Track & Race Cars Magazine back?
Discussion
Having given in and forgotten about this rag after unanswered phone calls and the reports by others 'surprised to see it pop through the door today!
Inside was an advert for "next months" edition - due out on April 22nd. I nearly bothered to laugh.
Still at least there were 2 interesting articles in the (whole) magazine - Westfield Gt and BMW M3 racer.
Somehow I can't see me renewing the subscription . .
Inside was an advert for "next months" edition - due out on April 22nd. I nearly bothered to laugh.
Still at least there were 2 interesting articles in the (whole) magazine - Westfield Gt and BMW M3 racer.
Somehow I can't see me renewing the subscription . .
Constructive criticism and feature suggestions are always welcomed - and before the usual suspects use this opportunity to vent their venom (again) - yes they do know there are typo errors in the May issue. Likewise they know an incorrect calendar was included (which is why they are recruiting a designer).
However, the problems the mag recently experienced are now behind them, so the publishing side of things are back on track with the next issue (June) in the shops at the end of the month.
Ok, I’m only a contributor on the mag, but I would like to know what cars and features you feel the mag should additionally be covering.
Ta, John
However, the problems the mag recently experienced are now behind them, so the publishing side of things are back on track with the next issue (June) in the shops at the end of the month.
Ok, I’m only a contributor on the mag, but I would like to know what cars and features you feel the mag should additionally be covering.
Ta, John
OK John, since I started this and guess I'm one of the usual suspects I'll outline the reasons for my criticism, and some things that would keep me subscribing.
I do subscribe to and buy far too many magazines from Evo to Vintage Motorsport so am really an ideal market for the magazine, as I thought when it first came out and having missed CCC so much. BUT . . the frustrations have been many, hence my over-readiness to swing at it, perhaps - in some regards, only - too readily.
One is the disenchantment/suspicion/antipathy caused by the messing about with the publication of issues - including the replacement for Circuit Driver, which hasn't helped - and the lack of answers to 'phone calls made to see where it was, if it was still going to be published and if so when . . . Many calls unanswered or pushed to other lines/departments only to be left hanging/ cut off again, or unpersuasive answers/ promises given - on the rare occasions someone actually answered the call.
A key issue for me has been the poor standard of writing. You mention 'typos' in the May issue but they have plagued every copy I have received (as a subscriber from issue one) along with poor grammar; inconsistent tenses etc. Such obvious and extended errors not only grate but have made some passages confusing and difficult to read/ follow. It has been hard to believe that some of the howlers haven't been spotted by the original author but how they escaped the sub-editor (has there been one?) I don't know.
Another aspect has been the constant pushing of products, which seems to blight other magazines also but has seemed so obvious in TRC. I assume many have not been tried or tested and come from press releases etc. so I don't think they should be recommended to me, let alone pushed down my throat. I've sometimes wondered whether the magazine is a vehicle for Coordsport/ Rays wheels et cetera, as an example.
This compounds the feeling that the magazine seems increasingly to be a 'bit light' - not enough in the way of in-depth reviews (which is why I singled out the article on the BMW for praise), too general, too repetitive and, for my taste far too much about road cars/ hot hatches and not enough about track or race cars, or of these in action rather than, as so often, at Bruntingthorpe.
Obviously then, I would like more of the later, plus more articles about the staff (or guest contributors) competition efforts/ experience. Also more Andy Dawson - I've learned more form him than probably any other writer / magazine.
So yes, there have been some excellent bits/ features and I was too harsh (the frustration again - the ad. for next month, available 22nd April was the clincher) and I would far rather it be good, interesting, varied, error free and on time so I could enjoy receiving it rather than feeling miffed enough to want to take a swipe. I'm happy to be corrected but guess time will tell.
I do subscribe to and buy far too many magazines from Evo to Vintage Motorsport so am really an ideal market for the magazine, as I thought when it first came out and having missed CCC so much. BUT . . the frustrations have been many, hence my over-readiness to swing at it, perhaps - in some regards, only - too readily.
One is the disenchantment/suspicion/antipathy caused by the messing about with the publication of issues - including the replacement for Circuit Driver, which hasn't helped - and the lack of answers to 'phone calls made to see where it was, if it was still going to be published and if so when . . . Many calls unanswered or pushed to other lines/departments only to be left hanging/ cut off again, or unpersuasive answers/ promises given - on the rare occasions someone actually answered the call.
A key issue for me has been the poor standard of writing. You mention 'typos' in the May issue but they have plagued every copy I have received (as a subscriber from issue one) along with poor grammar; inconsistent tenses etc. Such obvious and extended errors not only grate but have made some passages confusing and difficult to read/ follow. It has been hard to believe that some of the howlers haven't been spotted by the original author but how they escaped the sub-editor (has there been one?) I don't know.
Another aspect has been the constant pushing of products, which seems to blight other magazines also but has seemed so obvious in TRC. I assume many have not been tried or tested and come from press releases etc. so I don't think they should be recommended to me, let alone pushed down my throat. I've sometimes wondered whether the magazine is a vehicle for Coordsport/ Rays wheels et cetera, as an example.
This compounds the feeling that the magazine seems increasingly to be a 'bit light' - not enough in the way of in-depth reviews (which is why I singled out the article on the BMW for praise), too general, too repetitive and, for my taste far too much about road cars/ hot hatches and not enough about track or race cars, or of these in action rather than, as so often, at Bruntingthorpe.
Obviously then, I would like more of the later, plus more articles about the staff (or guest contributors) competition efforts/ experience. Also more Andy Dawson - I've learned more form him than probably any other writer / magazine.
So yes, there have been some excellent bits/ features and I was too harsh (the frustration again - the ad. for next month, available 22nd April was the clincher) and I would far rather it be good, interesting, varied, error free and on time so I could enjoy receiving it rather than feeling miffed enough to want to take a swipe. I'm happy to be corrected but guess time will tell.
Thank you for your honest appraisal, which in the main I can only agree with. I do however know a little about what goes on behind the scenes, and therefore can understand why some of the frustrations you mention occur.
That though isn’t an excuse on their behalf, for they know that these issues must be resolved.
Typos in the design text and editorial copy being a case in point - there isn’t a sub editor on the staff and it shows.
The contributors find this as frustrating as the readers do (especially as some of us contribute to other titles that have a superstar of a sub onboard, so can get away with being lazy sometimes), but a magazine the size of TRC can’t financially justify one yet, it’ll happen for sure as the mag grows (the contributors have discussed this and offered to help sub it in the meantime, the fruits of that labour should be evident in issue 51).
Which brings me nicely to the next point.
The magazine will grow, there are those such as yourself who want a magazine that offers what TRC does (and contributors who likewise want to work on a magazine such as this), it hasn’t helped its cause though with some missed issues of late - Things though are back on track, issue 50 (June) is finished and will be going to print next week.
Which again is an issue that contains a diverse mix of vehicles and features, some more in depth than others, all hopefully interesting in there own way.
Which raises the question about what cars and features the magazine should contain - should TRC not track test Production Hot Hatches for instance? You might not find them interesting, but others might.
Likewise should TRC not use the circuit at Bruntingthorpe? Brands Hatch would be a superb alternative but the cost would be prohibitive, even for the likes of the UK’s leading monthly’s (Evo uses Bedford for instance), let alone a niche magazine such as TRC. Therefore isn’t the data that has been accumulated over the years at Brunters (where the magazine can afford to go), a positive rather than a negative?
Product is a tough one - however there isn’t an advertising influence in the editorial copy. Many magazines have crossed that boundary over the years, and it usually comes back to bite them. There are however sponsors involved in the project cars - my Lancia for instance has help from various product suppliers, I thank them for their support in the copy, I’ll recommend some of those products to others because I feel they are the best available, not because I have to mention them to get continued support (it’s racing sponsorship, not editorial sponsorship).
Racing however does rely upon sponsors, and as you mentioned, more features about actually competing would be good - but that would inevitably involve those sponsors/products being in the copy (who is paying for the race insurance when I compete in the Westfield for part two of that feature for instance?).
The ’Essentials’ section covers new and interesting products, yes they are sent as press releases, and if the Ed feels they are worth including he will (a lot get put in the bin though).
A thing to remember when reading the mag - it’s written by enthusiasts who love track cars and racing. They are all participants in the sport, so have something more to bring to the test/feature than somebody who just happens to be a great writer.
It’s unlikely that the copy in TRC will ever be written by the greats of motoring journalism, but does that really matter when its written (not brilliantly even) by somebody who’s passionate about race cars, track cars and racing?
I’m off to Monaco now to see a load of old bangers racing around the streets - should TRC feature the bi-annual Historic GP at Monaco?
That though isn’t an excuse on their behalf, for they know that these issues must be resolved.
Typos in the design text and editorial copy being a case in point - there isn’t a sub editor on the staff and it shows.
The contributors find this as frustrating as the readers do (especially as some of us contribute to other titles that have a superstar of a sub onboard, so can get away with being lazy sometimes), but a magazine the size of TRC can’t financially justify one yet, it’ll happen for sure as the mag grows (the contributors have discussed this and offered to help sub it in the meantime, the fruits of that labour should be evident in issue 51).
Which brings me nicely to the next point.
The magazine will grow, there are those such as yourself who want a magazine that offers what TRC does (and contributors who likewise want to work on a magazine such as this), it hasn’t helped its cause though with some missed issues of late - Things though are back on track, issue 50 (June) is finished and will be going to print next week.
Which again is an issue that contains a diverse mix of vehicles and features, some more in depth than others, all hopefully interesting in there own way.
Which raises the question about what cars and features the magazine should contain - should TRC not track test Production Hot Hatches for instance? You might not find them interesting, but others might.
Likewise should TRC not use the circuit at Bruntingthorpe? Brands Hatch would be a superb alternative but the cost would be prohibitive, even for the likes of the UK’s leading monthly’s (Evo uses Bedford for instance), let alone a niche magazine such as TRC. Therefore isn’t the data that has been accumulated over the years at Brunters (where the magazine can afford to go), a positive rather than a negative?
Product is a tough one - however there isn’t an advertising influence in the editorial copy. Many magazines have crossed that boundary over the years, and it usually comes back to bite them. There are however sponsors involved in the project cars - my Lancia for instance has help from various product suppliers, I thank them for their support in the copy, I’ll recommend some of those products to others because I feel they are the best available, not because I have to mention them to get continued support (it’s racing sponsorship, not editorial sponsorship).
Racing however does rely upon sponsors, and as you mentioned, more features about actually competing would be good - but that would inevitably involve those sponsors/products being in the copy (who is paying for the race insurance when I compete in the Westfield for part two of that feature for instance?).
The ’Essentials’ section covers new and interesting products, yes they are sent as press releases, and if the Ed feels they are worth including he will (a lot get put in the bin though).
A thing to remember when reading the mag - it’s written by enthusiasts who love track cars and racing. They are all participants in the sport, so have something more to bring to the test/feature than somebody who just happens to be a great writer.
It’s unlikely that the copy in TRC will ever be written by the greats of motoring journalism, but does that really matter when its written (not brilliantly even) by somebody who’s passionate about race cars, track cars and racing?
I’m off to Monaco now to see a load of old bangers racing around the streets - should TRC feature the bi-annual Historic GP at Monaco?
John Hayman said:
Thank you for your honest appraisal, which in the main I can only agree with. I do however know a little about what goes on behind the scenes, and therefore can understand why some of the frustrations you mention occur.
That though isn’t an excuse on their behalf, for they know that these issues must be resolved.
Typos in the design text and editorial copy being a case in point - there isn’t a sub editor on the staff and it shows.
The contributors find this as frustrating as the readers do (especially as some of us contribute to other titles that have a superstar of a sub onboard, so can get away with being lazy sometimes), but a magazine the size of TRC can’t financially justify one yet, it’ll happen for sure as the mag grows (the contributors have discussed this and offered to help sub it in the meantime, the fruits of that labour should be evident in issue 51).
Which brings me nicely to the next point.
The magazine will grow, there are those such as yourself who want a magazine that offers what TRC does (and contributors who likewise want to work on a magazine such as this), it hasn’t helped its cause though with some missed issues of late - Things though are back on track, issue 50 (June) is finished and will be going to print next week.
Which again is an issue that contains a diverse mix of vehicles and features, some more in depth than others, all hopefully interesting in there own way.
Which raises the question about what cars and features the magazine should contain - should TRC not track test Production Hot Hatches for instance? You might not find them interesting, but others might.
Likewise should TRC not use the circuit at Bruntingthorpe? Brands Hatch would be a superb alternative but the cost would be prohibitive, even for the likes of the UK’s leading monthly’s (Evo uses Bedford for instance), let alone a niche magazine such as TRC. Therefore isn’t the data that has been accumulated over the years at Brunters (where the magazine can afford to go), a positive rather than a negative?
Product is a tough one - however there isn’t an advertising influence in the editorial copy. Many magazines have crossed that boundary over the years, and it usually comes back to bite them. There are however sponsors involved in the project cars - my Lancia for instance has help from various product suppliers, I thank them for their support in the copy, I’ll recommend some of those products to others because I feel they are the best available, not because I have to mention them to get continued support (it’s racing sponsorship, not editorial sponsorship).
Racing however does rely upon sponsors, and as you mentioned, more features about actually competing would be good - but that would inevitably involve those sponsors/products being in the copy (who is paying for the race insurance when I compete in the Westfield for part two of that feature for instance?).
The ’Essentials’ section covers new and interesting products, yes they are sent as press releases, and if the Ed feels they are worth including he will (a lot get put in the bin though).
A thing to remember when reading the mag - it’s written by enthusiasts who love track cars and racing. They are all participants in the sport, so have something more to bring to the test/feature than somebody who just happens to be a great writer.
It’s unlikely that the copy in TRC will ever be written by the greats of motoring journalism, but does that really matter when its written (not brilliantly even) by somebody who’s passionate about race cars, track cars and racing?
I’m off to Monaco now to see a load of old bangers racing around the streets - should TRC feature the bi-annual Historic GP at Monaco?
OK - I would prefer to be reasonable - but lose the will to remain so sometimes, when v frustrated.That though isn’t an excuse on their behalf, for they know that these issues must be resolved.
Typos in the design text and editorial copy being a case in point - there isn’t a sub editor on the staff and it shows.
The contributors find this as frustrating as the readers do (especially as some of us contribute to other titles that have a superstar of a sub onboard, so can get away with being lazy sometimes), but a magazine the size of TRC can’t financially justify one yet, it’ll happen for sure as the mag grows (the contributors have discussed this and offered to help sub it in the meantime, the fruits of that labour should be evident in issue 51).
Which brings me nicely to the next point.
The magazine will grow, there are those such as yourself who want a magazine that offers what TRC does (and contributors who likewise want to work on a magazine such as this), it hasn’t helped its cause though with some missed issues of late - Things though are back on track, issue 50 (June) is finished and will be going to print next week.
Which again is an issue that contains a diverse mix of vehicles and features, some more in depth than others, all hopefully interesting in there own way.
Which raises the question about what cars and features the magazine should contain - should TRC not track test Production Hot Hatches for instance? You might not find them interesting, but others might.
Likewise should TRC not use the circuit at Bruntingthorpe? Brands Hatch would be a superb alternative but the cost would be prohibitive, even for the likes of the UK’s leading monthly’s (Evo uses Bedford for instance), let alone a niche magazine such as TRC. Therefore isn’t the data that has been accumulated over the years at Brunters (where the magazine can afford to go), a positive rather than a negative?
Product is a tough one - however there isn’t an advertising influence in the editorial copy. Many magazines have crossed that boundary over the years, and it usually comes back to bite them. There are however sponsors involved in the project cars - my Lancia for instance has help from various product suppliers, I thank them for their support in the copy, I’ll recommend some of those products to others because I feel they are the best available, not because I have to mention them to get continued support (it’s racing sponsorship, not editorial sponsorship).
Racing however does rely upon sponsors, and as you mentioned, more features about actually competing would be good - but that would inevitably involve those sponsors/products being in the copy (who is paying for the race insurance when I compete in the Westfield for part two of that feature for instance?).
The ’Essentials’ section covers new and interesting products, yes they are sent as press releases, and if the Ed feels they are worth including he will (a lot get put in the bin though).
A thing to remember when reading the mag - it’s written by enthusiasts who love track cars and racing. They are all participants in the sport, so have something more to bring to the test/feature than somebody who just happens to be a great writer.
It’s unlikely that the copy in TRC will ever be written by the greats of motoring journalism, but does that really matter when its written (not brilliantly even) by somebody who’s passionate about race cars, track cars and racing?
I’m off to Monaco now to see a load of old bangers racing around the streets - should TRC feature the bi-annual Historic GP at Monaco?
The lack of a sub-editor does explain the aspect that has caused me most annoyance so I hope they do manage to get someone to do the job, even if in a temporary capacity.
I do hope that the magazine grows, gets better and that I fell like continuing with it.
Re. products: I have no problem with reports of things used by the team (sponsors items etc.) as they are being used and tested, although - possibly more in some magazines than TRC - it does seem like the whole project has sometimes been started to push a particular company. What annoys me is un-tested product being given advertising space in a false guise. I hate it and wish it would stop. Again TRC isn't the only magazine to do this and I see the same products described almost identically all over the place, as if flavour of the months.
Track wise I don't object to Bruntingthorpe per se and can see the cost reasons behind this - plus it is useful to have the fixed reference for the time tests. I didn't make this clear enough; it is the frequency of trips there and the relative lack of reports from/ tests at other more representative (to most track day goers/ racers) to which I refer. As money comes in I hope they can start to use other venues more often.
Similarly with the 'hot hatch' aspect - it isn't a blanket ban I wanted, just fewer reviews of the same type of car. It does seem that fwd hatches and similar have featured a lot in a magazine that I hoped would target more competition and specific track cars, notwithstanding that many of these would be road legal. I honestly didn't think that Mazda MP3s and Megane diesels were going to fascinate most of the readership of such a magazine.
Anyway, thanks for your fair and polite reply; 'makes me reflect and wish that I'd been more reasonable and less hasty (frustration again - I'll get back to the Anger Management classes) in the 1st post . .
Forum | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff