The, used to be, CTC magazine.

GPC
Posts: 74
Joined: 8 Aug 2008, 8:13am

Re: The, used to be, CTC magazine.

Postby GPC » 20 Dec 2016, 12:21pm

Current magazine has a review of Greenspot for £235, that is what these things cost, and it is worth knowing they are out there even if you can't afford one or even want one. There is a review of a shiftmate 6 for stonking £29.99! That maybe within your reach, or some panniers with prices varying from £39.99 to £130. Also a new German hub geared hybrid for £899. You blokes reading the same mag as me because that all seems pretty reasonable.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12839
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: The, used to be, CTC magazine.

Postby gaz » 20 Dec 2016, 7:18pm

GPC wrote:You blokes reading the same mag as me because that all seems pretty reasonable.

Yes we are reading the same magazine. 531Colin provides some commentary here to the effect that many product reviews seem to ignore budget choices.

I can recall a piece on front mechs from CJ in the early 90's that recommended Dura-Ace whilst mentioning that 105 would do the job too.

BITD I was quite happy to shell out on Dura-Ace, when it wears out I'll probably be looking for pre-loved Tiagra. Reasonableness lies in the wallet of the beholder :wink: .
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14765
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: The, used to be, CTC magazine.

Postby Si » 21 Dec 2016, 11:36am

They typically derive a significant portion of their income from "reviewing" new products, but always manage never to have a "lemon" on their hands - it's all good kit



Well, the main review of the cube in the last issue would hardly inspire anyone to run out and buy it!

It'd also be interesting to see some proof of the magazine deriving any income from giving good reviews to rubbish products - is this a case of "you must ride through red lights because cyclists typically ride through red lights"?

JohnW
Posts: 5799
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: The, used to be, CTC magazine.

Postby JohnW » 21 Dec 2016, 1:30pm

Si wrote:
They typically derive a significant portion of their income from "reviewing" new products, but always manage never to have a "lemon" on their hands - it's all good kit



Well, the main review of the cube in the last issue would hardly inspire anyone to run out and buy it!

It'd also be interesting to see some proof of the magazine deriving any income from giving good reviews to rubbish products - is this a case of "you must ride through red lights because cyclists typically ride through red lights"?


Well Si - your post and GPC's post (above) have challenged me a bit, particularly with respect to my post on this thread (next but one before GPC's).

I'd said : "Interesting comment Jim - since CJ was kicked off CTC staff, I've observed very much the same as you have over 'technical' write-ups. I can't take them seriously. I no longer see these reviews as being meaningful and unbiased - not much use to me anymore. What a pity".


To tell the truth, I've hardly read reviews since CJ stopped writing them, because the first few were as I referred to them, and were no more helpful than the enthusiastic, if not advertising, reviews in quite a lot of the commercial magazines - and to which I personally give very little credence..........they seem to me to be each a resume of distributers' press releases. (I refer to my own take on them, I'm not suggesting to others what they should think.) I have to say that the appalling and uncharitable treatment of CJ left such a bad taste that it has coloured my perception of the 'technical' reviews ever since - it's not really a good idea to let emotion creep in, particularly as the current reviewers were most probably not associated with the aforementioned rotten trick.

You and GPC have brought attention to the current issue of "Cycle" - I'd already read the 'Greenspot' review with great interest, having had (and rejoiced in) 'Greenspots' for years before their sad demise. This review seems to be comprehensive, realistic and based on at least some experience...........and to be honest helpful.

I don't want to go on at length and become patronising (or even specific), but this edition's reviews are more meaningful than the impression previously in my mind based upon earlier post-CJ reviews.

I have said before, on this Forum when the magazine has been discussed, that if I could only afford to have one cycling magazine for ever, then "Cycle" would be it. It went through a silly season some years ago when the page size was reduced but the content remained the same and the typeface became much too small.

The content doesn't always interest me, but cycling is a broad church and I don't expect the magazine to be limited to matters which interest me. The "used to be" reference is probably to the "T" in "CTC", but it's not a "T" club anymore and if the appeal is wider, than that's good.

I'll now cause upset by saying that "Cycle" is better than the way CTC/CUK has gone in the recent past.

Psamathe
Posts: 8687
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The, used to be, CTC magazine.

Postby Psamathe » 21 Dec 2016, 2:30pm

Si wrote:...
It'd also be interesting to see some proof of the magazine deriving any income from giving good reviews to rubbish products - is this a case of "you must ride through red lights because cyclists typically ride through red lights"?

It would always be difficult to "prove" and probably not a case of selling a good review. But maintaining or attracting advertisers (who are paying for their ad space) through biasing a review is another matter (and I'm not alleging it, just pointing out that it is difficult to "prove").

robgul wrote:...
Absolutely - Chris appeared to be totally unbiased - regardless of whether he upset the supplier ... the SJS/Andy Blance abuse that Chris received a few years ago was a classic case of the advertiser trying to pay for good reviews (SJS ceased their multi-page ads)

Rob


Ian