If there is no objection, I think I will add it as a recommendation. IIRC, one of the ideas behind QFC was that it should be a bit more loose on realism than CSR, so weird tyre combos won’t result in an outright bin here, but they will be a drawback.
2 Likes
What about interpreting tires ending in 0 as normal ones ending in 5, but with further tweaks to pressure or suspension geometry that aren’t in the game?
Will you be looking at practicality and utility as stats, or at cargo volume as a stat, or at the actual model that the numbers may or may not accurately represent?
Any bonus for having a roof tall enough to stand up inside?
One of my vehicles used to be a plumber’s van - a 1973 Ford P400. The giant plastic pipe on the side was used for transporting lengths of plumbing pipe.
Mainly, I will look into utility and practicality as stats, but use them together at weighting. However, if something like cargo room or load capacity has numbers that are stupidly low, it might be a negative. Towing capacity not as important (it is rather useless the way it works in the game anyway, and towing won’t be the main use of the vehicle anyway).
No, I don’t plan to implement a high top bonus - interesting as an idea but feels overkill for QFC.
Also, cool van and probably accurate for the US - but I can’t see a plumber with an one-person business running something similar here in the early 80s. That doesn’t mean that something similar is banned if anyone wants to pull off a wildcard…but as usual in Auto challenges, wildcards aren’t the safest bets. Make it good enough, though, and you may have a chance - as long as something isn’t a total meme build, it will be judged on the same premises as everything else.
Developing the scoring system for my QFC I’ve discovered that the cargo space alone makes negligible difference for both practicality and utility. I think you may wanna factor that in directly, if it’s important for the buyer.
3 Likes
How’s everyone doing with budget am I making my vans too expensive, I can’t get anything below $8,000
Edit: I figured it out, it’s because ABS adds $1,000 to the price
Is something like the Citroen C15 or another panel van based on a VW Golf-sized car large enough? I am wondering because my main lore company discontinued the fourth-generation Sparrow Courier (built on a 2.4-metre wheelbase) in 1975 and the fifth-generation Sparrow, a WIP car based on the 2.4m Indicator body set, frustratingly lacks a panel van option.
Well, there is both a Bedford Chevanne and a Simca van in the inspirations, as well as a Mk1 Caddy, so I would say yes. If a smaller or larger vehicle would be the most competitive is something I can’t even answer myself, that will be the interesting part of the story, so…
I wouldn’t worry too much about abs myself, I’m not sure how many cars in total had it in 1981, definitely not vans.
Tbh I would imagine none of the inspirations would even have power steering in Europe at the time, but qfc being a bit more “loose” with realism I’m not sure whether that’s a cut worth making at a certain size
Nah, ABS is highly unrealistic, to put it this way, 1981 was the first year when you could get it as optional equipment in the Mercedes W123, which was far from a cheap car, and even the W126 S-class only had it as option. When the Ford Scorpio came out in 1986, it was the first car to have it as standard equipment (I don’t know about Jensen FF and its Maxaret brakes in this case, though, but that’s very much of an exotic), I would say that even 10 years later, ABS would not have been that common among commercial vehicles in the cheaper end of the scale. I remember a test a car magazine did of C-segment cars in 1993, where Mazda 323 got some praise for being the only car in the class that (at least in Sweden) offered ABS as standard equipment, and vans were generally lagging behind, so…
Now, I won’t put a ban on ABS since, well, not CSR style realism in QFC, but I guess I would prioritize other things above it if I was building a car for this challenge. But it is all up to you.
1 Like
Anyone know how fast vans were in 1981??
I won’t care too much about performance as long as it is not terrible, read meme-ish bad. If you can outrun it with a riding lawnmower towing a loaded horse trailer, it is a trip to bin city, but a (reasonably) slow vehicle would not affect scoring.
Found this super cool pamphlet about this Chevrolet van! It’s super cool!
@Knugcab D’oh! Somehow I always breeze past the inspirations.
@Vento The van probably ought to have a top speed of at least 70mph; it should be able to safely use modern dual carriageways even if it takes ages to accelerate.
Yeah, try to aim for at least 70 mph since that’s more or less the maximum speed limit (110 km/h) in Sweden, but honestly speaking, that shouldn’t be hard to achieve. IIRC, with a too underpowered car you will lose driveability too?
Yeah, those drivability penalties are usually seen with underpowered sports and premium cars, so when your delivery van gets saddled with the “Low Top Speed Prestige Penalty” you KNOW the engine’s a dog. (That really happened to me once when designing a vehicle).
at 70 mph my van is getting a -15% drivability penalty 
How many horsepower does it have? The acceleration shouldn’t be absolutely glacial either; try aiming for under 20 seconds 0 to 60.
I never said you couldn’t, or shouldn’t, go higher. It was rather a benchmark you should try to not aim lower than. A 200 mph top speed wouldn’t be seen as an advantage compared to 100 mph though…
My first job when I arrived in FRG was truck and delivery driver, and awfully slow vehicles were a P A I N to drive, so the penalty is accurate. I remember driving a Hanomag Henschel and a VW T2a van which both ruined my nerves. The old Kaelble truck was even worse.
The fastest I had in 1982 was a Renault Master, Brand new with a 2.5 Diesel and that thing managed only 120 kph…
3 Likes
Is there a maximum for the RON/AKI number for the fuel?