RE: Caterham R500

[derestrictor]

Mars said:

Actually, Caterhams sound better with earplugs in. You tend to rev them harder. Funny psychology at work there.

I'm sure this is right: in the same vein, I've found the car minus doors and just aeroscreen (necessitating helmet) similarly uber intoxicating.

Just sitting in a narrow bodied pilchard tin is an invigorating experience (in part due to the asphyxiating effect of circulation cut off )

[jeremyc]

derestrictor said:

Just sitting in a narrow bodied pilchard tin is an invigorating experience (in part due to the asphyxiating effect of circulation cut off )

Yes, but you have to stop making the brrrrm, brrrrm noises, move it out of the garage and drive the damn thing to enjoy it fully.

[derestrictor]

jeremyc said:

derestrictor said:

Just sitting in a narrow bodied pilchard tin is an invigorating experience (in part due to the asphyxiating effect of circulation cut off )

Yes, but you have to stop making the brrrrm, brrrrm noises, move it out of the garage and drive the damn thing to enjoy it fully.

Which is precisely what I did recently; it renders contemplations of non ownership comprehensively null and void. 1600 miles in 4 years? Do I get a bun, or something?

[GingerWizard]

I have not been exactly kind to the Caterham recently........However reading this review and the one in EVO last month i must admit this is a serious serious car. I can't think of anything less pratical in the world, but it offers thrills and spills most of us can only dream of..... I still feel too big for them though..

Oh the shot in EVO when its down shifting in the tunnel with the blue flames.... NICE

[RoadDogg]

"It can do 0-60mph in 2.9sec and I’m not surprised. As you accelerate through this ‘zone’, things happen so quickly, especially on a public road with the close proximity of road furniture and scenery, that it becomes hard actually to see anything."

Careful your giving the "anti car brigade" and the "lets ban everything brigade" some good ammunition here by saying "it becomes hard to actually see anything". If someone runs a child over with one now there'll be hell to pay!

[atom-ick]

GingerWizard said:

I can't think of anything less pratical in the world, but it offers thrills and spills most of us can only dream of..... I still feel too big for them though..

Oh the shot in EVO when its down shifting in the tunnel with the blue flames.... NICE

I would suggest that Caterhams are infinitely more practical than the Atom, 2-11 etc. I got very little use out of my atom because it is such hard work - at least in a 7 you can spec weather gear, heater and so on (even in an R500). You can't even put stuff in the foot well of an atom and whilst i have no experience of the 2-11 i doubt it has much storage space.

However, when all is said and done i believe that the comment above is very true - it doesn't matter which is faster, whatever makes you smile is the most important thing (providing that you can use it of course!)

I think the tunnel picture is in Top Gear isn't it? Awesome - i wonder if it took them ages to do that. Great photo. I think that was a brilliant write up too - Tom Ford i think.

Edited by atom-ick on Thursday 19th June 09:40

[Fume Troll]

RoadDogg said:

If someone runs a child over with one now there'll be hell to pay!

And rightly so. Not sure what point you're making here...

Cheers,

FT.

[will_]

Mars said:

Actually, Caterhams sound better with earplugs in. You tend to rev them harder. Funny psychology at work there.

Agreed, on a recent long cross country blat I wore earplugs for the first time and was much happier to rev it a bit more than I would usually. Also arrived being able to hear!

[NiallOswald]

LukeBird said:

Mars said:

I repeat again NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCES.

I read exactly what you wrote, I was merely stating why there are such things as RTB's as some people queried what they are.
I'm surprised there are no measurable differences...

Surely at WOT both rollers and sliders are effectively just an open tube of the appropriate tuned length? Is there any particular gain over butterflies with either?

I don't know about Caterham (who probably have the resources to use finite element software etc), but I was under the impression that a lot of kit-car chassis are fairly robust affairs, perhaps because they're developed by fairly basic means and the easiest way to make it suitably strong is to make it way stronger than it needs to be.

[OJ]

NiallOswald said:

Surely at WOT both rollers and sliders are effectively just an open tube of the appropriate tuned length? Is there any particular gain over butterflies with either?

I don't know about Caterham (who probably have the resources to use finite element software etc), but I was under the impression that a lot of kit-car chassis are fairly robust affairs, perhaps because they're developed by fairly basic means and the easiest way to make it suitably strong is to make it way stronger than it needs to be.

The difference between sliders and rollers will be throttle response over travel. Sliders would be more linear, with rollers acting more like a butterfly (think of open area as the throttle is opened). Although its a bit more complicated than that, as it depends on the engine's flow characteristics.

Actually in a tubular (spaceframe) chassis as simple as the Caterham's, its quite simple (if you know how) to do hand calculations to get correct tube guages and use structural surface principles to ensure that the monocoque actually 'works'. CAE would be overkill, and over engineering would make the chassis heavier than it needs to be and would defeat the point of the 7.

In terms of crash strength, I would guess that its a by product of the stiff chassis and the fact that its a tubular frame, which has more out of plane strength than a pressed steel monocoque.

[OJ]

Oh, and the fact that it weighs nothing, so it has less inertia to squash itself (e.g. hurling a beer can against a wall, against a mobile phone)

[RoadDogg]

Fume Troll said:

RoadDogg said:

If someone runs a child over with one now there'll be hell to pay!

And rightly so. Not sure what point you're making here...

Cheers,

FT.

Just that by admitting that its "hard to see anything" (i.e. pressumably including a child) could be twisted by certain groups as an admission that the car is dangerous.

[hahithestevieboy]

filski666 said:

Oli S said:

sprinter885 said:

What about Atom V8 ??

Watch this space!

Edited by Oli S on Wednesday 18th June 12:33

WHAAAAAAAAAT!!!! a V8 Atom!!!.....ok you have my attention......tell me more!!!!

Done already in the USA. www.dpcars.net for the guy's web site. It is an interesting read. The engine is now available from holeshot racing with or without a turbo etc...

[GingerWizard]

atom-ick said:

GingerWizard said:

I can't think of anything less pratical in the world, but it offers thrills and spills most of us can only dream of..... I still feel too big for them though..

Oh the shot in EVO when its down shifting in the tunnel with the blue flames.... NICE

I would suggest that Caterhams are infinitely more practical than the Atom, 2-11 etc. I got very little use out of my atom because it is such hard work - at least in a 7 you can spec weather gear, heater and so on (even in an R500). You can't even put stuff in the foot well of an atom and whilst i have no experience of the 2-11 i doubt it has much storage space.

However, when all is said and done i believe that the comment above is very true - it doesn't matter which is faster, whatever makes you smile is the most important thing (providing that you can use it of course!)

I think the tunnel picture is in Top Gear isn't it? Awesome - i wonder if it took them ages to do that. Great photo. I think that was a brilliant write up too - Tom Ford i think.

Edited by atom-ick on Thursday 19th June 09:40

"
yeah sorry dude you are right on two fronts, the atom is less pratical due to lack of side panels.... and the photo was in topgear, just been sat on the throne reading the article again. I reckon they must have been in a caterham or atom to take the photo it is so close to the ground, only an idiot would do it from a normal car......

Thats a point where is my camera? i wonder if my KA flames.........

Edited by GingerWizard on Thursday 19th June 12:47

[Dagnut]

thinfourth2 said:

Dagnut said:

Is it better than the 300bhp Ariel Atom?

Its not better

It not worse

its different

people get too wrapped in is X faster

Who cares which one puts a bigger smile on your face that is all that matters

I was genuinely asking the question..I know someone whos looking at Atom 300..I've never been in either of them.

[ewenm]

Dagnut said:

thinfourth2 said:

Dagnut said:

Is it better than the 300bhp Ariel Atom?

Its not better

It not worse

its different

people get too wrapped in is X faster

Who cares which one puts a bigger smile on your face that is all that matters

I was genuinely asking the question..I know someone whos looking at Atom 300..I've never been in either of them.

That's fine, you just need to define "better" as it means different things to different people. On Drivers Republic there's a group test of the R500, Atom 3 and Lotus 2-11 in the video section. Point your mate at that.

[Fume Troll]

RoadDogg said:

Fume Troll said:

RoadDogg said:

If someone runs a child over with one now there'll be hell to pay!

And rightly so. Not sure what point you're making here...

Cheers,

FT.

Just that by admitting that its "hard to see anything" (i.e. pressumably including a child) could be twisted by certain groups as an admission that the car is dangerous.

I know what you're saying, but anyone doing that sort of thing on an innapropriate piece of tarmac would already be committing an offence.

Cheers,

FT.

[NiallOswald]

OJ said:

The difference between sliders and rollers will be throttle response over travel. Sliders would be more linear, with rollers acting more like a butterfly (think of open area as the throttle is opened). Although its a bit more complicated than that, as it depends on the engine's flow characteristics.

Hmm, how about a non-linear (i.e. not round) pulley on the thottle linkage to linearise/tailor the response? I guess things vary a lot with engine speed too.

If the slider is a flat plate moving across a circular aperture then the open area will vary non-linearly with displacement. It'd be complicated and delicate, but I wonder if an 'iris' type arrangment (like the aperture in a camera) could be devised and whether that would be any better.

[Mars]

NiallOswald said:

Surely at WOT both rollers and sliders are effectively just an open tube of the appropriate tuned length? Is there any particular gain over butterflies with either?

Good grief... I previously wrote NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE and you've asked the same question again.

[dino ferrana]

I think the general feeling was that the Atom was outrageously quick in a straight line and very tractable with the supercharged engine. The problem is that with it being mid-engined you fear it more than you do the Caterham because the chance of spinning is so much higher. I think Drivers Republic concluded it was more fear than fun in the Atom, whereas you can choose your gear and wag the tail in the R500.

The R500 was quicker than the Atom in the DR and Evo tests, the 2-11 was quicker in the DR test but not the Evo one, I think that is circuit and set-up related though.