Thanks! Figured that may be the case, made me rework the engine as it had too much torque. But hey now it has more power instead of torque so I aint complaining xD
Are staggered tires setups allowed?
I think so. Besides, mid- and rear-engined cars would be unmanageable without a significant amount of stagger between the front and rear tires.
Using my car as an example, the rear tires are 225mm wide (the maximum allowed by the rules), while the front tires are 185mm wide.
1 Like
yes, staggered tire setups are fine because it was commonly used
For the ones who don’t want to use discord, can we send you the file by PM?
Another question, would a 3door hatchback be allowed?
Discord is free and easy to use, and it allows me as the challenge host to get a good overview of who sent which car. I’ll make an exception for you just this once, so go ahead and send the car via PM here.
Anything that Automation declares as a coupe or convertible is allowed. If it’s defined as a hatchback by Automation, then it’s not allowed
2 Likes
Alright got it!! Thanks!
What if it’s defined as both? It has the Hatch and Convertible tag.
I’ll do another car with another body if it’s not!
Getting closer to the hard cap than I’d like it to be, I present to you the 1995 Ibis Kestrel. It’s powered by a 2.4L boxer 6 powering the rear wheels—normally I’d try to wedge a flat–plane V8 in there for a small displacement competition, but here we are.
4 Likes
if it’s defined as hatchback and convertible, and it actually has a convertible roof in the appropriate tab of the trim (I forgot if it was the interior tab or what), then it counts.
1 Like
Though it’s not the most realistic, are neon underglow lights allowed?
I mean, they don’t affect performance, they’re not really even visible in Automation anyway, and they’d look so good on the Glow City course! (:
those weren’t really fitted on the stock cars back then, and Fast & Furious wasn’t a thing yet in 1995, but sure ^^ they’re just cosmetic anyway
Yay, pretty lights! :D
Edit: Nevermind, they don’t show up as well as I thought they would ):
The Aero Bullet 12.7x99
Redefining what “budget” means.
This is the top trim of this small streamlined super-speedster, with a full focus on performance. It features a turbocharged Boxer-4 engine, as well as a collection of technologies that only a car this small could afford in this price range. Plus, it’s miniscule size means less drag, better handling, better braking, and more out of every horsepower. One ride in this thing, and you’ll never want a big car again.
3 Likes
On paper, it should be a rival for my entry. My thoughts on it are as follows:
Turns out your car isn’t the only one using that engine configuration after all, even though flat-fours don’t lend themselves particularly well to turbocharging. With only 2 cylinders feeding each turbo, there will be a lot of lag (even more than with a twin-turbo V6 or flat-six), but it is possible (although somewhat difficult) to make it a viable proposition.
That’s exactly the same approach I took for my entry, except:
I suspect you used plenty of negative quality to fit all that tech - but then again, the use of negative quality (up to -5 for any given slider) is allowed. I couldn’t bring myself to do so, though, so I had to omit some of those tech bits. But when you consider that I deliberately decided to challenge myself further by not using any negative quality anywhere at all, the omission of those gizmos may well be justified. After all, small, light and affordable sports cars are meant to be all about the driving experience, rather than being a rolling tech showcase.
All in all, I might have to bite the… erm, bullet and admit that your car, for all its faults, may turn out to be faster than mine - but I still hope that my entry still turns out to be fast enough to impress the host.
1 Like
I can’t wait to see how it turns out. Though one note with your analysis I should correct:
Surprisingly enough, I didn’t touch the quality sliders at all. I don’t normally use them very often, so I didn’t even occur to me to mess with them until very late in my engineering, when I already had performance that I liked. My ability to cram in technologies came from the fact that the kei body I used is so small, making material costs for things like the body and chassis small too. (Though it’s worth noting that I am not an expert on 90’s technology, and what I consider “advanced” by 90’s standards might be flawed.)
But yeah, I expect a pretty similar competition between the Bullet and GR2, especially considering how much emphasis the host is putting on styling; as proud as I am of my simple, aerodynamic design, I have feeling he’ll rate yours higher. Yours seems more detailed, tidy, and similar to other sports cars of the era. (:
My entry! The weird and wonderful Vulkan Streamliner Concept-1. Weighing just under 1 tonne and having 333 hp its fairly nippy in a straight line. And despite having a deliberately odd suspension set up actually handles fairly nicely and predictably, for a rear-engined car.
7 Likes
The EV1 body is going to make that one interesting to compete against mechanically.
Mainly it’s because of its extremely low drag coefficient, and combined with its ample power and light weight, it should be very fast indeed.
The rear engine likely isn’t doing me any favors, either. Looks better than I could have done with that body, too. Think we might have our winner…
Should be interesting yeah! I deliberately made it weird in every aspect. Its got double-wishbones upfront and MacPhersons at the back, which is really the wrong way around for a rear engined rwd car. But I wanted to see how mechanically odd I could make it and still have it handle reasonably well. So its a bit of a tail-happy bugger, but a fun and quick one once you adjust to how you have to drive it!