Ultimate Seven Product
Discussion
The problem with the CSR , no matter how well they make it perform, is that it's quite a costly design to produce with that complicated chassis, lots of 'premium' components, pushrod suspension, and limited parts commonality with the rest of the range. You only need to make the price list comparison with the nearest unsupercharged 'normal' Seven to see that.
Caterham's development strategy has always been to add bits on and increase complexity as a means of overcoming technical limitations: completely contrary to the Chapman ethos.
It takes cleverness and innovation to move forward whilst remaining cost-effective to manufacture, and that's something they've never managed to get a grip on.
Maybe they need to take on Jeremy Phillips as a consultant, now that he's retired... he has been the master in recent years, when it comes to designing cars that punch well above their weight (cost).
Caterham's development strategy has always been to add bits on and increase complexity as a means of overcoming technical limitations: completely contrary to the Chapman ethos.
It takes cleverness and innovation to move forward whilst remaining cost-effective to manufacture, and that's something they've never managed to get a grip on.
Maybe they need to take on Jeremy Phillips as a consultant, now that he's retired... he has been the master in recent years, when it comes to designing cars that punch well above their weight (cost).
Accepting that the CSR was an expensive solution - it's worse than that (Jim) - it was an expensive solution to a non- problem "ride". The focus of the design brief (according to Caterham at the time) was to improve the ride. Now I can think of lots of things which might deter people from buying a 7 - practicality, space, NVH etc etc but ride? I don't think so. With S suspension and comfy seats the ride is perfectly OK for the type of car it is. Other aspects of comfort may be lacking but ride is (can be) perfectly comparable with hot hatches and better than some.
Combine that with only minor aero and practicality tweaks (though welcome) and I can see why people were reluctant to pay the price.
Combine that with only minor aero and practicality tweaks (though welcome) and I can see why people were reluctant to pay the price.
Equus said:
The problem with the CSR , no matter how well they make it perform, is that it's quite a costly design to produce with that complicated chassis, lots of 'premium' components, pushrod suspension, and limited parts commonality with the rest of the range. You only need to make the price list comparison with the nearest unsupercharged 'normal' Seven to see that.
Caterham's development strategy has always been to add bits on and increase complexity as a means of overcoming technical limitations: completely contrary to the Chapman ethos.
It takes cleverness and innovation to move forward whilst remaining cost-effective to manufacture, and that's something they've never managed to get a grip on.
Maybe they need to take on Jeremy Phillips as a consultant, now that he's retired... he has been the master in recent years, when it comes to designing cars that punch well above their weight (cost).
Is there anything about Caterham(s) you like - you seem massively negative and I wonder why you actually bother coming into this section at all.Caterham's development strategy has always been to add bits on and increase complexity as a means of overcoming technical limitations: completely contrary to the Chapman ethos.
It takes cleverness and innovation to move forward whilst remaining cost-effective to manufacture, and that's something they've never managed to get a grip on.
Maybe they need to take on Jeremy Phillips as a consultant, now that he's retired... he has been the master in recent years, when it comes to designing cars that punch well above their weight (cost).
bcr5784 said:
The focus of the design brief (according to Caterham at the time) was to improve the ride.
That was one focus, certainly; not the only one. To quote directly from Multimatic (the company that did the suspension design and analysis for Caterham), the full list of key objectives were:• Improved ride and handling without losing the iconic character of the Caterham Seven
• Improved suspension and steering kinematics
• Increased adjustability (ride height, front ARB, rear camber and toe adjustability)
• Reduced unsprung weight
• Minimise use of new components and level of validation required
Of course, improved suspension compliance = better traction and grip, and even more progressive handling if you do it right.
Suspension compliance is one of the key areas where the Caterham has suffered 'development creep', compared to the original Lotus Seven. If you've ever driven an S1 Seven, or an Eleven, you'll know that they had much, much more compliant suspension, and felt like completely different cars as a result.
The early Sevens and Elevens had 80lb rear springs, so around half as stiff as is typical these days!
justleanitupabit said:
Is there anything about Caterham(s) you like - you seem massively negative and I wonder why you actually bother coming into this section at all.
They look pretty. And the K-series Superlights were very fine cars - probably the pinnacle, as far as I am concerned. I enjoyed my old Crossflow Supersprint, and at the time it was probably the best car of this type out there (though I'm not sure it was sufficiently superior to justify the extra cost over the Westfield SE I owned before).Both Caterham and Westfield have lost the plot badly, in recent years, though, IMO. Both are surviving on their reputations, but the way forward is increasingly being led by other companies.
It would be nice if forums like this could jerk both companies out of their complacency, before it's too late, but I realise how unlikely that is.
Equus said:
Both Caterham and Westfield have lost the plot badly, in recent years, though, IMO. Both are surviving on their reputations, but the way forward is increasingly being led by other companies.
I'd agree that to some extent they are surviving on their reputations - but I'm not sure which other companies (operating in the same price bracket) are actually leading the way. Zenos and Ariel have their merits - but in terms of practicality they are way behind the 7 (neither has any luggage space) and no hood, and both have only just cottoned on that customers won't buy something without a windscreen (at least not in decent numbers), or, in the case of Ariel, that some bodywork is a good thing. Radical aren't in the same market. Zenos 11 or 12 might prove competitive but might not. Yes there are loads of kit car manufacturers out there, but commercially they aren't real competitors. Some are just producing cheaper but inferior 7s, others are producing some good - but very niche market - cars. bcr5784 said:
...commercially they aren't real competitors.
Not yet... as I said, Caterham and Westfield are maintaining their preeminence at the moment on the basis of their past reputations (and, ironically, by selling to people who want the 'safe' option... so much for individualism and 'I am not a number'!).But each and every year, more and more of their potential customers - particularly those who are better educated in engineering terms - will be turning to better and cheaper options.
If it comes down to Caterham needing to sell the Seven on the basis of greater practicality, they really have got problems...
Equus said:
bcr5784 said:
...commercially they aren't real competitors.
Not yet... as I said, Caterham and Westfield are maintaining their preeminence at the moment on the basis of their past reputations (and, ironically, by selling to people who want the 'safe' option... so much for individualism and 'I am not a number'!).But each and every year, more and more of their potential customers - particularly those who are better educated in engineering terms - will be turning to better and cheaper options.
If it comes down to Caterham needing to sell the Seven on the basis of greater practicality, they really have got problems...
Your use of "will" is interesting - many small/medium sportscars have come and gone whilst trying to revolutionise (Marcos/TVR for example) and none have done particularly well - You're entirely missing the point - the 7 platform has endured for so long 40+ years in Caterham guise for one reason alone - its bloody good to start with and needs little or nothing doing to it. Think back to the 21, the CSR the Aero - all "revolutions" - all failed. The basic recipe for the 7 is pretty much spot on - and hence why it must be the most copied template of car.
Name a better AND cheaper option? There isn't one.
Equus said:
If it comes down to Caterham needing to sell the Seven on the basis of greater practicality, they really have got problems...
justleanitupabit said:
Name a better AND cheaper option? There isn't one.
How long a list would you like? You mean you don't know of one.bcr5784 said:
There comes a point in impracticality for a car that is PRIMARILY used on the road where buyers draw the line.
Oh, absolutely... and the Caterham is way beyond that line for most people.I ought to say that I speak as someone who has owned and driven a Caterham as my only car, including year-round commute into a major city centre (Leeds).
And FWIIW, if you're that mad, luggage space and weather gear don't come into it: the weather gear is hopeless in properly bad weather (it steams up, visibility is awful, and the wipers don't work very well); ditto luggage space - it's so small that it barely makes a difference, even when you have a passenger. For shopping, you use the passenger seat and footwell.
Personally, having become middle-aged and lazy, I'd now draw the impracticality line at the Lotus Elise, but regardless of that you'd have to admit that the Caterham occupies a very narrow bandwidth between the Elise and even more extreme cars like the Atom and Radical. So narrow that it might as well not exist, in fact.
justleanitupabit said:
Go on - humour me.
OK, well since you jumped in at the point where I suggested Jeremy Phillips might be able to point them in the right direction, let's start with an easy one: the Sylva Phoenix.It handles at least as well as the Caterham (I've owned both), it's significantly quicker around a circuit, if it's like-for-like on power (much better aerodynamics; it has effectively rendered 'traditional' Sevens obsolete in kit car racing - they're simply not competitive any more); much better top-end acceleration for the same reason, it has better ride quality on the road (proper IRS suspension), and it costs a fraction as much, spec-for-spec.
Of course, I appreciate that any car I name will be met with the standard fanboi response, just because it's not a Caterham, but if you're the slightest bit unbiased you'll realise that there are plenty of other options. Don't expect any further response form me on this subject, though, as I really can't be arsed arguing with fanbois.
justleanitupabit said:
Does one single example constitute a list?
No, but you only asked for one and I really can't be arsed at the moment - I'm quite busy today, and having checked your posting history (you're hardly a regular), you're just not worth the effort... otherwise I'd give you some nice lists of pictures, as I did for BCR on pages 6 and 7.Didn't " Sam-68" used to drone on and in here about how good the Sylviawas?
As he doesn't seem to exist any more, perhaps Equus is Sam-68 reincarnated
.
But seriously I don't see the Sylva as a good comparison to the real seven, both in style,and authenticity.
To me it's just another kit car, who's owners always seem to bang on about just how and why there cars are so much better than an original seven.
Oh and they also make a point of how little it cost them compared to a seven too, there's a trend here I think.
To me anything that looks like this :
Should always be confined to the owners and readers of total kit car magazines!
Oh and not a single,one of them ever bangs on about how poor the resale value is when it comes time to sell, compared to all the time and money they have spent on getting it to perform and handle!
As he doesn't seem to exist any more, perhaps Equus is Sam-68 reincarnated
.But seriously I don't see the Sylva as a good comparison to the real seven, both in style,and authenticity.
To me it's just another kit car, who's owners always seem to bang on about just how and why there cars are so much better than an original seven.
Oh and they also make a point of how little it cost them compared to a seven too, there's a trend here I think.
To me anything that looks like this :
Should always be confined to the owners and readers of total kit car magazines!
Oh and not a single,one of them ever bangs on about how poor the resale value is when it comes time to sell, compared to all the time and money they have spent on getting it to perform and handle!
Dave J said:
all bets are off ......
it's a bloody Caterham Lego kit.
You buy the boxed item and then over the course of the next 4 months they also send you the wings, seats and engine .....
Now that is the closest geuss I have seen in some time!it's a bloody Caterham Lego kit.
You buy the boxed item and then over the course of the next 4 months they also send you the wings, seats and engine .....
And with CC teasing with pictures of Lego on the 620r you might just be bang on Dave!
nigelpugh7 said:
...all the time and money they have spent on getting it to perform and handle!
But imagine how good it would be - and how profitable for Caterham - if they took such a fundamentally better and more cost-effective design and idiot-proofed it to the level necessary for the average Caterham buyer?It's not rocket science - just a matter of doing a bit of testing to allow a standardised spring/damper/tyre package and to establish the recommended geo.
The big problem with variability in other kit cars is that they are fitted with all sorts of random drivetrain and suspension components by their builders. One thing that Caterham have got right - considering that they're targeting buyers who are less technically competent - is that they're very strict about such rationalisation.
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff