Tim Holbrook wrote:
> This just serves as one more piece of evidence to support my
> opinion that Grassroots Motorsports is the best car mag out
> there! They cater to the older car crowd (which appeals to me
> as a TR6 owner) and the newer car crowd (which appeals to me
> as Honda Civic Si owner),and they do it all from the perspective
> of the regular Joe who doesn't have a giant bank account and
> likes the do-it-yourself approach. If you're not a subscriber
> already, check it out!
>
> Tim Holbrook
First off, Tim, I'm not picking on you :P I just want to offer an
alternative view point of GRM. Tim and I are similar in that we're both
pretty young too I've had my LBCs and also have a VW Jetta... so yes, the
appeal of a magazine like GRM is alluring. However, after some discussion
on the MGs list I was prompted to write a diatribe about my dislikes about
GRM and why I will not support the magazine, towards the end there are some
MG references to the May 2002 issue with Mike Pierces 172hp MGB in it. Most
of the examples I give have been from GRM issues with in the past 18 months.
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 exorbitant 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-monthly, 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?
How about meaningful 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. How about some cornering
data from the tires? I'm sure they've got a Gtech Pro meter somewhere in
their office. Even if the Gtech 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 streetcar, 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 distaste 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 bookstore 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 certainly respect the massive costs
associated with that project. But the thing is, as some of you know, his
aluminum heads actually show signs of warping 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 Magazine, that has
the exact same faults... although its factual information is often more
flawed than GRMs.
Cheers,
Kai
|