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

Embrace the boredom [Judging completed]


#22

@Hshan
@HighOctaneLove
@lukerules117
Thank you for your entries. I’m almost at the end of the judging process. The results will arrive tomorrow


#23

The results are finally in (sorry for the delay)

Let’s start from the first one who submitted the cars, shall we?

@lukerules117
Midsize sedan/wagon

Let’s go with the sedan’s positives first: the standard auto gearbox is disgustingly sluggish, deserving a place in the prestigious “Slush-O-Matic” gearboxes lineage, it can achieve a good fuel efficiency, the exterior is very plain and I especially like the looks of the front grille, and the comfort level is decent, but the “BL4” engine features a performance intake, and I think that a performance intake on a regular sedan would be too causal and exciting for Bland Motors’ engineers. It also has only 4 seats (when I said in the rules that all cars must have at least 5 seats), uses excessively big rims (a problem with basically all’s Lukerules117’s entries) and has a very weird boot handle. It also doesn’t feature nor the mandatory side reflectors nor ABS (which, imo, it’s a big no no).
About the wagon, I have some more to say: it has the same engine as the sedan, with the same casual performance intake and the same overall defects. Unlike the sedan, it’s very low on comfort, but it has a regular boot handle

Small sedan/coupe


About the sedan… Well, it uses the same disgusting automatic gearbox, so that’s a plus, and it’s in general pretty average, like every good Bland Motors product should be, but it doessn’t lack some questionable engineering and styling decisions, like the choice of making it a “2+3” instead of a real 5 seater or the weird front face or a not really period-correct rear end or the fact that it still doesn’t have ABS. I have to say though, that it features side reflectors, even though they are only in the rear and are the wrong colour (orange/amber instead of red)
I unfortunately don’t have much positive to say on the coupe on top of what I already said about the small sedan, apart from the decent fuel economy an the fact that it’s finally a car where that casual performance intake would make some sense. About all the stuff that it doesn’t have like ABS, or a decent interior (which is highly lackluster for a comfort-oriented coupe) or a bland exterior.

and last

SUV


The only positives I have about this car are the fact that it’s FWD, uses the same gearbox as the other entries and the same engine. It unfortunately carries all the problems with the previous cars, like that pesky performance intake and the excessively big rims. The styling also seems too interesting and too old at the same time. The colour too looks too interesting to be on a Bland Motors product.

It’s @HighOctaneLove turn’s now on the chopping block

First, the Small sedan/coupe


Starting with the sedan’s positives, I really have to compliment with you on the design, because it manages to incorporate Bland Motors’ philosophy in an almost perfect way, being boring but not bad. It also is average in everything, a trait that every good car from the Lumpy Group should have (it also has side reflectors integrated in the headlights/taillights). Sadly tho, the positives end here. The longitudinal FWD config is too interesting and unique for a Bland Motors product, the suspension setup is also too advanced and technically interesting for a BM’s product. A big grinding point for me is the gearbox: it’s and advanced automatic… When you think about Bland Motors’ gearboxes the last thing you should think about is “advanced” (it also doesn’t follow the rules, since I stated “either a 3 or 4 speed regular automatic”. The safety is also improvable
The coupe shares the same positives with the sedan, but also most of the negatives, to which it adds a very casual downforce undertray and excessively sporty rims

Midsize sedan/wagon


This one will be brief, since both the sedan and the estate share the same pros like the great exterior (even though it looks maybe a bit tpoo sporty for its own good) and a better safety equipment than the small sedan/coupe and cons, like the weird drivetrain, the gearbox, and an excessively high fuel consumption

SUV


Time for probably the car that made me suffer the most, the SUV. I loved this car’s superlatively boring yet good design, but my love faded away when I looked at the engineering: the ride is fine, it’s very average and it has 5 seats, but it uses the same eccentric engine configuration, suspension configuration and gearbox as the previous ones, it has forged internals (which would be very borderline on a sporty car, so they are totally out of place here) and uses a Limited Slip Diff (try to explain to old Danny or to Karen why his car costs more and what a LSD does… Definitely not something that Bland Motors would do)

Now last, but definitely not least, @Hshan

Small sedan


This is probably the best car submitted until now: the styling is perfectly BM, the engine design is very good and the engineering behind it is totally reasonable. The only two problems I have with this car are the lack of a front side reflector and the fact that it uses an advanced automatic gearbox, which, as I said before, not only goes against the rules, but it also feels wrong to see on a Bland Motors car

Coupe


The pros for this car are very similar to the small sedan’s, with the styling being very reasonable, like the engineering. But, unlike the sedan, this one has some more problems, like the fact that it uses lightweight forged internals (which I think would be too much excitement for Bland Motors engineers), that the rims are too big, that it still lacks front side reflectors and that it has that infamous advanced auto gearbox. The colour also looks a bit too interesting. Maybe a respray with some “Prosthetic Beige” would help

Midsize sedan/wagon


Like HighOctaneLove’s midsize cars, these are very similar between themselves, with the only big difference being that the wagon has no TCS (while the sedan has it). They both share a similar good design and similar engineering choices, included the now well known illegal gearbox, and an inline 5, which would be very well accepted if these weren’t Bland Motors’ products and MultiLink suspensions in the back like some sort of interesting casuals. Neither of them have the mandatory side reflectors nor a boring colour like beige or white.

And now, last of the pack, the

SUV


What can I say about this car other than the fact that this isn’t an SUV. This is a crossover/wagon thing like the Subaru Forester and Outback. It also has the same engine and gearbox as the midsize sedan, but, on top of that, it doesn’t have front side reflectors and it has a viscous-joint LSD (I already talked about Bland Motors’ POV on LSDs while discussing HighOctaneLove’s entry)

So, now, let’s finish this

Lukerules117: You made the best overall engineering choices (apart for that intake and the seats), but your cars are poorly designed, especially when compared to the other entries, and I said that the cars will be majorly judged based on the styling.

HighOctaneLove: Your design is very good, even though you made several poor decision engineering wise, but while being very good, it might be a bit too interesting for a Bland Motors’ product

Hshan: Imo your general design was slightly worse than HighOctaneLove’s but more suitable for a Bland Motors’ product, especially regarding the compact sedan

So, in conclusion, engineering wise the winner is clearly @lukerules117, because he followed the rules more than the other two (especially regarding the gearbox, a pivot point in the Bland Motors Experience), but, since I said that I would’ve judged the cars mainly on the styling, the winner is @Hshan apart for the SUV, where the winner can only be @HighOctaneLove.

Good job to all three and thank you for taking part in my first challenge! If you have anything to complain about, I’m here, ready to listen


#24

Well, the game considers this to be an SUV, and I consider it to be an SUV, so for me it is one :stuck_out_tongue: A short definition would be helpful, as that’s one of the car terms most varied in their exact meaning. Also I didn’t think that “regular automatic” means no advanced ones. As for the reflectors in the front, I just forgot about them :smile: The I5 was the easiest way to get a bit more unsporty power - just add a cylinder.

Overall the challenge wasn’t described the best, but still quite nice and with an interesting idea.

Oh, and come on, how is black not a boring colour? :wink:


#25

I sure hope you mean that, rather than just hear what’s said then dismiss it as “saltiness”. Anyways…

You know what really grinds my gears? Ambiguous text that then gets treated literally when it comes to judgement day…

Advanced automatics are regular automatics too. The DSG gearbox can be used in automatic mode, which looks to the user like a regular automatic, but is clearly not your traditional, bland, slushbox.

So your statement reads less like “Use only the Automation Regular Auto setting” and more like “Don’t use edgelord tech; slushboxes are fine”. Since 2/3rds of your entries had a “technically correct” gearbox means that you need to clarify your rules more concisely. Which leads me to my next point…

I’ll use this quote to illustrate my general point, plus I’ll use this quote;

You make a number of claims to “poor engineering choices” on mine and Hshan’s entries, yet you’ve failed to determine what’s considered “fancy” or “complicated”. By 1995, the only fancy suspension was pushrod suspension; all the others are proven, common and generic. Since you wanted comfort prioritised over everything else, it made sense to include a better design of suspension at the design stage (where it’s the easiest to implement and engineer) and none of the design options render the car too complex to produce.

So, no, no-one here made poor engineering decisions. Your ruleset failed to set any concrete definitions or maximum engineering boundaries so you got results that didn’t fit your expectations…

So, I just want to say, thankyou for being brave and hosting a competition. I actually enjoyed trying to make a comfort focussed build and I would be willing to enter any competition you designed and hosted in the future.

If you don’t read he specific criticisms then please just take this piece of advice; make your rules logical and consistent, keep them concise and unambiguous and you’ll have no drama getting entries!


#26

Out of curiosity what suspension type did you use?


#27

I’ll check and edit this post when I know…

EDIT: Here are the metrics for all my entrants

(Short answer @lukerules117, Double Wishbone, Multilink on all models)

Prosaic Si (Small sedan)

Meh-HighOctaneLove-Compact_-_Prosaic_Si.car (35.4 KB)

60Kw, SOHC 3v, 1.7L Inline four, “BL4” family

Best Markets:

  • Premium B: 132.1
  • Commuter: 115.3
  • Commuter P: 112.9

7.5L per 100Km (91RON), 15.4s 0-100, 191Km/h

Prosaic SiR (Small sport coupe)

Meh-HighOctaneLove-Compact_-_Prosaic_SiR.car (37.1 KB)

147Kw, SOHC 3v, 12.1L Turbo, Inline four, “BL4” family

Best Markets:

  • Fun P: 118.2
  • Premium B: 110.3
  • Family Sports: 106.5

9.5L per 100Km (91RON), 8.23s 0-100, 266Km/h

Insipid Si (Midsize sedan)

Meh-HighOctaneLove-Midsize_-_Insipid_Si.car (29.8 KB)

76Kw, SOHC 3v, 1.9L Inline four, “BL4” family

Best Markets:

  • Premium B: 145.7
  • Commuter P: 121.1
  • Fam. Util. P: 121.1

8.7L per 100Km (91RON), 14.3s 0-100, 199Km/h

Insipid Si-W (Midsize Wagon)

Meh-HighOctaneLove-Midsize_-_Insipid_Si-W.car (31.7 KB)

76Kw, SOHC 3v, 1.9L Inline four, “BL4” family

Best Markets:

  • Premium B: 127.5
  • Fm. Util. P: 121.5
  • Family Sports (:flushed:): 119

9.0L per 100Km (91RON), 14.6s 0-100, 194Km/h

Torpid Si (SUV)

Meh-HighOctaneLove-SUV_-_Torpid_Si.car (31.2 KB)

113Kw, SOHC 3v, 2.1L Inline four, “BL4” family

Best Markets:

  • Fam. Util. P: 129.2
  • Utility Sport: 125.4
  • Family P: 117.3

11.7L per 100Km (91RON), 11s 0-100, 200Km/h

Notes:

  • All the categories my cars score well in are bland categories (apart from the Fun category, hahaha) so the design fits the brief; nowhere was it mentioned to aim for budget offerings!
  • Longitudinal FWD was chosen for easy upgrading of this line-up to AWD, which is really important for some markets, plus the Prosaic Si could then be homologated for WRC!
  • On reflection, I’m willing to accept that my entries are too interesting to be considered “bland enough”. I should have paid more attention to the addition of “Meh” to the naming convention, hahaha!!!

Turns out having a committee is actually an important prerequisite for making truly bland cars, :exploding_head::wink::laughing:


#28

Sorry if I sounded salty in that last phrase, that was anything but my intention.

I’m really sorry for the badly written rules. Thank you to everyone for your patience and for giving me tips to improve