RE: ROCKET RELAUNCHES!
Discussion
Agreed flemke....i have not had the pleasure of driving any of these cars (elise 160 is the best i can claim). Whilst I am sure that the rocket is indeed a superb drive, do you not agree, that times have moved on in terms of the technology that could be brought to such a vehicle at that price level?
flemke said:
stuff that suggests he owns one
flemke is this your rocket?!
_________________________________
in this weeks autocar the small shot of the jap-style white and red one makes it look awesome.
_________________________________
i do understand where you're coming from. i guess the radical sr1-3 is nearer to the rocket...but it has a track bias whereas the rocket is road orientated.. how far off the mark am i?
hahithestevieboy said:
A considerable achivement there chadspeed - well done. She aint pretty but i'll bet she flies!!!
Did anyone look up the Roadrazer by the way? I reckon that with the exception of the monsterously expensive caparo T1 that is is the current pinicle of design for this type of vehicle.
Did anyone look up the Roadrazer by the way? I reckon that with the exception of the monsterously expensive caparo T1 that is is the current pinicle of design for this type of vehicle.
Thanks there mate, I sold it as the adrenelin rush was getting more addictive each time I went out and I found myself turning into a complete nutter, the S2000 acheives 50% of the experience but with at least some chance of survival if you get it wrong. Perhaps unbeleivebly the car I built before the single seater was faster, more scary and offerd even less protecton. Those brought up watching 70's grand prix cars (me) actualy liked that shape at the time - remember the March 731 sponsored by Beta?
Chadspeed said:
hahithestevieboy said:
A considerable achivement there chadspeed - well done. She aint pretty but i'll bet she flies!!!
Did anyone look up the Roadrazer by the way? I reckon that with the exception of the monsterously expensive caparo T1 that is is the current pinicle of design for this type of vehicle.
Did anyone look up the Roadrazer by the way? I reckon that with the exception of the monsterously expensive caparo T1 that is is the current pinicle of design for this type of vehicle.
Thanks there mate, I sold it as the adrenelin rush was getting more addictive each time I went out and I found myself turning into a complete nutter, the S2000 acheives 50% of the experience but with at least some chance of survival if you get it wrong. Perhaps unbeleivebly the car I built before the single seater was faster, more scary and offerd even less protecton. Those brought up watching 70's grand prix cars (me) actualy liked that shape at the time - remember the March 731 sponsored by Beta?
i actually think it might sell better now than a few years ago. the kind of retro-kitsch styling is actually quite cool!
Chadspeed said:
The Rocket ethos is what Caterham and Westfield have failed to grasp. Front engined, rear wheel drive cars are never going to acheive truly low weight. I designed and built a road going single seater 10 years ago with an SVA weight (that includes fuel, oil, water etc) of 374 kg for £5.5k, no exotic materials but then no automotive sourced components either. Sounds cheap but the time designing and fabricating the spaceframe, suspension, chain driven diff, bodywork etc was huge.
The Rocket and Strathcaron (and humbly possibly mine as well) have dynamics way ahead of the Brooks/Lotus 7 car component orientated vehicles. Using modern bike engines has been a huge step forward for cars of this type but the quality of the rest of the components rearly match the engine. A picture of it appears in my profile.
PS as my car was all new with the exception of the engine, it was legaly registerd as a new car with my name. Cool having a personalised number plate, sweet having a personalised V5 and Tax disc
The Rocket and Strathcaron (and humbly possibly mine as well) have dynamics way ahead of the Brooks/Lotus 7 car component orientated vehicles. Using modern bike engines has been a huge step forward for cars of this type but the quality of the rest of the components rearly match the engine. A picture of it appears in my profile.
PS as my car was all new with the exception of the engine, it was legaly registerd as a new car with my name. Cool having a personalised number plate, sweet having a personalised V5 and Tax disc
I don't think the Rocket and Caterham/Westfield are after the same market. I used my Caterham as an only car for 5 years - could that be done with a Rocket or your single seater? I see the Rocket as purely a second/fun car and it appears to fit the bill very well. A Caterfield is more practical at the cost of the pure focus and so will appeal to a slightly different set of customers.
As one of the forty people mentioned in the article, I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment of the car.
I would suggest:
- Yes it is expensive, perhaps too much so. But most of the alternatives suggested are not far off, if you buy them fully-built. Very few use as many bespoke parts. The transaxle is complicated, bespoke and expensive (remember, this was the first BEC, so none of the modern gearboxes were available - in fact no one really knew how to do it), but it offers different solutions that few of the modern alternatives can match.
- 0-100 in 9 secs is pretty slow. 7 seconds is achievable (on road tyres) if you get it launched well. It's not aero, though that helps, but with both the standard gearbox and transaxle you effectively have 7 or 8 gears, and the low ones are very short... Top speed was quoted at 145mph, but i've seen an indicated 130mph on Hangar Straight with gears and revs to spare (and still pulling)
- Without checking the mounting, I suspect Luke could have chaosen another engine-gearbox. But remember that the engine is a fully stressed member - which bike engines are up to that job? Which are as light, would fit the engine bay, and have similar mounting to the frame?
- I think some of you are missing the point. The Rocket isn't about numbers, it's about the driving experience (like the F1 that followed). Sure you can have more power, but if you lose the smooth power curve the experience may be worse (it's been tried). How many of the alternatives are as involving, direct, and complete a package? I suspect very few (and I am a big fan of both Caterham and Radical).
Oh, and trust me, that central seating position is something you have to try. Slap bang between the wheels, looking down the nose, with the bodywork just beyond your shoulders and the wind buffeting your head. Priceless. It's the big boys version of playing Scalextric with your nose resting on the track. Now, where are my keys?
Summary: what flemke said.
If anyone is interested, I should really plug the owners site, what I've contributed to.
I would suggest:
- Yes it is expensive, perhaps too much so. But most of the alternatives suggested are not far off, if you buy them fully-built. Very few use as many bespoke parts. The transaxle is complicated, bespoke and expensive (remember, this was the first BEC, so none of the modern gearboxes were available - in fact no one really knew how to do it), but it offers different solutions that few of the modern alternatives can match.
- 0-100 in 9 secs is pretty slow. 7 seconds is achievable (on road tyres) if you get it launched well. It's not aero, though that helps, but with both the standard gearbox and transaxle you effectively have 7 or 8 gears, and the low ones are very short... Top speed was quoted at 145mph, but i've seen an indicated 130mph on Hangar Straight with gears and revs to spare (and still pulling)
- Without checking the mounting, I suspect Luke could have chaosen another engine-gearbox. But remember that the engine is a fully stressed member - which bike engines are up to that job? Which are as light, would fit the engine bay, and have similar mounting to the frame?
- I think some of you are missing the point. The Rocket isn't about numbers, it's about the driving experience (like the F1 that followed). Sure you can have more power, but if you lose the smooth power curve the experience may be worse (it's been tried). How many of the alternatives are as involving, direct, and complete a package? I suspect very few (and I am a big fan of both Caterham and Radical).
Oh, and trust me, that central seating position is something you have to try. Slap bang between the wheels, looking down the nose, with the bodywork just beyond your shoulders and the wind buffeting your head. Priceless. It's the big boys version of playing Scalextric with your nose resting on the track. Now, where are my keys?
Summary: what flemke said.
If anyone is interested, I should really plug the owners site, what I've contributed to.
There's only one thing for it.....Someone do a back to back test with the aforementioned cars. Take them down to Bedford and see what happens. Proof is in the pudding and although i love the Atom i think the Rocket is a pretty worthy contender and looks fantastic, however...it does seem expensive for the sum of it's parts (two top spec Atoms for the price of a top spec Rocket??), when compared to whats currently available.
hahithestevieboy said:
Agreed flemke....i have not had the pleasure of driving any of these cars (elise 160 is the best i can claim). Whilst I am sure that the rocket is indeed a superb drive, do you not agree, that times have moved on in terms of the technology that could be brought to such a vehicle at that price level?
It depends on what technology you think you need.
If you or I were given, say, a Lotus 49 to drive, I don't think that we would be looking for more "technology", because the capabilities of the car would greatly exceed the quality of our inputs. We might (or might not) want more safety devices, but that's a separate question.
It comes down to why you're driving car X or Y. I have to laugh at the guys who have to have the latest, quickest thing on a trackday, but who won't go racing. Perhaps there is a reason why you need a sequential 'box, 800kg of downforce and slicks so that you can overtake all the Elises and Sevens at a trackday, but it escapes me.
One of the things that i like most about the Rocket is the road bias and quality of design of GM's cars. By the way, i thought that Gordon Murray was absolutely obsessive about numbers on a page when it came to weight and that he considers weight reduction to be the holy grail of automotive achivement?
flemke said:
hahithestevieboy said:
Agreed flemke....i have not had the pleasure of driving any of these cars (elise 160 is the best i can claim). Whilst I am sure that the rocket is indeed a superb drive, do you not agree, that times have moved on in terms of the technology that could be brought to such a vehicle at that price level?
It depends on what technology you think you need.
If you or I were given, say, a Lotus 49 to drive, I don't think that we would be looking for more "technology", because the capabilities of the car would greatly exceed the quality of our inputs. We might (or might not) want more safety devices, but that's a separate question.
It comes down to why you're driving car X or Y. I have to laugh at the guys who have to have the latest, quickest thing on a trackday, but who won't go racing. Perhaps there is a reason why you need a sequential 'box, 800kg of downforce and slicks so that you can overtake all the Elises and Sevens at a trackday, but it escapes me.
Apples and oranges IMHO Flemke... The Lotus 49 is an old car. This car is modern... Having said that I wouldn't mind trying one!!!
scoobiewrx said:
There's only one thing for it.....Someone do a back to back test with the aforementioned cars. Take them down to Bedford and see what happens. Proof is in the pudding and although i love the Atom i think the Rocket is a pretty worthy contender and looks fantastic, however...it does seem expensive for the sum of it's parts (two top spec Atoms for the price of a top spec Rocket??), when compared to whats currently available.
If the back-to-back test would be about lap times, it would be pretty meaningless. If it would be about the driving experience, it could be quite interesting.
The article/review in the OP contains a lot of strange observations, so perhaps one should not put too much stock in it.
flemke said:
scoobiewrx said:
There's only one thing for it.....Someone do a back to back test with the aforementioned cars. Take them down to Bedford and see what happens. Proof is in the pudding and although i love the Atom i think the Rocket is a pretty worthy contender and looks fantastic, however...it does seem expensive for the sum of it's parts (two top spec Atoms for the price of a top spec Rocket??), when compared to whats currently available.
If the back-to-back test would be about lap times, it would be pretty meaningless. If it would be about the driving experience, it could be quite interesting.
The article/review in the OP contains a lot of strange observations, so perhaps one should not put too much stock in it.
but if it were where i grew up in N.wales...
runnersp said:
flemke said:
hahithestevieboy said:
Agreed flemke....i have not had the pleasure of driving any of these cars (elise 160 is the best i can claim). Whilst I am sure that the rocket is indeed a superb drive, do you not agree, that times have moved on in terms of the technology that could be brought to such a vehicle at that price level?
It depends on what technology you think you need.
If you or I were given, say, a Lotus 49 to drive, I don't think that we would be looking for more "technology", because the capabilities of the car would greatly exceed the quality of our inputs. We might (or might not) want more safety devices, but that's a separate question.
It comes down to why you're driving car X or Y. I have to laugh at the guys who have to have the latest, quickest thing on a trackday, but who won't go racing. Perhaps there is a reason why you need a sequential 'box, 800kg of downforce and slicks so that you can overtake all the Elises and Sevens at a trackday, but it escapes me.
Apples and oranges IMHO Flemke... The Lotus 49 is an old car. This car is modern...
It's true that it is made now, but it's not meant to be "modern" as in "the latest".
As Stevieboy says:
One of the things that i like most about the Rocket is the road bias and quality of design of GM's cars.
There isn't one driver in a thousand who has the skill to drive a current car such as an Atom at the true limit and, even for the rare person who has that skill, it's not feasible to do so on public roads anyhow.
Therefore what matters is not ultimate pace but the driving experience that is accessible below the limit.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff