What’s next for caterham
Discussion
With yet another record sales year, the apparent ultimate Caterham released just over a year ago and the sprint in September of last year
What’s next?
I’ve seen a recent interview suggesting research into the next generation of engines as the current duratec and sigma are EOL’ing soon.
A new set of engines surely would need a new halo car above the 620.
Does anyone know anything?
What’s next?
I’ve seen a recent interview suggesting research into the next generation of engines as the current duratec and sigma are EOL’ing soon.
A new set of engines surely would need a new halo car above the 620.
Does anyone know anything?
baypond said:
I heard that the Duratec is going out of production, and would most likely be the last of the normally aspirated cars to be placed in Caterhams. Timeline was likely within the next two years and with a 1 year waiting list, it doesn't leave too long to order one of the last.
Isn’t the MX5 engine a derivative of the Duratec?Mazda aren’t showing any signs of stopping production any time soon.
Smollet said:
Isn’t the MX5 engine a derivative of the Duratec?
Mazda aren’t showing any signs of stopping production any time soon.
Not quite, the Ford Duratec line was based on the Mazda L-Series engines used in the MX-5 NC among many others. The current MX-5 ND features the high compression-ratio SkyActiv engines. As far as I remember it's not as easy to get substantially more power out of these as it was for the Duratecs/L-Series. Might be a valid option if they will stick to naturally aspirated though.Mazda aren’t showing any signs of stopping production any time soon.
Worth reading the Autocar interviews with CEO Graham MacDonald.
Aluminium Chassis and new Engines (from 31 Jan 2018)
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/caterh...
Aluminium Chassis and new Engines (from 31 Jan 2018)
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/caterh...
KN02LEY said:
I think he's an accountant but you have to go back to 1973 to understand the reference. For a short time Norton campaigned a bike with an aluminium alloy monocoque part of which was milled from solid stock. Some piccies in this article:
here
I hadn’t seen that before but still don’t see the connection. here
It was a monocoque, much more fabrication than milling. In fact I see little on those pictures that would have been milled, or even machined much beyond a few holes being drilled.
As for being a work of art, as McDonald says in his article, then I find it hard to believe that that was his reference. It was an interesting idea to incorporate a monocoque but hardly beautiful or worthy of being called art.
In any case it was subsequently replaced by a more practical and lighter space frame, which does seem preferable despite what Williams said.
Now what does that space frame remind you of?
Agreed that the photos in that article don't show much milling but I'd guess that the headstock and swing arm pivot areas probably used some milled parts in their fabrication (did it use ally honeycomb? Possibly more milling there). Using sheet ally alone for these areas would be a pain (and from memory, Peter Williams did say at the time that the chassis took ages to build). I'm guessing but I think Williams regarded the spaceframe as a better solution because fabrication would be far easier. Maybe today's higher strength alloys and more advanced production techniques would change his mind?
If you look at the evolution of cars rather than bikes, formula cars did move from spaceframe to alloy monocoque then to CFC monocoque over time. They were probably searching for the optimal balance of light weight and stiffness. While its taken a while, even bikes are moving on to the CFC monocoque now (BMW S1000RR HP4 and Ducati) but they're still a costly option.
If you look at the evolution of cars rather than bikes, formula cars did move from spaceframe to alloy monocoque then to CFC monocoque over time. They were probably searching for the optimal balance of light weight and stiffness. While its taken a while, even bikes are moving on to the CFC monocoque now (BMW S1000RR HP4 and Ducati) but they're still a costly option.
I suspect that the word 'alumiium' is too, unless they're thinking of either an Elise-like bonded/extruded structure, or milled aluminium bulkheads with a composite tub, similar to the early carbon fibre Lotus F1 tubs.
They're onto a loser with any form of aluminium spaceframe.
Anyone know what happened to the 'butted tube' Reynolds spaceframe that we were promised as an option a couple of years ago? I'm guessing that they finally spotted the obvious flaw, which was that stockholding of materials on a chassis where every tube has to be butted to suit its length and position in the chassis would have been a nightmare?
They're onto a loser with any form of aluminium spaceframe.
Anyone know what happened to the 'butted tube' Reynolds spaceframe that we were promised as an option a couple of years ago? I'm guessing that they finally spotted the obvious flaw, which was that stockholding of materials on a chassis where every tube has to be butted to suit its length and position in the chassis would have been a nightmare?
KN02LEY said:
Agreed that the photos in that article don't show much milling but I'd guess that the headstock and swing arm pivot areas probably used some milled parts in their fabrication (did it use ally honeycomb? Possibly more milling there). Using sheet ally alone for these areas would be a pain (and from memory, Peter Williams did say at the time that the chassis took ages to build). I'm guessing but I think Williams regarded the spaceframe as a better solution because fabrication would be far easier. Maybe today's higher strength alloys and more advanced production techniques would change his mind?
If you look at the evolution of cars rather than bikes, formula cars did move from spaceframe to alloy monocoque then to CFC monocoque over time. They were probably searching for the optimal balance of light weight and stiffness. While its taken a while, even bikes are moving on to the CFC monocoque now (BMW S1000RR HP4 and Ducati) but they're still a costly option.
Headstocks and SA pivot areas have involved machines components for an awful long time. Still not necessarily milling though I accept that that’s just a misnomer from McDonald. If you look at the evolution of cars rather than bikes, formula cars did move from spaceframe to alloy monocoque then to CFC monocoque over time. They were probably searching for the optimal balance of light weight and stiffness. While its taken a while, even bikes are moving on to the CFC monocoque now (BMW S1000RR HP4 and Ducati) but they're still a costly option.
Having said that, even if he meant ‘machined’ it doesn’t make sense. A monocoque made from conventional material would be far more about fabrication than machining.
The more I think about it the less I understand what he’s on about. Nothing new there!
Perhaps he meant to simply say ‘monocoque’?
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff