Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

CSR 110 - Snow It Is


#1

General CSR rules:

Last Round:
CSR 109 - Straight Outta Retirement Home

CSR 110 - Snow It Is

February 1969, Finland

Jukka Saarimäki is trying to start his now 10- Year old Moskvich Scandinavia, without much success. His 9- year old son, Petri, is sitting in the backseat waiting for his dad to drive him to school.
The Moskvich is really starting to show its age already, the paint is chipping, the car has started rusting and is generally bad to drive even compared to his neighbours Volkswagen Beetle that Jukka has to loan often when his Moskvich isn’t working.
Jukka has been thinking of getting a new car for a while, and now has enough money to buy a new car.

cbec78e912f6a50fb80fd1b98904332dd4170e4d00b896b453b87e5abe732dad
Jukka’s old Moskvich

Jukka isn’t expecting a Luxury car. He just wants a cheap, small reliable car that is easily repairable. His family only consist of 3 members, His wife, Sirkka, his Son Petri and Jukka himself. Jukka isn’t a car expert, but has some knowledge about cars.


Rules:
Trim/Variant/Engine/Model Year: 1960-1969

Fuel type: Regular Leaded (92 RON) or Regular Unleaded (91 RON) (Bad quality fuel type (85 RON) is accepted but won’t give any bonuses)

Catalytic Converter is not required

Realistic Design choices (No 3-fixture wonders or 2L DOHC V8’s in a Mini body)

Maximum estimated cost: 17000$

Max engine ET/PU: 62/21

Max Trim ET/PU: 73/73

Minimum Trim reliability: 54

at least 1 Muffler Required

Seat Count: 5 or more, no foldable seats in the 1st or second row, if your car has a 3rd seat row, you can use foldable seats there.

Minimum Safety: 29

Minimum Drivability: 25



Judging:

High Importance:

Fuel Economy: Jukka isnt rich and gas is expensive, so dont make a gas guzzler.

Drivability: Finland is a snowy place, so it is important that Jukka can handle the car safely even in bad weather conditions.

Safety: Jukka is driving his whole family in this car, and wants to be safe in a crash if he even gets in one.

Cost: Jukka isn’t rich, so lower price is better, but that doesnt mean that you will win by making a wooden slab with wheels and a steering wheel.

Mid importance:

Design: Jukka doesnt care that much about design, but doesn’t want to get laughed at when seen in your car.

Practicality: It is a Family car after all, so it being practical is preferred.

Reliability and service costs: Jukka is used to his unreliable Moskvich, but still wants a more reliable car that might actually start in the winter. And with service costs, lower is always better.

Low importance:

Comfort: Jukka is buying a budget car after all, and is used to the really uncomfortable Moskvich, but comfort is a plus.

Everything else: Everything else is really low importance, and not maybe even looked at.


Inspiration:

Regular Finnish family cars



lada-2101-lada-vaz-2101_6384301132


Submission

Send a PM containing your .car file to me on the forums.
The naming system is as per usual.

Engine name: CSR110 - [forum username]
Engine variant: [engine name]
Car name: CSR110 - [forum username]
Car trim: [car name]

RESUBMISSION IS NOT ALLOWED!
I’m judging your cars using the Open Beta branch.

Before submitting, please make sure that your car meets all of the requirements, especially on ET and PU. Even a 0.1 difference will warrant yourself a bin.

Most mods are allowed.


Submissions are open 27.8.19, 23:59 GMT +2

Deadline is 2.9.19, 23:59 GMT +2

Have fun everybody!


This is my first time hosting a CSR, so there might be a lot wrong in here, be free to comment my mistakes down below before the submissions are open (:


#2

:thinking:
inb4: https://my-summer-car.fandom.com/wiki/Satsuma


#3

This is gonna be fantastic! I had a similar idea on the backburner, just in case I nab a CSR win sometime. I’m glad I’ll get to do this one as a participant now. Let the battle of the narrow tires begin! It makes me sad that we can’t make two-stroke engines and I can’t make a Trabant. :wink:

Just to nitpick: the VAZ-2101 didn’t come out till 1970, so it might not be appropriate as an example. It was based on the Fiat 124, which looked almost identical and came out in 1966, so I’ll allow it nonetheless :wink:.


#4


Myydään toimiva Mitsushita Royale.
Varma toiminen ja lähtee aina käyntiin.


#5

We have not had a 60s-themed CSR round in ages, so this is as much of a change of pace from CSR 109 as that one was to CSR 108.


#6

Part of me wants to do the GrayStillPlays version of that car. Think that would be a meme car though.


#7

Just doing some quick test mules here, the early 60’s trims (before 60’s safety features are available) might be difficult to hit the safety number you’ve set and still have “realistic choices”. You may want to consider relaxing that reg a little bit if you’re looking for early trims to be able to attain it.


#8

Have you tried unibody for safety? I know body on frame was normal at the time, but a small econobox may have been better (cheaper) to make without a true chassis. I don’t have a historical reference for this, but Automation scores unibody as being safer.


#9

For historical reference, the ford falcon and mustang were unibody in the 60s, and I believe a few others as well. (Though most American unibodies were tipically a bit less safe than the equivalent full frame at that time, that’s due to American manufacturers producing stuff as cheaply as possible)


#10

Gray area on the cheap. Some stuff was overly crafted, but most was mass produced crap. No where else in the world would you find the Ford Pinto. You would find something as bad, but you would expect it to be bad. The Toyota Corona was a needed wakeup call for Detroit.

History aside, Automation seems to base stats on style, not quality at the time. You could simulate 60s American unibody with a -10 quality slider. Fortunately my 80’s American unibody is still holding up nicely, glad they figured it out by then.

You could do a semi-space frame. Terrible NVH, but pretty safe with the tube frame. Say its based on the VW Thing (de-militarized Kubel Wagon if I remember right).


#11

Yes, I was using unibody. At that time, all of my lore company’s small car designs are unibody (a la AMC). Without tipping my hand too much as to what I’m intending to submit, one design required advanced safety to BARELY scrape by (not a realistic choice, given that most manufacturers of the time besides Volvo gave exactly 0 thought to safety)… the other would fail based on its original design, but its mid-gen uplift makes it due to newer tech. I could probably stuff a third, much larger MURRICAN design in under the $15k cap to make safety easier, but it wouldn’t be competitive because too big and thirsty.

I wasn’t saying that I (or others) can’t meet the requirements, I’m just saying that at first glance they seem a little on the steep side for the era. It’s your call… just wanted to point it out ask you asked for feedback. :slight_smile:


#12

Question? Are there no indicator fixtures for the '60s? I did a filter by fixture year and got nada…


#13

The filter thing doesn’t work right… yet


#14

No limits for fuel requirements?


#15

They may be steep for the era, but it is a family car so the buyer would value safety. Besides, given the overall lack of requirements having one high bar makes the challenge more interesting. I found the last CSR a little too generous with the ET/PU allowance. Part of the CSR fun is making technical trade-offs. Cheap and safe isn’t a combination we usually get, so lets see what it takes.

Also, small world, my company is also based on AMC. I went with more of a what if version though centering on specialty vehicles like the ones made by AM General, or Navistar. Whats your avenue of parody?


#16

… uhm…

(snip)

walks off


#17

Regarding safety, I need advanced 60’s to meet the safety limit which seems quite unrealistic. This is with a unibody too. With a ladder frame I’d need advanced with enough + quality to put me well outside the ET limit.


#18

Interestingly, I never had an issue with the safety rating in this one, even with basic 60s I got 'er done. I had more issues to get the reliability up, it was a challenge, but I finally got it there within the PU limit. ET is fine all-round this time… I guess it depends on your initial point of attack and philosophy. Somewhere a corner will have to be cut, and that’s the challenge of the game :slight_smile:


#19

Strangely, I’m getting enough with basic safety. Might be your body or your seat setup


#20

BannedByAndroid

No limits for fuel requirements?

… uhm…



Mad_Cat:

Fuel type: Regular Leaded or Regular Unleaded (Bad quality fuel type is accepted but won’t give any >bonuses)

Catalytic Converter is not required

(snip)



Mad_Cat:

High Importance:

Fuel Economy: Jukka isnt rich and gas is expensive, so dont make a gas guzzler.

walks off

I took this to mean do what you want for fuel to get to the objective. If you get 20MPG with cheap gas, but get 30 MPG with premium your mile per dollar is better with the more expensive fuel. Creative freedom.

Edit:
I stand corrected, the question is can you morally use leaded fuel.