Anything on how the others did - and how close the placing was in terms of stats? Would really appreciate if there was 
6 Likes
This, it would’ve been nice to see where we come short or did good. A lot of the notes were more of the introduction to what cars were and less about how they performed compared to others.
4 Likes
To be fair, I did point out some of the pros and cons of each entry during the reviews… in brief. However, each of those reviews had to be condensed for the sake of time. Still, there’s one area where your entry came up short: size. At under 4 meters long, it’s roughly the size of a contemporary subcompact, and far smaller than any of the real-life visual inspirations I cited, all of which were much larger. Also, I’d expect a mid-engined RWD car like yours to have staggered tires front and rear for better drivability and sportiness - it was only because of clever chassis tuning that your car finished higher than my expectations suggested.
Like other said, it would be nice to see a spreadsheet or etc. ESP since it’s a qfc which means reviews arent as deep naturally and thus a closer look at numbers/calcs serves as a good compliment to see ”oh this is were I missed out, let’s focus more there” etc.
Also on this latest comment. Did you actually give this entry a lower score because of it being smaller and not using staggered tires or are you pointing to to that to give examples towards why the actual in-game sportiness was lower than others?
Otherwise good job on hosting with this very quick turnaround. It was also fun to design for 
7 Likes
QFC68 is go
2 Likes