you all get to test and review a lot of bikes and frames, and obviously there's a weighting system on reviews which take in a lot of factors, including cost. Presently, you have a lot of 4.5 star bikes, and one 5 star (Bowman Palace R).
However, as good as the present rating system is, I feel there is a missing area - frame comparison. For example, I'm interested in the Bowman Palace frame, but I'd like to see what the differences are between it and the Tifosi SS26, or an S-Works SL6 frame, for example. Do they justify the extra cost in weight, performance etc?
Another nice feature would be a sliding scale of objectivity, where money is a factor (looking at best bang for buck), split into:
- If money was no object
- If I had 3k, I would buy
- If I had 2k, I would buy
- If I had 1k, I would buy
I can also see how this can be segregated further: Race, Sportive, Audax...
Reason I ask is I have a race frame (Aithein) which is a joy to ride, and the Bowman seems to be the most sensible upgrade option given how highly rated it is. I'd be happy to pay more for less weight, better performance - but I'm not sure how they all stack up.