Bicycle Quarterly Reviews the Love #3

[EricKeller]

Ok, I get that Dario is somewhat sacred ground around these parts but really, is this kind of name calling really necessary?

Since you quoted my comment that he has no insight, I'll just confirm that I meant it. I don't think he's an idiot or that he's at all slow. But he's done enough testing of different bikes that he's simply confirming his own biases now. I'm pretty sure that you could come up with a metric involving trail, fork bend radius and the distance of the center of curvature for the fork bend and the front dropout, take points off for varying from standard tubing sizes and then use that to predict the outcome of his reviews. I find it bothersome that he doesn't realize that. The fact that he pans a bike when he's 40mm off on his handlebar height makes me angry. He needs to do one of his scientific tests with a wattmeter and report back on how that affects power output. In my experience, it's very significant.

[GrantM]

I hesitate to add to the pile on... but I guess I will anyway :)

It must be frustrating to Jan to have found a better way to design a bicycle,
and not have the world listen. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not.

Thing that strikes me as odd, for a "journalist" (is that what Jan is?)
is to criticize something for being what it's supposed to be, without
recognizing that a Pegoretti is a modern race bike. You, me, Jan, we all
may disagree on what makes a good one, but it does seem misguided
to call something a failure when it succeeds perfectly in what it was
designed to do. It's not like Dario couldn't execute a build for Jan
to his exact wishes. But Dario didn't choose to do that. To me, it's
like saying a red bike sucks because it's not blue. If the painter
intended it to be red, but it came out blue, i'd see the point.

-g

[Hawker]

I am sure that the bike reviewed was supplied by a reader, that is usually how it works with BQ.

vjp

From the article: "Our test bike was provided by Bicycle Quarterly reader Jeffrey Halldorson."

Since lots of folks here have not yet apparently read the whole review, here is a bit more.

The introduction:

"The Pegoretti Love 3 is a racing bike made from oversize aluminum tubing. It performs well under constant efforts, but for our testes, it offered poor acceleration. The bike's handling was sub-optimal, especially at high speeds. Its narrow tires and stiff fork limited its comfort and speed on rough roads."

The conclusion:

"The Pegoretti is a bit of a conundrum. It is a racing bike, yet its sizing indicates that it is not intended for racers. For casual riding, it offers a pleasant feel, as long as the rider does not attempt to explore the limits of high speed cornering. However, casual cyclists would benefit from wider tires and a more comfortable ride, which greatly would improve their enjoyment of cycling.
"For racers, the performance of the Pegoretti may work fine if you are stronger than all others, and just set apace that nobody can follow. If you need to react to accelerations, the Pegoretti is not your ally. And its handling on the liit will make descents a white-knuckle experience, rather than a place where you can rest and make up small gaps.
"Overall, the appeal of the Pegoretti probably lies more in the name and the story behind the brand, rather than the actual bike. The Love 3 provides performance and handling that is not dissimilar from other bikes costing much less."

As a subscriber, I was interested to see what Jan would say about the Pegoretti. He seems to reserve most praise for steel-framed bikes that flex under load and which are built to accommodate fat tires; his favorite bikes have 650b wheels and 42mm tires.

I have never ridden a Pegoretti, and do not personally generate enough wattage to bend even a cooked strand of pasta, but I would imagine it's quite a stiff frame. Thus, before I even read the review I was guessing he would not like the bike. Jan has a theory of bicycle performance that frames with a slight amount of flex respond better and accelerate faster; he calls this "planing." Thus he says things like, "...much more powerful riders may flex the Pegoretti enough to make it plane for them."

[Stinkydub]

hi guys,
I just sent an invitation to Mr. Heine to join the discussion, may be an opportunity to try to understand his views and for him to understand the views of others.
In public.
Thank's
Dario Pegoretti

The best response I've read so far and interestingly from the builder under review. I doubt we'll see a response by Jan but says a great deal about Dario. I'm curious, ususally Jan provides a response from the builder - Dario, did you not have that opportunity?

[boots2000]

I don't read BQ, but it sounds like you don't take this guy seriously already.
Given that, I am not sure why so many are offended.
Me- I get the joke. Too many Freds buying rocketship bikes and setting them up like shopping carts.
Don't be mad that he used Dario's bike as his weapon. He could have interchanged the Love #3 with any number of gotta have bikes that people are lining up for these days.

[mrlee]

The most absurd statement that I've read from the review is the one about the lack of acceleration from the Peg. I own an 830 am and have ridden a Love #3, and they both are the fastest bikes I have ever thrown a leg over. Period.
They both literally feel like they are gonna run out from underneath you when you stomp on it.
xo
david

[Jonathan]

i think you guys have been too kind, and Douglas has it right. None of this is new. The paper BQ is printed on has always been of higher quality and integrity than the words printed on it. Whether it's pseudo science, journalism or pure fantasy; I appeciate induging myself with this bs online so as to not waste another tree.

[JohnHemlock]

The guy is entitled to print his own opinion in his own magazine. We are entitled to ignore it, or get our panties in a twist, or subscribe for life. I didn't see anything libelous in what I read. Apparently this guy reviewing a Pegoretti would be analagous to Fabian Cancellara reviewing a Long Haul Trucker. Which he is certainly entitled to do, as well.

[henry g.]

But he's done enough testing of different bikes that he's simply confirming his own biases now. I'm pretty sure that you could come up with a metric involving trail, fork bend radius and the distance of the center of curvature for the fork bend and the front dropout, take points off for varying from standard tubing sizes and then use that to predict the outcome of his reviews. I find it bothersome that he doesn't realize that.

You expect a Pegoretti to be a Pegoretti and a Sachs to be a Sachs. These builders have developed preferences and opinions on what makes a well handling bike for a certain application from years of experience. You may or may not like their conclusions.

Likewise Jan had developed preferences over the years for what he thinks makes a well handling bike for racing, rando and touring applications. There is no objective standard to measure against so he uses bikes that performed for him as his benchmark. His preferences for tubing, tire size and geometry have evolved as a result of years of testing a wide range of bikes old and new (at his weight, power output and riding style). So you would expect a a Jan Heine review to be a Jan Heine review. Again YMMV.

In the review on the Madone in the same issue he concedes it is well suited to its intended use. Pro riders putting out pro power, drafting and accelerating in pro races. The further you get from its intended use -the less power the rider can apply, moderate pace of recreational rides, etc., the more ill suited he thinks the bike is for the rider. The Love #3 among all the Pegorettis seems to be the one aimed at racers. Maybe not in the Pro Peloton but high level amateurs who have very different requirements and can put out considerably more watts then casual cyclists. So perhaps this bike should have been evaluated in a different context.

[Jonathan]

So you would expect a a Jan Heine review to be a Jan Heine review. Again YMMV.

I would at leat expect a bike that fit. It's a clown show, this review.

[jscottyk]

hi guys,
I just sent an invitation to Mr. Heine to join the discussion, may be an opportunity to try to understand his views and for him to understand the views of others.
In public.
Thank's
Dario Pegoretti

Proper.

Much respect.

[anthonymaietta]

It would be interesting to read a review on a Love 3 built specifically for him. It seems almost comical that he tests these bikes that readers send to him, seemingly regardless of size. It is comical until you realize that he's defaming an entire brand based on this f'ed up testing method. It looks like I'm a lot shorter than him; if I sent him my personal cross bike to review I'd be concerned he'd slander my whole brand because the frame tested was too small and had toe overlap.

[Z3c]

It would be interesting to read a review on a Love 3 built specifically for him. It seems almost comical that he tests these bikes that readers send to him, seemingly regardless of size. It is comical until you realize that he's defaming an entire brand based on this f'ed up testing method. It looks like I'm a lot shorter than him; if I sent him my personal cross bike to review I'd be concerned he'd slander my whole brand because the frame tested was too small and had toe overlap.

Ditto; this is the point that really matters here. The guy has expressed his opinion and he is certainly entitled to have one but basing it upon a bike that is essentially not his size is rudimentary at best. Unfortunately, a lot of folks will read it and take it as the opinion of someone who gets to ride a lot of bikes. Some, like most here, will see the picture and laugh it away. Too bad this guy does not choose to do better; it is clear that he realized that this particular bike was a poor fit at best.. Pathetic example of the power of the web.

[e-RICHIE]

Ditto; this is the point that really matters here. The guy has expressed his opinion and he is certainly entitled to have one but basing it upon a bike that is essentially not his size is rudimentary at best. Unfortunately, a lot of folks will read it and take it as the opinion of someone who gets to ride a lot of bikes. Some, like most here, will see the picture and laugh it away. Too bad this guy does not choose to do better; it is clear that he realized that this particular bike was a poor fit at best.. Pathetic example of the power of the web.

atmo it's a magazine not 1s and 0s.

[edoz]

It is comical until you realize that he's defaming an entire brand based on this f'ed up testing method. It looks like I'm a lot shorter than him; if I sent him my personal cross bike to review I'd be concerned he'd slander my whole brand because the frame tested was too small and had toe overlap.

I doubt a guy in the market for a Ferrari would even read, much less care what a writer for "Minivan Quarterly" wrote about it. Comical, yes. Sad, yes. Damaging? Eh, probably not.

[zetroc]

I want to start my own magazine and call it "Dandyhorse Enthusiast." First review, "The Drais Laufmaschine: Is it really faster than an actual horse? This intrepid horse owner aims to find out."

IMO the original review is akin to Embrocation reviewing a Peugeot UO-8.

[mjbabcock]

"This means that bike handling may be less important for professional racers than it is for enthusiast riders who like to explore the limits of tire adhesion as they enjoy their bikes."

vs.




HUH?

[El Chaba]

It performs well under constant efforts, but for our testes, it offered poor acceleration.

My nomination for typo of the year.......

[Hawker]

My nomination for typo of the year.......

Oops. Guess all the hormones raging in this thread affected my typing.

[DOOFUS]

what I have to ask is what on earth was the rhetorical or creative purpose of such a review? he prints a publication that is devoted to eccentric niche of bikes, which is aimed at and read by an audience that likes randonneur, audax, 650b, and the like. journalistically, his task is to report and inform on this segment of the little ol bike world -- which he probably does very well. creatively, his task is simply to express his experiences, albeit from a position of expertise and insight that would justify being and print and charging for the publication. both positions, journalist and creative writer, require some basic points of integrity -- which in this case, I think, includes the errors mentioned: the bike was not sized properly, and it is not really relevant to the publication's niche. In that light, the review and the writer are just irresponsible, and careless.

why bother putting it in print? what are you trying to demonstrate as a writer? someone earlier mentioned that if that's what he wants to do,he can do it, you don't have to agree with it. well, no. he presents himself as an expert and then makes some basic errors in sizing and setup that even the most incompetent shop wouldn't make, then proceeds to publish his findings with the accompanying claims of expertise and authorial integrity. time to go junior high on him, but, really, asshat.