Sunday, September 23, 2012

Why are bike reviews pathetic?

Every auto magazine seems to write a review of the new bike. But/yet,
1. They don't talk about after sales service in various cities.
2. They don't talk how the mileage changes after the first and second servicing.
3. They don't give the height of the seat.
4. They don't give the braking distance from 60kmph to dead halt (under standard conditions)
5. They don't talk about availability of spare parts and their costs vis-a-vis competitors.
6. They don't talk about maintenance needs of the bike and its associated costs. Some bikes need special oil and are costly.
7. Not all, even give the time needed to go from 0 to 60 kmph.
8. They don't talk about emissions vis-a-vis peers.
9. As a matter of fact, after the first review of the bike, there is hardly any follow up review done with inputs from the buyers/users to get real feedback on the bikes.

One of the best advices the magazines can give based on their "knowledge" of the industry is the how much do the spares and maintenance does the bike need compared to its peers. But, no kind of real knowledge comes from the review which help in decision making while buying the bike. Instead, each of them is off showcasing how erotic literature can be used to describe biking and the bike.

Companies on the other hand, put out info which is rather non-useful. Eg: Max torque and Max Power, Carbureter, Bore x Stroke, none of which is useful to the layman/normal user. What makes sense is the graph of the torque achieved across all rpm to see if the torque is good at low rpms (preferably vis-a-vis competitors) and graph of power achieved across all rpm.

No comments:

Post a Comment