That doesn’t mean you don’t need to tell people that they’ve been binned? Especially because I have no clue why I seem to have been binned, I checked my car over earlier and as far as I can tell it doesn’t break any rules, so knowing why I was binned would be helpful.
8 Likes
If I remember correctly you had too much money put into your techpool
While I wasn’t participating, I had went through results and following discussion. Also, I’m member of community for decent amount of time and therefore am aware that what I’m about to write would be same as most of those would say
Which would mostly boil down to
Communication is key
Above point can be easily reflected in multiple ways.
- Binned cars
As was already mentioned, people put decent amount of effort into their cars. Or maybe they do not, but they may want to know why they got Binned. As to why, they might wish to use feedback to make it better for next competition…and there are many possible reasons
- Tech pool was too high
- Wrong file name
- Too low emissions standard
- Tech pool illegally allocated (Example: Rules mandated maximum +4 and you put +6 somewhere)
- Price was too high
- Racing parts in engine
- Not allowed fixture
- Wrong game version
- Realism bin: any entry from here submitted to competition asking for something akin to Rolls Royce would count as extreme example
I could go on, but point is clear. Now it would be appreciated to see how entry may have fared in general even though it got Binned, but that’s not really mandatory.
“This car would have been quite mediocre in general even if not for it having too much tech pool" or “This was shame to bin as it was very pretty design. Sadly, it used Race headers, so was Binned.” would likely be fine enough of explanation.
Which brings us to
- Waiting on writing of reviews
Regardless of whether or not you may have used AI to assist you on writing is certainly a subject that might get some debate of its own. While I don’t mind it personally, I know some others might not be as chill.
No, I decide to concentrate on reason why you decided to be helped by AI a little in this case, which was us apparently waiting too much on reviews
We may grumble upon being informed that your attention would be more occupied by exams, moving places, being sick etc. but we would totally understand and would not complain too much…providing you informed us that we might need to wait some more. If you desire to not share the reason for delay, fine, we will appreciate heads up anyway.
One of possible reasons for delaying reviews might be going above and beyond in regards to reviews themselves (not something recommended unless you have enough free time and interest in doing so). We will be fine with regular reviews that are not going to be woven into some sort of written journey of how committee decided on best car, but some pictures and fancy text could always be nice.
That being said, congrats! You had managed to host a complete challenge, which means that entries were reviewed and we could read said reviews. It was always going to be some sort of learning experience, so make sure you read and apply feedback on this and your following challenges might be even better.
Also, sorry for writing an essay of sorts
10 Likes
My polish van was not featured ):
Too much techpool used (you used 9 million for engine and 9 million for body instead of the total 10 million together)
Being reviewed by an AI 
8 Likes
Just the commentary and I did implement my own opinion
Those reviews feel like they’re entirely written by AI. There’s no soul, there’s no thought put into it. I must agree with Aruna, those reviews are very
9 Likes
Well I forgot to submit what would have probably been a competitive entry, and now I’m glad I forgot…
2 Likes
It was too good for Soviet Onion
oh bruh I thought it’s 10 million for each
In my defense I imagine it’s not hard to get confused about this
4 Likes
Fr, all Kalisz C1100 stock will be sent to western europe, go get yours for the price of idk a decent meal in todays economy
I can’t, too many quids!
Alright Aruna I’m going to be honest with you. I am currently studying engineering. What does this mean? 1. I probably couldn’t really care about the way people design their cars. I know that there are a lot of people who like designing their cars and put a lot of time in it and whilst I can definetly appreciate it, the only reason why it was scored on 7 points is because it is the main criteria in a lot of challanges. 2. I would rather solve nonlineair differential equations than to even write a single piece of text of like 100 words. So honoustly I would probably choose between 2 options being either just give the Excel document, drop some images and say that that’s it or I do give every car a (soulless) review using AI.
You can dislike my train of thought but I have always found the engineering side of these challenges speaks a lot more to me than even a bit of designing cars.
However I do have learnt a lot from hosting the challenge and I hope that if I were to rehost a challenge I would be delighted to see you’re entry again. (And this counts as well to all other participants)
3 Likes
The thing is: 1. You do decide the priorities; if you don’t care about design, you can just not make it one. It’s only high in other challenges because that’s what those hosts like. And 2. Actually, most people here really would prefer the Excel sheet drop. Or just to wait.
The issue with AI isn’t a general “AI bad;” the reason people come to these challenges is to hang out with other players, to see and be inspired by other people’s work, and to get other people’s feedback on their work. People are excited to hear what you have to say. Using AI to write reviews, then, is like running a footrace in a car. Even if it’s faster, it’s just missing the point.
To give people blocks of cheaply generated text that didn’t come from you, nor is directly about their car, comes off as an insult; implying you couldn’t be bothered to give them your time, but you expect them to give time to you. I know that’s not what you meant, but that’s where the irritation comes from.
And if you are limited on time to host yourself, then going forward you should consider either 1. scaling down the scope of your challenge to something you can manage (simpler reviews, multiple rounds of reviews, perhaps limiting entry count if necessary), 2. Let them take longer (as long as you communicate the time you need, people are happy to wait), or 3. simply hold off until you do have the time.
To echo @MrdjaNikolen earlier, you did successfully host a challenge. And for a first challenge, it had an impressively high entry count, and you dealt with it pretty well! A few mistakes here and there aren’t things to be ashamed of, rather targets to improve even further next time. :D
16 Likes
I personally mind AI-generated content probably less than others, but it’s a matter of prompting to generate insightful, engaging and fun-to-read reviews.
For funsies - and I hope you don’t mind - I put the brief and the scoresheet into a Gemini Gem, and ran two sample prompts:
Write a summary critique for the fourth placed entry, highlighting strengths and weaknesses in equal measure. Use the raw in-game values and not the relative scores when writing the answer text.
The entry from designer Ultimate_Billy is a vehicle of stark contrasts, embodying utilitarian excellence while simultaneously failing in areas of refinement and appeal, ultimately securing it a respectable fourth place.
Strengths
The design’s primary strength is its exceptional Practicality, with a raw value of 80.9. This score is the highest of all submissions, positioning the car as a supremely useful vehicle for the everyday worker and their family. This practicality is complemented by outstanding production metrics. With an Engineering Time of just 34.6 hours and Production Units of 63.4, it is engineered to be built quickly and in large numbers, perfectly aligning with the high-priority demands of the brief. Furthermore, its Price of $6350 remains highly competitive, making it an affordable option for the masses.
Weaknesses
Where the car excels in function, it falters in form and feel. Its most significant weakness is its Styling Score of just 3, indicating a design that is likely perceived as unattractive and devoid of any aesthetic appeal. The driving experience would be similarly uninspired; the car is almost entirely devoid of Sportiness at 0.4 and offers a low level of Comfort at 5.7, suggesting a harsh and basic ride. Finally, its Reliability of 63.6 is below the competition average, a notable flaw for a vehicle intended for the people. In essence, Ultimate_Billy’s design is a pragmatic workhorse that sacrifices all flair and comfort for ultimate utility and production efficiency.
For the top three ranked submissions (the entries in the first three rows), write a lively discussion by the following three people:
- Dmitri, the car company engineer, focusing on engineering time and production units
- Ivan, the people representative, focusing on driveability, practicality and comfort.
- Olga, the government representative, focusing on price, fuel economy and reliability
Use the raw in-game values and not the relative scores when writing the answer text. Engineering Time is measured in months. For Production Units, less is better (less units to manufacture a single car)
The People’s Car Deliberation
The scent of strong tea and stale cigarette smoke hangs heavy in the air of the design bureau’s meeting room. Three figures are hunched over a scoresheet illuminated by a single, stark lamp.
Olga (Government Representative): “Comrades, we have the final results. The future of our nation’s transport rests on this decision. Let us be swift and decisive. The top entry, from Designer AndiD, looks… promising, especially from a financial perspective.”
Dmitri (Engineer): “Promising, Olga? I am not so sure. Look at this! The Production Units are 60.6! That is magnificent, a true achievement in manufacturing efficiency. However, the Engineering Time is 37.9 months. It’s good, but Designer NormalVauxhall’s entry is nearly four months quicker at 34 months flat. That is a significant saving in skilled labor.”
Ivan (People’s Representative): “Dmitri, you only see the factory floor. I see the people driving! AndiD’s car has a Driveability of 71.2! It is the clear winner for the driver. It will be responsive and easy to handle on our glorious, if sometimes inconsistent, roads. It is also quite practical at 69.4 and comfortable enough at 8.4. NormalVauxhall’s car is less drivable at 58.6—a noticeable step down for the common man.”
Olga: “Ivan, the ‘common man’ is also the one paying. AndiD’s price is only $5820, the cheapest of any entry. NormalVauxhall’s is close at $5950, but still more expensive. Where I have a concern is Reliability. AndiD’s score of 65.7 is merely adequate. NormalVauxhall, on the other hand, boasts a much more robust score of 68.3. A car that does not break down is a car that serves the state, and its owner, far better.”
Dmitri: “Let’s look at NormalVauxhall’s design more closely, then. As I said, the 34-month Engineering Time is excellent—the best of the top three. Production Units are still strong at 64.6. It is an efficient design to build.”
Ivan: “But it is a compromise, Dmitri! What about Jorge’s design? It is the most comfortable of all at 10.1 and has decent driveability at 63.2.”
Olga: “Jorge’s car is too expensive at $6220, and the Reliability is the worst of the three at 64.9. But Ivan, you must look at all the numbers. Jorge’s Practicality is a disaster! A score of only 50.5? It is useless for a family hauling potatoes from the dacha! And while none of these cars are paragons of efficiency, Jorge’s design is the most economical, using 5.4 L/100km. A small point, but an important one for the state’s fuel reserves.”
Dmitri: “So, to summarize. We have AndiD’s car, which is exceptionally efficient to manufacture (60.6 P.U.) but takes longer to engineer (37.9 months). We have NormalVauxhall’s, which is a marvel of development speed (34 months) but less efficient to build (64.6 P.U.). And we have Jorge’s, which is a solid production design (67.3 P.U.) but less remarkable than the other two.”
Ivan: “And we have AndiD’s car, which is a joy to drive. NormalVauxhall’s is a dull appliance by comparison. And Jorge’s is very comfortable (10.1 Comfort) but you cannot fit anything in it (50.5 Practicality).”
Olga: “And we have AndiD’s car, which is exceptionally cheap at $5820. NormalVauxhall’s is commendably reliable (68.3 Reliability). And Jorge’s is… an expensive, unreliable box, despite its better fuel economy. For my part, the choice is clear. The state’s primary concerns are cost and manufacturing efficiency. Designer AndiD has delivered on both. That is the car for the people.”
I think both outputs would be excellent springboards to then make the assessments ‘your own’, adding your own perspective and takes on each entrant, without having to write too many words yourself if that’s not your thing.
3 Likes
For what it’s worth, one thing I really liked about this challenge was - ironically enough given the opacity in the machine-generated reviewing - the transparency of the scoring!
Obviously this was by its nature a less styling-focused challenge than most but the points breakdown on the objective measures was a very neat and effective one - and one that I may be tempted to follow pretty neatly if I do my own engineering-led challenge any time soon. Then again, considering my one previous attempt at a challenge went notably worse than this (although tbf it was March 2020 so scrambled brains were a given 
) I probably won’t be…
2 Likes
so why did my car got dsq?
i also agree with people above that you should’ve include at least few words about DSQd cars, like it had this advantage and this disadvantage, but failed with this rule, or something like that
Too much spent on techpool ($11.2M)