Specifications
✧ 4.2 L DOHC, Twin Turbo Boxer 6
✧ 725.9 horsepower @ 6600 RPM
✧ 611.9 Ft-Lb of torque @ 6100 RPM
✧ 1231 Kg
✧ 8 speed DCT
✧ 20 in alloy rims with rear carbon turbofans, (275/35R20 F/345/30R20 R)
✧ 2.42 sec 0-60
✧ 9.43 sec 1/4 mile
✧ 247 mph top speed
✧ 1.4 G short(20m) cornering Gs
✧ 2 G long(200m) cornering Gs
© 2024 Aether V.A. & ©2024 ZACSPEED, All Rights Reserved
cant wait to see it with the bumpers and hood on XD
(Killer work amigo)
Cascina Duradal
800hp
800Nm
9000rpm Redline
8-Speed DCT w/ AWD
0-100 : 2.0s
80-120 : 0.9s
1/4 Mile : 9.0s
1km : 16.47s
Carbon Monocoque w/ Carbon Panels
Pushrod Suspension
11.2 L/100km
1273kg
41% / 59%
Burst and scramble, we’re instant lovers. Body and mind, wrapped and twisted in stupid. The dearly undead, be a ghost, that’s the rules. Peekaboo, knock-knock, alight that spark, that’s the answer ‘k? Aha! Why don’t you kiss up and shake your cottontail? A pop cuddle snuggle, hum a tune why don’t you? It’s out of place, put away your jealousy. Thirsty? Ugh, so corny! If you get lonely, find anybody, just get lucky. I loathed to love but it gave me life, gonna be a smitten mitten till the day you die?
Handmade with love by members of the Sendo Team
@SpeedyBoi @yurimacs @variationofvariables @Xepy @Falling_Comet
FOR MOBILE VIEWERS: DISPLAY IN LANDSCAPE MODE
千度チームが感謝しています。
ありがとう
A V10 unbound by the delays of forced induction. We call it the Caged Angel.
The roaring power of this beast is sent through a state-of-the-art dual-clutch transmission and into a computer-controlled all-wheel drive system. Advanced tyre compound engineering keeps everything in check.
A body and chassis made of aluminium and carbon fibre components provide unmatched weight savings while keeping the structure rigid and safe. Even with all its fury, the 10R will always have your back.
A handmade interior stitched together with precision and care, featuring the most advanced entertainment and information centre we have devised. Everything about the new Kingsman is at your fingertips.
All you have to do is grasp it.
And all that for a mere $92,000?
Well, of course. We wouldn’t lie to you.
TMCC 36 - Round 0
@LoLking - LARE LK8
The Network tried reaching out to LARE to request an LK8, but the contact information they were given seemed to be incorrect, and had to move on.
End Result - Binned. Does not follow the listed naming scheme in the brief.
@PhirmEggplant - FENIC GT 4
When The Network tried to request a GT 4, they learned that there was a stop-sale order on all 2024MY GT 4s because they were using emissions defeat devices to meet current federal emissions guidelines.
End Result - Binned. Does not meet WES 9 as per the rules.
@LennoxV10 - Geroug Raver
When The Network tried to contact Geroug, they learned that all 2024MY Ravers were being recalled due to a safety issue discovered in manufacturing, and they wouldn’t be able to provide a model in time for The Network, meaning they had to move on.
End Result - Binned. Rules state that all cars must have standard 10s safety at a minimum, you only have basic 10s safety.
@stocazzoo - 333 Coupe B3/PD
The Network tried reaching out to request a Coupe B3/PD, but learned that 2024MY models were fitted with the wrong intakes, and thus were undergoing a recall and would not be able to provide a car in time, so The Network had to move on.
End Result - Binned. Rules stats that no race parts are allowed; you had race intakes on your engine.
TMCC 36 - Round 1
@Nebulon - MAG Ryno
The next day, The Network’s interns started looking at the next batch of cars, and first up was the MAG Ryno. Going through some reviews, The Interns found that reviewers felt that the headlights were far too big, a design that lacks depth, and on the road it isn’t very pleasant to drive, nor does it feel too sporty. In other reviews, they found that the projected reliability was expected to be very low, and it wasn’t particularly safe either. With that, The Interns moved to the next car.
End Result - Eliminated. Poor drivability, reliability, safety and middle of the road sportiness in combination with a design that’s marred by headlights that are too large and a design that lacks depth ultimately pull this one out of contention.
@Nolan_Cables - Apex Flow
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Apex Flow. In the reviews that they read, The Interns found that the Apex’s design wasn’t well received, with particular vitriol directed at the over usage of the same vent design around all corners of the design and the reverse rake, making the front of the car seem higher than the rear. Reviews weren’t too impressed with the performance, and while they enjoyed how easy it was to drive, it wasn’t very sporty. With that, The Interns struck the Apex from their list.
End Result - Eliminated. The design leaves something to be desired, with the overusage of the same vent fixture all around the car, reverse suspension rake that gives it an unfortunate Carolina Squat aesthetic. Drivability is great, but the choice to set the fuel map slider to 0 and lean out the engine tanked sportiness, an arguably more important stat in this challenge. For that reason, it’s out.
@Mausil - mCLARENe
Reviewing this one as myself, because yikes. The design is not good, it looks like a weird retromodern attempt at an A80 Supra, and engineering, while fine, is hampered by the fact that you left everything at default techpool, which ends up making it kind of expensive. Statistically, it does do well in some places like drivability and prestige, but falls behind elsewhere. For those reasons; End Result - Eliminated.
@Er_Foxone - Folgoretta Sprintosa
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Folgoretta Sprintosa. In the reviews that The Interns read, reviewers criticized the Sprintosa’s busy front fascia, the taillights that are too big and dominate the rear design, a transversely mounted engine that’s predicted to be more difficult and expensive to service, and it doesn’t feel very sporty or prestigious for a supercar, and projected reliability is expected to be very poor. Because of that, The Interns scratched the Folgoretta off their list.
End Result- Eliminated. A design that’s busy and features elements that are too large and dominate the front and rear fascias, engineering is kind of all over the map with a transverse V8 that messes with service costs, poor reliability, middle of the road performance and solidly average sportiness. The only good thing is the low purchase cost but that’s counteracted by the very high service costs, and it isn’t enough to save it.
@Sharcc - Mako GTX
Next up on The Interns’ list is the Mako GTX. Skimming through reviews and owner’s forums, reviewers complimented the front design, but directed complaints towards the weirdly sloped rear and badly shaped diffuser, and when it comes to taking it out on the road, owners criticized the GTX’s reliability, with many remarking that their cars were in and out of the shop, with the driving experience not really making up for it, as it doesn’t feel very sporty. Performance was a highlight, but that was really the only thrill that owners have gotten out of the Mako - a sentiment echoed by reviewers as well. Due to that, The Interns struck the Mako from their list.
End Result - Elimination. The design has some good ideas, but the front is messy, the rear shape is bad and too sloped with a diffuser that sticks out awkwardly from the rear. Engineering is fine, with good drivability and prestige, but mediocre sportiness, reliability and a high purchase price add up to too many strikes against the Mako, and for those reasons it isn’t going any further.
@Koviico - Armelia CM-3
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Armelia CM-3. Reviewers praised the design, with compliments directed at the front fascia in particular, but some minor complaints directed at the simple side design, and a rear that doesn’t quite fit the front. However, the biggest complaints were directed at its drivability, which while alright, does trail behind some of the CM-3’s competitors, mediocre reliability, extremely poor comfort and a lack of prestige relative to its competition all unfortunately take the CM-3 out of contention. For that reason, The Interns had to pass.
End Result - Elimination. While the design is fine, and if I were judging on design alone the Armelia would likely make it further along, but slightly below average drivability, well below average reliability, prestige and comfort, and not enough wins in other areas ultimately keep me from moving it further along in the competition.
@Eldritch - Eldritch Urizen RE
Next up on The Interns’ list is the Eldritch Urizen RE. Looking through some reviews and owner reports, The Interns found that the Urizen was solidly average from a performance standpoint, but didn’t feel particularly sporty against the competition, but it did feel relatively prestigious and was decent to drive normally. However, owners have reported that the Urizen was decently unreliable and not very fuel efficient. More than all of that though, the biggest amount of complaints were directed at the Urizen’s design, with many reviewers complaining that that it was too simple, the wheels are too far inset, and a rear design that just didn’t work. Because of that, The Interns struck it from their list.
End Result - Elimination. Engineering is a bit of a mixed bag, with only a few areas at or slightly above average, and well below average sportiness, reliability and fuel economy. However, the bigger issue was the design, which lacks effort and focus, with wheels that are way too far inset, a front design that’s busy and doesn’t work well visually, and a very bare and simple rear. With design being a 4-star priority, I can’t justify moving it further along in the competition.
@JLKpro - Pearce Falconer
Next on The Interns’ list is the Pearce Falconer. Looking through some reviews, positives were directed at the very low purchase price, however that’s really where the positives end - performance statistics are fine, but 20m skidpad numbers are well behind the competition, it isn’t as sporty as some reviewers would like, safety and comfort lag behind the pack, and projected service costs are expected to be well above average. Some criticism was leveled at the design as well, which is too horizontal and lacks some detail, and for the most part doesn’t keep up with the competition. For those reasons, The Interns had to strike it from the list.
End Result - Elimination. Design is fine, but it lacks some detail, the whole thing is too horizontal visually which limits how sporty it looks, and ultimately it’s kinda boring. Engineering is another issue, with generally okay performance stats, but well below average 20m grip, sportiness, prestige and comfort, slightly below average safety, and while it’s very cheap to purchase, service costs are well above average. For those reasons, I can’t move this one any further.
@OT_motive - CELSIUS 6s
Reviewing this one as myself again, because I can’t spin it any better. The design is fine, and just judging on design, this could have gotten into the semi-finals very easily. However, engineering is a disaster. Every single stat besides performance on your car is the worst in the entire competition, it uses less than half the budget, leaves a buttload of techpool on the table, and ultimately adds up to a laundry list of mistakes that keep your car from making it any further, so for those reasons; End Result - Eliminated.
Writer’s Note- the next part will unfortunately be delayed by a few days, as I’m going on a brief vacation this weekend and won’t have my computer or my laptop. Everyone’s stats have been taken down, and thankfully there weren’t too many entries so as soon as I’m back home I’ll be able to continue with the results and get them out ASAP.
If it weren’t for their rule breaks, the first four bins would most likely not have made it past round 1 anyway for aesthetic reasons.
Also, if there was a “stone age award” for underuse of tech pool, it would go to the Celsius 6S:
If you have a generous tech pool allocation, distribute it so that you get as close to (but not above) 100% of it with the settings you chose, or you’ll end up with a dud, as shown here:
Unless the emission setting didn’t export i don’t see how i failed to meet the wes rating? I’ve got wes12 cleared and if it reset the emission tab it fails by 2% with 153mg/km over the 150 max for wes9?
Either way, great cars from all entries as usual.
Did you forget to set the emissions optimization level in the fuel system tab (near the fuel type selector)? It’s easy to miss.
I reopened your entry to check, as you can see here it only meets WES 8, and I can only judge what I’m given.
envious as always of how you take pictures. very fun looking car that’s heckin’ smooth. X3
hmm, thanks for checking. guess ill have to start checking the files after export.
(not that i would have placed well anyhow haha)
I had it set but I guess it did export correctly cause the numbers he posted are the same numbers I’ve got with it set to 0.
so either I exported then fixed it and forgot to reexport or the export failed. Either way I’m not contesting my DQ.
damn. I overlooked again. The reason i chose basic safety is that save 100kg from standard to very high quality basic safety without lost safety state point (i set to 15+ quality literally). Basic 20s is impossible due 8 year too early for this make it costy.
Dang, a shame to be knocked out in the first round, but I do agree with the critiques on the design, I built that care in one sitting so by the time I got to the rear I was severely burnt out and it was just a mess, lol.
Would it have been over budget if standard 20s safety was fitted? Besides, using +15 quality would have meant a realism bin anyway, and 100kg isn’t enough of a weight saving either in my view.
lol you must no idea how much extra costy for 8 year too early like 20s basic safety. That can went from 100,000 MSRP (this is my car) to more than 200,000+ just change 10s basic safety to 20s due to too early technology. But I understands rule is rule, so I understand why I’m bin. That way is my technique to reduce weight while remaining good safety and cost.
