CW7: Golden Age Memories (Round 6: Reliability)

[abg7]

Round 5: Design

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so it is with this lot. It’s not a stat that I can measure in Automation, so I’ll just give the top marks (100 points) to the best-looking car, and everything else gets a percentage of that based on how good-looking I think it is.

Best-looking car: Zephorus Grimsel (100 styling points)

How could it not be? The dramatic styling of the Grimsel makes it easily recognizable for miles, and a prime candidate for bedroom posters everywhere.

Worst-looking car: Mara Paragon 4.0 KSE (41.7 styling points)

While well-engineered on the inside, the Paragon is far from a styling, erm, paragon on the outside, with poor proportions, fixtures that don’t quite gel with each other, and an undersized body.

Exterior design rankings

1st: Zephorus Grimsel (100/10pts) - Not just one of the best-looking supercars of its time, but also of all time, with drama and swagger to turn heads everywhere.
2nd: Gipfe CS 40Dti (96.7/9.65pts) - A more understated offering compared to the Grimsel, but its looks are perfectly appropriate for something that is meant to be a grand tourer with a dash of sportiness.
3rd: Nordwagen Loki S-8x4 (94.2/9.38pts) - Although somewhat on the small side, its menacing front fascia and bulging fenders give it a menacing air on the road.
4th: Busan Pegasus Coupe (92.6/9.21pts) - A clear case of retro-modern done right, and solid proof that the Moore body sets can be made to work well for the modern era (2020 onwards).
5th: Primus Legacy SV500 (90.9/9.03pts) - Absolutely nails the Q-car brief on the outside, with just the right amount of sporty touches on a 4-door sedan body to give off a performance vibe.
6th: Knightwick Goodwood Coupe (88.2/8.75pts) - In isolation, this isn’t a bad-looking car, but it would be more aesthetically resolved if its proportions matched its FF drivetrain.
7th: Winchester Warrior (84.1/8.31pts) - It may look too much like a C4 replica on paper, but that car had such an iconic shape that I can’t rank it any lower.
8th: Strenus Sylphide (83.3/8.25pts) - A butch, unapologetic exterior treatment makes the Sylphide look every inch like the rally refugee that it is.
9th: Rocket Venus (80.7/6.77pts) - This one has all the retro supercar details (rear wing, big side intakes, pop-up headlights) in the right places. Needs a less grumpy face, though.
10th: Quix Discopop 1.7 AWD) (80.1/6.67pts) - Lots of body molding in all the right places make this minivan feel light, airy, and surprisingly attractive for its body style.
11th: Yajirushi 290 CTC (78.7/6.44pts) - It needs more cab-rearward proportions, and a slightly different shape for its headlight covers, but this is still a solid design.
12th: Wells Sidewinder SS (74.4/5.72pts) - A typical '90s aero-influenced design, but the rear wing is too boxy and the headlight covers are a bit too small. Still, the proportions are quite good.
13th: DAW Corsica Mojarra (70/4.98pts) - The headlights are a bit too small, and a slightly larger lower air intake would be welcome, but the proportions fit its RR layout perfectly.
14th: Ayatsuji Myosotis GSR Spec-V (66.3/4.36pts) - From the front, it looks quite decent, but the shooting brake rear looks forced and too tail-heavy. The side mirrors should also be slightly larger.
15th: Lepus GT (61.1/3.49pts) - On the outside, it takes the Q-car theme a bit too seriously. The result is something that, rear spoiler aside, could be too easily confused with its lesser siblings in the range.
16th: Oryu Destriero GTS (58.8/3.11pts) - While not a bad-looking car per se, the headlights are mounted too low, and the mirrors should be wider. It also needs some more detail on the sides.
17th: Aero Flow (55.9/2.63pts) - It looks like a supercar that had shrunk in the wash and melted in the sun, but at least its aero fixtures are the right size and shape.
18th: Kato Celeritas (51.4/1.87pts) - The way the front-end fixtures are placed and scaled makes it look sleepy, and this car also suffers from small-mirror syndrome.
19th: Norrsken Esox R (48.5/1.39pts) - I know this one is built on what will soon be a legacy body set, but that doesn’t excuse its upright front fascia, which clashes with the overall wedge-shaped profile.
20th: Mara Paragon 4.0 KSE (40.2/0pts) - Mara gets the wooden spoon for using an undersized body set with poorly-proportioned morphing settings, and placing the fixtures on it disharmoniously.

Standings after Round 5
1st: Zephorus Grimsel (51.72pts)
2nd: Gipfe CS40DTI (49.38pts)
3rd: Nordwagen Loki S-8x4 (49.36pts)
4th: Rocket Venus (43.89pts)
5th: Primus Legacy SV500 (38.62pts)
6th: Winchester Warrior (28.65pts)
7th: Busan Pegasus Coupe (28.52)
8th: Strenus Sylphide HT4 (26.74pts)
9th: Wells Sidewinder SS (24.65pts)
10th: Knightwick Goodwood Coupe (21.6pts)
11th: Yajirushi 290 CTC (17.6pts)
12th: Aero Flow (17.33pts)
13th: Lepus GT (12.02pts)
14th: Ayatsuji Myosotis GSR Spec-V (9.85pts)
15th: DAW Corsica Mojarra (9.08pts)
16th: Oryu Destriero GTS (8.98pts)
17th: Kato Celeritas (2.85pts)
18th: Mara Paragon 4.0 KSE (1.55pts)
19th: Norrsken Esox R (-1.74pts)
20th: Quix Discopop 1.7 AWD (-10.05pts)

Stay tuned for part 6!

[mart1n2005]

Is this very important part of the cool wall scoring going to be ignored for this challenge basically?

The whole point of this is to make the scoring relative to the top and bottom numbers for a given category. If you use this scoring then out a 10 point scale for example the top car getting 100 in reliability would mean the second place car with only 50 reliability then gets 5 points out of a possible ten, even though it is in second place it is half the points due to the relative nature of the scoring.

With the system used currently the second place car would get 9.5 points even though it’s reliability score is half of the top placed entry.

[abg7]

I thought about using the original Cool Wall scoring system for this round, but decided to replace it with a different one just for this round, and will update the OP accordingly.

[Knugcab]

Well…my five cents, if you are deciding to ditch a well established scoring system in a continous challenge and replace it with one of your own, “updating the OP accordingly” should probably be done before the end of rules delib and not over a month after the deadline for submissions…

[Tsundere-kun]

What is the point of updating the OP when everything from the rules, the entries, and whatever judging it is are already said and done? Genuine question, is this just some sort of satire?

[abg7]

Apologies for the unexpected change - I realized late in the deliberation phase that I would rather switch things up for the scoring system, but only for this iteration of the Cool Wall Challenge - future iterations will revert to the usual system last used in CW6.

[Riley]

It’s not so much that the lateness of changing a rule is bad, but the way the challenge is meant to be hosted has been changed after we’ve all submitted. The scoring is straight up wrong, and far more basic than it should’ve been. To prove a point, here are the real scores after our current scoring.

As you can see, things don’t really move at the very top or the bottom, but after that it’s a mess, everyone shuffles everywhere with several people jumping or dropping 10 spaces or so.

Ty @Danicoptero for doing this visual place swap thing.

[abg7]

Thanks for pointing that out - I’m seriously considering reverting to the original CW scoring system and adjusting points per round accordingly.

[Riley]

Please do! it would make many of us very happy. The original calculator is right there.

If you were going to run your own version of CW the way you did it would be “fine” but this is the real thing!

[abg7]

It’s getting late where I live, so I’ll go to bed first, then readjust the rankings the following day.

The new scoring system I had wanted to replace it with, however, will not go to waste, and I may consider using it for my own standalone challenges later.

[abg7]

Round 6: Reliability

They say that a car is only as good as how far its oily bits can take it - the further the better. Or is it?

Most reliable: Mara Paragon 4.0 KSE (88.0)

Mara has shed its reputation for badly built knockoffs of Western machinery with the Paragon. Odd-looking it may be, but it conceals a heart of iron.

Least reliable: Yajirushi 290 CTC

Overcomplicated on the inside, its sleek looks conceal mechanicals that are not quite as robust as they seem.

Reliability rankings

1st: Mara Paragon 4.0 KSE (88.0) - An overbuilt engine, interior, and body help make Mara’s flagship performance car outlast its competitors mechanically. If only it looked better…
2nd: Knightwick Goodwood Coupe (83.5) - While not as over-engineered as the Paragon (at least in terms of body and engine quality), its interior is far better built. Being a full decade newer also helps.
3rd: Zephorus Grimsel (83.3) - By resorting to using an exquisitely finished body and a more robust drivetrain, it does not need to have as many quality points sunk into other areas for a podium finish - a remarkable result considering its age.
4th: Gipfe CS 40DTI (82.6) - Built using the same philosophy as the Grimsel (more drivetrain and body quality points, fewer such points elsewhere), the Gipfe leverages its newer design to compensate for the complexity of its fancier infotainment.
5th: Rocket Venus (82.3) - It takes a similar approach to quality allocation as the Zephorus and Gipfe, but leans even more heavily on body quality to offset the reliability penalty of its active suspension.
6th: Lepus GT (81.1) - With its quality points distributed more evenly (but with fewer of them assigned to where they affect reliabilty the most), the Lepus barely misses out on a top-5 spot, but is still one of the better built entries here.
7th: Ayatsuji Myosotis GSR Spec-V (80.5) - Despite not using any quality points in many areas, it invests many of them in a few crucial places (including bodywork and drivetrain) to score highly in this field.
8th: Primus Legacy SV500 (80.2) - Like the Lepus GT, the Legacy opts for a more balanced allocation of quality points, but leans even more heavily into its philosophy to remain competitive in this regard, despite its age.
9th: Winchester Warrior (79.7) - Even with a luxury interior and CD player (which I’m assuming was an optional extra), its robust engine and drivetrain help ensure that it can last a long time.
10th: Oryu Destriero GTS (79.2) - In terms of quality allocation, its approach is similar to that of the Myosotis, though not as extreme, thus resulting in a top-10 finish.
11th: Busan Pegasus Coupe (77.5) - By using few or no quality points outside of the suspension and drivetrain, its reliability suffers accordingly, and never rises far enough above average.
12th: Aero Flow (77.4) - It has the same problem as the Pegasus (too few quality points in general), but not to the same extent. However, its age also partly explains why it finishes behind the Pegasus in the reliability rankings.
13th: Wells Sidewinder SS (76.6) - Another car plagued by a similar issue as the Pegasus, but for a different reason: some of the quality points have been assigned to places where they don’t affect reliability as much.
14th: Nordwagen Loki S-8x4 (76.2) - The oily bits and interior are fairly well-built, but not to the same extent as the class leaders, and the rest of the car even less so, though the relatively low amount of body quality points may be somewhat to blame for its disappointing reliability ratings, especially when combined with the use of active suspension and semi-active dampers.
15th: Norrsken Esox R (76.1) - Using lots of quality points across the board to reinforce an older design can only go so far - the Esox’s sheer age really holds it back here. It still avoids a bottom-5 finish, though, by going all-in on that approach.
16th: Kato Celeritas (75.7) - Although it invests lots of quality points overall, it spreads them too thinly, especially in the gearbox and interior.
17th: DAW Corsica Mojarra (74.3) - Most of its components are set to 0 quality, and the others haven’t had a large number of positive quality points sunk into them.
18th: Strenus Sylphide HT4 (74.0) - A lot of quality points here, but spread inconsistently - they should have spent more of them on the gearbox, interior, and bodywork, where they are most effective.
19th: Quix Discopop 1.7 AWD (70.3) - No quality points anywhere on the trim (and even on some engine components)? That’s a recipe for a shitbox down the line - only its offbeat exterior design saves the Quix from being one, though.
20th: Yajirushi 290 CTC (69.9) - The bottom of the barrel in terms of reliability. In part this is due to having active suspension (very cutting-edge for 1991), but the real deal-breaker is the complete lack of positive body quality.

Standings after Round 6

1st: Zephorus Grimsel (55.42)
2nd: Gipfe CS40DTI (52.89)
3rd: Nordwagen Loki S-8x4 (51.1)
4th: Rocket Venus (47.32)
5th: Primus Legacy SV500 (41.47)
6th: Winchester Warrior (31.36)
7th: Busan Pegasus Coupe (30.62)
8th: Strenus Sylphide HT4 (27.87)
9th: Wells Sidewinder SS (26.5)
10th: Knightwick Goodwood Coupe (25.36)
11th: Aero Flow (19.4)
12th: Yajirushi 290 CTC (17.6)
13th: Lepus GT (15.11)
14th: Ayatsuji Myosotis GSR Spec-V (12.78)
15th: Oryu Destriero GTS (11.55)
16th: DAW Corsica Mojarra (10.3)
17th: Mara Paragon 4.0 KSE (6.55)
18th: Kato Celeritas (4.45)
19th: Norrsken Esox R (-0.03)
20th: Quix Discopop 1.7 AWD (-9.94)

Stay tuned for Part 7!

[moroza]

@abg7

twin-turbo

Huh?

[abg7]

Sorry, but I didn’t catch that oversight initially - the engine is naturally aspirated and has had quite a lot of quality points sunk into it everywhere. I traced its relatively low reliability score to its active suspension system (specifically, active springs) - it’s the most advanced one the game offers (and provides unmatched drivability, comfort, and sportiness), but it’s also the most complex, expensive and least reliable option of all.

Also, one major observation I made when analyzing the reliability scores for each entrant is that adding body/trim quality provides a significant boost to reliability, by improving overall fit and finish.