Paul Root wrote as I presumed he would reply:
> Well the GRM are all about racing on a budget. Comfort means
> little to them. But I have to take issue with your remarks about
> them.
Perhaps my remark was too general, as the items you addressed were not at
all what I was talking about.
> I've had a subscription for 3 years now. And I've pretty much quit
> reading the mainstream car mags. As much as I like Ferrari's and
> Porsche's, having nothing but reviews of supercars is not useful.
> R&T is so extremely predicatable.
Yes, GRM does feature common cars in its content that the mass majority of
the public have access too. I will not disagree on that. Also, I was not
comparing GRM to the likes of the larger motoring magazines, which I also
don't like very much (for similar reasons to those below).
> GRM does what an average person could do. Ok, they went a little
> nuts on the RoSpit, but they show you useful things on a budget.
> Not cars that cost more than my house.
My (main) problem with GRM, and it is borne out of their budget I'm sure, is
that their features are blatant promotions for their advertisers. I get
sick to my stomach when I read a GRM feature where they use parts from JK
Jackson, and quote his exorbonate prices for parts they use. Every LBC
racer they do has some Xbrand product on it, and in all honesty, there are
many better combinations of products out there, at better prices, quality
and performance (but not always all three).
This has been true of GRM since its inception! I've got an issue that I've
just pulled out from 1994 (when it was still bi-monthy, and printed on cheap
stock), and the articles are the same promotions for products offered by
their advertisers without any mention of alternatives. Now, I KNOW, that
using your advertisers (when it is relevant) for advice in columns is not
always bad practice. I think it is bad practice when it monopolizes the
majority of your columns in most of your issues and in over a decade of
publishing that magazine.
What else? How about extreme regurgitating of articles and content they've
covered in the past. How many articles can you do on improving the handling
of your stock first edition Mazda Miata? Are you paying your subscription
to read the same thing over and over at yearly intervals, just with new
photos?
Performance data, the data they use to back up their results is often
sparse. Why should I use 7/8" rear wheel cylinders in my TR3, how much will
it actually reduce my braking distance versus some good kevlar brake shoes?
Bigger + More = Better is not always a valid justification for performing a
modification. They give some relevant data on tires, but a trip to any SCCA
event in your area will get you what you need to know about what brand tires
to use anyway. But how about some cornering data from the tires? I'm sure
they've got a GForce Meter somewhere in their office. Even if the GForce
isn't the most highly accurate device in its methodology, it will provide
you with accurate differences between changes of specific components (and if
all you're changing are the tires between laps, it is more than a capable
tool).
Following that theme, there isn't much time (if any time) spent on the
tradeoffs you make when you perform a specific upgrade. Yah sure, I'll
throw an Addco rear sway bar on my rally car, oh but whoops... GRM forgot to
mention that it severely reduces my ground clearance, and now I've just
ripped it out on that tree stump. Even on a street car, a 1.5" difference
in ground clearance is worth noting. And while Addco sway bars tend to be
cheap, and do the job by compensating for a generic design through overly
large diameter material, they aren't the best to use if you're serious about
improving your handling to a degree where you are competitive with other
more developed vehicles.
I take issue with some of the things they promote too, like I wasn't pleased
with the idea of a Rotary Spitfire, but I see why it would be appealing and
how it could generate a great deal of content to publish. The only thing I
got out of that series, was some interesting info on improving the rear
suspension of the Spitfure.
Finally, I have a problem with their editorial accuracy; their historical
information is often incorrect. The last historic article I read in depth,
and that I recall having a distate left in my mouth after reading, was one
last summer about a McLaren CANAM car. It had quite a few factual errors,
and it was THIN on original content, it seemed like a rehash of information
they found on various websites.
I'll still pick up GRM when I'm in the book store to see what is being
discussed in the magazine, but I pay no attention to the specifics of what
is being discussed. I refuse to buy it. And I will be going to look at the
article on Pierce's car, I like and respect Mike Pierce and that is another
reason why I'm interested to read about his car. I talked to him about the
production of his heads a while ago and also the cam he has developed for
use with the cross flow head, and I certianly respect the massive costs
associated with that project. But the thing is, as some of you know, his
aluminum heads actually show signs of warpage after a few thousand miles.
Doug Jackson has documented this on his website.
GRM isn't the only magazine with these problems. There is another
particular magazine that many of you read, British Car Mazine, that has the
exact same faults... although its factual information is often more flawed
than GRMs.
> Paul T. Root - CCSA, CCSE, CCNA
Kai
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|