PC Deputy Editor

[Mattcortes]

To be honest there is very little to actually read in PC now. Im loving the Mini resto but the rest I just flick through. If I look at LRO mag who has ex ed John Pearson and Ben Field does loads in there as I think they are part of the same Bauer group I read that cover to cover. Loads of interesting articles, loads of tech advice, loads of classics and when they do a rest its as indepth as the PC ones used to be. I remember when a resto was done they would bring out a book which showed that it was done as a true guide. Most of the supposed restos are nothing like that now. Some like the Westfield just get pushed out and that was one that I thought would be quite handy.

Considering the fact that they have the choice of realistically any car pre '90's and in some cases later I think its disappointing. I have no problem with what cars are included. A bog standard Nova may be rubbish but its now getting rare and different. The whole idea of the magazine was to have older cars that could be used regularly and if their owners enjoy them then nothing else matters.

I think this is pretty unfair to the point of being ridiculous, and I am amazed that you don't think there is much to read - 120 pages of editorial pass you by? We feature at least three restos every issue... and fyi the Westfield was a build not a restoration and is still ongoing (update last month). The Jag resto was an extraordinary challenge, the BMW is an amazing find, the Sierra is going for paint as we speak and the 7 is awaiting a loom. Do you read sagas? Or the 30+ pages of tech. As for LRO... a much narrower target group of vehicles helps... and its ex PC editor, I can see John from where I sit in the office. He still reads and enjoys every issue of PC himself. I respect his opinion having started my career on PC under his regime, and he thinks the magazine is going great guns. Have a good look at the latest issue and come back with some specific and constructive feedback.

Sorry for the delay responding to your comments. I am sure as Editor you will run the magazine how you see fit all i can do is comment from my own and my fathers opinion who untill recently had every copy from issue 1. Glad John still enjoys the magazine, although I'm sure he gets a free copy anyway. Excuse my grammatical mistake about the Westfield not being a restoration although I assume if it goes on much longer it may well become one.

Agree the Jag has been very time consuming although again I stand by what I said how the older restos were far more enjoyable as a guide for those who were doing a similar challenge. Hence why I own a couple of the books published on the back of them. If you look at LRO and any of their recent projects I think you will agree they are far more comprehensive than anything in PC over the recent years. I do not agree the narrower group of vehicles being an aid to filling a magazine. I would consider myself to be a complete car buff and think there is very few I would not enjoy reading about or learning more from.

Finally i would like to apologise for any of the critism you have taken to heart and will not say anything that may upset you in the future. Thank you to anyone who has shown support to my comments but I'm a big boy and can handle a moody editor.

[Morrisand944S2man]

Well you obviously haven't bumped into me at a show in the south east (Wheels day,Aldershot, Good Friday is my next one,you'd hate it!)
At least one good example of every model deserves to be preserved,that's why I cherish a lowly spec Maestro,and people do flock to it at shows believe it or not! (Mainly to take the p*ss but at least it gets noticed). I'd be more inclined to drool over a mint Mk1 Metro than a mint Minor,not that I don't like Minors,I do ... it's just that there are hundreds still pootling about here and I haven't seen a decent early Metro in yonks.
Different strokes I suppose.

There are very good reasons why there are Thousands of Minors still on the road and very few Metros.

One of them being the Metro was rubbish- inferior in design and quality to all it's contemporaries. Another being that the Minor is a proper classic and the Metro is not and should never be. Yet another is that the Metro is basically a front wheel drive Euro box, no different in concept to the modern examples apart from being worse in every way. Just try getting tyres for an early Metro for example. If you want to drive a front wheel drive small hatch back you've be far better off with my modern runabout- a Toyota Starlet.

So what is the point of buying a front wheel drive late 70's/ post 70's eurobox when you can have a better modern equivalent??? That is the decision process which has led to the demise of the Metro. The Minor, however, being a proper classic and different in just about every way to boring modern tat like the Metro, and in some ways far better then the modern equivalent.

Like I said, just because a car is old does not make it a classic. It has to be both old and something at least a bit special to be a classic. The Metro and it's ilk are not and never will be. It was a dull, boring car in 1981 and actually inferior to it's contemporaries such as the Polo. If it was rubbish in 1981, it is still rubbish 30 years later. The mere passage of time has not made it any better. It is just mundane and old in 2011 rather than mundane and new in 1981.

Take the example of literature as an analogy to help explain the situation. An average author (and there were many) from the 1970s will be forgotten and mundane, boring paperback copies of their books can be bought for pence in charity shops. A great author from the 1970's will have penned classics- Stephen King, Douglas Adams etc. Classic authors, classic books- and often still in print because they wrote classics. Old and great and at least a bit special = classic. Average, dull author and his books, no matter how old will never be considered classic literature.

The same holds for cars.

This should not be a debate about what is or what is not a classic, there is no debate! It should be clear as it was up till the 1980s. Old and great = classic, old and rubbish STILL = rubbish. I blame the magazines, particularly PC for muddying the waters. It is not about horses for courses, some horses can no longer run the race and need to be dealt with humanely. That is why PC needs to stop featuring non- classic cars and presenting them as if they are classics.

I hope you can understand my point now, and I hope Practical Classics read this, take note and save their magazine from the downward slide, and stop damaging the classic car world by introducing bad ideas that influence people- such as I have read comments in this post. yes, and bring back Simpson and Larkin and authors who know the difference between a proper classic and just a dull old car.

cheers
John

[Aar0sc]

John.

Surely the Minor when it came out was merely a dull boring and ordinary car? Nothing special about it (no offense meant to them), probably worse than some competitors with the original side valve engine. It's outstanding feature was the numbers in which it sold; everybody saw them regularly, and so when they wanted an old car/classic car, they bought one. The large numbers also keep the prices down, which encourage younger people to buy them.

Therefore the Metro, which was a big step ahead for Austin Rover (or whatever they were called at that exact point in time) had to be a dull boring and ordinary car - the Ford Focus sells in massive numbers simply because it is good at what it needs to be - transport.

Also, remember that cars we see as classics now went through the same thing 10/20/30 years ago.

Aar0sc

[Mattcortes]

Isn't a large part of a car having appeal part of that persons own memories when they were younger. How many people look at an old Ford Granada Ghia X thinking I really want one of those? Logically for less money you can get a Mondeo that will be quicker, more economical, better rust protection but it won't have the nostalgic appeal of you seeing one when you were younger or aspired to when you only had a base escort as a company car. I recently bought the MG Metro solely on the basis that I found my old MG Metro Scalextrix set. Its also nice to have something that is a bit different and you now don't see many of them around now. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying its a good car its clearly not they must have been rubbish when new but thats not the point. The Polo may well be better but I didnt have the Polo Scalextrix.

Shouldnt this really be a seperate thread away from the Dep Ed one?

[mr rusty]

Like I said, just because a car is old does not make it a classic. It has to be both old and something at least a bit special to be a classic

...............well there's what, probably three cars in all history that would meet that criteria: the model T, the Citroen DS, the Mini (oh my gawd, a Metro is a rehashed mini... )- all radical for different reasons and all still stand out...so what would PC do once they'd done those three!! Lets face it, all cars are mundane in their day, that includes Minors like yours and Vitesses like mine- if they were supercars, the answer to everything, they'd still be in production but they're not, things move on. There's a lot of Vitesses and heralds around still purely becasue they were built in an outmoded way, just lucky: if they'd been unitary bodies there wouldn't be anywhere near as many left.

A lot of Minors survived because a lot were made, no other reason. For the magazine to stay in existence, they have to feature more cars that not everyone likes: there's nothing more mundane than a Ford Escort, but lots of people like them, so they deserve a place- after all, how many times can a Minor or MGB resto be featured without boring everyone to tears!

Just try getting tyres for an early Metro for example.

...difficult but not impossible, I just got six new old ones for my daughters Metro..but a set of imperial size alloys are on the cards for some point in the future.

If you want to drive a front wheel drive small hatch back you've be far better off with my modern runabout- a Toyota Starlet.

..you are joking there surely? Driving a Metro is the same experience as driving a mini, pure foot-down fun: you should try it!!

And any more moans about Metros and miss Rusty will be round to torment you with high volume Justin Bieber.....I mean, how cute can a car be You sir mr morrisman, have no soul!!!!!!! p.s. note the new tyres.......

[Mattcortes]

That looks lovely, however hope the inner rear wheel arches are still there unlike mine prior to the weekend!

A more modern fav of mine is the little Fiat Cinquecento Sporting. I wanted a yellow one with the Abrath kit as my 1st car when I passed my test but they had just brought out the new Seicento so ended up with a new one of them instead. Guess I'll buy a one when I see a decent one. Certainly not a great car but I had loads of fun and memories in it so will buy another.

[Morrisand944S2man]

John.

Surely the Minor when it came out was merely a dull boring and ordinary car? Nothing special about it (no offense meant to them), probably worse than some competitors with the original side valve engine. It's outstanding feature was the numbers in which it sold; everybody saw them regularly, and so when they wanted an old car/classic car, they bought one. The large numbers also keep the prices down, which encourage younger people to buy them.

Therefore the Metro, which was a big step ahead for Austin Rover (or whatever they were called at that exact point in time) had to be a dull boring and ordinary car - the Ford Focus sells in massive numbers simply because it is good at what it needs to be - transport.


Aar0sc

Far from the truth- the Minor was a revolutionary car when it came out. In many ways, a huge step up from pre war cars- first mass produced UK monocoque, first mass market UK with rack and pinion, reolutionary US inspired styling, brilliantly designed suspension set up, easy to work on and designed to be reliable. Because of these factors is is a very enjoyable, characterful, easy and fun car to drive. I suggest you try one before dismissing them. Hence it was manufactured for more than 20 years, and became a VERY popular 2nd hand car in the 70's, smoothly transitioning into tru classic status. Even the sidevalve examples had handling in their day to match many contemporary performance cars of the late 40's and 50's. The numbers sold was because it was a much better car than its contemporaries on sale in the UK, and was improved through its life. So the minor was a great car in its day, a brilliant car from a genius designer and as I said Classic = Old and great.

You can say none of this about the dull metro. Plus, as I said (please read my post carefully!) the metro is the same (but worse) front wheel drive Eurobox concept as modern dull Euroboxes so why buy one? The Metro was a desperate move to try and save BL using re-hashed part bin technology in a new body. (it worked for a while but does not make it a special car).

"
Also, remember that cars we see as classics now went through the same thing 10/20/30 years ago."

Not true, either- in 1982 the Minor and VW Beetle and Herald were all considered classics, despite being barely 10 years out of production. I.E. pre 72 good cars. The same applies now- 70's and before SPECIAL cars as we have had 30 years of dull Euroboxes since 1981.

And no- the Metro is not the same fun as driving an original Mini which is another true classic.- I have driven both! The Metro is larger and heavier on much the same mechanics therefore losing the sporty low Mini feel.

"........well there's what, probably three cars in all history that would meet that criteria: the model T, the Citroen DS, the Mini ("

More than that- you forgot the Minor and the 2-CV, there are also some other pre 70's designs that were great cars and deserve classic status. The triumphs were good cars and being build on proper chassis and RWD are very different to the Nova front wheel drive tat.

Post early 70's and especially post 1981, front wheel drive not really! You may as well drive a modern car. Actually I DO have soul, and soul needs to be tempered with common sense and seeing things clearly.

This needs to be repeated again:- OLD DOES NOT = CLASSIC! OLD AND AT LEAST A BIT SPECIAL does = Classic.

And it is not about memories, the Minor was about the only old car that my Dad and relatives and friends did not own when I was growing up so no misty childhood nostalgic memories there. I have worked out what a proper classic car is and we need to all work together to save the proper classics!

But lets get back to the Point which is Practical Classic magazine needs to feature proper classics and NOT modern boring tat! Thanks to the bad influence of PC over the last 10 years there are decent classics going to the crusher while people save Nova's and other 80's 90's old bangers. I came on here to try and steer PC back in the right direction not to argue and be distracted from the point I am making.

No this is the crux of the problem- and my posts are very relevant to the question of PC editorship, PC needs to get decent editors and staff and then start becoming a proper classic car mag again - PC has clearly gone in the wrong direction and has too much influence over it's readership- and we will see more people buying and saving proper classics and not calling 80's and 90's front wheel drive old cars classics!

Who knows, if PC get's back on track, I might even start buying it again!

Please read and think about the simple formula for determining if a car is a classic and apply that. Classic = Great + Old. It is not enough for a car to be merely old to be a classic.

[JPB]

Hmm, as you stopped taking the mag, how will you know when it falls back into line with your notion of what it should be, so how will you know that, for you, it's worth starting to buy again?

It's strange just how many of the people who have a negative view of a TV show or publication will admit that they don't, in fact, watch or read the thing they criticise.

[tractorman]

Having had three Minors in the fifties to sixties, I doubt my late father would have agreed that they are either reliable or classics! None of them survived for more than about eight or nine years and I suspect that, had the MOT been like today's, none would lasted more than about five! I accept that the last one had over 100K miles when the engine needed reboring, but the brakes were always causing problems and the floors rotted almost as if they were cardboard. On the other hand, his last car was a '72 Maxi which he loved and reckoned it was a classic.

I agree, if I want to drive a front wheel drive car, I would be better off in a modern - that's why I have a relatively new Golf. Surely the same theory says that, if you want to drive a RWD, you'd be better off in a modern - why do you have the Minor and not a nice new BMW 1-series?

I would suggest, as I don't have a classic car, I can be neutral. Classic tractors are ANY tractor over 20yo, it gets seperated into modern and old classics for judging and means that it is fair for anyone to enter a competition - there is no argument that it is a classic if it's 20 or more. I may think that a 20yo Massey Ferguson 240 is just a reskinned MF 35 and has no merit as a classic, but it is - by definition - so I have to accept that. It should be the same way with cars - it would solve a lot of problems and, perhaps PC and other "champions" of classics should campaign to have a similar set of rules.

While I don't like many modern classics, that doesn't mean they aren't classics. In the same vein, there are 50's cars I don't like - does that mean they aren't classics either - in which case the Minor isn't a classic - because I say so! Perhaps I should write that in big letters to prove I am right!

[Mattcortes]

Agree. Its simple if you like it buy it If you don't then don't.

If you like what it used to be then moan but still buy it otherwise the only way it will chance is when it stops being printed!