QFC45 - Winged Warriors [RESULTS]

Kyorg · 9 June 2024 23:53

Westland Stratosphere 400

Made as a promotional stunt for the all-new for 1970 Stratosphere coupe, the Stratosphere 400 “Big Hoss” is an aero-focused, all out and aggressive take on the modern american muscle car. Casting aside the tired tradition of a ladder frame and a solid rear axle, the Stratosphere delivers in exciting corner hugging performance in a way few muscle cars can. An aero focused approach was taken to every detail of the car, bringing back the B Pillar to meet an enormous wing, and covering the majority of the grill for better aerodynamics while extending both the front and rear overhangs. Optional enormous rear tires have you set for the strip or the oval, assuming your pockets are flush enough to keep the rubber on.

Riley · 10 June 2024 06:02

Well that’s certainly a spur of entries at the end there. Challenge closed, judging will be as quick as I can get it out.

DoesStuff · 10 June 2024 13:08

( @happyfireballman )

1970 Rhania Grumblebee

by HappyFireBallMan

Click for more

HappyFireBallMan has lost access to his forum account. I had no part in the engineering or design of the Grumblebee, but I did take the photos. Moroza did provide some help with engineering, but it isn’t an official collaboration, as he did drop out.

5.3 liter (322 CI) V8, 4 barrel carburetor
(388 hp @ 6900RPM, 7500 max. recommended RPM)

4 speed manual

P245/55R16 front and rear tires

Awesome front “stinger”

Riley · 10 June 2024 15:40

QFC45

Judging

14. Vidar Excalibur 400

@machalel

Driveability: 43
Sportiness: 17.9
Comfort: 5
Top Speed: 171.5 mph
0-60 mph: 6.24 seconds
200m Gs: 0.791 G

The Vidar Excalibur 400 ranks last, largely due to horrible comfort and sportiness. Its top speed and 0-60 mph time are competitive, but it struggles with cornering force. The styling was a bold move but unfortunately it didn’t pay off.

13. Capable Kolondra Hepping

@MrdjaNikolen & @Vento

Driveability: 41.7
Sportiness: 10.8
Comfort: 5.6
Top Speed: 181.3 mph
0-60 mph: 7.55 seconds
200m Gs: 0.682 G

This car offers decent driveability but falls very short on sportiness and comfort. Despite having one of the highest top speeds, its acceleration and cornering force are underwhelming. It’s styling is also the worst of the bunch.

12. Vermilion Daredevil Wingspan 427

@Flingang

Driveability: 42.3
Sportiness: 12.2
Comfort: 11.5
Top Speed: 184.4 mph
0-60 mph: 5.8 seconds
200m Gs: 0.753 G

The Vermilion Daredevil has the highest top speed of any car, and has a respectable 0-60 time, but its lower comfort and poor sportiness affect its overall ranking. It’s helped in the looks department by the big stripes and general cohesion of the car.

11. HBC Cheetah SS

@fabiremi999

Driveability: 39.4
Sportiness: 25
Comfort: 15.4
Top Speed: 160.5 mph
0-60 mph: 5.89 seconds
200m Gs: 0.842 G

Similar to the Vidar Excalibur 400, this car has some sportiness and a good 0-60 time, but its lower top speed and design holds it back.

10. Rhania Grumblebee

@happyfireballman

Driveability: 38.3
Sportiness: 28.1
Comfort: 16.8
Top Speed: 166.3 mph
0-60 mph: 5.41 seconds
200m Gs: 0.786 G

The Rhania Grumblebee offers solid sportiness and a good 0-60 time. However, its lower driveability and top speed impact its overall performance. It’s also the heaviest car of all, weighing almost 60kgs more than the next heaviest.

9. A.F.A. Vitesse N70

@Danicoptero

Driveability: 40.3
Sportiness: 21.5
Comfort: 11.4
Top Speed: 177.5 mph
0-60 mph: 5.93 seconds
200m Gs: 0.815 G

The Vitesse N70 balances sportiness and comfort, with good top speed and acceleration. Its overall performance is commendable but not exceptional. Average everywhere, also the car that comes closest to the average score.

8. Labyrinth GTN

@KSIolajidebt

Driveability: 52
Sportiness: 19.7
Comfort: 10.1
Top Speed: 152.8 mph
0-60 mph: 7.74 seconds
200m Gs: 0.793 G

The Labyrinth GTN shines in driveability but falls behind in comfort and everything to do with the speed tests. The design is stunning and that’s what saves it from being further down.

7. Bergmann Intrepid

@ldub0775 & @AMuteCrypt

Driveability: 39.3
Sportiness: 24.8
Comfort: 23.1
Top Speed: 172.7 mph
0-60 mph: 5.99 seconds
200m Gs: 0.772 G

With high comfort and sportiness, the Intrepid is well-rounded, though it lacks in acceleration, cornering force and driveability. It does have the highest reliability (77.2) of the group though.

6. Hyperion Aero Edition

@Elouda

Driveability: 50.1
Sportiness: 40.3
Comfort: 13.7
Top Speed: 173.4 mph
0-60 mph: 4.13 seconds
200m Gs: 0.815 G

The Aero Edition excels in sportiness and acceleration, offering a strong all-around performance with high driveability. However, really I should’ve binned this for realism cheese (5spd, dwb rear, rear engine. The main offense though was dohc), but it’s a QFC im not sure I could do that, so heavily docked points it is.

5. TBC Arbiter

@Ananas

Driveability: 52.6
Sportiness: 32.6
Comfort: 23.3
Top Speed: 161.1 mph
0-60 mph: 5.43 seconds
200m Gs: 0.875 G

High driveability and cornering force make the Arbiter competitive, despite its lower top speed. Could’ve been a winner had it not been for the looks not being up to par.

4. Saberin Rapiere Tipo N-S

@shibusu & @moroza

Driveability: 38.1
Sportiness: 40.1
Comfort: 14.2
Top Speed: 161.4 mph
0-60 mph: 4.09 seconds
200m Gs: 0.892 G

This car stands out in sportiness, top speed, and acceleration, though its lower driveability and top speed is noticeable. A very interesting take on the engineering, only let down by the driveability, otherwise a very menacing car.

3. Lafayette Sebring 427

@the-chowi

Driveability: 42.2
Sportiness: 27.5
Comfort: 10.9
Top Speed: 182.1 mph
0-60 mph: 5.84 seconds
200m Gs: 0.833 G

The Sebring 427 offers a good balance of sportiness and driveability, with solid top speed and cornering performance. It’s also gorgeous, I just wish the front face was a little more interesting. Also the only car to not use the full price, at $19,500.

2. Westland Stratosphere 400

@Kyorg

Driveability: 48.3
Sportiness: 30.3
Comfort: 14.1
Top Speed: 164.6 mph
0-60 mph: 5.45 seconds
200m Gs: 0.871 G

With high driveability and sportiness, the Stratosphere 400 performs well in most categories, though its top speed is lower than average. A cool car to look at, just outdone by first place because of it’s low reliability and high svc.

1. Paige Cypress Darlington

@donutsnail

Driveability: 48.6
Sportiness: 19.8
Comfort: 18.9
Top Speed: 164 mph
0-60 mph: 5.84 seconds
200m Gs: 0.806 G

This car balances driveability and comfort, with decent sportiness and handling, making it a well-rounded choice. Styling is also good, but the tipping point is the second highest reliability and cheap svc.

Summarised rankings

donutsnail
Kyorg
the-chowi
shibusu & moroza
Ananas
Elouda
Ldub0775 & AMuteCrypt
ksiolajidebt
Danicoptero
HappyFireBallMan
fabiremi999
Flingang
MrdjaNikolen & Vento
Machalel

Couple notes about the competition, the rules were obviously tricky at first but I think they ended up a nice middle ground. There was those who did their research and those who didn’t. I am aware that it’s not possible to get solid axle with certain engineering choices but that’s what it is, a choice.

ANYWAY, I had fun hosting this one actually and I’d like to think with the amount of effort some people put into this qfc they enjoyed it as well.

QFC45 over and done in just over 2 weeks

(Copy of QFC45 Hosting - Google Sheets)[Spreadsheet]

Written with the help of ChatGPT, any resemblance to the dreams of real people is entirely unintended, I hate spreadsheets and people who can't finish their challenges!!!!

Elouda · 10 June 2024 15:46

Bit miffed because I was on SOHC initially, but after the whole realism/authenticity bit was dropped from the description, I figured it meant DOHC would be fine.

Also a bit confused about you mentioning SVC or price in the scoring for some vehicles when that wasn’t listed anywhere in the criteria.

Still a fun challenge, just a bit of a confusing one to me at least.

Riley · 10 June 2024 16:00

I understand the confusion if you’re coming back to challenges now from a while ago, I probably took out the realism criteria in place of putting in more inspirations and some rules around what I expected which was a mistake. I shouldn’t have taken it out in the first place, but I also never said I got rid of it explicitly in the changelog.
The first thing I put about it also says that it’s not massively focused on, just to do research on it. Moroza and Shibisus build was good because it emphasised that there was another car that was very similar to it (Chevy Corvair) and thus had reason to be what it was, complete with shoddy chassis engineering (- quality). Even then the only issue I had with it was that it was just different.

Price and svc are more unwritten rules than they are written for me, but it’d be under realism if I had to excuse it (also why I shouldn’t have removed it). This also isn’t a competition like the current AGC that I’m hosting, this still has to be grounded to reality, maybe not as much as a CSR so I’d be picking up on light sizes and tyre widths etc, but enough for me to say it’s plausible.

Overall yes I probably could have been more clear, but generally aim for the realism angle unless stated otherwise. I basically only docked points if I couldn’t find a real world example of a (american) car having similar things. The 5 speed gearbox for instance wasn’t introduced into America till toyota tried it in 1972, and that’s a Japanese manufacturer, not Americans doing that. Maybe if it was a smaller V8, maybe 3-4L I could’ve tried to find a certain Ferrari doing similar things, but iirc yours was around 6.8L.

moroza · 10 June 2024 16:32

Quick and efficient, well done! Happy about that, most of the scoring mechanics and transparency.

Not so much the unwritten rules and criteria around SVC and price (realism could’ve been made clearer, too). Our very own FAQ specifically prohibits this sort of thing. Please do not repeat.

Not a point of contention, just curiosity: I’ve heard opinions that relatively avant-garde engineering choices - such as DW - should come with extra quality, and the opposite view. On the one hand, newfangled stuff should cost more and take longer. On the other, the same stuff should be expected to be crude and unpolished in its first debut. Thoughts?

Also out of curiosity, what were displacements and power outputs?

Danicoptero · 10 June 2024 17:14

I wasn’t happy with my car at all, so I’ll gladly take 9th place.

Fun challenge, but I have to agree with moroza, if it’s not written, then usually it’s not a rule.

Ch_Flash · 10 June 2024 17:31

Quick was the word! I just came home from a couple of busy days and was about to send in the .car file just to find the challenge finished

It was a fun challenge and congrats to the winner!

If anyone wants to know, the stats for this car is.

Power - 340 hp
Driveability - 42
Sportiness - 12
Comfort - 21
Top speed - 238 km/h
0-100 km/h - 6.9 sec
200m Gs - 0.716G
Price - 18900

Flingang · 10 June 2024 23:05

Although I wasn’t that happy with the price limit, I’ve enjoyed participating in the competition. But I have to say, you should’ve been more clearer with ruling and stuff, so I hope you learn for the next time, because you know, learn with mistakes.

I have to admit that I saw the tournament way too late to make a better car, but I tried my best to make a good looking car considering I couldn’t be active in the final two days. Also, I should’ve considered that power isn’t everything, which I know about, but for some reason, I thought everyone was going to make a 400 hp car or something, so I’ve spent most of the cost with power and speed, while I could’ve made it perform better in handling and make it 300 hp plus.

Usually, I always end up screwing up on something and usually get disqualified. And the reason it took me too long to participate in a competition seriously (the first time seriously was in the late 2023 or early 2024) is because I participated in one to make a modern muscle car for the market, but got disqualified, and I know that I’ve done some illegal stuff (like tech pool) because I was a starter, but the host said that my car looked bad, even though my car looked exactly like a muscle car and had a big V8 under the hood. The same guy considers a Lexus LC as a “muscle car” (even though the LC stands for “Luxury Coupe”), or even cars without a V8 as a muscle car, and also made the winner a guy that made a weird looking “muscle car” with a 3.5L TT V8. So I have to say that the guy didn’t understand a thing about real muscle cars, and he was downright rude to me, so I had to withdraw from competitions for several months. That competition didn’t happen in these forums, though. But now, I hope I can improve my standards for competitions with time.

So, I have to say that I’ve enjoyed the competition, even though I’ve been ranked under than average, and that you should’ve made the rules more clear. And sorry for the rant I’ve made about the “serious competition participation”, and I hope you forgive me for that.

Anyway, some specs for my car:

1970 Vermilion Daredevil Wingspan 427 Specs:

Engine: Vermilion “Sheer Power” V8 427 - 7.0L OHV V8
Engine power figures: 415 bhp (net horsepower), 405 lb-ft of torque
0-62 mph (0-100 km/h): 5.8 seconds
Top Speed: 190 mph (306 km/h) as tested in BeamNG, 184 mph (296 km/h) in Automation
Layout: Front-engine, RWD
Weight: ~1500 kg
(I will make some changes to the car for the release that’s coming soon to the BeamNG repository.)

And this is the normal car model used for the trim:

fabiremi999 · 11 June 2024 00:59

I had fun.

I look forward to the next challenges!

donutsnail · 11 June 2024 01:18

I thought this was quite a fun challenge. Design was my biggest roadblock; finding a suitable body for a US intermediate other than the 116" WB Satellite, and further, finding a way of believably improving the aero of it, was quite difficult. Eventually however I landed with something I was satisfied with. As far as the tuning goes, I stuck with a fairly typical muscle car tech and I am pleased that fine-tuning within those bounds to make a balanced and conservative approach worked in my favor here.

I am working on ideas for the next round and should either post the next round or officially pass down no later than Thursday.

abg7 · 11 June 2024 03:31

Under 150 mph? That would have put it at the bottom of the field in that regard… The fact that it would’ve also had the 2nd lowest lateral G wouldn’t have helped. Both of those also explain its low sportiness rating of only 12 and 6.9s to 60 mph from a standstill - potentially 3rd slowest in both aspects. I could blame the gearing, the tires, or both for such underwhelming performance, so maybe you were right to bail on submitting your potential entry after all - not even its good looks would have redeemed it in the end.

Riley · 11 June 2024 08:16

Sounds like a classic case of non forum challenges. Things that run here tend to get more criticism on rules and realism, so they tend to be better (plus better hosts in general)

I’d say just do some more challenges and you’ll begin to know what’s expected, even if it’s not listed directly. This mainly applies to the bigger competitions like CSR.

Flingang · 11 June 2024 17:34

Yeah, you’re right. I should be ready for more future challenges, and with time, I could even win one of them (or almost).

Thank you for hosting this challenge, and I hope I find some interesting and simliar challenges like this one (or larger) in the forums. And also, good game for everyone else!

donutsnail · 12 June 2024 19:51

I have decided against hosting the next round.

@Kyorg the floor is yours, @the-chowi you’re on deck if not.

Kyorg · 12 June 2024 19:58

I’m passing it down, @the-chowi it’s all yours

the-chowi · 12 June 2024 20:20

Alright, I’ll see what I can cook up

the-chowi · 13 June 2024 21:03

Alright, I’ve come up with three ideas, please let me know which one y’all would prefer.

2020s dedicated taxi
Late 2000s boxy hatchbacks
2010s large ultra luxury sedans

0 voters

the-chowi · 15 June 2024 00:52

alright the consensus seems pretty clear, i’ll try to have the thread up by early tomorrow.
The thread is now up