OK, submissions closed! Exception would be for @SheikhMansour who gave me a file, but has not yet put up an ad. I messaged over the same, so please add it so we can get it in. If I get that by tonight, I’ll consider it clear. Lots of people on vacation and holidays lately, so I get it.
Thanks, everyone. I’ll get to calculating and processing my final tallies, talk soon
3 Likes
Testing and Scoring Methodology
Objective ratings:
Prioritized stats based on three star, two star, and one star priorities, per the challenge details. All prioritized stats scored by placement. 1st place 10 points, down to 10th being 1 point, and lower than 10th zero points for that priority.
- 3 star placement points are added together and boosted x 1.20 (120%) due to higher priority
- 2 star placement points are added together and then taken directly at face value (100%)
- 1 star placement points are added together and then reduced x .8 (80%) due to lower priority.
Subjective (Visual) ratings:
Visual scores delivered by 3 judges. Myself, my son (who’s got quite the artistic eye and plays the game with me sometimes), and my wife who is not a car person, but appreciates good design. Score is a cumulative number, with the maximum being a “30”. Several cars had the same final score, so those were all considered equal to each other and thus “tied”. These were then put in placement rank, and assigned points by rank, same as the priorities.
About some engineering choices vs. IRL (collectively)
I have a couple gripes about the entries in general. You as a group may not feel the same, or may. What I recommend is that after I air these, maybe we talk it over and decide how “real” we want these builds to be. As some might be able to tell from some of my previous entries, I’m pretty keen on building what’s possible in Automation, as long as it could be real in real life. Example: 60deg DOHC V8’s should be more of a thing. BUT…
*AFR’s. OK I get it, we’re trying for good mileage. But, turbo cars go boom in AFR’s leaner than stoich (14.7:1). When I see an AFR set beyond that, I question what’s up. It might pass on a lean-burn N/A engine, but never a turbo engine. Turbo DIESEL, yes.
*Tire size - This one bothers me, because as a former tire guy I am sensitive to what is even possible. This parallels with our sorta-unwritten rule of using tires that end in “5”, because we’re emulating real life options. BUT…we’re missing the mark making cars with, say 245/70R22 tires. I found 8 entries had tires that can’t even be bought. I think, moving forward, we should be more realistic with our tires. This also makes the cars look more realistic!
OK, that’s all I have to say on that.
Völligschweben Ieniche SPI
17th obj (with a score of 16) 1st place subj, Beautiful exterior, impossible 22" tire size, but objective points way off the pace. Points lost by constantly placing beyond 10th (so, no points in those.) 1st place Sportiness though.
@RN99
Weiskopf Einschüchterer
16th place obj (with 21 pts), subjectively (tied) 3rd. G-Wagon design, 1st place off-road (of course!), just not hitting the priorities too well.
Shenhua Kukri
15th objectively (score 21.6), 3rd subjectively. Good looking front, slightly off rear, otherwise excellent. No intercooler, Scored mid-pack, held back by 2nd star priorities missed.
Apoapsis Prograde AdventureSport
14th objectively (23.4 pts), 5th subjectively, smooth styling overall, I dislike the nose-end but that’s it. 90deg v6, strange but it works I guess. no wins, but mid-pack scoring in the important categories, not a bad car.
Edits complete, I deleted and then re-created this post so these are accurate. Will work on the next batch. Thanks for your patience and sorry to keep pinging you with your @ mentions as I fixed it.
5 Likes
Not even in this comp, but I figured I’d weigh in on this. I get your concern about AFRs, and I personally build turbo builds richer because they work out better, but keep in mind Automation doesn’t actually let you choose your actual, simulated air-fuel ratio. It’s just a slider that increases your economy at the expense of power and octane. It’s well known that this is the case, and the devs are already in the process of replacing it and the ignition timing slider with an ‘engine tuning’ slider that doesn’t pretend it’s altering some objective value. So a 15 AFR just means the ECU is tuned for economy over power, it doesn’t actually mean the engine is running leaner than stoich.
I initially misread the tire complaint and was going to argue about that too, but your actual concern is totally valid. A 245/70R22 tire is humongous - over 34 inches in tire diameter - and does not belong on a luxury SUV. 35- and 37-inch tires are Raptor-style offroader domain.
In the end, though, you’re running a QFC and not a CSR. This challenge is meant for people to put in a manageable amount of effort and allow builds from new players to get equal exposure. Certainly nobody who competes in this challenge should have to look up the tire size on modern offroaders. So I think that in the case of QFC, you did the right thing by sorta letting it go despite pointing it out.
2 Likes
Shooooooooot hang on, I have a problem with my spreadsheet. A comma where there should be none is ruining everything. Uh… disregard the previous post, I’ll delete it and re-create.
The issue is “points” on things were calculating from the raw value in other places. I rookie mistake, to be sure. I’ll be back later with corrections.
Edit - we’re back on track, I’ll continue on now.
DMV Galleon LUX
This big monster came in 13th obj (25.6 points) and 11th subj, did poorly on higher-priority objectives, but has good offroad, environmental resistance, and reliability, so it pulled some points to climb up. *Note: had a low front brake force Automation warning/errored setting.
Ibis Bengal GT4
Obj 12th (29 points), subj 8th. Exterior design a bit weird, but I see where you’re going with it. Very rich AFR 13.2:1, no camber front or rear (odd), last place offroad, 2nd in sportiness though.
Courageux Grande Tournee
11th obj. (score 29.4), 6th subj. I did not like this car, because I felt it was too mini-van’y, not in the crossover/suv type vein. HOWEVER, it did score low service costs, and high practicality, so it made it pretty far. A great design nonetheless.
Armor Super Chief
10th obj (scored 30.2), tied 5th subjectively. I like the design (but I’ve also owned an FJ so I’m partial to the look), impossible tire size. Mid-pack obj. scoring caused by not taking a lead in any area, but no last place scores either.
HMC Voyage V6 Premium
9th obj (score 31.2), 2nd subjectively! A real looker for an SUV, huge effort on fixtures. Lean AFR turbo, non-existent tires, hurt by missing priorities, but scored big on Prestige, and Env. Resistance.
That’s about mid-pack, now on with the last batch
7 Likes
Mara Rodyna 4.0 GLX
8th obj. (33 pts), also 8th subj. front/side styling a little weird, for instance door handles up way too high I think. Transverse V8 a neat idea, TINY 215/65R17 tires fought that power, and the scores show it. 1st practicality, 2nd reliability.
KST KX8 3.0
7th obj. (33.4 points), 3rd subj., I like the design overall. Another impossible tire size, not so good in some priorities, but had enough comfort, safety, and practicality to pull through.
Lussone Hussar
6th obj. (score 35 points), 10th subj. Has a face only a mother could love, and some bedazzled rear tail lights. Interesting engine, low compression, high boost, but also high AFR 15.0:1. No speed limiter made service costs pretty high. 1st Prestige, 2nd Safety, Last Env. Resistance (it’s rusting just taking this pic). Leftover budget could have fixed those IMO.
Yinzer Overlander
5th obj (score 37), 9th subj., cool retro design, extremely small 215/75R15 tires, I want more than 5cyl’s to move it. Appreciate that its a Jeep sorta, but a 3-row Jeep needs at least a strong 6, if not an 8 (like a Grand Wagoneer). No wins, but consistently mid-pack racking up points.
Lacam Kalahari Classic Edition
4th obj (39.4 points), 4th subj, “Ribbed for your pleasure” just about everywhere (disregard my pic, my Automation broke the ribs I guess). Even so, this one polarized with points, but took 1st Env. Resistance (the ribs will be with us forever), IMO might have won with the weight slider not set to “heavy”.
Wells Accolade
3rd obj. (42 points) 7th subj. Overall style cool, ambitious bodywork that Automation struggles to show off. Impossible, huge tires (by a lot). Mid-pack results by the numbers. Won nothing, but kept racking points in all the priorities.
BMA Bastide GT
2nd obj (56.6 points), 3rd subj. Strong contender to win, IMO maybe some slight engineering changes would have nabbed it, I thought this one was going to win, by the numbers, and I think I know why it didn’t (minor engineering). More power from the engine would be nice, and there was budget to do it. BUT, it did well, and it looks good.
Regal Peyto 3.5L
1st objectively with a run-away 70.2 points, 3rd subjectively. The front is a tiny bit weird, but nothing really wrong, just maybe the headlights could be a bit more modern for 2015 (projector, led, etc.) This car out-performed 2nd place by 13.6 points, which is a lot. It has engineering issues such as forged engine parts without needing them, made extra-heavy with the slider (5087 lbs!), which caused the brakes to fade, Still, 1st place Comfort, Safety, Reliability, and a bunch of other high placements secured the win, objectively. And subjectively, it still scored high enough to hold the total win!
I hope y’all were OK with this highly objective QFC. I wanted to try something more “by the numbers” and see if the numbers correlated to what I would say is the best car here. And I think it is, some engineering weirdness notwithstanding. I also hope you were all OK with me being lenient on “binning” and other decisions. The way I see it, we’re not doing this as a job, it’s a hobby. Therefore, if we make a mistake, maybe the best way to resolve is to notify and let the person fix it, and we’re all good. To ME, its not about getting rid of the losers, or talking down someone else’s creation. I know darn well how long it takes to make a decent car, and I appreciate each and every one of you and your efforts. I too put in long, long hours to calculate, judge, and try to understand each entry head to toe. I’d estimate 50-55 hours including picture work. That said, you put in the time, so I found it only fair that I return the favor.
If anybody wants more details on precisely how I judged things, I’ll be happy to explain the methodology further, and see if its worth explaining in a related thread, or revising further.
OK so regarding permissions for the stats to be uploaded to my public spreadsheet, if you haven’t yet let me know by PM, but DO want me to load your car to the spreadsheet, please PM me or say so here in the thread, and I’ll get on it. IF not, no biggie.
Congrats to Karhgath, where we going with QFC5?
10 Likes
Congrats to Karhgrath! If I haven’t said so yet feel free to upload whatever you want on mine.
I will allow you to upload my QFC4 entry’s stats to your spreadsheet, exactly as I had planned.
Great writeup!! Surprised I still made it that high on looks despite my front fascia - I was not super happy with it.
I guess I succeeded by selecting the right body based on the priorities, many bodies were trap considering the star ratings.
Glad to take the win and also congrats to all submitters, there were some very nice looking submissions.
Since I am already set to host the next JOC, I’ll take the day to think about the next QFC round or see if I pass the hosting duties down to the next one in line, if that is ok.
3 Likes
Man I appreciate that line bro!!
Hi everyone,
I decided to skip hosting the next QFC round. So I am guessing the next in line is @Bbestdu28?
Yeah you have to stop winning, lol.
That’s understandable given that his hands are tied (not literally) hosting the latest JOC - it’s theoretically possible for someone to host two (or more) different competitions at once, but it’s seldom desirable.
Alright, give me a day to set the category/rules, or even less, we’ll see. Good luck with JOC !
4 Likes