Independent rear suspension
Discussion
Equus said:
PH User said:
If you say so
Well, seriously: what would it take to stop get you to stop posting gnomic 'wisdom' and accept reality? There is plain evidence from the organisation that would have provided funding for any development; there is a direct statement from the CEO of the company. What more do you want?
This discussion is becoming frankly ridiculous.
Why do you care anyway?
Given that Boris Johnson has great difficulty with telling the truth, is wildly out in predicting time scales and has an amazing ability to make u-turns at full speed in heavy traffic, I should think there's a fair chance we'll still be driving our 7's long after we've been told we can't and maybe the guys at Caterham feel the same way, so chill out Equus, if they're not panicking, why should you?
Equus said:
This discussion is becoming frankly ridiculous.
I think that’s what happens when arguing with yourself!My feeling is there will be exemptions for small volume firmslike the current rules for emissions testing.
If there are not cost effective hybrid drivetrains available to small firms as we get near to 2030, they will all go out of business without exemptions to use ICE for a bit longer
braddo said:
My feeling is there will be exemptions for small volume firms.
The trouble is, everybody is relying on a feeling in their little toe, whether it's that Caterham are secretly developing products that will save them, that Boris will do a U-turn on timings (Boris almost certainly won't be our leader, by the time the 2030 transition is implemented), or that there will be some sort of exemptions in place (highly unlikely, as they would undermine the general principal).The actual evidence says different in all cases, but your typical Caterham fanboi has their head too far up their arse to see or accept that.
In terms of low volume exemptions, I'd again direct you to the Niche Vehicle Network, which was specifically set up as a conduit to Government policy and funding for the low volume automotive sector, and has been clearly pushing the LZEV agenda for years (long before the announcement of the 2030 ban on ICE vehicles). There is no sign whatsoever that the Goverment intends exemptions for low volume manufacture of ICE cars. Just the opposite, in fact: they've been using NVN to promote the idea that the UK's niche manufacturers can spearhead vehicle lightweighting and LZEV technologies faster, with less inertia, and more flexibly than the big players.
The parallels with Morgan are interesting: like Caterham, Morgan used to have an ultra-conservative, ultra-reactionary customer base who were not prepared to even entertain products that deviated from its tradition. The Aero 8 generation of cars has taken an awful lot of effort to gain acceptance and was only ever built in penny numbers (~60 cars a year, at best), but it at least managed to establish an acceptance that the company was capable of other things, and allowed the development and application of technologies such as aluminium chassis to replace the ancient steel ladder frame, wishbone suspension, automatic gearboxes (shock, horror!) and even prototype EV's and fuel cell cars, without too much wailing and gnashing of teeth from their traditionalist customers.
Caterham has failed to persevere (in fact, they've just plain failed) with all the diversification projects I listed above. They remain, as I have said, a one-trick pony.
Their specific problem with that pony is that it relies on them charging a large premium on the basis of being the 'genuine article', when the 'authenticity' relies on someone else's design and heritage. As soon as they deviate from the S3 design and it's claim, however spurious, to be Colin Chapman's, 'original' Seven, they lose that USP, and frankly they've proved incapable of building anything else that justifies a niche in a very competitive market place.
TL:DR version: it's probably already too late, but unless they start developing a customer base that will support a deviation from the traditional S3 design and the introduction of new technologies, they're f
ked.Equus said:
HustleRussell said:
Why don’t you come back in 2030 and say “I told you so” rather than going on for the intervening nine years?
Because by then it would be too late.Don't you want Caterham to survive as a company?
I assume you are sharing your valuable advice with Caterham Cars? After all it would seem a bit pointless to tell a group of people who owned Caterhams of who are interested in Caterhams what the company should be doing instead of the company itself?
HustleRussell said:
It’s either that, or I find your doom-mongering tiresome.
Well, to quote PH user: I will post what I like. 
Cuts both ways, is only fair, surely?
HustleRussell said:
I assume you are sharing your valuable advice with Caterham Cars? After all it would seem a bit pointless to tell a group of people who owned Caterhams of who are interested in Caterhams what the company should be doing instead of the company itself?
Certainly, I've had discussions at the annual NVN symposiums along these lines.But a big part of Caterham's problem (and Morgan was the same, but has been making strenuous efforts for at least 20 years to overcome it) is that their traditional customer base is so blinkered and reactionary. A major part of their strategy, if they are going to survive, will need to be to find themselves a new customer base, but at present they're not showing the balls and determinatlon (exhibited by Morgan) necessary to achieve that.
In fairness to Caterham, they have tried (not very hard, admittedly) to broaden and update their product base, but the fanbois aren't interested.
As has been demonstrated by the 21, the Caterola, the AeroSeven and the CSR, their enthusiasm and support for the company doesn't extend beyond the S3.
Bluntly: Caterham owners and the narrow mindedness you're so admirably demonstrating yourself are as much - if not more - of a problem than the Company's strategy.
And I am suggesting that you tell us “I told you so” when your day of reckoning comes, so that we don’t have to read it in the mean time.
After all you have made Caterham aware of the impending struggle.
Some Caterham fans also like Morgans. Some don’t. Some Morgan fans like Caterhams. You seem to be in the fourth group. Different strokes.
After all you have made Caterham aware of the impending struggle.
Some Caterham fans also like Morgans. Some don’t. Some Morgan fans like Caterhams. You seem to be in the fourth group. Different strokes.
HustleRussell said:
And I am suggesting that you tell us “I told you so” when your day of reckoning comes...
Thank you for your suggestion. I will certainly try to remember to do so when the time comes, but I see no reason not to discuss the matter in the meanwhile.I seem to recall suffering a similarly abusive, reactionary and short-sighted responses from some of the fanbois when I pointed out that the SP/300.R was bound to fail, and why. I was right about that one, too.
And I am suggesting that you don't bother reading or responding to such discussion if you find it frustrating.
Equus said:
HustleRussell said:
Abusive? 
You don't deny being reactionary and short-sighted, then? 
My first caterham was made in 1988 and had a live axle and sidedraft webbers just like yours.
Sorry if I'm disappointed and underwhelmed by the rate of advance and development made during those 11 years. What a bunch of lazy tossers they were. Thank god they've changed ! ( NOT !!!!! )
Sorry if I'm disappointed and underwhelmed by the rate of advance and development made during those 11 years. What a bunch of lazy tossers they were. Thank god they've changed ! ( NOT !!!!! )
Equus said:
Bluntly: Caterham owners and the narrow mindedness you're so admirably demonstrating yourself are as much - if not more - of a problem than the Company's strategy.
That's quite a strange assertion as if it's the responsibility of a group of current owners to buy the new stuff rather than the manufacturers responsibility to diversify as they need to. I completely agree that caterham have been crap at the new things they've tried. I really wanted the 21 to be fabulous, but it was pretty poor at moving the game forward. Perhaps i was too narrow minded BertBert said:
That's quite a strange assertion as if it's the responsibility of a group of current owners to buy the new stuff rather than the manufacturers responsibility to diversify as they need to. I completely agree that caterham have been crap at the new things they've tried. I really wanted the 21 to be fabulous, but it was pretty poor at moving the game forward. Perhaps i was too narrow minded
It's not the owners' 'responsibility', of course. But having the 'wrong sort' of customers can very much be a problem for all sorts of companies.As you say, it's then the manufacturer's responsibility to diversify and attract enough of the right sort of customers to be able to survive.
That's exactly what I was trying to get across above, with my comparison against Morgan: they had a similar - perhaps even more conservative and reactionary - customer base. They met huge initial resistance from their dyed-in-the-wool enthusiasts to the original Aero (in fairness, it probably didn't help that it looked like the b
d offspring of something Penelope Pitstop would drive and Clarence the Cross-Eyed Lion), and similar grumblings when they took on an out-of-house, American design for the trike, but they slogged away at it, brought out a series of concept vehicles, worked on EV's and fuel cell solutions, and have gradually managed to change perception of the company to the degree where it at least stands some chance of remaining alive with a diversified and updated product range, come 2030.Thing is, it's taken both of them 20-odd years and a great deal of effort to get that far: you don't do it from a standing start. All Caterham has managed over a similar period is a series of high-profile failures and a reputation for giving up at the first hurdle.
The pity is that both the 21 and the CSR were almost good products, and if they'd stuck at them with a bit of refinement and development, they might have turned into something useful and helped establish a perception that Caterham weren't just a one-trick pony capable of nothing more than trading on someone else's heritage.
Equus said:
Thing is, it's taken both of them 20-odd years and a great deal of effort to get that far: you don't do it from a standing start. All Caterham has managed over a similar period is a series of high-profile failures and a reputation for giving up at the first hurdle.
The pity is that both the 21 and the CSR were almost good products, and if they'd stuck at them with a bit of refinement and development, they might have turned into something useful and helped establish a perception that Caterham weren't just a one-trick pony capable of nothing more than trading on someone else's heritage.
I'm not particularly defending them, but they did bring the 21 out the same time the Elise arrived.The pity is that both the 21 and the CSR were almost good products, and if they'd stuck at them with a bit of refinement and development, they might have turned into something useful and helped establish a perception that Caterham weren't just a one-trick pony capable of nothing more than trading on someone else's heritage.
The other way of looking at it, they have done a fantastic job of re-inventing their core product over the years. They have got it to huge power outputs as well as huge prices! So many variants - even trying to breathe life back into flared wings
I hope that in the end your hope for them comes true and they get into new tech in time.
Bert
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff