I am interested that Wheels and Tracks is still thought to have been the best. I agree, i loved it, but i am just wondering what is it that made it so good. Barts knowledge is certainly unequalled, but what parts of Wheels and Tracks should the other magazines aspire to?
Just looking at issue 33 which i have to hand, i note that there is a 10 page article entitled the "DAF/Ford connection". MMI and CMV usually limit articles to just 6 pages in length and this article is in great depth and on a subject that does not leap to the front as being something that anyone knows much about. The same issue has a 7 page article on Argosy which i would think most readers would struggle to identify.
Should CMV and MMI have more in depth and technical articles on things that we know little about (eg - the drive train of the Krup Protze) or do they need to keep to general articles to appeal to the majority of the readership (Jeep differences etc)?
To me the best parts of W & T were the readers forum; Seen, read and heard; Discoveries and Before and After. These would be easy enough for any magazine to do if the readership volunteered this information. But i get the impression that some of these roles have been taken over by the likes of HMVF. For example, i feel no need to write into a magazine to say that we have found an original and unretored WW1 truck if i can do the same thing on this forum in a fraction of the time. So has the internet made this information more accessible therfore reducing the scope for magazines to print the same information.
Discuss.
Tim (too)