Honey we shrunk the mag.....

I thought the magazine size was alright but the content lacking, plus the
increase in membership fees may make me reconsider not renewing next year.

John

"chris French" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just some
bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

My first reaction was that I didn't like it, but I'm aware that that might
just be a case of being used to the old one, rather than for good reasons.
Though it didn't feel as comfortable to read. Felt like less content as
well, but didn't compare it directly to the last one, so that could just
be prejudice as well.

We shall see.....
--
Chris French, Leeds

chris French said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just
some bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

My first reaction was that I didn't like it, but I'm aware that that
might just be a case of being used to the old one, rather than for good
reasons. Though it didn't feel as comfortable to read.

Ditto.
As a book/magazine designer I think they have not left enough space in
the gutter, especially where there are narrow columns right up next to it.
It certainly makes flicking through to see what's there difficult.

And why oh why have an article on the New Forest showing the riders
clearly breaking the rules regarding use of the forest tracks.

Quoted message said:

We shall see.....

Yup.

John B

Succorso <chris@_LEAVE_US_ALONE_SPAMMER_SCUM_ivy-house.net>typed

Quoted message said:

Handy size for the bog though... No, not for THAT!

No it's NOT! all my other bog mags are A4[1]. This will look out of
place in the pile.

[1] Arrivée & Cycle

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

chris French said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just
some bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

My first reaction was that I didn't like it, but I'm aware that that
might just be a case of being used to the old one, rather than for good
reasons. Though it didn't feel as comfortable to read. Felt like less
content as well, but didn't compare it directly to the last one, so that
could just be prejudice as well.

We shall see.....

Handy size for the bog though... No, not for THAT!

--
Chris

Looks like juink mail now. And the flat spine is wasted -- they could've put
the title and issue date there!

chris French said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just
some bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

I'm not impressed. Mind you, for true crapness this year's C+ article
on lights takes the biscuit.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Mind you, for true crapness this year's C+ article
on lights takes the biscuit.

I'm not a C+ reader -- please enlighten us for a laugh!

Simonb said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Mind you, for true crapness this year's C+ article
on lights takes the biscuit.

I'm not a C+ reader -- please enlighten us for a laugh!

They didn't test any dynamos again - there's a token column explaining
what one is and how they cause drag (well, duh).

Their Best Buy - not even a Recommended Buy - was a £280 HID (an extra
£50 if you want the lightweight battery they used with it).

They failed to consider the legality of any of the rear lights tested;
I'm not sure ANY were BS-approved and this is important when you get
mown down and have to sue for damages.

They think that your pupil contracts if your light gives out too narrow
a beam, which reduces peripheral vision. WTF?

Zog The Undeniable said:

Their Best Buy - not even a Recommended Buy - was a £280 HID (an extra
£50 if you want the lightweight battery they used with it).

When I have read C+ I've found their reviews a tad bizarre -- not always
comparing like with like in comparitive tests. That sort of thing.

Quoted message said:

They think that your pupil contracts if your light gives out too
narrow a beam, which reduces peripheral vision. WTF?

Strange indeed.

Zog The Undeniable said:

chris French said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just
some bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

I'm not impressed. Mind you, for true crapness this year's C+ article
on lights takes the biscuit.

But they did have an article on fitting mudguards - and only a week
after I'd worked out how to bodge it myself.

The lights article really was dire. Of all the lights available from
legal 9.99 ones upwards, they chose a £300+ model as the best buy! For
that money you could kit the bike out with SON dynohub with wheelbuild
and lamps.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:12:42 +0000 (UTC),

(Geraint Jones) said:

John B "[email hidden]" wrote:
( chris French wrote:
) As a book/magazine designer I think they have not left enough space in
( the gutter, especially where there are narrow columns right up next to it.

... and a perfect-bound spine that prevents you reading it flat, and will
fall apart if you try to read it folded over in one hand as you cycle home.

I didn't say that.

I didn't.

And a little more than usual from the school of post-legible typography,
complete with speling misteaks, over the pictures.

And too much input from members of urc.

Didn't use my input on waterproofs, though. After all my effort
penning two lines.

Reading the letters in C+ and Cycle you'd be forgiven for thinking
that noone outside of urc rides a bike. Next time I stop to help
someone repair a puncture I'll ask; "so, which one are you then;
SimonB, Pete Clinch or one of the others?"

chris French said:

My first reaction was that I didn't like it, but I'm aware that that
might just be a case of being used to the old one, rather than for good
reasons. Though it didn't feel as comfortable to read. Felt like less
content as well, but didn't compare it directly to the last one, so that
could just be prejudice as well.

My initial impression was much the same, but I haven't had time to read
it properly yet. As you say, it may just be because I'm used to the old
one.
--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

In article 4165a75e.0@entanet said:

Simonb said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Mind you, for true crapness this year's C+ article
on lights takes the biscuit.

I'm not a C+ reader -- please enlighten us for a laugh!

[...]

Quoted message said:

They think that your pupil contracts if your light gives out too narrow
a beam, which reduces peripheral vision. WTF?

If you have a brightly lit narrow spot and concentrate on that, you can
see less outside the spot than if the spot wasn't so bright (especially
if the total light output is the same and more of it is splashed around
in the latter case).

What's so surprising about that? It's easy enough to test for yourself.
Go out on a moonlit night, and you can often see more with no light than
with a bright spot.

Alan Braggins said:

What's so surprising about that? It's easy enough to test for yourself.
Go out on a moonlit night, and you can often see more with no light than
with a bright spot.

But that's contrast, not peripheral vision.

In article said:

In article 4165a75e.0@entanet said:

Simonb said:

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>Mind you, for true crapness this year's C+ article
>on lights takes the biscuit.

I'm not a C+ reader -- please enlighten us for a laugh!

[...]

Quoted message said:

They think that your pupil contracts if your light gives out too narrow
a beam, which reduces peripheral vision. WTF?

If you have a brightly lit narrow spot and concentrate on that, you can
see less outside the spot than if the spot wasn't so bright (especially
if the total light output is the same and more of it is splashed around
in the latter case).

What's so surprising about that? It's easy enough to test for yourself.
Go out on a moonlit night, and you can often see more with no light than
with a bright spot.

Yes but the problem is not with the phenomenon.
The problem is with their half-baked explanation!

--
Jan

Zog The Undeniable said:

chris French said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just
some bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

I'm not impressed.

You've had me digging out my copy of "Cycle" to see how bad or good it
is. Imagine my surprise when I opened the cover page only to find
myself looking at page 74 upside down! They've put the cover on the
wrong way round...

On 8/10/04 7:27 pm, in article [email hidden],

Gonzalez said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

chris French said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just
some bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

I'm not impressed.

You've had me digging out my copy of "Cycle" to see how bad or good it
is. Imagine my surprise when I opened the cover page only to find
myself looking at page 74 upside down! They've put the cover on the
wrong way round...

I haven't got mine yet (unless it ended up in the junk mail.. must check).

...d

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gonzalez said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

chris French said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just
some bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

I'm not impressed.

You've had me digging out my copy of "Cycle" to see how bad or good it
is. Imagine my surprise when I opened the cover page only to find
myself looking at page 74 upside down! They've put the cover on the
wrong way round...

Send me an email with your membership number and full name and address
and I'll see you get a replacement. My details are on the contents page.

cheers

Dan Joyce

chris French <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Ok, one for CTC members this.

got me CTC rag this am. Didn't realise at first, thought it was just
some bumf as it's shrunk in size :-)

My first reaction was that I didn't like it, but I'm aware that that
might just be a case of being used to the old one, rather than for good
reasons. Though it didn't feel as comfortable to read. Felt like less
content as well, but didn't compare it directly to the last one, so that
could just be prejudice as well.

We shall see.....

I just joined this month. Was the old one really that much better? Has the
membership fee gone up as well? I feel like I've joined at just the wrong
time.

:-(

--
Chris