I’m just hoping for a better showing than last round. Here goes nothing…
8 Likes
Is there anyway I can take the '75 Bodkin on a drive once the competition is over?
1 Like
11 Likes
Absolutely, I’ve PM’d you so have fun and don’t hit anything too hard; it’s not safe, y’know 
2 Likes
I’ll not joing you guys, I’m just came to bring some nightmares from the bumper legislation.
Good night!
6 Likes
1975 Tristella Oscen 240GTS
Legal in the USA.
6 Likes
22 hours and 54 minutes remaining:
I have entries from:
@conan & @z2bbgr
@NoahC
@HighOctaneLove
@A_Harmless_Fly
@Jaimz68
@SenseiB12
@ImKaeR
@Riley
@CriticalSet9849
@Maverick74
@DuceTheTruth100
@mart1n2005
@Xepy
@GassTiresandOil
@karhgath
@Mikonp7
@Portalkat42
6 Likes
It has come to my attention that the submission period in the original post stated 7/7, 0200 UTC. In my mind, It was the 8th rather than the 7th, and since participation levels have been lower, I will allow the extra time to submit.
Resubmissions are allowed if you have submitted but would like to make more tweaks between now and then.
3 Likes
1975 Midlands Io Sprint
The design team at Midlands was quite miffed when they were handed a huge stack of papers outlining the new “safety” regulations that the USA was forcing on all cars that they imported. So they hatched a plan to comply in the most minimal way possible. They already had the indicator requirements dealt with, having side markers on the front and rear was quite easy. They raised the ride height up slightly to get their sealed beam headlights to be at the right height. They then set their compliance plan into motion. The front and rear of the Io were given two “bumpers” that were the right minimum height and size (They had seen other small british companies doing something similar and their efforts were let through, so why do anything more). They were annoyed that they had to do this at all, since the Io had performed quite well in safety tests before, already had the appropriate style bumpers, and even had the same sorts of internal bumper reinforcement that the Americans had put in their corvette. They had even gone as far as to adopt some of the technology that volvo was putting out at the time in terms of “crumple zones”, but because of how low to the ground the Io sprint was, they were forced to put tumors on what was a quite beautiful design. The emissions requirements they happily complied with, since they already had a plan to keep the power figures up and emissions down. New piston tech, and catalytic converter, and a change from the standard intake to the ones used on the touring car version of the Io, complete with fine mesh intake covers that increased performance without sacrificing debris protection or too much reliability. This means the Io sprint only lost about 20 hp, 10 mph in top speed, and 1 second from its 0-60 time. They were able to upgrade the radio to having an 8 track while saving weight not having power steering, which they had tuned out of the question anyway. All of this tinkering netted only a minor cost increase of $100. The designers were quite proud of themselves, and the fact that they gave their customer’s a “restore” option to be completed at the dealership after importation, which would give them the appropriate tools to take those hideous bumperettes off at their leisure and reinstall the lexan light covers with the same mounting points as previous years.
8 Likes
I don’t think any coverings are allowed on the headlights in America at this time. If you take a look at something like the Citroen ds or the rover sd1 they fitted open circular headlamps on those
2 Likes
During 1975, Cabrera was going through a complex economical situation and so they retired from the US markets, leaving the 300 Sprint unavailable for our fellow american buyers.
(Computer decided to stop working)
Got those fixed, since i had glossed over that part of the rules. All I can say is F mid '70s US safety regulations. They didn’t do all that much and some of the regulations like the no light covers one were quite dumb and didn’t actually help. Having an angled cover to the lights produces minimal damage from a 5 mph impact, and if the company used appropriate materials like Lexan(aka polycarbonate plastic), there would be no damage at all. Tbh i’m glad we got away from those relatively quickly so we can have fun and low slung designs again.
I remember when this was about to happen, I almost teared up with sadness reading that article back then lol
I think most of the reason for those regulations was to make it illegal for people to put imports on the road. The American auto industry was admittedly floundering at that point and they didn’t want to lose more sales than they already were. Specifically with the headlight rule, it really makes no sense otherwise.
2 Likes
A little late on the draw but submission window is closed.
Even though there are fewer cars, expect these reviews to take a bit longer, as I’ll be out of town a few days coming up.
12 Likes
I’m still looking forward to reading this when you get the time! 
Part 2.1
Instabins:
PF Vyxen @Jaimz68
Model and Family years changed to 1975.
Raven @DuceTheTruth100
Headlights neither circular nor rectangular.
Part 2.2:
Bumper and headlight regulations
Since I was unclear on the exact tolerances of bumper and headlight size and height, I decided instead of judging these on a pass/fail system, cars with discrepancies would be looked at individually and penalized based on the amount of the discrepancy. Any discrepancies within 1.25cm were ignored.
Dual round headlights well below mandatory size: 13cm diameter as a generous estimate when a 17.8cm size is what is needed for dual round headlights. Between this and the incredibly questionable styling and engineering, this is an instabin.
rear bumper upper edge too low, roughly 48cm, 2.8cm too low.
Dual headlights too small, roughly 15.75cm, 2cm too small.
Not enough to bin, but penalized.
Bumper lower edge too high, about 44.25cm, 4.25cm too high. Penalized.
Headlight centerline roughly 54cm, 2.9cm too low. Penalized.
Quad headlamps too large, about 16cm, 1.4cm too large each. Penalized
Part 2.3: Quick Reviews
These cars missed the mark.
@HighOctaneLove Bogliq Bodkin GS
The Bodkin has re positioned itself as small personal luxury car, eschewing almost all sportiness (just 7) for greatly increased comfort. While it is the most comfortable car here, we can’t in good conscious call this a sports car.
@Mikonp7 Taube 3000 Straße 1970
This exotic East German machine is still more expensive than most of the competition, and scores worse than most of the other cars in most criteria. The emissions regulations seemed to have hit this car worse than most as well, losing about 20% of it’s horsepower, with the 0-60 sprint taking an additional 3.3 seconds (14.2) and the quarter mile 2.09 seconds longer (20.4).
The turbo trio: @z2bbgr @conan @Kursk @SenseiB12
At this price point in 1975, a turbocharger is just not realistic. Of the three, the Kurskian and Gnome better utilize their turbos, with fairly good fuel economy and negligible performance loss compared to their original versions.
@A_Harmless_Fly Posite Spider 6
This exotic machine gained a lot of ride height to get it’s bumpers and headlights to spec. Still fast, but still incredibly expensive, and it’s lost more performance than other large displacement cars here.
@Arn38fr Decarlis 5 C 2500
Still a sharp looking car, but still lacking in sportiness compared to the competition. Emissions regulations cost this car a full 2 seconds in the 0-60 sprint and 1.33 seconds in the quarter mile. While the car does well in other metrics, these factors combined with the high price keep this car out of the running.
@Riley Zephorus Cortet
The Cortet returns with a lower price, greatly improved reliability, more displacement, and greatly improved fuel economy. Unfortunately in the process, it sacrificed it’s sporty ride and performance (2.4s slower to 60 and 1.92s slower in the 1/4 mile)
@GassTiresandOil Armor Sunburst GT
The Sunburst GT appears to have emerged from the new regulations well; it’s style accepted and integrated the impact bumpers quite easily, and performance figures are relatively well maintained, but as a sports car, it still lacks engagement, and returns poor fuel economy.
@mart1n2005 Courageux 1750s
Down to just 74hp, the Courageux’s performance has suffered greatly, taking 12.1s to 60, 18.42 in the 1/4 mile, 3.4 and 1.67 seconds slower, respectively. Fuel economy is good and the car is a solid all-arounder, but it is not sporty enough for the sharp end of this competition at the offered price.
@Maverick74 Cambridge Kobold 1600 XE
Another handsome car taking the new safety regulations in stride… but the emissions regulations, not so much. Down to just 71hp, the 0-60 sprint takes 2 and half seconds longer and the quarter mile 1.2 seconds (12.3 and 18.67, respectively).
@CriticalSet9849 Joyeux 1600 Décapotable MKIV
This cute roadster is still the cheapest option, but it has grown quite a bit more expensive than the MKIII, while losing almost 30% of it’s horsepower and 2.3 seconds in it’s already relatively slow sprint to 60. It’s sportiness has suffered. It’s still the cheapest, and fuel economy is good, but it’s no longer the budget king.
@ImKaeR Pegas 111
The budget king title now belongs to the Pegas 111. While we still think it’s ugly, and it’s 5 cylinder, FWD layout is quite unusual, the small Pegas now costs just $500 more than the Joyeux, offering more more acceleration, more reliability, and better driving dynamics both around town and in the twisties,
That leaves just 3 finalists remaining, @karhgath, @Xepy, and @Portalkat42.
A 3 way final comparison will come shortly.
13 Likes
I guess i must’ve miss measured exactly where the center of the lights were, either due to bad calculations with the blocks or their placement next to the ground( i did it from the center of the car then moved the block over, so having it be only a square and a half off would make sense due to the slight lip on the lift making up for that difference.
Arses! It’s a fair cop!
Didn’t realise…
But, to be fair, it would have had to be a different car to accommodate the new US mandate. No car built 5 years after the original model will ever be “identical” under the bodywork…or even the bodywork…as companies will always try to improve (or, more likely, cheapen) the manufacturing process.
2 Likes