This has been brewing for a few weeks so here goes...

I really begin to question my Autosport subscription each time I read the 'Revved Up Over What's On The Box' section in the magazine.

I'm all for witty and critical comment on the broadcast media, but the section is just pathetic.

This week's entry reviews a YouTube page(!) showing Nelson Phillipe and Will Power's IndyCar crash at Sonama.

The flimsy justification is that the crash wasn't available in the UK through Sky.

The piece then trots out three and a half of its four columns as direct quotes lifted from the comments section of that clip.

So we get to read such quotes as: "**** you faggot, i aint fat or inbred. fuckin city boy i would whip your ass all over your faggot city with your big ass apartment and shit..."

I couldn't believe I was reading such utter garbage in Autosport, which I've subscribed to since the mid-90s.

It wasn't clever and edgy, it was uninspired and utterly lazy.

The Revved Up section appears to be a total rushjob, an afterthought banged together by a team totally lacking inspiration.

Cut-and-paste-the-quote churnalism to fill the required space.

I realise this section is supposed to be a kind of dark anonymous voice of Autosport, but it lacks any form of sophistication and humour and leaves the magazine looking pretty exposed.

If there isn't a writer onboard with the skills to make this section work, why not ditch it?

This week's effort was just embarrassing.

In a little while someone will tell you to use the old threads for this, and some Autosport employees will spew a little vitrol.

I'm not having a pop at any individual, and I'm certainly don't think it should be taken personally by any staff member at Autosport.

My clients moan at me from time to time, it's cool.

I just think this week's Revved Up is an example of extremely poor editorial judgement.

I spend my cash on a weekly racing magazine because I want quality.

I don't want to be confronted with a ranting foaming comments section of some YouTube posting.

The language (especially multiple use of the word 'faggot') stood out a mile.

It was totally uncalled for.

I kind of get the impression some of Autosport's current writers are extremely inexperienced.

They seem to have delusions of working for lad's mags without the skill to pull off that kind of humour.

And do we really need to see a large photo of the Autosport editorial team vs Carlin cricket match like this week? Do we really care to see the editor and deputy editor side by side after some racing junket (week before)? I see no editorial purpose in that kind of wankery other than lining the office walls.

And why does every photo caption featuring Mark Webber have to feature some tortured Australian cliche?

As I mentioned, I've bought the mag for many years, much of that an ultra-expensive airmail subscription to the other side of the planet.

At the moment I'm being sustained by Mark Hughes, David Coulthard and the news pages.

The tone of the rest of the magazine is starting to leave me very cold.

I am not arguing.

I know magazines are having a tough time in a rapidly changing media market and have to be innovative to grow.

I really look forward to Autosport arriving every Thursday (or often Friday).

The magazine still looks great and has a lot of interesting pieces by decent contributors.

IMO they need to get a balance on the attempted cleverness, because if it goes wrong it looks lame as hell.

Well in at least one of the yet to be linked threads, I explained why I gave up after about 25 years of paid subscribtion. We used to have to expensive oversea delivery which only took 7 days, and ran home on Thursday to get it before the other brother.

Just not worth the expense anymore, and by the comments by various aditorial representatives, the writing down is their preferred way to produce now, which in my view is partly the reason that some +20 K subscribers have stopped subscribing / buying. So having me for 25 years, is not as good as having some kid for 2 at most 3 in todays market, I am a dumb Freight Forwarder what do I know of running a publishing conglomorate, just seem a strange way to approach a shrinking market.

I respect their need to perhaps give it a bit more edge, and that's cool.

But their attempts at humour are just so bad and poorly executed at the moment.

The Revved Up section, I presume, is a chance for the magazine to have a bit of fun.

But if there's no writer in the armoury who can even raise the slightest smirk, what's the point?

I personally think Revved Up is generally hilarious.

The 8th October edition was just utterly brilliant.

The general humour in Revved Up aside, it was about time somebody started taking to task all of these third rate TV shows and commentators and Revved Up does that. Some of the motorsport shows UK cable/satellite channels on TV are utter bollocks and some at best are basically a 30 minute advert. 'Inside The Factory' is not so bad at the moment but in it's previous iteration/guise (dont recall if the name was the same) when BMW were still linked to Williams it was a joke, 30 minutes free time on television to drop the sponsors names in as much as possible.

And Revved Up doesn't like Jonathan Legards commentary either, that has to be a good thing.

Sorry, but I still think it is garbage.

There's nothing worse than a poor writer attempting lads mag humour.

And it is sloppy too. What the writer offers as direct quotes are often miles from what was actually said.

Example?

In this week's Revved Up: '"The speed wanking is very good here," Nick Heidfeld later told Martin Brundle...'

What was actually said by Heidfeld: "To be honest I would have liked to have a bit more top speed I'm the slowest in the ranking (wanking)."

Then, according to Revved Up, Brundle says: "He said ranking, that's ranking in case any of you were confused."

Brundle actually says: "Ranking, ranking as in the top speed. Ranking down the back straight. Just in case you were wondering at this time of the morning."

Pedantic? Sure. But how often does this crap section cook up other quotes or just give a rough interpretation of what the writer thinks he heard. If you're going to paraphrase, lose the direct quotes.

Or is being too lazy to even transcribe from a television set cool as Autosport tries to get down with the kids?

I miss the old days when there a column discussing the newpapers. I'm not a big fan of the revved up section though, however its only small so I just ignore it. I was quite disappointed with the quotes they put in from the Power crash video though, as you say you just don't expect to see that kind of thing in Autosport (and I am by no means a prude!).

i think revved up is a brilliant little slice of satire in a fantastic informative magazine. clearly, autosports main role is clear analysis of our favourite sport, and the column is a little bit of fun that i for one really enjoy. keep it!

Good of you to join up purely to defend Revved Up!

I about the 'brilliant' bit, I think it is lame in the extreme and lets the whole magazine down.

I like it, but there was no need to quote the YouTube comments.

Incidentally, this is a good add-on for Firefox users:



https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7115

jesus, discriminating against people who don't use caps is a bit harsh

OK, fair play, this week's Revved Up on the historic GPs is a better effort.

At least readable and not so juvenile.

But the BBC ripping off Autosport's page-filling-on-a-slow-week Grand Prix Gold section?

Please.

The magazine is hardly reinventing the wheel by reheating Nigel Roebuck and other hacks it used back in the day.

This week's article on the RoC in the 'Revved Up' column was spot on for me. The event is completely underwhelming.