The “per cylinder” option (available for mechanical fuel injection, as well as for multipoint EFI and direct injection) refers to each cylinder having its own individual throttle body - they are one and the same.
Yay I’m getting the hang of this I feel so smart 
2 Likes
Individual throttle bodies are uncommon except on very high-performance cars. They do little for power per se, are more for fast throttle response. They also sound amazing. They are not the same as individual port injectors, which are very common (though not so much in 1980), mostly paired with a single throttle body.
Though not called so, in-game race intakes appear to be ITB with no air filter. Medium and high performance intakes might be ITB inside the manifold; can’t see for sure. BMW S62 is a real example of the latter.
EDIT: I stand corrected regarding the game (not reality) - “per cylinder” FI does appear to be ITB.
@ACoolCrab 4 of 40 “misunderstood” this rule which was stated nowhere. I didn’t expect to win or even place; I expected to follow the rules and be judged fairly and honestly.
Side note: something went wrong sending the file. That’s supposed to be semigloss black and satin metallic red; see my screenshots. I welcome - from anyone - elaboration on the front end execution, or any other styling details, good or bad.
The host is not going to include a guide on how to make your car and what you should and shouldn’t do. Including a list like “No boxer engines, no V8s, no twin turbochargers” etc etc is just asking for nobody to participate and for a bunch of people to be slapped to death by the pre-round bin. The aforementioned also just defeats the purpose of CSR as the client isn’t exactly sure what they are looking for, but have a general idea.
CSR is less “make new car for this client” and more “What vehicle(s) in the past did X and Y that is similar” and then mashing up a new vehicle based off of stuff that already exists. This is all expected from the participant to do, rather than the host, which is already a ridiculous amount of work. It’s realism not by what is possible, but what was already done and dusted. Boring? Maybe. Realistic? Yea. Because it is/was real.
In any case, it is better to take this not as an insult and unfair judging, but as a point to consider when entering another CSR.
2 Likes
Precisely such a list was posted in the brief, including a lengthy section on headlight regulations, no race parts, aso. To go “haha gotcha, better luck next time” on a rule that should’ve been included in an otherwise detailed list is misleading and dishonest. To state “if it wasn’t in the brief, it’s ok” and then pull that is outright lying.
I mashed up Subaru, motorcycles, the Porsche 917, Ferrari 512, pre-GM Saab 900, Citroen Traction Avant, and countless other details encountered as a car enthusiast and professional. To have someone who hasn’t formally studied engineering or made a living working on vehicles (correct me if I’m wrong) go “read up on Wikipedia about realism” in such context is silly at best, but I’d roll with it IF IT WERE STATED.
I’ve no objection to either the claim that transverse boxers were never made (though on motorcycles they have), nor to CSR being restricted to layouts that have. My objection is to failure to state so - whether here or in a general “CSR rules” post - and given all the other detailed rules, to create the impression that it would’ve been had the host cared about it.
Just a little nerdy note about transverse boxers - while I haven’t ever heard of any such design in cars and couldn’t find info about one, there are examples of transverse V12s and even a V16 (production) and I8 (concept). There were apparently some I12s, concepts with W18, flat 10 with FWD and other completely bizarre stuff. But no transverse boxers. I’d say that’s a pretty clear no from reality 
Yes, CSR is harsh, I guess we could have a pinned note about that for newcomers?
5 Likes
My point exactly - state the rules clearly and you won’t have the apparently routine problem of newcomers getting railroaded by secret rules. It’ll make for a more welcoming community, certainly.
The headlight regulations post was a US-specific style guide, necessary to inform people who might not remember a very specific detail about US cars that most people were not even alive to see. There is zero intellectual honesty in comparing that portion of the brief to a basic history/realism check.
I told you in the same comment which you mistakenly use as your trump card: Use your judgement. You judged that erring in the side of caution was unnecessary and plugging in a cheesy and never-used engine layout was fine. That is on you. The first CSR I ever joined on this forum was a 1950s-themed one, and I had used my judgement there to avoid early elimination - whereas multiple other competitors, both new or experienced, had decided to gamble by using non-period-correct engineering (overhead cams on American-style V8s) with according results. The next two CSRs I joined, I committed similar minor inaccuracies and got eliminated early, and that’s just how it was.
I don’t know or care who you are or what sort of pride you harbor as an enthusiast and mechanic; you asked me how you were supposed to know, and I answered. And of all your inspirations, you just listed off a gaggle of longitudinal-engine cars, along with… "motorcycles*. It looks to me that you have made a car based on your inspirations, made the decision to turn the engine sideways because the game said it was several hundred dollars cheaper, and are unhappy that this gamble has backfired.
Overall, I find your argument unconvincing, and I hold that your entry has been eliminated fair and square.
5 Likes
You didn’t answer how I was supposed to know - not that they’ve never been produced, but that it mattered for CSR - except by word-of-mouth elsewhere, or more experience here.
You also apparently missed what I’d be happy to elaborate on: that this layout is one I’ve been tinkering with since long before Automation came out, and was not chosen for its stats alone.
Yes, those are all longitudinal cars. Do you not see how the details of their powertrain layouts contribute to a case for the realism of transverse boxers? Nevertheless, it’s your prerogative to disqualify for lack of historical examples. I just hold that it’s pretty lame and half-assed to do so without notice.
You know, I’d be more inclined to take your engineering credentials and insight into account if you didn’t use them cursorily as justification to hurl insults and digs at my intelligence my way. As an engineering student, most fellow students and actual engineers I’ve met have been more level-headed in how they conduct themselves.
I’m done arguing with you and cluttering up this thread. I suggest other members of the community do likewise.
9 Likes
Fair point. My apologies. I retract that part.
It’s not a secret rule stop your bad-faith.
For real, everyone is telling you, Texaslav is already giving so much time to answer you and you still argue the same thing. Please stop
4 Likes
As Texaslav suggested, let’s close that topic. It’s gone on long enough and there’s nothing good to come from continuing this argument.
I’d rather not see this thread get to the point of me needing to put my moderator hat on.
15 Likes
I’m done arguing about my car, but the point stands: not one of you has been able to cite where this “not a secret” rule is actually written. I’ve learned of its existence the hard and shitty way, but yall are going to keep having this problem with newcomers until it’s solved. I won’t mention anything more about it in this thread, so please do the same: any further discussion to be a new thread or DM, ok?
You’ve definitely spent more time arguing about your entry and rules everyone else seems to accept than you spent actually making your car atp…
That’s enough. No point in dogpiling.
8 Likes
On a lighter note and a change of subject, how are the reviews coming along? Not being pushy, just trying to steer this ship into less dangerous waters, and away from the water we chummed for the sharks. They’re hungry.
I’m sorry, Madrias - perhaps this new batch of reviews won’t be a ‘lighter note’ for you after all…
First, an apology. I had intended to address all instabins - that is, rule-breaks and realism outages - in the same round, the one posted Sunday. However, of the entries not mentioned as of yet, I missed a rule breach by one, which I will now rectify. In addition, if I am to be consistent in my judgement and verdicts, I do have an obligation to bin another car for realism. Without further ado, here we go - in-character this time.
September 26, 1979
So, there Tony was, eating breakfast, perusing industry news. Not his usual reading material - but you can’t go about a car purchase lightly when you’re a traveling fighter and performer. Flipping the paper’s page, he sees a picture of a real streamlined car, thinking it’s a prototype - but, astonishingly, it’s a production car… Being brutalized in an editorial.
@Madrias - AMCW Radigan
The article, entitled ‘shaken to the core’, reports on serious issues that consumers have had with the AMCW Radigan, a new large sedan. Not only is it powered by a 3-liter inline-3 engine that is far too shaky, but multiple examples of the vehicle have been shipped with the wrong rear differential - one that forces the top gear to top out at 86 miles an hour, rattling and screeching the whole way at its 4400 rpm redline. Unimpressed, Tony looks away.
(This car was originally due to be eliminated in Round 1 due to its low reliability score, itself a result of underused quality and a not-fully-expended techpool allowance. However, much as unconventional engines intrigue me, I cannot call 3-liter straight-3 realistic; not after the bins that came before, and not when it has a smoothness score of 17. But more importantly, as stated in the write-up - the top speed is set to 86 mph, resulting in an extremely high cruising RPM, wrecking efficiency - and taking this car even further beyond any semblance of realism.)
@DrDoomD1scord - Monarch B9000 Injection
The final few pages feature some classifieds - including one for a used 1973 Monarch, and another for one being sold new for 1980. Tony is surprised to see just how many changes have been made for what is essentially the same car, including the move from a glorious twelve-banger to a more modest six. While Tony doesn’t think the Monarch is a bad car, he is wary of purchasing a new car based on an old chassis and made with a far bigger engine in mind.
(Binned for having a Model Year older than 1975. It’s a shame, too; this was a unique entry with a lot of flair, if not all too optimized. The choice of a manual box in a vehicle of this size is surprising - though still realistic for British cars of this era. However, the copious amounts of oversteer this car suffers from would have also been enough to send it to the bin as early as Round 1 otherwise.)
And now, Round 1 proper.
After his foray into the world of cars he shouldn’t have, Tony figures the best way to narrow his search is to figure out which cars he doesn’t want. And it doesn’t take long to think of one, either…
@Hilbert - Brindley Beach Avenue Cruiser
The rising midcarder would honestly rather walk than drive a Brindley - he knows this because his aunt has one. The wallowy wagon doesn’t turn, it doesn’t stop, it eats way beyond its fill and its pillars are thinner than cigarettes. You’d think that the cause of its appetite - a 427ci V8 - would give it some get-up-and-go… But it’s not fast, either. And while it’s not the worst troublemaker either, it won’t win any dependability awards.
(Ah yes, another car that didn’t use quality despite having plenty of techpool to justify it - and ended up worse for it. Unacceptably low values in drivability, safety and fuel economy end this run quick.)
And the Wells Chiraz is a similar story. A jobber Tony beat up once had one; and that guy was begging to be put over (wr. slang for being booked to win the match) because his car was eating up his earnings.
(Again - some appalling fuel economy from a poorly tuned V8 and a gearbox that maxes out at the car’s top speed. More torque means you absolutely require overdrive - it’s only something you can forgo if you’re underpowered.)
@Ch_Flash - Hamfa Nautus 2800
Then there’s the Hamfa Nautus. Tony actually thinks the car is pretty stylish and trendy, and appreciates the existence of an estate version; unfortunately, the real reason he’s recalling this car is that one of his locker-room adversaries got in hot water for missing a show… because his '79 Nautus crapped out on him. While it makes for good schadenfreude, it wouldn’t do for “Mike Maverick” to have his career stumped by that kind of mishap.
(A lack of quality points in cruical areas contributes to a low enough reliability score to trash the whole car, and the drivability isn’t great either. That said, the car does look impressively handsome, the best I’ve seen from this contestant to date.)
Tony then recalls a conversation he had with big man Hans Kaiser himself - an auto aficionado in his own right. Kaiser had lamented on that day that some brands - including ones he likes for their style, like Cadillon - have simply fallen behind the times when it comes to quality control. Not one to ignore the words of one of his most important mentors, Tony figures that Cadillon, as well as Autoworks - another brand Henry (Hans’ legit name) had mentioned that night - will not be considered for his next auto.
(These two cars suffer from a disease that is still quite pervasive in this community, that being zero quality across the board - which, primarily, results in low reliability scores. The Autoworks is the greater offender of the two, with its 60.8 reliability being the second-worst in the competition, just ahead of a car that I have already instabinned. I cannot stress this enough: when you’re cooking with techpool, quality is very often the most cost-efficient upgrade you can get, especially for the points below techpool [i.e. +4 fuel system tech, +3 fuel system quality]. On the plus side, both cars are otherwise decently well-rounded, and the Symmetra also looks really striking - if a bit risque.)
@EnCR - Avantii Cessentia LE and @Banana_Soule - SUMA M332 Crucera
While reliability is important, Tony knows that a rising star like “Mike Maverick” needs a good work rate. This is impossible if you’re injured. One recent story he’s heard involves a wrestling manager from a Southern promotion who bought a midsize Avantii for its supposedly bulletproof reliability - only to get his kneecap crushed in a relatively minor rear-end incident. Sure, this scored him points when he continued showing up to shows in a cast, but Tony sure as hell wouldn’t be able to pull off the same as an in-ring competitor.
And then there’s the SUMA Crucera - which may not have any nasty stories under its belt in the wrestling world, but only by virtue of being too dang slow. Between the tragic 600-pound boat anchor of an engine making 93 hp and an ancient 2-speed gearbox, it has no passing performance. Tests of the model back in '76 - around when Tony was buying his piece of crap Plymouth Volaré - showed an equal unwillingness to brake or corner. That means being ran off the road by semi in winter would mean… certain death.
(Safety bins, the both of them - mostly due to mediocre safety on top of crap chassis. But where the Avantii Cessentia is otherwise sort of competent, the SUMA Crucera is a total mess, and the use of a transmission this old in 1980 teeters on the very brink of a realism bin. Another strike against the SUMA is that it’s clearly a car meant to evoke an image of a cost-cut car built in a command economy - but it isn’t even remotely the cheapest in the competition.)
@xsneakyxsimx - Ascot Grenadier; @SheikhMansour - Rosewood Vicugna; @Vento - Clari Voyageb
Finally, there are cars Tony just can’t bear to look at for very long, and figures others would feel the same way if they saw them. And you can’t have that when you’re a 28-year-old contact sports personality, and one who’s between girlfriends at the moment to boot. The Ascot Grenadier is extremely bland and has a weird mashed-together rear end - and if that wasn’t enough, every penny you save by buying it you’ll give back eventually. The Rosewood Vicugna is a similar story, with a bar of soap for a grille, incoherent foglamps and a side that’s so bare it isn’t even classy. And while Tony understands the couple friends he has that have opted for a Clari Voyageb - there are few full-size sedans that are more efficient or optimized - the rear looks like the designer was blackout drnk making it. If Tony is to have some sort of social dignity, he needs a car that actually looks good, and those three miss the mark entirely.
(I am not going to mince words - it’s pretty apparent in a design when the person making it really didn’t try hard at all. The latter two cars in this group in particular - the Rosewood and the Clari - are actually really good in terms of stats, perhaps even finalist-grade. The Clari achieves this with some decisions of questionable balance, including a manual steering rack on a full-size FWD sedan - but that’s no sin at all compared to the total lack of care that the design exhibits.)
Stay tuned for Round 2, whem Mike Maverick goes through the remaining 25 cars by reading a series of comparos by the vaunted Colorado automotive magazine, The Open Road!
27 Likes
Ah, there’s the instabin I was expecting. See, I knew I could have been sensible and plunked the 5.9 in there instead (It would still have been unrealistic, but more sensible despite being a nearly 6 liter V6), and geared it better, but, well, 5 hour wildcard and no real intent to win.
But it was fun to do, knowing it was going to be binned regardless.
Out of curiosity, have you made any “normal” engine since the ancient days of Kee and the Storm brand? 
On a more general note - even though I’m not participating (damn forgot, I have a fitting car!), I’ve sorta learned something from this round, which is nice.
1 Like