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

[ADC] RR Family Car: Results are IN!

RR Family Car Challenge

I’m calling this the “Alternative Design Challenge”, in case it ever becomes a series. Your goal is to design a car whose design is an alternative to what is considered standard or accepted in its market. In this case, rear-engine, rear wheel drive car for ordinary family buyers.


The year is 1989, and our company, Crusoe, believes there’s a gap in the market. Once, rear engine hatchbacks such as the Beetle and Fiat 500 were highly popular, affordable cars, and there were countless similar designs. Now, front transverse cars are beginning to dominate the market, and they’re all a bit samey. We think we can carve a niche for ourselves with a rear engine car for ordinary people. It should be a little fun for people who care about rear wheel drive, and simple and reliable for people who want a cheap compact car.


We’re going to select the car design with the best score as our production car- that will be the winner. Cars will be scored both based on engineering characteristics and appearance. We are selling cars primarily in Fruinia and Hetvesia, so desirability is based on these two nations in the market screen. Your car will score points based on each of the listed categories.

Note that desirability is not Competitiveness, it’s a number viewable when mousing over the competitiveness. This tends to around a couple thousand.




  • Desirability of Family, multiplied by affordability of Family, divided by 200
  • Desirability of City, multiplied by affordability, divided by 200
  • Desirability of Fun, multiplied by affordability, divided by 200
  • ET of the car, -100, divided by -10 (positive points if your ET is less than 100)
  • ET of the engine, -100, divided by -10
  • PU of the car, -100, divided by -10
  • PU of the engine, -50, divided by -10
  • Bonus: Tires are not staggered (same width for both), 3 points
  • Bonus: Sportiness exceeds 2.0, 3 points
  • Bonus: Manual transmission, 3 points
  • Penalty: Engine is turbocharged, -5 points

So for example, a desirability of 2000 in Family, with 80% affordability, is worth 2000*0.8/200 = 8 points.An engineering time of 95 is worth 0.5 points, and an engineering time of 110 is worth -1 point.


  • Must include road legal necessities: Headlights, tail lights, reverse lights, blinkers, front and rear license plates, wipers. Blinkers must be visible from the side, but they may wrap around or include a separate side blinker. Fog lights are acceptable but not required. 5 points.
  • Engineering necessities: handles, fuel cap, ventilation should give some hint as to the engine location and aerodynamic sliders, including brake ventilation if you have any. 5 points.
  • Sensei Score, out of 3 points.
  • Audience Vote: viewers will vote on the best looking car. The top 10 most voted cars will receive points, starting with 5 points for the 1st place and 0.5 points less for each place after that (EG 4.5 for second, 4 for third). This will probably be a Strawpoll or something similar.
  • Penalty: Car does not look appropriate for its era. -1 to -3 points. In particular, it shouldn’t look extremely advanced. Crusoe is not a forward-thinking company, they’re trying to bring back a design people consider old fashioned after all.


I want to keep your design options as open as possible. After all, the point of this challenge is to celebrate (or make an argument for the viability of) uncommon designs. Most stuff that’s really out there should be penalized by the scoring system, for example, you’re not strictly required to have 5 seats, but you’re almost certainly going to want them. It’s your choice to go with two or four doors, and full seats or something like 2+3.


  • Variant year 1989
  • Must have at least one muffler
  • Standard intake (no DCOE)
  • No quality sliders may exceed +4
  • Fuel type: Regular or Premium, Unleaded only


  • Model and trim year 1989
  • No quality sliders may exceed +4
  • Chassis quality may not exceed +2
  • Chassis type Monocoque
  • Must be rear engine, rear wheel drive
  • Hard or medium tire compound


  • Nothing the community generally considers broken (I’m not an expert on this)
  • No modifying the car’s numbers outside of the game
  • Warn me what fixture/body mods you’re using, I don’t typically play with a lot installed

How to Submit

Name your model “RRFC-YourName” and your trim whatever you want to name your car. It will be sold under the Crusoe mark, so a company name is not necessary. Same for the engine family, “RRFC-YourName” and the variant can be whatever you want. PM me on here on the forums. I’ll add a deadline of a week or two when the rules are final.


  • Boxer engines are the most space efficient for this kind of setup.
  • You will probably find that Family has a higher desirability than the other demographics, making it of particular importance.
  • Don’t forget to go into the market screen and make sure the Fruinia and Hetvesia flags are turned ON and the other flags are turned OFF, in order to see the desirability and affordability I will be using for this challenge.
  • A lot of the challenge will be controlling a rear-heavy car’s tendency to oversteer, so you may need narrower front tires, lots of negative camber on the rear tires, and strong front sway bars.
  • I don’t have a logo or anything, brand the cars however you want for your submission.

I’ll wait a day or two if anyone has suggestions on the rules, so it is best if you wait to start building a car until they are officially final. Hopefully reading through this massive list of lists wasn’t too bad, I don’t know a ton about prettying up posts on Discourse.

Interesting ruleset; I have a couple of queries…

Is there a reason for this, e.g. fits better with your Crusoe lore, as it would make more sense to encourage owners to store their personal belongings in the frunk, rather than on the engine, hahaha!!! My point is that the categories will deal with the body choice issue, so I would suggest that you only include this if it’s to aid in getting designs that better match your lore…

These two scoring sections will cause a lot of people to avoid this competition. Arbitrary scoring, especially without explanation, makes players nervous and can lead to accusations of favoritism. Audience voting, especially with such a large score variation attached, makes newer players and those who have less car designing time/skill avoid the competition because they worry that they’ll not be noticed and thus get no score.

If you want to have a score that’s allocated by you, not the stats, then make it small and make it clear what it’s for… I’d suggest a +1 or +2 for cars you deem particularly well styled and/or fitting Crusoe design lore.

Redundant, since this is a RR competition, just tell 'em to re-submit, then bin 'em if they haven’t done so by the closing date. I’d also do this for the MR cars too… RR is 100% rear engined RWD and MR cars can be easier to balance than RR cars, thus are technically OP. Don’t mix the streams! Otherwise you should allow FR cars w/ small boxers because they’ll technically be F-MR (I’m looking at you Mazda and Honda) and you don’t want the PM shitshow that’ll generate!

Maybe provide a visual diagram of what you mean by these requirements, like a RL picture of what you want, so that there can be no confusion. US regulations are different to EU requirements and other markets (like Australia’s ADR’s) can be different again. Avoid the drama and provide a template car then no-one can complain if they don’t have the fixtures correct!

That’s all I can see, I’ll be looking forward to entering his competition with a Generations II Bogliq in the near future!


For example, by 1989, side marker lights (red at the rear, amber in the front) were mandatory fitments on US-spec cars, but not Euro-spec ones, whereas rear fog lights were mandatory in the European market around the same time. Also, catalytic converters were mandatory in the US by 1989, but not in Europe until around 1993 or so.

1 Like

My thought was, it should visually resemble classic rear-engine cars, rather than being a modern Corvair. In retrospect, on double checking, the classic beetle-like body in Automation is actually a sedan, so this is a stupid rule and I should remove it.

Eh, this I have to think about. My intention was that styling should be a significant part of the score, but I don’t necessarily trust my own taste, so I’d weight it 2/3 towards audience voting. Either way it wouldn’t be without explanation, I’d do a blurb explaining my score like most challenges with a visual component do. I might reduce the weight of this category but do you really think it’s such a horrible idea?

I was thinking of just keeping it in the spirit of “engine behind the occupants”, but I might make it rear engine only. I’d define mid and rear engine as choosing those options in Automation, of course. My thought was that if someone could pull off a MR car that doesn’t have bad scores due to the reduced passenger space, I’d certainly be impressed. But I’ll probably keep it RR. Also I don’t consider explicitly putting it in the rules to be redundant just because it’s in the title, the nature of the challenge invites wise guys already. :wink:

Shows what I know I guess. I always considered discreet side markers to be a European thing- I guess US cars tend to make them into wrap-around head and tail lights? Ditto on the cats, I’ll take those off the requirements.

Looking at some cars of the era…



The Clio has a side marker, wrap-around lights front and back, and I think those yellow lights are blinkers? The 1990 jetta, I found some examples with and without a side marker, I’m not sure which countries got which.

So, I’ll reduce the required list to what I know for sure: Head lights, tail lights, front and rear blinkers, and reverse lights. Side markers, fog lights, etc are optional. That basically eliminates the need for this as a “category” because it’s very simple.

As for inspiration, we’re trying to take the rear-engined classics…



…into the modern era.



So that should give you an idea what we’re going for.

1 Like

I do think having audience voting as part of the scoring is a horrible idea. Why? Because it deters people who aren’t great at visual work, encourages populism over merit and can be manipulated via voting collaborations. If you want some input into styling, that’s fine, but you need to clearly state why you gave the score, be consistent in your application of that scoring process then stand behind it; it’s your competition and your tastes, but you’re part of a community, so if you don’t think your design tastes hold water, then leave them out of the scoring process!

If an ugly car wins, just re-design the worst bits to your taste when you “productionise” the winner. No prototype survives the production tooling process unscathed so just use the lore eraser to solve any Multipla-cation issues, hahaha!!!

My point wasn’t that you should dumb down the fixture requirement; I happily comply with the Generations II fixtures rules… And this is because they make sense. Generations II is a USDM competition. Just define which market you want the car to suit (USA, Europe, USSR etc.) then tailor the fixture rules to that region.

If you want to use a fictional setting (e.g. Garcia or any of the Automation states) then define the fixtures the way you’d like 'em; just don’t leave the fixture requirements ambiguous, hahaha!!!

Nooo!!! Think of all the virtual atmospheres you’re ruining and keep cats mandatory!!! :wink:

Few questions!

1)You have allowed MR configuration into a RR Challenge.

Since it’s more of a hassle to get a RR car behave correctly, is there any compensation for the ones who chooses the RR layout?

2)What about the catalytic converters?

In the discussion, you allow not having any but on the top post they’re still manadtory. Must we have one or not?

3)Frunk/Trunk opening

You made mandatory some kind of handle to open the frunk.

Can’t we just assume the frunk will open like a regular bonnet does?
I take my examples on cars like MR2’s or Alpine
OR do you really want somekind of handle like it is on the latest Twingo (which is RR by the way)


So you want a 4/5 seat hatchback but your examples are 2 seater coupes…

For the frunk opening…

The only non dated RR cars I have in mind are the Mercedes yoghurt thing and the latest Twingo with 4 seaters…

So as far as the demographic scoring, would you consider the other variants (budget, premium, sport, eco) in with this, or would it just be the three main basic categories that you listed (Family, City, and Fun)?

I’ve updated the rules with the changes I discussed. I’ve kept the visual judging portions, but their weight is reduced by about half. RR only, no catalytic converter required, no penalty for sedans.

To clarify, I will only be using the desirability scores from the EXACT demographics I described. This car will be aimed squarely at “average” buyers without particular budget or premium appeal.

I’ve set a deadline of ten days, more specifically midnight on October 21st, US Central.

Lastly, I wanted to include some pictures of four-door cars, since it occurs to me I haven’t really. So in addition to the previous post, here’s some more inspiration:



1 Like

I think you should add fuel requeriments to avoid minmaxing.

Hm, bit late but I dont know why I didnt think of that. Regular and premium unleaded only. I’ll add that to the op.

MY89 Crusoe Capybara Concept

Cute, pudgy and really friendly, just like it’s namesake in real life!!!

Hopefully this meets all Crusoe’s requirements and that Bogliq By Design will be chosen to partner with Crusoe in this latest initiative…


What if I told you this looks exactly like what I was working for this comp before a PC crash yesterday made me lose my files? Sinergy much?

1 Like

MAHG Iota '89

Roadside advertisement

The Iota in its favorite situation!

Price 19 400


Prancing Fox Autos present the Crusoe Reynard 1200 - $14,400 - includes ABS, power steering and tilting sunroof as standard.


Will I get binned? Probably, after specs are analyzed. Will I be remembered as the cheekiest entry? Hell yea brotha! Presenting you the 1989 Crusoe Brasilia! Destined to be released as a continuation of the beloved Brazilian hatchback, it was fully developed before the original manufacturer got cockblocked by the german matrix, and had to release their shitty project instead. This led to it being sold to whatever manufacturer that would like to assume the car and keep production. A huge and eager market comes as a bonus! Don’t let them waiting, release this sleek, versatile, and sporty hatchback and start to make a lot of money overseas!


With the love the Autodelta engineers have for the classic RR configuration they went past the management and developed a rear engined rear-wheel-drive vehicle just for the fun of it. Unfortunately when the Autodelta management found out they didn’t see the added value. Even though the customer base likes a sporty car, the management feels this car doesn’t follow their philosophy of safe and capable front wheel drive cars. But the management didn’t want to bin this project. So Autodelta contacted Crusoe to see if they find more value in bringing a compact RR sedan on the market. Because we don’t like to beat around the bush, we simply named it Crusoe RR by Autodelta.

More pics


My attempt, the Nakamoto NM5, although the styling is a little too round for 1989 IMO. Brand hallmarks of fuel efficiency and safe handling are preserved.



I had the same problem with that body. That’s why I eventually binned it and choose another body. Although this challenge made me realise how few body’s other than coupes and sportscars have the possibility for for a rear engined configuration.