I've twice been a subscriber to cycle, once when CJ was technical officer and once when R Hallet was. I found CJ's articles more insightful because they were based on an understanding of the fundamental principles at work, whereas I don't think Hallet has that level of understanding. I feel he is more liable to be swept along by current trends.
I think the perspective of starting from the underlying maths and physics is very useful indeed, especially for cutting through marketing mumbo-jumbo. I can think of two potential pitfalls of this approach though:
1. Rejecting experiences which don't match with the model. (e.g. "this must be faster than this because the maths says so...")
2. Downplaying the importance of the subjective. Most of us ride bikes for fun, not to win races. It's fine to be subjective, as long as you are honest about what you are saying. E.g. "I liked this because it felt zoomy." Rather than, "The improved torsional stiffness of the frame increased my acceleration".
I don't think CJ fell into these pitfalls, I am just thinking in general terms here.