the highest sportiness I’ve seen was a full 32 points higher than yours. Luxury or no, that is clearly a problem
5 Likes
Sure, I know I could have got more sportiness by going RWD instead of AWD, by sharpening the suspension, by making the engine smaller and rev higher (at least up to a point where it still meets the maximum loudness of 40 LOL), change gearing etc. But 80 sportiness, that’s supercar-like. Not quire race car like because you can go over 100 sportiness in this game and I’ve built cars like that, but 80 is definitely towards the more extreme end for a road car.
I’ll give you that, 80 is a very extreme value and the car that has it is either just crazy good or sacrificed a lot of sportiness to get there.
The guidelines were very clear, however: Sportiness is of highest importance and David was even stated to want something “thoroughly sporty” in the entry for driveability. Comfort, while it should be good, definitely doesn’t need to imitate a Rolls-Royce.
2 Likes
The key difference between cars have 80 sportiness and yours is that they achieve such high sportiness while having competitive comfort and drivability while your entry have great comfort and drivability (I assume) but sacrificing sportiness by a HUGE MARGIN. Remember your car is competing with other entries, so a significant downside/weakness can easily cause a bin. To put it frankly, you car is simply outperformed by other entries. Also, Vero clearly mentioned that sportiness is one of the top priorities. So it is definitely not wise to disregard sportiness stat or making significant sacrifices.
3 Likes
In light of this, I should have gone with my other test mule - a smaller, lighter, hand-built, normally aspirated, RWD, V8-powered two-seater that struck a more well-rounded balance between drivability, comfort and sportiness - because it would have been more likely to appeal equally to the heart and the head, considering the brief for this round. My actual submission sacrificed sportiness in favor of the other two attributes, and would therefore have struggled to trouble the finalists even with a normally aspirated engine.
2 Likes
That is some fine animation right there. This conversation about performance/comfort actually reminds me of an old Top Gear.
3 Likes
There’s people at 80 sportiness? Oh boy, i hope their comfort is on the low end, or i’m not making the next cut lol. Then again, i made the first cut with 53.6 sportiness on a 5m long boat of a GT, so maybe that’s not the only problem with TheTom’s car.
That show’s got the best feel-good moments. JC is one hell of a narrator
5 Likes
Yeah, I see the problem now…I was aiming for minimalist chic…but the chic fell off at the factory! 
3 Likes
I wanted to go with a smaller, higher-revving engine, but there is a limit for the maximum engine loudness, which I don’t understand why that’s there or why it’s so low. You know, I always try to imagine what real-world car would have a certain stat in Automation, e.g. what kind of real world car would have around 40 loudness in Automation, or what kind of real-world car would have 50 sportiness in Automation etc.
For 40 loudness, I’d imagine something like a modern Golf GTI (with its turbo engine, full set of mufflers and so on), so something slightly louder than normal but you know… not particularly loud. But yeah, thinking of it that way, all of the cars in the inspiration I’d put probably at anywhere between 55 sportiness (the Lexus) and around 75 sportiness (AMG GTR and Nissan GTR), so my car clearly fell short of that. 80 IMO would be something like a Porsche 911 GT3 or a McLaren 720S.
oof
4 Likes
you did not have to go this hard tbh
3 Likes
There were lots of high revving engines submitted that were well under the loudness requirement, some of which were revving higher than yours. 40 on paper seems low, but it’s more than enough for a challenge like this, in my opinion. The problem with that specific stat is that it’s hard to find what it directly compares to in real life.
As for your design, it wasn’t just the lights. The entire front grille/vent setup was very large and too rounded off, which dated your car. The upper grille between the lights and the large wing didn’t help either.
7 Likes
thank you for the explanation and for the objective response. I know I made some bad decisions in hindsight, and I’ll try to do better next time.
edit: just stiffening the dampers, lowering the car a bit and removing the rear seats brought the car up from 48 to 57 sportiness. Yes I know there’s still lots of potential to go higher but I think 57 could be considered adequate. In hindsight, I shouldn’t have put rear seats in the car to begin with but what threw me off was Automation’s market demographics according to which a GT has to have 4 seats, even though the rules said we only need 2. Removing the rear seats also made the car 200kg lighter so now it does 0-100km/h in 3.0 seconds rather than 3.3, without any change to the engine or gear ratios.
11 Likes
I have had this same concern with Automation loudness units. For clarity, Bel is a logarithmic unit. What that means is 40Db is twice as loud as 30Db, and so on. Subjectively, 40 loudness units seems to be in the 80Db range (loud stock exhaust, service truck, lawn mower, etc) but 30 loudness units is not 1/2 (assuming loudness is Decibel-40), or 1/4 (assuming loudness is Decibel/2) the volume of 40 loudness units. It also does not seem to be a unit of SPL since that expression is affected by Hz and amplitude. Is there another sound pressure scale I don’t know about?
Theoretically, if we had a known reference point someone could make a linear conversion chart from loudness units to the Bel scale using a sound editing program, but that seems excessive for gaming purposes. It would be like calculating muzzle velocity in Halo (ok, I have done this When the game went to 60fps on PC it broke the “tick” system used in hit detection, and I was curious). Two or more data points may reveal a bell curve, if applicable.
7 Likes
48 sportiness!? I have 36.4, which is possibly the lowest out of everyone.
I just realized that it is possible, with the right combination of parts (using a standard intake and/or a regular 3-way catalytic converter helps).
I thought my entry was sporty enough (it managed 54 sportiness), but recently I realized that I could have gotten 60 or more from the smaller test mule I had made previously. However, I had to fit a dual-clutch transmission to get that figure, thereby sacrificing some comfort and drivability for sportiness, but it would easily have been worth it. Even so, the way it was set up left me with enough room in the budget to install a hand-made interior, which boosts your prestige and comfort scores to no end. I couldn’t do that with my actual entry, though.
Market competitiveness is not a factor in the scoring for this round, and besides, some of the cars listed as inspiration also have only two seats, which makes them feel more like actual sports cars, but even so, that doesn’t stop them from fulfilling the role of grand tourer.
3 Likes
CSR 139- Phase 2, Part 2- Eliminations
(Electric Boogaloo)
Delphinda 88 “Homage Edition”- @azkaalfafa
Starting on the other half of his list, David brings up the 88 “Homage”. A well designed roadster, with a striking livery drew his eye, but after reading some owner reports he finds that it has a slightly laggy turbo, runs strange tire sizes, and its suspension is a bit too firm for his tastes.
(Reason for elimination- a laggy turbo, zero tire sizes and a quite firm suspension tune that nuked comfort, plus a heavily rear biased AWD system that hurt drivability. Shame too, as it had a nice design.)
VULKAN Kellir VX- @TheYugo45GV
Next on David’s list was the VULKAN Kellir. Immediately he was tuned off by the somewhat cartoon-y design, and noted that it was the cheapest car he’d seen. After reading some reviews, David learned that Kellir wasn’t particularly sporty, and that it’s lower price felt like a disadvantage compared to other cars in this segment.
(Reason for Eliminations- design was slightly cartoon-y with large lights all around, and aero flaps that weren’t well integrated into the design. The suspension was also way soft, having the second lowest sportiness of all of the cars submitted. The biggest issue, however, was its price. The price was low, but it didn’t offer great value for the price.)
EcaMobile Jackpot Coupe- @Mikonp7
Next up was the EcaMobile Jackpot. David didn’t love the grille sticking out from the body, and wasn’t a fan of the split headlights either. Reading up on it, David found that while it was easy to drive, it wasn’t particularly sporty, due to it’s comfort tuned suspension, and low output engine.
(Reason for elimination- the design was a bit weird, with the split light affect not translating well, and the 3D grille looking too pasted on. It also had the lowest sportiness out of any car submitted, and 458hp out of a 6.5L V10 is disappointing, to say the least.)
Octane GT-P- @karhgath
Next up on the list was the Octane GT-P. David wasn’t a fan of the futuristic design, and felt as if it was trying too hard. Disappointed, he moved to the next car.
(Reason for elimination- the design felt like it was trying too hard to be futuristic, and it never really translated well. Engineering was good though, just not enough to save it.)
GSI Sybaris- @oppositelock
Next up was the Sybaris. David wasn’t an immediate fan of its design, with a muted paintjob, a rear that feels underdeveloped, and wheels that felt like they were too small for the car. While reading some owner forums, David found that the mixed brakes led to the Sybaris being quite expensive to service.
(Reason for elimination- the design as a whole wasn’t the best, with a front that’s too wide, and a rear that’s lacking in terms of shape and detail. Engineering was mostly fine, but the choice to run vented discs up front and ceramics out back was weird, and really hit you in the service costs department.)
Astier Détrempée- @ImKaeR/@romann
Next up on the list was the Détrempée. David liked the design, but felt that the headlights were too big. Upon reading a review, David found that it had a front-biased AWD system, which hampered it’s sportiness some. All in all, David came away unimpressed.
(Reason for bin- design was good, though as I said the headlights were too big in proportion to everything else. However, the largest driving factor behind your elimination was the front-biased AWD, which goes against realism here a bit, as does the 5-valve powertrain.)
Voodoo Brimstone 1100- @HelloHi
Next on David’s list is the Brimstone. While not immediately taken with the design, David gave it a pass for the moment. Reading up on reviews, David quickly realised that 1100hp was just far too much for him, and so he moved on.
(Reason for elimination- yeah I think you saw this coming; 1,100hp is just far too much for this class of car, and is quite literally double what most cars in this class have IRL, as well as your competitors. The design wasn’t great either, with a hyperkit vent to nowhere, and really small and narrow headlights that look out of proportion to everything else. Also, despite the insane power output, it was rather decent.)
Levante GranMilano GT- @TanksAreTryhards
Next on David’s list was the GranMilano GT, a stylish GT David liked the look of. Reading a review, David found that the car had trouble putting its power down, and felt that the turbo was slightly laggy. Disappointed, David closed the review.
(Reason for elimination- the viscous differential was a strange choice here, and the choice to run partially cast engine internals was also a strange choice. The turbo was laggy, though not to the same extent as some of the other cars here.)
Zanardi Ravenna- @MisterRocketMan
Next up was the Ravenna. David liked the design, with it’s stylish yet simple design. Reading some of the owner reports, David found that the really narrow tires limit it’s handling, and the front-biased AWD system makes it feel less sporty in comparison to the competition. Disappointed, he moved on to the next.
(Reason for elimination- the narrow 225 width tires limit your car’s handling, and the front biased AWD goes against realism too. While not the driving factor behind your elimination, the choice to run 5v heads was another questionable choice from a realism standpoint. Overall, not a bad showing though.)
PMC Moray V8- @mcp928
Next on David’s list was the Moray V8. While not impressed with the design, David decided to look at it some more before making a decision. After reading reviews and some owner reports, he found that the car was well engineered and relatively well built, but the quote that the gearing is a bit on the long side, and that the suspension tune was a bit too firm. Unceremoniously, David closed the page.
(Reason for elimination- well tuned but fuckhuge engine that’s somewhat hampered in the performance department by it’s gearing, styling that’s a bit busy and is more muscle car than GT car, and firm suspension tuning that lends itself more to a muscle car.)
Nitra 690F- @Kyorg
Next on David’s list was the Nitra 690F. Impressed by its performance and design, David was interested. However, upon some reading, David found that the Nitra had a low-pressure turbo, something that reviewers thought was a strange choice in a performance vehicle.
(Reason for elimination- yeah this one sucked to bin, but the really low boost turbo (6.36 PSI) to smooth out power delivery and up comfort was definitely a bit too minmax-y for my taste. Really disappointing too, as it was an objectively good car otherwise.)
Waldersee Woland RennTouring- @Texaslav
Next up on David’s list was the Woland RennTouring. Taken with the front design, David enjoyed what he saw. Moving to the rear, however, he was left disappointed. He also didn’t love the paint, and thought the rear fenders were a bit large. However, not discounting it immediately, David did some more research. He found that it has slightly strong brakes, but it was otherwise fine. While it was all around solid, David just couldn’t get over the design.
(Reason for elimination- Overall it was decent, but the awkward and low rear design wasn’t the best, and the comically large rear fenders and weird paint made it look less upscale. Tuning was fine, but the 5v heads are a tad unrealistic (for 2020), and the brakes were just a bit too strong.)
Veldora Gami Zenith- @Repti
Next on David’s list was the Gami Zenith. David mostly liked the design, but though the large front grille and bar filled vents on the front and rear were a bit strange. He also noted that it was the only car on his list with a flat-6. Upon reading some reviews and reading some owner stories, he found that the Gami had yet another low-pressure turbo, something that was strange to find on a performance vehicle.
(Reason for elimination- well props for getting a decent spool out of a flat-6, but the really low PSI turbo (like on the Nitra) you used to do so was a little too minmax-y for my taste. The design was fine, but the really thick bars running through the vents on the front and back looked a little strange, and the front grille was too big, and dated the design some in my opinion. Shame, because it was otherwise very solid.)
Bishop Kriese 338- @VaporScape
Next on David’s list is the Kriese 338. He liked the design, though he felt the taillights looked a little strange. Upon reading some reviews, David found that the Kriese had a very hard suspension tune, a very laggy engine that’s mated to ultra-long gearing, so it’s never really kept in it’s optimal powerband. Disappointed, he moves on.
(Reason for elimination- hardest suspension tune out of all the entrants that simultaneously gave you the worst comfort out of everyone, a really laggy engine that’s matted to an gearbox with extremely long gears, so it’s kept out of it’s optimal powerband. It was also the cheapest car submitted, and it definitely felt that way.)
Shijazhuang S1 GT- @ldub0775
Next on his list was the S1 GT. David wasn’t the biggest fan of the design, with an overly large front and headlights that didn’t feel connected to anything. He also disliked the overly thick and dated body cladding. Not discounting it immediately, David looked into the S1 some more. What he found was that it was another car running cast internals, and its suspension tune leaned more towards oversteer. Overall, David just didn’t like the design, so he moved on.
(Reason for elimination- The design was very disjointed, with headlights mounted way above anything else on the front, and it had a very large fascia that looked dated. The body cladding didn’t help here, with it being both too thick and too straight. If it had curved upwards towards the rear of the car, along with being thinner, it would’ve been much better. The cast internals are a weird choice given your power output, and the suspension tuning leans just a bit too much towards oversteer for my taste. That said, it was a really rather decent car in many areas.)
Arion Celeste Drophead- @Aruna/@kookie/@kaybee
Next up on David’s list was the Celeste Drophead, one of two convertibles on his list. While he generally liked the design, he felt that the front was too big and tall, and didn’t really sync with the narrow and angular lights on the front and back. This was also another car on David’s list with a low-pressure turbo as well, yet another strange choice for a performance vehicle.
(Reason for elimination- while the design was generally solid, the really large front grille and blocky side vents didn’t really work with the thin and angular headlights, and it didn’t really feel that consistent with the rear either. Tuning as a whole was good, but the really low boost turbo (like the Veldora and Nitra) was similarly a bit too minmax-y for my tastes. Overall, not bad though.)
Zavir Z Volante SV8- @Hshan
Last on David’s list for tonight was the Z Volante. While David generally speaking liked the design, he felt the errant side vents on the front looked a bit out of place, and the rear felt a bit barren to him. Upon reading some reviews and owner reports, David found that the Z Volante had a rather laggy and rough running engine, a gearing setup that kept the car out of it’s optimal power, and brakes that liked to fade far too often under spirited driving.
(Reason for elimination- Design for the most part was solid, but the engine was super laggy, and a 60 degree V8 is a bit unrealistic for my tastes. The gearing was also off, and the brakes had far too much sportiness fade.)
Semifinalists:
@Aaron.W
@yurimacs
@Tsundere-kun
@Ezdmn
@donutsnail and @Lazar
@On3CherryShake
@SpeedyBoi/@Falling_Comet/@Urke101/@variationofvariables
@Boiled_Steak
@Portalkat42
@Tzuyu_main and @chiefzach2018
@SayokiN
@ARM_Tune
@Xepy
@MrChips
@66mazda
@CriticalSet9849
@S_U_C_C_U_L_E_N_T
@EnCR
29 Likes
C O M I C A L L Y large!
Well, I’m happy where I’m at. Best of luck to everyone, Xepy OP lul
Also, the front end of my car had a lot of first-time techniques for me (in comparison with the rear end where I have already done all that before). I am glad it’s well-received
5 Likes