Tigerotor77W
Senior Member
I like this thread... though I apologize for asking the question that kinda took things a bit awry... 
Disclaimer -- I'm just writing my opinions here, so don't get offended if they've already been tried or if I don't have enough experience to back up them with proof that they'll work.
Having subscribed to Construction Equipment Magazine for, what, seven or eight years, now, I still think it's the best magazine on the market. I like the stories, I like the style, and I like the layout of the magazine. It seems professional, current, and also looks crisp (unlike certain other excavating magazines). I also understand, Larry, why CE can't reasonably do competitive comparisons. I'm sure this has been debated ad naseum among the CE editors or executives; for that reason, it doesn't bother me (as much) that I can't take my five-top skid steers and have someone do an exhaustive competitive analysis on them. (A side question would be this: would any manufacturers ever be willing to compare their products? For instance, would Cat ever agree to a Deere "magazine challenge" of their product C versus Deere's D? If the manufacturers can pay for the costs of equipment and operators, would that be a possibility.)
As for your question about Hands-on Earthmoving, I like it -- IFF (if and only if) the stories tell the entire truth about a machine. If, for instance, in the Bobcat ZHS article you posted, if the operators felt a small nuisance was that the machines didn't [seem to] have power while turning but that comment was left out, I wouldn't appreciate the article as much. If I can't get into the seat of a machine, I'd rather hear as much weight placed on its negative aspects as its positive aspects. Although everyone's experience and opinions is different, it's easy enough to read about the positive things on a machine on manufacturers' web pages or literature. It's the almost "yellow journalism" that keeps readers wanting to know which machine to buy, in my opinion. (You don't need to reveal that some machine is completely and utterly incapable, as was the case a few months back, but if an operator has harsher comments, I'd like to hear them. Of course, there may be a publicity problem with touting all the disadvantages of a new machine, but the manufacturers should know that operators will have to be as objective as possible. This would be a matter of trust, I guess.
Finally (for now, until someone brings up a good point that I want to blather more about), the one aspect of CE that I truly miss is the Field-Tests -- the extensive old-versus-new comparisons of a particular machine. I know those take time, and again, money, but those were really interesting insights as to the capabilities of a new machine. I know the E-series article I posted earlier was similar, but it seemed a little short and low on actual details of the test (probably because it was really Cat's PPG testing, which is, erm, guarded very, very closely).
Thanks for watching this site (and all your other CE cohorts!), Larry... I think your magazine is phenomenal at worst and would consider an annual paid subscription if it came down to that.
Disclaimer -- I'm just writing my opinions here, so don't get offended if they've already been tried or if I don't have enough experience to back up them with proof that they'll work.
Having subscribed to Construction Equipment Magazine for, what, seven or eight years, now, I still think it's the best magazine on the market. I like the stories, I like the style, and I like the layout of the magazine. It seems professional, current, and also looks crisp (unlike certain other excavating magazines). I also understand, Larry, why CE can't reasonably do competitive comparisons. I'm sure this has been debated ad naseum among the CE editors or executives; for that reason, it doesn't bother me (as much) that I can't take my five-top skid steers and have someone do an exhaustive competitive analysis on them. (A side question would be this: would any manufacturers ever be willing to compare their products? For instance, would Cat ever agree to a Deere "magazine challenge" of their product C versus Deere's D? If the manufacturers can pay for the costs of equipment and operators, would that be a possibility.)
As for your question about Hands-on Earthmoving, I like it -- IFF (if and only if) the stories tell the entire truth about a machine. If, for instance, in the Bobcat ZHS article you posted, if the operators felt a small nuisance was that the machines didn't [seem to] have power while turning but that comment was left out, I wouldn't appreciate the article as much. If I can't get into the seat of a machine, I'd rather hear as much weight placed on its negative aspects as its positive aspects. Although everyone's experience and opinions is different, it's easy enough to read about the positive things on a machine on manufacturers' web pages or literature. It's the almost "yellow journalism" that keeps readers wanting to know which machine to buy, in my opinion. (You don't need to reveal that some machine is completely and utterly incapable, as was the case a few months back, but if an operator has harsher comments, I'd like to hear them. Of course, there may be a publicity problem with touting all the disadvantages of a new machine, but the manufacturers should know that operators will have to be as objective as possible. This would be a matter of trust, I guess.
Finally (for now, until someone brings up a good point that I want to blather more about), the one aspect of CE that I truly miss is the Field-Tests -- the extensive old-versus-new comparisons of a particular machine. I know those take time, and again, money, but those were really interesting insights as to the capabilities of a new machine. I know the E-series article I posted earlier was similar, but it seemed a little short and low on actual details of the test (probably because it was really Cat's PPG testing, which is, erm, guarded very, very closely).
Thanks for watching this site (and all your other CE cohorts!), Larry... I think your magazine is phenomenal at worst and would consider an annual paid subscription if it came down to that.
Last edited:
