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

CSR 129 - "Upgrades" in Freedom [ABORTED]




I think I’ve read through this now about 5 times and I’m still struggling to grasp exactly what is to be expected of the entries here. I understand certain elements should be up for debate, such as what sort of car would be right, engine choices etc. because that shouldn’t be completely obvious. But I have literally no idea where to start.

My understanding is that this is an “alternate universe” situation where a 2020 car is basically a late-1970s car, but there is this repeated mention that it also has to be modern. A lot of these “example ideas” are basically old styling on a modern body. How is that supposed to be achieved when we’re locked to pre-1980s bodies, using lighting technology of the era and a very strict brief on how the designs must be done in order to give it that look. If everything is locked to 1980, essentially you’re getting a car from 1980. So how is it to be expected to be modern but 1980?

My other serious question is engineering. Given this is some weird “alternate universe” in which cars are modern but backdated in styling and engineering, are we going for a pure 1980 approach for engineering, or is it expected that perhaps certain elements would be possibly a bit obscure or unrealistic for a “real-world” 1980s car since we’re also expecting modern elements? How do you deem what is realistic for this “alternate universe in 2020 which is kinda like here in 1980” when we don’t live in said universe. The last thing I’d want is to be binned for doing something that “doesn’t seem realistic in engineering” if ultimately we have zero true grasp on what realistic in this world’s 2020 really is.

Also emissions are expected to below a noise level below 40? Is it emissions or noise? Please clarify.



the idea was that modern design principles are applied to an 80s body, but without the LED strips and Laser beam projectors and all…

Engineering wise, you’d be making a 1980 car.

Emissions are meant to be noise levels, i worded that wrong…

Given the immense difficulty of understanding or my apparent incompetence in clear and “dumbfuck-proof” wording, imma call it quits right here and pass the torch to CSR 128s 3rd place contestant…

Since entries haven’t even opened yet, i see less of an issue in this rather than have people build stuff and THEN cancel operations.

the ONLY way i see this working is make it into a generic 80s car round, which i personally do not want…

Seems like i’m not fit for creative stuff (as in: make good CSR premises) anyway…

@Jaimz is about 38 mins early

In short:

CSR 129 will not happen with me as host.
Please refer to CSR 128s 3rd place for the next runner-up.

1 Like

Quite right. It was just too confusing for me to consider entering anyway.

Hiya! Responding to this, I might be able to say fuck it and take on hosting for the next CSR if @Xepy decides not to. However, I will only be able to under one condition, and that is, to make the CSR a very brief round.

What I want will be simple, that’ll be my promise. The round, if I take over, will have a much shorter submission deadline and a ruleset that will hopefully allow for some openness in entries regardless of a tight deadline.

Reviews will be concise to a certain degree, but I will still do my best to give it some flavour and keep it somewhat detailed.

If my words are set in stone and I am not to be hosting the next CSR because of it, so be it. If xepy does not decide to host, then I just may be able to take over.

Some food for thought!

Edit: Xepy says he can host. Yay! More time for my personal challenge which you might see stuff on in the next two weeks


This one is very weird. If it was something like 2020’s engineering and drivetrain on an 80’s body, maybe with some sort of retro theme, it could be understood somewhat easily. But this whole alternate universe stuff threw everybody for a loop and it wasn’t explained well.

I know it’s all over now but just putting in my 2 cents.


Version 2 is here: