RE: ROCKET RELAUNCHES!
Discussion
flemke said:
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.
That's a very good point, but doesn't a seven offer much the same below the limit experience without the price tag? Mine is a genuine query considering that I haven't had the pleasure of driving one...
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.
I'm not talking about 0-60's etc as that is truly meaningless here...for me it's purely down to the driving experience and how well these cars fare on and off track. They are all devastatingly quick i have no doubts and i imgaine 0-60's are pretty well bunched closely together, however baring in mind these cars were meant to have a dual purpose, which one does the all round thing the best?,and which one creates the biggest grin on the drivers face!!
I think there will be different answers to each of these questions
The lotus 49, like the rocket and many other cars are towering design achievements in their own right. I wonder if anyone would buy a lotus 49 for the driving experince alone. Myself, and i am sure in common with lots of other people, like to appreciate a car on a number of levels. I like the rocket for a number of reasons, each to his own i suppose. Light weight through clever design and/or ground breaking technology is one of the things I appreciate most in cars (and can be a rare quality in run of the mill stuff). I suppose that given the rockets superb concept and the fact that the "new" one does not really move the game on as the first one did, that i am dissapointed that it is not now cheaper, simpler and more accessible to a wider audience.
runnersp said:
That's a very good point, but doesn't a seven offer much the same below the limit experience without the price tag? Mine is a genuine query considering that I haven't had the pleasure of driving one...
Driving a Seven is fairly intense, but I'd put that down to:
- lighter weight than most things,
- quick steering rack,
- terrible tramlining and steering kick caused by obsolete design of front uprights.*
The build quality of a Seven (I say this from the experience of ownership) is utter rubbish. The only reason that more things don't go wrong is that there aren't that many things to start with.
On driving position alone - which I think you would agree is pretty important - the Rocket is incomparably superior.
*ETA: I forgot to mention the back axle that bounces all over the place.
Edited by flemke on Thursday 19th April 15:18
runnersp said:
Rich, just to clarify, loads of bike engines are stressed members in their original installations...
I would say most bike engines are not stressed in the bike application, they tend to have very small rubber mounts to cut some of the vibs at intermediate revs.
Also I understood the original Rocket utilised the Yamaha unit construction gearbox and the transaxle refered to in the article houses the differential and reverse gear idler. The transaxle has to be one of the most expensive routes to acheiving a chain driven diff and reverse.
Comments elsewhere about the Rocket and Caterham market being different I recon is correct. It's just when Caterham anounce the latest Super light, super fast track weapon as the most advanced thing since sliced bread I think there flogging a dead horse, it's like Porsche maintaining for 25 years that engines installed in the tail of a car was a good idea - but they dont put them there anymore.
Chadspeed said:
runnersp said:
Rich, just to clarify, loads of bike engines are stressed members in their original installations...
I would say most bike engines are not stressed in the bike application, they tend to have very small rubber mounts to cut some of the vibs at intermediate revs.
Also I understood the original Rocket utilised the Yamaha unit construction gearbox and the transaxle refered to in the article houses the differential and reverse gear idler. The transaxle has to be one of the most expensive routes to acheiving a chain driven diff and reverse.
Comments elsewhere about the Rocket and Caterham market being different I recon is correct. It's just when Caterham anounce the latest Super light, super fast track weapon as the most advanced thing since sliced bread I think there flogging a dead horse, it's like Porsche maintaining for 25 years that engines installed in the tail of a car was a good idea - but they dont put them there anymore.
I think you'll find the 997 still has its engine out t'back...
hahithestevieboy said:
The lotus 49, like the rocket and many other cars are towering design achievements in their own right. I wonder if anyone would buy a lotus 49 for the driving experince alone. Myself, and i am sure in common with lots of other people, like to appreciate a car on a number of levels. I like the rocket for a number of reasons, each to his own i suppose. Light weight through clever design and/or ground breaking technology is one of the things I appreciate most in cars (and can be a rare quality in run of the mill stuff). I suppose that given the rockets superb concept and the fact that the "new" one does not really move the game on as the first one did, that i am dissapointed that it is not now cheaper, simpler and more accessible to a wider audience.
I hear what you are saying.
I think the point of the continuation of the Rockets (if that's how to think of them) is that we now have the opportunity to get more of the originals (or, alternatively, the modernised version reviewed in the thread) for a price that is very close to the originals'. In current money that is a lot less than the car used to cost.
At the extreme, if Ferrari were to make more 250GTOs, I should think that the world would:
- prefer that they be exactly like the originals, rather than being modernised, and
- be ecstatic if their price were unchanged from what it originally was.
The concept of the rocket and it's design were fairly unique at the time it came out. It has inspried a number of (but not enough in my opinion) copycats. Most seem to be inferior in design and execution. Question is can it be improved upon (in terms of cost, simplicity, and performance)? I think the answer is yes and that GM would approve as long as the design is as clever today as his one was then. As far as i am concerned the only ones that do this are the T1 which is in a completely different market and the Roadrazer which appears real but does not seem to have been driven by the press yet. By the way IMHO lap times are irrelivent to anything but racing.
runnersp said:
Chadspeed said:
runnersp said:
Rich, just to clarify, loads of bike engines are stressed members in their original installations...
I would say most bike engines are not stressed in the bike application, they tend to have very small rubber mounts to cut some of the vibs at intermediate revs.
Also I understood the original Rocket utilised the Yamaha unit construction gearbox and the transaxle refered to in the article houses the differential and reverse gear idler. The transaxle has to be one of the most expensive routes to acheiving a chain driven diff and reverse.
Comments elsewhere about the Rocket and Caterham market being different I recon is correct. It's just when Caterham anounce the latest Super light, super fast track weapon as the most advanced thing since sliced bread I think there flogging a dead horse, it's like Porsche maintaining for 25 years that engines installed in the tail of a car was a good idea - but they dont put them there anymore.
I think you'll find the 997 still has its engine out t'back...
The Carrera GT and RS Spyder don't!
runnersp said:
Chadspeed said:
runnersp said:
Rich, just to clarify, loads of bike engines are stressed members in their original installations...
I would say most bike engines are not stressed in the bike application, they tend to have very small rubber mounts to cut some of the vibs at intermediate revs.
Also I understood the original Rocket utilised the Yamaha unit construction gearbox and the transaxle refered to in the article houses the differential and reverse gear idler. The transaxle has to be one of the most expensive routes to acheiving a chain driven diff and reverse.
Comments elsewhere about the Rocket and Caterham market being different I recon is correct. It's just when Caterham anounce the latest Super light, super fast track weapon as the most advanced thing since sliced bread I think there flogging a dead horse, it's like Porsche maintaining for 25 years that engines installed in the tail of a car was a good idea - but they dont put them there anymore.
I think you'll find the 997 still has its engine out t'back...
Doh, you're right, it's still a triumph of design over adversity though.
I recon the price of a Rocket is better value per £ that a Caterham though.
flemke said:
runnersp said:
Chadspeed said:
runnersp said:
Rich, just to clarify, loads of bike engines are stressed members in their original installations...
I would say most bike engines are not stressed in the bike application, they tend to have very small rubber mounts to cut some of the vibs at intermediate revs.
Also I understood the original Rocket utilised the Yamaha unit construction gearbox and the transaxle refered to in the article houses the differential and reverse gear idler. The transaxle has to be one of the most expensive routes to acheiving a chain driven diff and reverse.
Comments elsewhere about the Rocket and Caterham market being different I recon is correct. It's just when Caterham anounce the latest Super light, super fast track weapon as the most advanced thing since sliced bread I think there flogging a dead horse, it's like Porsche maintaining for 25 years that engines installed in the tail of a car was a good idea - but they dont put them there anymore.
I think you'll find the 997 still has its engine out t'back...
The Carrera GT and RS Spyder don't!
True but they still put them there...
flemke said:
If you all were to drive a Rocket, I expect that you would change your tune.
Numbers on a page are nothing more than that.
The Rocket's build quality is excellent (especially in relation to many of the aforementioned), the car is filled with lovely details, and as for those who prefer the looks of the Atom, may I respectfully suggest that you eat more carrots?
The real proof, however, is in the driving. The Rocket is delicate, agile, full of nice feedback, very tactile and extremely grippy.
The central driving position, as noted above, differentiates it from almost everything else. Anyone who's driven a single seater will recall how involving that immediately feels.
I wouldn't criticise the other cars mentioned, but it doesn't make sense to criticise the Rocket in the terms laid out by the makers of those cars. The Rocket is its own thing, and a very special one.
Numbers on a page are nothing more than that.
The Rocket's build quality is excellent (especially in relation to many of the aforementioned), the car is filled with lovely details, and as for those who prefer the looks of the Atom, may I respectfully suggest that you eat more carrots?
The real proof, however, is in the driving. The Rocket is delicate, agile, full of nice feedback, very tactile and extremely grippy.
The central driving position, as noted above, differentiates it from almost everything else. Anyone who's driven a single seater will recall how involving that immediately feels.
I wouldn't criticise the other cars mentioned, but it doesn't make sense to criticise the Rocket in the terms laid out by the makers of those cars. The Rocket is its own thing, and a very special one.
I appreciate your point, this is just a tad better finished (!) than say the Hayabusa Fury I ran for a bit! But it's easy to take that view when you can afford it, for many of us £50k is a pipe dream for an only car, £50k for a toy is serious dreamland. Regardless, I'd need quite a bit of persuading that it was £35k better than a year-old Caterham Roadsports car, or better than any number of proven track cars like radicals built around a proper race-car mid-engined setup, and with the benefit of downforce and loads of help and info as so many are raced and tracked.
The rocket seems lovely but vs an SR4? And enough change to buy a decent tow car? I think the appeal of this thing will be only to those to whom money is not remotely a problem, which is fine and they should succeed with their modest planned production numbers.
Seeing more rockets would indeed be a good thing. The design is classic and unique. The 250gto is a rather extreme example though. I suppose that the market for such a car is so small and specialised (gutted cos its great) that such considerations as price and ultimate performance are secondary to "that is just what i was looking for - i've always dreamed of owing one of those". I guess that I am just bitter that i can't afford one.....
runnersp said:
flemke said:
runnersp said:
Chadspeed said:
runnersp said:
Rich, just to clarify, loads of bike engines are stressed members in their original installations...
I would say most bike engines are not stressed in the bike application, they tend to have very small rubber mounts to cut some of the vibs at intermediate revs.
Also I understood the original Rocket utilised the Yamaha unit construction gearbox and the transaxle refered to in the article houses the differential and reverse gear idler. The transaxle has to be one of the most expensive routes to acheiving a chain driven diff and reverse.
Comments elsewhere about the Rocket and Caterham market being different I recon is correct. It's just when Caterham anounce the latest Super light, super fast track weapon as the most advanced thing since sliced bread I think there flogging a dead horse, it's like Porsche maintaining for 25 years that engines installed in the tail of a car was a good idea - but they dont put them there anymore.
I think you'll find the 997 still has its engine out t'back...
The Carrera GT and RS Spyder don't!
True but they still put them there...
Yes, but the reason that they put them the engine in the back isn't because it's the "best" place. It's because the shape that comes with the rear engine is Porsche's unique selling point, and with the engine in the back you can have rear seats, which you cannot have with a (rear) mid-engined car.
A radical SR4 is not similar to a Rocket and it is probably unfair to compare them like for like. Granted, the rocket is not practical but the SR4 is optimised in pretty much every way for track work and racing so that is all its good for. The Rocket on the other hand can be taken for a blast on the road it also more unique in concept than a radical (something alot of people value very highly). The market is so small that price is irrelivent. Still wish it was cheaper though...
jwyatt said:
I appreciate your point, this is just a tad better finished (!) than say the Hayabusa Fury I ran for a bit! But it's easy to take that view when you can afford it, for many of us £50k is a pipe dream for an only car, £50k for a toy is serious dreamland. Regardless, I'd need quite a bit of persuading that it was £35k better than a year-old Caterham Roadsports car, or better than any number of proven track cars like radicals built around a proper race-car mid-engined setup, and with the benefit of downforce and loads of help and info as so many are raced and tracked.
The rocket seems lovely but vs an SR4? And enough change to buy a decent tow car? I think the appeal of this thing will be only to those to whom money is not remotely a problem, which is fine and they should succeed with their modest planned production numbers.
The rocket seems lovely but vs an SR4? And enough change to buy a decent tow car? I think the appeal of this thing will be only to those to whom money is not remotely a problem, which is fine and they should succeed with their modest planned production numbers.
Fair enough. I was defending the car because I know how good it is and I didn't think that some of the criticisms were correct.
Many people cannot afford to spend even 15 grand on a car (I was once one of them), so I hope that I never get too presumptuous about the financial aspect. I recall, however, the drooling adulation on PH over the Caparo, which costs four times as much as a Rocket, so I thought that we all were judging various cars in the context of what they were, not in the context of whether we personally could afford them.
Cheers.
Anyone 'familiar' with both the Rocket and the Brooke care to comment on the comparison?
There's obviously value in the GM connection re: Rocket and that's worth a large proportion of the purchase price (for those who appreciate GM's approach) - but the Brooke looks suspiciously similar in concept and execution. Is it crushingly inferior or simply not comparable even though they look similar?
The Brooke is less than half the price by the looks of things... in Flemke-land price may be irrelevant when excellence is the only criterion, but is the Brooke really half as good? My gut feeling is that the central driving position is the main benefit of the Rocket, but I've driven neither.
My experience in cars of this ilk is limited to the Grinnall Scorpion, which has a squished side-by-side 2 seat body, even though it's not *central* like the Rocket, it sure feels like it on the road (and yes, I've driven single seat race cars on track). That thing was bloody intense, I put a deposit down but sadly this was just before the twin towers attack and my business crashed immediately afterwards (fund management clients...). If the Rocket is 10x better than the Grinnall (which was pretty rudimentary, really) then firstly (and again!!!!) Flemke you are a lucky bugger, and secondly it's probably too intense for the road.
Am I wildly off base here?
There's obviously value in the GM connection re: Rocket and that's worth a large proportion of the purchase price (for those who appreciate GM's approach) - but the Brooke looks suspiciously similar in concept and execution. Is it crushingly inferior or simply not comparable even though they look similar?
The Brooke is less than half the price by the looks of things... in Flemke-land price may be irrelevant when excellence is the only criterion, but is the Brooke really half as good? My gut feeling is that the central driving position is the main benefit of the Rocket, but I've driven neither.
My experience in cars of this ilk is limited to the Grinnall Scorpion, which has a squished side-by-side 2 seat body, even though it's not *central* like the Rocket, it sure feels like it on the road (and yes, I've driven single seat race cars on track). That thing was bloody intense, I put a deposit down but sadly this was just before the twin towers attack and my business crashed immediately afterwards (fund management clients...). If the Rocket is 10x better than the Grinnall (which was pretty rudimentary, really) then firstly (and again!!!!) Flemke you are a lucky bugger, and secondly it's probably too intense for the road.
Am I wildly off base here?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff