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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
I had fun. 
I look forward to the next challenges! 
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.
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.
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.
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!
I have decided against hosting the next round.
@Kyorg the floor is yours, @the-chowi you’re on deck if not.
Alright, I’ll see what I can cook up
Alright, I’ve come up with three ideas, please let me know which one y’all would prefer.
alright the consensus seems pretty clear, i’ll try to have the thread up by early tomorrow.
The thread is now up
