadbike spec's from 40? years ago. The thing is either way is OK.
As far as "whinge" and the whole, "don't read it if you don't like it". Really...
Hope summer is treating you well!
July 14, 2021, 9:24 a.m. - stiingya
LOL, just noticed this repy! :) Seems backwards. On desktop where I'm reading this the very tiny "editorial" text above the large headline is somewhat buried over that massive Titan picture and the huge headline. (My first impression looking for it was that it did NOT say editorial, then I found it.) And it still has "slash review" after that. On the phone it's actually a little more obvious "beneath" the titan picture. But still small font and says, "slash review". (however maybe the layout has changed in the last couple of months? :) ) I will grant you my perspective was probably skewed because I came from your part 1 Titan review looking for part 2. And for sure the start of this article reads 100% as a relevant and arbitrary opinion on seat tube angles in response to your colleague. The thing is it's "dressed" as a Titan review, HUGE Titan pick at top. Only the Titan's geo chart, more than a dozen titan pictures, etc. And then in the end you do continue the Titan review specifically focusing on the seat angle. Compare that to your colleagues article that does show his Geometron at top and his wife's Evil as examples along with finishing with a Norco. But in no way gives the impression that he's reviewing any of those bikes. (also no " |review " on that one either) So, for my .02 this still comes off as too much of an unwarranted criticism of a particular bike that is doing a more than decent job offering what a very large percentage of customers are looking for. Maybe your right and those customers are just following silly trends? But maybe your colleagues right and those customers are just finally reaping the benefits of geometry that is not in any way restricted by roadbike spec's from 40? years ago. The thing is either way is OK. As far as "whinge" and the whole, "don't read it if you don't like it". Really... Hope summer is treating you well!