QFC67 - Roofless Aggression (Submissions open!)

abg7 · 18 December 2025 19:54

QFC67: Roofless Aggression (submissions open)

On days like these…

Brief

…you imagine you were the one behind the wheel, in your very own convertible supercar, exploring the legendary roads of Europe. From your home in the Swiss Alps, many great mountain passes are already within your reach. Now, thanks to your savvy saving and investment policies, you are finally able to live the dream. And therein lies the problem!

A mere sports car, such as the one you own right now, suddenly won’t cut it. You finally feel the urge to splurge on an actual supercar - and with so many of your favorite driving routes running through tunnels and/or along cliffsides, a convertible roof of some sort is non-negotiable. The hypercar frenzy of a few years ago may be petering out (and you can’t afford one of those - yet), but the segment just below it is still full of tempting options. But which one will capture your heart and soul?

TL;DR: Imagine QFC14 if it took place 30 years later, with an explicit requirement for a convertible roof (as in QFC62) thrown in for good measure, along with some elements from both QFC58 andQFC39.

Car and Engine Rules

Al-Rilma branch only. This is now the current stable branch (we’re currently on Patch 3).
Car model and engine family year range: 1992-2007 (inclusive)
Car trim and engine variant year: 2007 only.
Wheelbase: Must be between 2.4m and 2.7m after rounding to the nearest 0.1m (equivalent to between 2.35m and 2.75m).
Body Types: 2- or 3-door convertibles only as shown in-game (coupes made to look like convertibles using fixtures don’t count as such). No legacy or race car (LMP/open-wheel) bodies.
Seating Configuration: 2 or 3 full-size seats in the front row are required at minimum. If a rear row is fitted, it must have small +2 seats (not +3 or 2 full-size seats).
Engine Placement and Orientation: Front, Mid, or Rear are all allowed. Boxer (flat) engines may not be transversely mounted, however.
Engine Configuration: No V16s (I haven’t bought the DLC yet).
Drivetrain: RWD or AWD only (not 4x4). AWD of any kind is an extra-cost option ($5000 for advanced AWD, $2500 for all other types).
Transmission Type: Must be any one of the following four options: Manual, Auto Manual, Dual Clutch, or Advanced Automatic. That means no regular Automatic, Continuous, or Sequential transmissions (the last of these is more akin to a racing item anyway, as elaborated below).
Convertible Top Type: Any, except for Detachable Soft Top (which is too much of a hassle in the changeable weather of the Alps). A detachable hard top (such as a targa roof) is OK, though.
Racing and off-road parts (including tires and undertrays) are not permitted. (Semi-slick tires and sport undertrays are permitted, since they are not race parts.)
Fuel Type: Unleaded with a maximum octane of 98 RON/93 AKI (lower octane values can be used, but will yield no benefit).
Exhaust: At least one muffler of any kind must be fitted; a 3-way catalytic converter is also required (a pre-cat is optional).
Tires: Must be radial with a width ending in 5.
WES 9 compatibility required (WES 8 for OHV engines).
Techpool: Maximum combined budget (engine + trim) of $45m. No negative values in any area.
Maximum Approximate Cost: $80,000 AMU (after adding the cost of AWD, as stated above) as shown in the markets tab.
Aero fixtures: Maximum of 3 in total (1 front, 2 rear). Front aero fixture must be a lip or spoiler; rear aero may have a maximum of 1 wing or spoiler (but not both), plus 1 lip.
Advanced Trim Settings: May be used, but in moderation. Note that they cannot be used for wheelbase adjustments, but minor ride height adjustments are OK.
Driving Aids: ABS at minimum (although TC + ABS and ESC are strongly preferred).
Interior: Optional; won’t be judged if fitted.

Techpool Sum Example

To calculate the combined techpool cost, add the Total Costs for trim and engine techpool as shown below.

In the picture above, the combined techpool cost is $25.6m (trim) + $19.2m (engine) = $44.8m, which is a valid value if a $45m limit (as is the case for this round) is applied.

Priorities

Exterior design: Supercars have to look the part, no question. If they don’t, what’s the point? As long as it looks like a mid-late '00s supercar, you’re good to go!
Sportiness: These things also have to be loads of fun to drive, especially out on the open roads (and closed circuits) of Europe.
Prestige: With an actual supercar (especially a convertible one), you get to be the envy of bystanders and other road users. The more you’re noticed, the better.

Drivability: As a highly skilled driver, you should have no trouble handling these beasts in daily driving. They still need to be handled with care, though, and nobody wants a car that’s too much of a handful.
Comfort: With all the technological improvements made in the past two decades, even supercars have become more pleasant places to sit in for long periods of time than they once were.
Performance: It’s not just speed (both at the top end and from a standing start), but also the handling and braking that makes a supercar a supercar, on the road and at the track.

Safety: Especially at this price point, nobody wants a deathtrap. Even though your skills are good enough to help you avoid a crash, it’s always reassuring to know that your car will adequately protect you from severe injury when things go wrong.
Purchase Price: You’re willing to spend as much as your budget allows for the best the market can offer you. That said, having some leftover cash can be a boon if you want to buy some aftermarket upgrades.
Overall Running Costs (fuel consumption/service costs): With your supercar more likely to be used for special occasions than as a daily driver, you can easily afford to keep them fully fueled and roadworthy for long periods of time, within reason.
Environmental resistance: Even in the cool alpine air, rust is not much of a problem for supercar owners, although some semblance of corrosion protection is advisable.

Notes

As long as your car has the necessary set of lights (headlights, taillights, indicators, and reversing lights), plus wipers and side mirrors (one on each side), you should be OK. Just don’t make the car look like something it isn’t, though.

The fancier convertible top types do not incur an interior space penalty, but will instead yield slightly more prestige, thus ensuring that every convertible type is viable (as was the case in QFC62). Just make sure it matches the vibe of your build.

You may show your car with its top on or off; for the latter, it should have at least a rudimentary interior, but as previously stated, it won’t be judged. For the former, hard tops should be painted; soft tops should be cloth, or any other soft texture.

Inspirations

This is not an exhaustive list, but it shows some of the most prominent examples.

Ferrari 599 (SA Aperta shown)

Ferrari F430 Spider

Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder

Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster

Alfa Romeo 8C Spider

Mercedes-AMG SL65 (R230)

BMW M6 Convertible (E64)

Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet (997.1 shown)

Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster (722 S shown)

Audi R8 4.2 Spyder (Type 42)

Spyker C8 Spyder

Ford GTX1

Aston Martin V8 Vantage Roadster

Aston Martin DBS Volante

Dodge Viper SRT-10 Roadster (ZB II shown)

Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06/427

Submissions

Submissions Open: 12:00am (UTC+7), Sunday, December 21st, 2025.
Submissions Close: 12:00am (UTC+7), Sunday, January 4th, 2026.
Reviews and Results: No later than Wednesday, January 7th, 2026.
Deadline Extensions: As required (no individual exceptions).
Naming Convention: Model and family names must both be “QFC67 - (your Discourse username)”; trim and variant names are free.
Submission: Via Discourse DM with your .car file. This must also be accompanied by a forum post on this thread containing at least one picture of your entry.
Resubmissions: Unlimited on the same DM as the original submission until the deadline; however, only the last submission will be counted for judging purposes, regardless of legality.

Changelog

10:30am (UTC+7), Friday, December 19th, 2025: Clarified that race diffusers and Sequential gearbox options (unlike sport undertray and auto manual gearbox) are not permitted. Also removed buyer preference for all allowed transmission types, and reduced AWD cost penalty by $5,000 across all types. Wheelbase adjustments using ATS are no longer permitted, but most other ATS changes are allowed, albeit in moderation.
12:30am (UTC+7), Saturday, December 20th, 2025: Removed AWD cost penalties completely (they already add enough cost to the trim when fitted), and explicitly stated that there will be no minimum cylinder count. Also abolished ban on transverse engine orientation (except for boxer/flat engines, which must be longitudinally mounted).
10:35am (UTC+7), Saturday, December 20th, 2025: Reinstated the AWD cost penalty, but made it smaller than before. Also extended engine family year range to 1992-2007 and added guidelines for designs that are shown with their roofs up, and clarified that a targa roof is acceptable due to it being a detachable hard top.
11:30pm (UTC+7), Thursday, December 25th, 2025: Deadline extended by 4 days, with review release date adjusted accordingly.

Good luck, and have fun!

Ritz · 18 December 2025 20:55

Seems odd to ban under trays considering 90% of super cars have full under trays. Nearly all cars in the inspo has them as well.

Floor of F430 as example:

Seems kinda against the core ideas of QFC to have cost penalties and customer preference demands.

Texaslav · 18 December 2025 20:59

Not speaking for the host, but I’d imagine he means specifically offroad skidtrays and race diffusers - the words “offroad” and “race” are key here.

I concur on the whole customer preference and balancing thing. Those are (for example) CSR or JOC items, not QFC ones.

supersaturn77 · 18 December 2025 21:45

Is adjusting a slightly too long wheelbase (2.76) using ATS to fit the 2.75 restriction legal?

PoseidonAutomotive · 18 December 2025 23:30

so it looks more like a pure GT car more than a super car with the lack of diffuser and no sequential .. Am I thinking correctly

Texaslav · 19 December 2025 00:12

As a PSA: The game’s “Race diffuser” would refer to a very aggressive, speed-requiring sculpted undertray, and the “sequential” transmission refers to a very race-focused dog clutch box.

Even the most serious street sportscars (except for edge cases like the Vantage N24 and other “only technically road legal” cars) would have at most used what the game calls a “sports undertray” as a floor, and an “automated manual” transmission for transmission. Basically every transmission ever advertised as a sequential (Ferrari F1, Maserati CambioCorsa, BMW SMT, the Aston Vanquish transmission…) were all in fact automated manuals.

Portalkat42 · 19 December 2025 01:00

Does this mean Mid transverse isn’t allowed? I can kinda see why front transverse would be prohibited, but stuff like the Miura exists with its transverse V12 and I can easily see a brand doing an updated version of that in this category.

abg7 · 19 December 2025 03:25

Regarding these recent responses:

@Ritz I think you meant a racing undertray (listed as Race Diffuser in-game).

@Texaslav you hit the nail on the head right there. I have therefore chosen to treat the Race Diffuser and Sequential gearbox options as racing parts; as such, neither of them can be fitted, but sport undertrays and automated manual gearboxes can. I’m also considering removing (or at least reducing) the “AWD tax” and the importance of customer preferences.

@Portalkat42 there were indeed some mid-engined cars on sale in 2007 with transversely mounted engines (Lotus Elise/Exige, Noble M12/M400, Ariel Atom, etc.), but these were generally lower-priced sports cars, and not actual supercars. Then again, none of the inspirations listed had transversely mounted engines either. And the Miura road car you cited went out of production in 1973 - well before this QFC’s timeframe.

@supersaturn77 ATS (advanced trim settings) can be used to adjust ride height (albeit in moderation), but not wheelbase.

UnderlovedGhost · 19 December 2025 03:35

still seems odd to restrict it because there wasn’t any direct contemporary models, but there is precident elsewise to show Mid-Transverse was still used for these applications. We’re in a game of playing make believe, just because the production models of the time were doing it, doesn’t mean no one else wanted to.

Ritz · 19 December 2025 05:11

Is ride height the only thing we can adjust with ATS? Personally I think it’s kinda unclear what we can and cannot adjust rn.

abg7 · 19 December 2025 05:19

Chassis tunnel size and firewall positions can be adjusted; visibility settings (such as those that hide the chassis completely or show a basic one instead of the defaults) are also fair game. Wheel/tire-related ATS adjustments will also be permitted, but these, too, must be done in moderation; this also applies to engine positioning, rotation, and size adjustments. I wouldn’t want something that has the tire profile of a donk or monster truck, for example.

Portalkat42 · 19 December 2025 11:33

I get that. I just don’t understand removing it as an option when it could plausibly be done in this class of car. It would be a good example of a company prioritizing weight distribution and handling(closer to 50/50 with the engine further forward).

Also the Nobel M400 is definitely in the supercar range in this era, having a 3.2 s 0-60 time and 185 mph top speed. It’s just more basic in interior than some of the inspos, bringing the price down.

abg7 · 19 December 2025 14:38

You may have a point on that one. Based on your comments, I could either simply remove the explicit universal ban on mid/transverse engine placement, or instead limit it to engines with more than 6 cylinders (i.e., V8, V10, and V12)

Ritz · 19 December 2025 16:49

Its your challenge and your rules but I feel it’s unnecessary to ban/heavily penalize as much as the rules are doing. Outright bans should be there to avoid stuff like auto jank abuse for the most part.

The job of the priorities IMO should be to then dictate the engineering choices for the most part. So in this case prestige and sportiness are top priorities which means most people are already gonna go for high cylinder counts as it affects these stats in a very positive way. Adding bans for stuff with low cylinders just feels like rule bloating and limiting the freedom of the people who wants to go a more interesting approach for whatever reason (challange themselves, lore, etc). Too me i feel like its just going to funnel everyone into make the same cars

abg7 · 19 December 2025 17:29

I get that - as of now, I am abolishing the “AWD tax” since it already adds enough extra cost to a car when fitted as-is, regardless of mechanism, and increasing the financial penalty for installing one even further would not make much sense in a QFC. Nor am I going to implement a limit on the minimum cylinder count for any entry. And I won’t completely ban transversely mounted engines, either.

The only exception to this last rule is with boxer/flat engines, which must be longitudinally mounted. If you want to find out why, click here.

moroza · 19 December 2025 17:49

The brief and priorities should drive the design and engineering. Rules and restrictions should only be to keep fair play, and perhaps realism.

The AWD penalty seemed excessive, but my impression is that AWD continues to be underpriced in the game. I don’t think a cost penalty for it is unreasonable.

While I won’t get into transverse boxers (again), there’s a small but angry crowd led by the Lamborghini Miura, Ferrari 308, and the Cizeta-Moroder who’d like a word regarding banning transverse 8+ cylinder engines.

ErenWithPizza · 19 December 2025 18:15

What about convertibles made to look like coupes, because I lack the skill to make the roof look like a convertible (if it’s even possible in this case)? Basically I’m respecting the rule that it needs to be a convertible, more like a spider, but I cannot make it look like the roof actually comes off.

oldmanbuick · 19 December 2025 18:24

TL;DR - I agree with having fewer hard rules and relying on the customer preferences/weighting to drive design choices, since banned decision choices are often just going to backfire anyway, while imposing hard rules makes judging more complicated and time-consuming while also creating more opportunities for technical rule violations that don’t actually help the “rulebreaker” do any better.

Long-winded rant on challenge scoring and rules that is really about conventions in challenge rulesets in general, not this ruleset in particular, and that just happens to seem appropriate to put out there given this discussion.

I’m just going to second this comment and point out that I think a QFC should, of all the challenges, probably have the simplest rulesets–at the very least because it makes judging faster when you don’t have to check ten different rules on every car. That said, I think overuse of rules comes up a lot in all sorts of challenges, not just this one, so I’m not quite sure why this challenge is being singled out for this discussion.

I would also like to point out that in the prior round, the rules were more permissive than most challenges, with very few hard limits or exclusions, and the entries were exactly what you would expect for the theme of the challenge. I think including a lot of scoring categories to at least a small degree and just reserving rights to penalize or adjust scoring can go a long way.

For example, with the transmissions, a regular automatic or CVT is going to absolutely tank sportiness, so if somebody wants to shoot themselves in the foot by making that decision, who cares? (I don’t think I have ever used a sequential transmission in a build, but I think that absolutely tanks drivability and comfort).

For the rear seats, adding more seats will lower comfort and prestige to boost practicality–which isn’t a scored stat at all. So adding rear seats is a terrible decision for the brief and will only hurt someone who takes that route.

Wheelbase is another one that carries its own costs and benefits, with a larger car generally offering more comfort, practicality, and safety, while also driving up costs and reducing sportiness, drivability, performance, and fuel economy. I just don’t really understand the purpose of creating situations like this:

What unfair advantage is going to come from a car having a wheelbase 1 cm longer than the limit?

I better understand requirements for things like 3-way catalytic converters and ABS when they were required in the real world, although I’m not sure they’re really necessary for similar reasons. If you want to have a fast, powerful car that meets emissions standards, it’s going to be extremely difficult–if not impossible–without a 3-way catalytic converter. A car that doesn’t have at least ABS is also going to suffer some significant drivability penalties compared to other cars that do use this tech.

Speaking of scoring categories, I would suggest including reliability to at least some degree as a scoring category, and it might make sense to include practicality as an extremely low-level priority, since even a fancy rich guy might appreciate the ability to carry some kind of fancy rich guy stuff (who knows, his watch collection to show his friends? A briefcase of cash just for fun?) in his car.

On one final note, I think price is a great tool for forcing tradeoffs and design choices, rather than just spamming the car with all the fancy tech (like racing undertrays). Lowering the budget (even if making it a flexible guideline) and/or increasing the weight assigned to pricing could help. Providing only a small tech pool is also another way of essentially increasing the price and requiring more thoughtful decision-making than spamming.

abg7 · 19 December 2025 19:14

All good points - but it’s getting late on my end, so I’ll update this particular post when I’ve gathered all of your thoughts.

yesnt4060 · 19 December 2025 20:52

if i made my car back to front, but its rwd would thjat be fine?