chasing pushers on campus! all the right choices for me 
first part of review. mentions everyoneâs horsepower
second part of revirews keeps quiet about it
1 Like
Third part of the reviews: Mentions one horse
The amount of entries sure have gotten big. Itâs almost as if it could fill two threads or be spread to more reviewers or time. Else thereâs a bit of pressure, I imagine.
Also, it speaks for itself that the reviews are intriguing to read despite not having participated myself, @BobLoblaw
1 Like
so yeah. while we wait, if everyone agrees, shall we start cracking on the âstandardâ review format?
1 Like
Personally, I think that when a challenge is set then you should know what you are looking for.
Therefore the first âpruningâ could be what you werenât looking for. For example you could easily drop half the field because the car doesnât look right for you, or itâs FWD/RWD/AWD.
You arenât going to test drive a car that you arenât excited about. Whether itâs looks or some feature.
So 30 could drop to 15, which then goes through another pruning session on the next criteria you want.
And you only review the last set, the set you actually drive. In fact the most suitable car, for your needs, may not be in the final set.
If I am ever lucky enough to be the only entrant, and so the winner, then thatâs the criteria I would use for my challengeâŚwhich is currently gathering dust in My Documents! 
3 Likes
Ugh, this is my one gripe about this thread. I feel like no one has the incentive to host independent stats based challenges anymore lest you waste your idea before winning the CSR.
I donât agree with that idea. I think each reviewer should use methods as unique as each challenge. The one rule should be that they are completed in the specified timeline.
Of course, if your review style is crap, youâll hear about it from the participants.
4 Likes
who agrees that we should give bob more time for reviews
quality over quantity
3 Likes
Hmm, I think that more time is a good idea. Maybe it should be added as a rule that if there are more than, letâs say, 20 cars, then the round host might make a poll for entrants about more time for the reviews.
Well, just to throw some sensible things in here Iâd consider:
-
Regarding Pictures: One picture of the reviewed car or a link to the reviewed carâs presentation post should be encouraged to have something for the eye, since design can play a big role.
The other way around: Every entrant should present their car with at least a picture, so the reviewer only needs to link and refer to the post instead of managing all the uploads themselves. -
Regarding Content: The stats that are requested in the brief must also be the stats mentioned in the reviews. This also means some details donât have to be mentioned specifically if they arenât acknowledged by the reviewer-persona. (e.g. a soccer mom wouldnât get a foamy mouth raving about front and rear double wishbone suspension, but would only mention the steadfast handling.)
The other way around: Entrants should show their setup (design tab), and the reviewer only needs to mention what they liked or even loved, or what they bothered about or just loathed. Afterwards a conclusion as to why an entry got accepted or why not.
These should relieve some pressure off of the reviewers (which may have been the reason some rounds had their hosts gone AWOL?). Yet, I actually wouldnât enforce any rules, have these be more as guidelines, and just encourage the idea of having the actual presentation of the car be predominantly made by the entrants, so the reviewer can build on that and focus more on evaluation and judgement. In the end, it would still be nice to read extensive reviews, but that shouldnât be pressured in just two to three days time. â> So more time for @BobLoblaw!
1 Like
And so I propose there should be an announcer like in Darkshine5-style challenges who volunteers to take care of getting pictures of the cars ready and, say, collaborating with the round host to proofread, and point out if there are inconsistencies.
This will come down to the individual round host, what kind of lore they create out of it, and how they decide to portray any one car in reality. Itâs not that common that we drive cars knowing what the gear ratios are, or what the size of the intercooler is. Automation affords a certain level of technical detail that can be taken into account to determine a successful car, but then you canât not mention it in the review. Do you see what I mean? Think of it backwards. If you won a round and your challenge was simply âto make a car that handles wellâ, that will create all kinds of confusion and chaos as itâs really vague. However, if you drop indications of which variables make for a car that will fare well and then mention it in the review, whatâs wrong with it? In my opinion, BobLobLawâs round so far has been a perfect mix between lore and Automation-level of detail. I agree that there needs to be some sense realism of realism, to repeat, yeah, it would be strange and highly unlikely that a soccer mom would even know what suspension is.
1 Like
Yeah, I recognize that there are issues with providing a very minimalist ruleset, but this is not what I was on about, but the reviewing part. One can play the âdumbâ reviewing soccer mom, who will likely usher about seven seats and spacious bootspace, but may just faintly notice the ride âsufferingâ if she loads all her chubby darlings along with weekend groceries into the car, the grand explanation from the dad who was hypothetically called for after arriving from work: âOhh, A-arm suspension canât take the weight, darling!ââŚâARE YOU SAYING IâM FAT?!â. Though, which car wouldnât suffer from that? 
3 Likes
Yes, same here 
I was saying there needs to be a ruleset that makes sense in terms of Automation, and be able to lend itself to a review style that incorporates lore and some sense of realism. There needs to be a connection and consistency between the two.
Yâall are making this too complicated.
2 Likes
Never in the back seat.
As far as horsepower I did overlook them in the reviews mainly in my effort to condense them down a little to knock them out quicker. Ultimately it will depend on how the cars use that power.
3 Likes
Re: all those proposals, I do agree that the effort required to review 30 cars to a satisfactory depth is massive and requires time and efficiency. Thatâs why we increased reviewing time in the first place.
But Iâm loath to institute much more regulation or process, especially adding an extra person in the mix. Thatâs subject to at least twice as much liability, more because of coordination required. I do recall making it mandatory to advertise your car when entering although I appreciate that some people sometimes donât have time to do this. All I would suggest there is that people who donât publicise their car canât be reasonably expected for the reviewers to take the pictures either.
The only other thing I can think of is to restrict numbers of entries but I feel thay would be wildly unpopular 
6 Likes
I completely agree with leaving the formula as it is. It works its unique its fun⌠everybody that enters a round should be aware of the responsibilty of hosting the next round. Thats why i dont enter every round. Not because i dont want to but because i know i could not host a decent round because of RL commitments.
In regards to using a âannouncerâ for each round that will never work here as it would take away the individuals point of view. My comps are all based from a racing view so having a commentator that remains the same works ( I hope )
4 Likes
Also agreeing to leave the formula as it is. If you create a round, you know full well that thereâs every possibility for a lot of entries.
Sure, I enter nearly every round, but if I know I canât possibly run a round, or Iâm not feeling up to it (like being in cooldown for a while after the mess I made of CSR 22), I enter junk that shouldnât win.
As for restricting entries, I think itâs actually a bad idea. It encourages rush-jobs, poor design work, and shoddy engineering to get your foot in the door rather than actually taking your time to make your cars look good. If it comes down to it, the round host can always choose to eliminate early instead of reviewing everything in the event that time starts closing in.
So, in the end, I think the week for entries plus three days for reviews works well enough. It certainly has kept the pace of the Car Shopping Round up.
As for people with lists of CSR ideas, Iâll admit I have a few ideas, but theyâre very rough right now. Iâm mostly trying to decide which one of three or four ideas I should break away from being CSR and go drop it in the challenge forum.
4 Likes
Day three:
Soldado (ramthecowy)
Worden: AWD certainly seems to be popular among our entries, the Soldado is an AWD wagon driven by a 3.8L V6 Good for 278 horsepower (Happy?). The engine does seem rather weak along the bottom end when pushed to high RPMs. Some better internals wouldâve probably been a wiser choice. The design looks upscale, almost like a luxury car. Service costs are about mid-range and fuel efficiency is average. A price of $14,520 means we could buy 17 units.
Levinstein: The Soldado treats me with a spacious interior and some decent quality seating and radio entertainment. I took it out for a spin, the car remained well planted on the ground when I started to get rough. One thing I noticed was the lack of traction control, but with the way this car is geared, you would hardly know it. I continued to test itâs performance when all hell broke loose. All of a sudden I lost all power, the dash lights went insane and smoke started pouring out form under the hood.
Worden: I popped open the hood, it was steam that was coming out, not smoke. The coolant overflow tank was boiling over due to the car severely overheating. A phone session with the company informed me of a recall due to improper cooling passages, this one was overlooked and sent out. A replacement was arranged for delivery.
Levinstein: Once I got in the replacement car I wasted no time thrashing about in it. No warning lights came on the dash so I was not worried. The car sported a less than ideal safety rating, not the worst Iâve seen but definitely on the low side. Braking distance was within a good distance at least with no signs of fade. A run around the Proving Course brought about a time of 1:07.74.
Hayes: Okay, I think Marc is feeling a little confident, he showed up to work wearing a fake mustache and a cowboy hat. As I went after Levinstein, he had the advantage from the beginning. The acceleration and handling is average at best, and that wasnât good enough to catch the Trance Am.
Solo Fleet Interceptor (thecarlover)
Worden: The Solo Fleet Interceptor is another entry in a list of RWD V8 sedans. Under the hood is a 4.6L V8 producing 248 horsepower. Both the car and powertrain appear to be of solid construction which means less down time and a lesser workload for the motor pool. The only concern I have is the use of standard steel body panels, no kind of anti-corrosion treatment appears to have been made. This could prove problematic for long-term use. Our older cars are already giving us a considerable headache with fighting rust on top of mechanical breakdowns. Fuel efficiency is average but service costs are low which is a good thing. The Solo Fleet Interceptor comes with a price tag of $14,630 which means 17 units could be replaced in our fleet.
Levinstein: I had to work a little harder with this one to keep it under control but it wasnât too bad. I am a tad concerned about the safety ratings, I understand the desire to cut costs as our city is on a strict budget, though I donât know if safety is the first choice I would cut. Braking distance is average though I did notice some fade under heavy use. She pulled a 1:07.33 on the Proving Course.
Hayes: Once again I was left in the dust by Levinstein.
Nickel 4 Spec (LEP) (DoctorNarfy)
Worden: The 4 Spec looks to be your standard sedan, itâs roomy, it has plenty of cargo space, itâs also pretty solid in construction. Under the hood it gets a little curious. A 5.0L V8 sits under the hood but only produces 210 horsepower. Strangely thatâs on premium fuel as well. Service costs are on the low side and fuel economy is at least decent. Pricing starts ad $14,630 allowing for 17 purchases.
Worden: This car had the highest level of unintended wheelspin out of any vehicles Iâve tested. Fortunately itâs still within easily manageable levels. The anemic engine really hurts performance. Braking distance is reasonable with no signs of fade that I can see. Around the proving course it pulled a 1:09:26. Barely an improvement over the Gran Romero.
Hayes: This is certainly among the slower of the cars weâve tested. The engine is of good build quality, though it sacrifices too much performance. That combined with somewhat sluggish handling prevented me from apprehending the suspect.
Honorable mentions: Highest Practicality stat.
NVP - MPD 27 (findRED19)
Worden: This is probably one of the most solid cars Iâve seen so far. The proportions look a little odd, but weâre not shopping for looks, weâre shopping for cars that do well. Under the hood sits a 302 horsepower 5.4L V8. The engine seems well optimized and looks like it can handle just about anything thrown at it. This car surprised us by having a higher quality interior than most sedans would use. I am concerned that the cost could have been better spent elsewhere. Fuel economy is a bit below average among the group and service costs are in the mid to high ranges. The car is pricey at $20,680 limiting us to 12 units, but from the looks of things, it wouldnât necessarily be a bad investment.
Levinstein: This is certainly a comfortable car to sit in. The real test will be to see if they remembered that this is supposed to be a police interceptor. Taking it out on the road, I find it to be reasonably simple to maintain control. The brakes perform remarkably well and hold up under duress without fade. I was able to whip this bad boy around the Proving Course in 1:03.51. Iâm feeling good about this one.
Hayes: After the last few cars, I was getting a little frustrated. That changed with this car. The Montauk screamed through town with Marc giving it all it had⌠and I stuck right with him the whole way.
Honorable Mentions: Second Highest Engine Reliability Stat (By .01) Highest Average Reliability stat
Delta Adept (Strop)
Worden: And another Euro-style wagon comes into play. This one maks use of a 3.0L turbocharged inline six producing 233 horsepower. A curious feature is a five speed sequential transmission. This makes the second car weâve looked at to use such a transmission. Despite being unusual I canât find any fault with it. The car delivers excellent fuel efficiency but service costs are a tad on the high side. The MSRP of $14,630 allows for 17 units to be purchased.
Levinstein: This thing was a tad less disciplined on the road than I would have liked but overall itâs not too bad. Braking distance is in the healthy median while risk of fade is nil. This one makes it around the Proving Course in 1:05.38.
Hayes: I was able to keep a reasonable pace with Marc. Had this been an actual chase he would have had a hard time trying to shake me in this car.
JHW M.R.P.V. (JohnWaldock)
Worden: Another funny looking car, but seems decently assembled. The engine is a 3.7L twin turbo V6 producing 325 horsepower. The engine looks like itâs working a little too hard for the job itâs assigned, hopefully that wouldnât lead to problems down the road. The car has sub-average fuel economy while requiring higher service expenses. $17,880 per car would enable us to purchase 13 vehicles.
Levinstein: A little bit tricky to keep steady but she pulls through all right. The turbo spools up at a reasonable pace so you donât have to worry about it kicking you hard when accelerating. The AWD setup provides no unintentional wheelspin allowing me to take off without concern. Braking is a good average with no signs of fade. I was able to manage a time of 1:06.80 around the Course.
Hayes: Mark opened up a bit of a lead on me early on, but I was able to stick fairly close to him throughout the chase.
Force Zeta (koolkei)
Worden: Looks can be deceiving. I initially expected a transverse four banger but was instead treated to a longitudinal 4.0L V6 producing 305 horsepower. The car appears to be well engineered and looks like it could withstand a fair bit of abuse. A pleasant treat was a look at the low service costs and the exceptional fuel efficiency. $14,630 per car means 17 units for the fleet.
Levinstein: This car stays well planted when driving it hard. Exceptionally disciplined while maneuvering. A bit of wheelspin at start but no difficulty managing it. Good braking distance and no signs of fade under heavy use. This one made it around the course in 1:07.38.
Hayes: This was no chase, this was a game of grabass. I was on him like glue the whole way around.
hexler (dracoautomations)
Worden: This thing looks pretty sharp, Iâm not much for wagons but I like the general shape of this one. (opens hood) Oh dear, a transverse 2.0L four cylinder, normally aspirated. And the spec sheet shows 132 horsepower on tap. This engine looks in a poor way too, I started it up, and it almost felt like it was going to shake apart. A sign of low grade internals I bet. The materials used to build the car looks like they show a great deal of resistance to corrosion over time. Fuel efficiency isnât too bad either, shouldnât be with a manual four banger. Service costs are exceedingly high, no doubt due to the questionable engine. The interior looks like they made an effort to produce a high end setup, Not where I wouldâve focused my funds personally. The hexler costs $14,520 each which means we could buy 17 of them.
Levinstein: Well, Iâm treated to a nice, comfortable interior, but thatâs about all that seems decent about this car. Braking distance is reasonable but there is a sign of fade after hard use. The hexler is light but the acceleration is anemic compared to other vehicles weâve tested. It does a 1:10.92 around our Proving Course.
Hayes: I started the chase not expecting much, and I was correct. This thing was way too slow to conduct pursuit.
Honorable mentions: Highest Environmental Resistance.
cruiser mk3 (germanbeamer)
Worden: The cruiser mk3 looks to be a pretty solid engineered sedan. Rather peculiar was the 6.0L V8 under the hood which only produced 300 horsepower. Seems rather low for an engine of that size, especially running on premium fuel. Speaking of which, itâs fuel economy is nothing to write home about. Service costs are also in the middle to high range. The cars cost $15,950 each which means we could get 15 of them.
Levinstein: Itâs a reasonably comfortable large sedan. I feel that the cruiser mk3 is a little too compromised when it comes to safe design however. The brakes hold up well under duress though the car did stop ten feet beyond the average stopping distance that weâve tested so far. The cruiser mk3 pulled a rather slow 1:09.08 around the course.
Hayes: The pursuit did not go well, try as I might, the Montauk just kept pulling farther and farther away.
LICORNE WAPITI Police vehicle (Darkshine5)
Worden: An aggressive looking sedan, the Wapiti uses a 4.9L V8 cranking out 351 horsepower. Overall the engine and car donât look as durable as other models tested, but the car looks to be decent enough. Service costs are on the mid to high range while fuel economy is slightly below average. At a price of $17,270, we could buy 14 units.
Levinstein: This one is a beast that needs taming, very brutal on the road. I had to fight this one more than the others to stay in control. Itâs got a reasonably comfortable interior, and boasts a good safety rating. Braking distance is ideal with no signs of fade. This beast rocks out a 1:02.12 around the Proving Course.
Hayes: I can think of only one thing to say when driving this beast: BRUAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This monster absolutely SMOKED the suspect! It gets a little unruly around tough corners but not so much that we canât correct them.
Collating data, winner results pending.
13 Likes
im giggling on that for some reason
Koolkei and Strop seems more solid than i expect, track time wise im quite confident for on my own entries