QFC15 - Cheap and cheerful [FINALS OUT]

To be honest, your entry was one among the few that put an optimisation for purchase price at the centre of attention (as intended for the challenge). With much lower running costs, you might have had a shot at the podium, even!

Nothing wrong with trying to be as cheap as possible, especially if purchasing and running cost make up two of the three star priorities… but as someone put it earlier in the thread, the goal was to make the cheapest car that isn’t terrible.

Tbh, your only - but huge - flaw was 8.7 comfort. With a comfort stat in the mid 10s (and everything else equal - which ofc isn’t achieveable), you might have ended up quite high up in the end. (For reference, my 1960s Lada wannabe for LHC has 10 comfort with a solid leaf rear axle and -1 quality all around.)

Techpool? No constellation within the rules would have been bin-worthy - that’s why I set the rule of 2 base and then max 7 in any category to avoid minmaxing cost optimisation.

Quality? Probably negative quality close to the techpool setting. E.g., interior techpool +5 and quality -3 would be an interior roughly on par with ‘shed guy interior’ stat-wise, but very much optimised for production efficiency.

If in doubt, ask the host.

Nothing that can be solved by tilting your device by 90 degrees. :wink:

2 Likes

I know haha I just thought that the cutted layout was fun

1 Like

Reading the task was something I missed decades back in school, and it was painful. Now in my old days, I finally managed to do this. Thanks for the insight, however, cutting the few good things on this car that altered service cost would have meant that it’s worse in other stats. The EU-package had better brakes, a fifth gear and as far as I remember beside slightly stiffer suspension also gas dampeners, because at least one fancy thing should be included by a car named “Stallion”. The second QFC in a row among the best of the rest, that’s enough for me.

I know I got binned for seating but if it had 4 seats, would the Medio have made a dent?

With comfort of 2.8? No…

oh damn my shitpost i made in 2 days really won :skull:

i’ll get started on the next round then

(i still refuse to change the brand’s name)

3 Likes

You can call it the six-star brand :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

“people who drive our cars like to go solo”

3 Likes

I was worried about realism bin since I thought most cars would have galvanized chassis irl

Just curious, how much is the average comfort, sportiness, and drivability for this round? I was worried that my car would be uncomfortable, hence why I used premium interior which added to cost. And 175hp might have been overkill, too…

Other than that, thank you for hosting. This round was fun and the turnaround was quick.

2 Likes

The Razor had a comfort 19.5

Average drivability was 53.8, comfort 16.1 and sportiness 19.5.

I’m somewhat curious what the Mean price and running costs across all the entries were? But if that is too much to be asking for then I understand.

No problem, all in the magic of Excel: 11800 average purchase cost, 718 average service cost, 8.6 l/100 km average fuel economy.

Wow my entry the Razor had higher stats than the average I think I did a great job! :slight_smile:

It’s just the Strange Design of your Cars. The mechanical part is always good.