samguan

I read RC magazines once every couple days and have noticed that many RC magazines do this..


When they are test driving cars...they are always using 2.4GHz radio/Receiver, sometimes really good lipo..

and on the top it would say something like: Street Price: $300 Price as Tested: $1000

I think when people read reviews, they want to how it performs stock, not with hopups, obivously, the car would perform better with those hopups..

We will never know how the stock radio/receiver or the battery performs with the car..

evader8

on rccaraction they test it first stock, then they do some of their own changes and thell u how it runs then. magazines do dat cuse the times are changing they know what people are going to do and what they are going to put in them, so they are showing people how it works with lipos, and stronger batteries. i have never seen on where they added hop-ups, just new tires.

Enzyme80

Pretty much anything getting reviewed is paid for. By this I mean the mfg of a car pays X amount to mag A to review their car. With this they set them up w/ the best car and the best equipment to test the car. The review is almost always going to be really good as it is paid for. I am not saying that every r/c mag does this but many of them do. This holds true is so many things in life it is kind of gross. It is very hard to find a non bias review on either the internet or in a mag.

I agree with you though it would be nice to just go stock. It is like test driving speakers. You need to listen to them w/ all levels set to 0 so you can actually hear how the speakers perform not how the receiver can enhance the speakers.

So just remember that almost all reviews (NOT ALL OF THEM) are bias in some way or another.

SAVAGEJIM

I noticed that too. I personally read XRC mag, and in that they will olny drop in $1000 gear if the base RC itself is a roller chassis and you have to buy the rest of your stuff.

But if it is totally RTR, they test the RTR totally as is (except where they have to add their own tuff, like batts, glow driver, starter box, then they tack on mucho dollars by usng the expensive batts, starter boxes, etc.).

sheograth

I don't like any RC car or truck reviews - all they do is praise for fear of upsetting their advertisers. You'll never hear a straight up comparison to another vehicle or truly honest statements. It's just more marketing space for car manufacturers. On the subject of upgrades, I think it's fair. Most serious users aren't using RTR radios and batteries anyway.

dacaur

Hmmm, I haven't noticed that.... If the car is a kit or ARTR and doesn't come with a radio, yea they normally use a 2.4Ghz radio, because they are so much better than 27 or 75Mhz, and they dont have to worry about frequency conflicts..... But if the vehichle comes RTR with a radio, they test it with the stock radio.

If it comes with a battery, they test it first with that battery, and then throw in a "real" battery to test it. If it doesn't come with a battery, they will test it with something that the average person is likely to use with that vehicle. If they are testing a brushless monster, they are not going to test it with a 6 cell 2500mah nimh, because if you buy a brushless vehicle, you would be stupid to use a low quality battery with it, its just going to retard performance and melt the battery....

When they test a brushed rtr, they use a stick pack in the reviews i have seen......

Give us some examples of what magazine and what review you are talking about....


As for just praising, yea they cant write "man, this thing sucks, don't buy it!!!" But after you read enough reviews, it doesn't take much brainpower to figure out what they really think of it by interpreting the "praise". The biggest clue you will get is the ratings they give vs what they say... Like if they say in the durability collum "nothing broke" but only give it an 8/10, then you know that nothing broke in the review, but they are trying to tell you the car/truck is far from bulletproof. If they say the performance was great, but the performance rating is only 7/10, you know its not that great a performer... you have to read between the lines....

redfisher1974

Has anyone ever saw a reveiw that said not to buy it its junk?....I never have...

ElectricGuy007

Right me either, RC Driver rates thier tests pretty accurately. I have thier 501x review hanging on my wall.

calvino

sometimes i read over a review, come here on RCU and find a ton of "holes" in the review. I think i have to say that these mags are great for the pics... but reviews are prety much "lets do everything with the most high end equipment we can and THEN say how nice it is". For me a review is the car, out of the box, stock (unless its an ARR or a KIT which needs equipment), photograph, look over and say "humm, this isn't so smart...." That is just me, i guess im used to the more "honest" RCU views where they actually tear the cars down, and write prety much how to put the thing back together again. I do agree that these mags seem to (for the most part in RCCA) seem to just focus on the "good side" and "forget the negative" I just look at the reviews for the photo's, not for the content

SAVAGEJIM

Another thing to consider is that the RC mag reviewers do not have a true understanding of the RC for normal use. What I mean is the reviewer might have had at most a few hours, maybe a few day, or a week at most in running the RC.

So, where the durability might have a decent or even high marks in durability for example, the reviewer did not run the RC in everyday situations to see if it will last and just which screws, nuts, bolts or other stuff came loose of broke off.

I think a long term test with a follow up review like a month or two later will help round out the review.

Also, I cannot help thinking that the RC they review from one of their sponsors has a sway on their objectivity.
Sorry, I;m just thinking logically, I'm not trying to accuse RC mag reviews of being biased.

sheograth

It's no secret that RC magazines are not non profit entities, there are LOTS of conflicts of interest when it comes to objectivity in review journalism.

I read reviews to see good pictures, videos, and extended feature lists - as long as you take the praise with a grain of salt they're still useful.