My apologies, the time shown here is wrong. It’s 39 hours from now - I keep forgetting this one ends on Monday, not Sunday.
1954 Aileron Automobiles C50
Regarding my entry (the Wolfram Wanderer), I used one fixture for the taillight clusters, but that fixture had three bulbs, so I chose one red bulb to be the tail lights, with a second (but different) red bulb serving as the brake lights, leaving the third (and last) bulb to be the indicators, with their compulsory orange color.
This is a completely valid and legal reading of the rules; given that the main lights on the C50 have three clear bulbs, there is no need for the extra brake lights.
That’s a beauty! Nicely done
Only two bulbs in main tail light so I need extra brake lights.
Nice, without being a copy of anything it feels like you can trace ideas from both Tucker, Jowett Javelin, Renault Dauphine and Panhard Dyna…love it!
Considering the last picture, does “C” in GPC stand for “Christine”?
I think GPC stands for “General-Purpose Carrier”.
FIFY
was gonna put pedo istead of patriot but ban isn’t fun
We hang those high in Gitmo these days
The Anhultz E2100. Comfort whenever you need it.
Note: this effectively is a Dione, but not named as such due to the celestial body naming scheme only originating in the mid 60s
Round One Entries Are Officially Closed!
Please stand by while I write the reviews. In the meantime…
- There has been 33 entries, but 6 people had no lobbying on the method of taxes.
- Of the 27 people who lobbied on taxation method, 16 had opinions on displacement!
- Displacement was the only option with more people in favour than against - luxury had equal numbers, and all the rest had more people against than for. However, because of how lobbying “spreads out” when you lobby multiple, weight-based tax actually had positive lobbying in favour - albeit less than displacement did.
- Per-cylinder taxation was the least popular option.
- The majority of people didn’t care about tax level or tyres - and only 5 people submitted for both.
- The votes on level were pretty evenly split.
So, as a tease for round 2… There will be a moderate displacement-based tax, potentially with a reduction for commercial vehicles depending on how the market shakes out.
Edit: Oh, also, judging will be done by segment - commercial cars in one post, sports in another, and so forth.
Woho, at least displacement based tax won’t affect the 1 litre shitbox I will send in for ALC2 very much…
Since round 2 will have a displacement tax will we see the beginings of the oil/gas crisis that happend in the 70s?
I went to original post and found THIS:
Therefore making any kind of prediction based on RL events is…problematic to say at least.
Can go either way
(Congrats to ppl who would get from where i picked up beggining of this post, with slight change.
Apart from that, you get nothing)
Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post
REVIEWS 1.1: BORING BUREAUCRACY
PART ONE: AIN'T NO RULE
Most reviews will be done in-universe. These ones... Will not be. Now, there were several uh... deficiencies in the rules. These will be noted one by one.Central headlights do not exist IRL for a good reason. Most of you didn’t use them, but…
Someone did. Now, the rules don’t prohibit this. They should, this should be illegal, but it’s within the rules… for this round at least.
License plate: Any (unscaled) plate will be allowed, as there are no standards yet.
The intent with this was that a licence plate would be required. Reading it back, though? It’s a grey area, so I won’t punish people for not having them.
Not a fancy photo mode shot, but these indicators are not visible from certain distances. This, like central headlights, should be illegal… But I wasn’t too clear on how it’d be judged. I’ll elaborate and have an actual test in the post next time. Also, some indicators are incredibly small and hard to see, or partially obstructed by other fixtures. That’ll be clarified next time.
OK, NOW THERE'S A RULE
Now, we come to the actually, irredeemably illegal cars. These have all broken some rule, and there’s no way around it. Generally, I am going to be lenient here - but next round, make sure you follow the rules.
@conan - Brampton Sports Saloon; @SheikhMansour - OMC Panamerica; @LS_Swapped_Rx-7 - Mercer GPC: No Tail Lights
The Brampton and OMC only has one red bulb in its rear lights. I cannot find anything which could be described as a tail light.
@interior - Schnell 2/5 Deluxe 5000 - No Rear Turn Signal visible, only one red light in the rear.
The Schnell does actually have a rear indicator. It’s just that, well, it’s behind a non-transparent piece of material. That makes it not visible at all. Does it even exist then? The car also has an issue with the rear lights - that one piece of material is the only red thing looking back.
@WangMaster_420 @Arn38fr @carpotato7 @Driftphantom @voiddoesnotknow : Incorrect naming scheme.
Lots of minor mistakes here. I’m not counting those who used colons rather than hyphens, but multiple people either used the year range rather than the round number, forgot to name their engine, didn’t put their name in the family name… Please fix next time, this will be judged more harshly next time. Driftphantom gets especially low marks, for not putting anything remotely approaching the convention but…
@Driftphantom - Chief Motors TYPE 50 Coupe: Incorrect Game Version
This car failed to import. Well, failed is the wrong word. The fixtures are mostly there, but the engine is gone. You know what causes that? Making the car on the wrong game version. Thus, the TYPE 50 is the one car I simply cannot judge. I’ve tried re-importing it, same thing happens. In addition, you named the file correctly, but the car itself is incorrectly named. Not sure how that happened, but it did.
Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post
You are wrong about central headlights, there are several examples, here are just a few I can think off the top of my head
Seems I am indeed wrong… It doesn’t have an impact here, and I’ll be making it illegal next round. Glad I deliberately let it stay in.