Given the MR2, and perhaps to a lesser extent the Fiero, how much ass-n-trash room is Rob really expecting? I’ven’t seen the latter up close, but an MR2 hardly fits my grocery run, let alone band equipment.
I don’t really remember 1987; were custom vans still cool? What about wagons or shooting brakes?
The brief (its less-brief version) is awesome, by the way.
i think that was just another fad that was born and died in the disaster of the 70s, but it would still be an awful idea because:
First of all, thanks!
If need be, Rob could just go the all-out route anyway - at worst, he’d get more of a ribbing from his bandmates. Thing is, if you can go as fast or turn as good in a car that’s not massively impractical, that car will win.
I’m pretty sure that era was when the cool factor of wagons was at its lowest. Hardly better than the minivans that were pressing them in the market.
The bit about the car inspiring his performer persona, which I only got after reading the full story, strikes a chord (pun intended). My own such experiences don’t much apply, though, especially if wagons won’t fly. Yeah… in 1987 they were symbols of the Suburbanite Old Guard. It’d be a few years before the likes of LT1-powered GM and various souped-up Euro wagons. Oh well.
I don’t mean minivans, I mean repurposed cargo vans. At least a sizable contingent of kids in rural Canada in the early 90’s thought the likes of the A-team were pretty radical [sic]. None of them handle, sure, but some of them had an MR2’s passenger volume worth of liters under the hood, which by the late 80’s even the Big 3 Merkins had figured out how to turn into something resembling forward progress. Combined with looks, ability to schlep band equipment… and what for a metal band is a pretty potent trump card: the ability to host groupies for afterparties… makes for good reasons they got popular.
Allowing vans to be viable contenders would make for a less-routine competition; as it is, my proposed entry would be little more than a cheapened version of CW5 (will the wall be updated again?) or a newer version of CSR154.
Yeah, but the competition is not for a band vehicle, but for a personal vehicle that the frontman wants. And it will stay that way.
I know this was in the last challenge and it made sense for the '50s because rear engined cars of that segment weren’t very common, but can we lift this restriction for rear engined cars this time? Front and mid would still be locked out of it for balancing, but currently rear engine is fucked if it uses anything other than wishbone in the rear. To make macs function you have to use minimum a 40 mm difference in tyre staggering, which puts anything less specialized than a 911 out of the question and puts the slightly older 911 designs out completely. Lifting the restriction only on rear engine would make the use of it more viable and more realistic. It would also keep front engined options from gaining an advantage from it, pushing them towards more realistic engineering choices as well.
I think both my CSR155 and TMCC28 entries were 30 mm stagger and ran Macs on all four corners. But in general, Dbl Wishbone rear would make mid/rear engine cars them more accessible.
Yes, but at least in 155, you had much more money to play with to make the weight distribution slider even remotely possible. This round is much, much more budget conscious. And tmcc was literally very small, not very large engined cars where the engine shouldn’t weight very much at all. The fact that you had to stagger the tyres even then proves my point.
I never touched the weight sliders either. For either car.
If anyone wants to see how I made those cars mechanics wise, I can share them. Either in a PM or in a thread.
For CSR155 I had 20 mm of tire stagger, only achieved because cross-plies are shit and massive rear camber, along with weight slider all the way forward and a tiny rackety engine. Most of the engineering went to shifting weight forward to use macpherson struts front and back without making it a deathtrap, and it ended up worse for it - although it being half of a shitpost didn’t help either.
In any case, I support allowing rear double wishbones for rear-engined cars.
I am not 100% sure about a rear DW ban here at all. With some techpool you should be able to even get multilink in 1987 (which also was used by, for example, the Mercedes 190). That generally gives even better stats.
Tbh I’m split on it right now. The biggest advantage of complicated suspensions in general is comfort, and I’ve dialed that down to a 1-star priority - so people may not even want to use those complex suspensions that badly. I will consider my options and get back to you in the morning.
Also, unleaded fuel could as well mean 100 RON Ultimate, that’s a bit unrealistic for the 80s, isn’t it? An octane rating could be welcome.
My suggestion would be a mandate for the use of 91 RON regular unleaded or 95 RON premium unleaded, with the latter potentially subject to a slight penalty.
Also, with TRX tires becoming less common by 1987, tire sizes for this CSR should not be divisible by 10, i.e. the last digit of a tire’s width must not be 0.
Does this mean we can’t use any other body styles? Are trucks and vans out of question entirely?
Sedans and coupes (including hatchback coupes) ought to be preferred.
Also, I just made a pair of test mules for this one - an FR V8 pony car with a live rear axle, and an MR I4 sports car with struts front and rear.
Since this is for the US market, and the previous two CSRs have done it, do we have to use sealed beam headlights + sidemarkers?
The sealed beam mandate was repealed in 1983. FMVSS 108 applies.
In addition to this, pop-up headlights were still common in 1987 - you may use them if they fit the car’s shape.