Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 44: Teaching the Next Generation
Since CSR77 was in limbo until very recently, I would like to show you yet another retrospective on another CSR round which concluded recently. Unlike CSR76, which suffered from a low turnout, the round immediately before that (and came right after the one I most recently hosted) turned out to be much more hotly contested, with more than two dozen entrants. This explains why I tackled it with much more enthusiasm. The reason was simple - it was easier and more fun to build a compliant car with the rule set of that round than it was with the one in CSR76.
Speaking of rule sets, compared to the one I used for CSR74, this one felt like coming back down to earth. Instead of track-ready sports cars, entrants were tasked with building small hatchbacks intended for a fleet - specifically, a driving school in Marbella. They wanted to procure some affordable small hatchbacks fitted with manual transmissions. However, they needed ten cars in all, costing no more than $14,000 each after being marked down by 10%, which meant that the fleet as a whole must not cost more than $140,000. At any rate, the school was looking for something that was safe, easy to drive, cheap to run (in terms of fuel economy and service costs) and highly reliable (with regards not just to mechanical components but also to corrosion resistance), with a dose of practicality and comfort thrown in for good measure.
As soon as I was absolutely certain of the requirements, I jumped at the chance to develop an entry for CSR75. That car was called the Hanson Heron 1.8Ti, and powered by a 1.8-litre turbocharged inline-four driving the front wheels via a six-speed manual gearbox. It was a fairly standard, unpretentious small commuter car, although not all of the entries (of which there were thirty-five, almost matching the previous round for popularity) followed that description.
Eventually, it was time to compile a shortlist of cars to be considered later. Of the 35 cars which were entered, 23 of them failed to meet enough of the criteria which had been specified, and were summarily rejected. The Heron, despite its high purchase price, was not one of them. However, it was unlikely to actually win this particular round for that very reason. Indeed, it explains why the Heron was eliminated in the second round of cuts; its disproportionately high tax rates (based on cylinder count and total displacement - the tax system for CSR75 heavily favored cars with very small three-cylinder engines) didn't help either. Several other promising contenders had also passed muster initially, but on closer inspection, could not compete with the remaining cars, and were also summarily axed. Ranking the top seven cars, however, proved to be the most difficult part of the judging phase; each of them made a stronger case for themselves than any of the other entries.
And so the finishing order for CSR75 was finalized. First to go was the Shromet Radiant RC, which, despite its low costs and high comfort levels, turned out to be too powerful for the fleet manager's liking. Next was the Delta Muso Sport, whose similarly high level of affordability (both in the short and long term) couldn't offset its lack of comfort and safety, or the absence of a fifth seat. The Albatross 150 Turbo was, like the Delta, another four-seater, which not only had two overdrive gears, but also had a bit too much power for a first car. However, it edged out the Delta by virtue of being easier to drive, more reliable, and very economical to buy and run, with superior safety to boot. Then came the Pegasus Getaway 5, whose all-round excellence made it a firm favorite - until the manager realized that it lacked an overdrive gear and was more expensive to service than originally anticipated, thus relegating it to fourth place.
Third place went to the RCM Fox, which was yet another car with just four seats (not helped by a relative lack of comfort and power compared to some of the other finalists), but was safe and forgiving enough to edge out many strong contenders. Meanwhile, the Nohda Tansa Revo clinched a second-place finish thanks to having five comfortable seats, with high levels of drivability and safety. Only its odd retro styling, lack of power and high service costs held it back from the top step. In fact, the winning car was actually even more comfortable than the boxy Tansa.
Speaking of winners, the Baltazar Quark 1.0 deserved its accolade for all the right reasons. It edged out the Tansa for comfort, power, drivability, reliability and service costs, while nearly matching it for economy and also having a fifth seat. Combine that breadth of talent with a handsome exterior, and there is no doubt that it was the right car for the fleet.
There was, however, a postscript to this round: as soon as I heard about another contest on the forums, where one of the segments was a budget car showdown (for which my CSR75 submission was eligible), I jumped at the chance and created another trim of the Heron. The higher budget cap for this latest challenge prompted me to create a new trim with an enlarged engine (2.0 litres compared with 1.8 for the original version) and wider track at both ends.
As soon as I was absolutely certain of the requirements, I jumped at the chance to develop an entry for CSR75. That car was called the Hanson Heron 1.8Ti, and powered by a 1.8-litre turbocharged inline-four driving the front wheels via a six-speed manual gearbox. It was a fairly standard, unpretentious small commuter car, although not all of the entries (of which there were thirty-five, almost matching the previous round for popularity) followed that description.
The Hanson Heron as originally submitted for CSR75.
Eventually, it was time to compile a shortlist of cars to be considered later. Of the 35 cars which were entered, 23 of them failed to meet enough of the criteria which had been specified, and were summarily rejected. The Heron, despite its high purchase price, was not one of them. However, it was unlikely to actually win this particular round for that very reason. Indeed, it explains why the Heron was eliminated in the second round of cuts; its disproportionately high tax rates (based on cylinder count and total displacement - the tax system for CSR75 heavily favored cars with very small three-cylinder engines) didn't help either. Several other promising contenders had also passed muster initially, but on closer inspection, could not compete with the remaining cars, and were also summarily axed. Ranking the top seven cars, however, proved to be the most difficult part of the judging phase; each of them made a stronger case for themselves than any of the other entries.
And so the finishing order for CSR75 was finalized. First to go was the Shromet Radiant RC, which, despite its low costs and high comfort levels, turned out to be too powerful for the fleet manager's liking. Next was the Delta Muso Sport, whose similarly high level of affordability (both in the short and long term) couldn't offset its lack of comfort and safety, or the absence of a fifth seat. The Albatross 150 Turbo was, like the Delta, another four-seater, which not only had two overdrive gears, but also had a bit too much power for a first car. However, it edged out the Delta by virtue of being easier to drive, more reliable, and very economical to buy and run, with superior safety to boot. Then came the Pegasus Getaway 5, whose all-round excellence made it a firm favorite - until the manager realized that it lacked an overdrive gear and was more expensive to service than originally anticipated, thus relegating it to fourth place.
So close, yet so far: there's a reason why the Radiant, Albatross, Getaway and Muso (above, from top) all missed out on a podium finish.
Third place went to the RCM Fox, which was yet another car with just four seats (not helped by a relative lack of comfort and power compared to some of the other finalists), but was safe and forgiving enough to edge out many strong contenders. Meanwhile, the Nohda Tansa Revo clinched a second-place finish thanks to having five comfortable seats, with high levels of drivability and safety. Only its odd retro styling, lack of power and high service costs held it back from the top step. In fact, the winning car was actually even more comfortable than the boxy Tansa.
The Fox (top) and Tansa (bottom) were both very strong contenders on paper, but were ultimately held back by minor details
Speaking of winners, the Baltazar Quark 1.0 deserved its accolade for all the right reasons. It edged out the Tansa for comfort, power, drivability, reliability and service costs, while nearly matching it for economy and also having a fifth seat. Combine that breadth of talent with a handsome exterior, and there is no doubt that it was the right car for the fleet.
Comfort, practicality, ease of use, reliability and affordability - the Quark got the win by balancing all of these aspects better than its opposition.
There was, however, a postscript to this round: as soon as I heard about another contest on the forums, where one of the segments was a budget car showdown (for which my CSR75 submission was eligible), I jumped at the chance and created another trim of the Heron. The higher budget cap for this latest challenge prompted me to create a new trim with an enlarged engine (2.0 litres compared with 1.8 for the original version) and wider track at both ends.
The revised Heron 2.0, with a wider track and larger engine but similar fuel economy figures.
Surprisingly, this new trim nearly matched the original for fuel economy, while also providing a noticeable performance boost. The only other change I made to the exterior was replacing the metallic blue exterior color with a pearlescent white; however, all fixture placements and sizes remained unchanged.
At the time of publication, the segment is still pending release. In the meantime, I'll leave you with one more image which hints at the next post in this series:
Stay safe, folks, and happy motoring - or Automationeering, whatever that is.
At the time of publication, the segment is still pending release. In the meantime, I'll leave you with one more image which hints at the next post in this series:
Stay safe, folks, and happy motoring - or Automationeering, whatever that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment