It is rather odd not to rate articles you don’t like and then complain that the results may be skewed when you’re deliberately making yourself part of that process!

I, for example, have only rated a couple of articles so far, and generally I will not rate an article I didn’t find engaging.

Those runs we have on the board are something you completely ignore.

And as for changing the ethos of the site, our very ethos has been to continually be on the cutting edge of change. That’s why we were the first to introduce extensive coverage of DIY performance electronic kits, the first to seriously cover hybrids (including modifying them), the first performance car magazine (AFAIK) to recognise the implications of CO2 emissions, etc.

In the last year we have accelerated the rate of change, but it has always been present.

There were people who didn’t like our coverage of hybrids; there were people who didn’t want to adapt to the notion of building electronic kits; there are people who didn’t like our coverage of human powered vehicles. Just as there will be people who don’t like our upcoming coverage of bio-fuels, our coverage of diesel modifications, our coverage of climate change and CO2 emissions.

Best of luck autospeed. Now can we sell our account details to recoup our outlay for future issues? A case of beer maybe.

“I have been a long time subscriber to autospeed and can comprehend the logic you constantly reiterate about moves away from model specific articles, cars with more money thrown at them than sense and then a move to a more purist appreciation of mechanics predominantly in the automotive form.”

Good.

“All of this is fine but it is not fair to, in what is often your last right of reply, to make the author of an insubordinate comment look simple and narrow minded.”

That’s exactly why this has been placed as a blog, to allow readers to freely comment. To not give us the last word, if you like.

“Many subscribers have mentioned that some of these changes are not what they expected.”

No one expects change, which is why we have been at pains to stress again and again that AutoSpeed is changing, and will continue to change. We’ve been absolutely specific about the scope and type of changes.

“Many have referred to the re-issue of articles as a bit too frequent.”

The frequency of repeated articles has not changed in the last year.

“It is not immediately relevant if a human powered vehicle is pulling large ratings.”

Pardon? If our readers had scored the first series on the HPV building with low reader votes, there simply would not have been a second series. In fact, the second series has been given the highest reader ratings of any series we have ever done. Vote for any of these articles and then look at the revealed rating – there is no need to take on gospel what we are saying, simply check for yourself.

“This is fine in itself (and you do mention its readership too often) but for long time readers, or people accidentally thinking http://www.autospeed.com means exactly that, there does need to be some talk about modifying the cars they own for horsepower, handling and livability etc….”

You speak as if we now only cover human powered vehicles! This is simply rubbish. The series on Frank the Falcon was exactly about modifying a car for horsepower, liveability, etc. The next project car, which has already been bought, will do the same.

“Years ago, yes, the issues were more aligned with the print performance magazines and autospeed was young. Now your business is more established and the editorial team have decided to make a change of tack, the long staid readership has a right to be a bit peeved.”

Sure they have the right. Some people will love the changes, others will hate them. That’s why we’ve been so upfront with the changes, stating what they are and why they are occurring.

“Although now I am too encumbered, responsible and married to blow wads on performance mods, your site used to help me a great deal with model specific articles, part numbers and general rule of thumb. Reliable detail on cheap mods for a specific car, are so bad are they? I repeat reliable because forums are not always that. Nowadays this is exactly what I seek but have no free time to assess.”

We still have numerous articles relating to car modification, and will continue to have. We are especially concentrating on more generic articles that provide readers with the techniques and knowledge to apply to their own particular circumstances, something that will in fact make modification articles more helpful to more people.

“Autospeed’s consistent disdain for any “long-term reader” comments should lend one to believe that if the online magazine they paid for, and subscribed to, decides to change their content then the “long-term reader” should shut up and like it or lump it.”

We don’t have a disdain for long term readers. In fact, when assessing reader voting behaviour for article ratings, our internal page pulls up the original joining date of the voting reader. It’s something I always look at – how do both our long-term and short-term readers vote with regards to specific articles. However, no matter how long-term a reader you might be, it doesn’t give you the right to drive our editorial direction. So, yes, if you want to put it that way, the “long-term reader” should shut up and like it or lump it.

Unlike most magazines, I believe we should always be well ahead of where our readers typically are. For example, we covered the Lexus LS400 literally years before anyone into performance cars would even consider a second-hand one – the cars were then being derided. We covered hybrids – and subsequently their modification – years before any other modified car publication. We were writing glowingly about the economy/performance mix of common rail diesels 8 years ago. The R32 Skyline GTR torque controller was covered when almost universally people said that the R32 was simply beyond improvement – and certainly not by a torque split controller. I believe that the changes we are putting in place are in a similar vein – they are ahead of prevailing modified car wisdom and so are fresh, relevant and exciting.

“I suggest you show your resolve and pay us all out of our subscriptions. You may be doing good things in your own mind but to insist that these other insubordinate subscribers (none of whom I know) have somehow failed to keep up with progress and need to be taught is naïve, arrogant and calls you to put your money where your mouth is.

Pay us out, one by one. Or get off your high horse and realise you have changed the material in such a way as to pull the carpet from under the feet of the “long-term reader” who may or may not want to follow you on your trek to human powered enlightenment.”

I don’t own AutoSpeed – my company provides editorial content and services. Such decisions are therefore not up to me, although I would argue that since the situation is similar to any print magazine with subscriptions that changes in its editorial direction, no such action is needed. We are clearly moving away from a subscription model, with shorter and shorter subs being offered at reduced prices, and more and more content being made free, so the point will resolve itself fairly quickly anyway.

I’d make these final points: I believe the content of AutoSpeed is better than it’s ever been. I’d like to have more car driving stories in the mix, but that’s about all I’d change. As readers, you can of course agree or disagree with that assessment – that’s your each and every personal decision, just as it was to read or not read the magazine in the first place.

I want to provide material that is NOT what you’d find in another modified car publication, material that takes into account the enormous changes in car technology and the social change that is occurring at an accelerating rate. As I have already written: “It’s absolutely clear that legal limitations on carbon emissions is going to increasingly drive car technology outcomes over at least the next decade” and I want AutoSpeed to be actively part of that.

All of this is fine but it is not fair to, in what is often your last right of reply, to make the author of an insubordinate comment look simple and narrow minded. Many subscribers have mentioned that some of these changes are not what they expected. Many have referred to the re-issue of articles as a bit too frequent. It is not immediately relevant if a human powered vehicle is pulling large ratings. This is fine in itself (and you do mention its readership too often) but for long time readers, or people accidentally thinking http://www.autospeed.com means exactly that, there does need to be some talk about modifying the cars they own for horsepower, handling and livability etc….

Years ago, yes, the issues were more aligned with the print performance magazines and autospeed was young. Now your business is more established and the editorial team have decided to make a change of tack, the long staid readership has a right to be a bit peeved.

Although now I am too encumbered, responsible and married to blow wads on performance mods, your site used to help me a great deal with model specific articles, part numbers and general rule of thumb. Reliable detail on cheap mods for a specific car, are so bad are they? I repeat reliable because forums are not always that. Nowadays this is exactly what I seek but have no free time to assess.

Autospeed’s consistent disdain for any “long-term reader” comments should lend one to believe that if the online magazine they paid for, and subscribed to, decides to change their content then the “long-term reader” should shut up and like it or lump it.

I suggest you show your resolve and pay us all out of our subscriptions. You may be doing good things in your own mind but to insist that these other insubordinate subscribers (none of whom I know) have somehow failed to keep up with progress and need to be taught is naïve, arrogant and calls you to put your money where your mouth is.

Pay us out, one by one. Or get off your high horse and realise you have changed the material in such a way as to pull the carpet from under the feet of the “long-term reader” who may or may not want to follow you on your trek to human powered enlightenment.

Robj

These days, I’m more interested in fuel economy, fuel prices, torque over bhp (drivability in traffic), automatic transmission (no fun driving a manual in today’s traffic), low maintenance and high interval servicing cost, cheap consumables like tires, brakes and suspension parts. There are only 4 speeds you can drive; 40, 50 & 60 km/h in urban traffic & 100 km/h in highways – you don’t need a 300 bhp, V8 car to do that. In fact, any 3 or 4 cylinder, petrol, hybrid or turbo-diesel car can fulfill those speeds. Car weight is another problem these days with safety & NVH consideration, luxury motorized items. Every new generation car is designed with a 10-15% added weight and conversely, greater fuel consumption. For bicycles, it just the reverse – progressively using materials from chrome moly to aluminium to carbon fibre to titanium to reduce weight. Every bike part is scrutinized for weight , rigidity & stiffness. Frankly, car manufacturers are due for a severe shake-up as fuel prices escalate and as people demand better economy & value from cars. Hybrids and turbo-diesels will increase its market share while V8s & large SUVs become less desirable and conversely, suffer high depreciated values.

I look forward to these changes. I hope this is the reason for the recent run of repeat articles. I read a bit of the archieves and search it so it is disappointing to open the site each day and sometimes find a rerun. The Hybrid retrofit article today was fantastic. I am happy to read much of the other ideas or principles that adapt into transportation technology. Even if you are rerunning, chuck a link or two in to add to the experience.

I mountain bike and have a collection of the four ‘eras’ and enjoy riding each of them. It interests me to see and feel the evolution, the uptake of technology, be it for fashion or function and where this evolves to. Hence the interest in your recumbant article. ( I still cannot work out why you dont use SPD or similar clip en pedals and an air shock on the back ala fox or fifth element but I digress) My favourite it still the hand made chrome moly Orange P7 full rigid. I enjoy the diversity of opinion and technology offered, old and new. Frank was a good example of considered development of a plain car for real world use, not the last 10th up the quarter etc etc, real use. Keep this sort of stuff coming too. It gives credability and reinforces the principles over the bling and hype. I now have pressure and vacuum gauges, magnehelic gauges-one modded to balance multiple carbies to perfection.

I encourage your new articles and ask that you increase the ‘depth’ for those of us who read, think, use and develop the things you have written. I have not had more ‘thinking to use’ information from any other site, I surf a lot and workshop a lot- restoring a war era lathe at the moment, come from a 80’s on motorbike building/home modding era but now ride a 69 BMW!

So good on you Julian and Michael, I really enjoy the site. Keep the thinking mans (and womens I hope) site evolving and improving.