How durable a Duratec tuned to 263bhp?
Discussion
Sorry about the "tosh" comment. I'll explain a little further.
Few caterhams if any have gained a real reputation for snap-oversteer (which is normally associated with widow-making). So generally all caterhams are *reasonably* catchable. Big torque duratecs are definitely so.
However, if anyone lives in a evo-oversteer-before-breakfast-world on the road, I contend they will end up smacked up quite quickly. Nothing to do with the catchability of the car just to do with the fallacy that driving around like that can be done safely.
And yes I must be a grumpy old fuddy-duddy!
Bert
Few caterhams if any have gained a real reputation for snap-oversteer (which is normally associated with widow-making). So generally all caterhams are *reasonably* catchable. Big torque duratecs are definitely so.
However, if anyone lives in a evo-oversteer-before-breakfast-world on the road, I contend they will end up smacked up quite quickly. Nothing to do with the catchability of the car just to do with the fallacy that driving around like that can be done safely.
And yes I must be a grumpy old fuddy-duddy!
Bert
timrw81 said:
The points above about different models having different characters is important, and I still think my question on predictability over the limit is valid, despite being told it was "tosh" 
. There are certain cars that have, over the years, been given the unofficial title 'widow-maker' because on the road - NOT on the track - they would grip, grip, grip and then put you into a tree.
The trouble with what you are asking here is that the Caterham is a light car and tyres are lightly loaded. Grip will decrease faster than the standard road car in cold damp condition. On the road there are days when I just wouldn't drive my R400 as with cold tyres it is just too much hard work. Power slides are predictable, but it is the power off behaviour that will catch you out - and you don't need much HP for that! In all the variations it is probably the most forgiving car you'll drive, but it is a high performance car that responds to a confident approach and good judgement. . There are certain cars that have, over the years, been given the unofficial title 'widow-maker' because on the road - NOT on the track - they would grip, grip, grip and then put you into a tree. Go with what your comfortable with and you won't go wrong.
Cheers David
timrw81 said:
and I still think my question on predictability over the limit is valid, despite being told it was "tosh" . There are certain cars that have, over the years, been given the unofficial title 'widow-maker' because on the road - NOT on the track - they would grip, grip, grip and then put you into a tree. Not having had the luxury of test driving the R500, I posted onto this forum to ask about that very issue.
and i answered you in the second post of the thread . There are certain cars that have, over the years, been given the unofficial title 'widow-maker' because on the road - NOT on the track - they would grip, grip, grip and then put you into a tree. Not having had the luxury of test driving the R500, I posted onto this forum to ask about that very issue.
What is it with you and 'evo' ? get off this Bovingdon tip will you and go out and hang with some real Caterham owners, people who have lived with these cars, paid out of their own pockets for dozens and dozens of trackdays and had to break their cars up into thousands of little pieces and put them all back together again in the pouring rain, with a slipped disc and a marriage that is about to fall apart (because you're always in the goddam garage!).
The question you are asking is 'how long is the piece of string'. Throw the goddam glossies away, turn off top gear, and start to see a caterham more as blank sheet; you get it to handle exactly how you want. You can ignore the factory geo because its generally complete dogs
te. That's why I advised you to buy one then get it to a cct immediately and get it setup as you drive round then bring it back in the pits etc.. have it tweaked, go back out again etc.. If you don't want it snappy in the wet then you do wahtever you do, drop the pressures, disconnect the arbs etc etc.. Its not a family hatchback, you set it up how you want to set it up. Obviously, once any caterham lest go its not going to be a 4wd scooby, thats pretty much obvious by definition of what it is but overall they are easy to catch and the power does help. Hell, if you're that worried about spinning the damm thing then go and build an Ammo spec 300bhp 2.3 on ACB10s with a crank made out of tuftrided 'unobtanium' !In point of fact, the original R500 actually had a strong tendency to understeer (especially on entry in high speed corners). This was something inherent in the car and to a certain degree immune from setup. Maybe it was the lightweight engine components but quite a few of the early R500 owners who used their cars as intended (as many didn't and still don't) struggled with this for some time... Jules martin being a case in point. I understand that Richard ince eventually all but eradicated it but he threw considerable money at the car and it was totally bespoke dampers etc.. but then he was racing both of his cars in the JCC challenege so he kind of had to get it sorted.
Edited by jackal on Sunday 3rd May 17:33
jackal said:
In point of fact, the original R500 actually had a strong tendency to understeer (especially on entry in high speed corners). This was something inherent in the car and to a certain degree immune from setup. Maybe it was the lightweight engine components but quite a few of the early R500 owners who used their cars as intended (as many didn't and still don't) struggled with this for some time... Jules martin being a case in point. I understand that Richard ince eventually all but eradicated it but he threw considerable money at the car and it was totally bespoke dampers etc.. but then he was racing both of his cars in the JCC challenege so he kind of had to get it sorted.
So what's changed then in the Caterham factory spec to eradicate the understeer?Bert
BertBert said:
jackal said:
In point of fact, the original R500 actually had a strong tendency to understeer (especially on entry in high speed corners). This was something inherent in the car and to a certain degree immune from setup. Maybe it was the lightweight engine components but quite a few of the early R500 owners who used their cars as intended (as many didn't and still don't) struggled with this for some time... Jules martin being a case in point. I understand that Richard ince eventually all but eradicated it but he threw considerable money at the car and it was totally bespoke dampers etc.. but then he was racing both of his cars in the JCC challenege so he kind of had to get it sorted.
So what's changed then in the Caterham factory spec to eradicate the understeer?Bert
Cheers
David
David Long said:
BertBert said:
jackal said:
In point of fact, the original R500 actually had a strong tendency to understeer (especially on entry in high speed corners). This was something inherent in the car and to a certain degree immune from setup. Maybe it was the lightweight engine components but quite a few of the early R500 owners who used their cars as intended (as many didn't and still don't) struggled with this for some time... Jules martin being a case in point. I understand that Richard ince eventually all but eradicated it but he threw considerable money at the car and it was totally bespoke dampers etc.. but then he was racing both of his cars in the JCC challenege so he kind of had to get it sorted.
So what's changed then in the Caterham factory spec to eradicate the understeer?Bert
Cheers
David
Just going back to the OP, I remember when I picked up my first Caterham... an used SLR from Caterhams back in 2000. Well, i'd only ever had one short test drive then and I didn't consider myself a great driver at all. I picked it up with a friend and we actually drove from Caterham to Bedford as he was going to look at an Audi he wanted to buy there. Anyway, at Bedford I launched into some big roundabout and gave the throttle a nice big stab and suddenly to my surprise the whole car was 50 degrees or more sideways in the midst of traffic in busy Bedfordshire. Quick flick of the wrists and she was all back in line... i remember p1ssing myself laughing and thinking that i'd never driven a car that was so loose at the rear. As it happens, it turned out that the SLR I had bought had last been setup at Hyperion with quite an extreme oversteer setup. A month or so later I discovered that it used to readily turn-in oversteer at places like Clearways and Coppice. Moral of the story... easy to detect and control even when it has some lethal rear geometry going on.
Edited by jackal on Monday 4th May 07:58
Agree with many of the comments above.
1) Caterhams are supremely adjustable. You can set them up more or less any which way to suit what you want out of the car (within the confines of what the laws of physics dictate with a light car with lots of power).
2) You have to really know what you want in order to get it. I would suggest that most people coming from a "normal car" don't. Hence Jackal's comment about spending time on set up is pertinent - learn the car and yourself.
3) Car are not usually set up nicely out of the factory (as Jackal notes). Unless you really like understeer.
So handling should not be a concern for you in your choice between the two models IMO as it can be made the same (hell, people have even made VX engined cars handle
).
I've not driven a Duratec R500 (or any Duratec for that matter), and it sounds like the power delivery is much more linear than in the K series version. BUT, if you're using it on the road it's still a lot of power to deploy fully. Much as you think the R400 didn't give you the teleporting sensation (have no idea what you're used to, but I find that a little strange - did you have the throttle fully depressed?), you will find only (increasingly) rare occasions on public roads where you can use more regularly.
Not only are our roads heavily trafficked (not to mention policed), but the sorts of roads that suit Caterhams best are often very poorly surfaced. Keeping any Caterham with decent power levels pointing the right way over heavily pockmarked roads is an interesting and "fun" exercise (was thinking this just yesterday when out and about in my modestly powered K).
It is, of course, possible to moderate power deployment with your right foot. So an easy argument would be to buy the more powerful car and simply use less throttle when necessary. But this isn't always as easy as it sounds.
End of the day, you have to think carefully about what you want to use the car for predominantly and what you really want to achieve. The original Superlight is/was widely regarded as one of the best cars ever to come out of Caterham, I suspect in no small part because the frustration at not being able to get close to the edges of its performance envelope on the road was less pronounced. And that "only" had 138bhp.
1) Caterhams are supremely adjustable. You can set them up more or less any which way to suit what you want out of the car (within the confines of what the laws of physics dictate with a light car with lots of power).
2) You have to really know what you want in order to get it. I would suggest that most people coming from a "normal car" don't. Hence Jackal's comment about spending time on set up is pertinent - learn the car and yourself.
3) Car are not usually set up nicely out of the factory (as Jackal notes). Unless you really like understeer.
So handling should not be a concern for you in your choice between the two models IMO as it can be made the same (hell, people have even made VX engined cars handle
).I've not driven a Duratec R500 (or any Duratec for that matter), and it sounds like the power delivery is much more linear than in the K series version. BUT, if you're using it on the road it's still a lot of power to deploy fully. Much as you think the R400 didn't give you the teleporting sensation (have no idea what you're used to, but I find that a little strange - did you have the throttle fully depressed?), you will find only (increasingly) rare occasions on public roads where you can use more regularly.
Not only are our roads heavily trafficked (not to mention policed), but the sorts of roads that suit Caterhams best are often very poorly surfaced. Keeping any Caterham with decent power levels pointing the right way over heavily pockmarked roads is an interesting and "fun" exercise (was thinking this just yesterday when out and about in my modestly powered K).
It is, of course, possible to moderate power deployment with your right foot. So an easy argument would be to buy the more powerful car and simply use less throttle when necessary. But this isn't always as easy as it sounds.
End of the day, you have to think carefully about what you want to use the car for predominantly and what you really want to achieve. The original Superlight is/was widely regarded as one of the best cars ever to come out of Caterham, I suspect in no small part because the frustration at not being able to get close to the edges of its performance envelope on the road was less pronounced. And that "only" had 138bhp.
Ok guys, I've taken up lots of time talking about all the stuff I have no experience of, so from here on in it's just for fun, and don't want laying into TOO much .
To answer the question "What do I want from the car?"
I plan to use the car for road driving. Apart from having the use of another car, it will be my only car and want to use it as much as possible (probably buying a cheapo little car for the depths of winter). Depending on what mood I'm in, it will be driven at 5 10ths some of the time - just to enjoy the experience, without giving it the beans. (When I first lowered myself into the seat of that R400 last year, I was taken over with the feeling that I was home).
But when I'm in the mood, to put the thing into warp speed and also to have lots of oversteery fun where it's safe to do so.
I currently drive a MkII MX-5 and love it. BUT, it's annoying a lot of the time cos it's drastically under-powered. I guess all my talk about whether to go for the R500 over the R400 is about that really - I want the car to do what I want in a straight line and because I'll be lease-purchasing, I don't want to go for something that I'll want to upgrade after a while.
I would go for a manual gearbox over the sequential on the R500, so that's not in the reckoning.
Anyway, so I'm more informed about the whole thing, I'm hiring a Roadsport for the day from Caterham Midlands in a couple of weeks. And that I'm looking forward to A LOT.
. To answer the question "What do I want from the car?"
I plan to use the car for road driving. Apart from having the use of another car, it will be my only car and want to use it as much as possible (probably buying a cheapo little car for the depths of winter). Depending on what mood I'm in, it will be driven at 5 10ths some of the time - just to enjoy the experience, without giving it the beans. (When I first lowered myself into the seat of that R400 last year, I was taken over with the feeling that I was home).
But when I'm in the mood, to put the thing into warp speed and also to have lots of oversteery fun where it's safe to do so.
I currently drive a MkII MX-5 and love it. BUT, it's annoying a lot of the time cos it's drastically under-powered. I guess all my talk about whether to go for the R500 over the R400 is about that really - I want the car to do what I want in a straight line and because I'll be lease-purchasing, I don't want to go for something that I'll want to upgrade after a while.
I would go for a manual gearbox over the sequential on the R500, so that's not in the reckoning.
Anyway, so I'm more informed about the whole thing, I'm hiring a Roadsport for the day from Caterham Midlands in a couple of weeks. And that I'm looking forward to A LOT.
timrw81 said:
I plan to use the car for road driving.
get a classic then ..... 'tis all you need 
more of the power, grip and performance more of the time and at the limit much much more of the time
momentum is where its at ... in fact, why not stick with the MX5, its a fabulously balanced car for the uk roads these days
Inclined to agree with the guys above. Though I might suggest an original Superlight or it's latest Duratec incarnation.
You are likely to get frustrated with much more for road use only. And will be blowing a fair chunk more cash.
From what I hear, dropping the sequential would be a mistake. In fact, I'd quite like one on my own car.
You are likely to get frustrated with much more for road use only. And will be blowing a fair chunk more cash.
From what I hear, dropping the sequential would be a mistake. In fact, I'd quite like one on my own car.
If most of it is road then go with a roadsport, an absolute blast, will outrun most things if pedalled well on a country road.
Whichever way you go you should have a pro set up the car and have one setup up the driver. Still amazed how people will spend fortunes upgrading cars wiht this and that but never address the biggest peformace gain.....the driver. Get the car setup for you and you setup for the car.
Best of luck.
Whichever way you go you should have a pro set up the car and have one setup up the driver. Still amazed how people will spend fortunes upgrading cars wiht this and that but never address the biggest peformace gain.....the driver. Get the car setup for you and you setup for the car.
Best of luck.
David Long said:
as has be said in previous posts, the full potential of a Caterham is usually limited by the driver and I've spent many track days trying to keep up with lower HP Caterhams. The extra 53 HP may add a few MPH to the straight line speed, but it's cheaper to learn how to carry the speed through the corners.
Bit of a side note, but depending on your natural driving style, that extra power can require a completely different approach than you're used to.When I switched from a 140bhp Megagrad to a 230bhp C400 I was absolutely useless until someone told me how to drive it.
Low powered cars are driven with the front wheels, i.e. carry as much speed as you can into the corner and get on the power as early as possible.
High powered cars are driven with the rears, i.e. carry plenty of speed into the corner, but the speed comes from deploying the power cleanly and getting the speed onto the straights.
I would imagine my apex speeds were actually higher in the slower car
The Wookie said:
David Long said:
as has be said in previous posts, the full potential of a Caterham is usually limited by the driver and I've spent many track days trying to keep up with lower HP Caterhams. The extra 53 HP may add a few MPH to the straight line speed, but it's cheaper to learn how to carry the speed through the corners.
Bit of a side note, but depending on your natural driving style, that extra power can require a completely different approach than you're used to.When I switched from a 140bhp Megagrad to a 230bhp C400 I was absolutely useless until someone told me how to drive it.
Low powered cars are driven with the front wheels, i.e. carry as much speed as you can into the corner and get on the power as early as possible.
High powered cars are driven with the rears, i.e. carry plenty of speed into the corner, but the speed comes from deploying the power cleanly and getting the speed onto the straights.
I would imagine my apex speeds were actually higher in the slower car
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff