[Finished] CSR 94 - I bless the blizzards down in Antarctica

You didnt even read a single thing about this challenge, posting random cars from your random threads has nothing to do with this challenge, read the challenge next time.

14 Likes

At least the Gaucho didn’t fail hard and seems to be some kind of honorable loser. Close enough.

xD Oh I messed up. My first challenge and didn’t read properly, too nervous. Thank you for giving me a second chance, I messed up as well.
Nontheless I enjoy this and am baffled at how many cool entries there are!

Nice voting system, like it!

2 Likes

No. No trim mistake can explain this.

At the very beginning the challenge said “Important! Read all the rules, requirements, and opening/closing dates!”. You failed very hard at that. Your vehicle didn’t meet the minimum requirements, didn’t use the naming scheme (which isn’t rocket science, same as any CSR), and you even tried to send way your 0 effort shit before the opening date. Your car ran on 91 RON fuel which was completely unescessary. You actually managed to fail at ALL THOSE 3. Wow

But you didn’t stop there! The first thing the background said was “Buenos Aires, Argentina. February 2019”. Again, you didn’t even read the fucking year. You sent a 90s obsolete car. For people looking to buy a car in 2019. And you didn’t even read what the challenge was about. It was about offroad utility vehicles. You sent a piece of shit “SUV”

You could’ve asked if you actually had doubts. You didn’t even bother making a car for this challenge. There are no excuses. You don’t even bother with anything, you’ve made lots of comments which have no meaningful content in this thread, finding which one was your car’s ad was a pain because there was a long list of comments even after filtering only yours. Hell, not only this thread. You spam the entire forums with the least effort shit ever seen.

And even then, assuming your car had met the criteria, the challenge took place in the 90s, etc. ,etc… It was still a piece of shit in almost every way imaginable. Looking at the engine? A piece of shit. Ok let’s see the tires… staggered tires on this piece of shit. Ok, what about the gearing? A unusably long piece of shit. Etc.

So, if you would be so kind:

If you don't have anything meaningful, on-topic, and relevant to contribute, don't just throw shit for others to deal with

Many people took their time to make a car for the challenge. And I appreciate those people participating! Of course not everyone was a pro, but in the great majority you could clearly see there was an attempt and that they at least read what the challenge was about. This applies outside of the context of this challenge too.

Now, can you understand that, or should I explain it with crayons?

This was the first time I host the CSR, so I gave everyone the benefit of doubt, including you. But the next time (if there is a next), if I see something like yours that was clearly made by someone who gave a grand total of 0 fucks about the challenge and rules… it’s a bin without even getting mentioned at all.

And since you're out of the challenge now, you could stop spamming at least this thread with messages, please

24 Likes

damn,I’m sad seign my car rejected…
TC and ESP on offroading… well, I tought it wasn’t necesary.
The styling, I don’t use mods, tried to mount auxiliary grille lights but… oink XD
I also don’t like automatic gears to go offroad, letting a computer to change gears whenever she wants… not my type of car.
Did my car get any good point? I think that the engine was great but can’t compare with others

I mean, it wasn’t too bad, just that in general it wasn’t as good as others.

TC and ESP is not a necessity. However it’d be undeniably very useful for little money: TC for operation on ice and snow. ESP comes with other assists in trucks these days like hill start assist or descent assist.

The styling, well, contributes a bit to the first impressions.

And about the automatic: the problem with a manual is that it can be used, sure. They do know how to use a manual… but juggling with the clutch so much to move at low speeds when offroading or for utility is not fun. A torque converter helps with that nicely, can even provide some torque multiplication of its own. And autos these day are not stupid for gear changes, or can also be used in a manual speed selection mode

5 Likes

Shortlist shortening (Round 1.5)

R: OK, so how many vehicles can we have on the shortlist?
O: Well, we would have to transport them there by cargo plane trips. The most we could do is 8 vehicles. It isn’t exactly cheap, but well. It’s still a bit of a stretch, but testing them there can be worth it.
G: Hmmm, let’s see. We have 13 cars on this pile. Well, we need to start reducing that.
L: Well, I think a good starting point would be some cars that had none or little flaws, and had a very good price. We saw several like that, didn’t we?
R: That’s a good idea.

The four selected some cars that had been very cheap and very promising and put them on the shortlist:

G: OK, that makes 6. We can still pick two more, right? We need to rule out 4 of these 7 we have left.
R: Hmmm, let’s see… Well, going by price vs performance… I say we have to discard this one. We saw it at the very beggining, and accepted it despite being so expensive, but the bar was set much higher later. Despite its high price, some later cars surpassed it or offered more or less equal performance.
G: Good then.

The Ponni Paiute BE’s file was set aside.

R: Well, I think the next one to go has to be this one. It is the cheapest of these, sips fuel, but… it has some inherent limitations that mean it will just not work as well as other options.
O: And on top of that, the size and location of it’s engine. Ugh. It wouldn’t be expensive to maintain per se, but it would be a real, real pain.
G: Aww. Bye van

The BT Motors Tarandus AEV’s file was set aside.

L: Well, like the first one, there’s also another one that is pretty expensive, and… eh, the small advantages aren’t really worth that much of a price difference.
G: Alright.

The Cyanide Motors Husky’s file was set aside.

O: Well, going by a similar criteria to the first one… there’s also this one. Wasn’t as expensive itself but… if we consider its service costs and what it consumes in fuel despite that second thing being hard to predict… I don’t think it’s worth it as much as others.
G: Very well.

The Hawker Nemesis ExP’s file was set aside.

L: And finally I think there’s also this one that we saw near the beggining. Funny how it set the bar high at that time, it was very surprising. But now it’s been surpassed by many others for less. I mean, it wasn’t really too expensive on its own, and it didn’t consume much fuel either. But it has service costs a bit higher than the rest of the pack while not really offering much more performance so I think it’s time to tell goodbye to this one despite looking so good.
G: Bye, Chinamobile. Seems like you’ve been undercut by some cheaper things, against all odds.

The Honghu Yulin’s file was set aside.

The last two remaining cars were added to the shortlist of the cars that were going to be sent to Antarctica for testing:

Congratulations to the 8 people tagged! Your cars made it to round 2!

To the ones who have received the fury of the binhammer:

Thanks for participating! (unless you sent a low effort shitpost). I had to be very nitpicky with so many entries (yet still needed to shorten the shortlist). Better luck next time!

And now please I beg your patience. Tomorrow (monday) I'm barely going to be at home, so no guarantees that round 2 will come tomorrow with such tight competitors. I'll try my best to have it as soon as possible

15 Likes

I’m so tempted to ask to see this expalined with crayons but since it’s your first time and you’re already doing a perfectly fine job of processing the 60 or so entries (Jesus H Christ on a kebab stick) I think you’d be forgiven for not going that far :joy:

14 Likes

Can’t wait for the final round to see who will win!

1 Like

Expected bin is expected. I’ll take being the only van to pass the first round though!

Writing is still quality ElMenduko, thanks for the host!

2 Likes

Another tick for Honghu’s bad CSR rep :smiley:

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 :neutral_face:

If you don’t want criticism don’t do CSR

3 Likes