Another tick for Honghu’s bad CSR rep 
but hey, at least it’s serving its antarctican anime waifus in imagination
Thanks for the host, Menduko. Knew my entry was screwed from the beginning :’)
11 Likes
2.34 l/hr.? Jesus. I guess I didn’t understand that part. I didn’t know what efficiency “at idle” meant, because I didn’t see that stat; I used the base overall efficiency, and got 1.66 l/hr.
Minor correction: It was a V6 not a V8
3 Likes
@strop Uh, well. I’d need to buy some then. Now that I think about it, it’d be very useful for the many people who seem to not read the general CSR rules at all despite them being linked in every post. Maybe if shortened in that way they will?
@EddyBT maybe if you hadn’t shoved such a huge engine below the seats in a cabover van you could’ve slipped through. That, and if so many solid competitors hadn’t begun showing suddenly later.
@yangx2 Oh come on, you came in 9th. It wasn’t outright screwed. There had to be a cutoff somewhere. And if design had been more important like it usually is in most CSRs you would’ve done better. Or maybe if you hadn’t turbocharged your already monstrous engine (which it didn’t need) it could’ve had less service costs and maybe made the cut.
And now, I need to add crayons to the shopping list and sleep for a few hours. Hopefully I can at least start a bit of round 2 tomorrow after classes.
9 Likes
Well I guess I did better than usual… it wasn’t quite insta-binned, kinda hung out on the rim for a bit before getting nudged the rest of the way in.
Ok it’s official. I need someone to do the engines for me.
I thought flat torque curve was good. Here’s my reasoning.
I was going for decent torque figures at lower revs. Looking at the efficiency it is a lot better off boost. But I also wanted some more power if it’s ever needed. And up in the rev range ther is some more.
Apparently ma reasoning is wrong.
To those who know. Is it harder to get the turbos spool up at low revs on boxer 4 than straight 4?
And the low door handles are to compensate the high ride height. So they are in the normal place. The car is just high.
Anyway. Got binned.
Boxer 4’s are literally the worst engine type in the game to turbocharge. You only have 2 cylinders feeding each turbo. And none of that matters if you tune your turbos so badly they literally don’t do anything. The flat torque curve is likely because your turbos never kick in.
Also, read this: Engine Design Guide (Part 5: Turbo Tuning)
1 Like
The flat torque curve part is right (but it doesn’t have to be literally perfectly flat). The thing that in this case, having a good low end torque was very important. For a turbo engine, that means spooling very soon. And a boxer 4 is currently the worst engine layout in that regards. Not much you can do to make those spool reasonably soon in the current version really.
I don’t remember the exact details of your engine but I can look in detail later if I’m back home
The door handles make some sense if that’s the case then but that was more of an extra comment/observation, not really weighted for the binhammer
Yeah I know it was the engine why it was binned.
But I’m happy cause it looks kinda cool. And I’m more a designer than engineer.
Quote “Eh? Another van? Well this one at least seems like an attempt was made.”
Thanks 
If you don’t want criticism don’t do CSR
3 Likes
well at least you did something alright, if not very good by the rubric. happens to us all.
4 Likes
Although I got binned basically immediately, it wasn’t because of the performance of my vehicle.
Engineering wise, it was sound, sensible and had a really good engine. I should know, since I’m an engineer.
So if you want a few tips, ask away. I’m happy to help!
Yours didn’t even meet the trim year. After I told you that you needed to fix that, with a lot of time left. I could’ve binned it without even mentioning it. And on top of that, it looked like a joke to these people.
Even if I hadn’t binned it then… it was ~$27000 IIRC with mediocre performance at best and several other issues
6 Likes
About your car, Oldenways
I didn’t mention the performance of your vehicle because they didn’t even look at it before binning at all since you sent something completely useless. I never said it was good or had sound engineering, I don’t know where you’re getting that. Hint: it was not good, certainly not for the price. Hint 2: when something is completely useless for a task, it probably wasn’t good engineering, with a 100% likelihood
If I were to rank ALL entries yours would among the very, very last: insta-bin for not meeting minimum requirements, even after letting you resubmit. First time it was overbudget and you didn’t use the naming scheme. And then after being given the chance to resubmit, it was still an insta-bin.
I don’t know you Mr. Engie, but any engineering-related job that I know of you could consider yourself more than fired with such a huge fuckup of wasting time and resources into something that was completely useless because you didn’t read the requirements of the project. Especially with requirements and budget being a central part of any engineering project.
If a project asks for a 50-ton rated railway bridge and you make a 5-ton railway bridge, aside from your boss giving you the ass-chewing and firing of your life you could face criminal negligence charges, losing your Engineer degree, maybe even go to jail for a looong time if it happened to collapse when a 50 ton passenger train was going over it.
But what do I know, I’m not an engineer yet and I’ve only held a few related jobs. Maybe your boss gives you “at least you tried” stickers.
I don’t remember the exact details of your submission now, but it was definitely not good even if it had had the minimum requirements. And I’d rather use the little time I have today for reviewing the finalists.
Speaking of which: Today I have classes until 22:30 again. And my time this morning has just ran out, so well, I’ll try my best to have the round 2 as soon as I can. I have almost halfway done of the reviewing itself, and I need to see about getting pics. Again, please be patient
12 Likes
jus saying, i was joking not acutaly annoyed. And it was sor of my fault about the year, but sort of not (not saying it was yours bTw)
I won’t argue with you about the topic of engineering.
I got binned, my fault. I’m fine with that and look forward to the next challenge!
Heads up, there’s always another chance for you guys!
4 Likes
Judging, Round 2
NOTE: BeamNG hasn’t been used for judging at all! Only for taking pictures. And speaking of that, apologies for the crappy photos, but I had to make do using weird angles and heavy fog in a small corner of a map to hide buildings and trees which would be completely out of place otherwise.
After having selected 8 vehicles for the shortlist, the companies who sent them were contacted to request a single vehicle for testing. Several months passed until they were all ready, winter came and passed, and it was decided to wait for spring to have everything ready. In October, the 8 vehicles were sent to Esperanza Base, in the tip of the Antarctic peninsula, for testing.
The cars were first inspected by the base mechanics to assess if there were any technical concerns with them, and to assess service costs. Then, they were test driven around the base, to see their load-carrying and towing capabilities. Afterwards, they left most of their load there and went offroading on a small circuit farther from the base. Finally, their performance, the fuel consumption during this test drive, their idle fuel consumption, and their cost with servicing factored were compared.
RCM Prairie CX 4x4 Polar
The first noticed straight away in the RCM Prairie CX was that it had pretty much no extra external equipment to speak of, it would need to be modified to maybe add one or two needed things. Another unique thing about it is that it had a sort of 2+3 layout, with very rudimentary rear seats. However, it didn’t suffer from this, as it was reasonably comfortable and practical for carrying people or small objects in there.
The technical inspection concluded it had decent enough rustproofing in chassis and body, but they would’ve prefered a full ladder frame, as the advantages of a monocoque section are practically none in here, and a ladder chassis is very tough and very easy to repair. They were very pleased with the naturally aspirated engine: even though it consumed a bit more fuel than most of the pack, its advantages outweighed this: good torque anywhere in the rev range, and very simple to maintain by having less parts to worry about (turbo, intercooler, etc.). They estimated the car would cost $22,222 after a 7-year period considering maintenance.
Performance wise, there were no complaints about this truck. For utility use like towing and carrying loads it showed no problems: it took the load fine without struggling, and it had more than enough towing/load capacity to spare. The NA engine and the short gearing greatly helped here, and with offroading too: it wasn’t the best offroader of them all but nonetheless a very good one. It was an incredibly tame vehicle during the whole drive.
During the test drive, it consumed 13.0L/100km, reasonably good.
Pros:
- NA engine
- Cheapest of the bunch considering maintenance
- Short gears
- Sufficient load/towing capabilities
Cons:
- Would need extra equipment fitted
- 3rd highest idle fuel consumption
Garuda Carstensz Arctic
You could see straight away that the Garuda Carstensz was very well equipped outside, but inside too: it had one of the nicest interiors of all these trucks, for 5 occupants. It was easily the most comfortable one, but not as practical as others due to the high ride height.
Where its ride height made it shine was in off-road use: this truck had incredibly good approach, departure, and breakover angles, and the solid axles front and rear gave its suspension a lot of articulation. It was easily the best offroader of the 8, going easily through any obstacle it might encounter.
However, it became evident it had had to make important sacrifices to achieve this: even though it promised to be decently good in paper, it really struggled with utility use. The rear suspension was described as “as if it were made of gelatin”, the truck sagged and leaned to the rear very heavily when attempting to pull a load well within its supposed towing rating, or when the bed was loaded with something within its already non-stellar payload rating. After the test drive, the truck had consumed 11.9L/100km, very little.
The technical inspection again said they would’ve prefered a ladder chassis, but after seeing these two they got a sneaking suspicion they were going to see many more with this kind of chassis. The rust-proofing was good, and they had little comments to make on the turbocharged I5 engine except that it consumed very little at idle. They found it odd that it had no front swaybar, but a rear one instead, unlike most trucks, but it seemed to work fine with this one. They also mentioned they expected this one to be pretty reliable, given the parts and their quality. With servicing costs, they estimated the truck would cost $25,736 in the long run.
Pros:
- Incredibly good offroader
- Comfortable
- Low idle consumption
- Reliable
Cons:
- Sagged very heavily when carrying and/or towing a load, not good
- 2nd most expensive one
- A bit impractical
Kuma KO V6 EXT
The next truck tested was the Kuma KO V6 EXT, another truck with a naturally aspirated V6 engine. In certain ways it was similar to the RCM Prairie, but this one came well equipped. In fact, in many areas it seemed to be a straight upgrade from the Prairie. The interior had 5 full seats, and it was also very practical for ferrying things and people around.
The technical inspection by now stopped mentioning the hybrid monocoque/ladder chassis, as it seemed to be the norm rather than the exception with these trucks. The rust-proofing was good, and the engine too despite being the one that consumed the most at idle, which was a bit inevitable with a 3.8L NA engine. 1.72L/h was still found to be more than good enough given the advantages. Again, they also expected this one to be very reliable. They estimated it’d be the most expensive of the bunch: $26,415 after 7 years.
In offroading it performed perfectly, not as good as the Garuda Carstensz but still very well, especially considering this one had independent front suspension and wasn’t lifted as much. It certainly performed better than the RCM Prairie, or any other of the trucks that would be tested later. The firmer dampers made it feel much more planted and controllable, but didn’t restrict articulation enough to be a problem.
In utility it also performed incredibly well. Unlike the last one, it didn’t sag too much when towing or carrying, the harder suspension made sure of that. It was also very tame during the whole drive, but consumed 15.5L/100km: high, but not high enough to be a problem.
Pros:
- NA engine
- Very good offroader
- Reliable
- Good for utility too
- Planted, tame
- Practical
Cons:
- Most expensive of the bunch
- Fuel hungry in comparison with most others
Straker Kakadu AXT
The Straker Kakadu AXT was the cheapest truck of the bunch, even after taking into account maintenance: the mechanics doing the technical inspection expected it to cost $22,291 after 7 years. It had reasonable rust-proofing, and no problems were found with the 2.8L I4 engine. They were pleased with the equipment it came with.
Inside, there wasn’t much to say. The interior sat 5 people and was good enough to get the job done, reasonably comfortable for what one could expect out of these vehicles, and very practical for carrying things around.
Its rear axle payload rating was lowish, like in the Garuda Carstensz, so it was feared it would suffer from the same issues. And indeed it did: another case of gelatinous rear suspension made it sag too much when pulling a load, and the rear got noticeably lowered with a sizeable load.
However, unlike the Garuda, in this one it didn’t result in good off-road capabilities. Far from it: its offroad performance was acceptable but far from stellar. The area in which it did the best was being practical for in-base carrying of people or objects, but this wasn’t too important of a consideration. During the whole test drive it consumed 13.3L/100km
Pros:
- Cheapest
- Practical
Cons:
- Sags heavily
- Not as good offroad as most others to explain this either
- Least reliable one
Rhisuki Bouken
The next truck test drive was the Rhisuki Bouken. The technical inspection was weirded out by the choice of an inline 6 engine for this displacement, but it still worked and consumed almost nothing at idle: 1.12L/h. They were also weirded out by the choice of small tires: they thought that tires with much higher sidewall on the same rims could’ve worked much better. Aside from that, the truck had good rust-proofing in its chassis and aluminium panels, and it was expected to cost $24,234 after 7 years.
The interior was odd in that it only had 4 seats, but unremarkable aside from that. It was good enough for what was needed, except that one extra seat could’ve allowed a bit more flexibility for carrying one more person.
This one also sagged when towing a load, albeit not nearly as much as the Garuda Carstenz or the Straker Kakadu. It was manageable, but much less would’ve been preferable.
Offroad it performed not as well as some of the previous trucks. The lowish sidewalls were a bit of an issue at times, but the short gearing helped. Another problem came up during the test drive: the brakes locked up too easily, especially the rear ones. The ABS was engaging constantly if one wasn’t gentle with the brake pedal.
Pros:
- Best idle fuel consumption
- Decent price, middle of the pack
Cons:
- ABS engaging constantly
- Low sidewalls, small tires
- Non-stellar performance
Albatross Redwood
One thing that the base personnel couldn’t stop themselves from commenting: the Albatross Redwood didn’t look nearly as well as the other trucks. They weren’t wrong, but looks wasn’t important for utility and offroad. Another noticeable thing was that this pickup had the smallest bed of the bunch, not by much, but still a consideration.
The technical inspection found no problems or anything of note in the vehicle or in the engine, except that they pointed out that it was the least rust-proofed of the 8. Not like they were going to drive in salted roads, but still, these trucks would be used in plain wilderness often. They expected it to cost $23,008 after 7 years.
In utility, it did quite well. This one definitely didn’t have gelatinous rear suspension, the rear was firm enough to handle carrying or pulling loads. It was also found to be very pratical for carrying smaller things or people around the base, but this wasn’t a big consideration.
During offroading though, the Redwood struggled compared to other options, it just wasn’t prepared for the same level of offroading. It could still come back in one piece of course, but it had to be more picky about what path to take in a few cases. However, when it came back the on-board computer displayed an amazing 9.6L/100km. It hardly mattered as much as the problems when offroading though.
Pros:
- Antarctic hypermiler
- Practical
- Good for utility
Cons:
- Looks
- Not as good for heavier offroading (worst of the 8)
Teuvo Terracotta
There was a problem with your truck, the grille dissapeared in my computer, even after re-importing. So I had to use the photo you posted instead. Grassy Antarctica with a paved road on the background, ofc
The Teuvo Terracotta stood out for being a noticeably large truck, but also for having a 6-seat interior, which could come in real handy for ferrying people around the base during bad weather.
The mechanics doing the inspection were pleased at at last seeing a full ladder frame truck, with good rust-proofing to go with it too. They had no more comments aside from again, being weirded out at the use of a turbo inline 6 engine for such a low displacement for a truck. They estimated the service costs for this one to be fairly low, which placed it second in price despite not having the second best price tag: $22,656 after 7 years estimated.
Being such a large truck, the Terracotta had a very big payload capacity: both in weight and in bed size. Not all of it was needed though, and the truck carried or towed the test loads with no problems.
Offroad capability was pretty good too, albeit not the best. It didn’t struggle in here either. The small problem it had was that being such a large vehicle it wasn’t as practical as other options for carrying people and things around, but this wasn’t much of an issue and was partially offset by the extra seat. After the test drive, it had consumed 13.1L/100km
Pros:
- Good space and good payload
- Good offroad and utility performance
- Good price after taking into account low service costs
Cons:
- More space and payload than needed
- Large, making it a bit impractical
Wallys Grand Expedition HD
The last truck to be tested was the Wallys Grand Expedition HD, but this time it wasn’t a pickup. It stood out of course, by being the only SUV, but sadly it didn’t stand out positively in the test drive.
The mechanics were pleased at this one having a full ladder frame, but were not pleased at all with what was under the hood. The 4L NA engine promised good low and mid end performance, but, such a long engine in not as large of a truck meant that things were starting to get a bit tight and harder to maintain, especially considering that it had had a block heater and other engine accessories added like all the other trucks. Considering maintenance, it’s price ended up being a bit more than expected: $24,068 after 7 years. Also, it had the highest idle fuel consumption of all 8.
Performance was not stellar. During the utility test it could carry or pull loads without problems, with the suspension being firm and planted. However, the manual transmission with longish gearing meant that it wasn’t as straightforward to drive and that it required a bit of clutch finesse in cases.
Offroad performance was decent, but again, required clutch finesse in some parts, creating more trouble than what was worth. But the other problem found during the test drive was that the front breaks were incredibly easy to lock up, ABS engaged all the time unless one was extremely light with the brake pedal… but in that case one wasn’t getting much braking done with the rear brakes either, especially if carrying a load.
Pros:
- NA engine
- Covered cargo area
Cons:
- Tightish engine bay
- Long gearing + manual transmission
- Front brakes locking up too easily
- Highest idle fuel consumption
A decision had to be made, as only one type of truck could be chosen. Looking back at the notes taken for each, there was one that clearly did very well in both offroad and utility, and was very practical and tame enough to drive on top of that. Even though it was more expensive, the price difference wasn’t much and was clearly worth it, and it being reliable meant that it probably wouldn’t have many unexpected expenses on top of that.
Ranking:
- 8th: Wallys Grand Expedition by @vmo
- 7th: Straker Kakadu AXT by @Centurion_23
- 6th: Garuda Carstenz Arctic by @goblin95
- 5th: Albatross Redwood by @zschmeez
- 4th: Rhisuki Bouken by @Repti
- 3th: RCM Prairie CX 4x4 Polar by @thecarlover
- 2nd: Teuvo Terracotta by @LS-Vehicles
Winner:
Congratulations, @Xepy !
Don’t start tagging the winner everywhere, leave the surprise.
Two Kuma KO V6 EXT have been ordered by the Air Force and five by the Army, but of course, repainted in a bright red color that best stands out against the snow in the Antarctic winter. These trucks will be very useful for many research bases in the Southern Continent.
At $40000/unit they were no doubt a very good deal and really worth it! Because that was absolutely the actual price of the car, no overprice has been paid here and no money has misteriously appeared in anyone’s pockets. In a totally, completely, unrelated note, Xepy found a bag with several thousand dollars in it on the street. Sounds like you have some laundry to do! (And a CSR to host!)
Thanks everyone for participating
I’m free at last!
This was my first time having to host the CSR and after the whole openbeta period, it seemed like this one had extra pressure to be good. So I hope it has been good enough, I tried my best. I don’t think I’ll be volunteering to do this again anytime soon, especially now that I’ll be pretty busy. Please ununderstand that there can only be one winner in the end, and that everybody else’s car have to see the fury of the binhammer, sooner or later.
18 Likes
Congratulations to Xepy for winning this challenging and compelling round! It’s his first legitimate victory if I am not mistaken, and a well-deserved one at that, considering the strong opposition present. Only now do I know why the KO managed to… erm, KO the competition - it was just too good, despite being the most expensive of the eight finalists.
At any rate, this is the fifth round in a row to be set in the modern era (2010 or later), so I’m expecting the next round to be set in a previous decade - it would be a nice change if it were, even though it doesn’t have to be. Let’s just hope that CSR95 turns out to be as engaging as this one.
1 Like
First win actually! Multiple finalist positions and had host duties passed onto me once before though.
This one was definitely very good and the reviews from round 1 to end were very well written. Thank you for hosting @ElMenduko.
I will have to pass hosting to next in line however, as I know I’ll be too busy in the next couple weeks.
7 Likes
Thanks again for the host! I really enjoyed your writing style, and the challenge itself was super original. I hope to see another CSR from you in the future!