Originally posted by Boomer
I agree - it's a typical magazine review.
I've noticed that NO magazine rates ANYTHING less than a 5 out of 10, meaning that nothing actually sucks. . .
Many magazines are actually afraid of offending their advertisers so they will review accordingly.
In addition, I've actually seen several reviewers say that they have NOT raced on-road or off-road for quite a while UNTIL they reviewed X car. . .this raises a HUGE red flag for me. I want RACERS to review the car. I want to see A-Main or even B-Main regulars, Sportsman class drivers to review this car, not an off-road guy who hasn't had a car on asphalt/carpet for 8 months. . .
It's why I like X-Play on G4TechTV. . .they're gamers reviewing games and they LOVE to give 1 out of 5 scores (when appropriate) and have actually bemoaned the fact that they can't give 0's since there are games that deserve it (but in a 1-5 scale, there are no 0's. . .)
Typical for what? Please don't lump magazine revies together. Read the TC4 review on our website or in the magazine and it addresses most of the complaints with the TC4.
The reason you see no "suck" reviews is that there are plenty of non-suck things to review and instead of focusing on the negative we try and put the hobby in a positive light. I couldn't imagine opening a magazine I was interested in and reading how everything sucks.
I can tell you I've refuse to review lots of things or offered it to not be printed. My reputation cost a lot more to buy than you may want to think. Are things sugar coated a little? Sure, but if you read and can put a few sentences together you can see most complaints.
While sometimes I go more than a month without racing a particular class I consider myself a well above average racer, but unlike most people I have to race a different car and different classes every month. It would be nice to focus on one car for a year, but that can't happen.
Also, I've thought about this plenty of time because I know a few magazine guys who stink at racing. But if a car makes them better isn't that a valid opinion. In fact if it makes the sucky guy better that's better information than how good a driver is. I know that Kinwald can make a bad car look good, but if a car makes the sucky driver look better that more machine than driver.
Over at XRC we all race and come from a racing background. Even our art guys race. Are we going to be better at one class than another? Who isn't? But I think people that do this for a living have a bigger vested stake at what they write or if they are a driver how or what they race.