According to the calculations, having a car that saves 100$ on the service cost is equal to have 50 more points on stats. (10 drivability, 10 safety, 20 comfort and 10 prestige!) It is THE most important stat (if not the ONLY) of the whole car! (a medium value of 3500 points on 5500 is than 63% almost 2/3 of the whole score.) And it doesen’t reflect much the behaviour of a luxury car buyer.
Moving this to an extreme, I could have sent an econobox with 400$ of service costs, that would have performed better than a car with 500 stats point more than the econobox.
I also don’t think that service costs should not be much of a priority for buyers of very high-end cars (including luxury cars and supercars), given that such customers tend to have more than enough disposable income to cover servicing and other maintenance. With hindsight, that particular criterion should have taken a back seat to comfort, prestige and drivability.
I think you underestimate the number of people that buy cars to impress people, and where the car ends up being on the brink of what they can afford to maintain. The story Vri set out at the beginning does fit in that background. Even though the calculations might have been a bit iffy (I did not look at them in detail).
I agree with @NormanVauxhall and @abg7
Basically, if you built a car that’s reliable and cheap to maintain, you could get away with it being not ideal in terms of drivability, sportiness, comfort or prestige. This isn’t exactly what I would have imagined this challenge to be, then, since we were asked to build a prestigeous luxury car with a sporty nature. But those cars (at least in real life) are generally not always the most reliable or cheap to maintain, so giving these attributes priority over how the car actually drives, is peculiar in my opinion.
If we take a deep look in philososhy of “what is luxury”, luxury is something looks valuable, refined in detail, given attention to aesthetic details.
(insert “aesthetic” meme here)
For example, do you have a wristwatch?, if you do have one, you may look what makes highend brands (I’d not mention the name, brand or marque as not express or imply to any advertisment) become luxury item not from the name or reputation itself.
But if you compared to any item from luxury brand, you’ll see some “black sheep” in terms of aesthetic, and also some consumer brand may have top notch line up that may look like a luxury item. (and yes, I do have one of consumer wristwatch that matched to this philosophy)
Let’s say, if you’re looking for some car that looks luxury, you would not choose any car with wide gap between items, components or parts within specific general design taste.
(you would not have too many wild and complex lines with smotth body line and claimed as “luxury” in 1980 - 1990 or even in today, would you? As most buyers are aged around 40-60 with hefty money to spend)
Mine is a bit risky, adding some chrome accent line, despite preference of clean body line in late 80 to 90 body style, but luckily it turned out as very execelent design. (like turning up volume to 11)
One thing people should consider before whining about being instabinned in a CSR is that it is by no means a scientific test, but is meant to capture one specific buyers taste. No real car customer is buying a car with brains only, the heart always will have its say too. For example, I know a case where the dual steering column stalks on a BMW had the final say and made the customer buy a BMW instead of a single stalk Mercedes. Does that make the BMW a better car on paper? No. Which system do I prefer? The Mercedes single stalk. Does that make the Mercedes a better car on paper? No. It’s just a matter of taste. And peoples taste make them “instabin” really good cars IRL for very irrational reasons. Take the Honda Legend as an example, they have always been really nice cars in almost every aspect, but are rare as hens teeth here in Sweden, just because japanese cars doesn’t have the right status here to make people pay a hefty price tag.
I was unaware at the time of taking up the hosting of the round that I was on a time crunch for university work. As this has come to light for me, I will be unable to complete the reviews in a reasonable timeframe for the CSR round.
I will push to finish them, and attempt to fix the rather shitty scoring sheet, once I am finished with my work.
On the more positive side, I can produce a top 6 so that the competition may continue in a timely manner. This is an error entirely upon my own head, and I hope I haven’t annoyed anyone. Anyway, on to the list of Winners.
I usually don’t call people out on things to this extent, but I can’t just sit here and say nothing. This round sucked, real bad. Not because of the cars in it - there were some very good ones, like always - but because of the job the host did.
Think of it; think of the combined time and effort that all the entrants put into this, between making their cars, and creating their ads. How on earth would anyone consider it to be acceptable to answer that effort in kind with such a half-assed, untested review system, and then top it all off with a big, wet fart of a final post, with no reviews at all for the finalists? Frankly, it’s insulting to the finalists to do that to them, it’s insulting to the very idea of CSR and its creator, and it’s insulting to the community in general to conclude it like this.