Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 2: What I Would Have Done Differently in CSR26
After hosting CSR26, I asked myself a few "what if"? questions. Specifically, I began wondering what would have happened if the round had been hosted by another knowledgeable user who had established the exact same rule set, while I was an entrant. More significantly, though, I could not help wondering how well the Ventnor Bambino (which had won the round overall, but just barely) would have fared if it had a carbon-fiber chassis instead of a steel tube frame. Finally, this post will also explore the possibility of a "benchmark" vehicle for this round, had I used it as a yardstick against which every entrant would be measured.
While CSR26 was in progress, I created a pair of vehicles that served as an example of how I would build an entry that would satisfy the requirements for that round. One of them was mid-engined and had full carbon-fiber construction, but was powered by a relatively humble turbocharged straight-six. The other had alloy panels and an all-alloy chassis, but had a front-mounted, overhead-valve, normally-aspirated V8 with more than twice the displacement. Having discussed the basics, I will now explore both entries in further detail.
In keeping with the rule set for CSR26, the first example entry I made had its body, chassis and fixtures finished to a very high standard. It may have come in generic gloss white, but the fixture placement and size really complemented the car's well-proportioned, cab-forward shape. So far so good, but the engine could have been a disappointment for the round host, had prestige been more important to him (or her). The 3.0-liter turbo straight-six nestled in this vehicle's engine bay cranked out more than 460 horsepower, revved to well over 8000 rpm, and delivered a generous amount of torque early in the rev range. It was also reliable, and surprisingly economical to boot, but the low cylinder count might have made this engine more suitable for a sports sedan than a supercar. That said, it was placed in a body so light and aerodynamic that it endowed the test car with a top speed of over 200 mph and a 0-60 time of 3.1 seconds.
Glancing at the mechanical specifications for this example entry, it's clear that it would have followed a similar design and engineering philosophy to the Ventnor Bambino, but at a higher post-markup price. Yet it was still very much under budget, very economical (for a supercar) and more than comfortable enough to be a daily driver. It would not have been out of place on the test track either, taking just 2 minutes and 6 seconds to complete a full lap from a standing start. I am quite sure that this vehicle would have been a finalist at the very least, or possibly even the outright winner, by virtue of being just fast enough and exceeding all other requirements by a wide margin.
The other example entry I made was much more decadent, with a huge 7-liter overhead-valve V8 up front. Again, the build quality was quite good, but this vehicle was constructed entirely out of aluminum, which was heavier. It was, however, cheaper even with markups included. Unlike the previous example car, the normally-aspirated V8 used here was more fitting for a high-end supercar, and was more reliable to boot; its redline was not as high, but the torque delivery was more predictable, and the extra power would have made it less likely to be dismissed early on by the round master. The more aggressive styling of this front-engined beast also gave it a sinister air when viewed from any angle.
With its extra power, this vehicle has a slightly higher top speed, although the extra weight means that it isn't as accelerative, while also being far thirstier. However, the use of a conventional manual transmission could also be to blame, although it clearly enhances the sense of driver involvement. On the other hand, considering that most of the front-engined cars I'd reviewed this round were not as well-executed as I hoped (and in fact only one of them made the top five), it's quite likely that this car could have been a finalist. Even so, it would actually have been less likely to win the round outright, since it's not quite as sporty or comfortable. On the other hand, its superior drivability and prestige would have ensured that it would not have been overlooked.
And to all the users who have viewed this blog over the holiday period, I wish you all a (belated) merry Chrstmas and a Happy New Year.
One of the entries I designed while hosting CSR26, designed to answer the simple question: "What would I have built?"
In keeping with the rule set for CSR26, the first example entry I made had its body, chassis and fixtures finished to a very high standard. It may have come in generic gloss white, but the fixture placement and size really complemented the car's well-proportioned, cab-forward shape. So far so good, but the engine could have been a disappointment for the round host, had prestige been more important to him (or her). The 3.0-liter turbo straight-six nestled in this vehicle's engine bay cranked out more than 460 horsepower, revved to well over 8000 rpm, and delivered a generous amount of torque early in the rev range. It was also reliable, and surprisingly economical to boot, but the low cylinder count might have made this engine more suitable for a sports sedan than a supercar. That said, it was placed in a body so light and aerodynamic that it endowed the test car with a top speed of over 200 mph and a 0-60 time of 3.1 seconds.
Glancing at the mechanical specifications for this example entry, it's clear that it would have followed a similar design and engineering philosophy to the Ventnor Bambino, but at a higher post-markup price. Yet it was still very much under budget, very economical (for a supercar) and more than comfortable enough to be a daily driver. It would not have been out of place on the test track either, taking just 2 minutes and 6 seconds to complete a full lap from a standing start. I am quite sure that this vehicle would have been a finalist at the very least, or possibly even the outright winner, by virtue of being just fast enough and exceeding all other requirements by a wide margin.
Another car I built while hosting CSR26 as a hypothetical entry. Notice that this front-engined grand tourer is much heavier and less economical, but more prestigious, than the other entry.
The other example entry I made was much more decadent, with a huge 7-liter overhead-valve V8 up front. Again, the build quality was quite good, but this vehicle was constructed entirely out of aluminum, which was heavier. It was, however, cheaper even with markups included. Unlike the previous example car, the normally-aspirated V8 used here was more fitting for a high-end supercar, and was more reliable to boot; its redline was not as high, but the torque delivery was more predictable, and the extra power would have made it less likely to be dismissed early on by the round master. The more aggressive styling of this front-engined beast also gave it a sinister air when viewed from any angle.
With its extra power, this vehicle has a slightly higher top speed, although the extra weight means that it isn't as accelerative, while also being far thirstier. However, the use of a conventional manual transmission could also be to blame, although it clearly enhances the sense of driver involvement. On the other hand, considering that most of the front-engined cars I'd reviewed this round were not as well-executed as I hoped (and in fact only one of them made the top five), it's quite likely that this car could have been a finalist. Even so, it would actually have been less likely to win the round outright, since it's not quite as sporty or comfortable. On the other hand, its superior drivability and prestige would have ensured that it would not have been overlooked.
And to all the users who have viewed this blog over the holiday period, I wish you all a (belated) merry Chrstmas and a Happy New Year.
No comments:
Post a Comment