Caterham v Westfield - Whats the difference??
Discussion
Sam_68 said:
elan_fan said:
...exactly the same pleasure as my Corgi JPS Lotus 72 toy did when I was 5.
I had one of those, too! A combination set of the '72 on a trailer being towed by an Elite, in fact (yeah, right... like you'd trust an Elite to tow your Formula 1 car from Hethel to Monaco without breaking down at least twice). I've been supressing an urge to buy an Elite ever since. Fortunately, objectivity has managed to maintain the upper hand so far.
, didn't care one bit about the scratches. 
Cock Womble 7 said:
Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony, side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, why can't we?
There are limits of decent behaviour, you know, even on internet forums? Lines you just don't cross...I'll have that f
king song in my head the rest of the day, now, you bd! 
Sam_68 said:
If you subjectively prefer the look and feel of the Caterham, and are willing to pay the price premium, then good luck to you: just don't expect to convince others as easily as you've convinced yourself.
So what you are saying is to a 6 degrees = 1:10 staircase builder fit and finish aren't important?That make sense.
12 pages and still going!
I'm out of here
Sam_68 said:
elan_fan said:
We keep coming back around to the same thing here 
, the objective slide rule approach and the subjective "if it looks right it is right".
Absolutely: spot on!, the objective slide rule approach and the subjective "if it looks right it is right".And as with any dogma that cannot be backed up with any objective evidence, be it belief in a supreme being, the right of dominance of an Aryan masterrace, or the superiority of a little kit car from Caterham over all other forms of road transport, I agree that you're not going to change the mind of any true believer.
...but perhaps you think I'm here to obtain converts? Have you considered that it might simply be because it's bloody good fun baiting any fanatical zealot with the objective arguments that they can't cope with?
And if you don't challenge the fanatics every now and then, their ideas can become common currency, no matter how mad they are. Ask the Germans....
So.... objectively, you're better off buying a Sylva, a Dax or a Westfield (unless you lack the knowledge and ability to get the best from it).
If you subjectively prefer the look and feel of the Caterham, and are willing to pay the price premium, then good luck to you: just don't expect to convince others as easily as you've convinced yourself.
Now. This God bloke... what make you think he's a good guy?
Colin Mill said:
So what you are saying is to a 6 degrees = 1:10 staircase builder fit and finish aren't important?
Very well. 1:9.514364454. Is that anally retentive enough for you, Doctor Google-my-name?Promise me you'll avoid architecture as well as proper aeroplanes, too, won't you? You won't find any staircases at 1:10 (or any fraction thereabouts). You might find a few ramps. Officially, we're not supposed to build them above 1:12, but if it's the difference between giving a disabled person access to their house within the available space...
Actually, building an in-situ cast concrete ramp to within half a degree is pretty reasonable, but then I don't build 'em, I just design them.
I have to say that I'm with the late Mr Duckworth when it comes to theorists.
ewenm said:
You don't mean objectively, you mean financially, which isn't the entire value-equation for everyone. Cost vs Value is often where these arguments differ. Cost is absolute, value is relative. What has value to me has no value to you and vice-versa.
No I mean objectively, really I do: things that can actually be measured. Not just cost; weight, performance, fuel consumption etc.Value is subjective; you can try applying objective indices to it, but there will always be intangibles like 'appearance' or 'steering feel'.
But the bits that make you want a car are the subjective bits. A BMW is objectively the best "ordinary", mid-sector car, but I don't want one.
I've never bought a car purely objectively. It's an emotional purchase combined with a rational one. A 3-series Touring might be objectively better than our V50 but I just didn't want the BMW.
Objectively vs Financially... surely a Caparo out performs any LSIS objectively... so why don't we all have a Caparo? We can't afford them, it's not an objective choice it's a financial (and probably subjective) one.
I've never bought a car purely objectively. It's an emotional purchase combined with a rational one. A 3-series Touring might be objectively better than our V50 but I just didn't want the BMW.
Objectively vs Financially... surely a Caparo out performs any LSIS objectively... so why don't we all have a Caparo? We can't afford them, it's not an objective choice it's a financial (and probably subjective) one.
ewenm said:
I've never bought a car purely objectively. It's an emotional purchase combined with a rational one.
Agreed: like I said on the last page, in response to RobM77.I obviously tend more toward the objective, though, and select the cars I'm willing to consider accordingly.
This means I won't necessarily rule out a Westfield, or a Skoda, or whatever, purely out of snobbery and prejudice, but on the other hand I would rule out a Caterham Classic on the grounds that my experience of Caterhams and other cars with simlilar power:weight ratios leads me to believe I'd be sorely disappointed with a car with the Caterham's chassis potential, but straight-line performance nearer to that of an MX5.
I have deliberately been avoiding this thread, but can resist no longer.
Sam, I still can't really understand why you have such a hard-on for slating Sevens!!!
I started typing a massive refutation of every one of your spurious comparisons and shonky examples, but then decided I ultimately couldn't be arsed to try and convert such a raving zealot.
So I will simply say this:
No doubt there's some nut out there who posts on Cola discussion forums about how much better his local supermarket's own-brand cola is than real Coke...
...and how actually Coke doesn't taste as good as it did in the 60's because they changed the recipe
...and that own-brand cola tastes nicer anyway
...and how he isn't fooled by all that marketing and heritage that the Coca-Cola company has
...and that he's tried Coke but has switched because he doesn't like it
...and that he thinks it doesn't matter that the own-brand cola lost a court battle with Coca-cola and had to change its branding and label as they were designed to mimic real Coke
...and that actually he was a semi-pro cola taster and therefore knows his cola
But unfortunately for that hypothetical poster, for most people most of the time Coke is a nicer drink.
You are thinking Westfield is Pepsi. It is not Pepsi, its the copycat own-brand supermarket cola mopping up those who can't afford real Coke and the minority that bizzarely prefer it or deliberately want to be contrary.
Its cheaper. Some consider it better value. You can kid yourself that you like the cheap cola as much. If i was a single mum with five kids i'd probably buy it.
But we'd all really rather have Coke (or Pepsi at a push) every time if we could afford it, wouldn't we??!!??
(p.s. any particular reason why Westfield hasn't submitted their faster, better handling and better value cars for more comparison tests in the automotive press? you'd think with an unbeatable package like that they'd want more people to know about it
)
Sam, I still can't really understand why you have such a hard-on for slating Sevens!!!
I started typing a massive refutation of every one of your spurious comparisons and shonky examples, but then decided I ultimately couldn't be arsed to try and convert such a raving zealot.
So I will simply say this:
No doubt there's some nut out there who posts on Cola discussion forums about how much better his local supermarket's own-brand cola is than real Coke...
...and how actually Coke doesn't taste as good as it did in the 60's because they changed the recipe
...and that own-brand cola tastes nicer anyway
...and how he isn't fooled by all that marketing and heritage that the Coca-Cola company has
...and that he's tried Coke but has switched because he doesn't like it
...and that he thinks it doesn't matter that the own-brand cola lost a court battle with Coca-cola and had to change its branding and label as they were designed to mimic real Coke
...and that actually he was a semi-pro cola taster and therefore knows his cola
But unfortunately for that hypothetical poster, for most people most of the time Coke is a nicer drink.
You are thinking Westfield is Pepsi. It is not Pepsi, its the copycat own-brand supermarket cola mopping up those who can't afford real Coke and the minority that bizzarely prefer it or deliberately want to be contrary.
Its cheaper. Some consider it better value. You can kid yourself that you like the cheap cola as much. If i was a single mum with five kids i'd probably buy it.
But we'd all really rather have Coke (or Pepsi at a push) every time if we could afford it, wouldn't we??!!??
(p.s. any particular reason why Westfield hasn't submitted their faster, better handling and better value cars for more comparison tests in the automotive press? you'd think with an unbeatable package like that they'd want more people to know about it
)
darth_pies said:
I have deliberately been avoiding this thread, but can resist no longer.
Sam, I still can't really understand why you have such a hard-on for slating Sevens!!!
I started typing a massive refutation of every one of your spurious comparisons and shonky examples, but then decided I ultimately couldn't be arsed to try and convert such a raving zealot.
So I will simply say this:
No doubt there's some nut out there who posts on Cola discussion forums about how much better his local supermarket's own-brand cola is than real Coke...
...and how actually Coke doesn't taste as good as it did in the 60's because they changed the recipe
...and that own-brand cola tastes nicer anyway
...and how he isn't fooled by all that marketing and heritage that the Coca-Cola company has
...and that he's tried Coke but has switched because he doesn't like it
...and that he thinks it doesn't matter that the own-brand cola lost a court battle with Coca-cola and had to change its branding and label as they were designed to mimic real Coke
...and that actually he was a semi-pro cola taster and therefore knows his cola
But unfortunately for that hypothetical poster, for most people most of the time Coke is a nicer drink.
You are thinking Westfield is Pepsi. It is not Pepsi, its the copycat own-brand supermarket cola mopping up those who can't afford real Coke and the minority that bizzarely prefer it or deliberately want to be contrary.
Its cheaper. Some consider it better value. You can kid yourself that you like the cheap cola as much. If i was a single mum with five kids i'd probably buy it.
But we'd all really rather have Coke (or Pepsi at a push) every time if we could afford it, wouldn't we??!!??
(p.s. any particular reason why Westfield hasn't submitted their faster, better handling and better value cars for more comparison tests in the automotive press? you'd think with an unbeatable package like that they'd want more people to know about it)
Sam, I still can't really understand why you have such a hard-on for slating Sevens!!!
I started typing a massive refutation of every one of your spurious comparisons and shonky examples, but then decided I ultimately couldn't be arsed to try and convert such a raving zealot.
So I will simply say this:
No doubt there's some nut out there who posts on Cola discussion forums about how much better his local supermarket's own-brand cola is than real Coke...
...and how actually Coke doesn't taste as good as it did in the 60's because they changed the recipe
...and that own-brand cola tastes nicer anyway
...and how he isn't fooled by all that marketing and heritage that the Coca-Cola company has
...and that he's tried Coke but has switched because he doesn't like it
...and that he thinks it doesn't matter that the own-brand cola lost a court battle with Coca-cola and had to change its branding and label as they were designed to mimic real Coke
...and that actually he was a semi-pro cola taster and therefore knows his cola
But unfortunately for that hypothetical poster, for most people most of the time Coke is a nicer drink.
You are thinking Westfield is Pepsi. It is not Pepsi, its the copycat own-brand supermarket cola mopping up those who can't afford real Coke and the minority that bizzarely prefer it or deliberately want to be contrary.
Its cheaper. Some consider it better value. You can kid yourself that you like the cheap cola as much. If i was a single mum with five kids i'd probably buy it.
But we'd all really rather have Coke (or Pepsi at a push) every time if we could afford it, wouldn't we??!!??
(p.s. any particular reason why Westfield hasn't submitted their faster, better handling and better value cars for more comparison tests in the automotive press? you'd think with an unbeatable package like that they'd want more people to know about it
)
darth_pies said:
(p.s. any particular reason why Westfield hasn't submitted their faster, better handling and better value cars for more comparison tests in the automotive press? you'd think with an unbeatable package like that they'd want more people to know about it )
Having dabbled in motoring journalism and having several friend in the game, I think I can answer this one: quite simply, Westfield concentrate mainly on kit production whilst Caterham target their products at more 'mainstream' buyers. Hence you'll find far more interest in Catreham in the 'mainstream' publications like Evo and Autocar, and more interest in Westfield in the specialist publications like the Kit Car magazines and the late, lamented CCC.)As to the rest of your diatribe, I couldn't really offer an opinion. I have definite preferences when it comes to malt whiskey and red wine, but I tend to leave getting worked up about fizzy pop to the adolescents.
Little story, just to show another side of seven ownership that thankfully rarely rears it's head.
I was at a track mooching around the garage chatting away to a chap who was running another chaps Caterham (think spannery/race-teamy type) and he asked if I had one as I'd been talking about Caterhams. I answered that I had a Westfield and I got the smirk... It was interesting how in the blink of an eye he went from an equal to smugly superior. 0-c**t in a fraction of a second.
It's a shame when the t**tery from both camps seeps out of the internet. A lot of it is banter, but there are some people who really take this far too seriously.
I was at a track mooching around the garage chatting away to a chap who was running another chaps Caterham (think spannery/race-teamy type) and he asked if I had one as I'd been talking about Caterhams. I answered that I had a Westfield and I got the smirk... It was interesting how in the blink of an eye he went from an equal to smugly superior. 0-c**t in a fraction of a second.
It's a shame when the t**tery from both camps seeps out of the internet. A lot of it is banter, but there are some people who really take this far too seriously.
Edited by juansolo on Wednesday 6th October 15:19
Sam_68 said:
darth_pies said:
(p.s. any particular reason why Westfield hasn't submitted their faster, better handling and better value cars for more comparison tests in the automotive press? you'd think with an unbeatable package like that they'd want more people to know about it )
Having dabbled in motoring journalism and having several friend in the game, I think I can answer this one: quite simply, Westfield concentrate mainly on kit production whilst Caterham target their products at more 'mainstream' buyers. Hence you'll find far more interest in Catreham in the 'mainstream' publications like Evo and Autocar, and more interest in Westfield in the specialist publications like the Kit Car magazines and the late, lamented CCC.)As to the rest of your diatribe, I couldn't really offer an opinion. I have definite preferences when it comes to malt whiskey and red wine, but I tend to leave getting worked up about fizzy pop to the adolescents.
Maggot, worm, bread......the rod tips quivering!!
Blimey! Still going.
Going back to the original troll, and answering the question.
One is made out of frozen snot, and the other is metal.
I wouldn't say either one is better than the other. Personal choice, and whatever floats yer boat. Although I would agree, there are some Snobs in the Caterham camp.
Going back to the original troll, and answering the question.
One is made out of frozen snot, and the other is metal.
I wouldn't say either one is better than the other. Personal choice, and whatever floats yer boat. Although I would agree, there are some Snobs in the Caterham camp.
There are t0ssers everywhere. I've preferred the look and the way the Caterham is constructed for years now, but it has to be said I was introduced to the Seven type car by seeing Westfields at Stoneleigh when I was a far younger man.
What I find surprising is how many people have heard of one but not the other and that seems to go both ways round. Even owners! Hey ho...
What I find surprising is how many people have heard of one but not the other and that seems to go both ways round. Even owners! Hey ho...
sam919 said:
So now your taking the high ground by suggesting your older and wiser by your pallet
Nope; just that I can't get myself worked into a particular frenzy over carbonated, sugared water. Sorry.FWIIW, I drink diet coke out of habit, but if they've none in the shop I'll happily settle for diet Pepsi or even ginger beer.
I'm a lot more selective over wine and scotch, but I still don't get obsessive about one particular brand to the point of gnawing my own testicles off in frustration and angst if anyone dares to suggest there might be a viable alternative.
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff