It’s worth noting this says “at least.” Generally, the redline is actually a decent distance beyond peak power. When you change gears, your engine RPMs drop substantially. As such, having your peak further behind the redline allows you to stay in your power band when changing gears.
This is one of the things I was sort of afraid of with the advanced transmission update- there’s so much to know and so few resources to learn.
If you desired, you can build any performance. However, the constructors are not obliged to adjust to the expectations of the riders, for example, that motor is best to spin up to 4000 rpm, for better start. In this case, we have a red line and a cutoff at the same time. A racer can drive at 7000 revolutions out of 8000, but he can sacrifice traction for the sake of speed of actions. Since, in fact, racing cars are presented here, the remaining 1000 revolutions before the cutoff is not an excessively large range.
This is an assessment according to the classical scheme.
well, i don’t have divination powers… especially when what is explicitly stated matches basically word for word with something else. you can’t bin me for following the explicit wording of the rules.
When I stated this in the OP, I was referring to the total costs, not merely the tech pool costs:
Based on this, your entry exceeded the $75m total cost limit, and was thus binned; none of the other entries I received violated this rule.
@doot after checking the dyno sheet on one of the entries (specifically, the Atlas Acorus v2 by @skawkclsrn), I chose to review its power curve:
It’s not so much that there’s too much space from redline to power peak, but the power curve drops off dramatically over the last 500 rpm. This is evidence of valve float, but the game won’t tell you if it exceeds 5%.
As for your entry, if the yellow line on the low-speed steering graph peaks above the oversteer threshold (represented by the red line), then it has a tendency to oversteer:
If said yellow line also climbs upward steeply near the right-hand edge, then this tendency to oversteer becomes terminal (as shown below with @yakiniku260’s entry):
@mart1n2005 I appreciated the fact that you experimented with an auto manual transmission. However, although it improved comfort compared to a manual, it also significantly reduced its sportiness rating:
You could also have left the transmission as it was and omitted the rear +2 seats altogether:
Either change on its own would have improved its chances, but implementing both of them at once would most likely have made it finalist material:
As it was, however, the BSC K-GT turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments of the field - it looked amazing from any and every angle, but was badly compromised by its choice of transmission type and unnecessary 2+2 (instead of 2+0) seating capacity (in a round where rear seats are not even required) - however, although the Sukairain and Hazel also had 4 seats (which, in their case, were all full-sized), it was more easily justifiable for both of them due to their base body sets ('88 Indicator and '84 Muni, respectively) looking more likely to accommodate 4 or more seats than the '95 Outrun body set (on which the K-GT was based).
As an outsider, this still seems pretty unclearly worded. Specifically referring to the total costs rather than just saying “maximum sandbox techpool cost”, which doesn’t specify either of the three, would have prevented this
I actually agree with Chowi on this one. I’m not saying you should unbin them, but the confusion is strong with how you worded things. I would have also interpreted this as the number on the left, which is directly labeled “Techpool Costs”. That’s what matches with the wording of the rules. If the rules had said something on the lines of “Total costs in the techpool tab”, then the bin makes more sense. This is definitely something that will need to be clarified in other challenges if hosts choose to regulate techpool this way.
I get it - next time anyone sets a techpool budget cap (myself included), they should (must?) explicitly state if it refers only to the techpool cost alone, or total techpool and lab costs, just to remove confusion.
Haven’t read all of this but I’m guessing @abg7 was quoting some advice I handed out. It was a general comment, on a previous challenge, from 3 years ago!
I’ll remember in future to quote you when I enter a 1L shitbox that’s got RPM 1K+ the redlline. 
Given the wide variation in real cars’ power curves relative to both natural and programmed redlines, yall make far too much of a fuss over it IMO. The valve float bit is a legitimate concern, but the rest is unnecessary.
Commendably quick, efficient, and mostly well-organized round! In contrast to the Ryugyong Hotel that is (still) the previous round, this part of the Journey of Ownership was a stay in a by-the-hour motel run with typical German efficiency, and with mostly clean sheets too.
I was told Riley is on vacation, so unless he steps in before sunday I will have something up for sunday evening.
My influence grows!
No knock on you when I said you weren’t an end-all source, by the way, just weird to see a fellow forum user’s word be treated as gospel 
You have a point! Challenges that take too long to complete (as far as final results are concerned) are among my pet peeves.
there was nothing in writing that stated this was your intention, thus no way for me to know that it was, no matter how much we repeat ourselves. your writing says techpool cost, the game says tech pool costs. as is very often repeated, the rules can only be what is in writing. i’ve hosted challenges with similar situations, like OT_motive’s entry in ARBC2, where my intention was not fully and properly conveyed in writing or in pictures. since the mistake was mine, i did not bin the entry, i merely stated what the issue was and gave it its due place in the standings.
My apologies - the bin’s been retracted. Your entry is now classified fifth.
A gentleman, and a scholar!
An auto manual gearbox is not the same as an (advanced) automatic one - here’s a comparison of your entry’s stats with a 6-speed auto manual transmission with those of the same entry fitted with a 5-speed advanced automatic:
And here is what its stats would have been had you fitted a 6-speed manual gearbox instead:
The manual version trads a sizable amount of comfort for a boost in sportiness, but Bruno’s priorities leaned towards the latter, so it would have been an acceptable sacrifice in my view.
I’m somewhat curious if mine happened to be the lowest hp car in this whole list? If it was a real Japanese car it would obviously been marketed with the Gentleman’s Agreement of ‘276 hp’ but I think I had it around the 330ish mark?
Your car was indeed the least powerful one submitted, with 337 horsepower from its 2.6L turbo I6 - for comparison, the ZRD Grimsel was the most powerful entry, with a 646bhp 6.2L V12. However, you managed to set up its chassis and drivetrain such that it managed to beat (or at least was a match for) many of the more fancied opposition it encountered in terms of sportiness.
-looks at unfinished Þor with 4-figure dyno, shakes head-
Hah yes I’m away, proceed on with whoever’s next.
