How We Review Gear and Bikes

At Rankmax Racing, reviews exist to help riders decide whether to spend their hard-earned coin – not to maximise affiliate revenue. Every product and bike is reviewed from genuine first-hand use. When that experience is limited or dated, it is said plainly, up front.

This page explains exactly how gear and bikes are evaluated, how experience is disclosed, and how affiliate links are handled.

Who writes these reviews

Every review is written by James Banks, a Victorian-based track rider. He has been riding since 2014 – over a decade – with track days across Australia and Indonesia. Rankmax Racing is published by Rankmax Pty Ltd (ABN 77 688 343 884); the business office listed on the contact page is in South Yarra, Victoria. James rides and tests mainly in Victoria and on trips interstate and overseas.

The default standard is simple: James pays for what he reviews. No freebie brand placements, and no brand can buy a higher score. Most gear reviews come from items he bought and owns. Bike reviews may be long-term ownership, previously owned machines, or paid short seat time (street rides and track-day hires). When experience is short, hire-based, or dated, that is stated up front in the review – including provisional scores where a long-term ownership verdict would be dishonest.

These are not spec-sheet write-ups. They come from living with the gear and riding the bikes.

How we score

Every review is scored against five weighted criteria, applied consistently so readers get a clear, comparable picture of where something excels and where it falls short. The overall score out of 5 is the rolled-up result of these criteria. Gear and bikes are judged on different things, so each has its own criteria set.

Riding gear (boots, jeans, jackets, gloves, helmets, accessories)

1. Protection (30%) – the criterion that carries the most weight for anything with a safety role. CE ratings and standards are reported precisely (for example “CE certified to EN 13634:2017”) and manufacturer protection claims are stated as claims, never as tested fact.
2. Comfort and fit (25%) – how it feels over a real ride, fit and sizing from James’s own body, heat and breathability, break-in.
3. Value for money (20%) – is the price justified, and how it compares against rivals at the same money (in AUD).
4. Build quality and durability (15%) – materials, stitching, fasteners, and how it has held up over kilometres and months.
5. Style (10%) – how it looks and wears, honestly weighted as the least important of the five.

Motorcycles

1. Performance and power delivery (25%) – real-world usable performance, not just headline numbers.
2. Handling (25%) – how it steers, holds a line, and rewards skill on road and track.
3. Reliability (20%) – ownership record, known issues, running costs.
4. Comfort and ergonomics (15%) – riding position, range, who it suits day to day.
5. Value for money (15%) – what you get for the money against class rivals.

Weightings can be revisited per category, but they are applied the same way across every comparable product so scores mean something.

Our hands-on testing

• Real use first. Gear is worn on real rides wherever James owns it. Bikes are ridden on road and track from ownership, previous ownership, or paid hires – always labelled in the review.
• Photos and video. First-hand photos and video of the exact unit ridden or worn are preferred. Manufacturer or factory images may be used for colourways, studio detail, or context, and are captioned as such when they are not James’s own shots.
• Real numbers. Kilometres ridden, months owned, hire days, measured sizes, summer temperatures, and prices in AUD where known. Quantitative detail, not vague impressions. Uncertain figures are hedged.
• Named comparisons. Products and bikes are judged against rivals James has actually handled or ridden. Unridden comparisons are not padded in.
• How it held up. On owned gear and bikes, durability, heat, rain and wear are tracked over time – including what loosened, scuffed or disappointed. Hire reviews stay honest about the short window.

Our experience disclosure

How much first-hand experience sits behind a review is stated in every one. Each review carries one of four levels.

Owned and ridden / owned and worn

Full first-hand use. James owns the gear or bike and has used it over real distance and time. Current photos, measurements and observations come from direct use. This is the default for the scheduled review calendar whenever ownership is possible.

Previously owned

Genuine experience, but dated or brief – a bike ridden before buying another, or gear since sold on. The review states the timeframe and notes that observations may not reflect the current model.

Ridden, not owned (street or hire)

Paid short seat time James arranged himself – for example a street ride on someone else’s bike, or a track-day hire unit. No free press bike. The review states where and when, which model year if known, and uses a provisional score when the window is too short for a long-term ownership verdict. Reliability scores stay cautious unless backed by ownership evidence.

Research-based

Not personally used. Where this is unavoidable, the review is clearly framed as research-based and the limitation is stated plainly. These are the exception, never disguised as first-hand expertise. There is no attempt to dress up limited experience as deep experience.

Affiliate links

Some links in reviews are affiliate links – for example Amazon Associates links. If you buy through one, Rankmax Racing may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. That revenue helps fund buying and testing more gear. It never changes a verdict.

• No paid reviews. No brand can pay to be featured, scored higher, or have a criticism softened.
• Affiliate status does not change the score. A product with a generous affiliate program will not outscore a better one without it. The criteria above apply equally regardless of any commercial link.
• Only genuine recommendations. If something has an affiliate program but did not impress in real use, it is not recommended.
• Honesty is the brand. An affiliate relationship never softens a real gripe. Every downside stays in.

Keeping reviews current

• Price and availability checks on featured products so listed AUD prices stay accurate.
• Model-year updates when a product or bike gets a new generation that changes the assessment (for example the SMX 6 V2 to the current SMX-6 V3, or RC 390 model-year revisions).
• New usage added as James puts more kilometres and months on a product.
• Reader corrections. When a reader flags something – as one did on the SMX 6 boots review, prompting a certification fix – it gets checked and corrected, and the change is noted.

Every review shows a “Last updated” date. If you spot something out of date, please get in touch.

Suggest a product or bike

Know something that deserves a proper first-hand review? Suggestions are welcome via our contact page. Coverage cannot be promised for everything. A full review only goes out when James has genuine seat time or wear time – owned, previously owned, or paid short hire – and the experience level is labelled honestly.

Frequently asked questions

Does Rankmax Racing accept payment for reviews?

No. No brand can pay for a review, a higher score, or a softer assessment. Scores come from the criteria on this page.

How does Rankmax Racing make money from reviews?

Some links are affiliate links (for example Amazon Associates). A purchase through one may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. It never changes the verdict.

How often are reviews updated?

Prices and availability are checked periodically, model-year changes are applied when they affect the assessment, and new usage is added as it accumulates. Every review carries a “Last updated” date.

What if I disagree with a review?

Get in touch. Genuine corrections are checked and, where warranted, the review is updated – and the change is noted, as has happened before.