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

CSR120: The Funky So And So [Finals Released]


#145

You ordered a 1970s realistic American muscle shitbox and that’s what you got, so I found it odd for you to complain about wheelspin. In any case the design was bleh, not my forte so I agree with you there.

Edit: Don’t think I’m trashing you or salty like some persons here. I get that CSR is heavily based on personal preferences and is such a subjective competition. I also appreciate the time you took to organize and create this competition, so me or anyone else doesn’t have the right to tell you how to run your round, as NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO BE A PART OF IT.

I think a lot of people forget that nobody is obligated to critique their designs in any of these competitions. The community here creates these competitions on their own time and it usually involves a lot of work. So people really need to chill the hell out and appreciate that we have them instead of bitching FFS!


#146

If everybody just copy-pastes a Mustang and calls it a day, how is that any fun?

That’s kind of the point though? Realistic muscle cars with period accurate engineering and design and inspired by cars in real life. What’s the point of a competition where everyone gets to be a winner, anyone can submit anything?

The rules are there to call a hard limit, if something you won’t accept fits then maybe you didn’t actually test that the rules were appropriate.

No, rules are there to weed out uncompetitive entires. The task as to make a car which people of the era would have actually bought. This isn’t it. Again, not everybody gets to be a inner and there need to be standards in period correct realism.

This is the biggest problem. When you make wishy-washy but strict rules then people will tend to play it safe. It’s a competition; if you can’t take risks to make a winning car then it’s dull.

Is playing it safe a bad thing?

Also what exactly about that hilariously poorly designed and unrealistic meme car designed by somebody with little knowledge of automotive engineering, makes it a “winning car?”


#147

Yeah I was basically trying to squeeze as much as I could out of an inline six. Big straight sixes from the Japanese have existed a long time, like the Toyota F series and Nissan P series. And while DOHC wasn’t super common this was around the time the Japanese were starting to experiment with it; the Nissan S20 being one of them. The engine I used is basically combining both of those, available in 4.1 displacement normally but bored and stroked out for this application.

That said I don’t mind being binned and fully expected it, my car was just too out-of-the-norm to be a serious contender for what’s essentially a 70’s muscle car challenge. I appreciate that you complimented the design, especially given that I’m normally a pretty sloppy designer.

This was my first challenge and I think I learned a lot from it. So thank you for hosting it and good luck judging the preliminaries.


#148

I didn’t even take part in this round but I can’t help but feel sorry for the hosts right now.

I think this is probably half a dozen rounds you’ve acted like this when you’ve been binned in the preliminaries and you’ve gone back with something along the lines of “if it isn’t in the rules it must be accepted”. No. It is not the hosts obligation to give you a detailed recap of the typical engineering ideas of the era, or a fully, down to the most finite detail description of what they want. Why? Because that is your job. If the host were to tell you everything, then everybody would just submit the same car.

I’m probably talking to a brick wall here, but countless times you have done this and countless times people have told you how the CSR works. If you don’t like it, or don’t agree with how the CSR works, then that is your problem. There are plenty of other competitions out there to take part in, and there is nothing stopping you from starting your own version where the information you feel is lacking can be included right from the start.

CSR has been running for 120 rounds now, all of which have been like this. If you can’t get the jist of how things work from 120 rounds you can look back on, you probably never will. Do yourself a favour and either get over it or get good.


#149

I saw a few mentions of “protruding bumpers” in the critiques so far. Here’s a little information on American car bumpers of this time.

The 5 mile-per-hour crash (battering ram) bumpers we all associate with '70’s American cars weren’t mandated into existence until 1973. Though many cars started to transition in 1972, many of the sportier offerings were still trying to incorporate bumpers into the car’s styling. One of the best ways to see this visually is with the Pontiac GTO:

1970 GTO

1971-1972 GTO

1973 GTO

I only point this out because my submission is a 1971 model, which has decidedly flush bumpers. I hope I’m not judged too negatively on this (I tried to make it as period-correct as possible). I usually don’t make it past the prelim round so here’s hoping!


#150

Haha! Not binned!
Mostly likely because I went crossplane, instead of the Italian traditional flatplane… And used a Falcon body. And reworked the front…

I’ll be happily surprised if I even make top 5, to be honest.

Edit: In my defense, my company is basically Italian. Don’t bin me for OHC, please…


#151

While the 70-72 GTOs did not have the federal impact bumpers yet, they did still have protruding bumpers. They used an nose cone that acted as a bumper, and that does protrude forward from the body. It’s similar to what you’d find on the 1970 Dodge Charger, or 71 Plymouth GTX, and others, but painted in body color. It’s a bumper that’s part of the design, sure, but to say that the bumpers are flush is a stretch. On the designs I’ve seen that commented on, like Aaron’s and Mat’s for example, the protruding bumpers comment was made, but those cars are not designed like they have the federal impact bumpers in place.


#152

This is true. Maybe “flush” wasn’t the correct word. I’m hoping my car falls more in line with the '71 style:


#153

Yay I got binned! I never really trusted myself in this challenge but wanted to do it anyway just to see what I could do. Validated that the answer was “basically nothing” lol. On to find a challenge I’m better at :slight_smile:


#154

That 72 and the 73 you posted aren’t based on the same chassis, see 1973 Pontiac Firebird vs 1972 Pontiac firebird.


#155

What? Yes, the 73 GTO was a different platform to the 68-72, but neither was built on the Firebird platform, and the Firebird was built on the same platform from 70-81, but above all that, his goal was to show what a ‘73 up impact bumper looks like.


#156

Yo it seems that i’m fucking stupid, please ignore what I said before.


#157
More salt coming your way


The ones that got away


A few cars that at first glance might have been perfectly fine for the preliminaries, but they do break a rule or two. (basically I goofed and left them out from the binning) :confused:



@Petakabras

Turia Bravo 370

The car has many performance parts and usually means high service costs, however, it’s rather low, but the real issue is the Over-Head-Cam engine, too advanced for a vehicle required for this era, atleast from the US. Even with this fancy-pants engine, it’s fuel economy isn’t anything to write home about (25.5L/100km). Also, it’s design leaves much to be desired, don’t get me wrong, it’s got all the right stuff on it, however, the frontend, rear end aren’t exactly fantastic to look at.



@Slyo_vom_Pluto

Wagonmaker 650 'Bat'

A great looking, one of the only proper 4 door muscle cars, a real treat to look at, however, it has a head scratching choice of an engine, a 6.5 Over-Head-Cam V12??? However, it’s service costs weren’t too bad at all (1128.8). While it has the best fuel consumption of these binees (19.5L/100km), maybe there’s something to this V12 muscle car thing? But it’s just wrong as a muscle car, another genuine shame to bin, but because of the engine, it’s almost not.



@GetWrekt01

Marvin Charlotte 378 GT

Other than the 5-speed manual, this car doesn’t have anything going against it, other than the styling to some extent, some of it’s good, some, not so good.
Sad, really, it had the lowest service costs of any car entered (915.3). It tied with HybridTronny’s Denver Crusader GT with having the best reliability out of all the cars (60.4).
Fuel consumption was about average, if not above average (25.7L/100km).
Shame to bin a car for having one little issue, however the rules have been set and are meant to be followed (even if it wasn’t specifically said, but should be common sense if you know anything about early 70’s american cars, if not, google it, this isn’t being directed to GW1, but in general).



@thecarlover

Dominion Alouette SP440

One that I wanted to add to the previous post, but somehow I forgot why I had added it to the bin list and then removed it from there.

This car must have seen a lot of action in it’s short life at the hands of another officer, it’s still even got it’s siren on top. Shame that this ‘72 model isn’t equipped with the proper engine, must have been blown during a chase and now it has an older ‘68 one put in, we don’t really want a clapped out car for work purposes. This engine also isn’t great on the economy front (25.7L/100km), why was this engine picked? And it’s a bit too loud as well (34.7), shame, a real beauty isn’t she?
She just looks perfect for the job.





The Survivors


@zschmeez Albatross Rivera
@Arn38fr Watson Corkscrew Yellow
@Kursk Kliment Wombat | Monaro Special
@Jaimz FM Cuda 306
@TheEpicRanger6 Cavalry Lance
@Chichicoofisial Santuario 6.4-8
@EnCR Avantii Relpaula 72’ facelift
@Xepy Edelgard Wyvern GTS 426 Firestorm
@Conan BKOO Senner 427 UltraSport
@Spot Contra Montegro
@CriticalSet9849 Morton Venery 363
@Abg7 MAD Corsair GTE
@Donutsnail Turból Centurion Gladiator 420
@HighOctaneLove Bogliq Baroness 440-6
@GassTiresandOil Armor Streethawk



For now….



At Jones garage

John is looking for other cars Jones has found.
John yells out Jones name while going through the garage.
John can’t find him, but he found the cars in the backlot.
He goes to check the cars out.

John:
“Wow, how did he get 15 cars at this place, or at all?” “Shit, he is good.”

Albatross Rivera

@zschmeez

What’s worse than being slow (8s 0-100)? It’s being slow and being unable to slow down (69.6). Doesn’t help that it’s missing the side reflectors/indicators. Why wasn’t this binned? It’s cheap, really cheap (16600), and it’s not too bad on driveability (33.7) and has decent service costs (1186).

John:
Look at this big lump, doesn’t look too bad, quite a fly ride. Wonder what’s the out-put on this? 284 horsepower? Fuck me, only thing that’s going to move on it is it’s shadow and it’s not like it’s great on fuel either (24.9L/100km), also the brakes look weak. Nah, this won’t cut it.

@Arn38fr

Watson Corkscrew Yellow

Muscle cars are supposed to be powerful, quick, stylish and cheap. This is…. Some of that, it’s pretty powerful (314 hp), it’s pretty quick (6.8s to 100kph), it’s also very stylish, but it isn’t cheap to buy (24,000) or cheap to run (1739.5), what’s more it’s quite loud (34.7), so it would cause problems as an undercover car.

John:
Would you look at this! This is a hot little car, well, maybe not so little, but damn does that yellow grab my attention! Looks like she’s pretty fast….. wait, how much for a service? Jesus and she’s a bit thirsty also (26.7l / 100km). Best not to get a money pit.

@Kursk

Kliment Wombat | Monaro Special

This cars’ missing some ‘key’ features :> And it’s too loud (34.9), not great for an undercover car. However it’s cheap (18300), it’s cheap to service (902.8) and looks pretty decent, however, it’s quite light, not terribly light, but heavier cars are preferred.

John:
Is this car Kosher? Anyway, looks like someone filled in some of the keyholes on the car, wonder why’s that? Oh man, this ones loud, that 4 barrel dual carb motor sure sounds mean, like really mean, jeez I think my ears hurt. But man, the service costs are so low on these, but that’s probably due to the all round drum’s. Shoot, a bit of a drinker aren’t you (27.6l / 100km), yeah, not sure about this one.

@Jaimz

FM Cuda 306

Loud (34) and slow (7.9), might not be as loud as the others, but it sure lacks the grunt to back up the noise it makes, I’m guessing the 305 horsepower it has isn’t enough to propel this 1.8 tonne coupe.

John:
Well, this one’s something, quite wide, she must handle well, or either needs it to handle all that power she has. Oh, it’s not even fast, but it’s loud. Also sort of thirsty (31.1l / 100km). Eh, I don’t think Mark would give this car a spin even if it was the most beautiful car in the world, and it sure isn’t. It’s just a bit underwhelming.

@TheEpicRanger6

Cavalry Lance

Another loud car (34.5), however, it’s not all that slow. But it isn’t super fast either (7.1s 0-100). Also is missing some details such as keyholes and an extra antenna(s). Also styling in general is lacking, quite bland in general.

John:
I guess that’s all from this sid……. Oh wait, didn’t notice this one. Not very eye catching, is it? But, maybe that’s a good thing, for an undercover car, but you probably want it to be quiet then also, this sure isn’t. Jesus, she sure guzzles fuel (33.9l / 100km). Wait, where are the keyholes? What the hell Jones, where do you get these cars, the next ones hopefully are better.

#158

So… After several waves of binning, my entry is somehow guaranteed a top-10 finish? I haven’t managed that in a while! It seems like my decision to combine a mild cam profile and the leanest possible AFR is paying off… For now. My use of a standard intake and short cast headers also helped, since it kept the loudness down.

Anyway, you have delivered a set of honest reviews for us to look at - I can’t wait for the final results!


#159

Yeah that 5 spd manual came out of that 2AM crunch to make a car. Considering I threw it around in an hour, I’m satisfied with the fact that I got lowest service cost and best reliability, along with not too high fuel consumption. I’m genuinely fine with the outcomes. Had I been in a sane state, I’d have never put a 5 spd manual in a GT spec muscle car from the early 70s.

Oh well, good luck to the remaining 10!


#160

Phew, i survived again.


#161

So the reason I have a 1968 engine in the car is because it doesn’t make sense to use a completely new engine for every new model and facelift out there, seeing as real companies will reuse an engine for at least a few years before making any changes to it. In this case it’s a company engine that was fitting for this new generation without any changes so it was left untouch.
I can understand the fuel economy not being stellar, but binning my car for not having a brand new engine in it seems rather arbitrary.


#163

Maybe the flavour text made things a bit unclear. Here’s a screencap of the explicit rule you violated which rightfully merited an insta- :wastebasket:

Perhaps the 11 people who liked your post also missed this part.


#164

The best part? Likes aren’t undoable here after a min so uhhh yeah I’m stuck with liking both of you :triumph:

Wait that doesn’t sound quite right…


#165

Any news regarding this challenge? I understand that getting the final batch of reviews and results out will take quite a while, and I can accept a wait of a few days to a week if it means a better conclusion.