Disappointed with Cycling Active magazine's new style of concentrating on serious road bikes?
- Thread starter claudbutler
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
StuAff
Silencing his legs regularly
- Location
- Portsmouth
It just wouldn't be a cycling magazine thread if it didn't have people moaning about them now, would it? I have a vision for my own magazine: 'Audaxing Curmudgeon Monthly'. Packed full of articles about how bus shelters are much better accommodation than Travelodges, why these newfangled STI levers and 9 speed drivetrains are just a flash in the pan, and how to make that 30-year old Carradice look just like a 25-year old one.
Every complaint about this lot, C+ in particular, seem to be based on similar grey-tinted spectacles. Take the current issue, for example. Yup, first bike featured is a Cervelo, £3199 not £4k btw, but next bike is £1099, two pages later there's a Mango at a mere £549, followed by another £550 and a £650 one. And for the really cheapskates, they had a budget bike grouptest a few issues ago- all in £300 range. Next, three bike routes around that impossible to reach destination, the Isle of Wight. What, the Isle of Wight I've lapped three times this year? Yes, that one. Group test of gravel bikes- looking at buying one of those, and one of disc-brake wheels (ditto). Tech editor writes about his long-term test e-bike (last month, another writer on his Trek 520- yes, a tourer). Feature on the new Armstrong film, which absolutely no cyclist is interested in seeing. Feature on people for whom cycling has been a life-saver. They do audaxes as well as sportives. They test hybrids, CX bikes, folders, Moultons, the training tips are generally common-sense, not the 'ride x minutes in zone 2' gibberish that the comic and now CA spout.
Back on topic: I agree, Cycling Active's lost the plot. Now, it seems to be a monthly version of the comic (Cycling Weekly). In this new vision (well, it's an old one), no-one ever just goes for a bike ride. No-one rides anything other than a road bike. No-one eats anything on the bike that's not 'sports nutrition'. It's all sportives, training for sportives, bikes for sportives. Whereas before they were aiming at beginners, now those readers no longer have the mag they were buying. No £300 bike tests here. IPC have shot themselves in the foot.
Every complaint about this lot, C+ in particular, seem to be based on similar grey-tinted spectacles. Take the current issue, for example. Yup, first bike featured is a Cervelo, £3199 not £4k btw, but next bike is £1099, two pages later there's a Mango at a mere £549, followed by another £550 and a £650 one. And for the really cheapskates, they had a budget bike grouptest a few issues ago- all in £300 range. Next, three bike routes around that impossible to reach destination, the Isle of Wight. What, the Isle of Wight I've lapped three times this year? Yes, that one. Group test of gravel bikes- looking at buying one of those, and one of disc-brake wheels (ditto). Tech editor writes about his long-term test e-bike (last month, another writer on his Trek 520- yes, a tourer). Feature on the new Armstrong film, which absolutely no cyclist is interested in seeing. Feature on people for whom cycling has been a life-saver. They do audaxes as well as sportives. They test hybrids, CX bikes, folders, Moultons, the training tips are generally common-sense, not the 'ride x minutes in zone 2' gibberish that the comic and now CA spout.
Back on topic: I agree, Cycling Active's lost the plot. Now, it seems to be a monthly version of the comic (Cycling Weekly). In this new vision (well, it's an old one), no-one ever just goes for a bike ride. No-one rides anything other than a road bike. No-one eats anything on the bike that's not 'sports nutrition'. It's all sportives, training for sportives, bikes for sportives. Whereas before they were aiming at beginners, now those readers no longer have the mag they were buying. No £300 bike tests here. IPC have shot themselves in the foot.
It cracks me up when people complain that bike mags review expensive bikes.
The only time that I would like to read about more affordable bikes, is when I am looking for an affordable bike. This doesn't happen every month obviously?
If I was subscribing, then I would much rather read about exotic bikes than affordable bikes. I wouldn't be buying either, most months, so would rather read something interesting!
The only time that I would like to read about more affordable bikes, is when I am looking for an affordable bike. This doesn't happen every month obviously?
If I was subscribing, then I would much rather read about exotic bikes than affordable bikes. I wouldn't be buying either, most months, so would rather read something interesting!
^^ That's what C+ appeared to be 2 years ago. If they have changed then that is a very good thing, but I don't buy magazines about anything anymore anyway. Forums like this one have so much more information readily available.
StuAff
Silencing his legs regularly
- Location
- Portsmouth
If it were like that two years ago I wouldn't still be buying it- and I've been subscribing for about five years now. It wasn't.
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
Actually, when cycling was very much a minority geek sport magazines were far better quality than they are today. They wrote informed articles covering all aspects of the sport rather than just trotting out a never ending stream of product reviews as they do now. They are aimed squarely at the "New breed", people with high disposable income who want all the latest bling kit to be fashionable before they disappear into the distance when cycling becomes, "so last year, dahling".We can never expect anything more of cycle mags until cycling becomes a commonplace activity in this country, and that's a long way away..
So I'm a miserable old git, I'm comfortable with that.
videoman
Guru
- Location
- Staffordshire
Toooooooo many adverts and photographs with very little text to read and what appear to be many upmarket accessories which are out of my price range.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Anything to do with everyday cycling I can find easily on the net. Here, Sheldon, YouTube, etc. Personally I pick up magazines for historical articles like Paris Roubaix in 1960-something, and stuff about non-everyday cycling. So I like to read about pro racing, pro-level race bikes, and stuff I can't afford and don't want. But I wouldn't dream of subscribing to one.
You are Chris Juden AICMFP.
In many ways it's difficult for magazines to remain relevant in the age of the interbob. One of my pet hates, whether in print or on the net, are 'stories' that are just regurgitation of the original press release, especially if they're masquerading as a review. I've more sympathy with the magazines in this case, as I imagine their margins are very tight and staffing is light.
I rarely buy any print, the occasional Pro-cycling if it looks interesting, or a Rouleur if I want to look like a ponce on a train. Otherwise, inrng and dcrainmaker for me.
Last edited:
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
I'm sure you are right, I was thinking more of utility cycling when I composed my post.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
Ooooh that means my bike must be serious . It really isn't .
Which maybe illustrates the original problem with Cycle Active. We tend to think of cyclists as a more homogenous group than they are. I can just about remember the launch, where I got the impression that CA was aimed at the "leisure cyclist". It's a horrible term, but I bet you've already formed an image in your mind, right? The trouble is the demographic is too diffuse for a magazine to make money, hence the drift towards, at a guess, the shallow end of sportives.
