Ultimate Seven Product
Discussion
And after so much early promise...
MacDonald in July 2012 said:
On a visit to PH Towers earlier today Macdonald admitted that Caterham had 'stalled' over the last couple of years, with a lack of new products beyond the 'parts bin' (his words...) but still wonderful Supersports. Cars like that can only keep Caterham going for so long though, Macdonald candid about progress with ongoing plans for a new road car and where he wants to take the company, including possible manufacture outside the UK.
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/general-pistonheads/caterham-the-future/26039
glailey said:
Have to agree with BAC, Elemental, Zenos, Vuhl all (much smaller, less well established companies) producing ultra lightweight basic sportscars I'm disappointed that Caterham can't do something more radical. The 21 has (I fear) rather knocked the stuffing out of Caterham. I think that's a shame - it's not that the 21 was a bad car - simply that Caterham were unfortunate to come up against the Elise - which was a better one. There is a (new) Elise-sized hole in the market which, of course, Lotus are trying to fill - but someone else with ambition might. I know it was said as a throw away, but I reckon Radical have got exactly the same probem as Caterham. A core model (SR3) which is utterly brilliant and efforts to make an addition to the range don't seem to make much impact. The SR8 is a good variation on the theme, but still essentially the same as the SR3 with a bigger engine.
So finding the next rich seam looks just as hard for Radical as it does for Caterham. Both have done some level of international growth of the core product but it's not taking either to a new level. Both have got a great racing ladder that is stable but static (or has arguably contracted in Radical's case).
It's a dilema.
Bert
So finding the next rich seam looks just as hard for Radical as it does for Caterham. Both have done some level of international growth of the core product but it's not taking either to a new level. Both have got a great racing ladder that is stable but static (or has arguably contracted in Radical's case).
It's a dilema.
Bert
rotorwings said:
Yes, Radical are also doing rather well. 
CraigyB said:
Make a much lighter caterham. How?
See my post on page 1 Westfield, managed 429kg (with more to come, if they'd used pre-preg bodywork, lighter seats, etc.), 17 years ago, and that was with a K-series.
With a bike-derived engine or something like the AIE rotary that Westfied are currently playing with (28kg for the core engine instead of circa 85kg for a typical modern 'lightweight' I4 car engine), 350kg would be within easy reach, with a chassis twice as stiff as the current Caterham spaceframe.
That would be something for the Engineers to get 'giddy' about.
It is precisely what Caterham should do. After the F1 disaster , the stillborn SP 300, the still birth of the 21 , the daft intention to make Caterham bikes and so on the lesson has been learned at last . Morgan has the nostalgia market sewn up, Radical the racer market , BAC and Zenos are and will remain ultra specialised minnows and if Ariel has the speed, build quality and reputation it doesn't nave the sheer usability of the car that has lasted nearly 60 years. Back to evolution not revolution and the more sophisticated the modern car becomes the more distinctive and appealing a Seven becomes .
Equus said:
See my post on page 1
Westfield, managed 429kg (with more to come, if they'd used pre-preg bodywork, lighter seats, etc.), 17 years ago, and that was with a K-series.
With a bike-derived engine or something like the AIE rotary that Westfied are currently playing with (28kg for the core engine instead of circa 85kg for a typical modern 'lightweight' I4 car engine), 350kg would be within easy reach, with a chassis twice as stiff as the current Caterham spaceframe.
That would be something for the Engineers to get 'giddy' about.
IMHO as a hill climber with a lot of Caterham experience, they shouldn't go any lighter. And that is because the car would become hopeless in the damp and wet as a result of the tyres being less squished into the road to help clear the water. Narrower tyres would offset this a little but then you're not maximising its capability in the dry.Westfield, managed 429kg (with more to come, if they'd used pre-preg bodywork, lighter seats, etc.), 17 years ago, and that was with a K-series.
With a bike-derived engine or something like the AIE rotary that Westfied are currently playing with (28kg for the core engine instead of circa 85kg for a typical modern 'lightweight' I4 car engine), 350kg would be within easy reach, with a chassis twice as stiff as the current Caterham spaceframe.
That would be something for the Engineers to get 'giddy' about.
coppice said:
It is precisely what Caterham should do. After the F1 disaster , the stillborn SP 300, the still birth of the 21 , the daft intention to make Caterham bikes and so on the lesson has been learned at last . Morgan has the nostalgia market sewn up, Radical the racer market , BAC and Zenos are and will remain ultra specialised minnows and if Ariel has the speed, build quality and reputation it doesn't nave the sheer usability of the car that has lasted nearly 60 years. Back to evolution not revolution and the more sophisticated the modern car becomes the more distinctive and appealing a Seven becomes .
Please proceed directly to your meeting with the Caterham senior management, and do try not to fleece them on the consultants bill - they need the cash for development.RegMolehusband said:
IMHO as a hill climber with a lot of Caterham experience, they shouldn't go any lighter. And that is because the car would become hopeless in the damp and wet as a result of the tyres being less squished into the road to help clear the water. Narrower tyres would offset this a little but then you're not maximising its capability in the dry.
I can't see that. If the tyres are comparably narrower grip wet and dry should remain the same so long as the sprung to unsprung weight ratio remains the same. However reducing weight is going to make setup more difficult because of the big percentage variation of driver passenger and fuel weight.
RegMolehusband said:
IMHO as a hill climber with a lot of Caterham experience, they shouldn't go any lighter. And that is because the car would become hopeless in the damp and wet as a result of the tyres being less squished into the road to help clear the water. Narrower tyres would offset this a little but then you're not maximising its capability in the dry.
What do you hillclimb? The Caterham, by any chance?I've driven cars down to the weight of early Jedis (<300kg) and they're just fine. The FW400 was fine, too, despite having very stiff, track-orientated suspension (disconnecting the ARB's helped for road use and in the wet).
Decent suspension design is the key: low unsprung weight, in particular (along with minimal ARB, as a bump at one side of a traditional ARB tries to pick up the opposite wheel... this is one of the reasons that monoshocks - which do the opposite - work so well on lightweight hillclimb single seaters, when you wouldn't expect them to, but we digress). It's not a matter of needing weight to 'squish the water out of the way'; more that you need to keep the tyre in consistent contact with the tarmac, so that the leading edge of the contact patch stands sufficient chance to clear the water for the rear part to maintain grip. No matter how good your dampers are, you're onto a loser if you've got a high ratio of sprung:unsprung weight.
The Caterham has a fundamental limitation because of the weight and inertia of its rear axle/de Dion beam. You need IRS if you're going to that extreme of weight.
bcr5784 said:
RegMolehusband said:
IMHO as a hill climber with a lot of Caterham experience, they shouldn't go any lighter. And that is because the car would become hopeless in the damp and wet as a result of the tyres being less squished into the road to help clear the water. Narrower tyres would offset this a little but then you're not maximising its capability in the dry.
I can't see that. If the tyres are comparably narrower grip wet and dry should remain the same so long as the sprung to unsprung weight ratio remains the same. However reducing weight is going to make setup more difficult because of the big percentage variation of driver passenger and fuel weight.
Yes, the Caterham. In the Jedi you were most likely on racing wets and with down force - which is an amazing combination in the wet. But on roadgoing list 1a or 1B tyres with no down force - well aquaplaning into Orchard at Prescott is no fun at all ! Caterhams, at their current weight, are pretty hopeless in the wet actually.
I recall being harassed by an unflustered MINI at an Oulton Park day track day as I demonstrated great feats of oversteer control. It must have looked most amusing from behind as they waited for an overtaking opportunity.
I recall being harassed by an unflustered MINI at an Oulton Park day track day as I demonstrated great feats of oversteer control. It must have looked most amusing from behind as they waited for an overtaking opportunity.
I would agree that racing/competing with almost any serious performance car isn't much fun in the wet.
And I'd agree with DCL that there's an optimum weight for a Caterham with the current limitations of it's chassis and suspension.
But outside of competition, it's perfectly possible to drive lighter cars than Caterhams, even in the wet, without them being unsafe.
...and the whole point of developing an 'ultimate Seven product' would be to transcend the limitations of the current car, which would be quite easy to do... chassis stiffness:weight, suspension design, aerodynamics; all are pretty woeful by modern standards, if we're honest with ourselves.
And I'd agree with DCL that there's an optimum weight for a Caterham with the current limitations of it's chassis and suspension.
But outside of competition, it's perfectly possible to drive lighter cars than Caterhams, even in the wet, without them being unsafe.
...and the whole point of developing an 'ultimate Seven product' would be to transcend the limitations of the current car, which would be quite easy to do... chassis stiffness:weight, suspension design, aerodynamics; all are pretty woeful by modern standards, if we're honest with ourselves.
[quote=Equus
...and the whole point of developing an 'ultimate Seven product' would be to transcend the limitations of the current car, which would be quite easy to do... chassis stiffness:weight, suspension design, aerodynamics; all are pretty woeful by modern standards, if we're honest with ourselves.
[/quote]
But the CSR addressed stiffness and suspension design quite well, and made minor aero improvements but hasn't sold and showed no speed advantage.
Carbon fibre is the only way to make significant chassis weight savings but is too expensive.
Bike engines could save weight but have serious installation supply and cost issues.
And the aero 7? Stillborn? I still think aerodynamics are the answer but producing low drag without adding weight will be difficult.
...and the whole point of developing an 'ultimate Seven product' would be to transcend the limitations of the current car, which would be quite easy to do... chassis stiffness:weight, suspension design, aerodynamics; all are pretty woeful by modern standards, if we're honest with ourselves.
[/quote]
But the CSR addressed stiffness and suspension design quite well, and made minor aero improvements but hasn't sold and showed no speed advantage.
Carbon fibre is the only way to make significant chassis weight savings but is too expensive.
Bike engines could save weight but have serious installation supply and cost issues.
And the aero 7? Stillborn? I still think aerodynamics are the answer but producing low drag without adding weight will be difficult.
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff