CATERHAM V'S WESTFIELD

[Noger]

By same base, I take it you mean the Lotus S3 ? (if we ignore the fact that Caterham Cars started with the S4, and went back to the S3).

Audi > VW > Skoda because of the costs involved in each. Audi win Le Mans. And have the R8 and the RS4 and the Quattro.

Caterham is a "bigger" brand than Westfield, or any of the others. Whether you (plural) choose to buy into that brand is your choice. Of course simply limiting your down-branding to cars, when I am going to bet your life is littered with brand choices, is fairly narrow minded.

Caterham appear regularly in Car magazines and Sunday Supplements. That costs. Those Caterhams doing donuts at the TopGear MPH event, that costs. Caterham Academy, Grads, SuperGrads, EuroCup. I have a desktop background of Ricardo Zonta driving a Lucky Strike liveried Caterham Fireblade. All this costs money. And for a small company producing cars not that different from what they did 25 years ago, their PR dept. do quite well ! IMHO Atom are doing a similar thing, they get regular mentions.

Anyhoo, off to Lloyd's for the launch of the new R500.

Edited by Noger on Tuesday 8th April 12:18

[RobM77]

I don't really care for branding, I just go on the mechanicals of a car: how it drives. I couldn't care a less what "brand" it is. I'm the same with anything in life - TVs, shoes, clothes, hi-fi, toasters etc. I just do my research and buy the best I can afford. Caterham are universally acclaimed as the best car of that ilk.

Caterham's marketing is in proportion I think. A company like Ariel may get in the press as well, but don't forget just how popular Caterham are. I think they're the most raced car in the world by quite a long way.

[Sam_68]

RobM77 said:

A Westfield is a kit car designed to look like a Caterham

Actually, they are both just kit cars intended to trade on the image generated by the Lotus Seven, but to move the game on from the original Lotus in technical terms.

RobM77 said:

..check out Mark Hales' unbiased review in Circuit Driver. It's unbiased because he doesn't like "Caterfields" as he calls them. The Caterham was the least powerful by far, yet was 2 seconds a lap faster than the next fastest car. It was also much better to drive.

I've owned both Caterhams and Westfields... I'd agree that the Caterham is a nicer car to drive on the track than the standard SEi Westfield (though my Westfield is better than the Caterham, on the track, so you could say that the ultimate track 'Seven' is still a Westfield). And a well set-up Sylva is better than either.

The Westfield SEi is actually a better car to drive on the road than either the Caterham or the FW400, though... the two environments place very different demands on a car's suspension; the beam axle on the Caterham is better on a smooth circuit, the fairly compliant independent suspension on the Westfield SEi is better when you have to deal with potholes, patched tarmac and manhole covers.

The one area where the Caterham is a little better than the standard Westfield SEi for road use is steering feel - at least with car engined Westfields; I don't know if the same is true for the bike engined Westfields that have less weight on their front wheels.

[atom-ick]

Sam_68 said:

RobM77 said:

A Westfield is a kit car designed to look like a Caterham

Actually, they are both just kit cars intended to trade on the image generated by the Lotus Seven, but to move the game on from the original Lotus in technical terms.

RobM77 said:

..check out Mark Hales' unbiased review in Circuit Driver. It's unbiased because he doesn't like "Caterfields" as he calls them. The Caterham was the least powerful by far, yet was 2 seconds a lap faster than the next fastest car. It was also much better to drive.

I've owned both Caterhams and Westfields... I'd agree that the Caterham is a nicer car to drive on the track than the standard SEi Westfield (though my Westfield is better than the Caterham, on the track, so you could say that the ultimate track 'Seven' is still a Westfield). And a well set-up Sylva is better than either.

The Westfield SEi is actually a better car to drive on the road than either the Caterham or the FW400, though... the two environments place very different demands on a car's suspension; the beam axle on the Caterham is better on a smooth circuit, the fairly compliant independent suspension on the Westfield SEi is better when you have to deal with potholes, patched tarmac and manhole covers.

The one area where the Caterham is a little better than the standard Westfield SEi for road use is steering feel - at least with car engined Westfields; I don't know if the same is true for the bike engined Westfields that have less weight on their front wheels.

I couldn't disagree more. I too have owned both Westfields and Caterhams and in my experience the Caterhams have been superior in every way.

I said this earlier on, and i believe it to be true - deep down anyone who owns a Westfield feels a need to defend their choice and rubbish Caterhams as being overpriced and no better. However, deep down they know in their heart of hearts that if they could afford it they would buy a Caterham in the blink of an eye because it is the real deal, better in every way and accepted as a "real" production car.

I know this because this is what happened to me and i know of several other Caterham owners who went through the same maturing process.

Westfields and all the other seven style cars can be good, but usually with many, many hours of set up and even then (as mark hayles proved) a Caterham is quicker straight out of the box. Another example of this is the EVO bedford lap times. There is a dax rush with a 400bhp turbo nutter motor in it and all kinds of trick suspension that set a blisteringly fast time. If i remember rightly the owner has spent circa £40k over several years developing the car, but it was still slower than a Caterham CSR superlight and an Atom that were both seriously down on power (and bhp/tonne) in comparison. The guy could have just saved a few years of his life and bought a car that is quicker straight out of the box and not only would he have saved money on buying the car but the car would still be valuable and re-sellable to someone without an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of a one off car that has the reliability of a circa 1980's alfa.

Everyone is of course entitled to an opinion and people are passionate about cars in general, let alone one that they have built with their bare hands but still it cannot be denied that even with a big budget of an investment group behind them Westfield (or any other copy cat seven producing company) just cannot offer the same level of quality, handling, residuals, looks, prestige or imagination that Caterham have done for years.

What's more, Westfield themselves have near enough admitted this by their constant mimicking of Caterham's designs, strategies and marketing techniques. Surely if Caterham's are good enough for Westfield themselves to copy and base their business on then they are good enough to be acknowledged by Westfield owners as pretty darn good?

Just my opinion (it is a slow day at work!), but why can't people just accept that you get what you pay for. At the end of the day i am sure you will have some fun in whatever you buy, but rubbishing Caterham's for being "overpriced" or for not handling as well as a syliva striker that you have spent the last 2 years of your life setting up will not improve your experience one little bit. Stop trying to convince everyone (and yourselves) and just get out there and have some fun - life is too short.

Happy motoring one and all!

[RobM77]

Sam_68 said:

RobM77 said:

A Westfield is a kit car designed to look like a Caterham

Actually, they are both just kit cars intended to trade on the image generated by the Lotus Seven, but to move the game on from the original Lotus in technical terms.

That's not true. The Lotus 7 was always a kit car (in the true sense of the word); it was supplied by Lotus in component form to avoid purchase tax, as was the Elan. The Lotus 7 was mainly sold by Caterham Cars in Kent. Graham Nearn, the MD of CC, bought the rights to sell the car in 1973 from Colin Chapman. It was an official deal - the two guys drew up a contract, and Graham was given permission to continue building and selling the 7. The Westfield, on the other hand, is a copy of the 7 designed to be built as a kit car in the other sense of the word, i.e. from secondhand bits from other cars. It is a replica in the same way as a Stryker or a Dax Rush is.

Sam_68 said:

RobM77 said:

..check out Mark Hales' unbiased review in Circuit Driver. It's unbiased because he doesn't like "Caterfields" as he calls them. The Caterham was the least powerful by far, yet was 2 seconds a lap faster than the next fastest car. It was also much better to drive.

I've owned both Caterhams and Westfields... I'd agree that the Caterham is a nicer car to drive on the track than the standard SEi Westfield (though my Westfield is better than the Caterham, on the track, so you could say that the ultimate track 'Seven' is still a Westfield). And a well set-up Sylva is better than either.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. That's like saying that the best Cava is better than the worst champagne. That statement's true; but it doesn't follow that Cava is better than Champagne! Coming back to cars, one could also say that a well set up Vauxhall Astra drives better than a poorly set up Ferrari 355. Yes, if you bolt the right bits on the Astra and set the geo right it will outhandle a standard 355 with wobbly geo, but that's a daft and meaningless comparison.

Mark Hales' test was, rightly so, based on standard cars straight out of the factory in "as new" spec. It was a level playing field, upon which a Caterham is easily the best 7 type car out there.

[darth_pies]

RobM77 said:

Graham Nearn, the MD of CC, bought the rights to sell the car in 1973 from Colin Chapman. It was an official deal - the two guys drew up a contract, and Graham was given permission to continue building and selling the 7. The Westfield, on the other hand, is a copy of the 7 designed to be built as a kit car in the other sense of the word, i.e. from secondhand bits from other cars. It is a replica in the same way as a Stryker or a Dax Rush is.

...and in fact Caterham bought all the jigs and patterns from Lotus to continue production. Of course now all the parts of the Seven have been revised since it was a Lotus, but it is a direct evolution from the Lotus 7 S3, not what the kit car mags call a 'Lotus Seven inspired' car.

As we all know, Westfield's Chris Smith decided he didn't need to pay Lotus for the rights to produce the Seven and just started knocking out copies. Hence the infamous Caterham vs. Westfield court case which Westfield lost. That's why Westfields look like a Seven that's been beaten by an ugly stick....they had to change the design of their copies because of the ruling.

The Ariels, KTM's, Lotuses (!) and Radicals of this world seem to be able to produce great track/performance cars without ripping off someone else's intellectual property.....sad that so many of this kit manufacturers limit themselves to just that.

[RobM77]

darth_pies said:

RobM77 said:

Graham Nearn, the MD of CC, bought the rights to sell the car in 1973 from Colin Chapman. It was an official deal - the two guys drew up a contract, and Graham was given permission to continue building and selling the 7. The Westfield, on the other hand, is a copy of the 7 designed to be built as a kit car in the other sense of the word, i.e. from secondhand bits from other cars. It is a replica in the same way as a Stryker or a Dax Rush is.

...and in fact Caterham bought all the jigs and patterns from Lotus to continue production. Of course now all the parts of the Seven have been revised since it was a Lotus, but it is a direct evolution from the Lotus 7 S3, not what the kit car mags call a 'Lotus Seven inspired' car.

As we all know, Westfield's Chris Smith decided he didn't need to pay Lotus for the rights to produce the Seven and just started knocking out copies. Hence the infamous Caterham vs. Westfield court case which Westfield lost. That's why Westfields look like a Seven that's been beaten by an ugly stick....they had to change the design of their copies because of the ruling.

The Ariels, KTM's, Lotuses (!) and Radicals of this world seem to be able to produce great track/performance cars without ripping off someone else's intellectual property.....sad that so many of this kit manufacturers limit themselves to just that.

[fergus]

Who cares?

If you own a seven, you don't want to own a westfield (otherwise I'm guessing you'd have bought one) and vice versa. The cost differential is almost negligable.

Everyone is clearly going to defend their own choice of car. If you didn't, then surely it's akin to saying "I don't like what I'm driving"?

[RobM77]

fergus said:

Who cares?

If you own a seven, you don't want to own a westfield (otherwise I'm guessing you'd have bought one) and vice versa. The cost differential is almost negligable.

Everyone is clearly going to defend their own choice of car. If you didn't, then surely it's akin to saying "I don't like what I'm driving"?

I agree with that too.

[darth_pies]

fergus said:

Who cares?

If you own a seven, you don't want to own a westfield (otherwise I'm guessing you'd have bought one) and vice versa. The cost differential is almost negligable.

Everyone is clearly going to defend their own choice of car. If you didn't, then surely it's akin to saying "I don't like what I'm driving"?

Errr, because the original poster asked for an opinion on which is better?
He was probably just trolling though!

[Noger]

darth_pies said:

...and in fact Caterham bought all the jigs and patterns from Lotus to continue production. Of course now all the parts of the Seven have been revised since it was a Lotus, but it is a direct evolution from the Lotus 7 S3, not what the kit car mags call a 'Lotus Seven inspired' car.

Don't the jigs still live at Arch though ? Arch have been making the Seven Chassis since the Series Two IIRC and made the XIII well before that, when they were in fact under the arches in Tottenham.

Dunno that care that much either, but it does wind Westfield owners (no doubt from the WSCC) up enough to bother to register on another site just to have a whine

Q) What is the difference between a straight cut gearbox and a Westfield owner.

A) The gearbox will stop whining at some point

(sorry)

[Sam_68]

RobM77 said:

Sam_68 said:

Actually, they are both just kit cars intended to trade on the image generated by the Lotus Seven, but to move the game on from the original Lotus in technical terms.

That's not true. The Lotus 7 was always a kit car...

I know the history, thanks, and I've driven an original Lotus Seven, which is why I maintain that Caterham is just trading off the original legend like everyone else. The original Seven is has completely different driving characteristics to any current Caterham (it has a much softer, more progressive chassis set-up, different steering feel and a much less torsionally stiff chassis), so if you think the Caterham is in some way an 'original', then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself... it has been developed to the point where the driving experience is completely different and the engineering bears no resemblance to anything built by Lotus.

In fact, ironically, if you want to drive something close to the orignal Seven in terms of chassis dynamics, what you really need is a Westfield Eleven.

...and since you are obviously so keen on history, remember that Westfield's second car (after the Eleven) was a replica of the early Lotus Seven, which was a lot closer in both looks and driving characteristics to the 'original' than any Caterham has ever been!

The Caterham is just another Lotus Seven inspired kit car, though if it really means that much to you you can always tell yourself that it was derived from the original, in much the same way that the current generation of aristocratic chinless inbreds can claim direct line descendence from Richard the Lionheart.

RobM77 said:

Sam_68 said:

I've owned both Caterhams and Westfields... I'd agree that the Caterham is a nicer car to drive on the track than the standard SEi Westfield (though my Westfield is better than the Caterham, on the track, so you could say that the ultimate track 'Seven' is still a Westfield). And a well set-up Sylva is better than either.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. That's like saying that the best Cava is better than the worst champagne.

Not at all, just horses for courses. The current Caterham chassis and set-up is better suited to, track use than the Westfield, whereas the softer, proper independent set-up of the SEi is better suited to road use.

Have you driven the Sylva, Westfield SEi and Westfield FW400 on the track to compare against the Caterham? I have. If you haven't, exactly what are you basing your judgement on when you say I'm 'talking nonsense'?

You've obviously done a bit of race driving in your time... you should be well aware, then, that a 'proper' race car is a throroughly unpleasant device to drive on public roads. You should also know that all the journalistic hyperbole about 'closest thing you can get to a single seater for road use' is utter bks... driving a proper single seat race car in heavy traffic through the centre of Birmingham would be the closest you could get to hell on four wheels, so the closer something gets to the experience, the less pleasant it will be for general road use.

For use as a predominantly track car, I'd rather have a Caterham to a 'normal' Westfield (I was actually in the market for an R300 and would have bought one if it wasn't for the fact that I came across one of the handful of FW400's which is an even better track car than the Caterham and - for exactly the same reasons - an even worse road car when compared to the Westfield SEi). For predominantly road use, I'd rather have a relatively softly set-up fully independent suspension arrangement, which Caterham can't offer me.

I'm not at all anti-Caterham. I've owned one and I'll almost certainly buy another at some stage in the future. They are nice cars, and as a general rule they have a better build quality and finish than Westfield, so for that reason alone I have no problem with the extra cost ...and I'd be willing to balance the better build quality against the slightly worse road behaviour if I was considering a 'Seven' for mainly road use.

RobM77 said:

Mark Hales' test was, rightly so, based on standard cars straight out of the factory in "as new" spec. It was a level playing field, upon which a Caterham is easily the best 7 type car out there.

Mark Hales test was a track test and probably came to the right conclusion about the cars' relative merits on the track. Again, you're deluding yourself if you think there's something as clear cut as a 'best car out there', period. It depends on what use the car is put to and the individual preferences and priorities of the owner.

And as others have said, if the 'best car out there' for track use is really your priority, buy a Radical or (if you're on a budget) a Westfield XTR. Both will murder a Caterham around a circuit, all other things being equal.

Edited by Sam_68 on Tuesday 8th April 20:08

[Sam_68]

Noger said:

Don't the jigs still live at Arch though ? Arch have been making the Seven Chassis since the Series Two IIRC and made the XIII well before that, when they were in fact under the arches in Tottenham.

Arch no longer make the Caterham chassis. IIRC they are now manufactured by Caged. Just one more non-original aspect of the 'original', these days.

I think it's safe to say that Arch weren't responsible for the Lotus XIII, either.

[atom-ick]

Sam_68 said:

I know the history, thanks, and I've driven an original Lotus Seven, which is why I maintain that Caterham is just trading off the original legend like everyone else. The original Seven is has completely different driving characteristics to any current Caterham (it has a much softer, more progressive chassis set-up, different steering feel and a much less torsionally stiff chassis), so if you think the Caterham is in some way an 'original', then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself... it has been developed to the point where the driving experience is completely different and the engineering bears no resemblance to anything built by Lotus.

If i can make 2 observations here:

1. Why are you being so hostile? There is really no need to act like that - we are having a discussion. Several points in your post are very "matter of fact" and come across in an unpleasant way. If i have misunderstood your meaning i apologise, but lets all just calm down a bit.

2. Following your above quote, you could say that a 997 911 is trading off the original legend? An original 911 has completely different driving characteristics to the current range of cars, but funnily enough i think it is fair to say that if you went out and bought a 997 gt3 you are getting a more original product that if you went out and bought a classic Porsche replica such as a chesil. You are confusing originality and heritage with development. At the end of the day, if Caterham made a car that did have the exact driving characteristics of a Lotus seven they would be on here telling anyone who will listen how out of date the Caterham is.

you seem a little confused.

[Sam_68]

atom-ick said:

If i can make 2 observations here:

1. Why are you being so hostile? There is really no need to act like that - we are having a discussion. Several points in your post are very "matter of fact" and come across in an unpleasant way. If i have misunderstood your meaning i apologise, but lets all just calm down a bit.

Sorry, but I get a bit that way when someone who's probably not even driven the cars he's passing judgement on tells me I'm talking 'nonsense'.

I'm really not anti-Caterham. I like them. I like Westfields too. I'm not blinkered about the relative faults and merits of either though.

atom-ick said:

2. Following your above quote, you could say that a 997 911 is trading off the original legend?

Could? I would (and again, I've driven both cars). As you say, a 997 is a completely different driving experience to an early 911.

It is a great car in it's own right, but lets be honest, here, the only reason Porsche calls it a 911 and not a 997, is precisely because they know there is a marketing advantage in feeding off the 911 legend!

atom-ick said:

...i think it is fair to say that if you went out and bought a 997 gt3 you are getting a more original product that if you went out and bought a classic Porsche replica such as a chesil.

You'd be buying an original Porsche, certainly, but you'd be equally deluded if you thought you were buying a car that offered the qualities and driving experience that made the original 911 a legend.

The difference is that both cars are genuine Porsches.

A Caterham is not, and never can be, a genuine Lotus.
It can be a genuine Caterham, with qualities of its own, and you can have pride in that fact.

But a Westfield owner is equally entitled to have pride in his marques' history, qualities and (not inconsiderable) competition success in its own right.

...as is a Sylva owner, with possibly more justification than either, since Sylva has won more 'open' (as opposed to single make) Championships in proportion to the number of cars manufactured than either of them...

ETA: At risk of going off-topic, the Porsche analogy is an interesting one. While the 911 and 997 are very different cars, there are still tiny clues when you drive them that they share the same 'DNA'; for instance the typically 'bobbly' front end damping.

Similarly, I've driven Early Lotus' (Seven, Eleven, Elan, Plus 2 and Europa) and when you step into an Elise, there are similar tiny 'clues' to the Lotus DNA (primarily steering feel). Personally I didn't get those clues from the modern Caterham. I didn't get them from the 'standard' Westfield either, but interestingly the FW400's steering is very 'Lotus'-like... Coincidence, or something to do with the fact that it was designed by an ex-Lotus F1 chief designer? Perhaps there's some 'trade secret' to the Lotus steering geometry, known only to thier designers, that has been lost in the Caterham development process? Who knows...

atom-ick said:

you seem a little confused.

Not at all. On the contrary, I'm very clear about what the cars are... neither of them is an 'original' Lotus Seven, both of them are competent and desirable sports cars in their own right.

Edited by Sam_68 on Tuesday 8th April 20:10

Edited by Sam_68 on Tuesday 8th April 20:20

[atom-ick]

Sam_68 said:

Sorry, but I get a bit that way when someone who's probably not even driven the cars he's passing judgement on thinks tells me I'm 'talking nonsense'.

Erm, i have owned a Westfield SE, 3 Caterham's (still got one of them), an Atom and many other "driver's cars". Not everyone likes to partake in willy waving but since you bring it up, i too have driven both and original 911 and a 997 and in fact owned a 996 if your counting.

I have also driven a Sylva striker at the nurburgring of all places and it was terrible. In fact it belongs (don't know if they still have it) to the ringhaus hotel who rent "ringtools" - it was so bad that they had to have the chassis re-welded numerous times because of the bad build quality. Guess what they replaced it with? Yep, a Caterham.

Please don't think i want this to descend into a childish argument. I have been polite and civil and by your own admission you were a bit harsh and quick to judge everyone else's opinion as wrong. Maybe you should re-read your quote i have included above and consider that maybe people think this very same thing about you when you tell them their views are nonsense (but not everyone gets quite so passionate about it - you are obviously very into your cars!). Just because people don't shout it from the rooftops doesn't mean they can't have owned and experienced more cars than you.

i think we should all just take a step back and forget about the bickering and all agree to disagree. Variety is the spice of life after all and at the end of the day we are all into the same things but have different takes on it. I always remind a good friend of mine (who isn't into cars) that football is so stupid because football fans hate other football fans just for supporting a group of blokes who wear a different colour shirt. Let's not fall into the same trap!

Mick

[Sam_68]

atom-ick said:

Sam_68 said:

Sorry, but I get a bit that way when someone who's probably not even driven the cars he's passing judgement on thinks tells me I'm 'talking nonsense'.

Erm, i have owned a Westfield SE

My comment wasn't aimed at you; you didn't (so far as I noticed) suggest that I was talking nonsense.

atom-ick said:

...it was so bad that they had to have the chassis re-welded numerous times because of the bad build quality.

Yes, the Sylva chassis is a bit marginal if it gets a lot of hammer with track use and is prone to breakage. So was the original Lotus Seven, which is why Caterham have beefed it up so much. You could argue that the fact that it no longer breaks is yet another non-original feature!

As I said, all cars have their pros and cons. The Sylvas weakness (literally) is its chassis stressing, but if the one you drove didn't handle well then I can only suggest that it was either badly set-up or shagged (the chassis repairs seem to suggest the latter). In terms of pros and cons, though, the fact that a properly set-up Sylva will out-lap a similarly powered Caterham with ease for about 1/2 the cost is some compensation for the chassis weakness, surely?

atom-ick said:

I have been polite and civil and by your own admission you were a bit harsh and quick to judge everyone else's opinion as wrong.

I have been polite and civil also. And you have hardly been balanced in your arguments, either... you implied that I 'rubbished Caterhams because of their cost'. I did not... I have no problem with the fact that Caterhams cost more, but I am also realistic enough to know that the law of diminishing returns applies, and that the extra cost is not proportionate to the extra quality, and certainly not to the extra performance.

You also stated that Caterhams are 'better in every way', which is manifestly not true... they are certainly not better in terms of purchase costs, and I still firmly maintain that an SEi Westfield has a more compliant and manageable ride when faced with sub-standard tarmac (ie. most British roads) than the Caterham. The latter is an important benefit... in my experience the progress of a Caterham (and my FW400, which is similarly stiffly set-up) is too often limited on the country lanes that should be its natural environment by the fact that it gets very jittery if pushed at too fast a pace.

I noted your experience with Westfields... you are entitled to your opinion, and I did not dispute your post. I disputed RobM77's post, since he seems to be basing his wide knowledge of all 'Seven' type cars on a single magazine article and for some reason feels the need to make provocative ('kit car', 'cava vs. champagne') jibes without the experience to back it up.

[Noger]

Sam_68 said:

Arch no longer make the Caterham chassis. IIRC they are now manufactured by Caged. Just one more non-original aspect of the 'original', these days.

I think it's safe to say that Arch weren't responsible for the Lotus XIII, either.

Well, Caged no longer exist per se. Caged were split into Steel Fabrications (owned by Caterham) and the Roll Cage bit. Very nice people. Built my roll cage. They build the CSR chassis (well, some of them).

The new R500 is the old S3 chassis, which is imperial still. So who builds that ?

Arch are very nice too. They rebuilt my chassis. And when I was there recently they seemed to be as busy on the Caterham front as ever.

Have you ever been to Arch ? They have a thing on the wall about all the manufacturers they have produced things for. Brabham. March. Lotus. Chevron (you do know that Chris Smith bought Chevron ? And who produces the chassis for the new car, ah yes, the same company that has been produced race car chassis for decades !). And the Lotus 23 chassis too of course. No, really. Just pick up a copy of "Lotus and Caterham : Racers for the road". Or any book on early Lotus racing. Or do actual facts tend to get in the way of your firmly held opinions ?

Edited by Noger on Tuesday 8th April 21:43

[Sam_68]

Noger said:

Or do actual facts tend to get in the way of your firmly held opinions ?

Which fact is getting in the way? Arch no longer make the chassis for new Caterham models. That's a simple fact that Caterham themselves proudly publicise and which you got wrong, Noger, old bean.

I'd love to see this Lotus XIII they built, though. Have you got any pictures?

[mic]

The new R500 chassis is made by Steel Fab and the CSR chassis is still made by Arch.