This just gets better...
Discussion
Look what's just arrived on the Caterham website. Surely the most perfect spec. Very good news.
http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/showroom/sup...
http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/showroom/sup...
BertBert said:
is one allowed to cross-post?
http://www.blatchat.com/t.asp?id=222332
Yep but doesnt that apply to whatever model you buy http://www.blatchat.com/t.asp?id=222332
Dont they use the same box and diff ratio?
The Supersport is on 6 x 13's and 15 kgs lighter than the R which is on 7 x 15's which would make a difference and the R300
running same size wheels/tyres as the R but with the 6 speed box and 20 kgs lighter than the R was 4.5 Secs.
More interestingly is the Roadsports figures, running 6 x 14's but higher profile tyres 15kgs heavier/same box but different diff ratio than the R is quoted as same 4.8 Secs for the 175 and 140 (30 kgs heavier than supersport) as 5.00 Secs.
Makes me wonder how accurate any of the figures are.
The Supersport is on 6 x 13's and 15 kgs lighter than the R which is on 7 x 15's which would make a difference and the R300
running same size wheels/tyres as the R but with the 6 speed box and 20 kgs lighter than the R was 4.5 Secs.
More interestingly is the Roadsports figures, running 6 x 14's but higher profile tyres 15kgs heavier/same box but different diff ratio than the R is quoted as same 4.8 Secs for the 175 and 140 (30 kgs heavier than supersport) as 5.00 Secs.
Makes me wonder how accurate any of the figures are.
Edited by TBKBABAB on Tuesday 13th November 20:29
I have a Roadsport 125, and tried the 0-60 test at Dunsfold this year.
We were told to get the car rolling without dumping the clutch to reduce tyre squeal.
Caterham claim 5.9 secs, with only one go I managed 6.2 secs (with slippery over inflated ZV3 rear tyres) so I think their claims are quite sensible.
Up to a point 0-60 is all about traction, I'm sure the 60-100 times would be very different for the 1.6 and 2.0 Supersports.
We were told to get the car rolling without dumping the clutch to reduce tyre squeal.
Caterham claim 5.9 secs, with only one go I managed 6.2 secs (with slippery over inflated ZV3 rear tyres) so I think their claims are quite sensible.
Up to a point 0-60 is all about traction, I'm sure the 60-100 times would be very different for the 1.6 and 2.0 Supersports.
We all obsess about 0-60 but it is pretty meaningless, especially when differences of 0.1 seconds are involved. Road testers - and owners if they want - need to adopt a far more brutal technique than most people would ever do on the road to get the time down.What is actually much more relevant is , for example 50-70 in various gears - no technique needed other than welding foot to floor and therefore far more consistent measure of time.
I even think that in-gear times and worrying about 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 here and there are completely meaningless.
What matters is what it feels like and how it drives. How you feel when driving it.
I think there should be a standard test for any new prospective caterham owner. They should all go out in a benchmark low power (say 120bhp) caterham. If they come back and go "wow, what a car" then they have passed and can enter ownership at some level.
If they come back and say "it's not very quick", they are not psychologically suited for Caterham ownership and should move quickly on!
Bert
What matters is what it feels like and how it drives. How you feel when driving it.
I think there should be a standard test for any new prospective caterham owner. They should all go out in a benchmark low power (say 120bhp) caterham. If they come back and go "wow, what a car" then they have passed and can enter ownership at some level.
If they come back and say "it's not very quick", they are not psychologically suited for Caterham ownership and should move quickly on!
Bert
Well said Bert!
I drove a 125 and was blown away by it, even though my Megane is probably faster overall. I bought a 140 and the feel is similar, although noticeably faster than the 125 at the top end.
I've never seen figures as being particularly important to the driving experience. Some of the most enjoyable cars I've driven have been the lower powered ones.
I drove a 125 and was blown away by it, even though my Megane is probably faster overall. I bought a 140 and the feel is similar, although noticeably faster than the 125 at the top end.
I've never seen figures as being particularly important to the driving experience. Some of the most enjoyable cars I've driven have been the lower powered ones.
philmorton said:
Couldn't agree more. I have a Toyota Aygo and a CSR260. At times the Aygo is a hoot to drive. As for the CSR....
I have a Citroen C1 (almost identical to an Aygo) it's such fun pushing it round corners, I was stopped by a policeman for going round a roundabout too quickly 
There's a lot to be said for light weight and narrow tyres.
Talking of which, I can't help but think my Seven is over tyred. My previous Elan Sprint never exactly seemed short of grip on 155s, so I'm not sure a Seven that is about 200kg lighter needs 185s with similar power.
BertBert said:
You should try going down on tyre size until it gets fun.
I have wondered what it would be like on 165x70 tyres, but I'd have to get new wheels and the wings would make them look tiny 
The other option is to buy really hard tyres, but then the braking performance suffers and with every other car on the road having ABS........
Forums | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff