Ultimate Seven Product
Discussion
bcr5784 said:
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.
I'd suggest that your thinking - like Caterham's - is far too conservative. We're talking about something sufficiently exciting to make Caterham's Engineers 'giddy', remember. When was the last time you met a 'giddy' Engineer? 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.
- The CSR was certainly a step forward in suspension design (though still quite conservative, compared to the stuff you'll see if you walk any Hillclimb paddock in the UK), but the spaceframe remains as limp as boiled spaghetti compared to any modern unitary construction production car, or to something like the Elise's extruded aluminium tub.
- There are ways of doing CF that are not excessively expensive. Westfield is developing one; Ginetta another; I'm working on a third. Caterham is being left behind.
- There are other engine solutions, both bike-derived and otherwise (look at the AEI rotary that I mentioned previously; or you might want to check out the latest snowmobile and jetski engines). Installation issues have been overcome by amateur builders, so shouldn't really challenge a company like Caterham. Cost issues... well, I know what we've just paid for a supercharged Duratec similar to 620R specification on a project I'm working on, so let's just say that's the least of your worries.
- The car the Seven was based on (the Eleven came first, not the other way around), was supremely low drag with negligible weight disadvantage. The only reason the Seven exists is that in the 1950's fibre composites were in their infancy and the Eleven's curvy bodywork was too expensive for IE's ('Impecunious Enthusiasts'), as they were called at the time, so Lotus saw a market in a 'budget' version. We no longer have that problem - there are cars (eg, the Sylva Phoenix) with low drag bodywork, which are both lighter than the Caterham and are selling at a much lower price point. In engineering terms, the only rationale and justification for the Seven evaporated long ago.
Which is why it is still alive and reasonably well. Shades of John Harvey Jones' prediction that Morgan needed radically to change . It didn't - but survived by evolution. Take Caterham out of its tiny and comfy niche and it cannot compete with the likes of Porsche and ...err..Porsche but keep it as a car which is increasingly at odds with most modern trends (ABS, PAS, EBD, TCS, turboes, semi auto boxes and the rest) and its USP grows ever larger. More aerodynamic ? What's the point- you then end up with a car which is designed to do speeds owners never , or very rarely ,achieve. (see also Veyron, every Aston Martin, Fezza etc )
coppice said:
...Morgan needed radically to change . It didn't - but survived by evolution.
I suggest that you look at Morgan's current line-up. Production of the 'traditional' cars makes up a relatively small fraction of their output, these days, and they're getting involved in some really quite exotic technologies... and prospering nicely as a result.coppice said:
..More aerodynamic ? What's the point
Better acceleration at the upper end of the speed range on public roads, and on tracks for track-day use.Also, since the Eleven was designed, we've learned to use aerodynamics to improve grip and high-speed stability, as welll as reduce drag.
But if you do reduce drag, you can achieve the same performance with a smaller, lighter engine; better economy (with potentially lower road tax), lower purchase cost, knock-on improvements due to reduced overall weight (better braking and handling).
The higher-spec Caterhams like the 620R are traction-limited at lower speeds... the only reason you 'need' a stupidly powerful (and stupidly expensive) engine is to overcome the drag to a sufficient degree to maintain acceleration in the upper speed ranges. There's a more intelligent approach waiting to be exploited, if only Caterham were brave enough and clever enough.
coppice said:
Which is why it is still alive and reasonably well. Shades of John Harvey Jones' prediction that Morgan needed radically to change . It didn't - but survived by evolution. Take Caterham out of its tiny and comfy niche and it cannot compete with the likes of Porsche and ...err..Porsche but keep it as a car which is increasingly at odds with most modern trends (ABS, PAS, EBD, TCS, turboes, semi auto boxes and the rest) and its USP grows ever larger. More aerodynamic ? What's the point- you then end up with a car which is designed to do speeds owners never , or very rarely ,achieve. (see also Veyron, every Aston Martin, Fezza etc )
Could not agree with this statement more, for me it's the back to simplicity that means it's just right, and the reason my car is called Goldilocks too, IE not too little, not too much, just right.Caterham even borrowed my Goldilocks phrase for the new Press Release about the 310 Model Launch, I wonder how that cam to happen?
nigelpugh7 said:
.. for me it's the back to simplicity that means it's just right,
Nothing stopping Caterham continuing to produce their traditional products for those that want them, of course (as Morgan do), and I agree that there's a 'sweet spot' on Seven-type cars at around 300bhp/ton.But read the thread title.
Equus said:
I suggest that you look at Morgan's current line-up. Production of the 'traditional' cars makes up a relatively small fraction of their output, these days, and they're getting involved in some really quite exotic technologies... and prospering nicely as a result.
That's simply not true though is it?On our recent tour of the factory the Morgan guys were extolling the virtues of how the classic Morgan Plus 4 was the greatest number of cars per year, closely followed by the new ( old ) three wheeler.
I know they have been using lots of wonderful new techniques in design and manufacturing, but the core of the business, which keeps the lights on, and keeps the brand alive is the classic models, and that's a good thing in my book.
I also seem to recal that Caterham volume numbers at about 500-600 cars per year is also a very similar number to Morgan's sales figures, there's a lot to be gleaned from market demand and sales influence there!
Equus said:
Nothing stopping Caterham continuing to produce their traditional products for those that want them, of course (as Morgan do), and I agree that there's a 'sweet spot' on Seven-type cars at around 300bhp/ton.
But read the thread title.
That's my point exactly, Cateham believe and I am inclined to agree with them, that the new 310 Model, is for them the " Ultimate Seven Product "But read the thread title.
Who's to say that the very definition means a car that's easier to build, and with a lower cost point for materials and manufacture, that means it's designed to sell in lager numbers, but also to increase operating margin for CC, which is needed to keep the company in better shape, the small volume and lower margin on cars like the 620R can never sustain a workforce cost base the size of Caterhams .
nigelpugh7 said:
That's simply not true though is it?
On our recent tour of the factory the Morgan guys were extolling the virtues of how the classic Morgan Plus 4 was the greatest number of cars per year, closely followed by the new ( old ) three wheeler.
That's not the story we were getting at the recent Niche Vehicle Networks symposium.On our recent tour of the factory the Morgan guys were extolling the virtues of how the classic Morgan Plus 4 was the greatest number of cars per year, closely followed by the new ( old ) three wheeler.
The new three wheeler (which is their current top seller by some margin, not the Plus 4) really is new; no sign of sliding pillar suspension or ladder frame chassis. It isn't even a Morgan design.
Actual numbers of cars are not the whole picture, of course. The Aero series cars may only represent about a 1/4-1/3 of the annual production, but are sold at a much higher price and therefore (presumaby) generate a much larger profit per unit.
But once again, I'd refer you to the thread title: feel free to go off and start a new thread, if you want to discuss the Most Average Seven Product or Most Traditional Seven Product.
bcr5784 said:
The BIG usp Caterham must Imo keep is small and in particular narrow. I'm not convinced radical is necessarily better - look at the lap times of formula fords - even Kent engined FF1600s are seriously quick cars.
Yep, small (and light) is good, rather than throwing ever more power at it. Though I guess we have to be realistic and acknowledge that since the average male is no longer 5'8" and of slight build, there's a place for SV and CSR sized cars in the range.Even Kent engined Formula Ford cars are considerably more sophisticated than Caterhams, though - much better aero, stifffer chassis, more advanced suspension. A 1960's Formula Ford (which is where Caterham are still at in terms of chassis technology, and behind in terms of aero) wouldn't see which way a current car went.
Equus said:
Yep, small (and light) is good, rather than throwing ever more power at it. Though I guess we have to be realistic and acknowledge that since the average male is no longer 5'8" and of slight build, there's a place for SV and CSR sized cars in the range.
Even Kent engined Formula Ford cars are considerably more sophisticated than Caterhams, though - much better aero, stifffer chassis, more advanced suspension. A 1960's Formula Ford (which is where Caterham are still at in terms of chassis technology, and behind in terms of aero) wouldn't see which way a current car went.
Accepting what you say about driver size I think you may be missing my point re FF1600. Even Kent engined Formula Ford cars are considerably more sophisticated than Caterhams, though - much better aero, stifffer chassis, more advanced suspension. A 1960's Formula Ford (which is where Caterham are still at in terms of chassis technology, and behind in terms of aero) wouldn't see which way a current car went.
Tiff Needell showed his 1989 Ff1600 was quicker round Hethel than an elise cup. So by today's standards an ff1600 is a fast car despite a 108bhp engine, chassis design and suspension fundamentally no more sophisticated than a CSR (arguably less) but as you say vastly better aero.
So my point is there is scope for significant improvements without getting radical. Caterham (unlike many rivals) produce cars in large enough numbers for commercial issues such as long term supply of engines to be serious issues.
The question is also not just what the Ultimate Seven Product looks like (and I agree it's not another parts bin variant), but what is it that will generate new sales. If they produce 600 cars a year (as they seem to have done for living memory) a new utlimate car needs to sell 50 or 100 to make commercial sense. I don't think they can do it and will have to stay the wonderful lifestyle business we know and (mostly) love!
Bert
Bert
bcr5784 said:
Tiff Needell showed his 1989 Ff1600 was quicker round Hethel than an elise cup... but as you say vastly better aero.
Also half the weight, less than half the frontal area, and a much lower CoG.It's never going to be realistic or productive to compare a race single-seater with a two seat road car that's practical enough for everyday use.
bcr5784 said:
So my point is there is scope for significant improvements without getting radical.
I don't think that there is... it's simply not practicable to gain the same level of advantage with a 2-seater road car - even a very extreme one - without upping your game on the technology.We've pushed steel spaceframes about as far as it's possible to go (notwithstanding Caterham's current attempts to flog the dead horse a bit further with butted tube technology), and they're always going to have a relatively poor stiffness:weight ratio, compared to more sophisticated structures. The Seven's is always going to be particularly mediocre, due to the impossibility of providing adequate bracing around the cockpit bay, without the ability to use wide, 3D triangulation of the sill sections.
About the closest direct comparison to a FF for the road was the (deliberately retro) LCC Rocket. Still with a spaceframe, but with a 170bhp bike engine, it weighed not that much less, and wasn't that much quicker, than a conventional 2-seat Seven-style kit car.
So if we accept the Rocket as the road legal FF equivalent of Caterham technology, this would be the road legal equivalent of the more radical approach:
Quite aside from the more sophisticated suspension and aero, it was about 50 kilos (that's about 15%) lighter than the Rocket, and it's a fair bet that it was a multiple stiffer, too.
Edited by Equus on Friday 12th August 15:04
BertBert said:
I don't think they can do it ...
Neither did Lotus themselves, with the Elise, yet it saved and transformed the company.Actually, with Caterham I agree with you: they've never been much good at innovative engineering.
But that being the case, I think that they will gradually wither and die as the range of choice from companies like Lotus, Zenos, Elemental, BAC and others expands and moves the world on around them.
Equus said:
I'd suggest that your thinking - like Caterham's - is far too conservative. We're talking about something sufficiently exciting to make Caterham's Engineers 'giddy', remember. When was the last time you met a 'giddy' Engineer?
Nice summation Equus.- The CSR was certainly a step forward in suspension design (though still quite conservative, compared to the stuff you'll see if you walk any Hillclimb paddock in the UK), but the spaceframe remains as limp as boiled spaghetti compared to any modern unitary construction production car, or to something like the Elise's extruded aluminium tub.
- There are ways of doing CF that are not excessively expensive. Westfield is developing one; Ginetta another; I'm working on a third. Caterham is being left behind.
- There are other engine solutions, both bike-derived and otherwise (look at the AEI rotary that I mentioned previously; or you might want to check out the latest snowmobile and jetski engines). Installation issues have been overcome by amateur builders, so shouldn't really challenge a company like Caterham. Cost issues... well, I know what we've just paid for a supercharged Duratec similar to 620R specification on a project I'm working on, so let's just say that's the least of your worries.
- The car the Seven was based on (the Eleven came first, not the other way around), was supremely low drag with negligible weight disadvantage. The only reason the Seven exists is that in the 1950's fibre composites were in their infancy and the Eleven's curvy bodywork was too expensive for IE's ('Impecunious Enthusiasts'), as they were called at the time, so Lotus saw a market in a 'budget' version. We no longer have that problem - there are cars (eg, the Sylva Phoenix) with low drag bodywork, which are both lighter than the Caterham and are selling at a much lower price point. In engineering terms, the only rationale and justification for the Seven evaporated long ago.
IMO Some issue arises from in what terms you discuss the word "Ultimate" most it would seem are assuming making the most Seven Seven possible... if that makes sense- hence all the debate about Carbon, engines, weight and performance, arguably for Caterham Ultimate might mean easy to make, profitable and successful?
While they have undoubtedly done impressive things with the 7 I have always thought the poor 21 was the most inspired piece of work, take what you know works and fix what you can't easily alter (lets not be daft, its very hard to make the 7 body aerodynamic!) I can understand why some elitests don't like it but I think its a great looking car, it just didn't quiet arrive at the right time. Had it had an SV base chassis and a tiny bit more "normal" about it they might not have been able to make them fast enough.
IMO The Ultimate embodiment of the 7 that Caterham have made are the Superlights, low weight, low power and simple, perhaps a Superlight with a simple bike engine would be even more Ultimate?
scubadude said:
IMO The Ultimate embodiment of the 7 that Caterham have made are the Superlights, low weight, low power and simple...
Yes, I couldn't argue with that.Trouble is, they seem to have peaked (IMO) with the K-series superlights and now seem to be drifting toward heavier, less pure (albeit more powerful) incarnations.
scubadude said:
...arguably for Caterham Ultimate might mean easy to make, profitable and successful?
If they were really clever, then more advanced chassis technology needn't necessarily mean more difficult or less profitable.Heavily triangulated spaceframes are actually very expensive things to manufacture, due to the amount of skilled manhours required. Ironically, the latest Caterham innovation - butted tubes - makes that situation worse, not better.
Gordon Murray's iStream process of a very simple, untriangulated spaceframe, panelised with composite sandwich panels, Zenos' hybrid aluminium backbone/composite platform, Ginetta's Niche Vehicle Composite Tub (using simple, shallow-draught composite panels to form a bonded structure) or even Lotus' bonded extruded aluminium structures show a variety of possible ways forward.
Equus said:
If they were really clever, then more advanced chassis technology needn't necessarily mean more difficult or less profitable.
Heavily triangulated spaceframes are actually very expensive things to manufacture, due to the amount of skilled manhours required. Ironically, the latest Caterham innovation - butted tubes - makes that situation worse, not better.
Gordon Murray's iStream process of a very simple, untriangulated spaceframe, panelised with composite sandwich panels, Zenos' hybrid aluminium backbone/composite platform, Ginetta's Niche Vehicle Composite Tub (using simple, shallow-draught composite panels to form a bonded structure) or even Lotus' bonded extruded aluminium structures show a variety of possible ways forward.
You make a valid point about the cost of spaceframes. It's not clear that aluminium alternatives are cheaper or lighter though. Heavily triangulated spaceframes are actually very expensive things to manufacture, due to the amount of skilled manhours required. Ironically, the latest Caterham innovation - butted tubes - makes that situation worse, not better.
Gordon Murray's iStream process of a very simple, untriangulated spaceframe, panelised with composite sandwich panels, Zenos' hybrid aluminium backbone/composite platform, Ginetta's Niche Vehicle Composite Tub (using simple, shallow-draught composite panels to form a bonded structure) or even Lotus' bonded extruded aluminium structures show a variety of possible ways forward.
More rigidity hasn't translated into lap times with the 7
The CSR is twice as stiff as the 7 of the same vintage and, while full cages add a lot of stiffness but not laptime gains.
bcr5784 said:
You make a valid point about the cost of spaceframes. It's not clear that aluminium alternatives are cheaper or lighter though.
More rigidity hasn't translated into lap times with the 7
The CSR is twice as stiff as the 7 of the same vintage and, while full cages add a lot of stiffness but not laptime gains.
The Elise chassis is pretty much identical in weight to the Caterham spaceframe (lighter by about 4kg, I think), and the retail price for a replacement chassis appears to be near-as-makes-no-difference the same (Elise chassis is a mere £75 cheaper, from a quick Google - still, £75 per car on 600 cars per year would pay someone's wages).More rigidity hasn't translated into lap times with the 7
The CSR is twice as stiff as the 7 of the same vintage and, while full cages add a lot of stiffness but not laptime gains.
I accept that the designs are not directly comparable, of course, but that suggests you might be looking for about the same weight advantage as Caterham's butted tube chassis (for which they were suggesting a £1K-£2K premium on cost, don't forget), and about three times the stiffness, with no price premium. With a lighter car overall, like the Caterham, though, you might be able to reduce the size/thickness of the aluminium extrusions to gain a bigger weight advantage.
As an interesting comparison, Pilbeam had a carbon fibre direct replacement for the Elise chassis designed that saved approximately another 26kg (though they didn't declare the stiffness, so I don't know how much better it was in that respect, and doubtless the price was a bit scary as it was a conventional pre-preg tub). As I said, there are cheaper ways to do CF than a conventional pre-preg tub, though.
Where are you getting the stiffness figures from for the CSR, by the way (and what absolute figures do you have for the standard and CSR chassis)?
I'm working on circa. 2,500lb.ft/degree for the standard chassis, fully panelled but uncaged, but the best information I have is that the CSR whilst better, isn't anything like twice as stiff as the standard item.. the figures I've heard quoted by the company suggest 'only' a 25% improvement.
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff