42 Likes
Overview.
Summary.
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%
43 Likes
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
44 Likes
[BANG BANG]
CAM ON KINGSMAN
[BANG BANG]
SCOR SOM FACKIN GOALS
[BANG BANG]
also posting right after sendo got me fucked up bro i'm so cooked ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ lol
Redefine your hero.
We know what we're doing.
We know what we're doing.
In 2008, the reign of the Ventus Kingsman came to an end.
In 2011, we took back the throne and redefined what it means to be a Kingsman.
Now, we have redefined what it means to be a hero.
In 2011, we took back the throne and redefined what it means to be a Kingsman.
Now, we have redefined what it means to be a hero.
For king and country.
Kingsman stands alone at the forefront of our lineup with the unmatched 10R.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.
©2024 Ventus Road Cars LLC, a member of Ting Motor Group
7 Likes
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.
29 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
envious as always of how you take pictures. very fun looking car that’s heckin’ smooth. X3
4 Likes
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.
TMCC 36 - Round 2 (Semi-Finals)
@azkaalfafa - Chirurgico Tizzano
First up on The Interns’ list is the Chirurgico Tizzano. Going through some reviews, praise was directed at the great example of a modern design with retro touches, although some felt that the rear lacked a little panache. The driving experience was similarly praised, excelling both in the day-to-day and on track, though ride comfort and the feeling of safety do tend to lag behind the pack. Not seeing any reason to end its run here, The Interns added the Chirurgico Tizzano to the shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. Overall a great looking retro-inspired design, though the rear is a little simple, and it could stand to sit just a little higher overall. Engineering was by and large very good, with excellent performance metrics, good to great stats in the 3-star priorities, though it falls behind somewhat in comfort, safety, purchase price and service costs. Despite that, it wins in enough areas to earn a spot in the finals.
@Riley - Zephorus Grimsel
Next up on The Interns’ list is the Zephorus Grimsel. Reading through some reviews, there was praise directed at the design, liking the sharp and aggressive front fascia and clean side profile, but criticism was levied at the rear design, particularly the taillights, which get lost on the bright yellow paint of their test car. Reviewers generally thought the Grimsel drove well, but other cars drove better, and were sportier for less or the same amount of money, and the core reason they think it falls behind is the choice to run wide 305-section tires on all four wheels, which provided good cornering grip, but ultimately limited how much fun one could have in the Zephorus. Moreover, while reliability was expected to be very good, the projected service costs for the Grimsel are among the highest in class. For those reasons, The Interns crossed it off their list.
End Result - Eliminated. Design wise it’s overall pretty good, but you lose contrast on the taillights and they end up just kinda blending into the bodywork, and the side intake cuts a little too deep into the body for my tastes. Engineering, however, is what tripped up the Grimsel, with the very wide square tires limiting drivability and sportiness, and the highest overall service costs in the semi-finals in conjunction with being at the top of the price cap ultimately pull the Grimsel out of contention.
@Tsundere-kun and @66mazda - Cascina Durandal and @Oreology - Viettor Velisca
Next up on The Interns’ list are two surprisingly similar cars - the Cascina Durandal and the Viettor Velisca. Reading a comparison test of the two cars, The Interns found that the Cascina and Viettor were equally as fast, but the Viettor being sportier. They were also equally easy to drive normally, and felt equally as prestigious, however, when it came to expected reliability and safety, they were tied up there as well, but the ties started to break apart a little when it came to purchase price - the Durandal being $10,000 cheaper than the Viettor, but the projected service costs for the Viettor were expected to be lower. Aesthetically, the reviewers liked both cars, but the clear advantage went to the Viettor, being a masterclass in a retro-inspired design. Not seeing a good reason to get rid of one of these cars for the other, The Interns decided to add both to their shortlist.
End Result - Finalists. Engineering wise, both cars were exceptionally similar, with the Cascina taking wins in reliability, safety, comfort, and purchase price, but the Viettor took wins aesthetically (the second highest design score in the entire challenge), in sportiness, and service costs. Everywhere else, you were essentially tied, with only one car having a very minor advantage over the other in most cases. Being too close to call, I’m putting you both in the finals to duke it out.
@abg7 and @Kitami - LVC LS860 Proto
Next up on the block was the LVC LS860. Reading an early first drive, there was particular criticism levied against the design, with reviewers calling the front insect-like, with the large headlights and very short front overhang giving it an unfortunate, squished aesthetic. The rear was also criticized as well, being too simple, and not fitting in well with the rest of the design. On road, it was fine to drive and felt decently sporty, but at $120,000, it isn’t doing well enough in those areas to stay competitive with similarly priced, or even cheaper cars. However, it was very prestigious, reasonably reliable, safe and comfortable, and expected service costs were projected to be fair. Despite those wins, The Interns knew it wasn’t the right car for the show.
End Result - Eliminated. Design is okay, but the very large headlights in combination with a very pushed in front give it an unfortunate-looking bug face, and for me, the rear fascia doesn’t work very well with the rest of the car. Engineering is fine, you do have the distinct advantage of having the highest prestige in the entire competition, but in most other areas, you’re either just meeting, or just above average, and when you’re right on the price cap and getting beaten in those areas by even cheaper cars, it’s hard to keep it in the competition.
@the-chowi - Crowley Blackbird Super Ten
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Crowley Blackbird. Reading a first drive review, The Interns saw general praise for the design, with high marks for the proportions and detail, but some complaints were directed at the slightly tacky goldish bronze accents on the wheels and exhaust tips, the routing and position of the exhaust tip, and the patterning on the grille, which they thought felt a little chunky and not fitting of the rest of the design. On road, the Blackbird is rapid, drives well on the open road and the track equally well, however it falls behind slightly in the feeling of prestige. Reliability is expected to be very good, but projected service costs are very high, and it loses some more steam when it comes to safety and comfort. That being said, the Crowley does enough right for now, so The Interns chose to add it to the shortlist.
End Result- Finalist. A strong entry, design-wise I like the shapes and proportioning of everything, but I’m not really a fan of the gold (?) accents on the wheels and exhaust tips, nor am I a fan of the position of the exhaust tips, nor the pattern inside the grille. Engineering wise it does pretty good, with great performance stats, good drivability and sportiness, and decent, but slightly below average prestige. It falls apart a little when it comes to safety, comfort and service costs, but the Crowley gets enough right to put it into the finals.
@ErenWithPizza - Mancini Alessa
Next up on The Interns’ list is the Mancini Alessa. Reading some reviews and owner forums, The Interns found general praise for the Alessa’s design, but some criticism was directed at the large and awkward-looking side vent, and while the rear was tall, it generally made good use of the space except for the rear diffuser, which appeared to just be floating in mid-air. Performance wise, it lags somewhat behind the competition, and ultimately isn’t as nice to drive or as sporty-feeling as its competition either. However, it was decently prestigious, reliable, safe, comfortable, and it wasn’t too expensive to service. For The Interns, however, the Alessa fell flat aesthetically, and doesn’t have the performance they want - leaving them with no other option but to strike it from the lineup.
End Result - Eliminated. While overall the Alessa is nicely designed, and out of most of the designs on this body it uses the space on the rather tall rear well. Where it come apart, however, is the side intake, which is too large and looks a little awkward shape wise, and the rear diffuser fixture, which seems to be just hovering off the body. The other death knell though is the performance, with the Mancini scoring generally well below average. Drivability and sportiness were behind the curve as well, and while it scores well in many of the 2 and 1 star priorities, the Alessa still doesn’t make up for its errors enough for me to put it in the finals.
@VaporRossa - Maartens Spitfire 595/RS
Next up on the list was the Maartens Spitfire. Reading a few reviews, The Interns found a lot of praise for the Spitfire’s design, described as being “clean and focused”, with simple and elegant lines, and a very nice rear design to boot. Some criticism was directed at the front fascia design, which looked somewhat messy, and almost unfinished to some. On the road, the Spitfire was far and away the easiest car to drive normally, but felt in the middle when it came to how sporty it was, and lacked a little in the prestige department. However, it made up for those minor errors with high expected reliability, good safety technology, a very comfortable ride, and reasonable projected service costs. Seeing no reason to cross it off their list, The Interns added the Maartens to their final group of cars.
End Result - Finalist. The Spitfire does well aesthetically, with a clean and simple design that generally works from all angles, but for me, the front is a little rough and lacks a little detail to make it seem more complete. It generally scores well in performance metrics, and has the distinct advantage of having the highest drivability in the entire challenge, however sportiness is exactly average, and prestige is slightly below average. In the other priorities it scores above average pretty consistently, and has very reasonable service costs. For those reasons, it takes a place in the finals.
@Ne0 - Walter 826
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Walter 826, and upon reading some reviews and owner’s forums, they found some praise towards the design, but some remarked that overall it wasn’t sleek enough for a supercar, the red paint on the press spec was so metallic that it seemed more like colored metal, rather than paint, the large red centerlock mechanism on the wheels looked somewhat tacky, and the routing and position of the exhausts was not loved. On the road, the Walter was very sporty, very easy to drive, and exceptionally nimble - likely owing to the Walter’s sub-2000 pound curb weight. Owners however said that the Walter isn’t very reliable or safe feeling, and when it does need repairs, service costs are very high. Overall not compelled by the 826’s package, The Interns took it off the list.
End Result - Eliminated. While I applaud you for doing a decent job at trying to work a kinda awful body into something good, it falls flat in some areas, namely the rear, which is too tall and doesn’t make the best use of the space, weird exhaust positioning, the paint is way too metallic and doesn’t even look like paint in some lighting, and the red centerlock caps on the wheels are a miss for me. Engineering wise, while you score well in the 3 star priorities, you don’t do well elsewhere, with just average to below average stats in the rest of the scored areas, and being on top of the price cap with the 2nd highest service costs in the entire challenge do you no favors. Because of that, I can’t justify moving it into the finals.
@chiefzach2018 and @Portalkat42 - Zacspeed ONE
Next on The Interns’ list was the Zacspeed ONE. Upon first glance at the ONE, The Interns agreed it was a little too racy for what they were looking for, but agreed to keep an open mind. Reading over a few reviews, the ONE’s design was generally praised, with compliments directed towards the innovative pop-down headlamps, the aggressive race-inspired fender shaping, and the overall cleanliness and focus of the design. However, the rear design caught some flack, feeling as if it was one large grille surface with taillights and a diffuser somewhat pasted over it. On the road, the ONE was very easy to drive, very sporty and felt prestigious enough. Projected reliability was expected to be very good - important as expected service costs are well above average compared to the competition. Moreover, despite its aggressive exterior demeanor, the ONE was very comfortable, very safe, and carries a reasonable $118,000 price tag. Seeing no immediate reason to take it out of contention, The Interns decided to add it to their shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. While generally a good design, the ONE’s design aesthetically misses the point of the brief - feeling more track-focused than I would have liked. The details and ideas are all good, but for me the rear is somewhat lacking - mainly that a large portion of the rear is just a bunch of grille texture, with the lights kind of awkwardly placed over it and a somewhat disconnected diffuser design. It, however, makes up for some of these flaws with its engineering, scoring very well across nearly every scored category; SVC being the major exception. For all of its faults, the ONE represents a good entry and narrowly earns a spot in the finals.
@KSIolajidebt and @Texaslav - Hoffsman Rattlesnake
Next up on The Interns’ list is the Hoffsman Rattlesnake. Reading through a few different reviews, they found a lot of praise directed at the design, the only major complaint being the squared off nature of the taillights against the otherwise rounded bodywork. The majority of the criticism however was directed at the driving experience, which on-road was described as unpleasant and difficult - largely due to the Rattlesnake’s front-engined, RWD nature, and it didn’t make up for it in the sportiness department, feeling only a little better than average. The Rattlesnake felt prestigious enough, projected reliability was expected to be good, as were service costs - but even at its very reasonable MSRP of $106,000, there were cheaper cars that it competed against that ultimately outperform the Rattlesnake, and for those reasons, The Interns pulled it out of contention.
End Result - Eliminated. The design is great, I don’t have any real notes there other than the three-dimensionality of the taillights is somewhat fighting against the shape of the body due to being fairly squared off - if you were to do them again, taking the time to make the taillights follow the shape of the body a little better would be a nice touch. The biggest errors of the Rattlesnake can be tied to 1 major decision - the choice to stick with a front-engined, RWD platform. Performance is far behind the other cars, with the 2nd slowest 0-62 and 1/4mi times; 20m grip was decent however. Sportiness is just barely above average, drivability is well below average, but otherwise it does fairly well. Price and service costs are good at $106,000 and $4908, but there are cars that score better overall for less money, and with similar or better service costs. Had this been running AWD like the majority of the other entries, this would probably be a different outcome. Respect for playing up the bit, but unfortunately it misses the mark.
@iivansmith - Moretelli Modica
Next on the list was the Moretelli Modica. Scanning through reviews, The Interns found praise for the Modica’s design - being described as “clean and focused” and “intelligent”, however some criticism was levied against some angular elements on the rear of the Modica, which some felt fought with the curved and shapelier nature of the rest of the rear design. Performance was very good, scoring near the top against its competition. Drivability in the day-to-day was very good, as was on track performance, feeling very sporty. The Modica felt very prestigious, and it was expected to be very reliable and reasonable to service. Not seeing any real downsides, The Interns added the Modica to their shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. The Modica looks beautiful, and rightfully receives the highest design score in the entire competition - my only real note is that some of the more angular design elements on the rear (the plateholder and the bodywork around the exhaust tip namely) fight the otherwise curvy nature of the rear. Engineering is overall very good, scoring very well in performance metrics and in the 3-star stats; the only real downside is the just okay comfort, but it still scores above average there. All of this is more impressive once you consider the $105,000 purchase price - the 2nd cheapest car in the semi-finals. Overall, the Modica does extremely well, and absolutely deserves a spot in the finals.
@supersaturn77 - Kingsman 10R
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Kingsman 10R. Watching a few videos on the Kingsman, there were mixed opinions on the design. While the front was generally liked, some felt that the grille in the front needed something to break it up and reduce the monotony of the front fascia, the red-tinted carbon fiber on the design was universally agreed to look somewhat tacky, and some felt that the taillights were too low, and the rain light in the rear diffuser was very large - thus looking somewhat awkward. On road, the Kingsman was generally pretty good, with okay performance stats, though it fell behind somewhat in 20m skidpad grip. While it drove on the road fine, feeling very compliant and comfortable, it didn’t feel as sporty as its rivals did. Expected reliability was just okay, but the projected service costs were well below average, a big plus. While the Kingsman doesn’t do much wrong, particularly at its $92,000 price tag, it doesn’t do quite enough to sway The Interns into keeping it on their list.
End Result - Elimination. The 10R’s design is good in theory, but you needed something to break up the front grille visually - it ends up looking kind of boring being just one long, continuous piece when there’s not much else on the front of the car. The rear is okay for the most part, but the taillights are too low and a little too thin, and the rain light on the rear diffuser is way too big. Engineering is good, but sportiness is somewhat below average, prestige is just average, performance is slightly out of step with the competition - but kudos for being the cheapest car in the semi-finals, both to buy and to service. If this car’s engineering was combined with the Hoffsman Rattlesnake’s exterior design - it would have been an easy shoe-in for the finals. Overall a very good job, just a little off the mark.
@SpeedyBoi, @Falling_Comet, @variationofvariables, @yurimacs, @Xepy - Sendo Friesia “Mulsanne Package”
Last up on The Interns’ list - the Sendo Friesia, specifically with the “Mulsanne Package”. Reading a few reviews, the design was heavily praised, with compliments directed towards the great level of detail, general design cleanliness and its focused, sharp lines. Criticism of the design was minimal - the only real complaints being that the wheels could have been larger, and that the rear design looking almost owl-like with the shape, position and internal design of the taillights being the major reason why. On road, the Friesia was very easy to drive and very comfortable. Performance was very good, and the Friesia felt very sporty despite its comfortable and prestigious nature. Expected reliability is believed to be generally good, but the Sendo is projected to be very expensive to service. Overall though, the Sendo appears to be a strong effort, and The Interns added it to the final slot on their shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. The Sendo’s design is great, I like all of the detail and the shapes/proportioning of everything, but the rear design, particularly where the taillights are concerned looks almost bird-like due to the positioning and shape of the lights, as well as the internal design. Not inherently a negative, but worth mentioning. Engineering is overall good as well, with great drivability, sportiness and prestige, decent reliability, and above average safety and comfort. However, service costs are very high. Despite that, the Sendo doesn’t have any other big weaknesses that would keep it out of the finals - thus, it takes the final spot.
Finalists
@azkaalfafa
@Oreology
@Tsundere-kun and @66mazda
@the-chowi
@VaporRossa
@chiefzach2018 and @Portalkat42
@iivansmith
@SpeedyBoi, @Falling_Comet, @variationofvariables, @yurimacs, @Xepy
24 Likes
TMCC 36 - Round 3 (Finals)
Honolulu, August 2024
A week after The Interns chose the final spread of cars in contention for being the new Razor’s Edge hero car, The Network brought out their stunt driver, Rick BadassLastName to test the final 8 cars and give The Network his recommendation.
Up first on the docket was the Chirurgico Tizzano. Rick pulled the Tizzano out onto the streets of Honolulu. Pulling away from a stoplight, he felt all of the Tizzano’s 1000 horsepower push him forwards to 60 in just 2 seconds flat. He was generally impressed with how the Tizzano drove normally, but wasn’t as impressed with how it drove when he pushed it. Pulling up to the test track/drag strip Rick reserved, he pulled the Tizzano up to the tarmac. Enabling the Tizzano’s launch control feature, it rocketed down the drag strip, violently pulling away from the start line as the AWD system regained traction. Before Rick knew it, the little Tizzano had done the quarter mile in just 8.69 seconds. Pulling off the drag strip and heading back to the main race course, Rick noticed that the Tizzano wasn’t particularly comfortable despite the plush and well-trimmed cabin, and he was a little concerned about the general solidity of the Tizzano. Rick came away generally impressed with the Tizzano’s capabilities, but he had 7 more cars to test, and didn’t want to get too ahead of himself.
Dropping the Tizzano back off at the staging area, Rick grabbed the keys to the Maartens Spitfire 595/RS. Pushing the start button and hearing the Spitfire’s large naturally-aspirated V8 come to life, Rick rolled out of the staging area and headed out onto the streets. Compared to the Tizzano, the Spitfire felt significantly better to drive normally, but it fell behind the Tizzano performance wise, with only a 2.39 second 0-60 run according to his testing equipment. Rick was also generally impressed with the Spitfire’s ride comfort, and compared to the Tizzano, it felt like a bank safe with how solid it was. Pulling up to the drag strip, the Spitfire pulled away from the starting line with less vigor than the Tizzano, setting a less impressive quarter-mile time of just 9.82 seconds. On the test track, it didn’t feel as taut or as sporty as the Tizzano either, with the Spitfire being more resistant to being pushed in the corners and reaching the limits of its grip much sooner. Additionally, while the Tizzano felt very prestigious and special despite not being the most comfortable, the Spitfire was the opposite, feeling comfortable, but not as nice. Wrapping up his test drive in the Spitfire, Rick liked some of what he saw from it, but knew it was still too early to call.
Next up at the staging area, Tim climbed into the Crowley Blackbird Super Ten. Starting the Blackbird up, its V10 roared to life, the exhaust tips trembling just in front of Rick’s view. Pulling out onto the road, the Blackbird felt similarly easy to drive as the Tizzano, but somewhat worse than the Spitfire. Driving over some expansion joints and less than smooth roads, the Blackbird felt decidedly the least comfortable, with the hard sports seats only amplifying that feeling. The Blackbird’s acceleration felt strong, setting an impressive 0-60 time of just 2.08 seconds, and a decent quarter-mile at just 9.47 seconds. On the track, Rick noted that the Blackbird felt the most playful so far, letting Rick push it much harder than either of the previous two cars. However, the Blackbird felt the least solid of the cars he’d tested at that point, with very visible cowl shake and less nice feeling materials, worrying Rick about the Blackbird’s perceived quality. Pulling back up to the staging area, Rick had mixed feeling on the Blackbird. It did some things well, but the errors he saw and felt were pretty big. Despite that, it was still too early for Rick to decide things, one way or another.
@chiefzach2018 and @Portalkat42
Reaching the halfway point for today, Rick walked up to the Zacspeed ONE. A little confused by The Interns’ choice to choose this one aesthetically, he put that thought out of his mind as he climbed into the low-slung Zacspeed. Starting it up, Rick heard the turbocharged flat-6 come alive behind him, lacking some of the hairdryer-like sounds other turboed flat-6s make. On the road, the ONE felt very cromulent to drive, feeling about as good as the Tizzano and the Blackbird, but significantly worse than the Spitfire - still an impressive feat considering that the ONE is the only RWD car available for him to test today. In terms of acceleration, the ONE was fast, but decidedly behind its AWD competition, setting just a 2.42 second 0-60 run. On the drag strip and the track however, the ONE felt more than on par, setting a very good 9.43 second quarter-mile time, and pulling nearly 1.4gs of lateral grip in the corners, with the ONE being the most exciting to drive so far, letting Rick push it the hardest. Despite that, the ONE didn’t fall behind in ride comfort, feeling just a little worse than the Spitfire. It also felt the most solid, with nary a wiggle or compromised feeling area on the ONE. Rick’s main concern, however, is that the ONE aesthetically may not be the right choice for the show, and The Executives’ main concern is the way whatever the next hero car looks like. Despite that, there were still 4 more cars to test, and there was no point in calling it here.
Parking the Zacspeed back at the staging area, Rick climbed into the Moretelli Modica. Impressed by the handsome yellow Modica’s looks at first glance, Rick pulled out into the busier streets of Honolulu. The Modica impressed Rick with how easy and controllable it was, and even at slower speeds he was impressed with how sporty it felt. Pulling onto the drag strip, Rick engaged the Modica’s launch control and rocketed away from the start line nearly as violently as the TIzzano, setting the 2nd fasted quarter-mile time he’d seen all day, at just 9.02 seconds. The Modica’s 0-60 time was impressive too, at 2.04 seconds. Taking the Modica out onto the track, Rick noticed that it felt nearly as willing and agile as the Zacspeed, but did tend to run out of grip just a little bit sooner. The Modica also felt exceptionally solid and well-made, with everything at Rick’s reach feeling worthy of the Modica’s $105,000 sticker price - the lowest of the cars he had available to test today. Overall, the Modica represented a great balance to Rick, getting a lot right for him, inside and out. However, he knew that despite his feelings, there were still a few more cars left for him to test, and he couldn’t call things just yet.
Parking the Moretelli back at the staging area, Rick walked over to his next test car - the Viettor Velisca. Climbing into the Velisca’s cabin, Rick liked the solid glass canopy that enveloped him within the Velisca. Starting the Viettor up, the roar of the V12 shouting out from the bellows of the large, purposeful diffuser put a smile on Rick’s face. Clicking the satisfying mechanical shifter into drive, Rick pulled onto the streets. The Velisca felt very controllable and predictable when Rick drove it normally, but he still sensed how playful and agile it was at its core. Despite that, the Velisca wasn’t as comfortable as the other cars he’d driven so far, but it made up for it by feeling very rigid and safe, and feeling the most high-end out of all the cars he’d driven so far. Performance impressed Rick too, with the Velisca setting a very solid 0-60 time of just 2.03 seconds, and running the quarter-mile in a very good 9.19 seconds, though that was still behind the Modica. On track, the Velisca felt the most at home, out-handling the Zacspeed, and not holding itself back, letting Rick push it the hardest out of anything else he’d driven. Coming away impressed with the Velisca, Rick liked what he saw, but still - he had two more cars to test, and knew it would be foolish to call a winner here.
After returning the Viettor to the staging area, next up for Rick to test is the Cascina Durandal. Loading into the Durandal, Rick tapped the start button - the Durandal’s V12 came to life, but with not quite as much vigor as the Viettor’s did. Pulling out onto the streets, the Cascina drove just as well as many of the cars that Rick had tested at this point, with very good ride comfort to boot. It also felt super solid and well-built with high quality materials, with no weakness in the body that he could feel. Performance was among the best, with a 0-60 of just 2.01 seconds - the fastest of all the cars he’s tested thus far, and a quarter-mile time of 9.1 seconds. On the track, the Cascina was strong, with good cornering performance - but it lagged behind the two best, the Viettor and the Zacspeed. Overall, the Cascina does a lot right, and has a decent set of pros - but with one last car to test, Rick knew he couldn’t yet decide the winner.
@SpeedyBoi, @Falling_Comet, @variationofvariables, @yurimacs and @Xepy
Parking the Cascina back at the staging area, Rick walked up to the last (but certainly not least) car he had to drive today - the Sendo Friesia, with the so-called “Mulsanne Package”. Loading into the Sendo’s plush cabin, Rick tapped the start button and the Sendo’s 10 turbocharged cylinders came to life, with a pleasant yet aggressive burble. Pulling onto the street for the final time, Rick liked how easy it was to drive, almost as easy as the Spitfire he drove earlier in the day. The Sendo also felt just as high quality as the Cascina and the Viettor, and it felt more solid mechanically than either. Back on the drag strip, Rick got the Sendo to put down a 0-60 of 2.42 seconds - not the slowest, but decidedly not the fastest either - and similarly, he put down a quarter-mile time of just 9.56 seconds. On the track, the Sendo was surprisingly sporty, outdoing the Maartens Spitfire, but not quite reaching the same heights as the Crowley Blackbird. Wrapping up the Sendo’s test drive, Rick came away impressed with just how much it got right - but with 7 more cars behind it, he decided to sleep on it before making his final recommendation to The Executives.
Final Results
7th Place - @chiefzach2018 and @Portalkat42
A well tuned entry that unfortunately falls off brief aesthetically, and with design being the top priority, it’s hard for me to put the ONE above an entry that was more fitting of the brief design wise. If the form matched the engineering - we’d probably be having a different conversation.
6th Place - @VaporRossa
Generally a good entry, but a design that’s 90% of the way there, and not enough wins in the judged engineering criteria make this a bitter pill to swallow, particularly as it uses the full budget, but perhaps not to its advantage.
5th Place (tie) - @azkaalfafa and @the-chowi
Both of your entries were well-designed and well engineered, but statistically, the Crowley and Chirurgico both take the lead over one another in 6 categories each, though the Chirurgico does take the design win over the Crowley. Ultimately, with no one car necessarily taking the win over the other, and neither car scoring as well as the next 4 entries, I called this one a tie.
4th Place - @SpeedyBoi, @Falling_Comet, @variationofvariables, @yurimacs, @Xepy
Generally a good effort that does decently well from a performance standpoint and that scores well in the 3-star priorities, but ultimately falls a little short of the more focused entries in the top of the pack, in part due to sitting on top of the price cap, and from carrying the third highest service costs in the finals. Not a bad effort, but lands just shy of the top three.
3rd Place - @Tsundere-kun and @66mazda
The first runner-up, the Cascina generally does very well, but against the very similarly engineered Viettor, it scores worse aesthetically and falls behind just a little in all three 3-star priorities, however it does come in at $10,000 cheaper than the Viettor, despite being about $200 more to service. Ultimately, with design being a top priority, it loses out to the top 2 entries.
2nd Place - @Oreology
The second runner-up, the Viettor does a lot of what the Cascina does, but it takes small wins in all of the 3-star priorities, wins aesthetically with the 2nd highest design score and is cheaper to service, but does lose when it comes to purchase price, and loses very narrowly in the 2-star priorities. What seperated the two, however, was the design and a more significant lead in sportiness for the Viettor, giving it the 2nd place spot.
1st Place - @iivansmith
Moretelli takes the win this round, and while it does slightly trail behind the Cascina and Viettor in the 3-star priorities and scores in between both in the 2-star priorities, it wins design-wise with the highest design score in the competition, as well as the lowest purchase price in the finals at $105,000, and the 2nd lowest service costs in the finals. Ultimately, while it doesn’t necessarily lead in any specific area, it easily carries the best balanced stats in the field, with the best design in the challenge only furthering it along, and that’s why it takes the win.
22 Likes
13 Likes
What a fitting way to finish this round. Congratulations to you on winning, especially with such a quality field! By the way, what body set did you use as the starting point for that stunningly beautiful Modica?
In any case, the rule set for this TMCC reminded me of what a sequel to CSR162 would’ve been, when Tim is ready to trade up.
Another observation I made from this round is that AWD is generally OP when combined with very high power outputs - the stat boosts it confers are such that I wasn’t surprised at most of the finalists having it as standard.
In any case, this is one of the best challenges I have ever seen on these forums, TMCC or otherwise.
2 Likes