I agree the patch did chew things up. It appeared to reset morphs so you may be reviewing vehicles that look different than the pics. So that may affect things.
TMCC17- Phase 1
Instabins
Senzou Zeus 5.2 V10 GT âBusiness Packâ- @BannedByAndroid
The first car sent to the studio was the Senzou Zeus. While the studio mostly liked the car, they found that it was much louder then they anticipated, so they had to set it aside.
(Bin- engine loudness of 52.4, which exceeds the maximum allowed loudness of 45.)
Avion Atlas Darkstar- @alen.alic1983
The next car presented to the studio was the Avion Atlas. While the studio was interested in the car, they didnât recieve any contact information to set up a test drive, so alas they had to move on.
(Bin- does not follow the engine naming scheme.)
Bergmann Geist 2.2TDI ClubSport- @Mikonp7
The next car the studio saw was the Bergmann Geist. The studio thought it looked interesting, but upon doing further research, they found that it wouldnât be available in time for their shoot.
(Bin- engine ET of 210.5, which exceeds the maximum engine ET limit of 200.)
Currageous Stockholm RGB222 whistle 4.0- @kalan
Next up was the Currageous Stockholm RGB222. The studio was puzzled by the design, and planned to reach out to set something up, but there was no contact information left.
(Bin- doesnât follow the naming scheme, like, at all.)
Alfane ZS6 RS- @HybridTronny/@kookie
Next on the studioâs list was the Alfane ZS6 RS. The studio was interested, but unfortunately like the Senzou, it was too loud for the show.
(Bin- engine loudness of 49.2, which exceeds the maximum allowed loudness of 45.)
Phase 1 Eliminations
Theta L400 AWD- @Lanson
Next on the agenda was the Theta L400. The studio werenât fans of the design, and after looking into the specs, they realized it wouldnât suit their needs, so they moved on.
(Reason for elimination- the design doesnât feel very modern, the effort felt unequal across the exterior and the interior, and it lacks depth. The engineering leaves something to be desired in the realism department, with the choice to go with a 60 degree V8 and a 6-speed automatic being particularly baffling. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Waldersee Freiherr FK55TRA- @Texaslav
Next up is the Waldersee Freiherr. The studio wasnât immediately drawn to the exterior, but rather enjoyed the interior. However, after looking at some of the specs, the studio ultimately decided against it.
(Reason for elimination- the design is mostly solid, but it lacks anything in the way of moulding (you didnât even put down an actual plate holder, which is the most basic piece of moulding you could add.) As for the engineering, I found the choice to include a magnesium engine block a bit strange, and found that the gearing was a hair long. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Hakaru Contribu GTS-XZ- @Executive
Next up was the Hakaru Contribu. The studio liked it for the most part, but found that it was too reminiscent of some other design, they just couldnât put their finger on it. Looking at the specs, the studio ultimately decided against the Contribu, and moved on.
(Reason for elimination- the design is decent but it leans a little too replica-y, engineering was by and large fine, but the choice to go with 5 valves per cylinder is a hair unrealistic, the tires are on the narrow side for your power output, and there was a fairly significant amount of sportiness brake fade compared to other entries. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Allure G7- @DuceTheTruth100
Next up is the Allure G7. The studio wasnât impressed with the design, finding it odd and clunky, and they werenât particularly impressed by the specs either, so they moved along.
(Reason for elimination- design is clunky and doesnât flow well, engineering is not great either, with the choice to use a much lower octane fuel for no real reason, the overly narrow tires hurt stats, the choice to use magnesium rims is an odd one, and the choice to use a 6-speed auto is a little unrealistic, as was choosing only to equip ABS and nothing further. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Kerberos KL453- @nightwave
Next up is the Kerberos KL453. The studio didnât care for the design, nor were they particularly blown away by the specs, and ultimately they passed on taking it further.
(Reason for elimination- the engineering was mostly fine, but efficiency was very low, and it isnât the best from a performance standpoint, with one of the lower 0-60 times, and average performance metrics elsewhere. The biggest problem however was the design, with lumpy and unsmooth body moulding running across the sides, and an awkward front and rear design to boot. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Elessar 985 Shadowfox- @Restomod
The next car up is the Elessar 985. The studio werenât fans of the blinding paint, and thought the design in general was lacking. Reading up on the specs, the studio didnât come away too impressed there either, so they moved on.
(Reason for elimination- the design doesnât feel very modern, the bright blue you chose does you no favors, and as a whole it isnât particularly interesting. Engineering was equally not amazing, despite its decent performance, your car is limited by the very narrow tires, and the carbon ceramics are an unnecessary choice that only really increased service costs, and did nothing for the car, and to boot the other stats werenât much better, particularly comfort. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Drachen L60 V10- @the-chowi
Next up was the Drachen L60. The studio werenât in love with the design, and after doing some further research on its performance, they ultimately decided against it.
(Reason for elimination- much like a lot of the cars Iâve eliminated so far, the design lacks a lot of depth, and the 7-series esque front doesnât do it for me. Engineering left something to be desired as well, with very poor drivability thanks to the DCT and non-variable steering, high service costs, and quite a bit of body roll which hurts performance. For those reasons, itâs out.)
iD Lux IX630- @RAZR
Next up is the iD Lux IX630. The studio didnât really have any major issues with the design, but upon further research the studio found that its specs werenât the greatest, and they passed on it.
(Reason for elimination- the design is fine, no real complaints there. The issue is the engineering, with an extremely laggy turbo tune, the second slowest 0-62 time in the entire competition, the odd choice to go with a magnesium block, running 91 octane when you didnât need to, peak power at redline, and poor efficiency. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Halvson Hyper Harrier- @lotto77
Next up is the Halvson Hyper Harrier. The studio werenât fans of the design, especially the rear, and the specs werenât particularly impressive either, so the studio moved on.
(Reason for elimination- the design isnât the best, with an extremely wide and awkward front, which carries over to the rear. Engineering is meh, with poor reliability and just average stats that donât justify the very-close-to-the-limit price, so for those reasons itâs out.)
Ryoma Seishi 8 C- @noid5454
Next up is the Ryoma Seishi 8 C. The studio didnât hate the design, despite some overly large elements on the front fascia. However, the specs and performance werenât too compelling for the price, so the studio passed on it.
(Reason for elimination- the design is fine, but some of the fascia elements (like the lower grille) are a bit too big in my opinion. Engineering is mostly okay, but low relative drivability and reliability, on top of just okay performance metrics and a fairly high price ultimately take it out of contention.)
Varion Lacrosse SF-V- @ChemaTheMexican
Next is the Varion Lacrosse SF-V. The studio had no real complaints with the design, though looking at the specs and performance metrics closely, they ultimately decided to go another way.
(Reason for elimination- while the design is mostly fine (not really a fan of the taillights though), the engineering is where it comes apart, with very low drivability, middling comfort and prestige, and the worst fuel economy in the competition, and despite the low price it just isnât very compelling.)
Swanson 550TLSXN- @Ludvig
Next on the list is the Swanson 550TLSXN. The studio for the most part liked the design, and were compelled by the performance, but there were a few small things that ultimately led to them passing on the Swanson.
(Reason for elimination- the engineering is mostly good, but choosing to run ITBs is a little questionable, and you have reasonably narrow tires relative to your power output. However, the biggest issue is the design. The side, rear and interior are all okay, but the front is wide horizontally and vertically squished, and doesnât mesh well with the rest of the design. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Geist G10XS- @Caligari
Next up is the Geist G10XS. The studio wasnât impressed by the design, but then they heard about the performance, and ultimately decided to look elsewhere.
(Reason for elimination- the design is one thing, with an awkward front and uneventful rear, but holy balls the turbo tuning is ghastly on this car, terrible fuel economy and the highest service costs in the entire competition, thanks to the ill-advised choice to run carbon ceramic brakes. For those reasons, itâs out.)
Katsuro Solera- @FitRS
Next up is the Katsuro Solera. The studio wasnât a fan of the design, and after looking into the specs and performance, they moved on to the next.
(The design isnât the best, with an utter lack of depth, awkward proportions and no attempt to fight the tall rear on the body you chose being particularly noticeable flaws. As for the engineering, the choice to run a 60 degree V8 is unrealistic, and the stats in general arenât very good with impressively low comfort, drivability on the low side of average, extremely poor fuel economy, and mediocre performance stats, so for those reasons itâs out.)
Sarazin Elysee R- @SheikhMansour
Next up is the Sarazin Elysee R. The studio wasnât a fan of the design, and it had some small performance problems that led to them ultimately moving along.
(The design isnât great, with huge headlights and nothing in the way of depth, and a rear that doesnât do much to help things. Engineering is mostly okay, but below average sportiness was the notable misstep, but unfortunately design was the biggest flaw, and for that reason, itâs out.)
Takahashi Royal- @ldub0775
Last up in this group of cars is the Takahashi Royal. The studio had some issues with the design, but their biggest problem with the Royal came down to the specs, and ultimately the studio decided to pass on the Royal.
(Reason for elimination- the design is mostly okay, but the proportions are massively weird, the side moulding doesnât work well, and the front is weirdly proportioned with the huge lower intakes, the middle cutout that doesnât seem to do anything, and a hood area that doesnât flow nicely with the rest. However, the biggest flaws come from the engineering, with the lowest sportiness period, a full steel space frame that hurts safety and makes your car insanely heavy, a needlessly massive tire stagger, very high service costs, poor fuel economy, and the choices to run ITBs and magnesium wheels are a hair unrealistic. For these reasons, itâs out.)
Semi-Finalists:
@mart1n2005
@Riley
@Falling_Comet
@S_U_C_C_U_L_E_N_T
@EnCR
@LS_Swapped_Rx-7
@NamedByAFish
@Xepy
@Tzuyu_main
@Urke101/@SpeedyBoi
@Kyorg
@pen15
20 Likes
Awh shucks, I knew this one wasnât gonna win but im surprised it didnât get instabinned, I thoroughly enjoyed this competition and im looking forward to improve, looking at the competitiors it was clear it was gonna be a difficult challenge,
Thanks for making this as fun as it was and I hope I can improve 
4 Likes
Really? 60deg V8 fits in engine bay with two turbos strapped to it, 90deg does not. 6-speed has a faster 0-60 and makes use of the torque mountain - 7 and 8 speed does not.
I know you have a lot of cars to go through and I know thereâs a lot of good ones, but yeah putting 40 hours into a car including interior and having you make comments like that puts me off so Iâm going to take a moment and rant. It makes me think you do not actually consider the pros and cons of decisions, relative to your design specs.
Because I weighed those decisions. I even made charts and graphs between them all to solidify my decisions against your star requirements. I took it as seriously as I take my engineering job IRL because itâs all I knowâŚ
As an aside, did you stop to consider that the update reset ALL morphs? Because I believe it did. At least to all the bodies Ive loaded since the update.
alright, couple things
-
just because you can only fit a 60 degree V8, doesnât make it realistic.
-
a 6-speed automatic in this segment and year is unrealistic as well, even if it helped performance.
-
as for morphs, i took a look at everyoneâs car as soon as the update finished for me. yours was fine, and even if it wasnât, it wouldnât have changed my opinion on your design.
at the end of the day, this is my challenge. itâs ultimately at my discretion to choose what does and doesnât make through. i recognize you put effort in and took it seriously but everyone else did too, and unfortunately it didnât work out for you in this case. you can rant and rave about it all you want, but it wonât change whatâs happened.
8 Likes
Iâve put a lot of love into my baby to be removed for engine naming convention.
Good luck to other contestants.
2 Likes
Did you consider whether or not these are realistic design decisions when you were making them? I would expect someone who works in engineering IRL would know that they arenât. Realism was stressed in the brief. If you made these decisions without considering whether or not this type of car would exist with these engineering choices, this is exactly something the brief stated would be binned.
Relax, itâs a game, try to enjoy yourself. If you feel like your time was wasted because the car didnât receive a good review, youâre not going to enjoy being in these competitions, and dare I say youâre not playing the game right. It needs to be fun in its own right. Constantly blowing up at hosts is not a good way of introducing yourself to the community.
10 Likes
Okay, I know thereâs plenty of salt already, but I have to add my own. Magnesium is unusual, but itâs not unrealistic by any means! BMW used it in a lowly NA 6-banger 10 years ago and it was fine. Now that I think of it, Iâve entered tons of realistic-engineering challenges, but Iâve only encountered realism complaints in yours.
Now I know that in reality thereâs a whole host of actual reasons why my car wouldnât make it to the end. There are probably plenty of other cars that beat it in terms of brief matching, performance etc. But the way you wrote it up suggests that you eliminated it by splitting hairs.
On a positive note, I did have fun making this car and I think this brief was one of the best for sparking our collective creativity, with extremely mature and meticulous designs coming out of it on a large scale. You damn near made CSR into a sideshow. I wish the semi-finalists the best of luck and to you vero, you can expect to see me enter your meat grinder again at the very next opportunity.
6 Likes
yeah, but as you said, that was 10 years ago. if you can point to an example of a magnesium engine in a car in this segment on sale in the last 2 to 3 years, then sure, magnesium isnât that weird. engineering really wasnât the problem in your case, it was the exterior design primarily that i took issue with.
that said, iâm glad you enjoyed the challenge, and iâll see you in the next one.
6 Likes
It isnât illogical, is the point Iâm making. Upscale car, upscale material - and itâs not some banished and maligned idea like 5V. Some extrapolation does not an unrealistic car make.
But yeah, had fun. Iâll be sure to add a number plate indent to the car back on my PC 
7 Likes
wait i think you guys made a mistake here
it appears my car didnât get instabinned due to a minor oversight
This btw is the same reason Noble chose the Volvo-Ford 60deg V8. It is VERY realistic especially lately, with packaging being the reason for unique decisions. I based my engine off the Yamaha B8444S engine, a real engine. An engine so good and so unique, that it was also used in racing due to its power for its footprint. So yes, realistic. As for transmission, I have no words. Engineers use the tech that best suits the job, for the best price to performance ratio.
Enjoy the other realistic V10âs and V12âs in the comp. Very 2020.
Iâm only answering questions that were asked in forum. Iâm done otherwise, take care,
of course, glad that you found the feedback helpful!
3 Likes
Honestly dude,
First of all, while your engine is based on a real engine, no one has used the design since 2010 when Yamaha stopped producing the B8444S. While the engine may have found use in Volvos and even some supercars, that was 10-ish years ago. If anything, those V10s or V12s you mentioned might just be more realistic than a 60 degree V8 in this context.
Secondly, good luck finding a car in the E-segment that uses a 6-speed automatic in 2020.
If thatâs your idea of realism, I want to visit your loopy world thatâs stuck in 2010 and see it all for myself.
Thirdly, bitching and whining ainât gonna change a thing. The hostâs decisions are final. They have taken the time and effort out of their busy lives to decide who gets binned or not for a challenge run on Microsoft Excel Simulator 2020, and have given you reasons why they thought that your car had to be binned.
And like donutsnail said, relax. Itâs just a game and while I do get that youâre new to the forums I also believe that your behaviour is incredibly immature and childish, and thatâs coming from a guy thatâs taking some time off his life to reply to you in this damned forum. Try understanding why the host binned your car. Try looking at real cars that arenât ten years past their sell-by date. See what does or does not make sense for the challenge.
So much for being a field engineer. You sound like youâre twelve at most. And once again, cope.
Take care,
17 Likes
When I hosted CSR 137, I somehow allowed a car with a 60deg V8 to sneak into the top 10. Given that CSR 137 was set in 2018, long after the configuration had disappeared from most production cars, I would have rejected it had I known about how unrealistic it was in this day and age.
6 Likes
Exactly, though I might have also used a similar design well before 2010, I recall that I put a 6L 60 degree V8 in my entry to CSR136, but I may be wrong. Its unlikely as I did not get binned.
this is a good mindset
i should go do this
3 Likes
If âbinnedâ means ârejected for a rule violationâ, then you are right. However, it didnât make the final round of judging for the following reason:
In other words, it was out of step with the clientâs expectations for that round.
Actually, I participated thanks to the authority of vero, and the way he knows how to do spreadsheets. Thanks for being judged the old-fashioned way, it was very unusual.
As for the bins, I am not surprised, since here was appeared too many serious machines and the presenter simply wouldnât have had the power to assess them all.
Edit: Also, realism is not listed at all in the list of priorities for the Challenge, and the car with the right name I suggested to you, just for the record.
Consequently, vero and debonair are removed from my list of those who know how to run a Challenges. Yes, by the way, you didnât do a full analysis, you were looking for any violation.