CATERHAM V'S WESTFIELD

[Murph7355]

Sam_68 said:

...
You are correct in thinking it didn't meet its design targets, though. They were aiming for 400 kilos. I understand that mine was the lightest (it's the only one with full carbon fibre bodywork as well as the carbon tub), and it weighs 420kg with fluids. There are a still few obvious areas to reduce weight, though - the seats are the most glaring, being quite heavy, padded fibreglass items with an adjustable steel subframe (adjustable seats were fitted because it was the press demonstrator, of course). I'm looking at fitting Reverie carbon seats with no subframes, which ought to save 5 or 6 kilos, straight off. Some of the bracketry is a bit 'blacksmith's job', too, it has to be said, so that will be refined over time.

Bit of a shame really. Some high tech then spoiling the ship for a ha'peth o tar etc.

Just goes to show how hard it would be to get a car properly lighter.

Does it run Dymags? And I guess it could run BEC gear to get the weight down. But getting it to much below 400kg would be a challenge it would seem.

This is what I'd like to see from a Westfield or Caterham or Sylva or whomever. Forget how to squeeze power out of Duratecs etc (which by all accounts doesn't sound that challenging). Let's see how far Chapman's philosophy can be taken. Be good to see if they can get it down to say 350kg or so (I think a CBR600 weighs around 150kg, so double that and a bit).

[Sam_68]

Murph7355 said:

Bit of a shame really. Some high tech then spoiling the ship for a ha'peth o tar etc.

Yes. AutoCar magazine said much the same. 95% of it is very nice indeed, then you get a Jubilee clip around the anti-roll bar for transverse location, or a flattened tube with a hole drilled through it as a part of the lamp mounting bracket. I'll sort the bits that get on my nerves in dues course, though.

Murph7355 said:

Does it run Dymags?

It runs custom-designed 3-stud split-rims manufactured by Image Wheels. I haven't weighed them, but they are very light (I've got a spare set with no tyres on them at the moment... slicks are planned, for the track days that allow them).

Murph7355 said:

And I guess it could run BEC gear to get the weight down. But getting it to much below 400kg would be a challenge it would seem.

BEC would take it below 400kg straight away, no problem, but to be honest, one of the reasons I bought it was that I'm not a big fan of BEC's. The ultra-short gearing and manic revs wind me up too much. For all it's faults as a road car (the dog box isn't the most friendly thing in traffic...), the light weight coupled to the 1800 K-series means that it's absurdly tractable. You could get away with just sticking it in 4th and slipping the clutch away from standstill for any speed range between 0 and 120.

Murph7355 said:

This is what I'd like to see from a Westfield or Caterham or Sylva or whomever. Forget how to squeeze power out of Duratecs etc (which by all accounts doesn't sound that challenging). Let's see how far Chapman's philosophy can be taken. Be good to see if they can get it down to say 350kg or so (I think a CBR600 weighs around 150kg, so double that and a bit).

Agreed. Light weight is a better way forward than high power, but one of the problems with both the FW400 and the Caterham SL's (to come slightly back on topic!) is that as you get to very low weights, the ratio of unsprung mass to sprung mass becomes increasingly unfavourable so you have to start stiffening the suspension to the point where ride and grip on less-than-perfect tarmac bcomes compromised... that's one of the limitations of the 'proper' Caterham in that no matter how you try, the de Dion is always going to be a big lump of unsprung mass and you need stiffer springs and dampers than would otherwise be desirable on such a light car, to control it.

I'm working on a design for a sub-300 kilo road car (albeit a single seater using a magnesium vee-twin engine), but one of the main problems I've got at the moment is development of some very trick suspension to keep unsprung weight in check ... and I'm going against current fashion by fitting quite narrow tyres on 13" wheels, for the same reason.

[Murph7355]

Sam_68 said:

...
I'm working on a design for a sub-300 kilo road car (albeit a single seater using a magnesium vee-twin engine), but one of the main problems I've got at the moment is development of some very trick suspension to keep unsprung weight in check ... and I'm going against current fashion by fitting quite narrow tyres on 13" wheels, for the same reason.

Sounds interesting.

Why only single seat? If it's got 4 wheels and a sensible track, one would have thought fitting 2 seats in wouldn't add to the weight really (seat aside, which could be removable).

On unsprung mass, aren't there some "straightforward" tricks that could be employed? Inboard discs, much lighter discs and calipers (as weight diminishes, the need for hefty items goes down too), trick dampers. Surely the hub assemblies could be designed much lighter if not relying on current production parts?

How much do bike wheels and tyres weigh in comparison to those from a car?

Interesting stuff. Have you got a thread elsewhere on it? Or a website (please just not the Westfield Owner's Club one though. Wouldn't want to become unclean ).

Edited by Murph7355 on Saturday 12th April 00:02

[sam919]

Check out youtubes video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6hjM1VrElE

Thats a mighty quick westfield!.

I race a caterham bacause i bought it from a guy who was getting good results with it, it could have been a striker, a westie, a golf cart for all i cared. It done and does the damage.

[Sam_68]

Murph7355 said:

Why only single seat?

The main structure will be basically a fibre composite 'copy' of an old 1960's (pre-Lotus 49) style F1 monocoque; I can't stress the engine, so it will have 'booms' projecting beyond the rear cockpit bulkhead to take the rear suspension loads. So widening the tub and bodywork to incorporate a second seat would add quite significantly to the overall weight and complexity. Plus, I have other cars for scaring the girlfriend in, so this one will just be an intellectual exercise and a selfish toy.

Murph7355 said:

On unsprung mass, aren't there some "straightforward" tricks that could be employed? Inboard discs, much lighter discs and calipers (as weight diminishes, the need for hefty items goes down too), trick dampers. Surely the hub assemblies could be designed much lighter if not relying on current production parts?

Yep... got all that. Inboard single disc at the rear (spool to get through SVA, then fit a LSD), and as you say, calipers and discs can be downsized for such light weight. The dampers are very trick indeed... custom designed from scratch and not resembling conventional coilovers at all. Springs are rubber, for weight again, and accurately matching the rising-rate and relatively high leverages of the springs to the damper movement is the main current headache that's slowing progress to a crawl.

I'm trying to get a suspension that's as 'supple' as the one on my Elan (which many people think is way too soft - compared to something like a Caterfield - but which I personally find really effective on the bumpy, cambered country lanes around where I live), but getting a suspension that's that softly sprung whilst maintaining decent damping, on something less than half the weight of the Elan is a challenge...

Murph7355 said:

How much do bike wheels and tyres weigh in comparison to those from a car?

Dunno. I haven't explored that route, I must admit; I sort of took the view that (a) they are larger diameter, therefore any gain in unsprung weight would be partly balanced out by rotational inertia and; (b) they are obviously designed to grip where loads are always nearly perpendicular to the axle, whereas cars generate loads parallel to the axle. Basically, I've got enough problems with the suspension, without having to figure out how to make bike tyres work!

Murph7355 said:

Interesting stuff. Have you got a thread elsewhere on it? Or a website (please just not the Westfield Owner's Club one though. Wouldn't want to become unclean ).

I've discussed it on one or two other threads on PistonHeads, but only to the above level of detail, and I'm damned if I can remember topics or which forum they are in. All the design work is in AutoCAD, so I may well 'publish' it on the net when I'm done, but there will be at least 3 patents resulting from the suspension design and I'm not ready to go public yet.

Since PistonHead's new rules claim intellectual rights to anything posted on here, the one thing you can be sure of is that I won't be publishing anything interesting hereabouts!

Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 12th April 00:37

[MarchHare]

Sam_68 said:

the one thing you can be sure of is that I won't be publishing anything interesting hereabouts!

so far, so good

[rubystone]

Sam_68 said:

Since PistonHead's new rules claim intellectual rights to anything posted on here, the one thing you can be sure of is that I won't be publishing anything interesting hereabouts!

Sam, can you point me in the direction of that rule? Clearly that's going to be quite restrictive!...

Thanks

[Sam_68]

rubystone said:

Sam, can you point me in the direction of that rule? Clearly that's going to be quite restrictive!...

extracts from Terms and Conditions said:

Copyright

Copyright in PistonHeads (including but not limited to text, photographs, graphics and software) is owned by or licensed to the publishers, Haymarket Consumer Media. All rights are hereby reserved by Haymarket Consumer Media.

Our Content

Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, all of the content on this site is the property of PistonHeads.com or has been licensed for use by PistonHeads.com and is protected by UK and international copyright laws. "Content" means any information, mode of expression, or other material and services found on PistonHeads.com. This includes discussion boards, chat, software, our writings, graphics and any and all other features found on this website.

All content of this website including but not limited to the text, photographs, images, graphics, illustrations, designs, written and other material including the program and code that operates this website (together the 'content') is protected by copyright, trade mark and/or other proprietary rights owned by or licensed to us.

There have been several discussions on other forums, but the possible implication seems to be that when you agreed to abide by the terms and conditions, you accepted that you licenced or assigned rights to any information you post to Haymarket Consumer Media. My understanding is that the 'all rights reserved' bit means they can quote you, or use your photos or other posted content, in any of their publications in any way they see fit.

In practice, I wouldn't necessarily be worried about Haymarket, but by assigning your intellectual rights to them you would, potentially, massively complicate the process of defending against infringement by 3rd parties.

[Noger]

Sam_68 said:

Noger said:

Ppttaaa!!

Hark! Above the induction roar and the scream of straight cut gears, I hear the noise of a dummy being spat!

If you can't take a wind up, Nodge, ol' buddy, you shouldn't try to dish 'em out!

No, it was a polite request, rather than a dummy spit. More of "I am taking my bat home is you can't play nicely"

I think most people would see the difference between some car related wind ups and being offensive about something entirely unrelated.

Anyway, back to cars without the unrealted personal insults, or have you had enough

Edited by Noger on Saturday 12th April 11:22

[Pat H]

Sam_68 said:

The changes have been so numerous, and the design principles of 'Seven' type cars are now so well known, that the Caterham feels no more like the Lotus Seven than any of the other 'Seven' type cars on the market, these days. Indeed, as I've said earlier on this thread, the closest currently available car to the early Lotus Seven in terms of chassis behaviour that I've come across is the Westfield Eleven.

I agree.

I bought an aluminium bodied Westfield Seven way back in 1985 and it was a damn sight closer to a S3 Lotus Seven in design and appearance than anything Caterham currently sells.



I have to confess that I am not interested in absolute performance. If I was, I'm sure that I wouldn't buy either a Caterham or a Westfield.

What has driven me to own the Westfield and, since then, a couple of Caterham Sevens, is a desire to own a S3 Lotus Seven.

And whilst the Caterham is more directly descended from the S3 Lotus Seven, it has also been improved so much that it is now only a distant relative of the original.

Wide track suspension, carbon fibre, cycle wings, fuel injection, catalysts, extra frame tubes, metric chassis, etc etc. They even have the exhaust down the wrong side these days. Whether these things are good or bad rather depends upon what you are looking for in your Seven.

I have to say that I am underwhelmed by the styling and the fibreglass panels of all Westfields built since about 1987. But the chassis is well made and the quality of the build, the finish and the dynamics is very much down to the person who puts the car together.

If you want to see how nicely finished a Westfield can be, then look no further than their current Eleven demonstrator, which is a wonderful car, and is pretty much as well constructed and finished as the Caterham I knocked together a few years ago.

But there is much more scope to get it horribly wrong with a Westfield, in much the same way as there is less scope to put a bit of individuality into a Caterham.

At the end of the day, the Westfield v Caterham argument is a bit daft, as the basic dynamics are so similar.

Which is the better performance car is down to the perseverence and skill of the builder if you are a Westfield owner, or the size of your wallet if you are a Caterham man.

I have just bought an early Caterham to restore, but it could just as easily have been a Westfield Eleven. The only thing that stopped me buying the Eleven was the prospect and hassle involved in getting the thing through an SVA test.

[rubystone]

Sam_68 said:

rubystone said:

Sam, can you point me in the direction of that rule? Clearly that's going to be quite restrictive!...

extracts from Terms and Conditions said:

Copyright

Copyright in PistonHeads (including but not limited to text, photographs, graphics and software) is owned by or licensed to the publishers, Haymarket Consumer Media. All rights are hereby reserved by Haymarket Consumer Media.

Our Content

Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, all of the content on this site is the property of PistonHeads.com or has been licensed for use by PistonHeads.com and is protected by UK and international copyright laws. "Content" means any information, mode of expression, or other material and services found on PistonHeads.com. This includes discussion boards, chat, software, our writings, graphics and any and all other features found on this website.

All content of this website including but not limited to the text, photographs, images, graphics, illustrations, designs, written and other material including the program and code that operates this website (together the 'content') is protected by copyright, trade mark and/or other proprietary rights owned by or licensed to us.

There have been several discussions on other forums, but the possible implication seems to be that when you agreed to abide by the terms and conditions, you accepted that you licenced or assigned rights to any information you post to Haymarket Consumer Media. My understanding is that the 'all rights reserved' bit means they can quote you, or use your photos or other posted content, in any of their publications in any way they see fit.

In practice, I wouldn't necessarily be worried about Haymarket, but by assigning your intellectual rights to them you would, potentially, massively complicate the process of defending against infringement by 3rd parties.

Thanks - something well worth considering before posting.

Now back to the argument - not that I have anything to feed it with - I think Julian is very happy with the way things are going at Westfield

Edited by rubystone on Sunday 13th April 09:57

[sam919]

caterhams and westfeilds are all rubbish what you want is a dutton there quick as st and they look way smarter than a lotus 7. I heard there was a dutton pheaton with 400 bhp that weighed 250kg and handled like a F1 car with Shumacher driving it and was built for 20p.

[darth_pies]

Sam_68 said:

The point where the Caterham could lay any claim to being a Colin Chapman design was passed long ago.

Sorry but you're talking out of your my friend.
If you want to criticise Caterham and the modern Seven there are plenty of lines of argument you could use. Trying to deny the facts of the link to Lotus and Chapman is the most ridiculous load of b***ocks i've ever read on Pistonheads. A Caterham Seven is fundamentally the same car as a Lotus 7 whatever you think about how the two compare from behind the wheel. How many times do you need the concept of heritage described to you before you get it??!? HERITAGE IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING SOMETHING NEW IS IDENTICAL TO SOMETHING OLD.

And you're saying you're a JOURNALIST?!?!? FFS!

Sam_68 said:

Check your production figures.

Then bear in mind Caterham’s much bigger expenditure on advertising (funded by the fact that they hike their prices by selling to people who swallow the ‘heritage’ and ‘development’ claims hook, line and sinker). There’s no doubt that advertising (and lending ‘long term test’ cars to motoring hacks, and sending said hacks on jollies to Silverstone on a regular basis) pays dividends in terms of image and production figures, but it doesn’t do much for performance and it does nothing at all for your prices

Well maybe you're not the only person on here who knows this industry quite well. I know categorically that Westfield spend substantially more on advertising than Caterham. In fact i think its more than twice as much. Check your car mags over the last few years and see how many Westie ads you find versus Caterham ads. LOADS more. Fact.
Why? Because Westfield have a much less compelling product. That's why they are cheaper than a Seven and why they need to spend more on advertising.

And as for production figures, i think you'll find that the figures Westfield quote are more than a little optimistic and more about how many 'kits' they claim to sell, not SMMT registration figures of complete cars. Besides, Caterham don't pretend they can make more than 500 cars a year because they'll need a bigger factory. And that's 500 complete cars/kits, not a few bits to convert (ruin?) an MX5.

As for sending hacks on jollies, that just doesn't happen. Ok, a round of beers may get bought now and again and of course cars get loaned out constantly (its kind of a car industry minimum requirement!) But... if you think Caterham is flying journos out to spain for tapas and trackdays as part of some huge propaganda campaign to stop the 'truth' getting out that they aren't as good as everyone says they are.... then you're betraying a distinct lack of industry knowledge.

And here's another fact for you. Caterham has cars on the trackday fleets at Silverstone and all the Palmer/MSV circuits. These cars take a monumental amount of abuse. Speak to the guys who run these cars day in, day out and ask them why they don't use Westfields or Sylvas (or any other kit/replica). Its because they've tried it and they fell to bits, costing them an uneconomical amount to run. And if you think Caterham PAY to have those cars out in the field then you really are smoking something very strong buddy.

Sam_68 said:

Don’t get me wrong; I’ll happily admit that the Caterham is a better quality, better developed product. But it doesn’t offer the crushing superiority that some Caterham owners would like to think it does. And you pay heavily for that extra quality and development, because what you’re really funding – at least in part – is the PR to convince you that it’s better developed, not the development itself.

Once again, you make clear that you know nothing about Caterham or the industry you claim to write about. Caterham spend vastly more on engineering and development than PR and Marketing. In fact i know the guys at Caterham well enough to quote the approx. sums involved, but for obvious reasons i won't/can't.
How much do you think it costs to homologate cars for export markets? To crash test three different chassis types? To develop a range of Duratec and Sigma engines in partnership with Ford GB and deal with the demands of EU4/EU5 regs? Those are expensive things that contribute to the higher purchase cost of a Caterham. They also are why Caterhams are "a better quality, better developed product" as you say.

Of course there's a bit of money spent on Marketing and PR, but in ratio to turnover you will find very few businesses that spend less on these items that Caterham. Your local curry house probably spends more on advertising! Maybe Caterham's PR is better than Westfield's because they haven't built a business on stealing someone else's intellectual property (as proven in court)?

Your whole argument seems to be based around Caterham and the Seven being a load of hype. "Its not really got any heritage and all the motoring press are just towing the line and people only buy a Seven because they're fooled by marketing." Sorry, but its just not the case. Facts are everywhere to the contrary. Sure, you can argue that some Westies are faster or maybe you don't like some of the more eccentric Seven owners in the club, or maybe you just really can't stretch to the price of a real Seven, or perhaps you just for some reason prefer the looks of a Westfield (blindness?) All good reasons to buy a Westfield.

But you cannot deny that on most criteria relevant to a car buyer Caterhams are superior (crushingly so or otherwise) to the cheaper replicas... as evidenced by overwhelmingly positive press coverage over 4 decades. Oh hang on, you'd probably deny that the Pope is a catholic if it suited your argument. (and claim to work at the Vatican...)

And one more thing.......

See a Westfield in the Bedford lap times chart in the back of Evo? Oh, just the XI?....wonder why Westfield haven't given evo a 'hot' car to prove that they're as good as a Seven? If you really know the industry and car press you will know that Evo has some very big Westie advocates on the staff.
So why haven't Westfield or Sylva given Evo a car to test? Because they haven't got this mythical pot of gold that you think Caterham has to 'convince you its better developed' ?

Or perhaps its because Westfield and all their replica ilk are nothing more than hype and marketing?

[rubystone]

Hey Darth Pies (not DJ???) it's not all sweetness and light over at Csterham you know! Every day I speak to fellow 7 owners who are having issues with parts supply and mapping problems with their Sigmas or friends that had R400 kits delivered late and incomplete and people with upgrade kits that haven't been supplied with documentation...

You make an interesting point about why Evo haven't tested a Westfield at Bedford - it cannot possibly be for the lack of willingness from Westfield, especially, as you quite rightly note, they have friends at Evo (as do Caterham, as you well know).

As to Caterham's R & D - I am very sure that you know who is entrusted with that and does it strike you as a touch ironic that this individual - very, very capable and respected as he is, effectively showed Caterham the way with his work on S3 chassis and Duratecs way back in what, 2002?

FWIW I am sure that Caterham have a weather eye on Westfield, as well as Ariel, Lotus and last but very not least, LNT Automotive (Ginetta to you and I). That has nothing to do with "Heritage", but all to do with survival in the face of competition which is not only different but also very well developed and developing and also pushing into Caterham's market both her, but especially in Europe as a whole. I'm also watching what happens with Jez Coates' latest venture too.

[darth_pies]

rubystone said:

Hey Darth Pies (not DJ???) it's not all sweetness and light over at Csterham you know! Every day I speak to fellow 7 owners who are having issues with parts supply and mapping problems with their Sigmas or friends that had R400 kits delivered late and incomplete and people with upgrade kits that haven't been supplied with documentation...

You make an interesting point about why Evo haven't tested a Westfield at Bedford - it cannot possibly be for the lack of willingness from Westfield, especially, as you quite rightly note, they have friends at Evo (as do Caterham, as you well know).

As to Caterham's R & D - I am very sure that you know who is entrusted with that and does it strike you as a touch ironic that this individual - very, very capable and respected as he is, effectively showed Caterham the way with his work on S3 chassis and Duratecs way back in what, 2002?

FWIW I am sure that Caterham have a weather eye on Westfield, as well as Ariel, Lotus and last but very not least, LNT Automotive (Ginetta to you and I). That has nothing to do with "Heritage", but all to do with survival in the face of competition which is not only different but also very well developed and developing and also pushing into Caterham's market both her, but especially in Europe as a whole. I'm also watching what happens with Jez Coates' latest venture too.

Of course its not all sweetness and light. They make all kinds wrong turns and bad decisions like any small company. I probably only hear about half of them. I absolutely am not saying that Caterham or its cars are perfect. Agree with most (but not all) of your points above.

My objection is to our friend Sam's line of reasoning. I just get so tired of people trotting out the "its all just marketing" line when it comes to why Caterhams are more expensive. Its because most of the time for most people they are a better car. Not always and not for everyone. But mostly.

Ok, enough. Given i don't even own one of the damn things at the moment i will shut up.

[Martin Keene]

darth_pies said:

How much do you think it costs to homologate cars for export markets? To crash test three different chassis types? To develop a range of Duratec and Sigma engines in partnership with Ford GB and deal with the demands of EU4/EU5 regs? Those are expensive things that contribute to the higher purchase cost of a Caterham. They also are why Caterhams are "a better quality, better developed product" as you say.

Sir, you appear to have been swallowed up by Caterham's marketing machine. If you believe the Cosworth Duratec's were developed and payed for by Caterham, then so be it. However, I know, from a Cosworth employee, that they were developed, and funded, by the USA Focus tuning market. Which, however you choose to cut it, is a far bigger market than Caterham's in the UK.

You might also be interested to know that Westfield are also Homologated for most export markets, apart from the US.

Also I have a question for you. If Caterham's developement is that much superior to Westfield's, why did it take them another ~15 years to come up with a fully independant rear suspension after Westfield did?

[rubystone]

darth_pies said:

My objection is to our friend Sam's line of reasoning. I just get so tired of people trotting out the "its all just marketing" line when it comes to why Caterhams are more expensive.

I rejoice that cars of these types are still being made. There's a place for all of them out there, from a home-built Locost to an RS Performance Levante. I've enjoyed some great blats with Westfields, Tigers and Daxes.

[Murph7355]

Martin Keene said:

...
Also I have a question for you. If Caterham's developement is that much superior to Westfield's, why did it take them another ~15 years to come up with a fully independant rear suspension after Westfield did?

Does IRS make a car intrinsically "better"?

[RobM77]

Murph7355 said:

Martin Keene said:

...
Also I have a question for you. If Caterham's developement is that much superior to Westfield's, why did it take them another ~15 years to come up with a fully independant rear suspension after Westfield did?

Does IRS make a car intrinsically "better"?

The De Dion rear worked. You can see that by the mixed success the CSR has had. Many customers still prefer the original De Dion car.

[fw500]

Didn't the MD of Caterham write an article a short while ago critisizing Caterham owners that had anything positive to say about Westfields? Claiming it was some kind of breach of brand loyalty? Westfield management must have been chuckling in their boardroom at that - you can't pay for that sort of publicity!

Edited by fw500 on Monday 14th April 10:46