Just a suggestion is to NOT make the next round a pickup truck round in the 70s because the lack of bodies is a huge problem, we have a couple of early-mid 60s looking things and then nothing until the 80s F150 body that looks…well 80s and unlocks rather late. If I had the knowledge to make mod bodies I would cook up a Jeep Gladiator/Cherokee/Wagoneer one since it is fairly neutral in its styling and could work for 30-ish years.
5 Likes
They’ll have a kid that in theory could be old enough to learn how to drive, and it might be in between the '73 and '79 oil crisis’s (if we want to keep history in mind). And depending however people want their lives to go, whether they will continue with the farm, sell and move closer to the city, or maybe the era encourages more… illicit activities. But is ultimately is up to what Karhgath feels fits into their story.
2 Likes
Um, is it too late to give my opinion? I kinda feel like i’ll get rotten tomatoed just for bringing things up again when everyone’s gotten past. Ikik corporate overtime schedule is my problem not the others, I just got to see the result and I’m a bit confused to say the least.
Yeah, there were people with similar questions and/or feelings. I think the best thing to do now is just read through the comments and make peace lol.
When I made that post, I was confused. After further investigation, I am frustrated then mad then finally now dissapointed.
Its not even about the alteration of the entries thats my biggest gripe. I’ve made my mind, I want answers.
- Altering submissions is a can of worms that people already went through.
My thoughts personally: I’m fine if its for legality or tiny bin avoiding editing. Be nice to know that that was going to be done in advance, or else I would’ve approached engineering differently. - I didn’t even know about the looks being in consideration using likes as points(?) and also something I take little issue with though I agree that’s not the best way to go about it.
No no, my biggest issue is why do I feel you… ‘misjudge’ isnt the right word im looking for. more-so misled.
I’ll be honest, at first I was okay with the rankings while reading the greatly written reviews. Everything was fine and dandy, the alteration thing, though unexpected and not a welcome one, wasn’t a huge deal. It was understandable. At first I thought my ranking was so low because of the realism adjustments made. So I looked at the spreadsheet to see how I did…
That’s when it got pretty sour. My entry did:
- The highest drivability by a significant margin (BY FAR if unaltered which I wasnt informed)
- You can see the spreadsheet of all the red purchase cost. Mine is at a pink 2nd place (both altered and original)
- No one else went under 800 SVC cost. Some were above 1000. mine eventually went under 700.
- The most fuel efficient BY FAR of all the finalists.
These are all of the HIGH priorities.
- Sportiness is by far the lowest. I accept that. That’s the design. Its not meant for Earl since Wendy is mostly driving.
(dk why Earl has equal stakes when hes not driving as much, but that’s a different issue) - Comfort was not the lowest. not even second lowest, not even 3rd lowest. 4th lowest in the middle of the pack but after alteration it became 2nd lowest I believe. Why so low? Because its a plush couch compared to the stone slab of a truck they have. That was the bar. Though fair and understandable that were comparing against the competition not the truck.
- The highest reliability of all finalists.
Unlike the HIGH Priorities, the MEDIUM Priorities were far from an outright win. Only being highest in reliability out of 7 finalists.
Winning in 3 out of 4 high priorities being 2nd in the 4th. winning a 1 out of 3 in the medium priorities. So far does it sound like this car is the lowest out of all the finalists to you? Well guess what! it is!
Going through the lower priorities its about the same. some are better some are worse, and not much of a consideration to me.
After comparing my entry to individual finalists, and seeing my entry’s advantages, a trend started to form. Again and again, beating every finalist in the high priority and losing in Sportiness and most of the time comfort.
How does all of those facts, fit the description of the LOWEST ranked finalist? I mean come on look at this.
Disclaimer: This is just an example, I mean nothing or make no attempt to single out Bdub1, and sorry if you feel targeted as a result.
I fail to see how this entry got not one but TWO places above me. Came out on top on every high priority, beaten in a single medium, and traded blows in the low priorities.
Please explain how beating my entry in a SINGULAR MEDIUM priority warrants two places higher when it got beaten at ALL FOUR HIGH priorities.
This trend continued and baffles me. This is where I try to understand the other perspective. What I came up with is I think you mis-prioritized.
Usually if a lower priority consideration makes the difference in a match-up between entries its because they’re tied in the higher priorities. At that point, its the little things that count. In this case however it wasnt tied or close. I clearly won most of the high priority only coming 2nd in price.
Seeing how medium priorities overruled the high priorities much to my astonishment, it has led me to believe that the intended deciding factors were what Earl and Wendy wanted, and not the things listed as high priority. As I re-read the review for my entry, It reinforced my theory of mis-prioritization. All the supposed high priorities were mentioned as if its a ‘nice addition’, a ‘good to have’ or ‘will definitely help’, while the deciding factors were Wendy and Earl’s wants which were medium priority.
In this case I can understand your judgement from the explanation, however in my opinion the spreadsheet nor the priorities listed supports your verdict.
It clearly shows that I followed the listed priorities. Excelling in the highs, putting thought in sacrificing one medium priority (sportiness) with reason to gain advantages in the high priorities, whilst maintaining reasonable comfort and utmost reliability. I feel I followed the brief excellently yet I still fall short being the lowest of the finalists. Delving into the reason as to why, it made me feel unfairly uninformed, and misled, therefore unfairly judged.
This is not your problem but with what little spare time I have, I choose to put in a significant amount of effort and thought into the design. This just serves to amplify all the sour note.
I’d also like to add that I’m not asking for the rankings to be changed or re-evaluated. You as host reserve the right of deciding that. I’m just saying I am rather disappointed with the methods and quite disappointed with the results.
TLDR
"Changed for realism?? Where was that in the brief??? Understandable I guess..."
“Dead last in finals? After all that effort and thought? My car must be really unrealistic or everyone’s just better…”
checks spreadsheet
“What the f… NO EVERYONE ISNT BETTER IM STILL TOP ON OF MOST AFTER THE CHANGES”
“How tf is that bottom of the barrel! What kind of convoluted judging system did you use? That’s utter bullshit Im calling it out.”
5 Likes
Like I stated above, sorry I have a busy life. I take issue with the adjustment, and the argument “if no one cares its not a problem” for various reasons in numerous scenarios this included.
My suspension optimization? down the drain. I don’t know what stats are on it now. Gearing ratios pertaining to comfort sport and drive? poof gone. In what competition do I not know my entry’s final stats.
Really? A surprise mechanic in a competitive setting? You’re kidding right? what is this a thriller?
Imagine a football game and at the end “Surprise! goals don’t count! The time of ball control determines the winner!”
I agree skipping would be boring. Revealing bit by bit is not boring. Maybe a more specific criteria would be scrutinized after when the pre-lims are more general, but straying too far is unreasonable don’t you think?
The writing was great, I enjoyed it very much. Though I can’t be asked to feel fulfilled when my effort, thought and time put in were twisted into something else and imo unfairly judged.
Why heff to be mad? I made something with my very limited time according the words in the brief and it was imo not judged according to the brief itself. It feels like shit I deal with at work when a client ask for A then I deliver A to get “Actually nvm lemme change it a bit”. At least at work there are reasonable circumstances to why technical requirements change.
6 Likes
I have also very little spare time, and not willing to offend you, I do NOT have the time and energy to reopen a discussion that was already more or less closed with “most things were good, but that mistake should really not be made again”, especially about something as unimportant as a damn video game.
Yes your points are totally valid but I guess its all not worth the negative emotions and time to heat up even If you are not wrong.
1 Like
Sure that part was closed. I did say it wasn’t a huge deal and my biggest gripe. Sorry if It seem like that was the point. My ranking was the main issue for me.
Also I guess we can agree to disagree. I can see where the “its just a game” point comes from but no thanks. I do this for fun and being treated unfairly isn’t fun and I feel my joy has been robbed.
I think the issue of how the realism adjustments were done has been thoroughly litigated, and I think all I can really say at this point is that it’s become clear that I should have handled this differently, likely by simply stating up front things like “no rear double-wishbones” in the same way that the rules set out “cross-ply tires” only.
This outcome you discuss here, however, was exactly why I thought that the realism adjustments I made were an effective way of penalizing/rewarding for realism. In other words, if someone carefully colored inside the lines of what was actually available in this market segment at the time, then they got the advantage of their careful suspension/gearing tuning. If not, then, yes, this exactly would be the result. Again, it’s become clear that this was an unpopular and controversial approach, and it’s not one I intend to repeat if I ever host in the future, but this was an intentional feature of the scheme, not some sort of unanticipated quirk.
To be clear, the brief identified two high priorities: drivability and “cost to own,” which was a combination of purchase price, fuel economy, and service costs. As a result, I calculated an overall “cost to own” score that counted as a high priority.
I think your concerns largely speak to the issue that there are different ways to weigh high, medium, and low priorities, and I’m not aware of a particular convention that is used in that regard. I have seen some challenges (like Cool Wall) that specifically lay out how much each criterion will count toward the overall score, but that has appeared to be the exception rather than the rule.
Here, I applied a 2x multiplier to high priority items, a 1x multiplier to medium priorities, and a 0.5x multiplier to low priorities for score weighting. Could I have weighted these differently? Yes. Would your entry have probably won if, for example, I had decided to give a 3x multiplier to high priority items? Probably. But I picked a set of scoring rules and applied it. Your entry scored 5th out of 7 finalists based on this formula before any controversial realism weighting/design scoring was applied.
The key here is “beaten in a single medium,” which understates the key difference between your entry and the other finalists. Your car scored 31% above the median in drivability and about 23.5% above the median in cost of ownership. But the rest of the finalists scored 2-3 times the median in sportiness, while your entry finished slightly below the median in sportiness (again, before any realism penalties/bonuses). As a result, the magnitude of this difference–even though it did not receive a 2x multiplier as the high priorities did–was enough to essentially erase the advantage you gained in the high priority stats. Because your entry scored so well in the high priority stats, it could afford to be beaten in sportiness. It could not afford to get blown out of the water in sportiness, as it was. I would also note that in unadjusted scores among the finalists, the ultimate winner, the Lionhead, scored second-highest (behind your entry) in both drivability and cost-to-own, second-lowest in sportiness (but with a score double your entry), and second-lowest in comfort, which illustrates that drivability and cost to own did count significantly more than medium priorities like sportiness and comfort.
I think you’re probably right that the dialogue between the characters spent time talking about sportiness and comfort that were disproportionate to their scoring weight, but this was because it was the main point of controversy between the characters. There wasn’t a whole lot to say on criteria that they both agreed were important. And however they were framed in the narrative, it didn’t affect the actual scoring.
Again, it’s become clear that there are ways I should have laid out the judging criteria more clearly ahead of the fact, and I understand the frustration of spending a lot of time on a car and having it not score as highly as I’d hoped, or not quite understanding how the judging criteria were applied. I hope this explanation helps.
I can’t help but take a little umbrage at this remark. Was my scoring methodology unconventional? Apparently so. Controversial? Clearly. But unfair? Absolutely not. Say what you will about the criteria that were applied, but they were applied consistently and fairly, and at no point was I somehow targeting some particular entry for an advantage or disadvantage. I have shared the scoring spreadsheet, and you should be able to see the formulas and see that they were applied consistently. If I did somehow make a mistake when I was inputting/copying the formulas, then I would gladly re-run the calculations.
Do I love it when people disagree with my judgment or my decisions? No. But it’s fair game to question those, and at the end of the day, I have tried to listen to and learn from the feedback that has been given about my judgment and decisions–even if it was difficult to read.
But this sounds like questioning my integrity. Maybe that wasn’t the intent, but that’s certainly how it comes across, and that, to me, crosses a line.
6 Likes
Yes yes, wont happen again, great.
Sigh
Although I don’t see anywhere in the forums stating you couldn’t combine stats and as host you are within your rights to do so, I can’t help but feel they diminish the value per stat. Perhaps it is an interpretation issue as I considered each stat seperate and the formatting as an efficiency move in typing and space. I am accustomed to considering each of them as they are in game just as you layed out on your comparison spreadsheet, I can only suggest further clarity in the future at this point to prevent misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
At this point i’ll also like to add at no point did I contest the winner, I did not compare 2nd place either and I agree with the chosen winner (perhaps I should’ve made that clear) though I do have my opinions on 3rd and below.
Yes you did apply all the formulas equally and showed no favoritism or biases whatsoever to any entrant. That was not what I was referring to.
Initially it didn’t. I meant to say I feel unfairly treated. Just an opinion. The execution of the formulas as stated above were fairly and equally applied. However, after further thought, I am inclined to think maybe it did. Unintentionally of course.
Maybe I didn’t see it but I don’t remember seeing the controversial alteration process for the finalists being disclosed in the main brief, even reading it right now. I’m not sure if you came up with the whole changing entrants mechanic mid-way through the challenge or you had it planned all along. I’m inclined to think that you did not treat me unfairly, you treated every entrant unfairly by withholding(intentionally or unintentionally) such information regarding the judging process until after submissions closed. One which would have entrants engineered their car differently if disclosed. I’ll unfortunately have to reiterate that a hidden twist in a competitive setting where the rules and judgement should have been clearly laid out is not okay. I believe it is unfair to all the entrants who are affected and you are free to believe otherwise but to me, that crosses a line. You did not commit illegal acts or anything, nothing against any rule, but I will say this will remain a big yikes in my books and apparently too in other’s books before me.
I rest my case for entry ranking. May it be water under the bridge for everyone involved, probably has been water under the bridge for most as I was late.
2 Likes
I always knew, and I always disclosed, that realism would be taken into consideration. This was in the original brief:
Then this clarification followed:
Since it was always disclosed that realism would be taken into account, I’m not sure why disclosure of the precise mechanism for considering realism would have made a difference in anyone’s engineering choices. In fact, I saw one of the finalists make a comment on Discord to the effect that “I always knew the rear double wishbones were going to kill me.”
I also don’t see how the upfront disclaimer about realism was somehow insufficient to put you on notice that realism would affect your score, or how it was any less precise than that provided in other challenges. For example, here’s the currently running QFC47:
Here’s the recently completed CSR162:
Similarly, here’s CSR161:
Here’s the thing that’s been bugging me about the reaction to this judging; I was actually more transparent about how the judging was conducted than most challenges I’ve seen and went out of my way to try to come up with scoring mechanisms that weren’t just my own subjective judgment, and yet because everyone has come to expect design/realism scoring to essentially rely on the host’s subjective judgment and the notion that I “modified entries” set off alarm bells, the different way I approached judging has clearly rubbed people the wrong way. Admittedly, it would have been better if I had identified the design/realism mechanisms upfront in the brief, but, as a first-time host, this was a learning process for me where I initially relied on simply imitating similarly vague realism/design rules in other contests without having a clear idea of how those factors would ultimately be applied. But exactly the same outcomes could have been reached if I’d simply written things up a different way that was more opaque about how realism/design was taken into consideration. And this whole conflagration started with a wildly mistaken comment suggesting that “the finalist cars needed changing to be finalists,” which I think framed and fed the concerns that I “modified entries.”
I know that at this point this competition is going to go down in everyone’s memory as the one where the judge did some crazy scoring scheme that “modified entries” and had a bunch of “twists” in the scoring, and that nothing I say can change that impression, no matter how much I think that’s a mischaracterization. I also know that there is nothing I can say that will make you agree with me or stop you from feeling like you were somehow robbed or cheated in this challenge. But realism was clearly identified as a discretionary factor from the start. Considering that I would have been within my rights to bin or severely penalize any entry that I found to be unrealistic, I think that applying relatively modest realism penalties to cars that reached the finals was absolutely a fair approach.
Ultimately, beyond simply not considering realism at all, it’s not clear to me what you would have considered a fair approach to considering realism, or what sort of disclaimer you would have needed to take more care with designing your car more realistically.
4 Likes
I would say to everyone, just stop worrying about it now. All the laundry has been aired and the judging is done and isn’t going to change.
Let’s just get on with the next joc challenge as all this tension is helping no one.
5 Likes
Yes you did disclose that realism would be taken into consideration. The original is on par with other challenges I’ve seen.
I didn’t think having rear double wishbones are equivalent to these meme-ing entries you describe but that’s just an opinion.
I can’t speak for the others in this case, but if I knew that you were going to change core elements of the engineering, I would have done the engineering differently. I think that’s reasonable that people would not use double wishbones if you said you’re going to replace it out right. The same goes for the gearing if there was a disclaimer or notice like “If anyone goes beyond 4 im going to remove them”.
At this point I’m confused and that brings me to question to why allow double wishbones and not ban them outright if you are going to just change them into semi trailing arms? that goes the same for limiting gear numbers. You don’t want them in the challenge why leave the option for them? Or you do want them in the challenge just to severely punish people who do? That doesnt make sense…
I doubt its from malicious intent but doing something to the effect of ‘here’s an option but if you pick it you will be severely punished’ I don’t see the need to open the option if realistic vehicles are your goal for this challenge. Nor do I see the need to have an option that seeming only used to punish entrants.
I am fully aware and do expect penalties from using double wishbones. Though I expect the standard subjective number tinkering in the spreadsheet. You must see that changing such things affects more than just that particular thing. You did not just take away the suspension and gear you took away its optimization and selected ratios. You made choices for the entrant. If I knew you were going to make choices for me I’d reconsider joining this challenge. like I said its useless to allow it at first then change it completely. That’s where this challenge overstepped and differ from the rest.
I’d think changing entrants engineering without their knowledge is something you should disclose as a host. Its apparent now and no use saying it again, yeah that was not something that should’ve been done though nothing anywhere says you couldn’t.
In regards to other challenges, they all vary in realism according to hosts. You can’t just go “Look at other challenges” when the problem is with this challenge. Your realism discretion was to change entrants engineering without their chance of optimization post change nor their knowledge previously. I highly doubt the challenges you mentioned will do the same.
This is way more predictable than the out of left field alteration, I doubt anyone who joined thought that their entries would be changed that way that much.
Wait what?? you can’t be serious… Won’t people question why some of the judged stats are different from their original submission? you can’t hide changing their engineering… even in the spreadsheet. And the thought of hiding the fact that you changed the entrants cars… wow… all I could say is you did not judge MY car.
Tell me you did not change my car’s suspension and gearing. Hell, nevermind that. Even you admitted to doing that.
Well it did and it’s only one twist.
You’ve explained my rankings case well and I accept that. It just changed to others got screwed not only me.
Im at the opinion of “dont want it there? Ban it then(?)” Hell funnily enough I’d be content and and went oh well if my entry was outright binned!
Telling me you’re going to change the engineering at a whim… no that won’t make me care more, I’d stay away from a challenge where I have no control over my car’s final stats as is.
I agree with this. I rested my rankings case earlier and didn’t ask rankings to be changed. I hope this serves more as a reflection than anything else.
2 Likes
im not gonna say too terribly much here because im quite tired and dont want to start any more fires than are already burning but i am personally rather baffled by the thought of… editing entries for judging.
if rear dws are rare/unrealistic? add a cost penalty like some challenges do. or ding for realism in your judging. deem it expensive and complex to service, or unreliable somehow, or something. dont like… change it? because now youre not judging the entry are you, no, thats some abstraction. the ranking isnt valid anymore. thats a could-be, not an as-is.
if i hand you a cardboard box with packing tape on it for you to put things in and you replace the packing tape with masking tape because you don’t think packing tape is necessary, and suddenly the box isn’t as good as i thought it was when i gave it to you, and it isn’t as good as someone else’s box… then what in the everlovin hell are ya doin with my box?
that might be a terrible analogy. moving does things to a mans brain. you can probably tell by my disregard for punctuation.
id say thats my two cents but in this economy i want my two dollars
…for closing arguments sake im claiming this is all as rhetorical food for thought.
4 Likes
On the one hand, you’re saying you agree with the comment that we should just move on. On the other hand, you’re the one who re-opened this whole mess after I tried to leave it at a gracious “let’s just move on point.” And in the same post, you are continuing to take every single thing I say and interpret it in the worst way possible, and to suggest that I am arguing things that I don’t think any fair-minded reading would suggest that I’m arguing. No, I am not denying that I created a cloned version of each finalist and modified the engineering of those cloned versions to calculate realism penalties for the finalists. No, I am not suggesting I should have lied about or tried to hide the scoring. My point was that I could have stopped my judging efforts at the point of saying, “Eh, this doesn’t seem very realistic, so I’m going to bump it down a few spots,” written it up that way, and everyone would have been happy. As a first-time host, I tried to go the extra mile to make sure that realism penalties bore a rational relation to the actual effect that any unrealistic engineering choices had on the car. And everybody hated it. Heck, people who didn’t even make the finals (and thus never had a cloned version of their car created) and didn’t even participate in this challenge have jumped in to criticize my judging.
It turns out that I’m just a guy who likes cars and video games and who isn’t an expert on early 1960’s compacts. I was doing my research along with everyone else, so I honestly didn’t know at the start of the challenge that double wishbones or 5-gear transmissions were essentially unheard of at the time. That’s why I didn’t ban them upfront. I wasn’t trying to hide the ball. I was just doing my best to try to run an efficient challenge, not fully knowing what I was getting myself into.
If I entered a challenge and my car was altered by the host and never judged as is, I would be upset. But every car made its initial preliminary scoring and finalist qualification based entirely on the stats as produced by the game in the as-submitted version of the car. Funnily enough, I’ve also received criticism for not considering design/realism as part of these considerations. So, it seems that I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
At the end of the day, any judging for design or realism is going to be considering something that is more than, less than, or modified from the game-generated stats. What’s the difference between (1) taking the in-game generated stats and then applying some sort of additional “realism score” or “realism penalty” picked out of thin air and (2) using the in-game engine to calculate a realism modifier? Both are effectively creating modified statistics for your entry. I could have sworn that an earlier version of your post proposed adding a cost penalty or a reliability penalty for double wishbones. Well, if I did that, then, again, I would be judging something that is not your as-is submitted entry, but rather some modified version of your entry. And applying a cost penalty could easily result in a car having to be binned for exceeding the cost limit. Given the fact that you are this upset over the exact way that I derived a realism scoring modifier for your car that made the finals, I seriously doubt you would have been content if I had simply binned your entry based on some never-announced rule about double wishbones.
I was trying very hard to do right by everyone with this scoring. It obviously backfired. Next time I host (if I ever get that chance, and honestly at this point I’m not sure I’ll take any future hosting opportunities I might get), I will simply announce “Ten points for Gryffindor!” when doing design/realism scoring, and then apparently everyone will be able to sleep at night knowing that they have absolutely no idea how that score was arrived at, other than that I liked or didn’t like something.
So if you want to believe that I somehow screwed everyone over by applying a consistent ruleset that applied milder and better-explained realism penalties than I could have to a limited set of 7 entrants who made the finals, go ahead. I’m done with this challenge. I will not be replying any further. So feel free to go ahead and get the last word.
Thanks to everyone who participated, I’m sorry I let you all down, and good luck to moroza and/or ananas with the next round.
5 Likes
Everyone please just stop.
It’s going in circles now.
8 Likes
Sorry for being late to the party. I had things to do that are more important. I am genuinely sorry to the others that feel disturbed by my late questioning and arguments even if I hoped everyone else could have ignored it. This will also be my final reply here.
Yeah I agreed after my case was settled. Quote:
Then instead of a “sorry you feel that way, I’m still learning” you came back with a huge reply comparing this challenge to others and stating:
So I replied with my opinion on how I considered a fair approach.
Perhaps that’s how it came out no matter the intention. Tone is hard to convey through text but take it as you will.
Wow, see this is the answer I was looking for when I said:
Because I was trying to understand where you come from in terms of approaching the matter. That could’ve ended my questioning.
You’re right they are both modified statistics, though I’d like to agree to disagree. At the very least the entrants have control over the in-game generated stats. Though the same results could easily be accomplished I feel that part is crucial for the entrants.
I still think you should continue hosting if real life circumstances are not an issue. You demonstrated great writing, organizing, and hosting in general up till that part. Even with the amount of ‘heat’ I or others have given you, I don’t think anyone would disagree that right up till that part you did fantastic work especially as a first time host. My point was never to put you down or discourage you from ever hosting again if it seems that way to you.
P.S:
I really should’ve said this earlier and it was in the bottom of my notes for quite a while, 1962-68 Alfa Romeo 2600 Berlina had a 5 speed manual couple sources claiming its a ZF S5-18 but all agreeing it was 5 speed. Its a family saloon for the mid size E segment. For those looking for an earlier justification the 1957-62 Giulietta Sprint Speciale 2+2 Coupe came with a 5 speed too.
Sorry again if this post disturbs you.
2 Likes
I understand your frustration, but to avoid long winded arguments that some people might find tiresome a good idea can be to take such discussions with the host via DM. I don’t think anyone is upset with you being dissatisfied with how your entry was handled, it’s just that an argument between two people that goes on for a long time isn’t really of interest to the rest of the community and should maybe be handled over DMs because of that.
6 Likes
Assuming 1970, +5 body techpool, and only SUV, I count at least five body groups that would be viable: “1975 SUV”, “Predator 1970 SUV”, “1960 SUV”, “1957 SUV”, “Predator 1955 SUV”.
For trucks, including semi-cab-over but not car-based utes, I count six: “1975 Pickup”, “Predator 1970 Pickup”, “1970 Pickup”, two different “1960 Pickup” (one that looks like a Jeep, the other like a Corvair Greenbriar), and the “1957 Pickup” could still be dressed up for the 70s.
And a ton of car-based ones. I’d argue that the 1977 DCMW Hiluq is proof that those can be turned into respectable trucks.
2 Likes