O.o
Yeah, that part is surely not very realistic for a small van 
Same for RWD. The rest is fine IMO, in the end VW Caddy used a solid axle rear until 2020, I donât remember though wether that was leaf or coil type.
Yeah in all fairness I was going for more of a âtweenerâ sized van similar to the Fiat Scudo, Mercedes Vito, and VW T4/T5. While my inspiration engine was from 90s and 00s Fiats, I did my research and saw that the VW vans did use an inline five engine. There were also some diesel i5s used in light trucks around this time period, and letâs be real most of these would have diesels if it were a thing in automation. RWD I took from the Vito, I think it makes sense for a tweener van and helps with utility
1 Like
If this had been csr there was definitely a few vehicles that would have been more harshly reviewed with strange choices. Things like 100 brake pad material, 100 brake and engine cooling, all round vented brakes on a tiny van and at least a couple of standard auto transmissions
I see. Would my entry specifically been one of those harshly reviewed choices with its aforementioned strange engineering decisions?
What position did my van come compared to the others?
Is double wishbone not good for vans? I was thinking to myself, I should use double wishbone because if the suspension is bad, the van cargo might jump all over and break.
and what is âlowering cams into the groundâ. I donât want the camshaft to be so close to the ground that would be dangerous.
Double wishbone is fine, but itâs expensive and at the front it raises service costs by taking up engine space, and van owners donât like spending money. By âlowering the cams to the groundâ I mean lowering the cam profile below 20 or so. Apologies for my wording there.
Was there anything strange about my van?
That makes sense! My cam profiles was at 9.
Btw I figured why my service costs were so high. It was my giant brakes! Lowering the brakes sizes and lowering the brake pad type, which I had at 100, lowered the service costs to around a respectable (I hope) around $550.
I think thereâs limitations with the game that sometimes mean youâre forced into choosing between unrealistic engineering choices and having god awful specs. The biggest problem I had with this round was that the rear of my van was so light I was constantly getting the yellow excessive rear brake force warning. To get rid of it, I had the run the smallest rear vented rotors possible, minimum brake force, brake pads at 22 and minimum ride height to reduce weight transfer, which negatively impacted my load rating. Of course, with such tiny brakes and comfort brake pads I now had huge brake fade, so I chose to run maximum brake cooling and still was getting the blue brake fade warning. I spent a good chunk of time trying to make my brakes as least terrible as possible only to get knocked down a peg for having excessively sporty brakes. If I had actually tried to make them realistic with rear drums and no brake cooling, Iâd have risked getting my hand slapped for junk brakes with excessive brake fade. If the game had allowed me to reduce the rear brake force below 50% I could have run larger rear brakes and avoided both. This is not a knock on the host or his judgment, just to point out the game is not a perfect simulator and sometimes you need to take creative liberties to make a good car.
3 Likes
Canât you just leave the yellow rear brake force warning up? I had my rear brakes very powered up and I think the brakes were fine.
2 Likes
I might have assumed we were supposed to build to carry max weight, which seems to not be the case. I struggle with vehicles that donât exist stateside. Instead, all these Amazon and other big courier vans. Meh
1 Like
I think with ABS involved it should not matter. Automation needs more than it has for slider control on brake force, especially the rear.
I always try to eliminate all warnings on any road car I submit to a competition, and when when Iâve hosted Iâve looked at what warnings are lit on the cars Iâve received. You never know what a host will throw mud at you for. Plus I always test my cars in Beam to make sure they drive properly, and excessive rear brake bias will spin you under trail braking even with ABS.
1 Like
Thank you to @mart1n2005 for hosting this fun and refreshing round. I have a few ideas in my mind and a new round should be ready around tomorrow or so.
5 Likes
Damn you speak the truth!!
It all depends on the host at the end of the day. You sit there and rack your brain trying to get rid of warnings, trying to raise stats here and thereâŚask questions here or on discord and you MIGHT get an answerâŚturn in your car and depending on the host, get shitted on for unrealistic choicesâŚsay something about it and your salty 
@Lanson im with you on the payload thing. I designed mine with payload in mindâŚalbeit FWD. Id love to see the stats for all these vans. I want to see how horrible i really did.
To anyone reading this, I am NOT saltyâŚI just wanna see some stats dammit lol.
Seconded on this, a spreadsheet would be cool
3 Likes
I abandoned the spreadsheet tracker I was making because that new software exporter basically does the job. The only thing I could improve on would be to add slicers and color-code some things, very minor stuff.
Also Iâm not salty either, in fact I thought this was a great challenge. I just wish I would place higher by knowing what the heck people really wanted. I lose hard on the econo-box car challenges, especially the euro-themed ones. The MPG thing is whack, and Iâve never owned a car (out of 27) that had under 140ish HP so I donât really understand IRL slow-boxes. That, and comfort. Comfortable cars tend to drive like dump trucks in Beam, lol.
Good fun.
new round is up!
3 Likes