Julian Edgar, 50, has been writing about car modification and automotive technology for nearly 25 years. He has owned cars with two, three, four, five, six and eight cylinders; single turbo, twin turbo, supercharged, diesel and hybrid electric drivelines. He lists his transport interests as turbocharging, aerodynamics, suspension design and human-powered vehicles.
Long-time Reader? Read this!
All that I’ll say here has already been covered in AutoSpeed, but here it is again – this time with the facility to allow you to directly comment.
AutoSpeed is changing. The publication that we were 8 years ago, 5 years ago, even two years ago is not what we are today. Rather than being stuck in a time warp, we are responding to changes in society, changes in car technology and changes in the philosophy of staff members.
We started the latest raft of changes back in November last year – less chequebook hero feature cars, more background on car engineering, a hands-on project car (Frank the famous Falcon!) and more reader feedback.
Now we’ve dropped my Driving Emotion column in favour of this blog, a change that incidentally has boosted overall published content.
And reader contributions to the blog are just the beginning – expect to see in the near future the facility to comment on every single article. When the comments facility is up and running, we’ll drop the current Response reader feedback column. A weekly ‘letters to the editor’ forum is now outdated and with the facility to comment and give feedback on everything published, we see no need to retain it.
And the editorial content is further changing.
With the proliferation of one-make (and one-model) car websites, I think there’s plenty of stuff around for those who want to see modified versions of their cars – and to know the specifics of individual car modification. If you’re into anything from Ford to Ferrari, from Holden to Hino, you’ll find modified versions on the web.
To put this another way, I see no point in doing narrow, car-specific modification stories or series. A guide on boosting the power of an Impreza WRX is to simply repeat what a little research will easily find on many websites.
But what’s a helluva lot harder to find is good technical information that can be universally applied. Fundamentals, if you like.
How current new car engine management systems work. How to weld. How to test your car’s aerodynamics. How to build an electronic boost controller. How to design suspension systems. How to calculate the flow of different diameter pipes. Tomorrow’s turbo technologies. The new high strength metals being used in cars. How cutting edge hybrids and diesels work.
And for beginners, how to use hand tools. How to use taps and dies. Whether it’s worthwhile getting a lathe. The subtleties of spark plugs.
If you’re a reader who has complained about our Human Powered Vehicle series (and it’s worth noting that this series has achieved the highest positive reader votes of any series we’ve ever run) then I think perhaps you’re reading the title and not the content. Through the building of that vehicle, I for one have learned an enormous amount about steering geometry (scrub radius, castor, camber, Ackermann, ratio, steering axis inclination); suspension (natural frequency, damping, static deflection), light weight construction (chrome moly tube versus composites, nickel-bronze brazing) and many other topics fundamental to modified cars and car dynamics.
And I hope that I have been able to communicate a lot of those ideas in my stories.
If for example I came across someone constructing a homebuilt aircraft, or a hovercraft, in the same way I’d be delighted to cover the design and construction of such a vehicle in AutoSpeed.
We’ll still run the occasional modified feature vehicle (not necessarily a car!) but they’ll be machines that show innovation and do-it-yourself grit. We’ll also continue to re-publish the best of the articles we’ve featured over the last eight years – an approach that our stats show is overwhelmingly popular with readers.
I’d also like to say something that will shock, disturb and anger some readers. I think that the current local concentration on massive power outputs from hugely heavy modified road cars is fundamentally stupid. Four hundred or five hundred kilowatts in cars weighing near 2 tonnes is dumb in any measure: it’s not something to applaud. It’s dumb in fuel consumption, in consumption of brakes and tyres, and in handling ability. Maybe where innovation and engineering excellence shine through, we might still feature some of these cars. But they will be the exception.
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 if you think that’s bad news for performance cars, you’re simply not thinking outside the box. The torque of electric power in a road car has to be felt to be believed. Diesel turbo engines can provide a fuel economy / performance equation that conventional petrol engine cars can’t match. Regen braking alters the entire braking paradigm. Ultra lightweight, tiny cars have the potential to give fantastic handling, excellent fuel economy and enormous fun.
I’d like us to stay at the cutting edge of that change. We’ll continue to feature hybrid cars and their modification. I’d like to do a lot more on diesel modification too. We’ll also be preparing the ground for a coming wave of mods – for example, a series on how electric motors work wouldn’t go astray.
So standby for greater reader contribution, even more technical content and an environment and technology-aware approach that is as current as we can make it.
I am being absolutely up-front as possible about these changes: it’s a direction that excites and interests me and one that I think will make for a fascinating journey.
on August 25th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Hello Julian,
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.
on August 25th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I look forward to the changes at Autospeed. Frankly, I find that magazines like Wheels & Motor are irrelevant to average motorists like me grappling with increased fuel bills, high maintenance, repair costs and consumables. Also, their COTY awards always goes to expensive, high performance cars with no regards to fuel economy, environment & value for money, etc. That is irresponsible and irrelevant marketing at its worst. Also, modifying cars are a no-win situation – needless emotive & irrational spending yet the car depreciates. You need to continually upgrade as changes in one area brings out deficiencies in others. Economy goes out the window with increase fuel consumption, expensive 95/98 Ron fuel, synthetic motor oil, low profile tires, brakes and suspension parts. I had done that, been there and it was no fun when it comes to paying the bills. With numerous speed cameras, it became expensive whenever you used that power.
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.
on August 28th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Julian, Sounds like an interesting direction you are heading in. I have long read your site becuase it is different to the mainstream and this is becoming even more important as you point out. I used to read Wheels & Motor but they have become very boring and are the same each issue. I actually think petrol engines can become very much more efficient than they are today and Honda is a good example of this. It will be interesting to see how things develop and I hope to read it in AutoSpeed. Keep up the excellent work.
Robj
on August 31st, 2007 at 12:33 am
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.
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.
on August 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am
Let’s take your points one by one.
“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.
on August 31st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Thanks for the quick reply Julian. Many would agree some form of pay-per-arictle model could avoid the issues currently being voiced by a subset of your readership as not all the content is contentious and so worth a spend to read. As to your contributors’ firmly held belief that the long term viability of autospeed is to be based on perpectually altering the ethos of the magazine; that is more conjecture than anything as are all business plans.
Best of luck autospeed. Now can we sell our account details to recoup our outlay for future issues? A case of beer maybe.
on August 31st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
As the world’s largest modified car and car technology website, and as far as I am aware, the longest running website of its type, I think perhaps our business plans have worked rather well.
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.
on September 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I only have one REAL concern about the replies here, and elsewhere. Specifically, the reliance on the ratings for articles as a justification for direction. Do you know what percentage of people are actually rating the article after reading it? could it be that a specific and small part of your readership is capable of skewing the results?
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.
on September 4th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Yes, we know how many people have read an article and we know how many people have rated it.
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!