RE: ROCKET RELAUNCHES!
Discussion
ewenm said:
Chadspeed said:
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.
How are you measuring the "value"?
Purely on what I perceive to be design and manufacturing costs over the number built. I have always thought the Caterham was expensive, based on what I know of the original Rocket and my single seater the Rocket looks good value (probably bourne out by the financial success of Caterham and original demise of The LCC Rocket).
What we need is for Caterham to at least do a design study on a mid engined lightweight before they evolve into a junior Morgan and can only sell on retro/kitch interest.
Chadspeed said:
ewenm said:
Chadspeed said:
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.
How are you measuring the "value"?
Purely on what I perceive to be design and manufacturing costs over the number built. I have always thought the Caterham was expensive, based on what I know of the original Rocket and my single seater the Rocket looks good value (probably bourne out by the financial success of Caterham and original demise of The LCC Rocket).
I see what you mean. They are meant to be businesses though, so will price their products at what they think the market will pay.
Chadspeed said:
What we need is for Caterham to at least do a design study on a mid engined lightweight before they evolve into a junior Morgan and can only sell on retro/kitch interest.
Westfield have already done that with the XTR2 and 4. Last I heard Caterham weren't keen on heading in that direction but that was a while back, who knows now.
cyberface said:
...and secondly it's probably too intense for the road.
I'd say that it's just right for the road.
After all, if a Fireblade or Hayabusa is right for the road...
BTW, what people are willing to pay for the car may be influenced by the GM effect (I'm sure that it is), but the price of the car has nothing to do with that.
flemke said:
On driving position alone - which I think you would agree is pretty important - the Rocket is incomparably superior.
How can it possibly be said a driving position is superior? I am sure some would argue that a difficult/awkward car to drive is actually more enjoyable, gives you a greater challenge, and more of an experience.
There are a number of things that I personally enjoy about cars in no particular order:
1) The feedback through the controls, feeling weight transfer etc
2) The speed factor (I get a thrill from going fast, whether I am driving or not)
3) Noise/looks
4) Getting to and past the handling limits at tracks
Different cars fulfil different aspects of the above. I haven't owned one, but I am sure I would have great fun in a Bugatti with (2) and (3). Likewise, I could have fun with (4) and possibly (1) on a Moggy Minor. What is important to get a fantastic car is to combine all of the above. IMO ultimate pace is important, because most people get a thrill from going fast!
Chadspeed said:
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.
Correct on both points. However, the transaxle (with two final drive ratios, plus a reverse option) offers some significant benefits - short, structural (for the suspension mounting), and effectively 7 or 8 gears. The last means very close ratios at lower speeds, but economy and (relative) calm at higher speed and motorway cruising (5k rpm strapped to your back is much more civilised than 8.5k, if your facing it for the next hour or so).
cyberface said:
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?
Of course not... we all know that with cars, you don't get what you pay for. I don't think GM himself would argue that the McLaren F1 is 20 times better than the Rocket. Likewise, is a Carrera GT 10 times better than a Cayman? Or a Cayman S 20% better than a Cayman? Probably some kind of 80/20 rule applies.
hahithestevieboy said:
Value is a measurement of satisfying client requirements. Rocket will be good value to some and poor to others. For me it would be poor compared to a (assuming it turns out to be any good) roadrazer but good compared to a ferrari.
Never neard of the Roadrazer before so did a quick search, in the pics I could find it looks nice but is way off SVA standard. No mudguards, lights in wrong place, mirrors in wrong place etc. Do any exist in the uk on the road?
flemke said:
cyberface said:
...and secondly it's probably too intense for the road.
I'd say that it's just right for the road.
After all, if a Fireblade or Hayabusa is right for the road...
BTW, what people are willing to pay for the car may be influenced by the GM effect (I'm sure that it is), but the price of the car has nothing to do with that.
FWIW I wouldn't say a Blade or Busa is 'right for the road' - virtually *none* of those bikes' owners have the skill to safely use much of their performance on the road. And even if they had the skill, as you said earlier, the public road isn't the place for such extreme machines.
However if the Rocket is 'right for the road' then it's a significant step forward from things like the Grinnall, which is all I've got to compare it with.
Have you driven a Brooke? I'd be interested in the comparison, after all that was what my initial post was about, not intending to offend owners of either cars and certainly not intending to make judgements. Since I have driven neither, I was simply looking for opinion.
flemke said:
I think the point of the continuation of the Rockets (if that's how to think of them)...
That's a very significant point. When the Crafts took over the Rocket, they released the ten race chassis converted to road use (if the buyer wanted). These went very quickly. There is a demand for the cars, so Luke has done some mild tweaks and put the original car back on the market.
I suspect this may just be the start (though I have no insider knowledge), rebuilding the brand, and bringing in a little income. Don't forget that Luke Craft was behind the Vemac - I did suggest that "Light Car Company Vemac" has a nice ring about it, and would provide a good platform for a UK launch, but he didn't bite. But in time, I suspect we may see more designs, be it a 21st Century interpretation of a Rocket-like car (utilising the developments in nearly 20 years), or something different.
HiRich said:
flemke said:
I think the point of the continuation of the Rockets (if that's how to think of them)...
That's a very significant point. When the Crafts took over the Rocket, they released the ten race chassis converted to road use (if the buyer wanted). These went very quickly. There is a demand for the cars, so Luke has done some mild tweaks and put the original car back on the market.
.
If there was such demand how come the original company didn't survive?
Edited by Fittster on Thursday 19th April 16:30
Fittster said:
HiRich said:
flemke said:
I think the point of the continuation of the Rockets (if that's how to think of them)...
That's a very significant point. When the Crafts took over the Rocket, they released the ten race chassis converted to road use (if the buyer wanted). These went very quickly. There is a demand for the cars, so Luke has done some mild tweaks and put the original car back on the market.
.
Markets change, people change...
cyberface said:
However if the Rocket is 'right for the road' then it's a significant step forward from things like the Grinnall, which is all I've got to compare it with.
I'd say that a Rocket is about as close to the limit of 'right for the road' as you'd want to get. Just soften the dampers to remove the directness, and whilst you certainly need to concentrate, it's quite flexible and predictable - excitement, not fear. The only other significant issue is the 'digital' clutch mentioned - uphill starts are avoided at all costs.
In the dry, I would say it's about as friendly as a Caterham, though in a completely different way. The screen is more effective than the kicker screen used by the Se7en sprinters, you feel more cocooned (though with more elbow room), and apart from the thrashier engine note they are about as raw as each other. I use mine on the road, and have done four hours or so with only a fuel stop. Maintenance and fettling is minimal.
In the wet of course, it is different (though I use ACB 10 tyres, which have only a passing acquaintance with the concept of tread pattern). But on a day like today...
I've had a bit of LCC Rocket wheeltime on the road, and have been a passenger in one around a track. Having owned a few Caterhams and Lotuses, I can say that whilst not necessarily faster than some Caterham variants, especially on track, it does offer a fairly unique driving experience and deserves a look. Central to this (if you pardon the pun) is the driving position which whilst no doubt offering oodles in the way of balancey feedbacky blahblah, makes for a terrific sense of occasion to getting into one, and once ensconced, gives one of the best views available in a road-legal car. You feel like Stirling Moss in it, though I doubt he ever got to drive something so beautifully put together. What a shame then, that when Craft originally got this thing going, he sort of forgot to be arsed selling it. I think it got pedalled to a few gazillionaires, and a few MCLaren F1 owners ended up with examples to make a matching pair of 'Murrays'. But being a gazillionaire himself, I think Craft lost sight totally of what this thing should cost - even to sell in the tiny quantities he envisaged. I've been told he's sort of aggressive and scary, so perhaps no-one thought it a good idea to tell him at the time. I have my own 'get lost' anecdote from LCC having had the temerity to make an offer for their demonstrator despite warnings not to bother by the staff working at LCC at the time. I think I offered 37,500 which was within about 5% of the asking price, and I thought they were going to release the hounds.
To be honest, I think the Rocket is a car that deserves a second chance, but I'm not sure that these guys are the ones to do it. I fear this is, more than anything, an effort by someone that seems inordinately fond of a penny, to get rid of a load of the bits and pieces of Rocket that have been sitting around for the last few years.
I'd still like one, but for 2007, I'm not sure how relevant this little car looks at Craft prices.
To be honest, I think the Rocket is a car that deserves a second chance, but I'm not sure that these guys are the ones to do it. I fear this is, more than anything, an effort by someone that seems inordinately fond of a penny, to get rid of a load of the bits and pieces of Rocket that have been sitting around for the last few years.
I'd still like one, but for 2007, I'm not sure how relevant this little car looks at Craft prices.
Chadspeed said:
hahithestevieboy said:
Value is a measurement of satisfying client requirements. Rocket will be good value to some and poor to others. For me it would be poor compared to a (assuming it turns out to be any good) roadrazer but good compared to a ferrari.
Never neard of the Roadrazer before so did a quick search, in the pics I could find it looks nice but is way off SVA standard. No mudguards, lights in wrong place, mirrors in wrong place etc. Do any exist in the uk on the road?
There is a website www.roadrazer.com i think. There is lots of information on it although certainly not enough. I don't know how far on it is with SVA, like you said, there are no pictures of it with the cycle wings and lights etc but he says on the site that they are included in the cost of the car. There are high res piccies elsewhere on the net as well as a vid of it being driven at walking pace. He has even made the wing mirrors out of cf so i cant see the cycle wings adding too much weight if made from that. I dont know if any but the prototype exist anywhere. I assume not. The guy's email address is on the site inviting test drives so you could ask him i guess. There are no drives in the press that i have seen either which is a bit of a shame.
edb49 said:
flemke said:
On driving position alone - which I think you would agree is pretty important - the Rocket is incomparably superior.
How can it possibly be said a driving position is superior? I am sure some would argue that a difficult/awkward car to drive is actually more enjoyable, gives you a greater challenge, and more of an experience.
There are a number of things that I personally enjoy about cars in no particular order:
1) The feedback through the controls, feeling weight transfer etc
2) The speed factor (I get a thrill from going fast, whether I am driving or not)
3) Noise/looks
4) Getting to and past the handling limits at tracks
Different cars fulfil different aspects of the above. I haven't owned one, but I am sure I would have great fun in a Bugatti with (2) and (3). Likewise, I could have fun with (4) and possibly (1) on a Moggy Minor. What is important to get a fantastic car is to combine all of the above. IMO ultimate pace is important, because most people get a thrill from going fast!
How can a driving position be said to be superior? Relative to a Seven, it's simple.
The Seven's footbox is very narrow - too narrow, in fact, to have a foot rest. Your left leg has to ride against the gearbox tunnel, which gets so hot in the summer that you can literally burn your skin. Whilst you're on the move, your left foot has to dangle in space under the clutch pedal.
You need to drive a Seven in the incorrect position, with extended arms, because there is not enough elbow room to permit bent elbows to rotate with the wheel.
Many people 6' or taller find that their legs press against the underside of the Seven's steering wheel - which perforce is too small in diameter to function properly.
That's an easy combination to better! Because it's a single seater, the Rocket has buckets of room for one's feet and legs. The steering wheel is a proper diameter, you can keep your elbows bent whilst you steer, the seat shape seems damn good to me, and there is a lot of surplus space to either side of you around the space frame.
There is none of the claustrophobic confinement of narrow cars that are forced to accomodate the width of two adult bodies.
WRT your four factors, I'm not sure that you'll get either 2) or 3) from a Veyron. The car is so competent that you're insulated from the sense of spped until you're going too fast for almost anywhere except the Autobahn, whereas the little cars which we're discussing give you the speed sensation at more "sociable" rates of progress (and that's not to mention that their stopping distances are very much shorter as well).
The looks of the Veyron may or may not be subjective - we'll put that to one side. Noisewise, however, with those turbos it's a damp squib.
Cheers.
Edited by flemke on Thursday 19th April 17:14
flemke said:
Fittster said:
HiRich said:
flemke said:
I think the point of the continuation of the Rockets (if that's how to think of them)...
That's a very significant point. When the Crafts took over the Rocket, they released the ten race chassis converted to road use (if the buyer wanted). These went very quickly. There is a demand for the cars, so Luke has done some mild tweaks and put the original car back on the market.
.
Markets change, people change...
Things get cheaper...
hahithestevieboy said:
flemke said:
Fittster said:
HiRich said:
flemke said:
I think the point of the continuation of the Rockets (if that's how to think of them)...
That's a very significant point. When the Crafts took over the Rocket, they released the ten race chassis converted to road use (if the buyer wanted). These went very quickly. There is a demand for the cars, so Luke has done some mild tweaks and put the original car back on the market.
.
Markets change, people change...
Things get cheaper...
In Britain???
Apart from the cost of some goods imported from Asia, I don't see a lot that is not more expensive than it was fifteen (or even two) years ago.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff