I guess benchmarking my car’s performance and equipment against the period Hyundai Sonata, wasn’t the best idea. But at least it was certainly sensible if a little volvoesque on the exterior since I had actually already created this design for my canon so only needed to tweak a few things to make it fix here for the UK market.
1 Like
I ran one that was full of vagueness and hidden gotchas, which was well recieved.
I think you are relatively new to the forum and game, don’t get discouraged, a lot of the competitions, and especially the came is a matter of compromise and trying to find the right balance, as well as any quirks the people running the competition might have. If it has anything to do with cosmetic of course its going to be arbitrary as well, heck I think I almost got binned for just that.
9 Likes
Well my car was simply ugly…too small and even a nice trad rwd 5.3 v8 designed to eat up miles on the autobahn…and it was the wrong choice…meh each to thier own no point in carrying on like a spoilt brat with a silver spoon in your mouth winging cause you didnt get your way for once…
3 Likes
That’s practicality my entry, the Gamma Roy, but with 8hp more, worse 0-62, no ETC and better radio. But I think I did the big mistake, if I remember correctly, of putting a semi-active sway bars.
4 Likes
The next morning came. Incredibly, the weather was even worse, with the wind picking up, making the drizzle come sideways. What a lovely autumnal day. He was ready. Office heating was set to just so, kettle was boiling the water. And 9 more brochures for him to look at. Lovely day again, it seemed.
Next up, the Marcos B4. Again, we have here an elegant, if not slightly boring sedan. The single full width taillight is a nice touch, whereas the front has just enough chrome to give it some presence. Under the bonnet lies a 2.8 inline 6 engine, with 5-valves per cylinder, for a total of 30. Together with the turbocharger, the hopes are for big amounts of power. Yet, it is not to be. Just 186 hp out of the engine. That is good for 47 mpg and 0-62 in 7 seconds flat, not bad after all then. However, yet another car that comes with computer controlled suspension. When will they learn that such a delicate component needn’t be assisted with electronics. To the bin.
From Canada, came the CM Regina EL. Another dark purple car, in a very interesting hue and almost satin in its finish. That suited the elegant and modern rear end, with sleek minimalist lights, which work great from the rear view, if not quite from the rear three-quarters, as the tail ends up looking too tall, long and boxy. At the front, we have the usual boring sedan affair, if not for the weird protrusions, which look quite pointless. Underneath the bonnet, lies a 3.6 inline 6 engine, which in true American fashion produces only 177 hp. Canada might not have Dunking Donuts, but Tim Hortons is certainly as effective in making engine workers lazy and unstressed. Despite that, and the high weight, this thing is certainly faster than a Zamboni, accelerating to 62 in 7.1 seconds. Fuel consumption is 37 miles per gallon, about the same as the average Canadian gets on a tank of maple syrup. Weirdly, this car is RWD, something which must be Europe-only, as AWD is fundamental to avoid crashing into moose on the Canadian winter. Inside, we seem to have the same standard affair as found on the rivals. Leather seats, a CD player and one airbag, with traction control and ESP fitted as standard. This car puts no foot wrong and even has some interesting design touches. He’ll take a closer look later.
Halfway around the globe, the Indonesians put into existance the Komodo Sliva. Yet again another company whose marketing boss should be fire by choosing such bad names. The guy who designed the front end, on the other hand, should stick around. Apart from the weird cut out for the front number plate, which will not accommodate a british numberplate, and the fact that the lower grille and fog lights are placed too far down, which expose them to stones, the front end is elegant and sharp. The same can’t be said of the rear. It is a mess of juxtaposing shapes and there is no coherence or a theme going and the bumper simply looks tacky. Inside, leather seats, a CD player with 4-speakers, one airbag. However, on the end of the brochure, again, semi-active suspension. What the Indonesians were thinking of? Have they spit it out of bamboo or something? And to the bin it went.
Another trip around the world would be required to find the factory of the Gamma Roy. And once again, it comes from a third world country trying to pass off as a maker of a proper car. And it seems the Brazilians haven’t quite nailed the executive sedan market. To kick off, the car looks pretty iffy, with huge lights making it look surprised, whereas the rear is featureless. But, another car company who failed to understand that a good saloon doesn’t need complex technology to succeed. If the basics are done right, in the correct way, the end result will be good, no need to add wasteful complications. To the lixeira.
The next car came from the USA. The GSI Paradigm, after which paradigm it was called, I have no idea and it certainly doesn’t break any. Styling is, to put it nicely, minimalistic. Yet, the huge lights at the front make the car look smaller than it is. Inside, the car comes with the standard equipment for this class, it seems, leather seats, a simple CD player and one airbag. Driver aids are plenty, with ABS, traction control and ESP. What sets the Paradigm apart is the engine. A 3.0 inline 6 unit, that has been turbocharged to get 246 hp. That means 0-62 mph takes just 6.1 seconds, yet with fuel economy of more than 42 mpg. This car doesn’t tingle, but it certainly is good enough to warrant further investigation.
From the USA also game the Gnoo Citiscape. What the hell is wrong with these marketeers, what the hell is that even supposed to mean, he sighs. The car itself looks like the work of someone stuck in 1991, with square detailing on the grilles and 1970s-like tall, slim vertical rear lights. It makes me slightly sick looking at it. No matter how good the stereo is, no matter how many airbags it has, not even the fact that it gets 50 mpg, if the car looks as bad as that, it has to go.
Next, the pizza makers at Brivio, with their Corleone. On the outside, the car has a very modern rear end, with fluid lines, but the front is very conservative and old-looking. It almost looks like two completely different cars were welded together. Inside, the obvious stuff from this class, only here without ESP. The engine is a very straight forward 2.0 inline 4, made of cast iron. With 16 valves, it pushes out 125 hp, meaning nor fuel economy nor performance were brilliant, with 40.7 mpg and 9.9s to 62. But what really lets this car down, like many others here, is the weird fancy suspension. Why are they insisting on this? The old ways are the best, he thinks, as he folds this folder into a paper plane and starts making spitfire noises as it flies to its final destination.
The penultimate car is the Valiant RZA. This hunk of white steel is admittedly quite good looking, if not a bit too much of a jelly bean. The shapes nearing the rear end are quite soft and weak, but somehow they look quite good. Underneath, there is a 1.9 inline 4 engine, with 16 valves and 133 hp. Not outstanding numbers and even with a manual box, the car can only do 0-62 in 10 seconds. Inside, the news is worse. This car has no leather seats, no soft touch dashboard and no kind of inserts of wood and chrome. It feels like a car from the class below inside, and it doesn’t make up for it with a posh stereo or safety items. Mediocrity was redefined here. And the bin got a new item.
And, at last, the Seishido Eccelsa 1.8 AX Limited. And since naming has been brought up more than once in these reviews, here goes another complaint. The Seishido engine is called the SGM16-DAA-18—something rather. It feels as if Seishido decided to name their engine after some product key they had lying around the office. It is utter mental. What isn’t quite so mental is the looks. The car looks very coherent and elegant, all the way around, with simple, yet interesting touches. The same can be said of the inside of this car. The seats are similar leather to the rivals, yet the radio is a step ahead, with 4-speakers and a good quality CD, and there is also a pair of airbags and the promise of good passenger compartment strength. The car manages some good economy numbers, with 44 mpg, but acceleration is quite slow, at 10 flat. The engine that brings those numbers is an all-aluminium 1.8 16 valve, with 138 hp. For being a good, and interesting, all-rounder, it stays for further evaluation.
After finishing looking at the 43 brochures, our middle manager remained seated in his chair and looked outside, thinking on the cars he would go down to the dealership to have a closer look. In hindsight, and to avoid doing meaningless work, he decided to cut a few cars right now.
One to fall was the F98-L. Quite simply, its looks are dull. For the same reason, the Centauri dealership won’t be getting a visitor. The 2300 Limited is, once again, too ugly and too beige to be the new, premium car he wants his neighbours to envy.
Even without those, he would still need to pop down to 10 different dealerships: Erin (@DeusExMackia), Griffa (@szafirowy01), Iurlaro (@NormanVauxhall), Smooth (@AirJordan), AM (@ramthecowy), Sei (@strop), Rennen (@titleguy1), Canada Motors (@thecarlover), GSI (@oppositelock) and Seishido (@EnryGT5)
But it would be for a good reason. At the end of it, he would have a nice new car.
So here is the end of the individual evaluations. Next step will be to compare the 9 cars and come up with a winner and 4 runner ups.
However, due to the unique way life works, I will not be able to get any work done tomorrow. Therefore, I must say, final results will only come thursday. I really hope you understand and give me the chance of giving a proper conclusion to this challenge. The amount of cars has really been overwhelming and I wrote 7000 words already on these little blurbs, or 10 full pages in word.
25 Likes
Error, error! My car is not a Petoskey, but a Griffa 
And I see no problem in waiting till thursday for so good reviews
Ahh erred to far on the boring don’t upset the bosses exterior, damn and blast. This was a entertaining round finish it as you can when you can.
I think given the size of the round and the effort already gone into the writing, a judgement on Thursday is more than reasonable.
As referenced previously I’ve been having discussions with some of the regular participants in the CSR as to what we can do to help the CSR run more smoothly. We’ve had several high 30 something entry rounds which is hard enough but now that we’re breaking 40+ it’s just going to get stupid for a single person to review that many.
The solution to this is either a) reduce the number of entries either organically or artificially b) drastically change the reviewing process. Based on responses in previous rounds, b) isn’t all that workable anymore: we tried beating the host with a stick and making the time limit stricter but that will ruin the reviewing process and motivation. We tried being really lenient with the time period but that just led to week long blowouts which isn’t conducive to the smooth running of the CSR and everybody got about as upset as a kid whose ice-cream fell off the cone and went splat on the grass.
So we’ve come down to putting some onus on people who submit. Current solutions under consideration (we may have to implement multiple) are:
- User must specify whether or not they are available to host when they submit. This way, the current host knows to select somebody who has already committed to hosting when judging. As to whether or not this should affect the judging itself, is under contention.
- Making the host post an extended list of rankings was also floated at this point, but again may end up quite tedious for the reviewer.
- Imposing penalties for breaking one’s commitment. This will probably end up being a deterrent from sending in a car for those who are not 100% sure (and let’s be honest, with real life, what is 100% sure???), which feels a bit counter to what I had in mind when I started the CSR, but we may be at the point where it is necessary. As to what the penalty is and for exactly what circumstance, we haven’t fully worked it out either, but obviously if you say you can host and then can’t that’ll inconvenience everybody, and the only meaningful penalty we have is ineligibility to enter future rounds of the CSR (for some time).
- Having the host set a submission limit. The problem then becomes that the distribution of the submissions may become inequitable, which isn’t a problem for single challenges but is a huge problem for recurring challenges with 3 dozen regulars.
I’ll ultimately have to make an executive decision but this is a people-powered challenge, hence the public phase of consultation. Thoughts?
14 Likes
Okay, the Gnoo probably had that one coming 
I didn’t leave enough time to handle the exterior. I thought the front was alright but the rear end insisted on looking like a rear end.
Why from the USA though? Based on the lore, Gnoo is from proud Blomozvakia. Was it the grille? Do I seem free as an eagle?
First and fourth seem like very solid ideas.
Whether the first should affect judging? Personally I wouldn’t mind if it did as it would show greater commitments on the part of those who are willing to host. I’d almost always end up on the wrong side of that coin due to time, but it seems fair.
The fourth, you could have those who can host get a priority for the submission limit, but that could become inequitable as you say. Alternatively, you could have a “submission period” so that instead of rushing to get something done there could be 3 days of quiet play after the rules are posted, then submissions open and run 'til the limit is full.
2nd seems like more duties for the host, who is likely to be quite strapped anyway. Third, I would expect there would be a prestige penalty (spelled out or not) to anyone stepping out after promising to host.
My 2 cents.
2 Likes
alright looks like im back from vacation/jailtime thingy. anyway looks like i was a big mistake posting a funny pic of a bmw with its badge replaced with something what mods thought it was inappropriate, after days of thinking it was really inappropriate
@Leonardo9613 come on man i had the shortest review here.
CSR33-lordvader1.zip (26.2 KB)
since i was late to show off the stats of the car here it is now
http://i.imgur.com/5rDzCFJ.gif
the only mistake i did besided that i forgot the door handles is overcooling the engine. which meant i had lower top speed
3 Likes
And why do you think that is? You should try critically reviewing your own work sometimes.
1 Like
i dont think i made it that ugly
There is more to Leo’s decision than just looks. Would you like for me to point out a few things?
- The drivability definitely could do with improving, in the face of competition who are getting into the mid- and high-sixties, with power outputs reaching all the way to 300hp.
- Fuel economy is bizarrely high for a car with only 255hp
- The car is rather heavy (reducing your fuel economy) but doesn’t have outstanding levels of comfort or safety to justify it.
- Your engine makes peak power at redline. And this is in a round that demands high levels of pragmatic thinking and all about smart, sensible decision making.
4 Likes
yeah the turbo ruined that for me. i should have gone with a nasp
You are american, I’d never have thought that a fictonal country what have been your choice. And your car had been notably made with maxxing out the stats in mind, that annoyed me a little bit. The car is far from pretty and it does indeed look like it came from 1990.[quote=“strop, post:6241, topic:6447”]
User must specify whether or not they are available to host when they submit. This way, the current host knows to select somebody who has already committed to hosting when judging. As to whether or not this should affect the judging itself, is under contention.
Making the host post an extended list of rankings was also floated at this point, but again may end up quite tedious for the reviewer.
Imposing penalties for breaking one’s commitment. This will probably end up being a deterrent from sending in a car for those who are not 100% sure (and let’s be honest, with real life, what is 100% sure???), which feels a bit counter to what I had in mind when I started the CSR, but we may be at the point where it is necessary. As to what the penalty is and for exactly what circumstance, we haven’t fully worked it out either, but obviously if you say you can host and then can’t that’ll inconvenience everybody, and the only meaningful penalty we have is ineligibility to enter future rounds of the CSR (for some time).
Having the host set a submission limit. The problem then becomes that the distribution of the submissions may become inequitable, which isn’t a problem for single challenges but is a huge problem for recurring challenges with 3 dozen regulars.
[/quote]
i don’t like any of the 4 suggestions to be honest. As I said, first would mean that people who cannot host would be looked at differently and would be demerited. 2 is just awful, we have to streamline the process, not add more complication. 3 - It has a point, but as you said, life can be unpredictable. 4, no, hell no. This would just mean that the first 20 people who could slap a car together would get the car, meaning the overall quality would diminish and people who are busier and need to plan ahead/can only do on weekends wouldn’t be able to join at all.
Quite frankly, I would have liked to make even shorter reviews of some cars which simply would never be worthy of a win, but then there would be backlash and complaints from people saying that their snowflake uniqueness wasn’t recognised, as per the two examples of that I had.
8 Likes
I’m all for streamlining the review process. CSR is all about being subjective and giving clear parameters for that. As in real life, people disqualify perfectly good cars entirely on looks and there’s nothing wrong with doing that here. Saying “I don’t like this” and moving on (with maybe a few more words) should be allowed, especially with the rising number of entries.
5 Likes
I don’t see why stating whether you can host or not should affect the judging process. It should be the same as it is now, i.e., X’s car was the best, but he couldn’t host, so Y gets to host. If X and Y cars are very close and the knowledge that X can’t host becomes a tiebreaker, at worst X loses some prestige of being #1 vs being #2. That seems fine to me, it’s not like X would lose the opportunity to host since he can’t anyway.
4 Likes
I think your criticism focuses on the wrong user fhere. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to put a lot of effort into a submission and them hope for at least decent feedback. I also enjoy the different styles and presentations of reviewing process that different users bring to the table. It’s the majority of users who are reasonable all the time that I wish to cater to, hence I’d ideally like people to actively think about a commitment before entering.
Between shorter reviews and potentially less entries I know what I’d pick… And it’s not shorter reviews. That’s like writing a love confession to your crush via text (btw don’t do this, it’s sad and awkward) and getting a ‘k’ in return 
At least that’s how I saw it. As for treating people who submit but can’t host differently, the community seems split along this line. I’ll have to think about it.
1 Like
Nope.
Well, it depends, personally. I think people would still be happy with some of us even if we did crop our reviews down some to slip-stream the review process. I’m not asking for a total reversion to the dark old days where only the top 3 got a review and everyone else got ignored, but it’s obvious we can no longer expect car-magazine-style reviews for every car, either.
I’d be fine with each car getting a paragraph and the top 3 or 5 or whatever the host chooses get full reviews. If I win another round or host another challenge with reviews, I’m going to follow the logic of cutting it down a bit.
4 Likes