3.5 hours to go, make sure to get your cars in!
I loved this round bur I did not make anything good
A little late, but that’s it! I’m out of town for the weekend but I’ll take a look at the rest of the entries when I get back and hope to have a winner declared sometime tomorrow evening.
Six months after sending out the crates to the interested companies, the executives and engineers of City Fleet Co. reconvene, this time in one of the engineering meeting rooms. On the other side of the glass wall sits the prototype room where five taxi prototypes from various companies are lined up for inspection.
The first piece of business is that two of the prototypes on their way into the city on the same train were lost due to a derailment.
@MGR_99 and @Maxbombe , your cars were built on the test car that was labelled “Do Not Use This Car” and therefore not usable, as well as the Elwood using a new variant of the engine. Making a new model was the most important rule because this is what happens when working on a trim of the same base car:
The executives and engineers then head out of the boardroom to look at the prototypes one by one to decide which they will use for the Fleet Cab II.
The first car is by Propeller. One thing immediately noticed with the design is that there’s no badging referencing it as the Fleet Cab II, so that’s going to cost extra to design. The executives are not pleased. (Naming convention not entirely followed). The rest of the design is quite good, albeit a bit more performance oriented than expected for a taxi. The executives are impressed in that regard, even noting that this is one of the smallest proposals.
The engineers unfortunately cannot give it their approval, as it lacks the minimum safety equipment City Fleet Co. outlined in their brief. As such, this proposal will be discarded.
The next proposal to be inspected came in from Lansing, an as of yet unknown brand to the executives. They’ll find out shortly whether it’s a name they’ll respect or revile. First impression is quite average. The design is pleasing and fitting for a cab, but it also has nothing really making it stand out, which is something City Fleet Co. was hoping to get for the Cab II. Nonetheless, it’s a handsome proposal that looks the part.
The engineers give it their approval in the construction, so it’s time to look over the technical aspects. Coming in at $30,600 with projected annual service costs of $760.80, it is very much mid-pack on the financial side. Fuel economy, however, is the worst of the bunch, measured at 22.1 MPG during the test cycle that morning. The ease of driving it was mid-pack and nothing really worth noting. The expected reliability is on par with the other proposals. The executives find the comfort lacking, with this car being the worst in that regard by using cheap electronics.
With the expected safety rating being mid-pack and the practicality somehow one of the lowest despite the size of the car, they know this isn’t the one. It’s worth keeping around for further comparison.
Third in line is proposal from Razor. The first thing to be noticed is the design, which is really quite different from the others. While the body shape and front end design fit the needs of City Fleet Co., the executives all agree that the profile and rear end both seem quite uninspired. It lacks the ‘oomph’ wanted for the Cab II to stand out from the competition.
The engineers unfortunately cannot give their approval to this proposal either, as Razor did not use the transmission specifications provided by City Fleet Co. They would need to spend more money than anticipated to develop a 7-speed automatic and as such this proposal will be discarded as well.
Nearing the end of the line of the cars, the group gathers around Avantii’s submission. This is the other smaller car, but the design is very fitting for a taxi. There are murmurs of disapproval over the excessive dummy exhausts coming out of the hood, so that’s something that would be fixed should it make it to production. The rest of the design fits very well would set the Cab II apart from the competition.
The Avantii proposal gets the approval from the engineers. Coming in at $30,900 it’s also mid-pack, with the service costs of $715.90 being the second lowest. The engineers gave it a combined rating of 24.8 MPG during the morning’s tests, further pleasing the bean counters. This was one of the most carefree driving experiences of the cars, which is bound to be liked by drivers. The executives also agree with it being mid-pack for comfort, though the high end electronics are appreciated.
The expected safety rating turns out to be the lowest of the cars that used the specified safety features, but the practicality is the best and would come in handy in taxi duties. This will be one of the cars to strongly consider.
The fifth and final car was submitted by Zorg Industries. Fitting that they would submit a proposal since their taxi division is a major client of City Fleet Co. The design of this car is the most eye-catching and the executives are pleased to finally get a closer look. It looks very much like a taxi and is outstanding, though the huge exhausts are quite excessive and get the same murmurs about removing them for production.
The engineers give the Zorg proposal their approval for the technical evaluation. This is by far the cheapest, with an estimated price of $28,500. The expected service costs match the low price, coming in at $707.10 while the fuel economy of 24.2 MPG falls just short of making it the most economical in the three categories but is still enough to be the most economical overall. Truly a dream for the bean counters. Where things fall apart for this proposal is the drivability, with sever understeer making it less than ideal in that regard. The executives find the comfort mid-pack, with the interior being standard fare for a taxi.
The safety manages to be the best of the bunch but somehow this large car is one of the least practical. Although a car of highs and lows, the financial side is enough to have it seriously considered.
Back in the meeting room, it’s time for the final considerations between the proposals from Lansing, Avantii, and Zorg. The Lansing and Avantii both use complicated suspension systems with adaptive and active parts, which are quite excessive for a taxi. On the flipside, the Zorg uses different tire widths front and rear, which would explain the extreme understeer. The Lansing is a solid car but doesn’t stand out in anything, it would be the prudent choice. The Avantii has great functionality and would be sure to be loved by taxi drivers but less so by the companies footing the bill. Then the Zorg is the dream of any taxi company executive, but less ideal for the drivers.
In the end, City Fleet Co. decided to take the car that will be the most popular with the bean counters procuring them for their fleets, and in that regard the Zorg Industries proposal is right in its element. Get ready to see these all over the streets of Diesel City in the near future.
It was a fun challenge, even when I got binned again.
Even though my prototype was lost, (and even though it was even cheaper), I couldn’t have won facing this incredible piece of design! It’s a well deserved victory for Zorg industries.
I’m in 2nd? Wow, I did not expect my Taxi to be that high on the list.
Nice Fifth Element reference, wheel spats and all. Sadly it can’t levitate, but at least it looks like it can - and it proved to be as unbeatable as it looked; nothing else stood a chance against it.
Definitely a well-deserved win. I wonder what the next round will be about?
Thanks to @thecarlover for hosting this round it was a lot of fun. As a few have noticed my entry was a big homage to the Fifth Element, hence why the handing was so comprised as to hide the wheels. So the tyre setup had to be very thin and off different widths. Unfortunately I don’t have time to host this time, in fact I ran out of time to even post my entry so I’m going to have to MULTIPASS to @EnCR
EEEEEEHHHH? But my PC is not ready yet!
I don’t have it on my desk actually…
So I’m going to pass it to @Blocky550.
i will take responsibility of hosting
Would it be possible to get some more examples from the company in a more similar class to help emulate the design language, and some more examples of real cars?
Do i have to send in a .car file?
What is the model year? 2019 or 2020?
With some better explanation to a few things like year requirments, I might enter this.
i have added more refrerence pictures, and tried to make a couple things a bit more clear
2020 Samurai GT-V by Saidenki design department. (EnCR) 2.1Liter Turbocharge Inline 4 making 339 HP.