I’m not sure I understand how to interpret and use this rule. So if I put the camera at the end of the 2 m measuring tape and look at the car head (or tail) on, then I must be able to see the lights as well as the head of the dummy?
Put your car and the Measure-inator (rip, another typo) in the same photoscene. Set your car up with the 2M gap shown. Put the camera into the dummy’s head, poking through just far enough to see out of it. See if you can spot the lights.
Edit: Looks like this. with @cake_ape 's Collis Celer, Measurinator in the middle. Camera goes inside the dummy’s head.
Edit 2: Because this isn’t an exact science, if I can see the lights from any point inside the dummy’s head, it’s legal.
Final edit: If your car is illegal on lights, I’ll let you know and allow you to fix it.
4 Likes
Regarding pearl: No, it is absolutely not era correct. It was used on a few custom cars at the very end of this era, but the thing is that it was not available as automotive paint, only as nail paint. Yup, you guessed right, to paint your car with pearl, buying tons of nail paint bottles was what you had to do. Do I need to say that it was not really feasible to paint a mass produced car in pearl? 
2 Likes
Final note, I swear. Write-in lobbying has been added to the post.
1962 SAARLAND ADJUNKT
When the Saarland Adjunkt was released in 1962, probably more than one eyebrow was raised. Not because of the fact that an entry level model was introduced below the Bischof and the top of the range Kardinal - it was only a natural addition. But Saarland was an early adopter of the transverse front wheel drive formula - something not excepted from a company that generally made very conservative vehicles.
It was not exactly a decision out of the blue, though. The Adjunkt was a clean sheet design that shared absolutely nothing with the larger Saarlands. During development, both longitudinal and transverse FWD was considered, as well as RWD with front- and rear engines.
The traditional FR layout had its drawbacks in the transmission tunnel taking up room, as well as needing either a heavy solid axle or expensive IRS in the rear. It also had the drawback in such a light car that it would not put enough weight over the drive wheels, making it less suited for bad road conditions. The RR layout was seen by Saarland as a dead end in automobile evolution, and would not be viable as a concept to engineer future models on. Longitudinal FWD would not have allowed for an engine that could be bored up to larger displacements, which meant that the design would have been less “future proof”. That left the transverse FWD as the most viable alternative - and judging by the engineering of modern superminis, they were probably onto something.
Combined with the column mounted shifter and umbrella handbrake, both allowing for a flat floor, this gave a bit of an airy feeling to the relatively cramped cabin. But despite the futuristic engineering, this was a simple car. Not much in the way of equipment, a relatively straightforward 1 litre 39 hp OHV inline four under the hood, double wishbone suspension up front while the rear axle was the simplest you could think of - a tube connecting the wheels, hung with leaf springs under the car. Hardly a cozy highway cruiser - more ideal as a nippy city runabout.
A car for Aragans? Well, that’s what we’re going to find out…
12 Likes
So is the measurement tool to get the headlights height at the right level? And not a distance thing
Place the rulers in the measurement tool so that the end of them intersects with the furthest back (or front) point of your car. Place the camera inside the dummy. Move your camera around to check.
The tool is for distance and camera height.
I’m not saying the light tool rule shouldn’t exist or that I’m opposed to it. But considering how annoying I find the camera mode is to use I’ll probably wing it and hope for the best. It’s not likely that a normally designed car will break this particular rule anyway.
First of all, it is decently likely that a regularly designed car will break the rule. The measure-inator has a long front and rear, and high suspension; this means that cars with realistic low-positioned lights and low suspensions (y’know, most sports cars and some sedans) do break the rule. Plenty of perfectly sensible cars from ALC break the rule. Consider it the 5 MPH bumper/sealed beam of Araga - a somewhat flawed rule with decent intent which forces classic designs to be changed.
On another note (not gonna call it final this time) - I’m going to ask anyone working on a non street-legal race car to pause construction and hold off on submitting for at least the next 24 hours, as I may run a slight change to this round.
So how many chance do I get to fix it?
Infinite, but constrained by time and my patience. I’ll look at entries and check them when I have the chance. If you submit, say, 4 hours out from the deadline? That’s 4 AM for me, on a day I have to go to work, it ain’t getting checked. I’ll be able to check sometime between 10 AM and 1 PM UTC (6 to 9 PM my time) most days, sometimes I’ll be able to at other times.
It shouldn’t take more than a couple of attempts to get correct. Resubmissions are a privilege, and they’re one I can easily take away.
I’ll chance it then.
I’m hoping that’s close enough regarding the lights being visible. I can edit it, but I’d rather not have to.
Also, any rules on front plates yet?
nope
wait nvm misread the question
is this still the case in the later years of the era? I don’t think may cars had that much sidewall anymore. I’m not an expert on this but I believe most were 75-80%. If the rule stays like this I will not complain I just want confirmation
I checked a few cool 61-62’s and they’re all stock with 80 or 90 profile like the Valiant 5.90-14 (90m), Skylark with 6.50-13 (80), and Impala 8.0-14 (90).
So it does vary.
I’ll edit the wheel rules, yep.
In the meantime… I am considering doing bonus rounds between eras. The options are custom cars (modifying other cars submitted, similar to ARM), concept cars (purely design-based, like CSC) and race-car based (you get a formula, and have to design to a particular constraint. May involve using road cars as a base, may not) please fill out this survey with what types of rounds interest you, and how often you’d like them to be.
6 Likes
YOUR NEW WORKHORSE
THE 1962 WCV MMOV V8
Introduced for 1962, the Walsh Commercial Vehicles Mass Market Offroad Vehicle - WCV MMOV - is the FIRST automobile explicitly designed with the private owner in mind. A 5.8L WCV Built V8, a modern 4x4 system with locking differentials, and a design in mind to go anywhere.
The MMOV features modern safety, seating for three, and a radio as standard equipment. Walsh has spared nothing to make this the most appealing offroad orientated model on the market, and intending to rattle the cages of more established marques in this new direction for WCV.
Yours for only $18,900, from any WCV Dealer.
9 Likes
- Fuel availability: Regular and Premium leaded available.
Premium Leaded is not a thing, only Regular and Super for this era.
That’s what I get for copy-pasting.