Magazine car report -vs-consumer internet car report
02-07-2005, 10:46 PM
#76
This thread is now crying out "Close me, close me..."
02-07-2005, 10:49 PM
#77
sorry, just trying to lighten it up a little.
02-07-2005, 10:58 PM
#78
................
Last edited by Gearhead3; 02-08-2005 at 06:09 AM.
02-08-2005, 02:07 AM
#79
Tech Addict
Re: Can I buy you a drink
Originally posted by TCR
Future :: I could go back and explain everything to you like you so nicely did, but why waste my time, this topic is about rc mag vs consumer internet report
I just dont think your reviews start from a rating system of 1, more like a rating system of 5 to 10 and not 1 -10
If you tell me and the people reading this, that there is absolutly no influence from your advertisers when you start thinking about your reviews, thats fine, I'll take your word. If you said that some where I missed it.
Do you want reader feedback, or do you guys do things so perfect that everyone who reads it and has an differing opinion must be wrong?
Future :: I could go back and explain everything to you like you so nicely did, but why waste my time, this topic is about rc mag vs consumer internet report
I just dont think your reviews start from a rating system of 1, more like a rating system of 5 to 10 and not 1 -10
If you tell me and the people reading this, that there is absolutly no influence from your advertisers when you start thinking about your reviews, thats fine, I'll take your word. If you said that some where I missed it.
Do you want reader feedback, or do you guys do things so perfect that everyone who reads it and has an differing opinion must be wrong?
The mag guys of course have the right to answer back but I think they're taking stuff too seriously and as direct personal insult, not as something they really should think about. At least they don't take much time in thinking before replying.
What I don't like about the standard testing in rc magz is that every car is tested to different standards. X-ray is tested and gets 9, Traxxas RTR is tested and gets 9. I KNOW that the X-ray is far better car than the Traxxas, both for backyard bashing and racing. The kid that is just starting, and picking up his first mag, doesn't know that you're testing to different standards and thinks that the cars are fully comparable.
Since there was mention of PC magz I'd like to point out that all games , all hardware and all software is tested to the highest standards. They don't test one game on a old 486 computer and other on a brand new one with 64 bit processor.
This is not an attack on XRC, for Gods sake, it's just a mag, not a bible.
I'm not comparing RC to PC, just comparing testing methods.
Originally posted by DerekB
And I'll say this for all magazines. If you don't see it reviewed within a few months of release it wasn't good enough to print.
And I'll say this for all magazines. If you don't see it reviewed within a few months of release it wasn't good enough to print.
02-08-2005, 03:38 AM
#80
Tech Addict
OK Lets recap
dawgmeat :: starts a thread
Magazine car report -vs-consumer internet car report
I log on thinking humm interesting topic, lets see what they have to say, I have been reading r/c car magazines since the 80's so I have developed an opinion over the years, but lets see what these users have said....
OK opinion car action (rc mags) are bias
the first reply is practically a flame telling him to look in the buried TC4 thread
OK then gary lends a hand, I'm sure it wasn't his intent to sound like a jerk in the first post,
But this topic isn't about the TC4, it doesn't say tc4 review by car action at the top.
he was posting talking about possible bias and reviews in magazines not the TC4
then Marka who is a Moderator on rctech basically posts something I have to agree with from my years of reading these rc mags
DerekB, being a proud writer and all basically says read xtreme, we pointed out the probs with the TC4
OK I get to post now, and to be honest I was probably a little harsh, and really I never had any intention of mentioning xtreme, should of just stayed on rc mag subject,
Derek you got me reminicing about when I first read xtreme at so cal one night, and remembering how it was such a better magazine then car action, It was thin, there were virtually no advertisers, and the articles were very well written, after reading that article I dumped my car action subscription and only subscribed to xtreme from that point on.
When I say political, I only mean your books are a lot thinker with advertisers. It is not meant as any kind of negative attack.
It's like having to watch commercials during a movie which you pay good money to see. but these guys have to pay the bills and have to do what they got to do.
xtreme has good writers and is probably the most unbias mag out there, we were referring to car action anyways.
Note that it was ok to talk about car action, but once I mentioned xtreme, omg all hell breaks loose and here come the writers attacking me.
I retracted this statement btw immideatly, it is not what i intended to type, everyone makes mistakes.
I never even mentioned the TC4 as being good or bad at this point, and I'm being attacked for it, at least your comment was directed at me. WHY???
If those comments were directed toward dawgmeat, why quote my post.
I'm getting attack so I post
1. I am not attacking or flaming anything specific here, when I say r/c car "product" might have been a better word.
this post stays on topic refering to ratings and reviews, I was simply indicating Maximum PC does a good job on there reviews and it would be nice to see a R/C mag review things in a simular manner. In no way was I comparing PC stuff to R/C car stuff, if you read that in my post you guys were seeing things
I get quoted again Derek
you really should read post through before you start going on rants, I never said anything about pc games being like rc cars so why are you quoting me???
That whole post is off topic, OMG I just realized you have a beer in your hand, NM I guess you can be off-topic.
back on topic
yes score for xtreme
you are a smart cookie my friend
I then go on to highlight the review xtreme did, and I did a horrible job in the short space there, of comparing reviews, remember comparing reviews not products, just reviews, this thread is about reviews remember....
staying on topic about articles i sugest an idea for one
Ok that piss AE off thing probably not all that thought out but it wasn't directed at anyone specifically.
Beisdes it AE wouldnt care, your still using there parts and there still making money, and you still have a good AE car....
again derek pay attention, I never referred to xtremes tc4 review when I was talking about an idea for an article, it's not that complicated to understand
It was just an idea, you dont have to attack me over it. why would people post here if your going to follow them around and flame everything they say???
Derek flames Soviet.
he attacks me again
-I was pointing out all xtremes numbers are high ratings, whether it be TC4 tamiya rock buster whatever, I wasn't comparing it to a computer article.
- since everything gets such high marks how do we know whats bad??
-most cars are good, I'm generalizing, motors speed controls, etc.
LOL now futureal attacks me and all I was doing was generalizing, your replying to me as if I said somthing bad about the TC4 or there article.
whats humorous exactly, I said the Spektrum is awsome, are you saying it sucks???
you run this site right, seeing as the product isn't out yet I can only take info from people who have actually used it.
and If I were you I wouldn't be listening to a mouse, I doubt he has used the spektrum or an fm radio for that matter
everyone has said the released ones are awsome and problem free in reguards to lag, I mentioned that.
and I know you realize the worlds track high speed high power, compared to clevland, indoor tight are very different things, or did micky mouse tell you they were the same too (take that as a joke, only defending myself here)
micky mouse talking to you again??
I was making a suggestion on what could be added to the article and you flame me for it??? If that was your version of a flame
Our review unit worked perfectly every time we ran it, and we have had no problems since. See my earlier post about testing what we get. All we can report is what we experience--we don't make up our reviews. And we experienced the Spektrum working just fine.
I am not sure why you are so bent on "proving" that our magazine is incapable of producing an accurate review--did a magazine beat you up on the playground as a kid? I don't get it!
I have yet to say one thing bad about the article, other then mentioning the rating system, as a matter a fact I said your magazine produces good articles, where did I say your magazine is incapable of producing an accurate review, nowhere because I didn't, maybe you should think why you are personally attacking me.
then
I suggested a way to test if there is any difference between a stock system response and the dsm, and it's far from chum, anyone whos not drunk can see I have a valid way of testing such things, Tosolini ran the spektrum at so cal in mod on orad and he felt his lap times dropped by .40 of a second using the spektrum, but like I said i'm not going to believe somthing a pro driver tells me I was looking for a fair and subjective review
Everyone everywhere has asked that question, it's nothing new.
this was an excellent point, I never thought of that but he's is probably absolutly right
Futurereal has to attack me again why???
sadly the truth was you had nothing I had a date, and didn't want to continue to listen to you flame every post I made
Then why were you using it as an example? That is my POINT!
maybe you just didn't get it
When I sit down to write a review, I do NOT consider the advertising in my editorial work. Period. I write to the best of my ability based on what I am given. Do we get angry calls from people about what we write on occasion? You better believe it.
Good, forgive me if I said somewhere Futurreal's articles are bias, wait I didnt say that, I said rc mags, I was generalizing, let me update that statement, rc mags (but not xtreme)
I'm seriously not trying to be sarcastic when i say that, I still think you guys have the best articles, although your behavior in this thread has been less then appealing
I love getting feedback. It helps me improve at what I'm doing. Everybody at XRC likes feedback. But your posts here were not constructive feedback, they are simply untruths.
you'll have to point out these untruths, I was recommending valid ideas, and I happen to agree with the first post of this thread, If there were untruths about being bias, can you prove to us car action is not unbias????
Heck, find something actually wrong with the last issue and tell us about it. Go to the forums at www.rc411.com and you'll see people do exactly this. I know we have made mistakes; everybody does. But when you point to something we wrote and in a public forum say "you are wrong" we will certainly defend it if we are not in fact wrong.
good to know, but this thread is about articles and reviews or so I thought, so I donate an idea for an article and you flame me for it,
you said I had nothing to reply too so there I did, I will not reply to anymore flames though, or even mention xtreme again, Sorry if I offended anyone, I may have offended car action, but hey you got to understand everyone has an opinion, and all I was doing was agreeing with one of your very own moderaters...
P.S. the mom thing is just a joke I get it, I think he gets it and I was just trying to lightem things up, as was derek I believe, becasue believe me you would not want to sleep with my mom
whoo whoo longest post ever, I officially have carpol tunnel syndrome
good night
Magazine car report -vs-consumer internet car report
I log on thinking humm interesting topic, lets see what they have to say, I have been reading r/c car magazines since the 80's so I have developed an opinion over the years, but lets see what these users have said....
Originally posted by dawgmeat
Just picked up the lastest copy of RC ar action, they did a report on the new TC4 they gave it a 10 for "parts and Finish" and "accelaration"
I'm bringing this up because of what you have been posting about the TC4 slop in the arm, diff made from plastic and it takes a little bit of work to get the drive to spin freely,now I'm not dissin' the TC4, but when it come to losi and Ass. RC car action Mag seem pretty bias
Just picked up the lastest copy of RC ar action, they did a report on the new TC4 they gave it a 10 for "parts and Finish" and "accelaration"
I'm bringing this up because of what you have been posting about the TC4 slop in the arm, diff made from plastic and it takes a little bit of work to get the drive to spin freely,now I'm not dissin' the TC4, but when it come to losi and Ass. RC car action Mag seem pretty bias
the first reply is practically a flame telling him to look in the buried TC4 thread
Originally posted by RC Driver Gary
This exact thing was discussed in the TC4 thread fyi.
This exact thing was discussed in the TC4 thread fyi.
Originally posted by RC Driver Gary
No sweat what so ever, just wanted to let you know that there was a lot of discussion on this already if this didn't get a whole lof of replies. Here's where it started:
http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthre...&pagenumber=97
8th post down and goes on for about 2 pages. Shane and Derek both had comments for XRC, and I had my own there too.
No sweat what so ever, just wanted to let you know that there was a lot of discussion on this already if this didn't get a whole lof of replies. Here's where it started:
http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthre...&pagenumber=97
8th post down and goes on for about 2 pages. Shane and Derek both had comments for XRC, and I had my own there too.
he was posting talking about possible bias and reviews in magazines not the TC4
then Marka who is a Moderator on rctech basically posts something I have to agree with from my years of reading these rc mags
Originally posted by MarkA
No magazine publisher will ever admit to it (at least not here or in any public forum) but the bottom line is that they have to consider their advertisers, especially in an industry where the number of companies able and willing to buy multiple full-page ads is very small.
“Consumer on the Internet” answers to nobody.
We’ve had many threads on this sort of topic before.
No magazine publisher will ever admit to it (at least not here or in any public forum) but the bottom line is that they have to consider their advertisers, especially in an industry where the number of companies able and willing to buy multiple full-page ads is very small.
“Consumer on the Internet” answers to nobody.
We’ve had many threads on this sort of topic before.
Originally posted by DerekB
I think you should read our review of the TC4 where that's mentioned. It's not about the "bottom line" all the time. If the car sucked and a magazine said it was perfect that's different.
I think you should read our review of the TC4 where that's mentioned. It's not about the "bottom line" all the time. If the car sucked and a magazine said it was perfect that's different.
Originally posted by TCR
When a magazine reviews a car, and rates it, Do you really think there going to bite the hand that feeds them. All ratings in all magazines are scewed to a degree. I'm not saying there bad, just never base your decision on buying a product based on what a magazine says, or how they rate a car, because your not going to give a tc4 a 6 and watch AE pull advertising from you.
the early days of xtreme were good, because they were not many advertisers, gone are those days, they have become just as political as all the rest. (i know you talking about car action)
When a magazine reviews a car, and rates it, Do you really think there going to bite the hand that feeds them. All ratings in all magazines are scewed to a degree. I'm not saying there bad, just never base your decision on buying a product based on what a magazine says, or how they rate a car, because your not going to give a tc4 a 6 and watch AE pull advertising from you.
the early days of xtreme were good, because they were not many advertisers, gone are those days, they have become just as political as all the rest. (i know you talking about car action)
When I say political, I only mean your books are a lot thinker with advertisers. It is not meant as any kind of negative attack.
It's like having to watch commercials during a movie which you pay good money to see. but these guys have to pay the bills and have to do what they got to do.
xtreme has good writers and is probably the most unbias mag out there, we were referring to car action anyways.
Note that it was ok to talk about car action, but once I mentioned xtreme, omg all hell breaks loose and here come the writers attacking me.
Originally posted by futureal
All reviews are bogus? I don't think so!
Do you have any factual evidence to back up that kind of statement? No way.
All reviews are bogus? I don't think so!
Do you have any factual evidence to back up that kind of statement? No way.
I retracted this statement btw immideatly, it is not what i intended to type, everyone makes mistakes.
Keep in mind that the TC4 has made it into the show at just about every major race it has entered, including the Worlds. I know there are haters out there, but just because somebody is an anti-fanboy doesn't mean a car deserves a low rating.
If those comments were directed toward dawgmeat, why quote my post.
I'm getting attack so I post
Originally posted by TCR
a R/C magazine will never say a R/C car sucked.
If anyone is into computers, pick up maximun PC, If a product sucks they tell you, when they make mistakes they tell you.
a R/C magazine will never say a R/C car sucked.
If anyone is into computers, pick up maximun PC, If a product sucks they tell you, when they make mistakes they tell you.
this post stays on topic refering to ratings and reviews, I was simply indicating Maximum PC does a good job on there reviews and it would be nice to see a R/C mag review things in a simular manner. In no way was I comparing PC stuff to R/C car stuff, if you read that in my post you guys were seeing things
I get quoted again Derek
Originally posted by DerekB
Comparing video games to RC cars is like birds to fish. There are some very very bad games out there that don't work, buggy and are in general the biggest pile of suck out there. You factor in that they all cost the same and when a game or program comes out it really sucks.
RC Cars on the other hand aren't jsut a program that can be mass produced it takes a lot of work and for the most part when they come out really aren't bad in any way. The price may reflect the level of quality, but for the price they are faster, stronger, and better than anything that has come out in years.
Maybe the problem is the current generation of "racers' don't remember when things actually took prep and modifications to get them to be good.
Comparing video games to RC cars is like birds to fish. There are some very very bad games out there that don't work, buggy and are in general the biggest pile of suck out there. You factor in that they all cost the same and when a game or program comes out it really sucks.
RC Cars on the other hand aren't jsut a program that can be mass produced it takes a lot of work and for the most part when they come out really aren't bad in any way. The price may reflect the level of quality, but for the price they are faster, stronger, and better than anything that has come out in years.
Maybe the problem is the current generation of "racers' don't remember when things actually took prep and modifications to get them to be good.
That whole post is off topic, OMG I just realized you have a beer in your hand, NM I guess you can be off-topic.
back on topic
Originally posted by vtl1180ny
I think the biggest problem is you don't publish your models phone numbers... I'd also like to disagree with some of your ratings on certain women.... But you guys did point out flaws in the TC4, it was actually the only part of your test I read... I'll get to it eventually, it's on the back of the bowl with the Playboy's.... Hehehehe.....
I think the biggest problem is you don't publish your models phone numbers... I'd also like to disagree with some of your ratings on certain women.... But you guys did point out flaws in the TC4, it was actually the only part of your test I read... I'll get to it eventually, it's on the back of the bowl with the Playboy's.... Hehehehe.....
Originally posted by jbrow1
Well I'll add some words to the lot.. I buy xtreme r/c magazine pretty much every month. I just like it the best. I used to get car action forever. I just like extreme better. Must be the chicks!! Not really. I think they speak their minds about the cars. Maybe you won't hear them say they suck, but so what. I buy my r/c's from what I read on forums, and see at the track. I read the mags just b/c I'm hooked on these little toys and I like to read about the new stuff. AE rules in my book. I'll prolly run a GT forever!!
Well I'll add some words to the lot.. I buy xtreme r/c magazine pretty much every month. I just like it the best. I used to get car action forever. I just like extreme better. Must be the chicks!!
Not really. I think they speak their minds about the cars. Maybe you won't hear them say they suck, but so what. I buy my r/c's from what I read on forums, and see at the track. I read the mags just b/c I'm hooked on these little toys and I like to read about the new stuff. AE rules in my book. I'll prolly run a GT forever!!
I then go on to highlight the review xtreme did, and I did a horrible job in the short space there, of comparing reviews, remember comparing reviews not products, just reviews, this thread is about reviews remember....
staying on topic about articles i sugest an idea for one
Originally posted by TCR
here's a good article
you can actually convert a tc3 to a tc4, without spending an arm and a leg, why not let people know how???
ohh that might piss AE off and they might not sell as many tc4's???
here's a good article
you can actually convert a tc3 to a tc4, without spending an arm and a leg, why not let people know how???
ohh that might piss AE off and they might not sell as many tc4's???
Beisdes it AE wouldnt care, your still using there parts and there still making money, and you still have a good AE car....
Originally posted by DerekB
You can? Why not list the parts and prices for me so I can see how much it would cost.
Should real car magazines tell you how much it would cost to change my 2004 350Z to the 2005 350Z with different engine parts? The review is of the car not how to "convert your TC3." You mixing things up again
You can? Why not list the parts and prices for me so I can see how much it would cost.
Should real car magazines tell you how much it would cost to change my 2004 350Z to the 2005 350Z with different engine parts? The review is of the car not how to "convert your TC3." You mixing things up again
It was just an idea, you dont have to attack me over it. why would people post here if your going to follow them around and flame everything they say???
Derek flames Soviet.
he attacks me again
-I was pointing out all xtremes numbers are high ratings, whether it be TC4 tamiya rock buster whatever, I wasn't comparing it to a computer article.
- since everything gets such high marks how do we know whats bad??
-most cars are good, I'm generalizing, motors speed controls, etc.
Originally posted by futureal
Here's a perfect example of somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about. Let's go over the ratings, shall we?
The TC4 is just as fast and accelerates just as well as anything I've driven. The braking was smooth and solid, although I couldn't get on them as hard as I would have liked. But that was a minor complaint.
The car handled well out of the box. Yes, it really did. There were a few issues as I addressed in the text, but guess what? On my first night out at a track I had never raced at, with a car I had never run that was using the stock setup, I was only a few tenths of a second per lap off of the pace.
Is that a 10 in my book? No. But is it a 6? No! I worked with the car and it improved throughout the night, and as I wrote, I'm sure it would have been even better if I continued to work with it. I don't understand where you are taking issue with the ratings here.
The car has more tuning options than the TC3, and easily as many as anything else on the market. As for Damage, well, it broke--but I also slammed it into a wall at about 30 mph. It didn't just fall apart on the track, nor was it something that I felt was a weak point.
To tell you the truth, I have not reviewed a product in the past year that I thought deserved a 6. You are free to say I'm a sellout, but that's not how I feel. Nearly everything I have run has performed exactly as advertised, and in most cases, a final rating came down to whether or not I felt it was a good value in comparison to its peers.
This is all stuff we did in our shootout.
So you are, in fact, agreeing with me? I don't get it.
That is not exactly true; manufacturers of most PC games and peripherals look at sales figures and that is it. I could name twenty games that scored below a 60% in PC Gamer, the leading PC magazine, and still made tens of millions of dollars, and spawned sequels. The reason you see lower ratings in games magazines is because there are many more games that suck than there are RC cars that suck. If you don't see the truth of that statement, then there's nothing I can say to change your mind.
I'm not trying to single you out either, but since you are using something I wrote as a basis for completely false statements, I feel obligated to point out exactly how inaccurate the things that you're saying are.
Here's a perfect example of somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about. Let's go over the ratings, shall we?
The TC4 is just as fast and accelerates just as well as anything I've driven. The braking was smooth and solid, although I couldn't get on them as hard as I would have liked. But that was a minor complaint.
The car handled well out of the box. Yes, it really did. There were a few issues as I addressed in the text, but guess what? On my first night out at a track I had never raced at, with a car I had never run that was using the stock setup, I was only a few tenths of a second per lap off of the pace.
Is that a 10 in my book? No. But is it a 6? No! I worked with the car and it improved throughout the night, and as I wrote, I'm sure it would have been even better if I continued to work with it. I don't understand where you are taking issue with the ratings here.
The car has more tuning options than the TC3, and easily as many as anything else on the market. As for Damage, well, it broke--but I also slammed it into a wall at about 30 mph. It didn't just fall apart on the track, nor was it something that I felt was a weak point.
To tell you the truth, I have not reviewed a product in the past year that I thought deserved a 6. You are free to say I'm a sellout, but that's not how I feel. Nearly everything I have run has performed exactly as advertised, and in most cases, a final rating came down to whether or not I felt it was a good value in comparison to its peers.
This is all stuff we did in our shootout.
So you are, in fact, agreeing with me? I don't get it.
That is not exactly true; manufacturers of most PC games and peripherals look at sales figures and that is it. I could name twenty games that scored below a 60% in PC Gamer, the leading PC magazine, and still made tens of millions of dollars, and spawned sequels. The reason you see lower ratings in games magazines is because there are many more games that suck than there are RC cars that suck. If you don't see the truth of that statement, then there's nothing I can say to change your mind.
I'm not trying to single you out either, but since you are using something I wrote as a basis for completely false statements, I feel obligated to point out exactly how inaccurate the things that you're saying are.
Originally posted by futureal
Now this is just getting humorous.
Now this is just getting humorous.
Were you there? Did you drive it? Mickey Mouse told me that FM radios don't work, so I have only used AM for the past 7 years.
and If I were you I wouldn't be listening to a mouse, I doubt he has used the spektrum or an fm radio for that matter
We have two in the office. No problems whatsoever. Stephen races with his on a weekly basis. And remember, A-Main drivers used this at the Worlds.
and I know you realize the worlds track high speed high power, compared to clevland, indoor tight are very different things, or did micky mouse tell you they were the same too (take that as a joke, only defending myself here)
Unfortunately, we are still working the bugs out of our Reader Mind Reader (RMR) software (patent pending). Hopefully within a few issues we will be able to accurately respond to each and every one of your questions before they form in your mind.
I was making a suggestion on what could be added to the article and you flame me for it??? If that was your version of a flame
Our review unit worked perfectly every time we ran it, and we have had no problems since. See my earlier post about testing what we get. All we can report is what we experience--we don't make up our reviews. And we experienced the Spektrum working just fine.
I am not sure why you are so bent on "proving" that our magazine is incapable of producing an accurate review--did a magazine beat you up on the playground as a kid? I don't get it!
then
Originally posted by DerekB
I was fully aware of the glitches they found at Cleveland and that's exactly why we got it 3 weeks after we were supposed to because of Horizon fixing that problem. Was there a lag? Can you really feel a lag. I've been racing for 16 years and if I could tell you that I've ever felt a difference in radios response time I'd be lying.
We can accept feedback just fine when it's based on truth. Just throwing chum in the water and hoping a fish bites isn't what I'd call feed back.
I was fully aware of the glitches they found at Cleveland and that's exactly why we got it 3 weeks after we were supposed to because of Horizon fixing that problem. Was there a lag? Can you really feel a lag. I've been racing for 16 years and if I could tell you that I've ever felt a difference in radios response time I'd be lying.
We can accept feedback just fine when it's based on truth. Just throwing chum in the water and hoping a fish bites isn't what I'd call feed back.
Everyone everywhere has asked that question, it's nothing new.
this was an excellent point, I never thought of that but he's is probably absolutly right
Originally posted by Windsorguy99
As has been posted on several other threads like this one...
I'm guessing when truly crappy product is sent in...it's either ignored, or held back from publication and the manufacturer notified so they can adress the shortcomings and try to fix the trouble....
I could send in a paper macher car body for them to review...that doesn't mean they're obligated to publish it
As has been posted on several other threads like this one...
I'm guessing when truly crappy product is sent in...it's either ignored, or held back from publication and the manufacturer notified so they can adress the shortcomings and try to fix the trouble....
I could send in a paper macher car body for them to review...that doesn't mean they're obligated to publish it
Futurereal has to attack me again why???
Originally posted by futureal
Translation: I got nothing!
Translation: I got nothing!
sadly the truth was you had nothing I had a date, and didn't want to continue to listen to you flame every post I made
Then why were you using it as an example? That is my POINT!
When I sit down to write a review, I do NOT consider the advertising in my editorial work. Period. I write to the best of my ability based on what I am given. Do we get angry calls from people about what we write on occasion? You better believe it.
I'm seriously not trying to be sarcastic when i say that, I still think you guys have the best articles, although your behavior in this thread has been less then appealing
I love getting feedback. It helps me improve at what I'm doing. Everybody at XRC likes feedback. But your posts here were not constructive feedback, they are simply untruths.
Heck, find something actually wrong with the last issue and tell us about it. Go to the forums at www.rc411.com and you'll see people do exactly this. I know we have made mistakes; everybody does. But when you point to something we wrote and in a public forum say "you are wrong" we will certainly defend it if we are not in fact wrong.
you said I had nothing to reply too so there I did, I will not reply to anymore flames though, or even mention xtreme again, Sorry if I offended anyone, I may have offended car action, but hey you got to understand everyone has an opinion, and all I was doing was agreeing with one of your very own moderaters...
P.S. the mom thing is just a joke I get it, I think he gets it and I was just trying to lightem things up, as was derek I believe, becasue believe me you would not want to sleep with my mom
whoo whoo longest post ever, I officially have carpol tunnel syndrome
good night
02-08-2005, 03:40 AM
#81
Tech Addict
Re: Re: Can I buy you a drink
Originally posted by andsetinn
TCR I like your points and agree.
The mag guys of course have the right to answer back but I think they're taking stuff too seriously and as direct personal insult, not as something they really should think about. At least they don't take much time in thinking before replying.
What I don't like about the standard testing in rc magz is that every car is tested to different standards. X-ray is tested and gets 9, Traxxas RTR is tested and gets 9. I KNOW that the X-ray is far better car than the Traxxas, both for backyard bashing and racing. The kid that is just starting, and picking up his first mag, doesn't know that you're testing to different standards and thinks that the cars are fully comparable.
Since there was mention of PC magz I'd like to point out that all games , all hardware and all software is tested to the highest standards. They don't test one game on a old 486 computer and other on a brand new one with 64 bit processor.
This is not an attack on XRC, for Gods sake, it's just a mag, not a bible.
I'm not comparing RC to PC, just comparing testing methods.
So, Derek, is it safe for me to assume that the Corally touring car is crap? I don't remember seeing a review in XRC. I really don't think it's complete crap. I'm not buying one anyway.
TCR I like your points and agree.
The mag guys of course have the right to answer back but I think they're taking stuff too seriously and as direct personal insult, not as something they really should think about. At least they don't take much time in thinking before replying.
What I don't like about the standard testing in rc magz is that every car is tested to different standards. X-ray is tested and gets 9, Traxxas RTR is tested and gets 9. I KNOW that the X-ray is far better car than the Traxxas, both for backyard bashing and racing. The kid that is just starting, and picking up his first mag, doesn't know that you're testing to different standards and thinks that the cars are fully comparable.
Since there was mention of PC magz I'd like to point out that all games , all hardware and all software is tested to the highest standards. They don't test one game on a old 486 computer and other on a brand new one with 64 bit processor.
This is not an attack on XRC, for Gods sake, it's just a mag, not a bible.
I'm not comparing RC to PC, just comparing testing methods.
So, Derek, is it safe for me to assume that the Corally touring car is crap? I don't remember seeing a review in XRC. I really don't think it's complete crap. I'm not buying one anyway.
02-08-2005, 05:46 AM
#82
Re: Re: Can I buy you a drink
Originally posted by andsetinn
TCR I like your points and agree.
The mag guys of course have the right to answer back but I think they're taking stuff too seriously and as direct personal insult, not as something they really should think about. At least they don't take much time in thinking before replying.
What I don't like about the standard testing in rc magz is that every car is tested to different standards. X-ray is tested and gets 9, Traxxas RTR is tested and gets 9. I KNOW that the X-ray is far better car than the Traxxas, both for backyard bashing and racing. The kid that is just starting, and picking up his first mag, doesn't know that you're testing to different standards and thinks that the cars are fully comparable.
Since there was mention of PC magz I'd like to point out that all games , all hardware and all software is tested to the highest standards. They don't test one game on a old 486 computer and other on a brand new one with 64 bit processor.
This is not an attack on XRC, for Gods sake, it's just a mag, not a bible.
I'm not comparing RC to PC, just comparing testing methods.
So, Derek, is it safe for me to assume that the Corally touring car is crap? I don't remember seeing a review in XRC. I really don't think it's complete crap. I'm not buying one anyway.
TCR I like your points and agree.
The mag guys of course have the right to answer back but I think they're taking stuff too seriously and as direct personal insult, not as something they really should think about. At least they don't take much time in thinking before replying.
What I don't like about the standard testing in rc magz is that every car is tested to different standards. X-ray is tested and gets 9, Traxxas RTR is tested and gets 9. I KNOW that the X-ray is far better car than the Traxxas, both for backyard bashing and racing. The kid that is just starting, and picking up his first mag, doesn't know that you're testing to different standards and thinks that the cars are fully comparable.
Since there was mention of PC magz I'd like to point out that all games , all hardware and all software is tested to the highest standards. They don't test one game on a old 486 computer and other on a brand new one with 64 bit processor.
This is not an attack on XRC, for Gods sake, it's just a mag, not a bible.
I'm not comparing RC to PC, just comparing testing methods.
So, Derek, is it safe for me to assume that the Corally touring car is crap? I don't remember seeing a review in XRC. I really don't think it's complete crap. I'm not buying one anyway.
If so when was it submitted?
You do realise that the content for the magazines has been set for several months before you get it into your hands, right? so Even if there was a review completed today on the 8th of Feb it would probaly end up in the May edition...
If there were any problems with the kit that seemed out of the ordinary, then I doubt that they would continue witht he review without first contacting the manufacturer to try and get the problem fixed....just as the consumer would send defective parts back for replacement...(I've seen reviews where items like this have slowed the release of reviews and normally itis noted in the article text)
02-08-2005, 07:57 AM
#84
OK then gary lends a hand, I'm sure it wasn't his intent to sound like a jerk in the first post,
Yeah, sorry if I did come across as blunt in the first post, that's why I posted the link to where the first discussion of this started...A lot of this does revolve around the TC4, or at least that's what started the discussion. I can't speak for XRC, but it does bug me when one of 4 publications does something and the other 3 get lumped in there. But then again it's things will happen from time to time to make people think that way and there's not much that those of us not involved with other publications can do besides just put our heads down, bust our humps, and put out the best publications we can month after month.
As far as the rating system and how a "basher" vehicle can rate a 9 or 10 at the same time a "racecar" can rate a 9 or 10. When ratings are done, cars or trucks are compared to other vehicles in the same class. So while a TT-01 might get an 8 for handling and we might give a TC4 an 8 as well, it doesn't mean that a TT-01 handles as well as a TC4. It just means that for a car in that class of vehicles, it rates at X.
I believe Corally is waiting for the US Spec version of the RDX to arrive before they send them out to mags for review.
02-08-2005, 08:50 AM
#85
Originally posted by andsetinn
So, Derek, is it safe for me to assume that the Corally touring car is crap? I don't remember seeing a review in XRC. I really don't think it's complete crap. I'm not buying one anyway.
So, Derek, is it safe for me to assume that the Corally touring car is crap? I don't remember seeing a review in XRC. I really don't think it's complete crap. I'm not buying one anyway.
We reviewed the Assassin as well, maybe about 7 issues ago.
02-08-2005, 09:01 AM
#86
I just read this thread......then I read TCR's recap...
lol sheesh!
I love Xtremes reviews, but then again I don't pay much attention to the numerical ratings.
Read the text and apply your own numbered system if you'd wish.
Maybe a 100 point system would work better! lol
lol sheesh!
I love Xtremes reviews, but then again I don't pay much attention to the numerical ratings.
Read the text and apply your own numbered system if you'd wish.
Maybe a 100 point system would work better! lol
02-08-2005, 09:29 AM
#87
Originally posted by JKA
I just read this thread......then I read TCR's recap...
lol sheesh!
I love Xtremes reviews, but then again I don't pay much attention to the numerical ratings.
Read the text and apply your own numbered system if you'd wish.
Maybe a 100 point system would work better! lol
I just read this thread......then I read TCR's recap...
lol sheesh!
I love Xtremes reviews, but then again I don't pay much attention to the numerical ratings.
Read the text and apply your own numbered system if you'd wish.
Maybe a 100 point system would work better! lol
Bottom line is that I rule and all your mom's want me. Deal with it.
02-08-2005, 10:12 AM
#88
Tech Addict
Originally posted by DerekB
Bottom line is that I rule and all your mom's want me. Deal with it.
Bottom line is that I rule and all your mom's want me. Deal with it.
Eh. Nudge nudge. IMO Every car should be tested to the same standard.
And I don't like the suggestion that if car or item has not had published reviewed then it's crap. There are too many cars or items out there that you simply can not review. Don't have the time or you simply don't get the item to review.
Originally posted by DerekB
And I'll say this for all magazines. If you don't see it reviewed within a few months of release it wasn't good enough to print. There's lots that is good that can take up the limited pages we prin each month.
And I'll say this for all magazines. If you don't see it reviewed within a few months of release it wasn't good enough to print. There's lots that is good that can take up the limited pages we prin each month.
Do a whole season with a car, or charger, or motor, or ESC and write about it. It is very rare to see long term testing.
I've said before, that sometimes I get the feeling that writers take more time to write the reviews/tests than actually doing the testing. (IM NOT ATTACKING XRC OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL MAG HERE, SO DON'T FLAME ME). Writers are judging the stuff they write about so I think they should spend long time with the things they're writing about.
02-08-2005, 10:30 AM
#89
Originally posted by DerekB
Bottom line is that I rule and all your mom's want me. Deal with it.
Bottom line is that I rule and all your mom's want me. Deal with it.
02-08-2005, 11:01 AM
#90
Originally posted by andsetinn
So you want the experienced ladys to like you. Eh. Nudge nudge.
IMO Every car should be tested to the same standard.
And I don't like the suggestion that if car or item has not had published reviewed then it's crap. There are too many cars or items out there that you simply can not review. Don't have the time or you simply don't get the item to review.
I'd prefer to hear about things that are crap. I'd like you to tell me why they're crap, then I'll make my decision on if I agree. And I want better testing, longer testing. Go to ten races if it's a racecar. Give it to a little kid for 2 weeks with lots of batterys if it's a basher. Then write everything that went wrong.
Do a whole season with a car, or charger, or motor, or ESC and write about it. It is very rare to see long term testing.
I've said before, that sometimes I get the feeling that writers take more time to write the reviews/tests than actually doing the testing. (IM NOT ATTACKING XRC OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL MAG HERE, SO DON'T FLAME ME). Writers are judging the stuff they write about so I think they should spend long time with the things they're writing about.
So you want the experienced ladys to like you.
Eh. Nudge nudge. IMO Every car should be tested to the same standard.
And I don't like the suggestion that if car or item has not had published reviewed then it's crap. There are too many cars or items out there that you simply can not review. Don't have the time or you simply don't get the item to review.
I'd prefer to hear about things that are crap. I'd like you to tell me why they're crap, then I'll make my decision on if I agree. And I want better testing, longer testing. Go to ten races if it's a racecar. Give it to a little kid for 2 weeks with lots of batterys if it's a basher. Then write everything that went wrong.
Do a whole season with a car, or charger, or motor, or ESC and write about it. It is very rare to see long term testing.
I've said before, that sometimes I get the feeling that writers take more time to write the reviews/tests than actually doing the testing. (IM NOT ATTACKING XRC OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL MAG HERE, SO DON'T FLAME ME). Writers are judging the stuff they write about so I think they should spend long time with the things they're writing about.
Long term testing is tough since if we took a year the car would more than likely have a replacement out already and you guys would be complaining that we tested a car thats old. You get the feeling it takes longer to write than test from other magazines.
I again offer everybody to write their life story on reviews on our website. www.rc411.com click on testing and submit your review busting truth be telling review