What Kit-an answer?
Discussion
So every other week we have a what is the best kit question, and my position, as the owner of 3 different chassis is it doesn't matter, depends on quality of build. (Never had a Robin Hood). Last weekend we had a Sylva, Westfield, Caterham and a Locost racing at Sepang in same race, different budgets, so some numbers.
My Sylva Phoenix, no expense spared professional built race car, 8in Slicks, IRS, 350 BHP at wheels fastest lap 2.30
Westfield, no expense spared professional built race car, 8inch slicks, IRS, Vitec 300 plus BHP fastest lap 2.31
My budget built locost 1600 Toyota engine 6in second hand slicks, live axil, fastest lap 2.44
No expense spared works supported Caterham 'roadsports', 1600 duratec R500 wheels, fastest lap 2.41.
I've know for a 1962 S2 crossflow lotus seven that will do 2.24 (better driver than I will ever be, and mega spec'd), fastest I've seen an R500 do is 2.26 with a professional driver.
I know my Sylva is nose heavy and doesn't handle quite as good as the Westfield, but I enjoy the power of the heavier engine. I could get back the 3 seconds the Caterham's have on my Locost for not much money as the car has been built to a tight budget, from the book.
I think the numbers support my view that there is little in it and it's down to build quality.
My Sylva Phoenix, no expense spared professional built race car, 8in Slicks, IRS, 350 BHP at wheels fastest lap 2.30
Westfield, no expense spared professional built race car, 8inch slicks, IRS, Vitec 300 plus BHP fastest lap 2.31
My budget built locost 1600 Toyota engine 6in second hand slicks, live axil, fastest lap 2.44
No expense spared works supported Caterham 'roadsports', 1600 duratec R500 wheels, fastest lap 2.41.
I've know for a 1962 S2 crossflow lotus seven that will do 2.24 (better driver than I will ever be, and mega spec'd), fastest I've seen an R500 do is 2.26 with a professional driver.
I know my Sylva is nose heavy and doesn't handle quite as good as the Westfield, but I enjoy the power of the heavier engine. I could get back the 3 seconds the Caterham's have on my Locost for not much money as the car has been built to a tight budget, from the book.
I think the numbers support my view that there is little in it and it's down to build quality.
All the drivers are around the same, (International Race licence holders) the Caterham is a few seconds faster than the Locost, but cost 3 times the amount, and has around 40 bhp more power, for a few pounds well spent I could the 2 seconds on the Locost, which to me rather questions that the Caterham is fundamentally better than the clones. I have a Caterham as well as a Sylva and a Locost, so I think I may be unbiased.
It also depends on the circuit. I regularly come up against a very well driven R500 while sprinting, on tighter circuits we are neck and neck (within fractions of a sec either way) while at Goodwood or Hethel I'm several secs faster. This has more to do with the aero of the cars than anything else.
There are also no expense spared Westfields with excellent drivers who are 5 secs quicker than my Phoenix at tighter circuits which I can just about get on a par with on faster circuits.
There are also no expense spared Westfields with excellent drivers who are 5 secs quicker than my Phoenix at tighter circuits which I can just about get on a par with on faster circuits.
So Jeff, aren't you agreeing with me? My point was there doesn't appear to be a 'design advantage' in a Caterham over the others, it is down to the build/investment, so I am saying the price premium on the Caterham was worth while, and pound for pound if you want speed (track day car) you are better spending your money else where. I accept that Caterhams have some cudos, are more depreciation proof etc.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff